University Reconstruction_Rampson ResponseTI-IE CITY OF
DUB E
Masterpiece o~z the Mississippi
MEMORANDUM
May 29, 2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Dean Rampson Letter Dated April 23, 2007
University Avenue Reconstruction Project
City Engineer Gus Psihoyos is transmitting further information in response to the letter
from Dean Rampson to the Mayor and City Council dated April 23, 2007.
During the week of July 11, 2006, Mr. Dean Rampson, the owner of record on that date
of 1158-1160 University Avenue, met with Assistant City Engineer Bob Schiesl
concerning the City's financial assistance program for special assessments associated
with the University Avenue Reconstruction Project. The property at 1158-1160
University Avenue is a duplex; Mr. Rampson lived in one-half of the unit and the other
one-half was a rental property.
Bob informed Mr. Rampson that the submittal deadline date for application was
August 14, 2006.
During this meeting, Mr. Rampson stated that he did not have his 2005 income tax
completed and that he was granted an extension by the IRS. Bob stated to Mr.
Rampson that under special circumstances the City may allow the use of his 2004
income tax records. Mr. Rampson stated that he did not want to pursue that option
because his income in 2004 did not reflect his current financial status.
Mr. Rampson did not meet the August 14, 2006 application deadline and submitted his
financial assistance application on September 19, 2006, 35 days after the deadline.
Also, the information Mr. Rampson provided was not complete. Mr. Rampson failed to
submit his entire tax return, as is required.
During this same time period, staff was verifying property owner records and preparing
the final schedule of assessments. Through this process, staff discovered that
according to records of the Office of Dubuque County Recorder, Mr. Rampson was not
the current owner of record of the property at the time of application submittal. The
recorded date for transfer of this property was August 22, 2006. The financial
assistance policy clearly states that only owner-occupied properties owners are eligible
for financial assistance.
Mr. Rampson had placed funds in an escrow account per the terms of the sale of his
University Avenue property.
I believe that Mr. Rampson was treated fairly and the decisions to deny his requests for
financial assistance were both consistent and in compliance with the City's Financial
Assistance Policy.
~•
~. ti .
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
THE CITY OF
DuB E MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2007
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
_ ~
SUBJECT: Response to Dean Rampson Letter Dated April 23, 2007
University Avenue Reconstruction Project
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide further information in response to
the letter from Dean Rampson to the Mayor and City Council members dated April
23, 2007.
During the week of July 11, 2006, Mr. Dean Rampson, the owner of record on
that date of 1158-1160 University Avenue, met with Assistant City Engineer Bob
Schiesl concerning the City's financial assistance program for special assessments
associated with the University Avenue Reconstruction Project. The property at
1158-1160 University Avenue is a duplex; Mr. Rampson lived in one-half of the
unit and the other one-half was a rental property.
Assistant City Engineer Bob Schiesl reviewed the assistance program and
application process with Mr. Rampson. Bob informed Mr. Rampson that an
informational application packet was mailed to him approximately 2-weeks prior.
Mr. Rampson stated that he did not recall receiving the application materials or had
misplaced and could not locate the informational packet. Bob informed Mr.
Rampson that the submittal deadline date for application was August 14, 2006
and that an additional informational application packet would be mailed to him that
same day. Bob informed Mr. Rampson that the application deadline was set to
provide adequate staff time to review the submitted information (the actual
application, federal income tax, financial information accuracy, etc.) in time for the
October 2, 2006 City Council approval of the final schedule of assessments for the
University Avenue project.
During this meeting, Mr. Rampson stated that he did not have his 2005 income tax
completed and that he was granted an extension by the IRS. Bob stated to Mr.
Rampson that under special circumstances the City may allow the use of his 2004
income tax records. Mr. Rampson stated that he did not want to pursue that option
because his income in 2004 did not reflect his current financial status.
Mr. Rampson left the meeting by stating that he would look for the informational
application packet in the mail and that he would "see what he could do" to get his
2005 taxes completed in order to get his financial assistance application submitted
by the application deadline. Bob acknowledges that Mr. Rampson did explain how
busy his life was at the time but at no time did Mr. Rampson state that it would be
impossible for him to comply with the application deadline.
Mr. Rampson did not meet the August 14, 2006 application deadline and
submitted his financial assistance application on September 19, 2006, 35 days
after the deadline. Also, the information Mr. Rampson provided was not complete.
Mr. Rampson failed to submit his entire tax return, as is required. Mr. Rampson
was informed by City staff at the time of submittal (September 19, 2006) that he
missed the deadline and that staff would need to discuss the matter with the
Assistant City Engineer. During the week following, staff had multiple
conversations with Mr. Rampson regarding the status of his request for financial
assistance.
During this same time period, staff was verifying property owner records and
preparing the final schedule of assessments. Through this process, staff discovered
that according to records of the Office of Dubuque County Recorder, Mr. Rampson
was not the current owner of record of the property at the time of application
submittal. The recorded date for transfer of this property was August 22, 2006.
The financial assistance policy clearly states that only owner-occupied properties
owners are eligible for financial assistance.
During the week of September 24, 2006, Bob had a meeting with Mr. Rampson
and advised him of our findings and that he would not be eligible for financial
assistance. Bob informed Mr. Rampson that although there have been rare
exceptions when the City has extended the deadline for medical or hardship
reasons (possibly an additional 7-10 days), the Engineering Department felt that
sufficient time was given to Mr. Rampson to meet the August 14 deadline which
would have been prior to the sale of his property.
Mr. Rampson strongly disagreed with the Assistant City Engineer's position in not
approving his application for financial assistance. Bob informed Mr. Rampson that
the City Engineer supported the decision and would be making the same
recommendation to the City Manager. Prior to making my decision, I consulted
with City Attorney, Barry Lindahl, and he also concurred in the recommendation to
deny the requests for financial assistance based on the fact that he was not the
owner of record at the time he submitted the application and that the application
was not submitted by the August 14 deadline. Bob explained to Mr. Rampson that
the City Council would have the final decision on this matter and that he had the
option to address the Council at the October 2, 2006 meeting. Mr. Rampson
stated that he was being treated unfairly and he would pursue whatever steps
necessary.
Based on Mr. Rampson strong objections, staff felt it necessary to prepare an
informational memo dated October 2, 2006 (attached) outlining the facts and
findings to support not approving his application for financial assistance.
Following the approval of the Final Schedule of Assessments for the University
Avenue Reconstruction Project, final special assessment notices were mailed to
property owners on October 6"', 2006. Although Mr. Rampson was no longer the
current owner of record at 1158-1160 University Avenue, staff was directed to
also send him a copy of the final assessment notice. This was done as a good faith
effort to inform Mr. Rampson of the final assessment amount because he had
placed funds in an escrow account per the terms of the sale of his University
Avenue property.
Mr. Rampson contends that he never received a copy of the final assessment
notice. Through the review of the project records, staff has been unable to verify if
the copy was ever mailed to Mr. Rampson at his current address and the staff
person responsible for mailing the notices is no longer employed with the City.
I feel that it is noteworthy to inform you that a similar situation occurred with Mr.
Rampson during the Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Extension Project which was
completed in 2004. The Madison Street sanitary sewer project was an assessable
project and provided sanitary sewer service to four (4) residential properties along
Madison Street, which were previously unsewered. Mr. Rampson owns a rental
property on Madison Street that was provided sanitary sewer service as part of the
project. Mr. Rampson submitted a financial assistance application requesting City
assistance in reducing his portion of the sanitary sewer assessment. Because the
property was a rental property, only owner-occupied properties are eligible for
financial assistance and the application was not approved.
In closing, City staff feels that Mr. Rampson was treated fairly and the decisions to
deny his requests for financial assistance were both consistent and in compliance
with the City's Financial Assistance Policy.
Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please
advise.
Prepared by Robert Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer
cc: Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Jane Smith, Engineering
City Council Apri123, 2007
City of Dubuque
~
o
Hon Roy Buol Mayor ~~
~~ '~
~
Ric Jones ~ ~ ~
Ann Michalski ~ f:
Kevin Lynch ~ ~
G ~°
~
Karla Braig y ~ ru
Joyce Conners m w
Patricia Cline °
RE: Application by Dean Rampson for assistance on special assessment for the University
Avenue Reconstruction Project denied by City of Dubuque Engineering Department.
On July 11, 2006 I spoke with Bob Schiesl of the engineering department about applying
for assistance for the impending special assessment for the University project. I explained
to him that proving my families income by the due date was going to be very difficult since
I had filed an extension with IRS until October. Further I was working long hours every
day on 1158-60 University, which we had put up for sale, to bring it up to tip top condition.
This task was made even more difficult when our next door tenants at 1160 were
metharnphetamine abusers and trashed their apartment leaving us over $4000 in damages in
2005, were evicted and left the unit unrentable for eight months.
On top of this there was plenty of deferred maintenance to catch up to in a short period.
(The property was sold, closing on August 14`h, 2006).
In addition to the fix-up we were also in that chaotic and frantic period between closing and
buying another house, finding temporary quarters, sorting, packing, donating, boxing,
storing, moving not only our belongings, but also those of my mother, my brother, and my
son, to say nothing of our considerable possessions in a nine room house with an attic and
three garages all before 8/14, also the submission date for the assistance.
I scarcely had time to think about taxes. Even when I did I had no idea what box my files
were in or where in fact they might be found. In the swirl of activity I misplaced the
application and overlooked the filing date, given the situation, a very human result, mea
culpa.
Finally, on September 3, we moved into temporary quarters with only day to day
necessities. Everything else was in storage including the tax files. When things eventually
settled down I searched, found the files, filed my taxes and submitted the assistance
application to Mr Schiesl on 9/19. Our application reflected an income crippled by the loss
at 1160, time and labor spent by me solely on the property and outlays for materials and
subcontractors; anincome so low as to qualify us for l00% forgiveness. It was denied.
Too late, even though the engineering department had submitted only a preliminary
assessment.
m
tl
0
I visited Mr Schiesl again asking for an appeal of the decision based on our extenuating
circumstances. He referred me to Jane Smith of the department who gave me hope by
agreeing to review my application, stating that there was precedent for accepting
applications after the preliminary special assessment was sent out but before the final
assessment was presented to the City Council. I never heard from the department again.
Foolishly I kept waiting to hear from someone in the department about the status of the
appeal. Not hearing either in writing or by telephone convinced me that the escrow funds
were still at the attorneys. Upon calling the attorney this month, he told.me they had been
paid out.
I now ask the question is the purpose of this assistance to help tax paying voting citizens, or
is it set up to punish us if we fail within a reasonable period no matter the circumstances to
meet a bureaucratic deadline carved in stone? I don't think this is the purpose of
government, at least it wasn't forme during my ten years as a public servant.
What is more important, the fact that my family qualified and sorely needed this program,
or the fact we missed an arbitrary deadline?
We were never notified by letter or phone of our status. We never received a final
assessment notification. We were not informed of the date the final assessment was to be
presented to the council, which denied us our due process and an opportunity to present our
case to the council. A recent phone call to the department was not returned.
We gain no user benefit with respect to our assessment since we no longer live on
University Avenue and scarcely if ever drive on it anymore by virtue of our new address on
the Southside.
There is no written policy governing the decision making process dealing with application
extensions at the department. Absent that criteria the process becomes completely
subjective putting the applicants at a disadvantage, and subjecting them to the whims of the
day or worse; prior issues or disagreements with the department.
A delay of 30 days in the presentation of an application when the applicants meet all the
substantive requirements on income and eligibility, which at the end of the day is the
ultimate purpose of the provision, and considering reasonable extenuating circumstances,
one would think an extension justifiable and totally proper.
We ask that you, the elected voice of the people in your wisdom pursue the just option and
allow us to take advantage of the special assessment provision based on our income
eligibility and extenuating circumstances and return our escrow in the amount of $2147.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Dean and Jeanette Rampson
670 Cleveland Avenue, 52003
5824524
~~i~~"~ -
~!l/""