HomeMy WebLinkAboutClerk's Report
REPORT OF THE CITY CLERK
AUGUST 22, 2006
PETITIONS RECEIVED:
Opposition to Sealcoating on 3rd Avenue
COMMUNICATIONS:
Letter Opposing Sealcoating on Roosevelt Avenue
ITEMS TO BE FILED:
Cash Report for the month of June 2006.
Certification regarding the Direct Legislation Petition filed August 3, 2006, the petition
meets applicable statutory requirements.
SPECIAL CLAIMS:
None
8-1 '1 -0 ~ C-1}pcj h; pw
a1f~/llt.eY/;--r rrorn""P{ e
r
:1
Name & Address OfCirCulator:,/,5p~~ ;f~rL.y W,3J({), ffVE: O~ lNt-
~po~
These are the streets that are proposed for the asphah sealcoating that we, the petitioners,
want removed from the 2006 program.
West TIllRD AVENUE from 135 feet east of South Eagle to South Lark Street
"J.v!;;~ JiOURTHAVTINUE :ftom 135 feet east efSOlith Eagle 1:63-.4 feet east firs. Lark).
West I1fTII AVENUE from lteichow Street to Mason Street
BlSMARCJ{ A'/ltNUE nOm BS feet eaSt of South hagle Street t<l MaS9B""S1reet --.l
S.OUTH I..J\RK from J feet hvilh oC.Yest 'fltiN A,~ue to -BiSIIfillck AveA\fe
~UTII MEADOW .flOID Bhmuu-ck Avenue to West Fifth ~
SOUTH MCLE fr9lll2 IIj feet north ofWeli:t FHrl, A..VeBl'le to West Seventh Av~
~~~ [~. (~~.~1.
.i n i' AUG 112006.~J
U UL-....,--.. . , I
CITY CLERK'S OFFICI:j
~ 08/11/2006 12:31
'3202314401
COLDWELL BANKER TREG
PAGE 01/02
J~~.:l
FAX TO:
DATE:
Pam U brig
8/11/06
FAX# 236-5039
FROM:
Pete Schroeder
FAX # 231.4401
RE:
Sea1coating program notification
Dear Pam,
I received the letters regarding the sealcoating program sent by both you and David Patek. The letters
explain the process understandably. But I do have a couple of issues with the notification and the work to
(
be done.
First, the notification. In his letter, David did a nice job of explaining the process. His explanation is
technical enough while yet being cordial. I understand that this maintenance process extends the life of the
road's surface and I agree that it is useful to "most of" the streets repaved in our neighborhood a few ye!ars
ago. However, I disagree that our street needs the work and I'll explain why below.
The notification letter you wrote starts out talking of the Common Council "declaring its intention to
exercise its powers". This is about as soft and cordial as the Cestapo knocking on the front door to inform
of their intentions. Then you go on to explain that the Council will hear from all persons concerned at <il
meeting to be held on the 22ncl day of August at 6:00pm. However, my street is already posted with a ~Iign
stating that the actual coating process will take place on the 23rd. This shows me that you have little
intention of allowing anything to interfere with the process itself by not allowing time for proper
consideration of any contestation. So I am writing you NOW to give more time for contemplation and
decision. --
Here's the reason I feel my street does not need the process at this time.
A few years ago, when the asphalt repaving process was done by the public works department, THE
ASPHALT LAID ON MY BLOCK WAS FORMULATED INCORRECfLY and was yet used for the paving. Put
into plain English, THE JOB WAS BUTCHERED I Common sense says that eIther the error was made by a
wrong decision orit came about by total accident. But either way, the asphalt laid on Roosevelt Avenue
between Hamilton and Minerva Streets was far over-saturated with oil at the time of the repaving.
08/11/2005 12:31
'3202314401
COLDWELL BANKER TREG
PAGE 02/02
d..or:;)...
. The residents on my block tracked bfack oil from our tires onto our white concrete driveways for the entire
first season after the paving and even in consecutive seasons when the summer weather was at its hottl3St.
WE WERE FURIOUS! My neighbor, Tony Mathe, even said he filed a formal complaint against the city
immediately after the paving. Check your files to find that complaint. The rest of us just cussed under our
breaths. We didn't ask for a refund of our assessment at that time for the lack of quality work done but we
certainly should have. Now we're all primed if any future screw-up occurs--Iegal action could be a IikE~ly
consequence. I'm trying to warn you so such action can be avoided.
For the majority of our entire block, WE STILL HAVE EXCESS OIL on the street. We don't wish to see any
more oil added or we'll be tracking it in again. Have your engineers look at the street and a.nticipate what
can occur if ANY more oil is added to OUR street. My neighbors and I are still mad about the paving years
ago so please don't give us any reason to get upset now with what normally would simpfy be routine
maintenance. GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME...
Please pass a copy of this letter on to David Patek. And I suggest that you offer all of us on our block FREE
repair if any maintenance comes to be for all the inconvenience you put us thru in the past.
If you wish to speak with me directly, you are welcome to phone me at (920) 216-0948.
Thanks for hearing'me out via this letter. And be assured I wm not be attending your meeting on the 22nd
as you have hereby been notified IN WRITING of my complaint.
p~~~
Pete Schroeder
Oshkosh Taxpayer and Voter
~
OfHKOfH
ON THE WATER
CITY HAll
215 Church Avenue
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh WI 54902-1130
PAMELA R. UBRIG
City Clerk
ANGELA J. JOECKEl
Deputy City Clerk
MARY LOU DEGNER
Secretary
Phone: (920)236-5011
Fax: (920)236-5039
STATE OF WISCONSIN )
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO) SS
CITY OF OSHKOSH )
I, Pamela R. Ubrig, City Clerk for the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County,
Wisconsin, do hereby certify that I have examined the attached petition and
to the best of my ability and knowledge have determined the following:
1. A minimum of 2,822 signatures are required to meet 15% of the 2002
Governor's Election. 481 pages of the petition were filed on August 3,
2006. Pages 1 through 400 have been verified totaling 3,302
signatures; pages 401 through 481 are excess.
2. The petition ordinance request is in proper form.
Witness my hand and the corporate seal of the City of Oshkosh this 11 thth day
of August, 2006, tv
PAMELA R. UBR ,City Cler ~
City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County