06-342Council File # �(o' a,
Green Sheet # .303033l0
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
'�
WHEREAS, on or about November 2, 2005, the Truth-In-Sale-Of-Housing Boazd
(hereinafter the "Board"), acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 189.10(S), sent
a letter to Truth-In-Housing Evaluator Ron 5taeheli indicating its intent to take adverse action
against his license on the basis of two complaints; and
WHEREAS, the Board alleged that Mr. Staeheli had violated various provisions of the
Truth-Tn-Housing ordinance and its adopted guidelines under the provisions of Saint Paul
Legislative Code Sections 189.14 and 189.15 and violarions of the Truth-In-Sale-Of-Housing
Evaluator Code of Ethics; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3$
39
40
41
42
43
44
WHEREAS, in its November 2, 2005, letter, the Board advised Mr. Staeheli that a
public hearing on these allegations would be held before the Board on November 29, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the date of the hearing was changed by request of Ron Staeheli to January
10, 2006, and January 31, 2006. On January 10, 2006, and January 31, 2006, the Board duly
conducted public hearings where staff appointed by the Board presented findings of violations
on the two complaints alleged against Mr. Staeheli without recommended action; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Staeheli, as well as other interested persons, were given the
opportunity to testify and present evidence and arguments in defense of the allegations; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearings, the Board made seven specific findings.
The first finding identified the previous adverse action taken by the Board which demonstrated a
"pattern and practice" of errors and omissions in violation of the Truth-In-Sale-Of-Housing
policies and procedures for the preparation of reports. The second fmding indicated that Mr.
Staeheli was on probation at the time of the April, 2004, inspection of 1638 Middleton Avenue,
and that he was on probation during the time of the current disciplinazy hearing when he went to
1638 Middleton without the homeowner's permission. The third and fourth findings indicated
omissions in the April, 2004, report prepared by Mr. Staeheli that were life-safety concerns for
the homeowner. In finding number five, they determined that Mr. Staeheli's conduct towards
the homeowner was in violation of the Code of Ethics for Truth-In-Sale-of-Housing evaluators.
In finding number six, the Board found that it was mare likely than not that Mr. Staeheli aided
and abetted a phone call to the homeowner to intimidate and solicit information conceming the
compiaint. Finding seven identified that the Board's disciplinary procedure was adopted based
upon Saint Paul Legislarive Code 310, Uniform License Procedures, which provides that a
presumptive penalty for a fourth violation is revocation; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above-stated findings, the Board determined that Mr.
Staeheli's license would be canceled permanently; and
WHEREAS, the Board stated their action was taken for the following reasons:
1. The serious nature of the infractions;
2. The long-term reperirive nature of the violarions;
o�-ayz
1 3. Mr. Staeheli's appazent misunderstanding of the mission of the TISH program;
2
and
3 4. The fact that Mr. Staeheli was on probation at the time of the inspection.
4
5 WHEREAS, the findings and deteiminarion were adopted on February 8, 2006, by a 4-1
6 vote; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WI�REAS, the Board at its February 27, 2006, regular meeting adopted a Resolution
accepting the findings and deternunation to cancel Mr. Staeheli's license permanently; and
WHEREAS, pwsuant to Saint Paul I,egislafive Code Section 189.11, Mr. Staeheli filed
an appeal of the Boazd's decision in this matter requesting a public hearing before the Saint Paul
City Council for purposes of reviewing the Board's findings; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council duly conducted a public hearing on Mr.
Staeheli's appeal on April 5, 2006, where all interested persons were given the opportunity to be
heard and, at the conclusion of the hearing, based upon the recard of the Boazd and all of the
testimony and records at the public hearing, the City Council, in a 5-1 vote, moved to confirm
the Boazd's decision to permanently cancel Mr. Staeheli's license.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul
hereby confirms the decision of the Board to permanently cancel Mr. Staeheli's license as a
Truth-In-Sale-of-Housing Evaluator for the City of Saint Paul.
Requested by Department oP
By:
Fortn Ap ve by CiTy Atto ey
By: �
Fonn roved by Ma}ror for Submission to Council
�
Adoption Certified by Cowcil Secretary
r
Br i e.�.
Approved by Ma}mr.
By: �
� ,...
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
co - ��ti
Contact Person & Phona:
�Aactia Moe'rtroM
266�8570
Must Be on Council Agen�
72-APR-06
ContractType:
RE-RESOLlfi1C]fd
IX'rAPR-06
� '
A.ssigp
Numher
For
Routing
Order
Tofal B MSignature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signalure)
Green Sheet NO: 3030336
Deoartrnent SentToPerson
0
1 'r
2 " C
3
4
5
� �Z
Memorializing City Council action taken April 5, 2006 upholding the Truth-In-Sale of Housing Boazd's deternrination to cancel the
TrutL-In-Sale of Housing license held by Ron Staeheli and denying lus appeal.
�da[iorrs: Appm�e (A) or R
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Cnil Senice Commission
Personal Service CoMrects Must
1. Has this persoNfirtn e�er wixked under a contmct forthis departmerrc?
Y� No
2 Has this persoNfirm e� been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personlfirtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any
curterrt city empioyee?
Yes No
Explain atl yes answers on Sepa2te sheet and atfach M green sheet
Initiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (INho, Wha; When, Where, Why):
AdvanfageslFApproved:
DisadvaMages IFApproved:
Disadvanfages M Not Approved:
�otal Amount ot
Trapsaclion:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Apri) 6, 2006 4:48 PM
Costhtevenue Budgeted:
Activily Number:
Page 1
, � _3c��-
w
CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE
Sh¢ri Mnore, Ciry Clerk
CI� Q�' SAjNT pA�.. 1IOCityHal2 Tel.: b51-266-8989
ChrrstopherS.CaZernan,Mayor ISW.KelloggBoulevard Faz: 651-266-8689
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702 www.stpauZ.gw
February 28, 200b
Ran Staeheli
AGI
358 Arbor Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Mr. Staeheli:
The City of Saint Paul has received your xequest for an appeal to the Findings of Fact and
Nofice of Board Action of the Saint Paul Truth-In-Sale of Housing Board under Chapter
189 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Mazcia Moermond has informed me that your appeal before the Saint Paul City Council
has been scheduled for Wednesday, Apri15 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on
tha third floor of City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard.
Siacerely,
�_�'"�t�,c. /���
Shari Moore
City Clerk
C:` Mary Erickson, City Council Research
,
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
b�-3�f�-
American
Central
Inspections
Service
4300 Blackhawk Rd. Eagan, MN 55122
Ron Staeheli, owner
Sherri Moore
St. Paul City Clerk
February 2�, 2006
Voice: {651) 293-0100
Fax: (651)405-0674
Cell: (612) 865-2004
I am in receipt of a Findings of Fact and Notice of Board Action of the St. Paul Truth in
Sale of Housing Board a copy of which is attached.
I am appealing that document in its entirety to the City Council as is my right under
chapter 189 of the St. Paul Legislative Code.
I would like to ask that the hearing be scheduled for any available date after the April
2006 TISH Board meetittg as the facilitator Marcia Moermund asked that the Board vote
on the final finding of fact at their next regular meeting.
I will need to receive a copy of tkxe transcript from the second part of the disciplinary
hearing and also the record of the deliberations and I would like some time for myself and
my council to review the documents before the hearing.
Please note that chapter 189 requires only that the matter be scheduled within two weeks,
not that it be held in any particular time frame, my suggestion is that we wait until the
Board passes the final findings of fact before we schedule. With the amount of time these
docwnents normally take for preparation and dissemination and the Board passing their
fmal findings of fact it will allow adequate time for all parties to prepare.
�L� � ��a-
I am including a page from the transcript of the January 10, 2006 hearing where Marcia
Moermund made her recommendations to have the fmdings memorialized at the Boazds
neart meeting or at least have them presented at an open meeting.
It is my understanding that the deliberations were closed and that the findings of fact
where not prepared in cvriting at the time of their fmal deliberations so they could not
have voted on the final text. See lines 19-24 of page 157 of the enciosed transcript.
Thank you and call with questions.
Sincerely,
��
Ron Staeheli
02-13-2006 17:58 BRICE 651293052H
CITY OF SAII�3T PAUL
L`hli�topher B. CofLmars, 61a}wr
FetKUary 10, 2()06
Ron Staeheli
ACI
358 Arbcrr Street
Srunt pau1, MN 55102
DC� - � �2-
PRGE1
OFFICE OF TS7E CPPY ATTORNEY
lnhn d. Chni, C'iry Aitomey
Civi1 Division
400 City Ilall
15 Wn't ICdk�88 Stvd.
Sdirtt Puu� Mu+nru,ra SiIO2
Ietephone: 651286-87f0
Frzrsimitr: G51298-5619
NO`i'[CE OF I3�ARD ACTiON
Dcar Mr. Staeheli:
This letter andics auac hments are your official notice ofthe Truth-in-Salc-oi'-HouSing Board
(hcrcafter TFSH Hotud) decision conceming the complaints from the property owner at 1638
Middleton . A hearing was hcld before the TISII $oard an January I4, 2006 and again on 7attuary
31, 2D06. A� thai hearing the TLSHBchud heard testimony and reviewcd exhibits concernir�g those
complaints and all the evidence that yt}u submittcd in yaur dePense. After considering all of the
testimony, cxhibits, and evidenec of ree:urd, the "S1SH Baazd made the attached tindings of fact
which ure incorporated herein by refcrence and deternuned to eancel your evuivator's license. This
determination tivas rcached afterhours ofdclibcration with the final dec}sion being made on February
8,?A06. Canccllationdcfined bytheTISHdisciplinsryproccdureunderResolution#02-d3adcrpted
Aprt! 17, 2Q(12, means that your license is withdxawn for an indefinitc time perior.i.
Thc TISH Boxrd has determined that yau must immediatcly surrencier your licensc to the
Supervisor. 7'herefore, you must surrenderyour ]icense thc next day after receipt of thrs 1Votice by
tha c{ose of business_ If you reccive this Noticc on February 10, 2006, ypu must suiren@er your
license by thc ctose of business Monday, February 13, 20(}6. You @ave tha right to appea] the
cancellacion of your license to the City Counci! within (10) [en calendar days. The {i0} ten day
appeal period commences the day after yau neceive tftis Notice. Far example, if you receive this
notice on February ] 0, 2006 you must tile yottr apgea] by thc close �f business on Febr�tacy2l, 20Q6.
!f an app�pp�iate appeal is filed, the 1'ISH �3oard's decision to cancel your ticense is stayed until
AA-Al}A-EEO Empinyer
02-13-2096 17:58 BRICE 6512930520
P a� -3��-
there is a final decision by the City Council. The decision of the City Council sh�ll be fu3a1.
Sinceraly,
F./
7udith A. Hunson
Assistant City At[nmey
City of Saint Paul
enclosures
cc: Bob TSessSer, Dircctnr of LIEP and NHPI
cc: Ma�ia Macrmond, I.e�islative Hearing Officer
cc: Cdnnie Sandberg, TiSH Program Administrator
cc: TISH Bpard Members
aa-ann-�eo �npio��
02-13-2906 17:58 BRICE 651293a526
��P' � �a
PRGE3
Findings af Truth in Sale of Housing (TISH) Board fram Ron Staeheli
Disciplinary Hearing Refated to i638 Middleton Ave.
From De(lberations in Gtased Sesslon an January 31 and February S, 2p06
F�inding #1: This disciplinary heuring is the fourth occasinn the TISH Boazd has copsidered adverse acdon cm
tha TISH license held hy Ron Staeheli.
A. The first occasion was on November I5, 2002 about report inconsistency with Evaluazor
C=uidelines. In this mateer, the Board declined co hold a disciplinary hearing, with a lettcr to
the evaluatar that no board action wauld be taken upon staff recommendation, and the
compiaints were closed. There was a letter to evaluator's fiie staling �hai the baard would
take actiQn ag�inst xny evaluator whose repnrts indicate a pattern of deviuion frnm the
Guidclincs without regard to the severity of items missing frnm the report.
B. The second occasion was on November 2A, 2(Xl2 where the Board considered in u
Discipiinary hearing on 4 comp)aints of repon inconsistency with Evaluatar Guidetines. In
this case the Boazd imposed a 30-day suspension and 1 yefu probation. Tcrms of probalran
to be no "name or similar" within the probationary periad ar the evaluator would be subject
to unmediate and permancnt Hoense revocation. On 7anuary 8, 2IN33, the Boazd decision was
appcaled ta the City Council. Qn September 24, 2003, the City Council �rmcd thc Bourd
decision and disci�linaiy xction. Mr, Ron Staeheli's TISH licens;e suspension was imposed
for Decembcr 8, 2003 through Januazy 7, 2(H)4. He was placcd on probdtion from January 8,
2004 through January b, 20D5.
C. The thied oceasion was c�n December ?, 2fl04 xnd Sanuary 26, 2(3(}S, where the Board
eonsiderad in a disoiplinary heuring on 3 compiaints aP report inconsistency with Ev:sluator
Guidelines. in this casc, the Board imposed a 30 day suspension and 1 ycar prob:uian for
amissians on the 572 Ohio Strcet TiSH report. On Ju1y 2p, 20p5, the City Councit heard
Ron Staahcli's appeai af this dceisinn and reverscd ihe Boarci's decision. On August 15,
2DQS, the Mayor vetoed Council reversal and the Boazd decisifln wus imposed. Mr. Ran
Staeheli's TTSH license suxpension was imposed for October 5, 2QQ5 through S3ovember 4,
2005. Hc was placed on probaticm for Novembcr 5, 2005 through November 4, 2006.
�nding #1 �dopted .Tanuary 31, ?A06 by a 5— p vote.
Finding #2: Ron Staehcli was on probation st the time of thc Apri12004 inspection of 1638 Middleton
Avenue. I-le was �lso on probatian at the time the discigiinary heariags were heid in lanuary
20b6 und when hc went without permission to Annetta Peters' house with Brice, his son, on
7anuary 12, 2006.
Finding #2 adngted S�ebruary $, 2SN15 by a 5— Q vote.
Finding #3: The TISH report prepar�d by Ron Stueheli on April 16, 2004 for 163& Middleton Avenue did
not indic;rte the electric service mast at the back of house and the eleetriea� serviee drop
above the dec:k was too low. 1'he report indicates that the electrieal scrviee,
installationlgrounding �U met minimum standards. The problems did not likcly arise after
thc report was prepared. Thcse corrections cost the home owner $465.55. The omission of
infotmation referring to theae problems constitutes a viotation of Sain[ Paul Legislative Code
Chapter 189,14 and i 89.15 and the City of Saint Paul Cade of Ethics for Truth in Salo of
Housing Evaluators.
ac�-��a-
02-13-2006 17:58 BRICE 6512930520 PA6E4
�5nding #3 adopted February S, 2005 by a 5— 0 vote.
Finding #4: The'i'[SH report prepated by Ron Staeheli on April T6, 2U04 for 1638 Middleton Avenue did
not indicatc the excreme pr461ems with the waste piping pc�sent in the hQUSe. The report
dces indicate that water piping was below minimum standazds with a note that a threaded
Caucet lacks backflow protccrion. It also indicates the taundry tub in basement was belaw
minimum standard because it drainecf into the sumg basket. Furthcr, it iadicatcs that the
plumbing Pixtures in the 6athroam are high haxard because the ballcock is below thc
nvarEiow tube in toilet and the hand held shower lacks hacld7ow protection. However, t}te
repon indicmes explicitly that waste piping in the hause meets *+�; nimum standards.
The prob]ems associated with the waste piping did not likely arise a1'ter the regort was
prepared, as the November 7, 2()03 TISH report prepared by Ron StaeheTi indscates that
waste piping was bclaw minimum standards with a natc referring to use of impmper material
and design, mixed plastics. Probiams assxiated with much of the waste piping were readily
visible, including imprapetly secured pipes, pipes lacking proper joints and improper sealing
of waste pipes, including n� use of requircd PVC glue which would show up as purple (from
the primer} on the whit�s PVC pige. The accumulation of sewer gases were likely dnc to both
was�e piping and vcnting prnblems, although at ]cast some of the vcnting systems were not
visible at the time of the April 2004 inspection. Thc problems created a life safety pmblem
for the nwner and her family and correctian cost the home owner approximately $14,0(70.
The omissian pf information rofercing tv the existence and severity of the waste piping
prob]ems trum the TISH report an this property constitutes a violation af Saint Paul
Leg'tsladve Cocie Chapter 189.14 and 184.15 and the City of Saint Paul Code of Ethics for
Truth in Sale of Housing Evt�luators.
Finding #4 adopted February S, 2006 by � 5— p vofe.
Fieding #5; Ron Staeheli telephoncd Annette Peters on July 24, 20(1S at approximutely 4 p.m. to a5k Lo
come see her house, apologizeci f�r the mistake in the inspec;tivn report and asked to work
something out with her, outside of the TISH camplaint proecss. Sha dedined and said he
would see thc house in the company �f Gi�y insgectots thc next week. Qn Au�vst i, 2005
Ran Staeheli trcatad Annette Peters, thc owner nf 1638 MiddIctan Avenue, in a disrespectful
way through his comments toward her and the situation. Further, he videc�txped parts on the
interior of her hvme, inciuding documents an her kitchen tab�e, against her expreas�y stated
wishes and without her kn4wiedge, Finully, in t4�cse acticros, Ron Staeheli was acting in the
capacicy of a Truth in Salc (TiSt� inspe�tor and was, therefore, subject to s��nd;trds and
restrictions of suc.h. With these actions, Ron Staeheli aeted in vialation of the City of Saint
Paui Code of Ethres fo� Truth in Sale of Housing Evaluators.
Finding #5 adopted Februsrq S, 2D06 by a 5— D vote.
Finding #6: lt is more likaty than not that Ron Staeheii aided und abetted thc person representing herseiP
to Annette Peters as Susan Brown of the Saint Paul City Attorney's Offioc. The �elephone
call from said "Susan Brown" camc within the hour of a ca71 ta Annette Peters from Ron
Staeheli on July 24, 2005. It had the effect of elicifing infam,ation that tivoutd otherwise nac
have been pravided and it intimidtsted Annetto Peters, the camplainant. Tius actian
constitutcs a violation of the City of Saint Paul Code of &hics far Truth in Sale of Housing
Evaluators.
Ftind�g #6 adopted February $, 2005 by a 5— 0 vote.
H2-13-2906 17:59 BRICE 651293052H
��0 "�1��
PRGES
Pinding #7: Thc'I7SH Board's disciplinary procedure was adopted 6ased on Saint Paul I.e�jslative Code
Chapter 314, Unifoxm License Procedums_ It providcs that far a fourth violation msulring in
adverse ackion ttte $oard may impose any of the fallowing penalties: revocadon or
suspension of the TTSH license for a�i:ced periad of rime, refusal to renew the'PISH license,
or canceI]arion of thc TTSH license permenently. 79�ese guidelines are consistent with Saint
Paul Legis7ative Code Ghaptez 31Q,Q5 (m) (2j Vioiadon of provisions af ttte Legislxtive Code
relating to the ]icensed activity, which provides that the presumptive pentilty for a fourth
violatian is revocation.
Flading #'T adoptal February 8, 2006 by a 5— 0 vote.
Determination: The Suint Paut Z�th ia Sate crf Housing Buard cancels permanenuy the Truth in Sate
License held 6y Ron Shacheli. This acdon is taken for the fo�lowing reasons: i) tFie serious
nature of the infractions af Rnn Staeheli both in this case and previnus cases heard by the
Bosrd; 2) the long-term repefluvc nawre of the viniations of Ron Staeheli; 3) Ron Staehefi's
apparent ongoing misunderstanding of thc TTSH prograrn and �ts mission ta provide buyers
with information an lhe house they arc purchasing, rather lhan help sellers meet a regulatory
requirement; and 3) the fact that Ron Staeheli was on prabation ut the time of the inspecticm
in question.
Determination sdopted February 8, 2006 by a 4-1 vote,
The dissenter nated far the record that in his vicw, a one-year suspension oY Ron
Staeheii's'CISH license und subsequent �ve-year prubation was his preferred sanCtion
for the violatioas.
T1S2i Boacd Mcmbers present were: Jerry Bccdle, Chair; Michael DeTomaso; Faul Finsness; Bob IVxrdi; and
James Reiter.
Qthers present: 7udith Hanscm, Saint Paul City Attorney's OfGce, Attorney to the Soard; and Marcia
Moermond, S�int Paul City Councii Offices, Facilitator.
Findings assd Detarmination drafred by Marcia Mocrmond
OC�� 3�f�
Page 156
1 MS. MOERMOND: We can deal with
2 that here. Some people when the old
3 equipment fails, they don't replace it as
= the same.
s
6
�
8
9
io
ii
I
j iz
i
I 13
I I 14
I ' i s
I 16
' i�
Zs
19
zo
zi ,
2z
23
24
25
(651)
MR. STAEHELI: I can't stand
DVD's.
MS. HANSON: And there maybe
some discussion about whether or not that
will even be admissible. I would like the
opportunity to explore that a little bit.
MR. STAEHELI: That's fine.
Because the video was specifically asked
for not to -- and actually what I did was
put it down and it still ran and the audio
is so much better than the audio recorder
that I had in my pocket that I just
thought it would be easier. You have less
hiss in order to hear exactly what
happened, but you guys can have the hiss
if you want.
MS. MOERMOND: What I would like
you to do and what I would like the City
to do is develop a11 the materials they
want to share based on what they see here,
go home, read the packet, look at what the
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12co-cb50-48bd-807d-92baabc00531
��P'���
Page 157
1 City has provided, if there's things that
2 you want to provide that may sway the
3 Board on the specifics of the complaints,
4 provide that information.
�
The first point of business when the
6 Board reconvenes will determine the
� admissability of what you provided, what
8 the City provided and we will move forward
9 from there.
lo I plan on giving you a half an hour
11 similar to the time that we have provided
1z today with a time allotted for Board
13 questions and also for staff.
14
I will formally request after the
ls completion of the presentations that the
76 Board close it's meeting to deliberate, so
17 that will be without an audience present
18 and the Board can chose at that point to
19 reconvene publicly or I would rather
zo suspect that they will make a decision in
zl writing following that and have staff
22 prepare that and vote on that at their
23 next meeting.
24 I would be looking on a vote on the
zs individual counts if there's difference of
(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12co-cb5�-48hd-Sa7d-92baabc00531
��-� ��
�
❑
�
In July of 2005 you granted me an appeal from a 30 day
suspension that was given me by the TISH Board. My
arguments against that suspension were that I was the only
evaluator to have been brought before the Board in the 5 years
since the current program administrator took her job. I argued
that the process was unprofessional, selective and subjective.
You agreed and asked the Board and Staff to develop a Matrix
that would take the subjectivity and selective nature out of the
disciplinary process lA . Today I am still the only one. In over
35,000 inspections and 50 other evaluators I am still the only
one and they are no closer to establishing the unbiased matrix
you requested.
The Board change parts of their Disciplinary Hearing Process
without developing your requested matrix. Some of the reasons
the Board gave were that the current way they were doing
disciplinary hearings "just did not work" 1 and where "almost .
laughable" 2 .
a
����I��
�A ����a,�o��
Swnmazy minutes
for July 20, 2005
Page 1 S item Si52
I. Transcript of
October 12, 2005
TISA Boazd
meeting page 4 line
17
z. rru�smpt of
Odober 12, 2�05
TISfJ Boazd
meetivg page 6 line
5
n� -3��--
�
�
The Board is basing this recommendation on old discipline
arrived at with a laughable 3 , unprofessional process. The
Board Chair said, I quote "I totally agree that we need a change
in process and we need to be more professional."'
This complaint came to the Board from staff with NO
recommendation for discipline. In July it was 19 items of
variation between my report and a competitors buyers
inspection. Now it is about 4 items and the buyers inspection
report agreed with me. Last July you found a 30 day suspension
excessive and now they are presenting cancellation as
reasonable.
3. Transcript of
OcCOber 12, 2005
TISH Board
meetingpage 4 Iine
1'7
�
The City attorney in December of 2003 told the Board that the
proper standard of proof was "clear and convincing evidence" 6
The standard they used here is "more likely that noY', That is
not even the civil court standard of a preponderance of the
evidence. That is just up from "there is a rumor that." Maybe
they changed the standard just for me.
�
4. Transc�ipt of
Qctober 12, 2005
TISH Soard
meeting page 71ine
6-7
�. Trms¢ipt of
Oc[ober 12, 2��5
TTsx s�t
meeting Page 7 Lne
6-7
6. Quoting Judy
Hanson off audio
tape of December 7,
2003 Boardmeeling
0 (� �3`��-
�
On the first finding of fact they say that this is the fourth time I
have violations proven before the Board, three using their old
process. Then they list as the first offense a time when I was not
only NOT given a hearing I was also not discinlined. By
definition it can't be adverse action if there was no hearing and
no discipline. Even if we did have an unbiased Matrix it doesn't
help if the number of violations is off.
�
The second and third disciplines listed are the first and second
adverse actions using the old flawed disciplinary process. One
of those you agreed was flawed and overturned last July.
�
4
�
�
�
Vl.f' �� ! �
A Truth in Housing is only good for one year' because it would
7 St Pau] Code
CUapter 189.02 (a)
not properly reflect the condition of the house after one year.
Today the TISH Board wants you to cancel my license because
a TISH report I did no longer reflected the condition of the
house 16 months after l did my report. All of this with no
testimony from anyone about what work they may have done on
the house in those 16 months and with a buyers inspection done
6 months after my report which agreed with my report. Every
day you send inspectors out to do work that by its very nature is
subjective. Yau would think that with no evidence to the
contrary the assumption would be that the report was accurate at
the time it was made. I would think that the City would want to
support the inspectors that are sent out everyday by giving us
the benefit of the doubt.
Steve Shiller, a city inspector said under oath that he had no
idea of the condition of the electric service in April of 2004. 8
Also an electric permit was pulled in Fall of 2004 to install a
new AC. 4 If the service drop was hazaxdous at that time the
electrician would be required to fix it then. You may also notice
that the receipt for the repair said the mast was bent making it
drop too close to the deck. lo
5
8 Transcriptof
Sanuazy 1Q 2006
Boazd meeting
Page 1291'uxs 15-17
and 23-25
Page 1301mes 1-2
9 Copy of web page
S[. Paul 1638
Middleton
10 Receiptfrom
Crocus HID Electric
fot repa'v to damaged
service mast
d� J ���
�
�
�_J
Not only is there no evidence of the condition on April of 2004
there. is evidence that it was fine in the fall of 2004 when the AC
was installed.
During all of Steve's testimony he said that he could only
comment on the condition of the home when he saw the
property 16 months later. He never offered testimony about
what was installed or visible in April, 2004 when I did my
report.
As for the plumbing issues I did my inspection in April of 2004,
in that inspection I noted that much of the basement was not
visible. I also noted that the visible plumbing meet minimum
standards. 12 In August of 2004 a professional buyers inspector
inspected the property and agreed with my report.
No evidence was presented that dealt with the 16 months
between my inspection and Mr. Shiller's inspection for the city,
no owners were interviewed, no opinions were given
whatsoever. Is it possible that the improper plumbing was
installed before my inspection, certainly. However when the
city did their inspection 16 months later there were no areas of
�
ll Page 2 item 2,3,5
April, 2004 TISA repoc
12 Page 2 iiem Ir I l
April, 2004 TISH repor
��P '���
�
�
�
that sold the home to Ms Peters installed poor plumbing
between when I did my inspection and when they sold i#, could
they have hidden the bad plumbing before I did my inspection?
Certainly. The assumption was that I missed something because
it was there and visible 16 months later. There was no evidence
presented that it was installed and visible at the time I did my
inspection. Again you would think the City would support their
inspectors better than this.
The Board acknowledged in its findings of fact that "at least
some of the venting problems were not visible in Apri12004." 13
The Plumber that repaired the plumbing testified that the pipes
had come apart in the wa11s 14 and Ms. Peters testified she did
not discover � the problems until she ripped down the sheet
rock in her home. 15 Mr. Shiller testified under oath 6 different
times that he, "had no idea when that plumbing was done for
that house" 16 he also never testified as to what he thought was
visible in April of 2004.
7
13 T1SH Board
findings of fact page 4,
Finding N4 Pazagaph 2
14 Transcriptof
January 10, 2006 Boazt
meeting Page 93, lines
LZ-25
15 Transcript of
January 1Q 2006 TISH
Board meeting Page 15.
line 15-16
Page 33, line 3-A
Page 46, line 6-7
16 Ttatitcriptof
January 1Q 2006 TISH
����
Page 121 line 25
Page 1221ine 1
Page 99 line 9-18
Transcrip[ of Januarv
31, 2006 TISH Board
meeting
Page 103 lines 1-20
Page 99 Imes 20-25
Page 100 lines I
D t� ����
�
�
�.J
Ms. Peters testified as though I personally was pumping sewer
gas into her home in an attempt to poison her children. She may
do that again today and if she was not the person responsible for
the improper plumbing it is regrettable that she and her children
lived in a house with sewer gas. However her own plumber
testified under oath that the sewer gas that was in that house was
coming out of the open vent pipes in her walls. " I just cannot
see through sheetrock.
The only expert to testify under oath, Mr. Shiller, had no idea
when the plumbing was installed so how can it be "more likely
than not" that it was installed and visible when I did my
inspection? Especially when I disclosed that areas of the
basement were not visible at the time I did my inspection.
I am accused of being disrespectful while acting as an evaluator
even though the homeowner denies that I was ever her evaluator
18 and Steve Shiller and I deny that I was ever disrespectful. 19
This is an extreme expansion of any definition in the Code of
Ethics. Can a person lose a business license in St. Paul by being
late to an appointment? That certainly is disrespectful. Can you
imagine trying to cancel a plumbing or liquor license on a
�
17 Transcript of
Januazy 10, 2006
7TSH Boazd
mceting
Page 931ine 12-25
18 Transcript of
January 31, 2006
TISH Board
meeting
Pages 75,76 lines 1-
25. 1-6
19 Tranxcriptof
7am�ary 31, 2006
TISH Board
,��
Page 111 Iine 1-12
V4' /�!//
�
�
�
charge of being disrespectful? Nowhere does my Code of Ethics
use the word disrespectful.
Ms. Peters claims she got a phone call, she was clear in her
testimony that she knew for a fact that I did not make the phone
ca11. 24 She claims they identified themselves, they talked and
she gave out information she wishes she wouldn't ha�e.
Information like she had worked with the city to cxeate this
complaint and that she had a Buyers inspection just before the
she bought the house. That Buyers inspection agreed with my
TISH report. Based on this the Board found that "I aided and
abetted a phone ca11" and that the act of helping someone make
a phone ca11 somehow violated the Code of Ethics. They don't
say which part of the Code of Ethics I violated.
I do not understand how ethics even enter into it. How can it be
unethical to defend yourself by gathering truthful information
that exonerates you? No one is accusing me of cheating or
steeling or any behavior that is un-ethical. Because Ms. Peters
would rather T not ha�e truthful information that severely
damages her lawsuit the Board says I have acted unethically.
E
20 Trmscript of
Sanuary 10, 2006
TISH Boazd
meeting
Page 1301ine 8-1
�lJ' /� 1 �
If you read my Code of Ethics you will nat find any reference to
� "disrespectful" or "aided and abetted someone to make a phone
ca11"
What would be unethical is to not defend myself, let the city pay
any claim of damages and pass the costs on to the citizens of
this city.
Your rulings have always said that a business in St. Paul should
be able to have very clear ideas about what they can and can't
da. Here my Code of Ethics is stretched beyond the breaking
point to cover "disrespectful" and "aiding and abetting a phone
� call." The Code of ethics can not be possibly be interpreted to
include those as violations.
The TISH program has a long history. In the 35 years of the
program only one evaluator has had his license canceled. That
evaluator admitted that he had stolen several thousand dollars in
filing fees from the city. He paid them and was allowed to keep
his license. He stole more than $1,000.00 again and his license
was canceled. The Board is saying with this recommendation
that two things get your license canceled in St. Paul, admitting
to steeling thousands of dollars, twice and not seeing through
n
U
�
�� ����
. sheetrock, being disrespectful to someone who is not your client
and aiding and abetting a phone calL I cannot agree thaf they
have equal weight. I believe that is why a Matrix was
requested. To put violations in some sort of perspective.
I aggressively defend myself from these selective and subjective
attacks on the business that I worked 15 years to build. Of the
other cities with TISH programs none have a problem with my
understanding of the programs. The State of Minnesota has no
question that I understand the programs as they have licensed
me to teach realtors about tkiem.
❑
Clearly the problem is not with me.
Clay Larson renounced his seat on the TISH Board after 13
years because he was through dealing with this ongoing attack
against my license and the time it took up. He said that other
Board members were very angry with me because I appealed
their decisions to you. 3acqueline Nicholas, the board member
that called the previous hearings against me "laughable"
actually choose not to involve herself in this latest attempt on
� my license.
li
p(� -���
�
Within 3 days of this Council reversing the decision of the TISH
Board in July of 2005 Staff finds a homeowner to create a new
complaint. How lucky is that? Only 3 days after one of you
pointed out that there were no homeowners complaining against
me.
Now there is a brand new complaint but they are not done yet.
They meet to create a new disciplinary procedure just for me
because even they knew the process they had been using was
laughable.
�
3uly 20, 2005 you said 19 items of variation did not deserve a
30 day suspension. Now they bring you 4 items and they present
cancellation as reasonable and equivalent to stealing thousands
of dollars.
The following in your text is the transcript of the October 12,
2005 TISH Board meeting. This is an full quote of a discussion
about this complaint and the Board Chair's opinion of your
council meetings. I am going to let you read it for yourself and
just point out some quotes.
. GERALD BEEDLE: Then if and when as was in the last case it gets appealed to city
councii. And then they have another Horse ¢nd BuQgv show, w}aich I saw in
12
�ZQ - � �f 2'
� operation down there. I saw all kind a things, Bob wasn't there but he has gone
through and he has seen through some of the operations that happen down there, and
have a better way and I think we should look into a better way and then that report
from that office there findings and so forth that's all could be presented both sides
having and having chance to have input into it the decision process, have people
handing out literature that this board has never seen, and the council un there
shuftlinn thev didn't know which end was up, and with the Dreconeeived decisions
alreadv made when that council was agreed down there. I won't go into that in its
entirety but I was aUnalled bv what I saw down there and this would cut that out, and
stop this in its tracks.
It is regrettable that Mr. Beedle is appalled at what he sees down
here. I'm glad you are here and I look forward to your decision
in this matter.
L_.J
�.J
13
b l� �3 ��-
�
In summation the following are my azguments for granting my appeal.
(in no particular order)
• The TISH Board decided that the process used against me was flawed
so they changed it just for me. Then they applied the old discipline to
the new allegarions despite their aclrnowledgement of the awed
rp ocess that led to the earlier discipline.
• The standard of proof used changed from the reasonable Clear and
Convincing evidence to the lowest vossible standard of "more l ikely
than not."
� • The first adverse action listed in the finding of fact from November,
2000 was not an adverse action.
• No evidence was presented about the condition of the property in April
of 2004. The only evidence that was presented dealt with the property in
August of 2005, 4 months after mV report expired and 16 month after
it was nrenared The expert testimony could not date the tune of
installation of the improper items.
• No evidence was presented about any chan�es or lack of chan�es made
to the property between April 2004 and August 2005.
• Evidence was presented that mv report was accurate when it was
prepared, including a professional buyers inspector who prepared a
report that agreed with mv renort after l did my report.
• Most of the aws with the property were behind the walls of the
� building making them not visible at the time of the inspections.
14
b����-
� • The allegations that deal with my behavior are not in anyway addressed
in the Code of Ethics for my profession.
• The allegations that deal with behavior or actions by people other than
me are not in anyway addressed in the Code of Ethics for my
profession.
• An unbiased matrix has never been prepared as the City council
requested.
• The only precedent in the history of the program for cancellation is
the theft of thousands of dollars.
• The fmdings of fact are flawed in that they do nat identify the part of the
Code of Ethics I was supposed to have violated. A equitable reading of
the Code of Ethics can not be reasonablv internreted to include the
actions alle�ed
• No matrix or precedent was presented to iustifv the nunishment they
� recornmend.
• The fmdings of fact reference chapter 310 even though the TISH
program is contained in chapter 189. They list three violations as four
violations and the violarions aze for verv different and unrelated
alle�ations:
�
15
��P'���'
� Jufy 20, 2005 City Council S�mmary Minutes Page 2
Councilmember Thune requested that Code Eriforcement provide the Council
with a report on developing a matrix similar to the system used in the Office of
LIEP.
�
i
�l.X /� t //
� 1 GERAI,D BEEDLE: Court reporter...
2 PAiJL FINNISES Court reporter as well...
3 BOB NARDI I want to discuss how we're going to conduct this hearing.
4 PAUL FINNiSES Thax comes after the vote.
5 BOB NARDI Ya I've got a
6 GERALD BEEDLE: Well we will pick up on that after we vote. _ we need to discover if
7
a
we need to go ahead with his hearing and that is what is at the board right now. All in
favor of those going ahead with the hearing regazding these allegations
9 ? Aye, Aye ...
10
11
� 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
� 23
GERALD BEEDLE: All those opposed
9
GERALD BEEDLE: Carried. Now Bob you have something in regard to how to....
BOB NARDI Ya I think we have had at least a couple of these hearings and I personally
am...
GERALA BEEDI,E: Xa lets set some guidelines
BOB NARDI ....troubled by that way... a boazd like this is really not in a position
especially in an evidence hearing to take evidence, I think....it just doesn't work. An
before I went into private practice I spent some....in the attorney generals office and
some of my responsibilities was representing several different boards each of which had
authority to discipline and to make decisions were they had to make those decisions
based on a record and I know we are limited, severely limited by a budget, but a the way
they have always handled those at the state level is a you know the boazd has retained a
hearing exanvner who basically acts as a judge and conducts the hearing and at that
�
o(� -3�a�
•
1 JACQITELINE N. I agree with Bob, probably I'm not,1 do not have your legal
2 eapertise but I we are going to go forward with a hearing that we haue an opportunity to
3 hear both sides of the complaint. My biggest concem I have is, time, from the tirne of the
4 complaint ta the time we come down to making some land of niling, the whole process
5 has become almost laughable, if we are going forwazd with tlris we have to
6 simultaneously do something with our process to do something that is not as laughable
and then I will agree with what 7im said when we come down to the end and we say this
person is guiky there has to be something we have to have the ability to ratchet up a
notch but I really do agee with everything Bob Said our process has got to change, its
10
11
� 12
13
I4
got to be a shorter time frame, its got to be more professional, people have to become
accountable for the housing evaluators if people ue going to take it seriously at all.
GERALD BEEDLE: I agree with what you have to say on this and the many different
things that I have dealt with on this there was a first time you get one of these, a second
time you get quite a bit more and the third time your, your hitch hiking down the road.
I S Go ahead Mike..
16 MD To....I agree with Mr. Nazdi to anange for the process that Mr. Nardi described
17
�
why would that have to come out of our budget.
GERALD BEEDLE: The details we are going to have to work out.
19 CONNIE SANDBERG Ahh, well, and That raises a very good quesrion and I do
20
21
22
� 23
not lrnow what land of room we have within our bylaws, to do or delegate what has been
given to the Board to do, the city does have a hearing examiner and citations that aze
issued by this department go before that examiners all the time. Truth in Housing never
has, and I don't know what we would have to do in terms of the �isting bureaucracy to
0
o� ���
�
�
get something to go before the city hearing exazniner in which case if we could use that
2 person it is part of. Its aiready paid for by the city and don't know that it would cost
anything extra out of ow budget, although I suppose I think that it conceivably could but
4 it is something I, I have to ask a bunch of different people a bunch of different questions
5 so...
6 CsERA.LD BEEDLE: If we need to, I agree with Mr. Nazdi that we try I totally agree that
7 we need a change in process and we need to be more professional.
8 CONNIE SANDBERG Attd I did years ago, a couple years ago I think when this
9 whole series of things started I talked with our hearing examiner outside of city hall one
10
11
day, You know it was a very informai conversation and I don't even remember if she
would remember it now...
12 GERALD BEEDLE: Then if and when as was in the last case it gets appealed to city
13
14
15
16
1�
18
19
ZO
21
22
council. And then they have another Horse and Buggy show, which I saw in operation
down there. I saw all kind a things, Bob wasn't there but he has gone through and he has
seen through some of the operations that happen down there, and have a better way and I
think we should look into a better way and then that report from that oflice there findings
and so forth that's al] could be presented both sides having and having chance to have
input into it the decision process, have people handing out literature that this boazd has
never seen, and the council up there shutIling, they didn't know which end was up, and
with the preconceived decisions already made when that council was agreed down there.
I won't go into that in its entirety but I was appalled by what I saw down there and this
would cut that out, and stop this in its tracks.
�
�Y / / � �
�
C
Sec. 189.02, Valid'Ry of disclosure report.
(a) A disciosure report is valid for three hundred
si�:ty-five (365) consecutive days frem the date
of its issuance.
(b) The report is valid only for the owner who is
listed on the disclosure report.
(c) The report must be completed and signed by
an evaluator licensed under this ordinance. The
only ficensed evaluator who may sign the report
is the evaluator who performed the inspedion
and aiso wrote the report for the particular
address.
(d) The report is valid for only one sale during its
three hundred sixty-five (365) consecutive day
Iifetime.
(Ord. No. 17732, § 2, 5-3-90; C.F. No. 01-1189,
§ 1, 12-5-OS; C.F. No. 03-1095, § 1, 1-14-04)
CJ
���3�,
` 1
r
z
3
4
5
s
7
s
9
io
ii
iz
13
�4
is
16
i�
ia
19
20
Page 129
got from the licensed plumber when we were
on-site, that was one of the things that
we were trying to cover by the word design
and also the fact that there was back
pitch on the plumbing also which we
haven't really addressed much, but it`s
visible in the picture.
MR. FINSNESS: Thank you.
MS. MOERMOND: Anybody else
from th.e Board have questions a� this
time? Ms. Hanson? Okay.
MR. STAEAELI: I thought I had
another question and I just wanted a
clarification again.
What was the condition of the service
drop in April of 2004?
MR. SCHILLER: I do not know.
MR. STAEHELI: Thank you.
MR. SCHILLER: I only know in
July.
zl MR. STAEHELI: Of 2005?
22 MR. SCHILLER: 2005.
z3 MR. STAEHELI: So you have no
24 idea what the conclition was in April of
25 2004?
.(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cccb50�48bd-807d32baabc00531
�� l �
Page 130
i
Z
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
10
ii
iz
13
4
15
16
i�
is
is
zo
zi
z2
23
24
zs
,.. � ............. _.. . .. ..
. {651)
MR. SCHILLER: I cannot know
something if I have never been there.
MR. STAEHELI: I appreciate it
and I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.
MR. SCHILLER: Anything else?
MR. STAEHELI: No. I would like
to call Annette back please.
Was it me who called you and said
they worked for the City attorney's
office?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: Thank you.
Now, you had a buyer's inspection
done by Premier Inspections.
Is that correct?
MS. PETERS: Yes.
MR. STAEHELI: The buyer
inspector -- who knew that you had a
buyer's inspection by Premier Inspections.
MS. PETERS: The -- I explained
it to the caller that represented herself
as Susan Brown from the City Attorney's
Office.
MR. STAEHELI: I mean way
before, September of 2004, excuse me for
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e72cccb50d8bd-S07d�2baabe00531
�t raui s rermiL �nune
rage i ui �
�� ���0
� ___..�`�� 5 � . , ;. .. . ,.,.._. . _.... . ��� t,. '.� .,_';„�
,
����j ��fo � �la�r�� C���y �n��c� � Web Co���c� '
Data Disclaimer:-
The City of Saint Paul and its officials, officers, employees or agents does not war2nt the accuracy, reliability or
timetiness of any "rnformation published by this system, and shall not be held liabte fnr any losses wused by raliance on
the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of such information. Portions of such information may be incorrect or not current.
Any person or entity that reties on arty informatio� ohtai�ed from this system does so at his or her own risk.
OS 159538 1638 Piumbing(Gasfitting/Inside Water Piping
PLB 00 PG MIDDLETON Type: Plumbing/Inside Water (All) Residential Replace
AVE Issued Date: 09/20(2005
� FnalDate: 10/04J2005
Contrector: 2e11 Plumbing Inc
Estimated Value: $6,800.00
�
OS 138609 1638
ELC 00 E MIDDLETON
AVE
Activity (most recent first):
MAIN-Plumbing Inspection: SO/03/2005: Final
09/27J2005: Approved
Electrical Permit
Type: Electrical Residential Repair/Alter
Issued Date: 07/29/2005
Contractor. Crocus Hill Electric
Estimated Value: $1,000.00
Electricaf Permit
Type: Saver Switch Only Residential Repair/Alter
Issued Date: O1j28(2005
Contractor: Hunt Electric Corporation
Estimated Value: $100.00
Electriral Permit
Type: Service and Circuits Residential Repair/Alter
Issued Date: 30/11/2004
Contractor: Royalton HeaYing And Cooling, Inc.
Estimated Value: $280.00
Mechanical Permit
Type: Refrigeration Residentfal Replace
Issued Date: SO/11/2004
Contractor: Royalton Heating And Cooling, Inc.
Estimated Value: $1,400.00
Building Permit
Type: Single Family Dwelling Express Repair
Issued Date: 08J25/2004
Final Date: 09/07/2004
Contrector. Century Roofing Inc
State Valuation: $1,800.00
OS 055112 1638
SAV 00 E MIDDLETON
AVE
04 165788 1638
SandC 00 E MIDOLETON
AVE
04 165757 1638
REF 00 M MTDD�ETON
AVE
04 137568 1638
IXP 00 B MIDDLETON
AVE
�
Activity (most recent first):
Finai Inspection: 09)07(2004: Final
Pre�iminary Inspection: 09f�2(2004: Corrections Required
08(31/2004: Verbal Order
00 151375 1638 O8-Auq-2003: Building Permit
RPR 00 B MIDDLETON FOLDER CLOSED BYType: Single Family Dweiling Repair
AVE SYSTEM DUE TO NOISSUed Date: 12(04(2000
ACTIVITY IN ONE Final Date: 08/08/2003
YEAR. Windows-Add Contractor: Valley Constr Windows Siding Sunrooms Inc
Insert Wdw. State Valuation: $1,250.00
https://www.onestopgov.comlOSG/jag_kernel_xml.j sp
Finaled
Active/Issued
ActiveJIssued
Active/Issued
Adive/Issued
Finaled
Closed
3/28/2006
�s J
-,
v
j'1-
: �
,�
_' T
�� W
Q
� o
m�
o�
�
�
�
Z
J �
J Q
m W
� LL
Z n
Q v
F
W
LLI U
_ �
� �
Y
a , U
O
�
� w
o�
U
W W
Z �
Q Z
aW
OQo
U 0 �
J � Z �
_ � � N
� LL J O
V W Q N
O�
Ua�o��
2 m
�
_ �
�cY�c^I `���� I � I I
wTI � i � 1 I � I I �
��� ��������
`� � ..
�
� o��IIIIfI
� o � �r
, J \
v i� �:.i � ��
m - ��
o �1;� F
9 '
r�
C�
u
�
i`
.�
r_
`j y c .
, o; �,�
� � �
�
4 �
�'
1
[, j
r`
�
1�
0
r F
� � O
w .
� � O �
�
0
W w z
? z a
�
4 �
�: � .7
� �� i � �
� s '' V ` 3 �-t%
a '
� o � `� � � ��rt
z� �- �i .0 G � �=
3 �` � � -�� �
O � � C ,� ° � ' Oj G��
O . �� � � � � j �
O � !� �-� � � }`-J
� �., , L � i
�S � � S �.Z .
�' � 7 _ �
� = - -t.. M,
� ` �" � ' ` v ��' `
[0� i � N �� � �I
--{ � � �
� � \ '� � J�I� '
o :� _ -1, � �
LL � �, 's , v",` -�. `
W `v � ' `�'-' i , =
i L: � S ..,, :
Y ^% `, `:� „ �: ': �� :
� � ��` �� � :��-� L
�'v ��' � �. � i I i i
��
w
Q
O
� �
�� ..._...,.. ... .. ""'_'. -. _... __.
Prope::y address: 1635 I�IIddleton
�
B.�SE�IE\�I'lCELLAR
I. Stairs and Handrails .....................
"'. BaszmenUcellar fleer .....................
3. Feundaticn ...................................
4 E�idznce ef dampness er stau�ing......
�. FL*st flcer, fleer system ....................
6 Beams and columns ........................
ELECTRICAL SER�'ICES(S) n of Services .............1
7. Service size:
Amps : 30 X 150 other_ �
V olts : 115 - 1157230 X
B�SE�IE�T ONLI'
S. Elzchical service installation tgrounding. M
9. Elech�cal wiring, outlets and firhues... B 9 Somz light usz extensien cord wv'uig
See pazc i for renng key Item #
Comments
� �����
B I Imprepzr stairnay and compenents, deer opens ocer steps
hi
C 3,5,6 Incomplete basemen� not zll visible
Y.� 4 OI watzr
�f
u
PLInIBPi iG SYSTE\-I
10. Floor drain(s) (buement) ......................
11. Waste and vent piping (all floots) .............
12. Watzr piping (all floo�) ........................
13. Cras piping (aU floocs} ...............
4. Watzr heater(s) installation............
Water heater(s) venting .....................
. Plumbing 5xtwes (basement) .................
HEATL�iG SYSTENI(S� # of ... ...... ... .
M
M
B 12
B 13
M
M
B 16
1
Threaded faucet lac}5 baclQlow protectien
Some improper gas supply piping
Laundry tub drains to sump baskzt.
17. Heating plant(s): Fue1: GAS Type: FA
a Iiutaliation and visible cenditien M
b. Viewed in operatien crc
c. Cembustionventing .................. M
The E��al¢ator is not tequired to ignite the lieating plant(s) escept
during the heating season, betrveen October 15 and April 15.
1 S. /�ddiaonai hzating unit(s) Fuel: GAS Type:
a. Installatien and visible condition
b. Viewed in operarion ............. ....
c. Cembusticn venting .....................
i 9. 9DDITIO\AL CO�i�fENIS (1 THROUGH 18)...M
�ALUATOR: Amencan Central Inspections, Ron Staeheli DATE: 04-16-2004
Page 2 of 4
Rev ]/2004
Page 93
1
z
3
4
5
6
�
8
9
io
ii
ia
13
14
ss
16
i�
is
19
zo
zi
za
23
24
as
....,..: .t..65�1)
•
sewer gas could have been leaking from
open pipes in the wall? You did the
repair. I mean, you were able to see
inside the walls that I wasn`t able to
see.
MR. ZELL: Well, just a
clarification, the pipes that leaked from
the roof, we didn't even know if it was
connected to the venting, never was, but
we didn't know that until you go to pull
it out so you can't tell.
The pipes that were in the wall had
already come apart so the fittings -- yes,
they weren't glued, so as the vertical
sections fell which is why probably some
of it was back ditched, once the weight of
that pipe is now no longer connected, as
it falls it pushes the other pipe
backwards so now you have got back pitch
and you have an open pipe at the top.
MR_ STAEHELI: But most of what
was causing the sewer gas or at least some
of what was causing the sewer gas in the
house was completely inside the walls?
MR. ZELL: Sure.
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12ce�cb5048bdS07d�92baabc00531
�� ����
Page 15
( 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
io
il
go right down into the cabinet, so I got a
plumber to replace that underneath there.
So I did a few things that I thought,
well, maybe something is causing that
smell, but it just never did go away so I
just tried opening windows, venting kind
of the air as much as I could.
MR. MAGNER: At that point in
time did you have anyone come out, contact
anyone, have them investigate the
situation?
1z MS. PETERS: Well, what happened
13 was during a rainstorm I discovered that
�q there was water leaking through my
ls sheetrock outside the bathroom and I
16 ripped the sheetrock down and saw a vent
17 pipe cutoff in the wall and I thought, oh,
18 my goodness, I was a little bit worried
19 about that.
20 I called a plumber. I thought, wellF
21 maybe I better have a plumber look at this
zz
23
z4
zs
• (651)
so I had a plumber out. It was Mr. Rooter
and I have an estimate from them.
MR. MAGNER: Is this the estimate
that --
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cccb50-08bd-807tl92baabc00531
Page 33
1 was sheetrock that had to be removed,
2 painting, putting sheetrock back on, all
3 the plumbing fixtures had to be ripped
4
s
6
�
s
9
out, the floor, so there's a11 those
expenses that came to about $14,000.00
total and then there's just -- there isn't
necessarily financial expense, but moving
the kids and having to work with trying to
stay out of the house and move things
lo around and the kids and I had surgery at
11 that time so I was trying to juggle the
lz kids and have an operation and have -- we
13 didn't have a bathroom so I was trying to
� manage the workers and it was pret�y
ls rough.
16
i�
MR. MAGNER: There's a response
that Ms. Peters -- there's a response
18 Mr. Staeheli report regarding the
19 complaints and about his behavior.
20 Do you have any reaction to this
21 point of the repeated statement that is as
22 the complaint has already quoted staff as
23 promised that for your cooperation in this
z4 complaint that both repairs would -- that
25 both repairs would be done to your home by
i (651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cccb50-086d-807d�2baabc00531
6(e'3�2-
Page 46
�1
z
3
4
s
6
�
a
9
io
ii
iz
13
�4
ls
16
i�
ia
so there was the water -- there was a vent
pipe on the roof and the water was going
down in to the vent pipe and the vent pipe
was cut off in the wall and it was
flooding sheetrock.
So when I ripped the sheetrock apart
I noticed the water -- I looked out the
pipe and I could see the sky and I
thought, well, that's a vent pipe and I
thought, boy, I wonder where that goes.
Well, I know from years before that
they had kind of remodeled the house and
moved the bathroom and stuff years ago, so
that's when I thought, oh, oh, I wonder if
there's a plumbing thing here where
there's no venting or something. It just
kind of occurred to me so that's when I
thought, well, I am just going to get a
19 plumber because I don't know what's
20 happening here.
ai
MR. BEEDLE: Prior to the
2z leakage and you discovering it was 1'eaking
z3 through there, did you have any
24 indication, staining or anything, to
25 indicate that there might have been a
i (651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e�2cc�b50d86d$07d�2baabc00531
o� �3��-
i
M
z
3
4
s
6
�
s
9
io
il
12
13
14
Page 121
MR. SCHILLER: The mast head
could have failed and tipped.
MR. STAEHELI: The mast tip
could have failed and came off?
MR. SCHILLER: The mast heacl was
not off.
MR. STAEHELI: How do you know?
You weren't on the roof.
MR. SCHILLER: I was looking --
I was within a foot of it looking at it.
MR. STAEHELI: You just said the
mast had failed.
MR. SCHILLER: I said it could
have.
ls MR. STAEHELI: If the mast had
16 failed, would you have seen that?
17 MR. SCHILLER: It would have
18 beeri on the other side of my view.
19 MR. STAEHELI: Now, you have
20 said again, that the -- maybe you haven't
21 said this yet, the plumbing issues that
2z you have no idea when they were installed
23 in the basement were open and obvious.
24 Is that correct?
25 MR. SCHILLER: I have no idea
� t651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cccb50-48btlS07d-92baabc00531
'�J��'
Page 122
1 when the plumbing was done for that house.
z MR. STAEHELI: I understand
3 that, but when you walked,in in Angust of
4 2005 --
s
6
�
e
9
io
ii
12
13
�14
�
is
16
i�
is
MR. SCHILLER: No, I walked in
in July.
MR. STAEHELI: You walked in in
July of 2005.
MR. SCHILZER: It's important
because I was there twice.
MR. STAEHELI: I understand.
The first time or second time, because I'm
not actually thinking that the plumbing
changed, when you walked down there for
the first time, you saw it -- was the
plumbing problem open and obvious? I mean
Zell said --
MR. SCHILLER: Some of them
� were, yes.
zo MR. STAEHELI: Been Zell said
21 that they were just numerous and they were
2z everywliere .
23 MR. SCHILLER: They appeared to
24 be everywhere, yes.
zs MR. STAEHELI: So any competent
�(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cecb5018bd�07tl�92baabcD0531
o�����—
�
z
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
io
I1
zz
13
4
is
16
i�
is
19
zo
21
a2
23
24
ZS
� (651)
Page 99
Any other questions of Mr. Zell?
Thank you.
It`s all your's, Mr. Staeheli.
MR. STAEHELI: Okay. I think
we're going to do this in exact reverse
order. If Steve could come up, please.
Okay.
when was the plumlaing that was
improper install�d?
MR. SCHILLER: When was the
plumbing --
MR. STAEHELI: That was
improper.
MR, SCHILLEEt: That we took
pictures of that were installed at that
house?
MR. STAEHELI: Yes.
MR. SCHILLER; No idea.
MR, STAEHELI: Okay. A
Truth-in-Housing is a visual inspection,
is that correct, it`s only to look at
what's visible?
MR. SCHILLER: As I understand
it, correct.
MR. STAEHELT: We11, let`s see
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-855d toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e12cc�cb50�48bd�07d�92baabc00531
D(��3y�-
�
u
u
7
MFt. SCFIILLER: No, there was some
2 combinations.
3 Mft. STAEHELI: But basically most
q of the problem was with the PVC, xight?
5 MR. SCAILLER: 2'm saying there
6 was combinations and as I understand it
7 combinations is not a proper way of doing
8 plumbing.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2Q
25
MR. STAEHELI: That's fine. I
never mean to imply that I--
MR. SCHILLER: Whether it's a
little mix on the plumbing on materials or
a lot of mix on the plumbing materials,
that's what I have been told is not
correct.
MR. STAEHELI: If plumbing is
not prope.rly installed and is not glued
toqether, is it going to come apart sooner
or later?
MR. SCHILLER: I have no idea.
That's why I said I was suxprised.
MR. STAEHELI: Because you had no
idea how long it had there. It may have
been there a yeai. It may have been there
five years.
(651) 681-B550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll fsee
www.johnsonreporting.com
�
�(� - � u a-
�
1�.._.�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P42. SCHILLER: Cauld be.
ME2. STAEHELI: No idea when it
was installed at all.
MR. SCHILLER: Other than the
labels that were on some of the waste
lines that were from Knox Lumber and Knox
Lumber is just down the street from me a
half a mile from my house. I should have
bought stock when I bought my house and I
am very familiar with it and it went out
of business a number of years ago.
MR. STAEHELS: How long aie
fittinqs good for?
MR. SCHILLER: What kind of
fittings?
MR. STAEHELI: PVC fittings.
MR. SCHILLER: Fittings if
everything is properly installed --
MF. STAEHELI: No, S don't mean
installed. I mean in stock. If you
3aought them at Knox 15 years aqo could I
instaZl them tomorrow?
MR. SCHILLER: To the best of my
knowledge, yes, and that`s a disclaimer
because I am not a certified plumber.
(651) 681-8550 phone 1-87�-681-8550 to11 free
www.johnsonxeporting.com
�oo
�l� ' � �a
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
26
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no idea the condition it was in in April
of 2004, this is Page 129 of the
January lOth meeting, and your answer was
I cannot know something zf I have never
been there.
Is that coirect?
MFt. SCHILLER: Correct.
MR. STAEHELI: Do you stand by
that testimony?
MR. SCHII,I,ING: Riqht, I can
only tell you what I saw in late Suly of
2005.
MR. STAEHELI: The plumbing
issues you have no idea when they wete
installed in the basement were open and
obvious. Is that correct? I have no idea
when the plumbing was done for that house.
Is that your answer?
MS. PETERS: An exact time, no.
MR. STAEHELI: And then also we
were talking about earliet, and I kind oE
got to hurry this alonq, in your testimony
I asked you if the service head was right
next to the gutter and you said it was.
MR. SCHILLING: I said it was
(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
203
� � � � • 7
f 1
z
3
4
5
6
�
e
9
�o
ii
12
13
�4
is
16
i�
ia
19
20
21
sewer gas could have been.leaking from
open pipes in the wall? You did the
repair. I mean, you were able to see
inside the walls that I wasn't able to
see.
MR. ZELZ: Well, just a
clarification, the pipes that leaked from
the roof, we didn't even know if it was
connected to the venting, never was, but
we didn't know that until you go to pull
it out so you can't tell.
The pipes that were in the wall had
already come apart so the fittings -- yes,
they weren't glued, so as the vertical
sections fell which is why probably some
of it was back ditched, once the weight of
that pipe is now no longer connected, as
it falls it pushes the other pipe
backwards so now you have got back pitch
and you have an open pipe at the top.
MR. STAEHEI,I: But most of what
2z was causing the sewer gas or at least some
23 of what was causing the sewer gas in the
z4 house was completely inside the walls?
zs
� (651)
MR. ZELL: Sure.
681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
927e�2cccb50d8btlS07d�2baabc0053�
d1�-3�`�
�
�
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STAEHEI,2: For you?
MS. PETERS: No.
MF2. STAEHELI: Have you eves
hired me to do anything for you?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: How much money
have you paid me?
MS. PETERS: For what?
MR. STAEHELZ: For anything.
Have you ever paid me any money?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: Have you ever
called my office?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: Did you ever
solicit me or find me out in the world?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: Did you eve= call
me o£f a list of evaluators?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR, STAEHELI: Have you ever
approached me to do a Truth-In-Sale of
Housing iepoxt.
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHEI,I: Have I eves done
(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-661-855Q toll free
www.johnsonreporting.com
75
O l� - � y�-
�
L_ J
L.J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
one for -- never did one for any piior
properties that you sold or nevez seen me
be£oze August 1st?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STREHELI: And you never
asked me to do a TISH inspection.
When did you first see yous new
house?
MS. PETERS: I cou7.<3 probably
look at my notes.
MR. STAEHELI: Within a month.
MS. PETERS: I bought it in
September. I think I laoked at it in
August.
MR. STAEHELI: How lonq did it
take Zell to make the repairs to your
house? Fxom the day he started until the
day he was done, how long did it take to
replumb the whole house?
zp MS. PETERS: I think he was
21 there about a week.
z2 MR. STAEI3ELI: So he got it all
23 done in a week? To do it right, it took
24 him a week to get it done, right?
25 MS. PETERS: Yes.
(651) 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
wsaw.johnsonreporting.com
�
D� �3 ��-
���
�
` J
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
you can't remember the content, what was
your --
MF2. SCHILLER: There was not
shouting or get off my property ox
pessonal attacks on either sides, callinq
each other names or anything Iike that
that I would call a heated exchange. I
have seen heated exchanges before and this
was not a heated exchange.
M5. HANSON: Were voices raised?
MR. SCHILLER: Not in my
12 opinion, no.
13 MS. M6ERMOND: Mz. Beedle.
14 MR. BEEDLE: You said that you
15 had viewed the video, short os long
16 vezsion?
1� MR. SCHILLER; The short one.
18 ' MR. BEEDLE: In viewing that
I9 video, if yau secall, when you were down
20 in the basement and Bryce was down there
21 and/ox whoever else and Ron had gone
22 upstai=s and Annette Peters had been
23 downstairs but for whatever reason, and I
24 think she e�cplained that well, she went
2$ upstairs and she and Ron started talking,
{6511 681-8550 phone 2-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreportinq.com
DI�- ���-
Page 130
r
i
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
io
ii
12
13
�
15
16
z�
is
19
ao
zi
z2
23
MR. SCHIZLER: I cannot know
something if I have.never been there.
MR. STAEHELI: I appreciate it
and I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.
MR. SCHILLER: Anything else?
MR. STAEHELI: No. I would like
to call Annette back please.
Was it me who called you and said
they worked for the City attorney's
office?
MS. PETERS: No.
MR. STAEHELI: Thank you.
Now, you had a buyer's inspection
done by Premier Inspections.
Is that correct?
MS. PETERS: Yes.
MR. STAEHELI: The buyer
inspector -- who knew that you had a
buyer's inspection by Premier Inspections.
MS. PETERS: The -- I explained
it to the caller that represented herself
as Susan Brown from the City Attorney's
Office.
z4 MR. STAEHEI,I: I mean way
25 before, September of 2004, excuse me for
�(651} 681-8550 phone 1-877-681-8550 toll free
www.johnsonreporting,com
927e12cccb50-08bd�07d�2baabc0053
1._ J
American
Central
Inspections
Service
4300 Blackhawk Rd. Eagan, MN 55122
Ron Staeheli, owner
Jim Reiter
TISH Board member
c/o Connie Sandborg, Program Clerk
Mr. Reiter
Voice: (651) 293-0100
Faa: (651)405-0674
Cell: (612) 86,5-2004
��-��{�
This letter is to respectfully request that you exclude yourself from the upcoming TISH
Board hearing as it regards staff complaints against me.
Your pulilic statement at the October 12, 2005 TISH Board meeting about what the
discipline for this complaint should be, comments to 'City Council Members, active work
to create compiaints against me by investigating my business, lobbying the Mayor to veto
� the granting of my appeal by the City Council, are all reasons that you can not now sit in
judgment of ine.
You of course can reject this request to remove yourself but it will become a subject of my
appeal of any subsequent discipiine that my come to pass as a result of the upcoming
hearing. I would think thai in an effort to respect your fellow Board members and theu
time you would try to limit the number of issues that I will be able to use in any appeal.
If you do attend I will enter this letter into the record or you could save yourself 3-4 hours
on a cold January night and do the right thing.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
� ����
Ron Staeheli
�
�
American
Central
Inspections
Service
4300 Biackhawk Rd. Eagan, MN 55122
Ron Staeheli, owner
Gerald Beedle
TISH Board Chair
clo Connie Sandborg, Program Clerk
Mr. Beedle,
Voice: (651) 293-0100
Fax: (651) 4Q5-0674
Cell: (612} 865-2004
D(�
This letter is to respectfully request that you exclude yourself from the upcoming TISH Board
hearing as it regards staffcomplaints against me.
Your many public statements at the October 12, 2005 TISH Board meeting about what the
discipline for this complaint should be ("hitch hiking down the road"), other comments from
the chair at Board meetings, comments before the City Council, lobbying the Mayor to veto
� the granting of my appeal by the City Council, public acknowledgement of your inability to
run a disciplinary hearing, are al1 reasons that you can not now sit in judgment of ine.
You of course can reject this request to remove yourself but it will become a subject of my
appeal of any subsequent discipline that my come to pass as a result of the upcoming hearing,
I would think that in an effort to respect your fellow Board members and their time you would
try to limit the number of issues that I will be able to use in any appeal.
If you choose to ignore this request and attend the hearing I will enter this letter into the
record. In the altemative you could saue yourself 3-4 hours on a cold January night and do the
right thing.
Thaak you for your time and consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
C=_ ��c + �* - � - �?g���'� -��
� Ron Staeheli