ALJDEC

00F-F0269-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-03-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 8, 2000, January 23 and February 16, 2001. APPEARANCES: COMPLAINANTS: Brian and Jana Shea, with representation by Fritz Aspey, Esq. RESPONDENT: Rommel Shamalta, sole proprietor.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Anthony Halas _____________________________________________________________________

Hearing was convened to determine whether Respondent violated state law as alleged by Complainant and as cited by the Registrar of Contractors. Evidence and testimony were presented, and based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 1. Complainants Brian and Jana Shea (the Sheas) own their residence at 3460 East Mountain Man Trail, in Williams, Arizona. 2. Respondent Rommel Shamalta (Shamalta) is a sole proprietor dba Shamalta Construction, holder of Arizona Contractor’s License No. 131660, Class B, issued by the Registrar of Contractors on September 14, 1998. 3. In June, 1999, the Sheas contracted with Shamalta to have his company rebuild their home on the proceeds of their insurance coverage after the original dwelling burned. The contract price was $117,300.00 4. After work on the home had begun, but before its completion, the Sheas filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 24, 2000, alleging a number of deficiencies in workmanship. 5. After a jobsite inspection on March 14, 2000 by the Registrar’s Inspector Schweiger with Complainants and Respondent present, the inspector issued a Corrective Work Order on April 4, 2000 [although dated March 4] (CWO I), directing Respondent to correct certain items. 6. On April 18, 2000, Complainants filed an amendment to the complaint listing additional workmanship deficiencies. 7. On May 2, 2000, Inspector Schweiger conducted a second jobsite inspection, again in the presence of Complainants and Respondent, after which he issued a second Corrective Work Order on May 22, 2000, directing Respondent to correct limited additional items. 8. When the matters complained of by the Sheas were not resolved to their satisfaction, they requested an administrative hearing. 9. On September 27, 2000, the Registrar of Contractors issued CITATION AND COMPLAINT in Case No. F00-0269 to Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.3 (and A.A.C. R4-9-108, the workmanship rule), A.7, A.10, A.17 and A.23. 10. On October 4, 2000, Respondent timely filed his written answer, contending that he had complied with and completed all items, and that the work had been passed by the city of Williams. 11. On December 6, 2000, Inspector Schweiger conducted a pre-hearing jobsite inspection, with Complainants present in person, and Respondent present telephonically. 12. Hearing was scheduled and convened on December 8, 2000, with further hearings on January 23 and February 16, 2001. During the course of those proceedings, Inspector Schweiger appeared and testified; Complainants appeared, represented by counsel, and offered testimony and evidence (Exhibits 1 - 9, including photos and videotape); and Respondent appeared, on his own behalf, and offered testimony and evidence (Exhibits A - K, including photos). Objections to certain of the exhibits were overruled by the undersigned as going to the weight to be accorded a particular exhibit, rather than to admissibility, and the documents were marked, admitted, and duly considered, to the extent relevant, material, and probative.

EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS: Based on the record, which is comprised of testimony, evidence, and administrative notice of documents compiled in the file maintained by the Registrar, the following evidentiary findings are made[1]: 13. Initially, the undersigned notes that Respondent Shamalta expressed concern throughout the course of these proceedings that many, if not all, of the items complained of by Complainants Shea would have been completed in due course, since the work under the contract was not yet completed as a whole. However, as Inspector Schweiger made clear in his testimony, his directives (CWO I and CWO II) addressed only those items of the work in place which were determined at the times of his inspections to require corrective action - rather than mere completion - in order to meet the minimum workmanship standards recognized by the Registrar of Contractors. 14. In addition, Respondent Shamalta also sought to interject, throughout these proceedings, concerns for breach of contract and for non- payment of monies he alleged to be due from the Complainants or the insurance proceeds funding the rebuilding of the house. While Respondent may have reason to be concerned about the manner, extent, and status of the funding available for payment under the terms of his contract with Complainants (which contract generally required payment in advance of particular work, rather than upon completion), and may choose to pursue those concerns in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the undersigned finds, consistent with rulings made on the record, that Respondent’s concerns do not constitute a defense relevant to any corrective action determined to be necessary on the evidence of record.

15. CWO I, p.1, Item E, ROOF SHINGLES. A. 1. Inspector Schweiger testified that as of his most recent inspection on December 6, 2000 (upon which, together with his two prior inspections, all his observations were premised), the roof shingles still presented in an aesthetically unacceptable “two-tone” or “checkerboard” color, and required action by Respondent pursuant to the manufacturer’s written statement of December 6, 1999 (Exhibit A). 2. Inspector Schweiger also noted that certain of the roof shingles had “flipped”, indicating they were no longer properly adhered to the roof, and others were missing. For that reason, he did not consider those shingles to meet minimum workmanship standards such that appropriate corrective action by Respondent was required. B. 1. and 2. Complainant Brian Shea testified, and relied on the October 23, 2000 report (Exhibit 1, p.5, and photos #3 and #4 ) and testimony of Larry Cepek, P.E., to contend that the shingles were not of uniform color, were improperly nailed in relation to the factory-applied adhesive, and that some shingles were missing and others had flipped. C. 1. and 2. In his testimony, Respondent Shamalta referenced photographs (Exhibit B) and demonstrated the type of shingle used, to explain why he believed the shingles had been properly nailed and installed, but for possible manufacturing defects in the color of the shingles. He queried whether Complainants had contacted the manufacturer to replace the mis-colored shingles, asserting the responsibility was theirs, not his, since it was a manufacturing defect not within his control. Shamalta also surmised that the shingles would not flip or be missing unless by some intentional act of others. D. 1. The undersigned finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the mis-colored appearance of the roof shingles, while an aesthetic concern, is significant and contrary to minimum standards, thereby requiring correction as a responsibility to be borne by Respondent. Such responsibility may simply require his notification to the manufacturer, and/or may require other or additional means and methods of remediation by Respondent in order to meet minimum standard. 2. The undersigned finds on this evidence that the flipped and missing shingles do not meet minimum workmanship standards and require corrective action by Respondent in order to meet such standards.

16. CWO I, p.1, Exterior: Item #1, SIDING. A. Inspector Schweiger stated the siding appeared to be cracked at joints, excessively bulged and rippled, and irregularly nailed, with “shiners” observed where the nails did not hit the framing behind the siding. Although he noted that some aspects of the siding had been addressed, the inspector opined that the deficiencies he described did not meet workmanship standards and required corrective action by Respondent. In light of Respondent’s assertion that the siding might be damaged by weathering of the framing due to exposure, the inspector further noted that it generally remained the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that work in place and in progress was protected from the elements. B. Complainant Shea testified, and relied on photographs (Exhibit 4), videotape (Exhibit 5) and the report (Exhibit 1, p.4 and photos #5, #6, and #7) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, to contend that the siding was delaminating, splitting, and checking, with erratic nailing, and insufficient caulking. C. Respondent Shamalta testified and demonstrated a segment of the type of 5/8” siding used. He also referenced photographs (Exhibits B and C) to assert that the siding was essentially good, except for possible weathering, the result of exposure of the siding and framing materials to the elements over the length of time construction remained uncompleted. Because he believed the delay was Complainants’ responsibility, he concluded that any weathering damage to the residence was also Complainants’ responsibility D. The undersigned finds that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the siding exhibits extensive deficiencies in workmanship, including excessive bulging, rippling, delamination, and joint separation, loose nails, and insufficient caulking at the door and window trim and fascia joints, some of which may be attributable to weathering, but all of which are contrary to minimal workmanship standards and the responsibility of Respondent, such that appropriate corrective action is required.

17. CWO I, p. 2, Exterior: Item #4, PAINT. A. Inspector Schweiger opined that the original exterior paint was significantly “eggshelled” in texture and appearance, contrary to minimum standards, and that the limited attempts at touch-up he had observed were not effective, but only resulted in a “polka-dot” effect, all such that corrective action by Respondent was necessary. B. Complainant Shea testified, and relied on photographs (Exhibit 4), videotape of the exterior (Exhibit 5), and the report (Exhibit 1, p.4 and photos #5, #6, and #7) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, to contend that the exterior painting was thin, peeling in places, and did not appear to have been properly primed. C. Respondent Shamalta testified to state that two coats of primer and two good quality coats of exterior paint had been applied to the siding and exterior of the house. By reference to a segment of siding, he asserted that its rough texture would always result in a paint texture that could be called “eggshelled”, but that such a result was not less than industry standard or otherwise unacceptable. To that end, he referenced the February 12, 2000 statement of Dwayne Beulke (Exhibit H), a paint store manager, who had viewed the paint on the residence and considered it to be sound and firmly adhered, such that the “alligator” effect was only cosmetic and could be rectified by placing another coat of paint on top. D. The undersigned finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the exterior paint fails to meet minimal standards of workmanship and requires appropriate correction by Respondent.

18. CWO I , p.3, Hall bath: Item #1, TUB AREA. A. Inspector Schweiger confirmed that he could not determine any violation in reference to the size of the tub area, but did observe that wall backing had not been installed, as required, and that the shower surround installation did not meet industry standard, such that corrective action was required. B. Complainant Shea testified, and relied on the October 23, 2000 report (Exhibit 1, p.7, miscellaneous item 1) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, to contend that the hall tub-and-shower surround had been poorly notched and not properly trimmed. C. Respondent Shamalta testified and referenced a photograph (Exhibit D) to assert that the tub area was completed to meet minimum workmanship standards. D. The undersigned finds that the hall bath tub area requires corrective action by Respondent in order that the wall backing be installed to meet minimum standards, and in order that the shower surround installation and trim, as completed, be finished in a workmanlike manner.

19. CWO I , p.4, (Hall bath) Item #4, BOWED STUDS, and, CWO I , p.4, (Den) Item #2, BOWED STUDS, and CWO I , p.5, (Overall) Item #2, TRUSS BRACING. A. Inspector Schweiger stated that some of the bowed studs appeared to have been corrected but for studs at the south end of the east/west run of the residence which were still bowed in excess of ¼” and therefore in excess of workmanship standard, requiring correction by Respondent. He stated that the “diamond” framing area of the eaves in that section of the house did not meet standard, requiring correction by Respondent. In addition, the inspector noted that several doors had been installed with a 2x4” jamb in a 2x6” frame, contrary to standard. He also stated that the truss bracing item was related to the Rigid Ceiling not yet installed and therefore not yet work in place, such that the truss bracing did not require corrective action at this time. B. Complainants Shea testified, and relied on videotape of the interior (Exhibit 6), and the report (Exhibit 1, p.6 and photos #8, #9, and #10) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, as well as the April 18 and November 16, 2000 proposals (Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively) and testimony of licensed contractor Wayne Koscisko, to contend that certain of the bowed and defective studs had been replaced, but that other studs and framing still remained bowed, out of plumb, or otherwise contrary to standard. Complainants also contended that five roofing trusses did not bear sufficiently on the wall between the master bedroom and the den, and that at that location the wall width improperly changed from 2x4” to 2x6”. Complainants contend these items are contrary to workmanship and industry standards and require correction. C. Respondent Shamalta testified and referenced photographs (Exhibits I, J, and K) to assert that the framing, roof trusses, and bracing met workmanship and industry standard, and had been passed by the city inspector, such that any weathering damage occurring over time since then was Complainants’ responsibility. D. The undersigned finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the wood framing and roof trusses fail to meet workmanship and industry standard, notwithstanding possible approval by the city inspector. Specifically, as set forth in the observations and recommendations of professional engineer Cepek in his report (Exhibit 1), at page 6, appropriate action is required by Respondent to correct: bowed walls; walls out of plumb; missing drywall nailers; missing bathroom blocking for accessories and cabinets; missing header trimmers at mechanical room; no truss support headers at bedroom hallway doors; defective studs; door rough openings out of plumb and too small; missing firestopping around pipes and electrical lines between the living space and the attic; missing truss-bottom cord 2x4” bracing; improperly framed attic access openings; interior framing greater than 24” on center in one location; and five roof trusses not fully bearing on the supporting wall between the master bedroom and the den. In addition, corrective action is required by Respondent to address non-standard wall width and door framing changes from 2x4” to 2x6”.

20. CWO I , p.5, (Overall) Item #3, CONCRETE FLOOR. A. Inspector Schweiger opined that the concrete floor exceeded industry standard for level by greater than ¼” per ten feet due to numerous dips and bumps in excess of that tolerance, despite indications that some remedial work of limited effect had been done prior to his most recent inspection. He stated that appropriate corrective action was required by Respondent to meet workmanship standards regarding the floor level. With regard to the cracks he observed, the inspector opined they did not exceed the 3/32” width allowed and therefore did not require corrective action. B. Complainant Shea testified, and relied on videotape of the interior (Exhibit 6), and the report (Exhibit 1, pp.2 and 3, and photo #2) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, and the proposal (Exhibit 2) and testimony of licensed contractor Koscisko, to contend that the concrete floor exceeded workmanship standards for both variance from level (with poor patching) and that the extent of shrinkage and cracking was excessive. C. Respondent Shamalta conceded that additional remedial work might be necessary to float certain areas of the floor level, but testified and referenced photographs (Exhibit E) to assert that the concrete floor was well-poured and within industry and workmanship standards; that his patching materials were of appropriate high quality; and that he had greatly exceeded plan requirements with regard to the overall foundation and concrete slab. D. The undersigned finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the concrete floor has areas which do not meet the ¼” tolerance per ten feet established as the maximum allowable variance from level sufficient to meet the workmanship standard. For that reason, appropriate corrective action is required by Respondent to address the floor level. However, the evidence is found insufficient to demonstrate cracking in excess of workmanship standards, such that the cracking does not require corrective action.

21. CWO I , p.5, (Overall) Item #6, REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF HVAC SYSTEM.

A. On the information available at the time of his jobsite inspections, Inspector Schweiger referenced, in CWO I, Complainants’ concerns regarding installation of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, but did not direct that Respondent take particular corrective action. B. Complainant Shea testified, and relied on videotape of the interior (Exhibit 6), and the report (Exhibit 1, p.7, and photo #12) and testimony of Mr. Cepek, to contend that: the heating return-air opening is much smaller than the supply opening; the plans call for all heating ducts to be sheet metal, but most were of flexible plastic; the 9x22” supply duct narrows to a 14” diameter duct; the return duct system was incomplete or missing; and the children’s bedroom was improperly vented to and from the water heater room. C. Respondent Shamalta testified, and presented documents (Exhibits F and G) and testimony by Juan DeSoto, his licensed HVAC subcontractor on this residence, to assert that the HVAC installation was accomplished per plan in November, 1999, met applicable code and workmanship standards, and had passed city inspection. DeSoto described significant experience in the trade, although he conceded he had not previously installed HVAC systems in a northern Arizona residence. DeSoto acknowledged that the plan specified sheet metal ducting but explained why he had bid and installed primarily flexible ducting to reduce expense. He stated the return duct system was in the hall ceiling and under the furnace, rather than missing or incomplete, and he denied wrong-sized ductwork. DeSoto stated that, per code (see Exhibit F), the water heater venting was sealed to outside air and therefore did not vent into the children’s bedroom. D. The undersigned finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent, through his HVAC subcontractor, installed flexible ducting instead of the sheet metal ducting required by plan, such that Respondent is responsible for appropriate corrective action to comply with the plan. The undersigned further finds that the evidence does not demonstrate, by a preponderance, other violations of code, plan or workmanship relative to the HVAC systems, such that no other corrective action is necessary. 22. The undersigned further finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent’s failure to meet workmanship standards has resulted in substantial injury to Complainants due to delay and additional costs incurred to correct.

23. LICENSING STATUS OF SUBCONTRACTORS.

A. Inspector Schweiger provided additional testimony to explain his review of the licensing information maintained by the Registrar of Contractors relative to the subcontractors used by Respondent Shamalta on the Shea residence. Based on that review, the inspector determined that the subcontractor retained by Respondent for the concrete work was unlicensed at the time that work was done. The inspector was unable to verify the licensing status of Jesus Romero, as the electrical subcontractor, in relation to his work on the Shea residence. He did determine to his satisfaction that the HVAC and plumbing subcontractors were properly licensed for their respective trades at the time the work was done. B. Complainant Jana Shea testified to explain information she had obtained in researching the licensing status of Respondent’s subcontractors. 1. This information included lien waivers for her residence from Art Flores, for “carpentry labor only framing work” (Exhibit 7) and from several individuals for “concrete/rebar labor work only pouring footings” (Exhibit 8). Ms. Shea considered these lien waivers to indicate that the individuals were acting in the capacity of subcontractors for the framing and concrete, rather than employees of Respondent. She believed this to be corroborated by information she had been provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security indicating that Respondent Shamalta had declared no employees for purposes of unemployment insurance in 1999. 2. Ms. Shea referenced the December 26, 2000 letter of Donald Chatfield (Exhibit 9), executive director of Primavera Builders, a licensed residential and commercial contractor. In his letter, Mr. Chatfield indicated that Jesus Romero became the qualifying party for the company’s electrical license in October, 1998, but was only authorized to do electrical work on houses that were part of the company’s programs funded by City of Tucson and Pima County. She therefore contended that in performing electrical work for Respondent Shamalta on her residence in northern Arizona, Mr. Romero was acting outside any authority as a licensed electrical contractor. C. Respondent Shamalta testified to explain his understanding of the licensing status of the tradesmen working on the Shea residence. 1. Shamalta believed that the carpentry framer (Flores) was licensed, but could not confirm that, and that the concrete tradesman, or men, had been licensed at the time of their work on the Shea house, with that license only later suspended. 2. Shamalta stated that Romero had represented himself to be a licensed electrical contractor such that Shamalta only learned after the fact that the man might not have been authorized to work on the Shea residence. D. By greater than a preponderance of the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that the individuals performing the framing, concrete, and electrical work were not employees of Respondent Shamalta, and were therefore subcontractors on the Shea residence. The undersigned further finds that, at all times relevant for work done on that residence, the individuals performing the framing and concrete work were unlicensed subcontractors, and the individual performing the electrical work was an unlicensed subcontractor because he was acting outside the authority of the licensed electrical contractor for whom he was qualifying party. 24. As set forth in the CITATION AND COMPLAINT issued by the Registrar, Respondent Shamalta was advised that in the event of a finding of a violation, Respondent’s prior disciplinary record of final Registrar of Contractors’ orders may be considered in mitigation or aggravation. Accordingly, subsequent to conclusion of the instant hearing, notice was taken of official records of the Registrar of Contractors regarding any prior final disciplinary orders against Respondent and said notice revealed that the instant complaint was the only complaint on the Registrar of Contractors’ current record regarding Respondent, whose license was issued in September, 1998. Therefore, Respondent’s prior record is properly deemed to be viewed as a matter in mitigation for any disciplinary penalties to be imposed as a direct result of violations of the Arizona contracting laws.

APPLICABLE LAW The CITATION AND COMPLAINT issued by the Registrar of Contractors charged Respondent with possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.3 (and A.A.C. R4-9-108, the workmanship rule), A.7, A.10, A.17 and A.23. Those statutory sections require that a holder of a license or a person listed on a license shall not commit the following: 3. Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar. … 7. The doing of a wrongful or fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured. … 10. Aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person to evade this chapter, knowingly combining or conspiring with a licensed or unlicensed person, allowing one’s license to be used by a licensed or unlicensed person or acting as agent, partner, associate or otherwise of a licensed or unlicensed person with intent to evade this chapter. … 17. Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee. … 23. Failure to take corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving written directive from the Registrar.

A.A.C. R4-9-108 is named as the rule violation charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.3. That rule provides that all work shall be done in a professional and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et. seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154. 2. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated any one, or more, of the statutory sections cited. Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990). 3. On careful consideration of this record, the undersigned concludes that a preponderance of the relevant, material, and probative evidence demonstrates that Respondent Shamalta has violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154.A.3, and the workmanship rule, A.A.C. R4-9-108, as specifically found hereinabove in Findings of Fact 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. To address those specified deficiencies, appropriate, effective, and workmanlike corrective action is required by Respondent. 4. The undersigned further concludes that the evidence demonstrates that Respondent Shamalta was without valid justification in failing to take greater corrective action to address those workmanship deficiencies within a reasonable period of time after the Registrar’s directive to do so in the Corrective Work Order issued on April 4, 2000. A violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154.A.23 has therefore been proven. 5. While a licensed contractor is not entitled to an endless series of opportunities to rectify construction errors, the undersigned concludes that Respondent Shamalta has not forfeited his entitlement to undertake and complete all corrections found to be necessary after hearing, despite the evident deterioration in the relationship of the parties. Consequently, and consistent with the Registrar’s long-standing policy, Respondent should be afforded one, and only one, more opportunity to accomplish the extensive remedial work necessary on this residence, with disciplinary suspension of the license contingent on such timely and workmanlike accomplishment. 6. Relative to the foregoing conclusion, it is noted that the Registrar of Contractors cannot order a trespass to provide a contractor access to perform required corrective action. Therefore, should there be an unreasonable refusal to allow appropriate work to go forward by Respondent or licensed subcontractors under his authority and direction, by means and methods of the contractor’s choice reasonably directed to meet the standards of workmanship mandated by the Registrar, then in such an event, such refusal may be deemed to demonstrate Respondent’s compliance with the necessary corrective action. 7. Because Respondent’s failure to have met minimum standards of workmanship and failure to have taken appropriate corrective action in a timely manner to meet such standards is determined to be wrongful, and to have resulted in substantial injury to Complainants in costs of both time and money, it is concluded that Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154A.7. 8. In addition, the undersigned concludes that Respondent Shamalta knew or should have known that certain of the tradesman he retained to work on this project were not licensed in those trades by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, such that he aided or abetted unlicensed persons in evading the Arizona contracting laws. Therefore, a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154.A.10 has been proven. 9. Finally, and notwithstanding Respondent Shamalta’s use of unlicensed subcontractors, it is determined by the undersigned that the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of his Class B contracting license. Therefore, no violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.17 has been proven.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order entered in this matter (thirty- five days after issuance), that the Class B license of Respondent Shamalta be suspended until and unless the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that Respondent has accomplished appropriate, effective, and workmanlike action to correct those items determined above in Conclusion of Law 3. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if Respondent accomplishes the required work in a competent and workmanlike manner on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, or is unreasonably denied access for such purpose, the above license suspension shall not take place. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, in addition to the foregoing, any continuation or restoration of Respondent’s contracting rights shall be subject to a condition that Respondent first post an additional surety bond, cash deposit or alternative deposit for a period of 24 months, including future renewal periods, in the amount of $1000.00, such bond or deposit to be in addition to the required surety bond, cash deposit or recovery fund participation set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1152. Cash or alternative additional deposits, if utilized, shall be returned only after the expiration of an additional two year period following the above- provided 24 month period and only if no claims are then pending. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, that Respondent pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1154(D). The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty, on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent , as defined in A.R.S. §32-1101A(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. Done this day, March 15, 2001.

______________________________________ Anthony Halas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

----------------------- [1] To the extent possible, for those items which remain at issue, testimony and evidence were taken consistent with the format adopted by Inspector Schweiger in CWO I. If an item in CWO I is addressed below, then it has been determined to still be at issue. If not addressed below, then any such item has been determined on the record to have been corrected, resolved, or no longer at issue. With regard to CWO II, it has been determined on the record that the few items therein have been corrected or are no longer at issue such that CWO II has become moot for purposes of this proceeding.

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826