ALJDEC

01F-1825-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 5 and 6, 2001. APPEARANCES: The Complainant, Donald J. Lenkszus, appeared personally. Respondent Echo Tile and Stone, Inc., was represented by its attorney, D. Reid Garrey, Esq. Respondent Gold Crest Homes, Inc., was represented by its president and qualifying party, Rodger Robert Larsen. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The above entitled matters were consolidated for the purpose of hearing, since both involved the same basic issues of fact and entailed the use of the same witnesses and evidence. 2. Respondent Echo Tile and Stone, Inc., (“Echo”) is the holder of License No. 145074, a Class C-48 Ceramic, Plastic and Metal Tile contractor license, issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 3. Respondent Gold Crest Homes, Inc., (“Gold Crest”) is the holder of License No. 151161, a Class B General Residential contractor license, issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 4. On or about July 3, 1999, Complainant and his wife entered into a written agreement for the purchase of a residence under construction by Respondent Gold Crest as the general contractor. That written agreement was subsequently amended twice. 5. The Complainant’s residence is located in Carefree, Arizona. 6. Complainant’s contract with Gold Crest provided, among other things, that completion of all construction was conditioned upon Complainant’s subjective approval. 7. Complainant paid Gold Crest approximately $610,000.00 for the 3,100 sq. ft. concrete constructed residence.

Tile and Grout Issues Common to Echo and Gold Crest

8. Gold Crest hired Respondent Echo to install interior and exterior Travertine floor tiles and grout. 9. Travertine tiles are a natural stone material with unique visual characteristics. Matching tiles from one lot to another can be difficult. 10. Gold Crest knew that Echo had recently obtained its Class C-48 license at the time it was hired to doing the tile installations. 11. After moving into the completed residence, Complainant noticed excessive numbers of interior and exterior floor tiles cracking. 12. Echo removed and replaced in excess of 100 cracked interior and exterior floor tiles. However, floor tiles continued to crack in excessive numbers. Prior to Echo performing a second series of floor tile repairs, Echo refused to perform any additional tile repair work unless it received a waiver from Gold Crest, which it did receive, because Echo believed that the additional repairs would also fail due to problems with the concrete substrate which were not foreseeable when it performed its original installation. That waiver is binding upon Echo and Gold Crest, but not upon Complainant. 13. Complainant subsequently filed complaints against both Echo and Gold Crest with the Registrar of Contractors regarding deficient workmanship issues on the house. 14. In response to the filed complaints, the Registrar’s assigned inspector performed a jobsite inspection on February 14, 2001 to view the areas of alleged deficient workmanship. 15. As a result of the February 14, 2001 jobsite inspection, the inspector issued separate corrective work orders to Echo and Gold Crest, the latter having received an order including items beyond the tile and grout issues which will be discussed later. Those corrective work orders required the Respondents to timely perform remedial repairs to the following areas of deficient workmanship:

a) Cracked tiles on backyard patio. b) Inappropriate grout color used in repairs and surface fill for replaced tiles. c) Rough edges on tiles that are exposed at base, back-splash and various spots at deco drain. d) Damage to pebble finish of spa. e) Office patio tiles that are cracked and/or hollow. f) Lippage, different heights and reveals on back-splashes, base and counters. g) Grout on tiles and deco drain. h) Cracked tiles inside house. i) Missing tile in bath cabinet.

The inspector opined that the hollow sounding tiles on the patio off the bathroom were acceptable because they were neither cracking nor loose. 16. As a result of the first inspection the inspector was unable to tell if the exterior tile cracking was the result of a concrete problem. He saw no visible evidence of thermal expansion. He did observe approximately 50’ of installed exterior tile without expansion joints. Inside the residence the inspector observed approximately 14 cracked floor tiles. 17. On April 3, 2001, the Registrar’s inspector performed a second jobsite inspection. The second inspection resulted in a second corrective work order dated April 5, 2001 issued to Gold Crest only. That corrective work order ordered, among other things, Gold Crest to correct additional cracked floor tiles inside the residence and on the rear patio. 18. It is determined that Gold Crest caused Echo to repair the garden area patio located outside Complainant’s home office pursuant to the second corrective order. However, those repairs are found not to meet minimum workmanship standards because the tile cuts do not follow the radius of the concrete substrate. Further remedial repairs are required so that the tile installation at that area meets minimum workmanship standards. 19. There is no forensic evidence from any of the parties establishing the definitive cause or causes of the extensive reoccurring cracking of the interior and exterior floor tiles. Such forensic evidence is deemed necessary for determining the cause of the continuing damage to the interior and exterior floor tiles. 20. Echo’s use of grout in its repairs to the original tile installation does not match the original grout color and is found to be substandard. 21. The color of the tile used by Echo in its remedial repairs to the rear patio is found to be within acceptable tolerance. 22. Echo should have been on notice that there were serious interior and exterior substrate problems after it removed over 100 tiles. At one point Echo refused to perform any additional repair work unless it received a waiver from Gold Crest, which it did receive, because Echo believed that the additional repairs would also fail due to problems with the substrate. That waiver is binding upon Echo and Gold Crest, but not upon Complainant. 23. The rear patio tiles installed by Echo must be removed as well as the concrete substrate installed by Gold Crest. A new concrete substrate must then be installed to minimum workmanship standards. New Travertine tiles must then be installed with uniform grout lines and color. The Travertine tiles shall be uniform in appearance with no excessive lippage. 24. Remedial work needs to be performed to the interior of Complainant’s home to determine the cause of the continuing cracking of tiles. Appropriate remedial repairs must be performed to assure that the tile installation meets minimum workmanship standards. 25. The required remedial repairs are extensive. Complainant obtained an estimate from Saban Tile, Marble & Granite (“Saban”), a licensed contractor. Saban proposed the removal and replacement of the interior floor tile, including sealer and crack membrane, at a cost of $21,352.00. Saban further proposed the removal and replacement of all tile on the rear patio and 6” base with crack membrane, but excluding concrete repairs and sealing, at a cost of $32,383.00. 26. The extent of the required remedial work to the exterior and interior floor tiles and substrates will make Complainant’s residence uninhabitable during those repairs. 27. Complainant is found to have provided reasonable access to both Echo and Gold Crest. Complainant eventually did deny Echo access due to several events. Echo took an excessive length of time to perform remedial repairs which never did solve the cracking tile problem. Despite Complainant’s request for prior notice and approval for access to the property after he and his wife occupied the residence, Echo’s president and qualifying party, David William Crawford, gained access to Complainant’s backyard without notice or permission and startled Complainant’s wife as she exited her shower. Such a trespass cannot be condoned or excused. 28. Echo’s failure to perform the above-described work to minimum workmanship standards and the trespass committed by Mr. Crawford are deemed to be wrongful acts which substantially injured Complainant and his wife. 29. Complainant will not allow Echo to perform any additional work, in large part, because of the criminal history of Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford was at one time charged with a felony burglary charge which was later reduced to an undesignated felony. Complainant’s emphatic reluctance to allow Echo back onto his property to perform further remedial repairs in light of the backyard incident involving Mr. Crawford’s trespass coupled with his criminal history is found not to be unreasonable.

Issues Unique to Gold Crest

30. In addition to the above-described deficient tile work, the Registrar’s February 16, 2001 corrective work order required Gold Crest to comply with the following directives:

A-1: Exterior paint job inadequate. Contractor to correct by appropriate means any area of the house and fences where full paint coverage is not provided or where wall or surface is multicolored by virtue of paint failure or inappropriate touch-up. A-2: Deterioration of exterior door finish including door jambs and thresholds. The peeling and breakdown of the finish is far in excess of what would be expected. The breakdown is to such a degree that the integrity of the wood is in jeopardy. Contractor agreed to correct by appropriate means as per jobsite agreement. A-3: Paint job inside house is substandard. Homeowner had repainted much of interior prior to inspection. As per jobsite agreement contractor will pay homeowner $1,000.00 for interior painting deficiencies and for interior and garage drywall qualify complaint as resolution for these complaints. A-4: Caulking needed at doors and windows. As per jobsite agreement contractor will correct by appropriate means voids at window frames and adjacent surfaces. After this one time remedy, this will become a homeowner maintenance issue. A-5: Unfilled nail holes in door trims. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. B-6: Stucco is incomplete and inadequate. As per jobsite agreement, contractor to correct substandard cracking at house and fences by appropriate means. Stucco coverage was adequate. B-7: Stucco cracked at eyebrow overhangs. Contractor to correct by appropriate means per jobsite agreement. C-8: Improper compaction, cracked floor tiles. Contractor to correct by appropriate means all cracked floor tiles. Compaction deficiency was not established, no action required. C-9: Ground compaction or footers inadequate at exterior fence walls, walls have moved and cracked. Contractor to correct cracks and separation from house of front fence wall by appropriate means. Compaction and/or footer failure was not established. C-10: Possible compaction problems under house or patio. This was not verified. Contractor to comply with all sections of this corrective work order for floor tile cracks and wall/stucco cracks. D-11: Doors have missing and broken/damaged trim. Trim missing at front door, at base of doors and some patching is inadequate. Contractor to correct by appropriate means all missing, damaged and poorly patched trim. D-12: Garage door trim not secure nor reasonably tight to door. Contractor to correct by appropriate means as per jobsite inspection. D-13: Exterior door lock broken. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. D-14: Bathroom exterior door leaks. Contractor to determine cause and correct by appropriate means. D-15: Garage window leaks and skylight by roof condensing unit has water between domes. Contractor to determine cause and correct by appropriate means. D-16: Unfinished drywall patch around sprinkler door in garage. Homeowner will complete drywall work as part of $1,000.00 settlement previously mentioned and contractor will provide a more appropriate door per jobsite agreement. D-17: Overhead garage door noisy. Contractor, per jobsite agreement, will correct by appropriate means. D-18: Severe wall damage due to leakage at window/wall of west bedroom. Contractor to determine cause and correct by appropriate means. E-19: Improper sheetrock/plastering inside and voids above shower, cracks in great-room and master bedroom ceilings. Homeowner will correct drywall/plaster deficiencies as part of $1,000.00 settlement agreement previously outlined. Great-room ceiling painting was excluded from the settlement. E-20 E-21: Interior plaster not workmanlike and repairs to plaster needed due to door repairs. Homeowner agreed to complete as part of $1,000.00 settlement agreement. F-22: Tile problems. Contractor to correct by appropriate means the following:

1. Cracked tiles on patio. 2. Inappropriate grout color used in repairs and surface fill for replaced tiles. 3. Rough edges on tiles that are exposed at base, backsplashes and various spots at deco-drain. 4. Poor workmanship on backsplashes, base and counters. (Lippage, different heights and reveals). 5. Grout on tiles and deco drain. 6. Damage to pebble finish of spa.

Note: Hollow sounding tiles are acceptable if solidly bonded. F-23: Hollow sounding tiles on patio off bathroom. No cracking or loose tiles observed. No action required. F-24: Office patio tiles cracked and hollow. Contractor to correct cracked tiles by appropriate means. F-25: Cracked tiles inside the house. Contractor to correct by appropriate means interior cracked tiles including 2 in hall, 10 in kitchen, 2 on master bath floor (including grout), and cracked/displaced tiles on curb of shower. F-26: Missing tile in bath cabinet. Contractor agreed to place tile inside base of cabinet. G-27: Circuit breaker boxes incorrectly labeled. Contractor agreed to complete labeling of boxes. G-28: Wall switch configurations improper and outlets are over master sinks. Not a violation of standards, no action required. H-29: Dishwasher door has inadequate springs to support door. Contractor to correct by appropriate means as per jobsite agreement. H-30: Microwave is not plugged into receptacle in adjacent cabinet that is intended for this purpose. As per jobsite agreement, contractor to utilize receptacle in cabinet next to oven for microwave and insure that circuitry at this receptacle is adequate for loads. H-31: Stainless steel cook top scratched. Although standards call for 10-day notification, contractor agreed that deep scratched areas on cook top were not homeowner abuse and in the spirit of good customer relations will correct by appropriate means as per jobsite agreement. I-32: One master tub faucet reversed, drain stoppers at sinks not functioning properly, loose spout at sink in west bath, tub spout in west bath improper finish and installation, and sinks are not properly sealed in all baths. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. I-33: Gas line to barbecue has exposed horizontal run on ground. Contractor to properly install gas line to barbecue. I-34: Patio sink not secure. Contractor to correct by appropriate means J-35 J-36: Roof leaks. No leaks observed. No action required other than to provide uniform shade/color of coating. K-37: Severe erosion near runoff area at street. Contractor agreed by telephone after the inspection to correct by appropriate means adjacent concrete spillway. Not observed by inspector. K-38: Saguaro missing from landscape. Contractor agreed to provide saguaro by phone after the inspection. Plans were not observed at inspection but contractor said he believes that if homeowner says it is on plans that it is and he will comply. L-39: Gates have overspray paint on them, back gate has hinges installed backwards, and gate alignment is poor. Contractor to correct by appropriate means as per jobsite agreement.

31. Complainant subsequently filed an addendum to his original complaint. 32. As a result of the addendum to the complaint, the Registrar’s assigned inspector conducted another jobsite inspection to view the areas of alleged deficient workmanship contained in the addendum. 33. After completing the second jobsite inspection, the inspector issued a second corrective work order dated April 2, 2001 directing Gold Crest to undertake the following remedial action:

• Driveway stain has extreme uneven color variation. Color variation was not considered to be sub-standard except to the extent that the material used to stain the concrete is pulling up in places from lack of adhesion. Contractor to correct by appropriate means where stain is peeling/not adhered to concrete surface. • Debris in air conditioning cold air returns. Paragraph 5 of the contract addendum dated 7/3/2001 (sic) calls for contractor to vacuum heat ducts. Contractor to comply with this contract provision. • (Added at the second jobsite inspection). Stainless steel burner cover and barbecue top scratched during recent repairs. Scratches were difficult to see except in glancing light and inspector was unable to conclusively identify the source of the scratches. No action required by contractor in absence of clear evidence as to responsibility. • (Added at the second jobsite inspection). Two cleanouts for plumbing on rear walls of home have restrictions, which will not allow for removal of cleanout plugs. Cleanouts are not functioning as intended. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. • (Added at the second jobsite inspection). Skylight over northwest bath makes repeated loud popping noise. Contractor to determine cause of noise and correct by appropriate means. • (Added at the second jobsite inspection). Additional cracked floor tiles inside home and on rear patio. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. • (Added at the second jobsite inspection).Tile that was replaced on front patio is short of edge of concrete below and does not follow a reasonable radius at perimeter. Contractor to correct perimeter cuts by appropriate means. • Note: Amend Corrective Work Order dated February 16, 2001. Item K-38: No corrective action required by contractor with regards to saguaro cactus.

34. The Registrar’s inspector performed a pre-hearing jobsite to view the original areas of deficient workmanship to determine whether or not proper remedial repairs were performed by Gold Crest as required by the two corrective work orders. The inspector made the following observations:

A-1: The exterior of the house and walls were repainted. However, there is peeling at the rear block retaining wall, at the barbecue and at the hearth. Painting in the area of the pool equipment is not completed. Detail work needs to be completed. A-2: There are voids in the exterior door where knots have come out. There is flex and looseness in the door panel. A door insert is missing. There is extreme variation in the finish color. The door is damaged and needs to be repaired. A-3: There was a jobsite agreement between Complainant and Gold Crest which provided that the general contractor would pay the homeowner the sum of $1,000.00 for the substandard paint job and for interior and exterior drywall deficiencies. However, Gold Crest has not paid that sum to Complainant. A-4: The caulking has not been completed. There are also plumbing penetrations that need to be caulked. A-5: There are still unfilled nail holes in door trims. B-6: The cracking at the back bench is presently within minimum workmanship standards. However, there is credible evidence that the cracking will exceed minimum workmanship tolerances in the near future. B-7: The stucco that cracked at the eyebrow overhangs has been repaired. C-9: Gold Crest did correct the cracks and separation of the front wall from the house. However, that wall should have an 8” footing but does not. Also, the wall is starting to separate and should be further repaired. D-11: The repairs to Complainant’s office door, double doors off the master bathroom and the utility room doors have not been properly repaired. D-12: The garage door trim has been secured. Some minor caulking remains to be done. D-13: The exterior door lock is still broken. D-14: The exterior bathroom door no longer leaks. D-15: The garage window has been repaired. The skylight was removed and replace with a different color skylight than the other two in the house. The new skylight should be removed and replace with a skylight that matches the color of the other two. D-16: The Complainant had agreed to complete the drywall work as part of the $1,000.00 settlement agreement. However, Gold Crest has failed to pay the $1,000.00 to Complainant. D-17: The noisy overhead garage door has been repaired. D-18: The severe wall damage due to leakage at the window/wall of west window. E-19: The homeowner had agreed to perform the required repairs as part of his agreement with Gold Crest, but Gold Crest has failed to tender the $1,000.00. In addition, additional damage has occurred at the wall/ceiling of the master closet and bath. E-20 E-21: The homeowner had agreed to perform the required repairs as part of his agreement with Gold Crest, but Gold Crest has failed to tender the $1,000.00. F-22: The tile problems have not been corrected. F-24: The tiles have been replaced, but the new tiles do not follow the radius of the substrate. The tiles should follow the radius of the perimeter. F-25: The cracked tiles inside the house have not been repaired to minimum workmanship standards. F-26: The missing tile in the bath cabinet has been installed. G-27: The Complainant has labeled the circuit breaker boxes. H-29: The dishwasher door has been properly repaired. H-30: The microwave has been properly wired. H-31: The scratched stainless steel cook top has been repaired. I-32: Proper repairs have been performed. I-33: The installation of the gas line to the barbecue does not meet minimum workmanship standards and does not meet code requirements. The proper installation of the gas supply line needs to be performed by a properly licensed plumber and the work inspected by the local building authority, if required. Any necessary permits shall also be pulled for the plumbing work. I-34: The patio sink has been secured. However, since the pipe was soldered, it should have been repaired by a properly licensed plumber. The work should be inspected by a license plumber and the local building authority, if required. J-35 J-36: The roof leaks have been repaired. However, there is no uniformity of the coating applied to the roof. K-37: The severe erosion near the runoff area at the street has been repaired. K-38: Notwithstanding the amended corrective work order to the contrary, it is determined that the plans specify a saguaro cactus which has not been provided. It should be furnished to the Complainant. L-39: The overspray on the gates has been removed. The back gate hinges have been properly installed and the gate alignment corrected. Addendum items: • The driveway stain has extreme uneven color variations. The peeling of the material used to stain the driveway should be repaired. • The debris in the air conditioning cold air returns has not been cleaned out. • The two plumbing cleanouts on the rear wall of the home have restriction which will not allow for the removal of the plugs. Repairs are necessary to provide proper access to those areas. • The skylight was replaced with the wrong color skylight. It should be removed and replaced with the proper color skylight.

35. Gold Crest is found not to have substantially complied with the Registrar’s two written directives. 36. Gold Crest is found to have deviated from plans and specifications on this project. 37. Gold Crest is found to have exceeded the scope of its Class B- license by performing plumbing work on this project. 38. Gold Crest is found to have violated local building codes for plumbing work on this project. 39. Gold Crest’s president and qualifying party, Rodger Robert Larsen, pleaded guilty to counts 1 through 17 of felony mail fraud on June 4, 1992, in case number 91-Cr-284 before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Larsen was sentence to imprisonment for a period of 31 months. 40. It is determined that Mr. Larsen notified the Registrar of Contractors of his felony convictions when he applied for licensure. 41. Gold Crest hired Jeffery Michael Labriola to perform excavation work on Complainant’s residence. Mr. Labriola was convicted of possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony, in case number CR88-040403 before the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. 42. Complainant does not want Gold Crest or any of its subcontractors to perform any further work on his property. His reasons for that position include Gold Crest’s failure to perform the required corrective work, its hiring of subcontractors employing individuals with criminal histories, the trespass of Echo’s president and qualifying party and the criminal history of its president and qualifying party. Under all the circumstances, Complainant’s position is found to be reasonable and justified by the evidence of record. 43. A review of the official records of the Registrar of Contractors reveals that Gold Crest’s Class B- license was suspended by operation of law on September 27, 2001 for lack of bond. 44. Gold Crest is found to be responsible for causing the above described remedial repairs to be performed by properly licensed contractors at its sole cost and expense. However, Gold Crest should not be required or permitted to otherwise supervise the project onsite. 45. Gold Crest’s above-described acts and omissions are deemed to be wrongful acts which have substantially injured the Complainant. Not only has Complainant not been able to peacefully enjoy his new home because of the above-described deficient workmanship, he and his wife will be required to move out of their home for several months because the house will be uninhabitable during the required extensive remedial repairs. 46. Any allegation contained in Complainant’s complaints against Echo and Gold Crest that is not specifically addressed above is deemed to either lack sufficient evidence of record to support a finding of a violation of the State’s contracting laws or to meet minimum workmanship standards.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The evidence of record is adequate to establish that Echo has violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108. 2. Echo is found not to have violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(23). 3. The evidence of record is adequate to establish that Gold Crest has violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), (7), (13), (23) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108. 4. Gold Crest is found not to have violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(6), (15), (16) and (20).

RECOMMENDED ORDER AS TO ECHO TILE AND STONE, INC.

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class C- license be revoked on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter. It is further recommended that if Respondent causes, at its sole cost and expense, a properly licensed contractor to properly repair the perimeter tile in Complainant’s office patio so that the tile follows the radius on or before the effective date of the entered Order in this matter, then the above-provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead that Respondent’s Class C-48 license shall be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of 120 days. This alternative penalty shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, that any restoration of Echo’s rights to resume contracting, whether or not probationary, shall be subject to a condition that Echo 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 $2,000.00, 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(C). 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. … … …

RECOMMENDED ORDER AS TO GOLD CREST HOMES, INC.

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Gold Crest Homes, Inc.’s, Class B- license be revoked on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter. It is further recommended that if Gold Crest pays Complainant the sum of $1,000.00 pursuant to the said settlement agreement and causes, at its sole cost and expense, the items of corrective work set forth in the two corrective work orders issued to it by the Registrar of Contractors, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference, then the above- provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead that Respondent’s Class B- license shall be suspended for 10 days followed immediately by a period of disciplinary probation for one year. This alternative penalty shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter. It is further recommended, if the alternative penalty is applicable and in addition to the above-provided alternative disciplinary penalties, that Gold Crest 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 Gold Crest to pay the entire amount of the said civil penalty on or before 30 days following the effective date of the entered Order in this matter shall result in the automatic revocation of Gold Crest’s contracting license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Gold Crest, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5) unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. It is further recommended, it the alternative penalty is applicable and in addition to the above-provided alternative disciplinary penalties, that any restoration of Gold Crest’s rights to resume contracting, whether or not probationary, shall be subject to a condition that Gold Crest 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 $9,000.00, 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(C). 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.

Done this day, November 26, 2001

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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