ALJDEC

01F-UM0222-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-05-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 25, 2001 APPEARANCES: The Registrar of Contractors was represented by Assistant Attorney General, Victoria Martin and Sprinkler Express, Inc. (“Defendant”) appeared through its vice-president, Mark Platz. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The instant matter involved a citation issued against Defendant for alleged unlicensed activity.

2. The following salient facts were adduced at the hearing and are important to note: a. On or about February 8, 2001, an investigator for the Registrar of Contractors observed Defendant working on a commercial landscape related project at a building that was located in the same complex as the Mesa office of the Registrar of Contractors. b. The investigator determined that Defendant had a suspended residential landscape contractor’s license and no commercial license. c. After interviewing Defendant regarding the project in question, the Registrar’s investigator issued a civil citation to Defendant, which required payment of a $500.00 civil penalty. d. Defendant testified that he was unaware, at the time of the incident in question, that his residential license had been suspended for failure to renew. Moreover, although he initially advised the Registrar’s inspector that the commercial job he was working on involved $800 to $1,000 for the labor portion only, he testified at the instant hearing that the job was a time and materials job, that same was not completed at the time of the interview, and that he did not know, at the time of the interview, what the final cost for the project would be. Moreover, he indicated that he felt pressured to give the investigator a cost figure for the project, despite the fact that he had not completed all of the repair work. e. Evidence of record established that the project in question was an irrigation repair and the actual final billing submitted by Defendant to the owner of the commercial property was for the total sum of $545.60. Defendant testified at the instant hearing that $545.60 was the only sum that it received for the work on the irrigation system repair project. f. Almost immediately after receiving the civil citation, Defendant applied for and received his current K-21 license. Based on Defendant’s diligent effort to obtain proper licensure for both commercial and residential landscape related construction work, the Registrar’s inspector lowered the civil penalty assessed to Defendant to the sum of $200.00 (the lowest amount allowed by applicable law).

3. There was nothing in the instant record which showed that the commercial project at issue required a building permit or was part of a larger project.

4. As aforementioned, at the time that Defendant was working on the commercial landscape repair project he never had a commercial license and his residential license was not active, since same had been suspended for failure to renew. In light of the fact that the contract price for the repair project in question was shown to only be for the sum of $545.60, it is determined and held, based on the conclusions of law set forth below, that Defendant should be entitled to the applicable “handyman” exemption provided in the State’s Contracting laws and therefore, not be subject to any civil penalty for this incident.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A.R.S. § 32-1121A (14) provides, in pertinent part, that “any person other than a licensed contractor engaging in any work…for which the aggregate contract price…is less than seven hundred fifty dollars” shall not be required to be licensed. Although the law says this exemption from licensure is not available to a licensed contractor, Defendant was not a licensed commercial contractor at the time of the commercial project. Moreover, his residential license was not in effect since same had been suspended. For all intents and purposes, at the time of the work on the commercial project at issue, Defendant did not have any license, issued by the Registrar of Contractors, which he could properly use to perform construction work that would cost over $749.00.

2. This Tribunal concludes that a reasonable interpretation of the phrase “licensed contractor” in A.R.S. § 32-1121A (14) is that same refers to a person or entity that currently holds a valid license. In light of the fact that the aggregate cost for the project at issue was shown to be $545.60, that no permit was required to perform the work, that same was not part of a larger project, and the fact that Defendant had no valid active license at the time of the project, the “handyman exemption” for licensure should be applied to Defendant for its work on the project at issue. Therefore, the requested civil penalty should be quashed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the civil citation issued in this matter, along with the requested civil penalty, be dismissed.

Done this day, May 31, 2001

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver 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 ___________________________

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

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