ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2012A-2641-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-04-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 30, 2012, at 8:15 a.m., January 29, 2013, at 8:15 a.m., and February 26, 2013, at 8:15 a.m.; the record was held open until March 25, 2013, to allow the parties to file written closing statements. APPEARANCES: Stephen and Evelyn Kempton (hereinafter “Complainants”) appeared through Stephen Kempton on November 30, 2012, and January 29, 2013. Complainants failed to appear on February 26, 2013. Tonto Log Homes LLC (hereinafter “Tonto”) appeared through its attorney, Fidelis V. Garcia, Esq., Fidelis V. Garcia Law Office, on all dates. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Tonto is the holder of License No. B.214013-R issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where Complainants purchased a custom log home constructed by Tonto located at 1990 North Forest Service Road 289, Payson, Arizona for the sum of $575,000.00. Complainants closed escrow on their new residence on or about January 4, 2011. 3. Complainants were dissatisfied with Tonto’s workmanship on the home and filed a formal Complaint against Tonto with the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Registrar Inspector, Tom Sandoval (hereinafter “Inspector Sandoval”), conducted an onsite inspection. Inspector Sandoval issued a written Corrective Work Order on July 10, 2012, directing Tonto to perform designated corrective work on Complainants’ residence. 5. The Corrective Work Order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: License #214013 issued to Tonto Log Homes was inactivated on 8/29/07 and cannot do or sub-contract recommended corrective work listed in this directive unless the license is re-activated.

1] Roof not installed per manufacturers instruction, screws used were too short, not going into subroofing, insufficient screws used, only about every 6 ft, no lap seam screws at peaks, [causing] entire roofing to need to be reinstalled properly. I looked this up on the website and could not find that this was installed incorrectly, but it was shown that some of the screws were missing. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

2] Insufficient snow guards installed to prevent gutter damage, screws used were not long enough to go into subroofing tearing snowguards off roof, no snow guards on roof vents, causing need for replacement of existing snow guards and installation of additional snow guards and reinstallation of gutters. A. Snow guards installed were at the [discretion] of the builder and if more are wanted now it is up to the Homeowner to install more. It could not be shown that the screws used were too short. No action required. B. Gutters were torn off by snow and need to be reinstalled. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

3] Wood used around trim of deck and deck posts and rails were dry rotted causing need for replacement of many logs and posts. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

4] Main deck improperly installed causing cupping of wood planks and improper drainage, allowing moisture to be trapped, the finish to [peel], requiring complete sanding, and many wood posts to rot requiring replacement. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

5] South side of cabin was not maintained and [re-stained] resulting in peeling of stain, major wood sapping, and excessive damage to wood siding, requiring extensive work to sand and restore prior to [re-staining] cabin. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

6] Septic tank not installed to county code, [modified] with an electric pump, after repair in 10/17/11, sewage was draining down the hill and into the wash in the side yard, on 04-10-2012, repair on 05/12/12. There was extensive grading by others and the septic was dug up by others after the jobsite. I cannot tell if this was installed incorrectly at time of construction or if modifications made to the site by others is the cause. No action required.

7] Basement foundation brick walls were required on blueprints to have 48 inches of asphalt painted on as a moisture barrier and only 48 inches of dirt from the foundation, but contractor only used black tar paper against basement foundation causing moisture damage to lower interior basement walls. This could not be shown that it was still leaking and it looked to have the right moisture barrier on it. No action required.

8] Basement bar sink doesn’t drain, not connected to septic system, drains underground but is blocked, doesn’t drain to wash.

This is a bar sink about 12” X 12” and is usually used just for a rinse or dumping ice. According to the ctr. this is not connected to the septic but used as a grey water only leech line and was allowed by building dept. If you were to cause a lot of water to be run into this, this piping would fill up and water would not leech out fast enough. In the opinion of this inspector this was installed correctly as a grey water leech line. No action required.

9] Water collects under house in the crawlspace where contractor put a sump pump connected to a garden hose that drains directly beside the back of the house causing moisture damage to lower basement walls. A. The sump pump should be connected to a hard line and not a hose. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

B. As far as moisture in the crawl space the exterior of the home has had extensive grading done by others and I cannot tell if it is being caused by this new grading at the carport area. No action required.

10] Basement was not properly vented, per Gila County inspector, holes only drilled under vent, & insufficient number of vents, causing [musty] mildew smell. There were vents on the log perimeter and when taken off there were only about 1” holes drilled in through the log. This needs more venting in the opinion of this inspector. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

11] No air return in the basement connecting the basement to heating and air conditioning system, causing basement to get no heat or cool air. The Homeowner had another ctr. come out and give his opinion that another return is needed and I believe this is needed here. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

12] Basement support beam near base of stairs has slipped causing large gap beside the wall. This is being caused by shrinkage and is not a structural log. This needs to have trim added to cover the opening. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

13] Steps to 2nd floor are not level, slanting downward, causing owners’ family to slip downstairs, extremely hazardous condition.

The steps have also shrunk because they are logs and will continue to shrink for a long period of time. In the opinion of this inspector this needs to be corrected. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.

14] Fireplace flue pipes were not properly connected in both fireplaces causing extensive smoke damage in the chase, requiring complete removal of damaged wood and materials up entire chase and replacement of all flue pipes for both fireplaces. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

15] Loose stones on fireplace inside and outside falling off chase causing possible injury. There were two stones that had fallen off that [were] shown. The Homeowner did have another ctr. doing work on the chimney and I cannot tell if this is a result of that work. No action required.

16] Main level wood flooring bounces and squeaks, and dishes in cupboards vibrate when walking across the floor due to flooring not being properly installed & cupboards not properly installed on flooring causing kitchen counters to crack, requiring refinishing. A. At time of jobsite there were some heavy tables and logs on the floor at this area but the floor did not squeak or bounce out of the ordinary. If these heavy objects were removed there is probably not going to be a problem. The chairs were made of solid logs and so was the table and lots of extra heavy items. In the opinion of this inspector the floor is ok. No action required.

B. Kitchen counters were made of solid wood and need to be sealed often. This is a clear sealer and only needs to be done once in the first year of occupancy and this is past one year and is an owner maintenance issue now. No action required.

17] Drainage around foundation not flowing away from house, French drains required per building plans but they’re not connected to anything or long enough to allow water to sufficiently drain off of property to wash [causing] rain and snow melt to flood property. Required fill dirt to low areas, sloping, 12 in drainage pipe under driveway to prevent flooding, trenching out wash area in front and side yards and underground piping connection gutters to wash to prevent property flooding. This could not be shown that it was draining towards the home except under the back steps where the Homeowner had changed the drainage by the addition of extra soil. The way the home is set up water would drain down hill anyways and would not have time to soak into the foundation in the opinion of this inspector. No action required.

18] Ovens didn’t work properly although new, they both had to have new temperature sensors installed and recalibrated by manufacturer. Dishwasher not installed, no power cord to connect to electric outlet, requiring [electrician] to install. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

19] Gaps in wood at peak covered patio above front door allow bats to enter in large colonies requiring county animal control to inspect and repair with wood trim, caulking and wire mesh. Corrected prior to jobsite. No Action Required.

20] Air conditioning unit pad is undermined, not properly supported, pad[is] not level, and positioned too close to house, per home inspection, evaluation by qualified licensed contractor to repair and replace as needed. A/C not working originally had to have coolant added by A/C repair technician. There have been too many people at this area and I could not determine who is responsible. There are pictures and they show the AC unit straight and it passed code at time of home being finished about 5 years ago. No action required.

6. On July 23, 2012, Tonto, by and through its attorney, issued an Answer to Corrective Work Order dated 7/1/2012 and Request for Hearing on Certain Items. Tonto specifically disagreed with Item Nos. 1, 2(B), 11, and 13 of the Corrective Work Order. Tonto agreed to correct by “appropriate means” Item Nos. 9(A), 10, and 12 of the Corrective Work Order. Tonto indicated that by separate letter it was writing to schedule and coordinate repairs of the above items that Tonto agreed to correct. Tonto specifically agreed with all items of the Corrective Work Order that required no corrective action by Tonto.[1] 7. On July 26, 2012, Complainants filed a written request for an administrative hearing on all items set forth in their Complaint.[2] Inspector Sandoval testified that the construction of Complainants’ residence was completed on or about August 25, 2008. Inspector Sandoval stated that Complainants’ residence had not been occupied until Complainants took possession of their residence on or about December 10, 2010, and that the Complaint at issue was filed with the Registrar of Contractors on May 18, 2012. 8. Inspector Sandoval testified that he included Item No. 1 of the Complaint in the Corrective Work Order as an item requiring correction because he personally observed roof areas with missing screws. 9. Inspector Sandoval stated that he included Item No. 2B of the Complaint in the Corrective Work Order as an item requiring correction because he observed that the gutters for Complainants’ residence had been torn off by snow and that they needed to be reinstalled. 10. Inspector Sandoval testified that he included Item No. 11 of the Complaint in the Corrective Work Order as an item requiring correction because he believed that another air return was required for the basement in Complainants’ residence. 11. Inspector Sandoval stated that he included Item No. 13 of the Complaint in the Corrective Work Order as an item requiring correction because he observed that the log steps had shrunk and were no longer level. 12. Inspector Sandoval testified that he included Item No. 9A of the Complaint as an item requiring correction because he observed that Tonto had connected the sump pump to a hose rather than a hard plumbing line. Inspector Sandoval testified that a “hard line” was required for such installations. 13. Inspector Sandoval stated that he included Item No. 10 of the Complaint as an item requiring correction because he observed that the venting for Complainants’ basement consisted of several one inch holes drilled through the logs just under the vent. Inspector Sandoval opined that there was insufficient venting for Complainants’ basement.[3] 14. Inspector Sandoval testified that he included Item No. 12 of the Complaint as an item requiring correction in the Corrective Work Order because he observed a non-structural log near the base of the stairs that displayed a large gap between it and the adjoining wall of the residence. Inspector Sandoval stated that the non-structural log needed to have trim added to cover the unacceptable gap. 15. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include Item No. 2A of the Complaint as an item to be corrected in the Corrective Work Order because the installation of snow guards was a discretionary action by the contractor and that if Complainants wanted more snow guards, they could install more. Inspector Sandoval stated that he saw nothing to indicate that the screws utilized by Tonto to connect the snow guards were too short. 16. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include the remaining items in the Complaint in the Corrective Work Order because Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9B, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Complaint had been corrected or modified by others under Complainants’ control or direction prior to his inspection. Inspector Sandoval stated that he could not include items in the Corrective Work Order that had been corrected or modified by contractors or individuals prior to his onsite inspection. 17. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include Item No. 7 as an item to be corrected in the Corrective Work Order because he did not observe any indication that the basement block walls were leaking. Inspector Sandoval stated that the basement block walls appeared to have the right moisture barrier installed on them and that no corrective action was required. 18. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include Item No. 16A as an item to be corrected in the Corrective Work Order because he observed that the floor did not squeak or deflect out of the ordinary, despite the fact that he observed very heavy log furniture on the wood floors. Inspector Sandoval stated that he did not believe that any corrective action was required on the wood floor. 19. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include Item No. 16B as an item to be corrected in the Corrective Work Order because the kitchen and vanity countertops were made of solid wood and required homeowner maintenance to avoid cracking. Inspector Sandoval stated that Tonto was only required to seal the wood countertops once in the first year of occupancy. Inspector Sandoval testified that the Complaint had been filed after the first year of occupancy had expired. 20. Inspector Sandoval testified that he did not include Item No. 8 as an item to be corrected in the Corrective Work Order because he believed that the basement bar sink was installed correctly. Inspector Sandoval stated that the basement bar sink was properly connected to a gray water leech line and that no correction was required. 21. Inspector Sandoval’s testimony is found to be credible. 22. David Claire Falk (hereinafter “Mr. Falk”) testified that he is member of Tonto. Mr. Falk stated that Tonto constructed the residence located at 1990 North Forest Service Road 289, Payson, Arizona, for himself and his wife, Melody Ann Falk (hereinafter “Ms. Falk”). Mr. Falk stated that he and his wife sold the home to Complainants and that Tonto was not involved in the sale of the house to Complainants. Mr. Falk acknowledged that he and his wife were both members of Tonto. Mr. Falk testified that he and his wife never occupied the residence located at 1990 North Forest Service Road 289, Payson, Arizona. Mr. Falk stated that the residence was listed with various real estate companies from sometime in 2007, through December 2010, when Complainants agreed to purchase the new residence in an “as is” condition. Mr. Falk acknowledged that the residence had never been previously occupied by anyone when Complainants closed escrow in January 2011. 23. Mr. Falk testified that the residence was inspected by the local county building official and passed all county inspections prior to the sale of the residence to Complainants. Mr. Falk stated that all of the construction work on the new residence met or exceeded applicable building code requirements that were in effect when the residence was completed in 2007. 24. Steven Elliot Kempton (hereinafter “Mr. Kempton”) testified that he is one of the named Complainants in this matter. Mr. Kempton reviewed each of the items in Complainants’ Complaint. Mr. Kempton acknowledged that Complainants had purchased the residence located at 1990 North Forest Service Road 289, Payson, Arizona, from Mr. and Ms. Falk. 25. Mr. Kempton testified that Complainants received a letter from Tonto’s attorney on July 24, 2012, requesting access to Complainants’ residence to have a licensed contractor of Tonto’s choice perform selected portions of the Corrective Work Order. Mr. Kempton stated that Complainants informed Tonto that that the Corrective Work Order required that all work was to be completed no later than 15 calendar days after July 10, 2012. Mr. Kempton testified that no corrective work could have been completed on their residence by July 25, 2012. 26. Mr. Kempton testified that Complainants were required to correct Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9B, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of Complainants’ Complaint prior to Inspector Sandoval’s inspection in order for Complainants to live in the house. Mr. Kempton testified that the correction of the fireplaces and the sewer system were health and safety issues that Complainants were required to correct in order to safely inhabit their new residence. 27. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants purchased the residence located at 1990 North Forest Service Road 289, Payson, Arizona, at a reduced price because of depressed market conditions. Mr. Falk stated that he sold the residence to Complainants for less than it had cost Tonto to construct the residence. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants had obtained a professional home inspector to inspect the new residence prior to closing and that he had corrected all of the items required by Complainants’ home inspector prior to closing. 28. Inspector Sandoval was recalled and testified that A.R.S. § 32-1155(C) precluded the Registrar of Contractors from issuing a citation for items that had been modified by others. Inspector Sandoval stated that Complainants’ Complaint was filed on May 18, 2012, and that the close of escrow was listed on the Complaint as December 30, 2010. Inspector Sandoval stated that the Complaint was filed within two years of the occupancy of the new residence and that the Registrar of Contractors had jurisdiction over the matter at issue. 29. Inspector Sandoval testified that the local building codes that were in existence in 2007 and 2008 were the code standards that should be applied to Tonto’s construction work completed in 2007 and 2008. Inspector Sandoval acknowledged that Tonto’s construction work had been inspected and approved by the local building authority in 2007 and 2008. 30. Inspector Sandoval’s testimony is found to be credible. 31. Mr. Falk testified that the roof on Complainants’ residence had been installed by a licensed roofing subcontractor in 2007. Mr. Falk stated that the roof was inspected and approved by the local building authority when the roof was completed and that no corrective work was required on the roof. 32. Mr. Falk testified that the damaged gutters on Complainants’ roof had been corrected by Home Depot as a warranty item. Mr. Falk stated that no further corrective action was required for the gutters. 33. Mr. Falk testified that the decks, posts, and rails had been inspected and approved by the local building authority when they were completed. Mr. Falk stated that other individuals or contractors had worked on the decks, posts, and rails prior to the Inspector Sandoval’s onsite inspection. 34. Mr. Falk testified that the stain on the residence had been inspected and approved by the local building authority. Mr. Falk stated that individuals or contractors other than Tonto had performed construction work on the stain on the residence prior to Mr. Sandoval’s onsite inspection. 35. Mr. Falk testified that the septic system for Complainants’ residence had been designed by a professional. Mr. Falk stated that the septic installation was inspected and approved by the local building official. Mr. Falk testified that the septic system had been modified by others prior to Inspector Sandoval’s onsite inspection. 36. Mr. Falk testified that Tonto’s sealing work on Complainants’ foundation had been inspected and approved by the local building authority. Mr. Falk stated that the sealing work on Complainants’ foundation had been modified by others prior to Inspector Sandoval’s onsite inspection. 37. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants have now modified the steps to the second floor of their residence. Mr. Falk stated that Tonto should not be responsible for the correction of the steps because they have now been modified by others. 38. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants had modified the two fireplaces in their residence prior to Inspector Sandoval’s inspection. Mr. Falk stated that Complainants had utilized an unlicensed contractor to perform the modification work on the two fireplaces. 39. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants had extensively modified the grading and drainage around the residence. Mr. Falk stated that Tonto should not be responsible for the correction of drainage problems caused by Complainants’ modifications. 40. Mr. Falk testified that the ovens in Complainants’ residence were corrected by the manufacturer as a warranty item. Mr. Falk stated that no further corrective work was required for the ovens. 41. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants had modified the crawl space in their residence and obstructed normal air flow. Mr. Falk stated that venting for the crawl space had been inspected and approved by the local building authority. 42. Mr. Falk testified that the HVAC system in Complainants’ residence had been inspected and approved by the local building authority when the HVAC system was completed in 2006. Mr. Falk stated that he disagreed the terms of the Corrective Work Order. 43. Mr. Falk acknowledged that there is a gap in the decorative half log beam mounted behind the decorative stair rail post in Complainant’s’ residence. Mr. Falk testified that the normal repair for such a gap in a log house is the application of caulking. 44. Mr. Falk testified that the log steps in Complainants’ residence had been inspected and approved by the local building authority when the steps were completed in 2007 or 2008. Mr. Falk acknowledged that the steps had deteriorated after their completion. Mr. Falk stated that Complainants modified the log steps after the Corrective Work Order was issued. Mr. Falk testified that Tonto should be relieved from any responsibility for the log steps because they had been modified by others. 45. Mr. Falk testified that Complainants had modified and upgraded the two fireplaces in their residence. Mr. Falk stated that Tonto would have resolved any smoking problems with the two fireplaces had it been given an opportunity to do so. 46. Mr. Falk testified that the stone work on the chimney at Complainants’ residence had been completed by Tonto in 2007. Mr. Falk stated that the stones on the fireplace had been modified by Complainants prior to Inspector Sandoval’s onsite inspection. Mr. Falk asserted that Tonto was relieved of any responsibility for the stone work on the chimney because it had been modified by others. 47. Administrative notice is taken of Tonto’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar of Contractors’ public website on April 8, 2013. Such prior license record reflects that License No. B.214013-R of Tonto was placed on inactive status on August 29, 2007. Tonto’s Qualifying Party resigned on September 21, 2007. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. 2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). 3. Inspector Sandoval’s actions in declining to issue a Corrective Work Order for items of the Complaint that had been modified by others prior to his onsite inspection were shown to be in accordance with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1155(C).[4] 4. The sump pump on Complainants’ residence was connected to a hose rather than a plumbing line. There is insufficient venting in Complainants’ residence for the size of the crawl space in Complainants’ residence. This Tribunal concludes that Tonto violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2).[5] 5. The gutters on Complainants’ residence were torn off and required reinstallation. The decorative half log near the base of the stairs had shrunk, leaving an unacceptable gap. The steps to the second floor were not level and required correction. The proper correction of the steps was shown to be a health and safety issue. Tonto failed to properly resolve these items as required by the Corrective Work Order. This Tribunal concludes that Tonto violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108,[6] and A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(23).[7] 6. The Corrective Work Order specifically advised Tonto that “License #214013 issued to Tonto was inactivated on 8/29/07 and cannot do or sub- contract recommended corrective work listed in this directive unless the license in re-activated.” Tonto did not re-activate its contractor’s license. Tonto offered to have a contractor of its choice perform corrective work on selected portions of the Corrective Work Order.[8] This Tribunal concludes that Tonto violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18).[9] RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing it is recommended that License No. B.214013-R of Tonto shall be revoked on the effective date of this Order. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, that Tonto 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 Tonto 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 Tonto’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Tonto, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, that Tonto pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 1154(E).[10] The failure by Tonto 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 Tonto’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Tonto, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of the certification Done this day, April 10, 2013.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] See July 23, 2012, letter from Fidelis V. Garcia, Attorney at Law, to Tom Sandoval, Inspector, Arizona Registrar of Contractors. [2] See July 24, 2012, letter from Complainants. [3] See Exhibit No. C-280 (page from Gila county Community Development Building Code Handbook) [4] A.R.S. § 32-1155(C) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: C. The registrar shall not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if either: 1. The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar. 2. The contractor's work has been subject to neglect, modification or abnormal use.

[5] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of the state or any political subdivision of the state in any material respect which is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code. [6] A.A.C. R4-9-108 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

[7] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, failure to take appropriate 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 a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. [8] “Contractor” is defined as anyone who “undertakes to or offers to undertake to” or “does himself or by or through others” performs construction. A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(3) (emphasis added). [9] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, contracting or offering to contract or submitting a bid while the license is under suspension or while the license is on inactive status. [10] A.R.S. § 32-1154 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

E. The registrar shall impose a civil penalty of not to exceed one thousand dollars on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 18 of this section. Civil penalties collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in the residential contractors' recovery fund. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed under this subsection results in the automatic permanent revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty. No future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person associated with the contractor, as defined in section 32-1101, subsection A, paragraph 5, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.

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

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