ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2012A-3047-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-04-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING DATES: March 4, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. and March 25, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Elizabeth Cheong appeared on her own behalf; Respondent Hallas Roofing & Repairs LLC DBA: Hallas Roofing Systems appeared through Daryl Dawson Hallas, its qualifying party and member. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. C- 42.270485-R for residential roofing to Hallas Roofing & Repairs LLC DBA: Hallas Roofing Systems (“Respondent”). Daryl Dawson Hallas is Respondent’s qualifying party and member. On or about June 15, 2012, the Registrar received a Complaint from Elizabeth Cheong (“Complainant”) regarding Respondent’s performance of roofing work at her property at 10424 North 107th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. According to the Complaint, Respondent had been paid $6,875.00 of the contract amount of $13,750.00 and Complainant still owed Respondent $6,875.00. Complainant provided her mailing address as an address in New York City, New York. The Registrar assigned Complainant’s Complaint to its inspector, Scott Deering, for investigation. After Inspector Deering performed a jobsite inspection, he issued a Corrective Work Order (“CWO”) that required Respondent to perform certain corrective actions within fifteen calendar days, in relevant part as follows: Complaint #1- Did not remove old built-up roof as specified in contract. It appears the built-up roofing was removed on 05/18/2012 per invoice by Sunrise Hauling Services, LLC.

Complaint # 2- New rolled roofing improperly installed. (Wrapping the roll-roofing up and over the top parapets) with resultant buckling, holes, not making contact with periphery, around skylight, crickets, and not secured leaving house at risk for leaks and molds. At the time of the jobsite inspection the Complainant had corrective work performed by another contractor. Contractor to correct areas of seams that are not properly sealed. The Contractor is not responsible for any areas that were modified by others per Arizona Revised Statutes 32-1155 C.

Complaint # 3-There are several areas throughout the roof where delamination of basesheet, capsheet, and subdeck exist. Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 4- [Respondent] unable to do exterior work on stucco as specified in contract, thus breaching agreement/ contract. Admitted by [Respondent] (see copy of email from [Respondent]), so that owner had to contract out to independent stucco company with additional costs. At the time of the jobsite inspection the Complainant had the work corrected using another contractor.

Complaint # 5- Scuppers not installed properly. At the time of the jobsite inspection the Complainant had the work performed by another contractor.

Complaint # 6- Roofing wraps installed incorrectly, not adherent, leaving roof at risk of leaks and mold. Contractor to correct laps in the roofing to adhere properly per manufacturer’s specifications.

Complaint # 7- Old damaged flashing was not replaced as per contract and improperly sealed. Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 8- Did not replace any of the T-top vents of the flashing pipe jacks as was agreed to in the insurance company’s specs. which [Respondent] agreed to. Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 9- Vents were sealed sloppily leaving house [at] risk for leaks. Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 10- Roofing around skylight not done correctly. At the time of the jobsite inspection the Complainant had the work performed by another contractor.

Complaint # 11- Roofing already buckling, in less than 1 week of finishing job. Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 12- Roofer did not demonstrate underlayment replacement with owner’s representative, Frank Newland, before nailing down tiles on top as agreed to with owner when entering into contractual agreement. And there is no evidence of underlayment replacement under tiles by inspection as pattern of new tiles on tile roof is such that underlayment could not have been done. The underlayment replacement for the tile roof portion was not part of the contract. No action required by the Contractor.

On or about August 13, 2012, the Registrar received a letter from Complainant to Inspector Deering to which she attached a report prepared by Western Roof Evaluation Corporation (“WRECorp”) based on an inspection that it performed on August 3, 2012, that noted in relevant as follows: The ROC Corrective Work Order, Items 1-11 were inspected with the following findings:

Complaint 1- N/A Complaint 2- wrinkles were observed and must be repaired Complaint 3- confirmed bridging of cap sheet at crickets that must be repaired Complaint 4 - completed by others, no items for repair noted at this time Complaint 5 -- voids observed in mastic Complaint 6- no voids in laps were observed Complaint 7- stucco Z metal was not replaced; cuts in the metal are not properly sealed Complaint 8- T-top vents had been replaced Complaint 9- vents had been properly sealed Complaint 10- skylight curbs are not a minimum of 8” above the finished roof surface Complaint 11- wrinkles were observed and must be repaired.[1]

WRECorp’s report also contained three photographs whose legend stated that the photographs showed displaced tiles and missing underlayment wrap (CWO No. 12).[2] On or about September 18, 2012, Complainant requested a hearing based on WRECorp’s report and Respondent’s alleged failure to comply with the CWO. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17), and A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(23). Mr. Hallas, on Respondent’s behalf, filed a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, denying any statutory violations. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was held on March 4, 2013, and March 25, 2013. Because Inspector Deering had undergone surgery and was on medical leave, the Registrar’s inspector, Philip Coscia, performed a prehearing inspection on March 1, 2013, and testified at the March 25, 2013 hearing date. Complainant submitted nine exhibits and testified on her own behalf. Mr. Hallas testified on Respondent’s behalf. Additional Evidence The roof on Complainant’s house was damaged in a hailstorm in October 2010. On or about November 1, 2011, Complainant’s homeowner’s insurer issued a document that set forth the scope of necessary repairs, including “R&R Flashing – L flashing- galvanized,” “R&R Tile roofing – Clay – Barrel,” and “Stucco patch / small repair – ready for color.”[3] Complainant’s insurer did not mention scuppers in the scope of work. Complainant’s neighbor, who was a real estate agent, recommended Respondent for the roofing job. On or about April 16, 2012, Respondent submitted a proposal to Complainant for the following scope of work on the roof for a total contract price of $13,750.00: Remove existing Built up roofing system and haul away Replace any plywood necessary

Install a A.P.P. Gravel surface modified roofing system over a Glass base, All Nailed in Place Replace Flashings – plumbing Bath vents Total of 4600 SQ

Replace all Broken Tiles / missing Tiles [Gazebo] included Repair Hail Damage @ parapet walls coat with Elastomeric coating[4]

Respondent’s proposal did not include itemized costs for the various work described in the proposal. Although Complainant did not sign Respondent’s proposal, it became the parties’ contract when she accepted it. Respondent’s proposal did not include an estimated date of completion or advise Complainant of her right to file a complaint with the Registrar for Respondent’s possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Complainant paid Respondent 50% of the contract price, or $6,875.00, to start the job. Respondent started work on the roof. Because Complainant lives in New York City, New York, she asked her neighbor, Frank Newland, to oversee Respondent’s work on her behalf. Mr. Hallas testified that Respondent’s tear-off of the built-up roof caused unforeseen and unavoidable additional stucco damage and that because the additional repairs were beyond the scope of Respondent’s C-42 license, he advised Complainant that she needed to hire a stucco contractor. Mr. Hallas testified that he informed Complainant that Respondent would temporarily seal up the roof and complete repairs after the stucco contractor completed repairs to the stucco. Mr. Hallas testified that Complainant understood his advice and initially agreed with it. Complainant hired J C Stucco LLC, License No. C-36.244409-R (“J C Stucco”), to repair the stucco.[5] On or about June 7, 2012, J C Stucco performed the stucco repairs. At that time, its personnel took photographs of Respondent’s incomplete roof repairs, including an alleged urine stain on the rolled roofing, unsealed overlapping roofing, and other areas of the roof that were not sealed.[6] J C Stucco’s personnel informed Mr. Newland that Respondent’s roofing job was so poor that Complainant should hire another roofing company to perform immediate emergency repairs to avoid leaks. Complainant paid J C Stucco $850.00 for the stucco repairs.[7] Mr. Newland, on Complainant’s behalf, hired Crown Roofing LLC, License No. C-42.186660-R (“Crown Roofing”), to perform immediate emergency repairs to the roof that Respondent had started installing. Crown Roofing took photographs of its repairs, including the new flashing that it had installed that showed exposed fasteners.[8] Complainant paid Mr. Newland $525.00 to reimburse him for the monies that he had paid to Crown Roofing for the emergency repairs.[9] After Inspector Deering issued the CWO, Respondent performed some repairs on the roof. No contractor has performed any work on the roof since August 3, 2012, when WRECorp performed the inspection that provided the basis for its report. Complainant’s tenant has not reported any leaks at the property. No evidence of leaks was presented at the hearing. Complainant has not made any payments to Respondent after the initial $6,875.00 deposit. Complainant testified that she is a medical doctor who does not know anything about roofing. Complainant testified that she relied on Respondent to repair the roof on her property properly. J C Stucco’s, Crown Roofing’s, and WRECorp’s criticisms of Respondent’s work have made her fear that Respondent’s repairs were inadequate and would not last over time. Mr. Hallas testified that Respondent was not finished with the repair job when J C Stucco repaired the stucco and that no one notified him when J C Stucco criticized Respondent’s roof repairs. Mr. Hallas testified that, instead, Respondent was just “kicked to the curb” while Complainant consulted others who made money by criticizing Respondent’s work. Inspector Coscia testified that Complainant’s homeowners’ association’s secretary, Mrs. Culpepper, provided access for the March 1, 2013 prehearing jobsite inspection. Inspector Coscia testified that Mr. Hallas was present and went on the roof for the prehearing inspection, but that no one went on the roof on Complainant’s behalf to point out alleged deficiencies in Respondent’s repairs to the roof. Inspector Coscia testified that at the time of the prehearing inspection, all the corrections required by the CWO were performed by Respondent or others. Inspector Coscia testified that J C Stucco’s photographs were not representative of what he saw at the jobsite. Inspector Coscia did not see the WRECorp report until the March 25, 2013 hearing date. Inspector Coscia testified that he saw two small areas of minor wrinkling of the rolled roofing that were shown in the photograph in WRECorp’s report[10] (CWO Item No. 2 and 11). Inspector Coscia testified that in his opinion, the wrinkling was not excessive and those areas of the roof complied with applicable standards. Inspector Coscia testified that he did not see any areas of the roof where it was not properly torched down (CWO Item No. 3). Inspector Coscia testified that it was tough to see a deficiency in the photograph in the WRECorp report that allegedly illustrated inadequate adhesion at bridging of the capsheet at a cricket at the north scupper location (CWO Item No. 3).[11] Inspector Coscia testified that the photograph showed the old Z-bar flashing where a piece of torchdown roofing had been installed. Inspector Coscia testified that when he walked the roof, the capsheet appeared to be adequately bonded to the substrate. Inspector Coscia testified that according to Inspector Deering’s CWO, another contractor had installed the scuppers (CWO Item No. 5). Complainant did not present any evidence that Respondent installed or repaired the scuppers. Inspector Coscia testified that when he walked the roof, the laps appeared to have been repaired and properly adhered to the substrate (CWO Item No. 6). Inspector Coscia testified that it was not standard in the industry to replace Z-bar metal flashing because one edge of Z-bar flashing is installed under the stucco on the parapet walls and taking the flashing off would require the bottom of the stucco to be replaced (CWO Item No. 7). Inspector Coscia testified that if Respondent contracted to replace 460’ of Z-bar metal flashing, it would be a contractual issue between the parties. Inspector Coscia testified that he saw penetrations in the L-bar and Z- bar flashing that may not have been sealed. Inspector Coscia testified that usually flashing is glued, but that if it is nailed, the nails must be sealed (CWO Item No. 7). Photographs that were included with WRECorp’s report showed that the Z- bar flashing beneath the stucco had screws in it and that the flashing had been cut (CWO Item No. 7).[12] Mr. Hallas testified that Respondent installed a cant strip, which is an angled piece of fiberboard, at the 90° angle between the roof and parapet wall to make a 45° angle and provide additional protection against water intrusion. Mr. Hallas testified that most areas of flashing on the roof had such additional protections. Mr. Hallas testified that Respondent installed screws in the Z-bar metal flashing with a washer to make the areas where the screws penetrating the flashing watertight. Inspector Coscia testified that it was acceptable to screw down flashing with a washer in the screw to make the penetration watertight (CWO Item No. 7). Inspector Coscia testified that the T-top vents had been replaced by another kind of vent, as the CWO required (CWO Item No. 8) and that the vents had been properly sealed (CWO Item No. 9). Inspector Coscia testified that Inspector Deering’s CWO had noted that because another contractor performed roofing work around the skylight (CWO Item No. 10), any deficiencies in that work was not Respondent’s responsibility. Complainant acknowledged that Crown Roofing repaired the roof around the skylight. Inspector Coscia testified that the photographs of missing tiles that were attached to WRECorp’s report looked like someone had removed or moved the tiles.[13] Inspector Coscia testified that that he did not know whether the parties’ contract included tile work, but that Complainant’s Complaint did not raise and the CWO did not address moved or missing tiles. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on April 2, 2013. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. C-42.270485-R was current, two complaints were pending against the license, and the license was administratively suspended for non-renewal between February 1, 2013, and March 15, 2013. / / / / / / / / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[14] Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.[15] Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[16] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[17]

Complainant did not present any evidence to establish that Respondent failed to comply with plans and specifications or applicable building codes for the project. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2).[18] WRECorp’s report and Inspector Coscia’s testimony established that Respondent was not responsible for repairing the stucco (CWO Item No. 4). WRECorp’s report and Inspector Coscia’s testimony established that Respondent removed the old built up roof (CWO Item No. 1), repaired the laps in the roofing to adhere per the manufacturer’s specifications (CWO Item No. 6), replaced the T-top vents (CWO Item No. 8), and sealed the vents (CWO Item No. 9). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any statute with respect to these items of workmanship. Inspector Coscia testified that at the prehearing inspection, he saw the wrinkles in the rolled roofing in the two areas that were shown in the photograph in WRECorp’s report. Inspector Coscia credibly testified that the wrinkles were minor and within the Registrar’s and industry standards (CWO Item Nos. 2 and 11). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that the minor wrinkles on the roof evidence a violation of any the charged statutes. Although WRECorp’s report noted that the bridging of the cap sheet at the north scupper location had no base flashings and was inadequately adhered to the substrate, Inspector Coscia credibly testified that he found no deficiency at this location at the prehearing inspection (CWO Item No. 3). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that work that Respondent performed on the bridging of the cap sheet at the north scupper violates any of the charged statutes. Neither the Complainant’s homeowner’s insurer’s scope of work nor Respondent’s proposal mentioned scuppers and Inspector Deering’s CWO stated that another contractor had repaired the scuppers (CWO Item No. 5). Complainant did not submit any evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the scuppers. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent failed to install or repair the scuppers properly in violation of any of the charged statutes. Although Respondent did not replace 460’ of Z-bar metal flashing, Inspector Coscia credibly testified that it is not industry practice to replace such flashing (CWO Item No. 7). Complainant’s homeowner’s insurer’s scope of work and Respondent’s proposal did not unequivocally require replacement of Z-bar metal flashing. Even if they did, Respondent’s failure to replace the Z-bar metal flashing is a contractual issue between the parties and Complainant only paid Respondent the initial $6,875.00 deposit on its $13,750.00 contract. The parties may determine what, if any, credit Complainant is entitled to receive against the unpaid contract balance for Respondent’s failure to replace the Z-bar flashing in a court of competent civil jurisdiction. Because Crown Roofing installed the L-bar metal flashing and the nails through the L-bar metal flashing, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any of the charged statutes with respect to the L-bar metal flashing. Mr. Hallas credibly testified that Respondent sealed the screws through the Z-bar metal flashing (CWO Item No. 7). Inspector Coscia’s attention was not called to the areas of the Z-bar metal flashing that had been cut and allegedly not sealed, as shown in WRECorp’s photographs, at the prehearing inspection or at the hearing. Mr. Hallas credibly testified that Respondent had sealed these areas with a cant strip. Crown Roofing repaired the skylight, not Respondent (CWO Item No. 10). Because Crown Roofing modified the skylight, Respondent is not responsible for any remaining deficiencies in the skylight.[19] Complainant did not submit any evidence to establish that Respondent contracted to replace the underlayment beneath the tile roof (CWO Item No. 12). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any statute by failing to install underlayment beneath the tile roof. The Complaint that Complainant filed with the Registrar and the CWO did not mention moved or missing tiles. Because Respondent is entitled to receive notice from the Registrar of all items of allegedly deficient workmanship before its license may be penalized,[20] the Administrative Law Judge does not address these alleged deficiencies. Complainant may file a new complaint with the Registrar to resolve any new complaint items. Construction is not a perfect art and, generally, contractors must have notice of and an opportunity to repair their workmanship before their licenses may be disciplined for workmanship deficiencies. Because all of the items of Complainant’s Complaint involved workmanship that either were outside the scope of the Complaint that Complainant filed with the Registrar, were not Respondent’s responsibility, or were repaired to comply with the Registrar’s workmanship standards, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9- 108,[21] or A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).[22] As noted above, Complainant has not paid Respondent the entire contract amount. Complainant did not submit any evidence to establish that Respondent has filed a lien or has taken any other action to collect the entire contract amount. Although Complainant may be entitled to an offset against the unpaid contract balance for the costs of J C Stucco’s or Crown Roofing’s repairs or the Z-bar flashing that Respondent did not replace, Complainant has not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(9).[23] Respondent’s proposal to apply elastomeric paint to the stucco was incidental to the repair of Complainant’s roof, which was within the scope of Respondent’s C-42 license. When Mr. Hallas realized that the stucco had more extensive damage than Respondent could remedy by applying elastomeric paint, Respondent properly advised Complainant to hire a stucco contractor. Because Complainant did not establish that Respondent proposed or performed work outside the scope of Respondent’s C-42 license, she did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17).[24] Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(13),[25] namely A.R.S. § 32-1158,[26] because its proposal did not include an estimated date of completion or apprise Complainant of her right to file a complaint with the Registrar based on Respondent’s possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, Respondent Hallas Roofing & Repairs LLC DBA: Hallas Roofing Systems’ License No. C-42.270485-R shall be suspended until it has modified its proposal and contract forms to include the terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is further recommended that if on or before the effective date of the final Order in this matter, Respondent has provided written proof to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted such proof, that Respondent has modified its proposal and contract forms to include the terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158, Respondent’s license shall not be suspended and, instead, Complainant Elizabeth Cheong’s Complaint in Case No. 2012-3047 shall be closed. In the event of certification of the 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 that certification. Done this day, April 2, 2013.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Complainant’s Exhibit 2 at 9. This document was contained in the Registrar’s electronic file as Insp Correspondence From Complainant3.pdf. [2] See id. at 4-5. [3] Complainant’s Exhibit 9 at 1, 3, and 4, respectively. [4] Complainant’s Exhibit 6. [5] See Complainant’s Exhibit 7 at 1. [6] See Complainant’s Exhibit 3A. [7] See Complainant’s Exhibit 7 at 3. [8] See Complainant’s Exhibit 3B at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. [9] See Complainant’s Exhibit 7 at 4. [10] See Complainant’s Exhibit 2 at 9, photograph 17. [11] See Exhibit 2 at 9, photograph 16. [12] See Complainant’s Exhibit 2 at 2, photograph 2; 6, photograph 10; 7, photographs 11 and 12. [13] See Complainant’s Exhibit 2 at 3, photograph 3; 4, photographs 5 and 6; 5, photograph 8; 6, photograph 9. [14] See A.R.S. §§ 32-1151 to 32-1169, [15] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19- 119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [16] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [17] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [18] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of any 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.” [19] See A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). This statute provides in relevant part as follows: 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: . . . . 2. The contractor's work has been subject to neglect, modification or abnormal use. [20] See A.R.S. § 41.1092.05(D)(4). [21] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” [22] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure 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.” [23] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.” [24] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, and other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[k]nowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.” [25] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.” [26] A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) provides that any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved after December 31, 2007 must be in writing and must include the following minimum terms: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor’s business address and the license number. 2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3. The date the parties entered into the contract. 4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in ten point bold type. . . .

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

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