ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2012A-3234-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-02-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 31, 2013 APPEARANCES: David Hannappel, Complainant’s representative; Matthew Gonzalez, Respondent’s representative; Mark Alyea, Registrar of Contractors Inspector ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ Having heard the testimony and evidence at hearing and having considered the entire record, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and issues the following Recommended Decision to the Registrar of Contractors. FINDINGS OF FACT Background 1. Silverton Contractors, Inc., (“Complainant”) contracted with Supreme Landscape and Design, Inc., License No. K-21.191505-D (“Respondent”), for the installation of a sprinkler system on the private property owned by Complainant’s qualifying party, David Hannappel. The yard is very large and the system was divided into numerous zones for reference. Respondent completed the job and Mr. Hannappel issued the final payment prior to filing his complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (“Complaint”). 2. Mr. Hannappel filed a Complaint with the Registrar of Contractors against Respondent on June 29, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the Registrar of Contractors’ inspector assigned to the Complaint, Mark Alyea, issued a Corrective Work Order. 3. Subsequent to the issuance of the Corrective Work Order, Respondent made some corrections to the work but Complainant was not satisfied and requested a hearing in the matter. Inspector Alyea conducted a pre-hearing inspection on January 30, 2013, the day before the hearing. Mr. Hannappel was present; Mr. Gonzalez, Respondent’s representative, was not. Inspector Alyea went through the items in the Corrective Work Order and found that some but not all had been corrected. 4. At the hearing, Inspector Alyea testified regarding each item of correction. The relevant portion of the Corrective Work Order, along with Inspector Alyea’s findings, follows:

[Back Yard] (hereinafter referred to as “Section A”) 1. The 1/4 sprinkler head[1] at the west side of the pool is spraying the pool fence. Adjust this head to not spray pool fence. [corrected] 2. Half head at south pool fence needs to be adjusted not to spray pool fence. [not corrected] 3. One sprinkler in zone 5 needs to be raised. [corrected] 4. Two heads in zone 7 need to be raised. [not corrected] 5. Raise one head in zone 8. [not corrected] 6. Raise one head in zone 9. [not corrected] 7. The center head in zone 10 needs to be raised. [corrected] 8. Raise one head in zone 12. [not corrected] 9. In zone 13 raise the 1/2 heads east of the guest house. [not corrected] 10. Raise head in zone 14. [not corrected] 11. Raise full head to the west in zone 15. [corrected] 12. In zone 16 correct the three 1/2 heads that are to (sic) far from the curb and raise the full head. [partly corrected] 13. In zone 17 the head by house is low and the half head by pool is clogged. [corrected] 14. In zone 18 1/4 head that is spraying the fence needs to be moved or adjusted. The half head needs to be raised. This is at the northwest corner of back yard. [not corrected]

Front yard (hereinafter referred to as “Section B”) 1. In zone 19 raise one full head. [corrected] 2. In zone 20 adjust or add a head to cover the yard next to electricial pole at the southwest corner of yard. [not corrected] 3. Sod is dead at the southeast corner of the yard and needs to be replaced. [corrected] 4. Sod at the northeast corner of yard needs to be replaced. [corrected] 5. Sprinkler next to mail box is clogged. [corrected] 6. The sod at the front of the street at the center of the front yard is dead. [corrected] 7. Two 1/4 heads are clogged at the northwest side of the yard, that is north of the driveway. [corrected] 8. The sod in the center of the north yard next to the wall is dead. [corrected] 9. Contractor needs to haul away the two dead plants that are still in pots, just to the east of the guest house. [corrected] 10. The complainant needs to purchase a new magnolia tree so the contractor can replace the one that is dead. [dropped by Complainant] 11. Contractor needs to replace the dead ash tree at the southside of the back yard. [not corrected] 12. Contractor needs to clean up the materials that got all over the pavers under the vaccum breaker at the northside of the guest house. [dropped by Complainant] 13. The contract reads that all trees, shrubs, and bamboo to be on separate valves. [not corrected] 14. Hibiscus at the northside of the driveway is dead. [not corrected] 15. Tree west of guest house is not getting water. [completed/dropped by Complainant] 16. The front carob tree is not getting water. [not corrected] 17. Contractor should inspect and correct if needed all sprinklers for height per manufacturing specifications. [not corrected]

Coverage and overspray 5. All items in the Corrective Work Order, other than #11 of Section B (replace the dead ash tree), #13 of Section B (put trees shrubs and bamboo on separate valves), and #14 of Section B (replace a dead hibiscus), were either corrected, dropped or involved cleaning out or adjusting the height or direction of the sprinklers. Inspector Alyea testified that although he found that the “heads” of several sprinklers should be raised, there are no written standards for the height of the sprinklers. He also stated that, in his opinion, if dirt is clogging a sprinkler, the contractor’s duty is to fix it once and that, after that, it is a maintenance issue for the homeowner. Inspector Alyea also noted at hearing that a sprinkler not noted on the Corrective Work Order was over-spraying on a gate as well. 6. Inspector Alyea testified that all of the corrections involving fixing the sprinkler heads were easy to adjust. In fact, Inspector Alyea testified that item #15 of Section B was corrected by Mr. Hannappel at the pre-hearing job site inspection when he turned on the sprinklers, kicked around some gravel that had gotten around the head, screwed the head on tighter (apparently it had come loose somehow), and re-set the spray. 7. Mr. Gonzalez agreed with Inspector Alyea that the Registrar of Contractors’ standards do not specify the proper height of the emitters. In fact, he said, they can be level with the ground if desired. Mr. Gonzalez testified that he has adjusted the height of the sprinklers so many times at Mr. Hannappel’s request that he believes they are being sabotaged due to the heated relationship that has arisen between the parties. 8. Regarding the items that concerned spraying water on fences or gates, Mr. Gonzalez testified that with the effects of wind in a yard, it is impossible for the water to completely avoid hitting a fence. Nevertheless, Mr. Hannappel did not want any water to spray on his fences or gates. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he made numerous adjustments to the sprinklers for Mr. Hannappel, trying to satisfy his tastes. He also stated he suspected that some of the things that he had fixed were later changed by Mr. Hannappel. 9. Inspector Alyea testified that some areas were not being covered completely during the watering process. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the emitters would only need adjusting to a higher level to distribute the water further. Mr. Gonzalez testified that overspray is not only appropriate but necessary for proper coverage. Consequently, when Mr. Hannappel wanted to avoid overspray on his fence and gate, complying with his wishes resulted in coverage problems. 10. Mr. Gonzalez also stated that Mr. Hannappel preferred to keep his grass long and once the grass started to be longer, it impeded the distribution of the water from the sprinklers because eventually the grass would grow higher than the height of the emitters. It appears most likely that this is the source of Mr. Hannappel’s requests to repeatedly adjust the height of the emitters. Once mowed, the water covered the lawn well, but when the grass grew out longer it blocked the water as it sprayed from the sprinklers, which were set to rise 3 inches above the casing. It is logical to assume that once the grass was more than 3 inches long, it interfered with the spray. It is also logical to assume that the height of the sprinklers could be adjusted to account for this, but then when the grass was cut and the spray was unimpeded, the water would travel further, giving rise to complaints of overspray. 11. Item #17 in Section B of the Corrective Work Order states that the contractor should inspect the height of all sprinkler heads and correct them if needed. Mr. Gonzalez testified credibly that this is exactly what he did. Inspector Alyea testified that he did not think this was done because of the sod that had been found over some of the sprinkler heads during the prehearing job site inspection. However, it should be noted that the pre-hearing job site inspection was performed at least five months after the corrections were done. 12. It was not disputed at the hearing that Mr. Hannappel hosted a wedding in his yard after the sprinkler system had been installed. This would explain why a sprinkler system that was meticulously approved by Mr. Hannappel turned up in his Complaint as having sod covering them or as needing adjustment. 13. Mr. Gonzalez’s claim that he checked all of the sprinklers for proper height was credible because it made sense for him to adjust all of the sprinklers when he could not tell which of them needed correction due to an intervening action by Mr. Hannappel. Mr. Gonzalez testified that at the first job site inspection, Mr. Hannapel had marked his complaint items with numerous little blue flags. As Inspector Alyea inspected each item, the flags marking items that Inspector Alyea found to meet workmanship standards were removed, leaving the remaining flags to mark the items to be repaired. 14. It was undisputed at the hearing that when Mr. Gonzalez went to the site about a week after the Corrective Work Order was issued, all of the flags had been removed and the gate was locked. This left only the Corrective Work Order’s general descriptions of the items to be corrected to guide Respondent. The descriptions only specified the item to be corrected by zone. Mr. Gonzalez testified that each zone had 14 to 16 sprinklers in it so that without the flags, it was impossible to be certain which sprinklers required correction. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzalez, upon seeing that all the flags had been removed, had his workers go through the entire project and ensure that the height of each sprinkler was appropriate. 15. Mr. Hannappel testified that he had removed the flags to mow the lawn. Nevertheless, the removal of the flags, coupled with Inspector Alyea’s observation at the pre-hearing inspection that Respondent had corrected some of the items, also lends credence to Mr. Gonzalez’s theory that the condition of the project changed significantly in the five months between the date he corrected the items and the date of the pre-hearing inspection. Contract and warranty items 16. Item #11 in Section B of the Corrective Work Order required the contractor to replace a dead ash tree, which was in the back yard. This was not done because Mr. Hannappel insisted on using a crane and would not allow Respondent to perform the work unless it was done his way. Although he had had a wedding on his lawn, Mr. Hannappel stated that he was concerned that using a truck to replace the tree would damage the grass.[2] Mr. Hannappel was informed at the hearing that he does not have the right to demand that the Respondent complete items of correction in the manner he determines appropriate. 17. Mr. Gonzalez did not dispute that he failed to put the trees, shrubs, and bamboo on separate valves or that he failed to replace the hibiscus, items #13 and #14 of Section B. No reasons were given for this. Additional evidence 18. Mr. Gonzalez testified that Mr. Hannappel was extremely controlling throughout the project. Mr. Gonzalez stated that Mr. Hannappel would not allow Respondent to move forward on the job at any point until he had personally approved the work up to that point. Mr. Gonzalez stated that Mr. Hannappel’s interference was so extreme that at one point he demanded that Respondent’s workers dig up a pipe that had been buried because Mr. Hannappel had not seen the pipe and he would not believe it was the proper type of pipe until he saw it himself. Respondent complied with that request and dug up the pipe to show Mr. Hannappel that it was the correct pipe. In all, Mr. Gonzalez said, Mr. Hannappel’s interference was so imposing that the job, which was expected to take five weeks, took fourteen weeks instead. Before he would allow Respondent to lay the sod for the project, Mr. Hannappel ran the sprinklers and adjusted each one to suit his height preference. It was not disputed at hearing that Mr. Hannappel released the final payment on the project and that Mr. Hannappel did so only after he was personally satisfied with the quality of the work performed. 19. Mr. Hannappel testified that Mr. Gonzalez’s testimony was not true. However, he went on to acknowledged that he does not want overspray on his fence and gate, that he had removed all of the flags before Respondent could do any corrective work and locked his gate, that he keeps his lawn long, that he insisted on checking the pipes in the system after they had been buried, and that he still wants Respondent to use a crane on his ash tree. Consequently, Mr. Hannappel could not substantiate his claim that Mr. Gonzalez’s testimony was untrue. 20. Mr. Hannappel stated that the manufacturer has standards for the height of the emitters. A copy of the manufacturer’s instructions for self- installation was included with the Complaint but it was not clear that the manufacturer required a particular height for the emitters. The copy in the record was not readable. 21. Administrative notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar of Contractors public website on February 14, 2013. Such prior License record reflects that the license in this matter is current and has two open complaints against it. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1104(A)(4), A.R.S. § 32-1154(B) and A.R.S. § 32-1156. Complainant has the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41- 1092.07(G); A.A.C. R2-19-119. 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). Proof by preponderance of the evidence “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary at 1182 (rev. 6th ed. 1990). 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) and (3), (namely A.A.C. R4-9-108). 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. Therefore, by naming A.A.C. R4-9-108, the Citation and Complaint identified workmanship issues as the applicable alleged violation. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. 5. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding. A.A.C. R4-9-117. On standing motion by the Registrar of Contractors, the computer records of the Registrar of Contractors may properly be considered to be evidence in the event the Administrative Law Judge finds a violation of any of the statutory provisions cited in the Citation and Complaint. Respondent’s record in this case should be a factor in mitigation. 6. Regarding alleged violations in this matter, the Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors[3] provide the following standards for sprinkler system installation:

SPRINKLERS, BUBBLERS AND DRIP SYSTEMS

Buyer assumes responsibility of sprinkler heads, bubbler heads and distribution tubing of drip systems after 90 days unless improper workmanship by the contractor can be shown.

1. PD System does not function. AT None. CR Contractor should determine cause and make necessary repairs.

2. PD System does not cover area. AT Heads should be placed to cover area intended with water pressure and volume available. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs.

3. PD Trenches visible over piping, improperly filled or compacted. AT None. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs.

4. PD Heads not working properly. AT Defective sprinkler heads are unacceptable. Heads damaged by mower or vandals are not responsibility of contractor. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs.

5. PD Bubblers not functioning properly. AT None. CR Contractor should adjust one time and instruct owner how to clean and adjust heads.

6. PD Clock not operating properly or defective. AT None. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs. Determine cause and correct condition. Replace clock if defective and within warranty.

7. PD Heads too low or too high. AT Heads should clear top of grass when mowed and retract to clear lawnmower CR Contractor should adjust height of heads one time after grass is established if necessary.

8. PD Stolenized lawns not smooth with low spots and areas between stolens. AT None. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs.

9. PD Boxes or covers not installed at solenoid valves. AT Valves should be installed in proper box with covers when required by manufacturer’s specifications or code. CR Contractor should make necessary repairs.

10. PD Operating instructions not provided. AT None. CR Contractor should provide owner with operating instructions.

Coverage issues and overspray 7. Regarding coverage of the grassy areas, Complainant established that some areas were not being covered by the sprinkler system as shown by the areas of dead sod. Standard #2, above, requires the contractor to place the sprinkler heads appropriately to achieve coverage. The greater weight of the evidence established that all of the coverage issues were correctable by adjustment to the emitters. Standard #7, above, requires only that the “heads” (or emitters, as Respondent referred to them) clear the top of the grass “when mowed” and that they retract to clear the lawnmower. No evidence was offered at hearing to establish that the Complainant’s lawnmower was hitting the sprinklers, so it must be concluded that they were low enough to meet standards. No evidence was presented at hearing to establish that the emitters did not rise above the grass when it was mowed. Complainant did not dispute that he prefers to keep the grass long, so it should not be counted as a violation against the Respondent when the length of the grass interfered with the spray. 8. Mr. Hannappel argued that the emitters were not set high enough even after the grass was mowed. However, Mr. Hannappel’s testimony was not credible because this claim is contradictory to the fact that he supervised the project himself to such an extent that he made Respondent uncover a buried pipe to satisfy his personal demands. Mr. Hannappel did not dispute that he personally approved the coverage and height of the emitters before releasing the final payment and this action by him is more consistent with the overall picture of Mr. Hannappel’s approach to the project. 9. Most of the items in the Corrective Work Order directed the Respondent to adjust the height of the sprinklers to either cover more area or to avoid overspray.[4] The applicable Registrar of Contractors’ Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors, cited above, does not specify that overspray is inappropriate in a sprinkler system. Mr. Gonzalez testified that overspray is not only appropriate but necessary for proper coverage, which is logical. The evidence at hearing established that Mr. Hannappel did not want to have overspray on his fence and gate; however, this was a personal preference and not a workmanship issue. 10. The greater weight of the evidence established that the coverage issues on the lawn and trees were most likely due to either Mr. Hannappel’s preference for long grass or his insistence on avoiding overspray. These two problems can reasonably account for every coverage issue on the project. They are customer preferences, not workmanship items. Therefore, Complainant did not meet his burden of proving that they were due to workmanship issues. This includes Complainant’s request for a new head near the pecan tree because Complainant did not establish a deficiency in the number of heads. Rather, as Respondent testified, the area could not be watered sufficiently without overspray. 11. Although Respondent attempted to correct the coverage and sprinkler height issues, there were some that were not considered corrected by the Inspector Alyea. Since the evidence that was brought forth at the hearing established that those items complied with the Registrar’s standards, this furnished a legal justification for Respondent’s failure to comply with the Corrective Work Order. Complainant did not establish a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). Clogged sprinkler heads 12. Three of the items in the Corrective Work Order concern clogged sprinkler heads.[5] As stated in Standard #4 of the applicable Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors, stated above, damage by mowers or vandals is not the responsibility of the contractor. Standard #5 states that the contractor should show the homeowner how to clean and adjust the heads of bubblers and then it is a maintenance issue. While bubblers were not the subject of any of the appeal items, Standard #4 and Standard #5 are the only formal standards that might apply. Additionally, the introduction to this section of the Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors states that the buyer assumes responsibility for the sprinklers after 90 days, unless improper workmanship by the contractor is shown. These provisions make it clear that keeping the sprinklers clear of clogging materials at some point must become a homeowner’s maintenance issue. They also make it clear that the homeowner bears the burden of proving that the contractor is responsible for improper workmanship. 13. It was undisputed at hearing that Mr. Hannappel was satisfied with the sprinklers and their performance when he released the final payment in this case, which would logically have been prior to the day that he filed the Complaint. It was also undisputed that Mr. Hannappel personally supervised the project, going so far as to demand that Respondent dig up a trench that had been covered in order to prove to his personal satisfaction that the proper pipe had been used. It is clear from the undisputed evidence that the three clogged heads were clogged by the homeowner’s actions or actions of those who were on his property after the final payment was released, possibly during the wedding. Even after Respondent went over all of the sprinkler heads one by one, several months after the corrective work was done some of the other sprinklers had become clogged. Meanwhile, Inspector Alyea acknowledged that the three clogged sprinklers in the Corrective Work Order had been corrected. This only confirms that Mr. Hannappel’s activities in his yard at times results in clogs in the system, and that they should all be considered homeowner maintenance items. 14. Although Mr. Hannappel argued at the hearing that additional heads should be added, there was insufficient evidence to make such a finding. Not only did Mr. Hannappel meticulously approve every portion of the project before it was finished, his personal preferences regarding overspray and longer grass were shown to have a limiting effect on coverage. While he may want additional heads in order to continue enjoying his personal preferences, no violation of workmanship standards was evident regarding the sufficiency of sprinklers. Contract issues 15. The remaining items in the Corrective Work Order arise out of the contract or out of warranty issues. They concern the dead plants and the separate valve issue. Dead plants 16. Dead plants are governed by the Registrar of Contractors Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors.[6] It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

LANDSCAPING

1. PD Landscaping interferes with drainage. AT Landscaping should not interfere with established drainage. CR Contractor should correct as necessary.

2. PD Plants are not size or species specified. AT None. CR Contractor should install proper plants.

3. PD Plants dying. AT Plants should be installed in healthy living condition. CR Contractor should replace affected plants within warranty period unless condition is caused by owner.

4. PD Rocks uneven or spread too thin. AT None. CR Contractor should correct so that proper coverage is achieved.

5. PD Grass and weeds growing in rocks. AT Areas should be protected from weed or grass infiltration. CR Contractor should correct condition by appropriate means within days.

6. PD Low spots. AT Area should be fine graded and properly compacted. CR Contractor should correct condition.

7. PD Damage caused by landscaping equipment. AT None. CR Contractor should have proper repairs made to anything damaged during landscaping.

17. Standard #3, above, states that dying plants should be replaced in the warranty period. The greater weight of the evidence established that Respondent replaced all of the dead sod[7] and adjusted the sprinklers in the areas where the sod had died. Regarding the three dying plants,[8] Complainant dropped the issue of the magnolia, but the ash and the hibiscus were not replaced. Respondent failed to replace the hibiscus without explanation. Respondent did not replace the ash tree because Mr. Hannappel interfered with his performance by insisting on the use of a crane. 18. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) does not impose a violation if the contractor has a valid justification for failing to correct an item in the Corrective Work Order. In the matter of the ash tree, Respondent was justified in failing to replace the ash tree because Mr. Hannappel refused to allow Mr. Gonzalez to complete that item unless it was done Mr. Hannappel’s way. At the hearing, Mr. Hannappel indicated that he understood now that he did not have the authority to insist that corrections be made his way. However, he stated that he would rent the crane for Respondent to complete the correction. It was clear from the evidence that Complainant is not willing to have the tree replaced in the manner that Respondent chooses. Therefore, Respondent was justified in failing to correct that item because of Complainant’s failure to provide reasonable access, and it should not be considered a violation. 19. Regarding Respondent’s failure to replace the hibiscus, Respondent offered no evidence as to why this item was not corrected. It appears to have been overlooked during the correction. Therefore, Respondent’s failure to replace the hibiscus was a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) and (23). Separate valves 20. The final issue from the Corrective Work Order was the Respondent’s failure to put the trees, shrubs and bamboo on separate valves[9] as called for in the contract. Respondent did not dispute that this item was not completed or corrected. Therefore, the evidence at hearing established that this item was a violation of A.R.S. §§ 32- 1154(A)(3)and (23). RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends to the Registrar of Contractors that commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, License No. K-21.191502-D of Supreme Landscape and Design, Inc. shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives and accepts sufficient proof that Respondent has replaced Complainant’s ash tree and hibiscus and has put the trees, shrubs and bamboo on separate valves.

It is further recommended that if Respondent completes these three tasks on or before the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, then the aforementioned license suspension shall not take place and in that event this Citation (2012-3234), together with the Complaint upon which it is based, shall be closed.

It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, that Respondent pay the sum of $250.00 in certified funds to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D). The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty, on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered.

If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be forty (40) days from the date of certification. Done this day, February 20, 2013.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Mr. Gonzalez testified that the “head” is the casing. On the other hand, Mr. Alyea referred to the “head” of the sprinkler as the mechanism that raises itself up above the casing during watering, which Mr. Gonzalez referred to as the “emitter”. However, the Registrar of Contractors standard set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Conclusions of Law makes it clear that the emitters are commonly called the heads. Therefore, it appears that there were no issues with the casings, and a reference in this recommendation to the heads is equivalent to the emitters. [2] At the hearing, Mr. Hannappel also stated he was concerned about underground electrical wires near the tree. [3] State of Arizona, Registrar of Contractors, Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors 31-32 (June 2009).

[4] Items #1 through #14 of Section A and Items #1, #2, #15, #16, and #17 of Section B. [5] Item #13 in Section A and Items #5 and #7 in Section B of the Corrective Work Order. [6] State of Arizona, Registrar of Contractors, Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors 17 (June 2009). [7] Items #3, #4, #6, and #8 of Section B. [8] Items #11, #13, and #14 of Section B. [9] Item #13, Section B.

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

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