ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-782-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2014-05-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 29, 2014

APPEARANCES: Stone Kat Development LLC appeared through Member/proposed Qualifying Party Trevor Peck and Member Kent Hunter; the State of Arizona, Registrar of Contractors, was represented by Assistant Attorney General Seth Hargraves and ROC Chief of Licensing Lawrence Matthews.

WITNESSES: For Applicant: Trevor Peck

For the ROC: Lawrence Matthews, Chief of ROC Licensing Paul Terek, Asst. Chief of ROC Licensing

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Stone Kat Development LLC (“Applicant”) appeals the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ (“ROC” or “Registrar”) denial of an application for a specialty (electrical) dual contracting license. The ROC based the denial upon finding that Applicant’s proposed Qualifying Party does not have the requisite experience. Applicant requested a hearing to show otherwise. At hearing, the Administrative Law Judge entered into evidence marked Exhibits 1 through 5 from the ROC. The parties presented evidence and testimony from the witnesses listed above. Based on the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommend Order finding that Applicant has NOT shown that that Applicant’s proposed Qualifying Party has the experience required by statute and recommending denial of the application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant currently holds an Arizona dual general contracting license (No. KB-1.240766-D) that allows Applicant to act as a general contractor, but excludes specialty contracting such as plumbing and electrical. On August 14, 2013, Applicant applied for a Class K-11 (electrical) specialty dual contracting license with the ROC.[1] On January 28, 2014, the ROC issued a denial letter for the following reasons: 1. Trevor D. Peck has failed to establish relevant experience necessary to obtain Pending License No. 287130 in his application in contravention of A.R.S. § 32-1122.F.1.

The specific facts upon which the ROC relies for the denial are explained in the next pages of the application denial letter.[2] 2. The ROC statutes require that a Qualifying Party have at least four years of experience in the trade for which the license is sought. Here, that trade is a specialty trade for electricians. Thus, Applicant’s proposed Qualifying Party must have at least four years’ experience as an electrician. 3. Applicant submitted three Work Experience Records for its proposed Qualifying Party Trevor Peck (“Peck”). These records show 5.4 years of self-employment, 2.11 years’ of employment with Applicant, and 3.1 years with Celectric, LLC, a dual-licensed electrical contractor.[3] All of this experience was in Arizona. 4. The Celectric, LLC record is verified by Paul Hodges, who was its Qualifying Party. Oddly, though, the record states that for 3.1 years (the entire time) Peck worked as “self-employed.” One cannot be self-employed and also work for a company. This makes the record self-contradictory and of no weight without further explanation from Paul Hodges. The record contains no statement or testimony from Paul Hodges that would explain the discrepancy. Therefore, the work record for Celectric, LLC is given no weight. 5. The evidence does not show that Peck has at least four years’ experience working in legal electrical contracting. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Applicant must show that it has a Qualifying Party that meets statutory requirements, one of which is a minimum of four years “practical or management trade experience . . . dealing specifically with the type of construction, or its equivalent, for which the applicant is applying. . . .”[4] For the reasons stated below, Applicant has not shown that the proposed Qualifying Party has the required experience. 2. The Qualifying Party must have had “a minimum of four years' practical or management trade experience, at least two of which must have been within the last ten years, dealing specifically with the type of construction, or its equivalent, for which the applicant is applying for a license.”[5] This provision looks only at the amount of experience and whether it is “trade experience,” either practical trade experience or management trade experience. It also requires that the experience be in the “type of construction, or its equivalent,” for which the applicant is seeking licensure. For a specialty trade, then, the experience must be within that specialty trade, or an equivalent trade. 3. Here, Peck’s experiences with self-employment and with a general contractor (under Applicant’s general contracting license) is not the type that is required by the statute, nor is it the equivalent. For a specialty area of contracting, the statute implicitly requires a person to gain the minimum experience doing licensed specialty work. Performing construction work as a self-employed individual is allowed by the ROC statutes under the “handyman exemption” from licensure,[6] but due to its strict limitations the sort of work allowed as a handyman is not the equivalent of work that is performed by a licensed electrician, nor is it licensed work. In addition, the work done under a general contractor is not specialty electrical contracting work, by definition. Therefore, the experience gained by Peck as self-employed and for Applicant is not relevant because it does not meet the experience requirements of the statute. And as noted above, the experience gained under Celectric, LLC was questionable and was not verified sufficiently that it can be given any weight. The experience with Celectric does not amount to four years anyway. 4. Applicant has not shown that its proposed Qualifying Party has the requisite experience as required by statute. RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar of Contractors deny the August 14, 2013, application for licensure of Stone Kat Development, LLC.

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 5 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, May 16, 2014.

/s/ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Exhibit 2. [2] Exhibit 1. [3] Exhibit 2. [4] A.R.S. § 32-1122(F)(1). [5] A.R.S. § 32-1122(F)(1). [6] A.R.S. § 32-1121(A)(14).

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

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