FINACT2018A-05519-ROC.pdf

2018A-05519-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-06-04

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Las Casitas Mobile Home Park, Case No. 2018-05519 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2018A-05519-ROC v. Carrera's Plumbing Inc, FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION License No. ROC 262781, 276780, AND ORDER RESPONDENT.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(B), the Registrar may review and accept, modify, or reject an administrative law judge’s written decision. If the Registrar modifies or rejects that decision, then the Registrar must provide written justification setting forth the reasons for the modification or rejection. REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE In this case, a hearing was held, and the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See Administrative Law Judge Decision, attached. The Registrar reviewed that decision and hereby accepts it. CONCLUSION Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on July 13, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150.00 payable to the Registrar on or before 30 days from the effective date of this Order. Payment may be hand- delivered to the Registrar’s physical address or mailed to:

Registrar of Contractors P.O. Box 6748 Phoenix, Arizona 85505-6748

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 Dated June 3, 2019.

Registrar of Contractors /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel, Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail June 3, 2019 to: Respondent Carrera's Plumbing Inc 404 W Frontier St Eloy, AZ 85131 Complainant Las Casitas Mobile Home Park 5201 S Chuichu Road #300 Casa Grande, AZ 85193

AND copy electronically mailed this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Office of Administrative Hearings Linda Marie Brown, Administrative Law Judge

Case No. 2018-05519 / mc

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Las Casitas Mobile Home Park, No. 2018A-05519-ROC

COMPLAINANT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION v.

Carrera's Plumbing Inc., ROC Licenses: ROC 262781, 276780,

RESPONDENT

HEARING: March 19, 2019, at 1:00 PM (Record held open until April 5, 2019). APPEARANCES: Tim Mathison (“Mr. Mathison,” representative for Las Casitas Mobile Home Park, “Park” or “Complainant”); and Andrew Carrera (“Mr. Carrera,” representative for Carrera’s Plumbing Inc., “Respondent”). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Linda Marie Brown _____________________________________________________________________ This hearing is to determine whether Respondent has violated certain statutory provisions as set forth in the Citation issued on January 22, 2019.1 Based on the testimony and evidence presented and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Recommended Order based on the entire record in this matter. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. According to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors website, Carrera’s Plumbing Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Nos. 276780 (C-37 Plumbing),2 and 262781 (P-37R Plumbing),3 issued by the Registrar. The address of record for both licenses is 404 West Frontier Street, Eloy, Arizona 85131-1839. Andrew Carrera is listed as the Member/Qualifying Party.

See ProLaw 2/7/2019 REQHRG: Citation, pp. 115-121; 133-139. ROC website: https://roc.az.gov/contractor-search?Id=a0Yt000000ACLltEAH The Tribunal notes this license is inactive as of 04/02/2018. ROC website: https://roc.az.gov/contractor-search?Id=a0Yt000000ACKKuEAP Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

2. On or about November 19, 2018, Complainant filed a complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging “poor work” on a commercial project. Further information provided by the Complainant included, (1) Risers not done to code or

properly; (2) Left Lot #218 leaking damaged inside, didn’t care; and (3) Meters provided

and not installed correctly.4

3. The Registrar assigned this matter to its Investigator, John Smith, for

investigation. On November 21, 2018, Investigator Smith sent Respondent an

Allegations letter along with a copy of the complaint.5

4. Investigator Smith also sent Respondent a letter that its contract was in

violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 32-1158(A) for failing to include the

required elements in its contract with Complainant.6

5. Investigator Smith conducted a Jobsite Inspection on December 12, 2018.

Mr. Mathison was present; Respondent was not. Investigator Smith substantiated the

following:

Complaint Item 1: “Risers not done to code or properly” “Meters provided and not installed correctly.”7 This includes lots: 218, 219, 94, 104, 99, 134, 133, 111, 114, 128, 117, 116, 72, 75, 300, 189, 188, 187, 204, 203, 20, 19, 18, 14, 13, 12, 10, 106, 105, 129, and 128. No Building permit obtained for this work. There is improper use of PVC compression fittings on galvanized pipe, there is improper use of electrical fittings in the potable water supply line, there are locations of PVC pipe exposed to sunlight, there is copper connected directly to galvanized pipe.

Investigator Observations: Respondent’s invoices8 confirmed the replacement of water line risers at all of the above listed lots. The risers replaced were from the underground main water lines of the manufactured home community, up to the in ground meter boxes of the individual lots. There are PVC compression fittings connecting galvanized pipe to PVC, there are several locations of electrical fitting used in the potable water supply line, there is at least one location of directly connecting copper to galvanized pipe.

See ProLaw 2/7/2019 REQHRG: Initial Complaint, pp. 151-180; 192-221. Id. at Allegations Letter, pp. 34-36. Id. at Contract Warning Letter, pp. 37-38; 181-182. The ALJ notes that Investigator Smith combined both items 1 and 3 from the Complainant’s Complaint. Investigator Smith noted invoices from Respondent for Lots 21 and 107, but that Complainant acknowledged having those Lots corrected by a separate contractor. (See ProLaw RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

All work will need to be permitted, inspected, and approved by Pima County Building Department.9 6. On December 17, 2018, Investigator Smith sent Respondent a Warning letter advising that the Registrar believes Respondent performed work without obtaining the necessary building permits for a project located 5201 S. Chuichu Road, Casa Grande, AZ 85193. The Pinal County Building Safety Department (the “Department”) confirmed that replacement of risers required a permit.10 7. A Directive was issued on December 17, 2018, that required proof of compliance no later than January 7, 2019, to remedy all items listed under Complaint Item 1 by appropriate means. The Registrar advised Respondent that it was required to ensure that any and all required building permits are obtained from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections.11 8. A Compliance Jobsite Inspection was conducted on January 16, 2019.

Mr. Mathison was present; Respondent was not. Investigator Smith noted that

Complaint Item 1 was not complete.12

9. On January 22, 2019, the Registrar issued a Citation charging

Respondent with four (4) possible violations as follows: (1) A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)

Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes; (2) A.R.S.

§ 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108 Minimum Construction Standards; (3) A.R.S. § 32-

1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158 Contract Requirements; and (4) A.R.S. § 32-

1154(A)(22) “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.

10. The written directive shall set forth the time within 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.”13

See ProLaw 2/7/2019 REQHRG: Jobsite Inspection, pp. 32-33. Investigator Smith also noted that “Dale Garcia, a Plan Review Technician for the Pinal County Building Department, confirmed this work requires a building permit. Id. at pp. 28-29, 183-184. Id. at pp. 185-186. 12 Id. at pp. 187-188. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

11. The matter was sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings and set for an evidentiary hearing.14 12. At hearing, Complainant alleged that Respondent was hired to do repairs

to the risers15 and that the work was incorrectly performed.16

13. Mr. Carrera, the qualifying party/officer for Respondent, testified that he

was told by the prior park manager, Michael Crank (“Mr. Crank”) to drop the risers

underground and put them in a meter box and that was done.17

14. Investigator Smith testified in narrative format regarding his involvement

in this matter. He stated that in addition to scheduling a Jobsite Inspection, he also

mailed Respondent a violation letter for failing to meet the minimum elements of a

contract, and that, in this particular case, there were no contracts for all 31 lots at all,

just verbal agreements with invoices issued after the fact.18

15. Investigator Smith further testified that, on December 12, 2018, he spoke

with the Department and its employees confirmed that the work that was done required

a permit and no permit had been obtained.19

16. On January 3, 2019, Mr. Carrera telephoned Investigator Smith, advising

that Respondent was unable to attend the Jobsite Inspection because he was in the hospital. Mr. Carrera also stated that Respondent completed the work in accordance with the agreement it had with the previous park manager. Investigator Smith replied that he told Mr. Carrera he only had copies of invoices and no agreements. Investigator Smith also advised that the Department confirmed that permits were needed for this work. 17. Investigator Smith further discussed the improper use of the gray compression fittings in potable water. Mr. Carrera told Investigator Smith that Respondent would provide manufacturer information regarding the gray compression Id. at Citation Multiple Charges, pp. 115-121; pp. 133-139. See ProLaw 02/11/2019 Notice of Hearing, pp. 1-3. Tony J. Guasp validated this in his re-inspection letter submitted to the ROC on or about April 4, 2019. (See Respondent’s Exhibit 4). Hearing Audio Transcript, Position 0:07:21-0:08:09. Id. at Position: 0:08:20-0:08:54. 18 Id. at Position: 0:10:00-0:10:10. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

fittings. As of the date of the hearing, Investigator Smith has not received that information.20 18. At the Compliance Inspection, Investigator Smith confirmed that no

building permit had been obtained. On January 16, 2019, Investigator Smith forwarded

the matter to the ROC’s Legal Department.

19. On February 5, 2019, Respondent submitted its response to the Citation

and included verification that the work had been permitted and inspected, and

approved by the Department. Investigator Smith stated he still has not received any

information regarding whether the gray compression fittings are acceptable for potable

water.21

20. On March 18, 2019, Investigator Smith testified he conducted a

prehearing inspection and that six (6) of the risers were dug up so that more of

Respondent’s work would be visible during the inspection. Investigator Smith stated he

was able to see the compression fittings and where they were connected to the rusty

pipe.22

21. Without removing any of the compression fittings, Investigator Smith was

not able to see if the galvanized pipe had been properly prepared for the use of these fittings or not. The water to the Park was temporarily turned off and then turned on to test for leaks. The compression fittings did stay in place and no leaks were observed.23 22. After the Prehearing Inspection, Investigator Smith testified he had a telephone conversation with a Pinal County Chief Building Official, Tony Guasp (“Mr. Guasp”), and was told the Department did receive the manufacturer documentation regarding the gray compression fittings for use on the water pipes and that the compression fittings were proper for potable water. Investigator Smith stated he

Id. at Position: 0:10:30-0:10:41. Id. at Position 0:11:44-0:12:28. Id. at Position 0:12:50:0:13:24. The pipes that were below grade. 23 Id. at Position 0:13:25-0:14:03. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

personally did not receive the documentation but does consider the Chief Building Official a credible source.24 23. Investigator Smith testified that Mr. Guasp told him that use of the

compression fittings is a temporary repair, at best, but the compression fittings do meet

the requirements of the code. Mr. Guasp stated that, at this time, the work was

complete and considered to be code compliant.25

24. Prior to this hearing, Investigator Smith received an email from the

Complainant that was also copied to Mr. Guasp. The email contained a few

photographs and stated that at least one of the risers was now leaking. Investigator

Smith testified that after discussion with Mr. Guasp, he was advised that the

Department would likely be rescinding its approval status of the compression fittings

and will likely require additional work and re-inspection.26

25. Investigator Smith further testified that, during his initial inspection, he

walked around the Park and opened up the meter boxes for all 31 lots that were

invoiced by Respondent.

26. During the Prehearing Inspection, he investigated the six (6) meter boxes

Complainant had dug up and took photographs. Investigator Smith further explained that he was able to get his fingers around the fittings and noted no moisture or any wetness as of the day before the hearing.27 27. Investigator Smith discussed his findings during his investigation of the galvanized compression fittings and stated that some rust or corrosion was observed on four (4) of the meter boxes. He reiterated that Mr. Guasp stated that, in his opinion, these compression fittings are a temporary repair at best. The Code book states that these compression style fittings do meet the minimum requirements of the Code.28

Id. at Position 0:14:04-0:14:29. Id. at Position 0:14:32-0:15:04. Id. at Position 0:15:18-0:15:51. Id. at 0:31:15-0:32:00. 28 Id. at 0:33:16-0:33:51. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

28. Mr. Carrera asked Investigator Smith what constitutes a riser. Investigator Smith replied, the riser is the pipe that goes from the underground main water line either up to or above grade or to the meter.29

29. Mr. Winkler testified as to his understanding of the work that was to be

done and the work Complainant had paid for. He stated he inspected some of the

risers, found some of them were corroded, and determined the entire riser needed to

be replaced.30

30. Mr. Mathison testified that he started managing the Park in July 2018.

Prior to that, he worked for a custom home builder in home warranties for 3 years. Mr.

Mathison does not possess any training or certificates in the plumbing or electrical

trades.31

31. Mr. Carrera testified that when Respondent started this project, he was

told to cut the pipes underground and put in the meter box with a valve. Mr. Carrera

testified Respondent has been using those compression fittings for over 20 years.32

32. Mr. Carrera stated the project involved 31 lots, and that he did not provide

the Property Manager with a contract. Mr. Carrera stated that, at times, the meter boxes

would blow in the evenings, on a Saturday, and that he was on-call and would be called out on emergencies that required immediate action to repair and get the water turned back on. There was no time to obtain permits.33 33. Mr. Carrera further testified that the compression fittings have been used in application on galvanized, PVC, and copper pipes and, in most cases, were a permanent solution.34 34. Mr. Crank testified that he managed the Park for approximately 9 months. Prior to that, he owned and operated a resort in Michigan for 18 years. He also stated he has known the Respondent for approximately 10-12 years.35 Id. at 0:35:28-0:35:51 Id. at 0:38:00-0:38:18. Id. at Position 0:44:37-0:45:42. Id. at Position 0:48:11-0:49:11. Id. at Position 0:49:30-0:50:01. Id. at Position 0:55:44-0:56:08. 35 Id. at Position 1:08:21-1:09:06. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

35. Mr. Crank described the piping in Respondent’s Park as old. He explained that the blueprints Mr. Winkler had for the Park were not relevant to the Park. The Park had a great problem with water leaks at and below ground level. All of the

risers in the Park stood anywhere from 1 to 3 feet out of the ground, and they were

rotting at the surface area. If you dug down 6 to 8 inches, the piping was rotted from

the surface pipe. The blueprints showed several water shut offs throughout the Park

which had never been located. At the time he was managing the Park, there were

approximately 70 residents so if there was one water leak, all the water was shut off

and none of the residents got water.36

36. Mr. Crank testified he contracted with Respondent to come out and take a

look at the risers because Complainant did not know the condition of the risers.

Respondent repaired one or two leaks the first day he was out there and submitted a

bill. Mr. Winkler asked him if Respondent would be willing to go through to look at the

risers and fix them. Mr. Crank suggested to Mr. Winkler that he authorize dropping the

risers below ground level and put them in a box so they would not get crushed,

trampled, or driven over by a car.

37. Mr. Crank stated he feared anyone going down into the main water line. He testified that the blueprints called for steel pipe and in some areas, he found steel, but, in other areas Complainant found plastic. 38. In other areas, a different size was used than what the blueprints called for so he told Respondent not to do anything with the tops of the risers unless it was absolutely necessary. Mr. Crank further explained to Mr. Winkler that if the top of the risers were disturbed, and Complainant had to dig up the main water line, Complainant would have to hire an excavator to go down and put a new saddle on. 39. Because Complainant did not know how deep the main water lines were and Respondent did not own an excavator, he would have to get another contractor crew out to the Park to do the work.37

Id. at Position 1:09:41-1:11:32. 37 Id. at Position 1:11:53-1:13:28. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

40. Mr. Crank stated that Respondent submitted a flat rate per unit, which was on the computer that was in the Complainant’s office. He explained that about 3 to months after he started working at the Park, the Park was taken over by a new

management company called M. Shapiro (“Shapiro”). Mr. Crank was then considered

an employee of Shapiro, and forwarded invoices to Shapiro. Mr. Crank stated that

Shapiro was falling behind in paying the bills for all the contractors and they were not

getting paid which likely resulted in double billing by contractors.38

41. Mr. Crank testified that he knew Respondent was putting compression

fittings on the pipes to repair water leaks in the water lines. He also knew Respondent

was cleaning those pipes and that Respondent was trying to stay away from the main

water lines because nobody knew what condition the main water lines was in. He

cautioned that if contractors started jarring around the main water lines and it broke,

then every homeowner in the Park would be without water.39

42. Mr. Crank stated that Mr. Winkler notified him that he was going to have

the meter boxes installed and that the meter boxes were installed by a subcontractor.

Mr. Crank never had Respondent install any meter boxes during his employment.40

43. Mr. Crank stated that everything he did when he managed the Park was discussed with Mr. Winkler before proceeding and that he expressed concern about going into the main water lines because the vibration itself caused by digging could cause damage. Mr. Crank felt that the compression fittings used by the Respondent were adequate to avoid further issues with the water lines. He testified that he has seen these types of compression fittings buried under the ground for 10 plus years, as well as used in several applications on many different styles of pipe.41 44. Mr. Winkler helped to clarify for the record that he hired Metron to do the meter boxes installation. Metron installed a fixed amount of boxes with the expectation to leave the Park with a box of extra meter boxes. The extra meter boxes would allow for installation of other houses that were brought online. Id. at Position 1:13:30-1:15:04. Id. at Position 1:15:06-1:15:36. Id. at Position 1:16:00-1:17:10. 41 Id. at Position 1:20:04-1:20:56. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

45. In the case of Lot 218, Complainant had a brand new meter box and Respondent was supposed to install the meter box.42 46. In closing, Mr. Mathison argued that the workmanship was not up to

standards and work performed was not as agreed upon.43

47. The Tribunal kept the record open pending receipt of Pinal County’s

Building Officials final inspection. Upon receipt, the Tribunal notes Mr. Guasp’s

inspection letter to the Registrar indicated that 27 of the riser boxes were inspected by

Inspector Supervisor Darren Gauiter and Inspector Bryan Sweat, and that all of the lots

(including Lot 218) passed inspection. Mr. Guasp further noted in his inspection letter

that the Permit was for “repairs” only and that replacement of the water supply by a

licensed contractor was recommended.44

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to Arizona

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154. 2. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It 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 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).

42 Id. at Position 1:35:27-1:36:20. Id. at Position 1:40:20-1:42:49. The Tribunal finds Mr. Mathison’s argument that Respondent should be required to take additional training to protect the public irrelevant. The Tribunal notes mitigating factors that Respondent has been a registered Plumber with the ROC since May 2010 and has had no discipline actions against his license. Additionally, Mr. Mathison testified that his only experience as a property manager started in July 2018, and prior to that he was a home warranty inspector for 3 years with no mechanical or technical training in the plumbing or electrical trades. 44 See ProLaw 04/08/2019 ELECTRONIC-docrec RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), sets forth the following as grounds to discipline 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 that 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. 4. The evidence here established that Respondent failed to timely obtain a permit for the work to be performed. While Respondent testified that he worked on an emergency basis and obtaining a permit in emergency situations would cause further delay by keeping water shut off to the residents, the Tribunal finds that not all of the work performed was on an emergency basis. While obtaining a permit typically falls on the party requesting services, absent an agreement, the hired Contractor is charged with possessing greater knowledge and should not proceed on a project without ensuring the necessary permits are in place. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from building codes by commencing work prior to obtaining a permit in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2). 5. Credible testimony from Mr. Crank and later receipt of the letter from the Pinal County Building Safety Division indicated that the work performed did pass inspection and further establishes that Respondent did not perform substandard work and did complete the work in a professional workmanlike manner. Therefore, the Tribunal finds Respondent did not violate Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R4-9- 108,45 and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).46 6. Regarding a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically, A.R.S. § 32-1158(A), the Tribunal finds Respondent failed to provide a copy of any estimate or contract provided to Complainant, even though Mr. Crank stated these documents were saved to the Park’s office computer. The Tribunal further finds that Respondent failed

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.” 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.” RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

to mitigate this violation by failing to present to the Registrar or this Tribunal a copy of any contract or estimate it may have provided to Complainant and/or the public that meets the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).47 Additionally, Respondent,

by Mr. Carrera’s own admission,48 is shown to have violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12),

specifically, A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).

7. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22),49 by failing to timely obtain

a permit for the work to be inspected as required by the Directive and by the time of the

Compliance Inspection conducted by Investigator Smith on January 16, 2019.

Respondent also failed to provide any evidence or copy of its contract provided to

Complainant and/or a copy of a contract currently used for purposes of contracting with

the public. Unfortunately, the Tribunal finds that the issue of Respondent’s contract

failing to meet the statutory requirements appears to still be in need of attention.

A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) 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 shall contain in writing at least the following information: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and 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 at least ten point bold type, and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor's designated representative. This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12-1365. 48 See Audio Hearing Transcript at Position 0:49:30-0:50:01. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides as follows: 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. RECEIVED 5.15.2019 ROC LEGAL

8. The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to timely remedy Charges 1, 3, and 4 of the Citation. This failure resulted in a violation of provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. 32-

1158(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the

Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent License Nos. 262781 and 276780 for a

total of one (1) day.

It is also recommended that Respondent pay the sum of $150.00 to the Registrar

of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E). 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 licenses 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. 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 five days from the date of the certification Done this day, May 14, 2019. /s/ Linda Marie Brown Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors