ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-874-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-10-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 19, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.; July 25, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.; and September 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Joseph and Patricia Lee (“Complainants”) were represented by Corey L. Richter, Esq., Lipson Neilson P.C.; R F Builders LLC (“Respondent”) was represented by Benjamin S. Kuipers, Esq., Fowler St. Clair, PLLC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. According to the Registrar of Contractors’ (“the Registrar’s”) public website, on or about September 15, 2006, the Registrar issued License No. B.224677-R for general residential contracting to Respondent. 2. On or about February 23, 2018, Complainants filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, alleging that it had performed poor work in 147 specifically enumerated items in completing construction on a new house for Complainants at 15935 Tombstone Trail, Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268.[1] 3. Complainant Mrs. Lee signed the complaint. She also requested that, if possible, the Registrar’s Investigator Steve Nelsen be assigned to investigate the complaint because he had already been to the house to investigate a complaint that Respondent filed against a subcontractor and “[knew] of our ongoing issues.”[2] According to the complaint, Complainants had contracted to purchase the house on June 3, 2016, had closed escrow on the house on December 23, 2017, had moved into the house on January 18, 2018, and had paid Respondent the full contract amount of $2,250,000.00. 4. The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Nelsen for investigation. On March 28, 2018, Investigator Nelsen performed a jobsite inspection. On March 30, 2018, Investigator Nelsen issued a Directive that required Respondent to correct 68 of Complainants’ items of complaint. The deadline for Respondent to comply with the Directive was April 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.[3] 5. By April 27, 2018, both parties informed Investigator Nelsen that Respondent had not fully complied with the March 28, 2018 Directive. On April 27, 2018, Investigator Nelsen performed a compliance inspection and issued Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes that opined Respondent had failed to correct 44 items on the March 28, 2018 Directive.[4] 6. On May 1, 2018, the Registrar issued a Citation that charged cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s contractor’s licenses under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).[5] 7. Respondent’s qualifying party/member Peter Frederick filed a timely written answer to the Citation, denying any statutory violations because Respondent’s repairs were ongoing, it had not had access to the interior of the house since April 28, 2018, when Complainants left town, and for three weeks after Complainants had closed on the house and before they filed the complaint with the Registrar, and Complainants knew when they purchased the house that it was not complete.[6] 8. The Registrar referred Complainants’ complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A three-day hearing was held between July and September, 2018. Complainants submitted fourteen exhibits and presented five witnesses’ testimony: (1) Mrs. Lee; (2) Anthony (“Tony”) Thomas, a member of Cabinet & Stone LLC,[7] Respondent’s subcontractor for the kitchen cabinets and wine cooler; (3) Nathaniel Jared Shadle, the qualifying party/manager of Nasha Construction LLC,[8] one of Respondent’s subcontractors for the interior doors; (4) Guy Loisi, a shareholder and the president of National Construction Services Inc., an unlicensed consultant whom Complainants hired in the summer of 2018, to oversee Respondent’s repairs and to provide access to the jobsite; and (5) George Reck, an employee of National Construction Services Inc. who provided security and access to the jobsite during the spring and summer of 2018. Respondent submitted thirty-six exhibits and presented Mr. Frederick’s testimony. Investigator Nelsen also testified. Hearing Evidence 9. Complainants entered a contract to purchase the residence on or about June 3, 2016. According to the purchase agreement, the seller was Frederick LLC, an unlicensed entity separate from Respondent that Mr. Frederick also controls. Under the purchase agreement, Respondent was to construct the house and Frederick LLC had “the right to hire subcontractors and materialman of its choice to construct” the residence. Frederick LLC was required to “cause to be employed a sufficient number of workers skilled in their trades to suitably perform the work” and to cause Respondent “to proceed with the construction of the Residence with reasonable diligence.” Completion of the Residence would occur “upon the final inspection and approval of the Residence by the city, town, or county in which the Property is located, which inspection, once passed, shall be deemed to confirm the Residence is completed and built in substantial confirmance with the Contract Documents and applicable codes.” Respondent was required to construct the residence according to plan and the parties “understood and agreed that no alterations or variation in the plans, other than as provided herein, can be made and that no one is authorized to make any commitments for alterations or variations, and only change orders signed by the Parties are part of this Agreement.”[9] 10. According to the Purchase Agreement, substantial completion of the residence would occur on or before December 1, 2016, following the delivery of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Fountain Hills and approval by the homeowners’ association.[10] 11. As noted on the complaint, Complainants moved into the house on January 18, 2018. Mrs. Lee testified that the Certificate of Occupancy was not issued until December 2017, and that on the walk-through, Complainants pointed out numerous items that needed to be corrected or repaired. Mrs. Lee testified that until the summer of 2018, Respondent had unrestricted access to work on the house, with the exception of three weeks during the spring of 2018, before Complainants filed the complaint, due to visitors. Mrs. Lee testified that construction was very slow because workers failed to appear. Mrs. Lee testified that she and her husband substantially “lowered the bar” to be able to move into the house in January 2018. 12. Mrs. Lee testified that she and her husband hired National Construction Services Inc. on April 20, 2018, because they were going back to Iowa for the summer and were not comfortable giving Respondent and its subcontractors unrestricted access to the house because Mr. Frederick was never on site to supervise Respondent’s subcontractors. Mrs. Lee testified that Mr. Leosi supervised Mr. Reck. 13. On the first day of hearing, Complainants stipulated that Respondent had repaired 13 additional items to their satisfaction. On the second day of the hearing, Investigator Nelsen testified at his July 24, 2018 compliance inspection, he found other items had been corrected or that Complainants agreed to accept because further attempts would worsen the appearance of the items. Excluding the items that either Investigator Nelsen found to have been repaired to the Registrar’s standards or that Complainants accepted leaves the following items from Investigator Nelsen’s March 30, 2018 Directive: 1. Kitchen: Nicks and scratches on cabinets and bar area too numerous to list. Will have them blue taped for inspection . 2. Dishwasher unable to be installed flush with cabinet.

3. Toe kick on bar and oven cabinet smeared with grout, not cleaned properly.

4. Paneled doors on one refrigerator hinged on incorrect side. (hole in top of right hand door, both parties should come to an agreement on the layout of the door swing).

5. Finish wine cooler. . . . .

12. First floor master-Toilet room painted door has planing marks, paint chips at bottom, planing marks and chalky paint on barn doors, door jamb into toilet room not sanded properly, paint feels chalky (cracked hinge, paint touch up required, the barn door needs to be adjusted, crack on bottom of toilet door and poor finish on brown door.) . . . .

17. Closet area not square.

18. Bedroom 4- Closet doors not cut even, crack in jamb, lower right.

19. Bedroom 4- door has chipping on bottom. . . . .

26. Dining Room- Wall to left of large slider not square. . . . .

31. Steel rails needs cleaning and painting and scratch repair. . . . .

34. Atrium/stairwell- railings need cleaning/ touch up paint/scratching (top). . . . .

44. Window in steam shower has missing/damaged weather strip gasket. . . . .

47. Upstairs (3rd Fl) Office/ bath/patio- sink stopper not working. . . . .

50. Upstairs (3rd Fl) Office/ bath/patio- wall entering bath not square.

51. Upstairs (3 Fl) sitting room- sliding door to upper patio: deep scratches on frame, also slider appears uneven in frame.

52. Upstairs (3 Fl) sitting room- patio rails need cleaning/touch up paint. . . . .

Bedroom 5(garage level)- door will not stay open nor close.

57. Bedroom 5(garage level)- closet door chipped at bottom.

58. Bedroom 5(garage level)- caulk above sink poorly finished, needs touch up paint. . . . .

60. Interior doors- White painted doors: many have “chalking” inferior finish, others have planing and drip marks, chips at bottom (Complete door finish and paint- final punch).

61. Interior walls of ELEVATOR shaft to be painted (Finish and paint).

62. (Paint and drywall touch up throughout house- Final punch).

63. Exterior of house needs touch up paint and cleaning. (including outdoor shower) Concern entire outside dark exterior paint failed (wipes off with fingertips) . . . .

66. Final door adjustment.

67. Final finish and paint of steel handrails.

68. Complete final construction cleaning.[11]

Investigator Nelsen testified that although Respondent had attempted many repairs, many items still required a little more work to fully comply with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Nelsen testified that although the gasket had been replaced in item no. 44, the repair was not complete because there was an overlap in the new gasket. Mrs. Lee testified that item nos. 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, and 68 had been repaired, but had not been painted. 17. Mr. Frederick testified that Respondent has repaired or attempted to repair items that were not on the Directive. Respondent had not painted its repairs because it had already painted the interior of the residence twice and wanted to wait until it had repaired all the drywall so that it do the final touchup painting just one time more in the usual sequence. 18. The parties did not go through the Directive but focused on certain items of workmanship, especially the kitchen cabinets and wine cooler (Item nos. 1-6 on the directive), exterior doors and windows (Item nos. 6, 44, and 51), interior paint grade doors (Item no. 60), and the interior stain grade doors (apparently final door adjustment at Item no. 66). 19. The parties presented evidence on deficiencies in Respondent’s installation of interior stain grade doors, but the parties did not point out on the Directive and or on the original complaint where substantial deficiencies in the stain grade doors were noted. The Administrative Law Judge has been unable to find the any item that appears to involve substantial deficiencies in stain grade interior doors on the complaint or Directive. 20. Mr. Shadle testified that he was brought onto the project after Respondent had a falling out with the original trim carpenter. Although he initially declined the job, he eventually agreed to put new door panels in the existing jambs, although usually doors are pre-hung in prefabricated jambs. Mr. Shadle testified that he worked at the project in October 2017. He characterized the workmanship as really bad and testified that most of the jambs were out of plumb. The mortices for hinges in the doors looked like they had been carved into the doors with a spool. Mr. Shadle testified that although he told Mr. Frederick he could make the doors operational, to solve all the problems, the doors needed to be ripped out and reinstalled. Mr. Frederick told him to “do the best you can.” He was eventually authorized to do a few repairs, but in his opinion the repairs were not close to what was needed. 21. Mr. Shadle testified that it takes three or four weeks to order and have fabricated stain-grade doors. 22. Mr. Frederick testified that he has ordered stain grade replacement doors for the project three times, originally in February 2018, in April 2018, and again on July 16, 2018. Mr. Frederick testified that after the original supplier of the doors, 84 Lumber, refused to replace warped doors, he was forced to order the doors from Allison’s. Mrs. Lee on Allison’s advice requested that the doors be stained at one time to ensure a consistent finish. Allison’s also picked up the doors for staining on July 16, 2018, and delivered the doors on August 16, 2018.[12] Complainants refused to sign for the doors because Mr. Loisi was not on site. 23. Mr. Thomas testified that he did not perform any work in the field. Cabinet & Stone LLC supplied cabinets to Residence by Frederick for the house that were first delivered and installed in September 2016. Mr. Thomas described the cabinets as high-end European style cabinets that were manufactured by a company in North Carolina. Mr. Thomas testified that when Cabinets & Stone LLC installed the cabinets, the house was not fully enclosed, which was out of the normal sequence of trades, and he told Mr. Frederick it was not appropriate. Mr. Thomas testified that the cabinets were not damaged after Cabinets & Stone LLC initially installed them, but it is not responsible for subsequent damage. The general contractor is responsible for wrapping the cabinets in bubble wrap and otherwise protecting them. 24. Mr. Thomas testified that Mrs. Lee called him back to the jobsite in July 2017. He identified approximately $4,000.00 of damage to the cabinets. Mr. Frederick asked him to break out the repair estimate to damage attributable to the installation of the countertop and damage attributable to installation of the tile floor. Mr. Thomas testified that he believed trades had used the cabinets as a workbench. Mr. Thomas testified that Cabinets & Stone LLC repaired the damage to the cabinets during the summer of 2017. 25. Mr. Frederick testified that Respondent protected the cabinets with plastic sheeting after they were installed. Mr. Frederick testified that although Respondent fully paid Cabinets and Stone LLC in advance for repairs to the cabinets, it refused to complete the repairs. 26. Mr. Thomas testified that he received a list of appliances, including a 24” wide Thermidor wine cooler. The opening for the cooler in the kitchen was only 26” or 26½” wide. Although he advised Mr. Frederick to go a an 18” wide wine cooler, Mr. Frederick advised him to make the 24” wide cooler work because the appliances had already been purchased. 27. Mr. Thomas testified that Complainants requested that the wine cooler re recessed because they were concerned the protruding handle could pose a danger to their grandchildren. Mr. Frederick signed off on the drawing that Mr. Thomas had prepared of proposed modifications.[13] Mr. Thomas testified that the wine cooler is currently incomplete because the opening is wider at the top than the bottom and the space is not square or level. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the barn doors adjacent to the wine cooler have protruding handles. 28. Mr. Frederick testified that Cabinets & Stone LLC had cut the side styles for the wine cabinet too short, and that Mr. Thomas refused to repair or replace the styles unless Respondent paid it another $900.00. Mr. Frederick testified that he was reluctant to pay Cabinets & Stone LLC in advance for repairs to the wine cooler because it still had not repaired the kitchen cabinets that Respondent had paid for. 29. Mr. Thomas testified that because the wall was not square, everything had to be removed by a third party. To re- install the wine cooler, Cabinets & Stone LLC need 2 trim pieces, but Respondent had not yet ordered them. 30. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that Cabinets & Stone LLC has not attempted to complete repairs because Complainants have instructed him to wait to be contacted by a third party before beginning repairs. He is holding two pieces of wood needed for repairs. Neither a third party nor Complainants have contacted him. 31. Mr. Frederick testified that he told Mrs. Lee that she needed to help him get Mr. Thomas and Cabinets & Stone LLC back on the job to perform repairs, but that she had not helped him. Mr. Frederick testified that he has experienced a total drop in communication with Mr. Thomas. Mr. Frederick testified that because Cabinets & Stone LLC ordered the cabinets through its own supplier, Respondent would have to check the market to find another supplier. Mr. Frederick testified that Mr. Thomas had not ordered door fronts that were required to complete repairs. 32. Mrs. Lee denied ever telling a subcontractor to delay repairs. She said she had also never instructed a subcontractor to resume repairs. 33. Mr. Frederick testified that he filed a complaint against Cabinets & Stone LLC with the Registrar. Although there was a jobsite inspection, which Cabinets & Stone LLC did not attend, nothing came of the complaint. Complainant’s attorney suggested that Mr. Frederick may have named the wrong person on the complaint form. Mr. Frederick believed that Investigator Nelsen had met with Mr. Thomas in private about the complaint and made an arrangement that was not communicated to Respondent. 34. Mr. Loisi testified that he was the owner’s representative on site. Complainants hired his company to help them get their house built. He charges $100/hour when he is on site. Mr. Reck charges $45/hour to “baby-sit” subcontractors. Complainants’ house is still unfinished and there is an extensive list of repairs that still need to be done. Although Mr. Loisi has requested repeatedly that Mr. Frederick provide construction schedules, he never has. 35. The parties presented substantial evidence on the time that Respondent has had to construct the house and times when Complainants limited Respondent’s access to perform repairs for various reasons, before the Directive was issued or after it expired. Mr. Frederick acknowledged that Complainant did not restrict Respondent’s access between March 30, 2018, when Investigator Nelsen issued the directive, and April 21, 2018, the deadline on the directive. Although Mr. Frederick testified that the deadline on the directive did not allow sufficient time for all the repairs that were required, he acknowledged that he did not request that the Registrar allow Respondent additional time for repairs. 36. Mr. Frederick testified that Mrs. Lee fired some subcontractors and told others that Respondent was unable to pay them. Mr. Frederick testified that some subcontractors demanded that Respondent pay them in full, up front, which removed Respondent’s leverage to force them to do necessary repairs. Mr. Frederick testified that some subcontractors chose not to work on the job to avoid dealing with Mrs. Lee. It is hard to find qualified subcontractors in a hot housing market. 37. Mrs. Lee denied firing subcontractors, although she acknowledged that some left the job. Mrs. Lee denied telling subcontractors that Respondent could not pay them. 38. Mr. Frederick testified that his father, aunt, and another relative had died in the spring on 2018. These deaths took him away from the job. Mr. Frederick testified that if it were not for Complainants’ restrictions on access during the summer of 2018, Respondent, would have completed most of the repairs by the hearing on September 26, 2018. 39. Mr. Frederick testified that during the time that he was working on Complainant’s house, he was also working on six other houses. Mr. Frederick has been building houses for over thirty years, but has never before experienced the problems with clients, subcontractors, and completing the project, including punch-list items, that Respondent experienced on this job. 40. Mr. Reck testified during the spring and summer of 2018, Mr. Frederick was seldom on site. Mr. Reck testified that his only direct contact with Respondent was when he called Mr. Frederick to ask if he intended to show up on the jobsite because subcontractors had questions. 41. Pursuant to A.A.C. R4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior record on the Registrar’s public website. On this date, Respondent’s record was current and in good standing. Complainants’ complaint is the only complaint against Respondent on the Registrar’s record on this date. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[14] 2. Complainants bear the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s licenses by a preponderance of the evidence.[15] Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[16] 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[17] A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”[18] 4. The only item on the original complaint or Directive that concerned possible deficiencies in the interior stain grade doors was item no. 66, final door adjustment. This item on the Directive does not seem to contemplate the extent of the corrective action that Mr. Shadle testified was necessary or that Respondent undertook in ordering replacement stain grade doors from Lumber 84 and Allison’s three separate times. Mr. Frederickson credibly testified that Respondent attempted to correct items as they came up, whether or not they were on the Directive. Because defects that required replacement of the interior stain grade doors do not seem to have been part of the original complaint or the Directive, such defects do not furnish grounds to discipline Respondent’s license in this matter. 5. Construction is not a perfect art and, generally, contractors must be afforded an opportunity to correct their workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked. Mr. Thomas, who was Complainants’ witness, testified credibly that they had instructed him not to repair the kitchen cabinets and wine cabinet until he heard from Complainants or a third party hired by Complainants. Mr. Frederick credibly testified that although Respondent paid Cabinets & Stone LLC in full to repair the cabinets, it had not done so. Although there was no dispute about whether the cabinets still require repair, Respondent established that Complainants denied reasonable access to repair the cabinets and wine cooler by interfering with Respondent’s relationship with Cabinets & Stone LLC. Therefore, Complainants did not establish cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[19] namely A.A.C. R4-9-108[20] with respect to item nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Directive, as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 13. Complainants may seek damages for Respondent’s responsibility for these acknowledged workmanship deficiencies in a court of competent civil jurisdiction. 6. Complainants were only required to allow access for Respondent to complete repairs until the deadline in the Directive. It appears that Complainants allowed access after this deadline. If the deadline on the Directive did not allow sufficient time for materials to be ordered or repairs to be completed, it was up to Respondent to contact the Registrar’s investigator and request an extension. Respondent failed either to get an extension or to fully complete repairs on the remaining items of the Directive. Complainants established that Respondent’s workmanship did not meet the Registrar’s standards with respect to item nos. 12, 17, 18, 19, 26, 31, 34, 44, 47, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, and 67 of the Directive. Therefore, Complainants established cause to revoke or suspend Respondent’s licenses under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. 7. Complainants also established the Respondent failed to fully correct the workmanship deficiencies found above. Respondent did not establish that Complainants refused to provide reasonable access for these remaining repairs to be made. Therefore, Complainants established additional cause to revoke or suspend Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).[21] RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, as a result of Complainants Joseph and Patricia Lee’s complaint in Case No. 2018-874, Respondent R F Builders LLC’s License No. B.224677-R shall be suspended for three business days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’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 Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty. 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, October 9, 2018.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See the Registrar’s electronic record at Intake Complaint Submittal1.pdf at 1-7; see also Complainants’ Exhibit 27. [2] Id. at 2. [3] See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc014 Corrective Work Order1.rtf. [4] See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc104 Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf; see also Complainants’ Exhibit 26. [5] See the Registrar’s electronic file at Rch424 Citation Multiple Charges Workmanship W221.rtf; see also Complainants’ Exhibit 28. [6] See the Registrar’s electronic file at Lg Citation1.pdf. [7] Cabinet & Stone LLC holds License No. CR-60.295797-D for dual finished carpentry. [8] Nasha Construction LLC holds License No. B-3.304302-R for general residential remodeling and repair contracting. [9] Complainants’ Exhibit 23 at ¶ 2.1. [10] See id. at ¶ 4.2. [11] The Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc014 Corrective Work Order1.rtf. The Administrative Law Judge compiled the list from Complainants’ testimony of the first day of hearing and Investigator Nelsen’s testimony on the second day of hearing. [12] See Respondent’s Exhibit 34. [13] See Complainants’ Exhibit 15. [14] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [15] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); 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] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [19] 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.” [20] 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.” [21] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) 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.”

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826