FINACT2019A-02755-CHC-ROC-FinalAgencyAction-6809.pdf

2019A-02755-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-02-21

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Lea Michell DeSanti, Case No. 2019-02755 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2019A-02755-CHC-ROC v. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE SkyGreen Construction LLC DECISION AND ORDER License No. ROC 314249, 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 of each finding of fact or conclusion of law.

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 accepts it.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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 March 30,

2020.

FINAL NOTE

On page one, line 10, “Brian Burgmeier” should be “SkyGreen Construction LLC.”

On page one, paragraph three, line 21, “21” should be replaced with “29.”

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. – Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602) 542-1525 Toll Free (877) 692-9762 Lg131 8/19 Replace paragraphs beginning on page two, line 10 and ending on page four, line three with: “During the Job Site Inspection there were several complaint items brought forth by the home owner that were not addressed on this Directive due to the fact the items were not complete, due to the fact this is a work in progress. This Directive is based on the whole project and the fact that this project started over 10 months ago and the agreement you made, at the JSI, with the home owner to have the project completed by January 31, 2019.

Project shall be completed per agreed contract signed between Complainant and Respondent January 2018.

• International Residential code R105.1 states Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

• Investigator can not verify if issues exist. The permit acquired and the work should be inspected by the proper municipality’s building official and signed off accordingly. The Registrar has determined that any workmanship violations alleged in the complaint but not listed above are unsubstantiated and do not require corrective action.”

On page four, paragraph seven, lines five through six “correct the items listed in”

should be “comply with.”

On page six, paragraph 12, subparagraph C, line four, “October” should be “May.”

On page six, paragraph 15, line 21, “as” should be “that.”

On page eight, paragraph 16, line 24, “219” should be “2019.”

On page 10, paragraph 20, line nine, “Complainant’s case” should be “complaint.”

On page 10, paragraph 23, line 22, “involving that same” should be “in the first.” On page 10, paragraph 23, line 24, remove “it.”

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. – Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602) 542-1525 Toll Free (877) 692-9762 Lg131 8/19 On page 11, paragraph three, line 15, removed “of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and.” Dated February 19, 2020. By: /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class Mail February 19, 2020 to: Respondent SkyGreen Construction LLC 31 E Yvonne Ln Tempe, AZ 85284 Complainant Lea Michelle DeSanti N Velero St Chandler, AZ 85225 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Office of Administrative Hearings Randolph D. Wolfson, Administrative Law Judge Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2019-04193 / KR

of 3 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. – Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602) 542-1525 Toll Free (877) 692-9762 Lg131 8/19 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lea Michelle DeSanti, No. 2019A-02755-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SkyGreen Construction LLC, DECISION ROC License: ROC 314249, RESPONDENT

HEARING: January 10, 2020

APPEARANCES: Lea M. DeSanti, Complainant, Brian Burgmeier, Respondent,

Paul Smith, ROC Investigator.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Randolph D. Wolfson

_____________________________________________________________________ 1. Respondent, SkyGreen Construction LLC, [hereinafter, “SkyGreen”] is the Holder of License Number ROC 314249 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).1 Brian Burgmeier is SkyGreen’s Qualified Party.1 2. On or about, January 5, 2018, Complainant Lea Michelle DeSanti [hereinafter, “DeSanti”] entered into a contract with Respondent to construct a garage addition on DeSanti’s Residence and to remodel the house with new window, doors, flooring, drywall installation roofing, plumbing installation and some electrical. 3. On or about November 21, 2018, the Registrar received a Complaint against SkyGreen from DeSanti alleging SkyGreen performed poor work resulting in direct and consequential damages to her home and that SkyGreen had abandoned the project.2 4. The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Paul Smith [hereinafter, “Smith”]. On or about December 21, 2018, a Jobsite Inspection [the “JSI”] was conducted by Investigator Smith at the DeSanti residence.

Administrative Judicial Notice is taken of the entirety of the Registrar’s physical and electronic records in this matter, including, but not limited to information displayed on the Registrar’s Public Access Website. This Complaint was assigned docket number 2018A-05679-ROC. RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

5. Of the 18 separate items identified by Mr. Smith from the Complaint, he was unable to substantiate that any of the work performed demonstrated workmanship issues at his JSI for the sole reason that that the project was still a work in progress, i. e., the project was not in a state of completion. 6. On December 26, 2018, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive to SkyGreen that provided as follows: You must provide the Registrar with satisfactory written proof of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 1, 2019. (emphasis in the original). You are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: Trusses are wrong per inspector Investigator’s Observation: Over the front porch add-on the C exposed an area of trusses that had been cut and modified. Job not completed. (C stated that the proper engineer or architect approval was not received prior to R putting fascia over the modified trusses)

Complaint Item 2: Kitchen window is wrong per inspector. Investigator’s Observation: The block wall was cut out to fit the new larger window and the lentil was not extended completely across the top of the window opening. Job not completed. (C claimed the R was planning on covering up the lentil prior to the City Inspector arrival so that he would not see the deficiency) Complaint Item 3: 4 Posts too low per inspector. Investigator’s Observation: The four post footings in the front porch area were covered by dirt and appeared to be below the current grade. Job not complete. (C states that she told R that the footings were too low several times) Complaint Item 4: Nail holes in cabinets. Investigator’s Observation: The bottom of the upper kitchen cabinets has nail holes where the trim was added. Job not complete. (C states that she contacted the cabinet maker and they told her that was not correct instillation.) Complaint Item 5: Hollow tiles, some no grout. Investigator’s Observation: There were several areas of ceramic tile throughout the kitchen and living room area that had a hollow sound, lacking adhesion, and some grout lines were not fully filled with grout.

Complaint Item 6: Baseboards missing 2 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

Investigator’s Observation: Several areas throughout the home where the baseboard and door time are not installed. Job is not complete. Complaint Item 7: Can lights hanging out Investigator’s Observation: There were two can lights wired and hanging out of the living room ceiling. Complaint Item 8: Electrical is not done. Investigator’s Observation: there are several areas throughout the home where the outlet boxes are not covered, electrical wires hanging out. Complaint Item 9: Mini split (don’t have it yet) Investigator’s Observation: I did not observe an area where the A/C mini split was to be installed. Complaint Item 10: Air conditionings vent missing. Investigator’s Observation: in the living room there was an A/C vent by the front window without the vent installed. Complaint Item 11: Missing kitchen hood, he can’t supply it…Investigator’s Observation: The kitchen did not have the range hood installed.

Complaint Item 12: Drywall destroyed from rain (mildew). Investigator’s Observation: I did not observe rain destroyed drywall. No pictures to refer to.

Complaint Item 13: Garage floor destroyed from cuts. Investigator’s Observation: I did not observe the garage concrete floor due to the items being stored on the floor. Complaint Item 14: Front door is unacceptable. Investigator’s Observation: Front door was hung and trimmed on the inside. Job not complete(C claimed that the front door was not the one she requested)

Complaint Item 15: Plumbing is on the outside of the house. Investigator’s Observation: The plumbing on the front and rear of the house was not imbedded in the wall and was hooked up backwards. Job not complete. (C stated the hot water in the master bathroom is backwards) Complaint Item 16: master bath plumbing is backwards Investigator’s Observation: Hot water was coming out of the cold faucet. Job not complete. (C ran to water on the right side of the sink until it became hot) Refer to P16 Complaint Item 17: Stucco not started. Investigator’s Observation: The lath and wire was started on the garage only. Job not complete. Refer to P1

3 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

Complaint Item 18: Pavers not started. Investigator’s Observation: I did not observe any paver work. Complaint Item 19: Every wall in the house is crooked. Investigator’s Observation: I only observed one wall in the living room that had a bow. 7. Following the issuance of the Written Directive, SkyGreen did not correct the items listed in the Directive on or before the Directive’s deadline for compliance. 8. A Compliance Inspection was conducted by Investigator Smith who reported that On 2/11/2019 at approximately I:00 pm, I arrived at 47 East Velcro Street for a Compliance Job Site Inspection. On site when I arrived was [sic] Brian Burgmeirer (R) and Lea DeSanti (C) along with several employees of the R working on various plans of the home, mainly on the front porch area.

During the initial JSI conducted the end of December 2018 the R made a statement that the construction would be complete on January 31, 2019. On this date the construction was not complete and was in the finishing stages. The C stated that the construction has made substantial progress. The R requested that the C give him more lime to complete the job and stated one week. There was no agreement and no date was determined. Investigator D. Rhoads showed up on at the CJSI towards the end of the inspection. Based on the progress of the work and the C stating that she was satisfied to this point with most of the work, she wanted them to continue and complete the job. I explained to the C and R that the next stage was for the case to be sent to the ROC trial department. I also explained to them that when the construction is complete there is nothing prohibiting the C from filing another complaint for *'workmanship issues.”

9. On February 28, 2019, The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging a possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154(a)(3), specifically: A.C.C. Rule R4-9- 108. 3 R4-9-108. Workmanship Standards,

A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity. C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building 4 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

10. A hearing was held on May 15, 2019 before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent Arizona State agency. 11. Investigator Smith testified consistently with his JSI Notes and his Compliance Inspection Notes that the project remained in an incomplete state. He said that at the Compliance Inspection he noted that additional work had progressed, but the project was still in a “work-in-progress” resulting in his inability to determine whether there existed any workmanship problems with the work already performed. Notwithstanding, he agreed that SkyGreen’s failure to obtain permitting in advance of undertaking work on this project, taking into account that SkyGreen contracted to complete this project in 4 months and noting that SkyGreen had not completed its contracted work for more than 10 months are acts or failures to act is not work performed in accordance with professional industry standards. SkyGreen did not exercise “…such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.” He indicated that such failures constitute below standard workmanship. He advised that he did conduct a Pre-Hearing Inspection after notice to all parties on May 13, 2019. The Complainant was present for the Pre-Hearing Inspection, the Respondent was not. Mr. Smith testified that at the Pre-Hearing Inspection, the project appeared to him to be completed. 12. SkyGreen’s Qualifying Party, Brian Burgmeier, testified that A. SkyGreen did not obtain a permit prior to commencing construction on this project. B. A permit was not obtained - as required by the Directive – before the. expiration date for compliance in the Directive of February 1, 2019; 4

codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that 4 No evidence was presented at this hearing to challenge or dispute Mr. Smith’s contention that SkyGreen’s

failure to complete the project timely or to pull permitting on the project before commencing construction are below professional industry standards that constitute below standard workmanship 5 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

C. SkyGreen’s contract with DeSanti required completion of the entire project within four months of the pulling of a building permit for the project. By its terms, the project should have been completed by October of 2018. By the date of compliance required by the Directive on February 1, 2019, the project still remained an uncompleted “work in progress.” D. A certificate of occupancy was granted on this project after building code permit inspections were passed, but such certificate was not obtained before February 1, 2019. 13. On June 3, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation to the Registrar that the Registrar shall suspend SkyGreen Construction LLC’s, ROC License Number ROC 314249 for three (3) days. On June 17, 2019, the Registrar issued its Final Administrative Decision And Order in 2018A-05679-ROC accepting the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge suspending Sky Green Construction LLC’s license for three days effective effective on July 29, 2019. The time period for an appeal of the Registrar’s Order has lapsed and the Order is now a Final Order. 14. On May 28, 2019, Complainant filed a 2nd Complaint against SkyGreen.5 The new Complaint [hereinafter the “2nd Complaint”] was assigned docket number 2019A- 02755-CHC-ROC. The 2nd Complaint is the subject matter of the case at bar. 15. The 2nd Complaint was assigned to ROC investigator Paul Smith. The same investigator as was assigned to the prior Complaint in 2018A-05679-ROC. Mr. Smith set and conducted a Job Site Inspection on the 2nd Complaint on July 15, 2019. Both Parties were present. Mr. Smith’s Job Site Inspection Notes6 (to which Mr. Smith testified consistently) reports: Complaint Item 1: Kitchen Cabinets are unacceptable. Holes are visible. Investigator’s Observation: I observed several trim areas around the kitchen cabinets and island that were nailed and an attempt was made to correct the nail

Agency Record, Pages 36 & 37 6 Agency Record, Pages 20-26.

6 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

holes. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 2: kitchen vent hood is not acceptable. It is a different white and there is a huge crack down the middle. Investigator’s Observation: I observed a seam in the middle of the stove vent hood. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 3: front door, contractor is unable to fix the windows properly Investigator’s Observation: I observed the windows of the double front door did not match. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 4: can lights still falling out, though out the home. Investigator’s Observation: I observed only the can lighting in the kitchen between the island and the stove that were not flush to the ceiling. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 5: sun tunnel fell out of my ceiling. Investigator’s Observation: I observed the sun tunnel in the kitchen area missing the finish trim and taped off with plastic. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 6: trim around the refrigerator is not done. Investigator’s Observation: I observed the floor trim to the left of the refrigerator not adhered to the wall. Above the refrigerator to the left is missing finish trim and to the right is missing floor trim.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 7: multiple tile is chipped because they tried to reuse it and there is lippage. Investigator’s Observation: I observed and area pointed out by the C, indicating the worst of each claim. I observed a chipped tile near the north wall of the dining room. I observed lippage in the tile floor in the living room area. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 8: front porch woodwork is awful. Gaps in joints Investigator’s Observation: at the previous JSI it was determined that the R was to only complete the woodwork and the C was going to hire her own painting contractor. I observed several areas of the porch where there were large gaps in 7 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

the finished work. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 9: driveway was cut incorrectly Investigator’s Observation: I observed two area of the concrete driveway that were cut and patched. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 10: Dormer has a huge gaping crack. Investigator’s Observation: I observed on the front side of the home, a dormer with a window and the stucco was not finished off. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 11: hose bib is hanging in my backyard. Investigator’s Observation: I observed the water line leading to the hose bib, in the back of the house, not affixed to the home. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32- 1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 13: cracks all over the brand new stucco. Investigator’s Observation: I observed the crack in the stucco the C pointed out in the rear of the home. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Complaint Item 14: outdoor lights were working when project started. They demoed my house and made the outdoor light not work when doing the demo Investigator’s Observation: it was determined the lights were installed by a previous contractor. Governing Rule: N/A Complaint Item 16: blown in insulation not installed. Investigator’s Observation: I observed no insulation in the crawl space above the garage. Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, 16. On July 19, 219, Mr. Smith issued a Directive with a Corrective Work Order to SkyGreen, The directive stated:7 You are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

7 Agency Record, pages 27-29.

8 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

Complaint Item 1: Kitchen Cabinets are unacceptable. Holes are visible.

Complaint Item 2: kitchen vent hood is not acceptable. It is a different white and there is a huge crack down the middle.

Complaint Item 3: front door, contractor is unable to fix the windows properly Complaint Item 4: can lights still falling out, though out the home. Complaint Item 5: sun tunnel fell out of my ceiling

Complaint Item 6: trim around the refrigerator is not done Complaint Item 7: multiple tile is chipped because they tried to reuse it and there is lippage. Complaint Item 8: front porch woodwork is awful. Gaps in joints Complaint Item 9: driveway was cut incorrectly

Complaint Item 10: Dormer has a huge gaping crack

Complaint Item 11: hose bib is hanging in my backyard Complaint Item 13: cracks all over the brand new stucco

Complaint Item 16: blown in insulation not installed

The Directive provided that SkyGreen was to complete the above listed items by on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 9, 2019. 17. Mr. Smith’s contact with the Complainant August 10, 2019 confirmed that SkyGreen did not contact Complaint after the date of the Directive and that no effort was made to comply with the Directive on or before August 9, 2019. 18. On October 25, 2019, a Citation was issued to SkyGreen charging Respondent with violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes: Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108. Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Charge :2 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

9 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. 19. Hearing was set and conducted on January 10, 2020, by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, an agency independent of the Registrar of Contractors, 20. At the hearing, Investigator Paul Smith testified consistently with his July 15, 2019. Job Site Inspection Notes.8 He confirmed that in the prior case 2018A-05679- ROC, he was unable to reach conclusion about many of the complaints because Mr. Smith was of the opinion that the project remained incomplete. He confirmed that the Directive issued in the 2nd Complaint’s case contained most of the same items that were contained in the initial Complaint. Mr. Smith confirmed that none of the items contained in the July 19, 2019 Directive had been attempted or performed by the Respondent on or before August 9, 2019. He confirmed that all items listed in his July 19, 2019 Directive in the 2nd Complaint involved below standard workmanship. 21. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent conducted cross-examination of Mr. Smith. 22. Mr. Brian Burgmeier, Qualifying Party for the Respondent SkyGreen testified agreeing that he did not respond to or comply with the July 19, 2019 Directive. In closing argument he stated that he was under the impression that the Complainant wanted only a monetary resolution. He also stated that as to items #1 and #3 of the July 19, 2019 Directive, he contended he was denied access. However, he admits the alleged access denial occurred prior to the July 19, 2019 Directive, 23. Respondent’s license has been disciplined with license suspension within the last year for below standard workmanship involving that same Complainant on the same project. Respondent has consistently failed or refused to comply with any directives issued it in either the prior case or the case now before the Administrative Law Judge. Such conduct is an aggravating circumstance in determining the appropriate sanction in this matter.

8 Agency record, pages 19-26.

10 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq. 2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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) 3. The credible evidence presented at hearing established that at the time of the Complaint there were items of Complainant’s project that were performed below industry standards of workmanship. Thus, as to the issue of poor workmanship, it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that DeSanti has proven SkyGreen did not perform the contracted work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and did violate A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) and A.A.C. R4-9-108, 4. Respondent has admitted at hearing, confirmed by the testimony of Inspector Smith, that Respondent did not comply with any of the items listed in the Directive on or before the compliance date of August 9, 2019. Moreover, no work was attempted or completed by the Respondent since the last Directive was issued on December 26, 2018 in 2018A-05679-ROC. Thus, it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that DeSanti has proven SkyGreen [f]ailed to take appropriate corrective action to comply …[with the Directive] without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar, all in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22). .

RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing,

11 RECEIVED 2.6.2020 ROC LEGAL

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend SkyGreen Construction LLC’s, ROC License Number ROC 314249 for Fifteen (15) days. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, January 26, 2020.

/s/ Randolph D. Wolfson Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

12