FINACT2019A-03729-CHC-ROC.pdf

2019A-03729-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-02-10

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Betty Story, Case No. 2019-03729 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2019A-03729-CHC-ROC v. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE Blue Water Management Group Inc., DECISION AND ORDER DBA: Peterson Plumbing, License No. ROC 308142, 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 15,

2020.

FINAL NOTE

On page eight, paragraph 34, “without” should be “with.”

On page 11, paragraph 10, line 13, “approved” should be “approval.” On page 11, paragraph 10, line 13, “24th” should be “23rd.”

of 2 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 12, line 20, “closed” should be “dismissed.” On page 12, paragraph 12, the administrative law judge concluded that the facts established that the Respondent used an advertisement that failed to include “ROC” before the license number, but concluded there was no violation because the sign was not used in conjunction with the specific work at Plaintiff’s unit. It is not relevant that there is no direct connection between the use of the sign and the work on the Plaintiff’s project. On September 6, 2019, the Registrar issued the Respondent a warning letter regarding the sign being in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1124(B) and 32-1154(A)(12), so no further action is required. Dated February 4, 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 4, 2020 to: Respondent Blue Water Management Group Inc. DBA: Peterson Plumbing 2010 E University Dr Ste 26 Tempe, AZ 85281 Complainant Betty Story 8211 E Garfield St J114 Scottsdale, AZ 85257 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Office of Administrative Hearings Kay Abramsohn, Administrative Law Judge Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2019-03729 / KR

of 2 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 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Betty Story, No. 2019A-03729-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE v. Blue Water Management Group Inc. dba DECISION Peterson Plumbing, ROC License: ROC 308142, RESPONDENT HEARING: November 25, 20191 APPEARANCES: Betty Story (Complainant) appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Bradley S. Shelts represented Blue Water Management Group, Inc. dba Peterson Plumbing. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Blue Water Management Group, Inc. dba Peterson Plumbing (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 308142, a Specialty Dual CR-37 Plumbing license issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) in 2016. 2. Complainant is a shareholder in a cooperative housing complex called Scottsdale East Homes (Complex) which includes 283 units. Complainant lives in J114. 3. As a part of a Complex project, Respondent was replacing water heaters in the units. 4. On April 17, 2019, Complainant’s water heater was replaced.2 When replacing her water heater, the workers cut the old pressure valve drain pipe and capped it; she indicated the new drain pipe was approximately twenty-four (24) inches from the floor. When she questioned such, Respondent’s workers indicated that “the solution would

Complainant failed to make pre-hearing disclosure; Respondent made its pre-hearing disclosure. At hearing, the Administrative Law Judge admitted the Administrative Record to the hearing record; those are the documents forwarded from the Registrar for the administrative hearing. Many of the background facts herein are noted to have been taken from the Administrative Record (AR). The hearing record indicated that, when first inspected, Complainant’s water heater was not slated for replacement. However, when she informed the Complex that she had no hot water, the Complex arranged for it to be replaced. RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

be to drill a trench in [her] floor starting at the hot water heater down [her] hallway along the edge of living room and out to our breezeway for the water to escape.”3 5. On July 23, 2019, the Registrar received Complainant’s Complaint against Respondent. Complainant specified multiple allegations, only one of which dealt with workmanship in her unit, that of the water heater. The remainder of the Complaint included an allegation that Respondent was performing “major” plumbing repairs [in the Complex] (for a project exceeding $4,000,000.00) without a plumbing license and that, with such repairs, the water was turned off “until further notice.” Additionally, Complainant complained that some of the hot water heaters were being replaced even though the equipment was less than 2-years old, and that the members/shareholders were not receiving the warranty information or rebates. Finally, Complainant noted that some “valves, commodes, new plumbing fixtures, new lines to sinks and commodes” were being replaced “when these lines have been replaced less than 30 days prior.”4 6. On August 7, 2019, the Registrar received information from Respondent, including copies of the various building permits regarding the sewer project.5 Two of the permits were issued by City to Respondent … “dba Priceless Plumbing.” 7. On August 9, 2019, the Registrar received information from the Complex management regarding the various complaints and with explanatory letters regarding the sewer work going on at the Complex.6 8. On August 12, 2019, the Registrar received a second complaint from Complainant.7 This complaint included the same “personal story” written by Complainant that had been attached to the earlier complaint. 9. Following a September 4, 2019 jobsite inspection, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent regarding Unit J114 and the pressure valve drain pipe.8 The

Statement from Complainant’s Complaint (dated July 20, 2019). See Respondent’s Exhibit 3. Id. See AR at 68-78 of 157. Following this information in the AR, there is a letter dated July 25, 2019, from an attorney on behalf of the Complex to all the shareholders regarding the sewer project. AR at 79-80 of 157. 6 See AR at 65-67 of 157. See AR at 64 of 157. 8 See Respondent’s Exhibit 8; see also AR at 27 of 157. 2 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Directive was issued to require Respondent to perform corrective work and to so notify the Registrar “prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2019.” As to the pressure valve drain pipe, the Registrar specified that a permit was not in place when the [April] work was performed, 9 that the work had not yet been inspected or approved and that, if the drain piping is run through the floor as proposed, additional inspection would be required prior to the covering of any of the new piping. The Registrar further noted: 1. The discharge end of the pipe … is over 37 inches above floor level; 2. There is no drain pan below the water heater; 3. There is no sediment trap in the gas line down-stream from the flexible gas connector; 4. There are no visible screws in the chimney connections; 5. All work needs to be inspected and approved by the Scottsdale Building Department; and 6. Approved inspection results of all work are to be submitted to the ROC Investigator. 10. Additionally, the Registrar sent four warning letters, dated September 6, 2019, to Respondent:10 1. The Registrar noted that the documents being used were in the name of “Peterson Air Care & Plumbing” while the Scottsdale building permits were in the name of a DBA, “Priceless Plumbing.” 2. The Registrar noted that, at the jobsite, Respondent’s license number was not preceded with the acronym ROC, and that such was required to be prominently displayed. 3. The Registrar noted that the bond information on file with the Registrar appeared to be insufficient to cover an estimated annual volume of construction work.

9 At the inspection, the city confirmed that the April work was not done under a permit. See Administrative Record at 27 of 157. See Respondent’s Exhibit 7. 3 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

4. The Registrar noted that, prior to the work performed, Respondent had not obtained the necessary building permit(s) for the work at Unit J114. 11. As to the larger alleged issue of permits for the sewer work being done in the Complex without permits, the Registrar noted that no action by Respondent was required, because Complainant had confirmed to the Registrar that the Complex sewer work was not specific to her unit, Unit J114. 12. In the interim, the prior manager had not obtained the housing complex’s Board’s approval for repair work in J114 to be done; the repair work included some demolition, which also had to be approved by the City of Scottsdale Building Department (City). Complex manager did not have the authority to give such approval. 13. On September 4, 2019, Respondent provided its bid to the Board for the corrective work.11 14. On September 9, 2019, the new Complex manager notified Respondent of the Board’s approval for the corrective work to be done in J114, and for appropriate coordinating work to be done in J214.12 However, Respondent indicated that Complainant was not available for work to be done and she still had concerns.13 15. On September 23 and 24, 2019, the parties had communication regarding the repairs not being able to be completed until the City inspection (scheduled for the 24 th) before any concrete was poured.14 16. On September 23, 2019, Respondent requested that Complainant allow an extension and she responded with a question about how many days that would be. Respondent replied that it could complete the work “the same day.” 17. While Complainant seemed to understand that the City needed to complete its inspection, she also queried whether the Registrar’s inspection should take place before or after the concrete was poured. Early in the morning on September 24, 2019, Investigator

11 See Respondent’s Exhibit 5. See Respondent’s Exhibit 6. 13 For example, Complainant indicated that when they took up the carpet, and/or during the process of the repairs, they found asbestos. See Respondent’s Exhibit 10. 4 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Smith replied back that unless Complainant requested the compliance inspection be rescheduled, the compliance inspection would take place later that day. 18. At the September 24, 2019 compliance inspection, Investigator Smith determined that the Directive work item had not yet been corrected. In his job site inspection notes, dated September 25, 2019, he indicated the following remaining issues:15 1. Drain piping from an upper level water heater had been connected to the drain piping from the added drain pan; 2. The drain piping from the drain pain did not have a positive slope; 3. The drain piping from the drain pan was only 2 to 3 inches below the surface of the concrete; 4. The concrete had been cut and there was still an open trench; 5. The termination point of the drain pipe was below the exterior concrete slab despite international Plumbing Code requiring the termination point to be “a minimum of 6 inches above grade, and a maximum of 24 inches above grade;” 6. There was no sediment trap in the gas line; 7. The gas shut-off valve was not readily accessible; 8. There was concrete debris in the carpeting at the exterior of the main entry door; 9. The carpet had been removed exposing the concrete floor from the entry door to the water heater closet; 10. Complainant had no hot water in her home; 11. Complainant was not able to use her air conditioner; 12. City had not yet inspected the work which did not meet current code requirements; and, 13. City had confirmed that “a significant amount of permit required work has been performed by Respondent without having the permits obtained.” 19. In the interim, the City’s inspection had been scheduled for September 24, 2019. However, on that morning, the City postponed all their inspections that day due to the weather.

15 See Respondent’s Exhibit 11. 5 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

20. The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 21. The Registrar issued a Citation on September 27, 2019, charging Respondent with possible violations of: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(2); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE Section R4-9-108; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32- 1154(A)(12), namely ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1124(B); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(14); and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(22). 22. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes … in any material respect which is prejudicial to another … without consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.” 23. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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.” 24. ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE Section 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.” 25. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(12) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.” 26. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1124(B), regarding licenses, mandates certain items such as posting and placement of a contractor’s “ROC (license number)” at sites and on paperwork. 27. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(14) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]cting in the capacity of a contractor … in a name other than as set forth upon the license.”

6 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

28. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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.” 29. On October 10, 2019, City green-tagged the J114 work.16 30. On October 15, 2019, Respondent filed its written Answer to the Citation.17 As to the plans, Respondent noted that it had to have the corrective work approved by the Board, which had not done so [until September 9, 2019]. As to workmanship, Respondent again noted that the work had not been approved by the Board.18 As to the issue of operating under some other name, Respondent noted that it only operated under the dba name of Peterson Plumbing and that the City had put the wrong name on the permit.19 As to the final timing of the repairs, Respondent noted that the delays were caused by other circumstances outside its control: not yet having Board approval and the City’s scheduling and then cancelling its inspection so that the work could be completed. Finally, Respondent noted that the work had required “solutions” agreed upon by the parties to allow the work to be completed and the work had been green-tagged on October 10, 2019.20 31. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing for November 25, 2019. 32. Although the work was completed, and City-approved, Complainant did not come to an agreement with Respondent that the matter was resolved. 33. At hearing, Investigator Smith testified regarding the background of the matter including his inspections.

See Respondent’s Exhibit 16. See Respondent’s Exhibit 12. Respondent was apparently indicating that its work had not been up to ROC standards due to the timing of the Board approval. Respondent indicated that the name on the permit had apparently defaulted to the name of a company Respondent had acquired in 2016. At hearing, Respondent further explained that the City had to allow some variances to get the work completed and to obtain the green tag. 7 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

34. At hearing, Complainant acknowledged that the work in her unit was now completed. However, Complainant maintained that Respondent should be disciplined, opining that Respondent’s workers were “unprofessional and inconsiderate” and “unqualified” often showing up without little or no notice, leaving construction messes, and causing older persons like herself to be without hot water. Complainant indicated she had been unable to be in her home much of the time, due to not having hot water and the construction mess and dust. Complainant believed that she was “made an example of” with “intimidation and retaliation.”21 Complainant stated that “nobody should have to go through what I went through, nobody.” 35. At hearing, Respondent’s Project Manager, Brandon Staley, walked through the work that had been performed and acknowledged that issues had arisen (asbestos, City code requirements,22 and other safety issues), each of which had caused the work to be protracted. He believed that the replacement of a hot water heater with a “like” hot water heater had not required any permit, but then that, due to the larger scope of the repair work that needed to be done [presumably as to J114 and J124], Respondent had obtained a permit. 36. Respondent noted that because the work took place at a cooperative housing complex, Complainant had no authority to determine what work needed to be done or when that work could be done, in that only the Board could approve work bids. Respondent noted that there were Board management issues that caused delays. Further, Respondent noted that its actions were also at the mercy of the City, in obtaining variances for requisite work to comply with City codes and for certain City inspections to take place so that the remaining work could proceed. Finally, Respondent requested that the matter be dismissed, as the work was completed and green-tagged.

At hearing, Complainant did not further explain any such alleged “intimidation and retaliation.” Complainant continued to argue regarding the larger sewer project, which she described as “a gold mine” for Respondent that they were doing without obtaining permits. 22 One such requirement was that the older piping did not meet current code specifications, and the cutting, connecting and replacement of piping took more construction time, including City officials trying to determine just how the work in Complainant’s unit would need to be done. 8 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

37. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record with the Registrar, which reflects that there was one prior complaint that was resolved in November 2019 through compliance with the Registrar’s inspection, and further reflects that the instant complaint is open. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1101 et seq. 2. Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense.23 The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE section R2-19-119. 3. In this case, Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE Section R2-19-119(A) and ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE Section 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). 4. A preponderance of the evidence is: The 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.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014). 5. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095

23 “At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” ARIZ. REV. STAT. Section 41- 1092.07(G)(2). 9 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

(2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes."). 6. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B). 7. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995). 8. Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards. 9. The hearing record established that Respondent had not obtained a permit for the April replacement of Complainant’s water heater. Although Respondent’s Project Manager believed that a permit was not required for replacement of the water heater with a “like” water heater, the City does require permits for water heater replacement.24 Thus, the hearing record established that Respondent had failed to obtain a permit for the April 2019 water heater replacement in Unit J114 and only later obtained that permit. The failure to obtain a permit, when a permit is required, can be determined to be a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(2). However, the criteria of that statutory provision also indicates that the departure from the building codes exists as to “a material aspect which is prejudicial to another …”. In this case, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s failure to have obtained the permit for the work in J114 prior to commencing the work was not a material aspect of the project and there was no demonstrated “prejudice” to Complainant in this regard. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has not violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(2).

Public information available on the City’s website. City code Section 1.1101 Required approval and permits. In the event a permit is obtained after the work has commenced, there may be a permit fee in an amount double the fee that would have been charged if the permit had been obtained before the work began; however, “emergency” work is not subject to a penalty if the permit is obtained at the beginning of the next work business day. City code Section 31-7 IBC Section 109.4. The hearing record does not demonstrate either whether the replacement of Complainant’s water heater was an “emergency” or whether a double fee was charged for the subsequently-obtained permit. 10 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

10. The Directive established that Respondent’s work as to the installation of the hot water heater needed to be corrected regarding workmanship. However, the hearing record clearly established that Respondent was unable to complete corrective work in J114 by the Directive-stated date due to delays not of its own making. First, the then Complex manager had not obtained Board approval for the work, of which Respondent had informed Complainant in April that needed to be done. Next, after the Directive, with the Board’s September 9, 2019 approval in hand, Complainant was unavailable for a period of time.25 In the interim, in order to complete the work according to City code or with a necessary variance, the City had to find solutions to issues that had arisen with the work and inform Respondent how to complete the work, and the City was unable to schedule the inspection until September 24, 2019, which was the day after the Directive time period for completion.26 Finally, although Complainant apparently understood that the concrete could not be poured until the City had inspected and given approved, and she was aware that City could not inspect on the 24th, Complainant was not clear in agreeing to an extension of time for the Directive and in a rescheduling of the Compliance inspection so that Respondent’s work could be completed within a new time frame. Thus, the failure of Respondent to complete the corrective work within the Directive time period was justified. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent had not taken appropriate corrective action following the written Directive. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has not violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(22). 11. Given the need for the City to have created solutions to issues that had arisen with the work and inform Respondent how to complete the work in order for the work to be City-approved, the hearing record failed to establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans, specifications or building codes in this regard. The

At hearing, Complainant did not dispute this. 26 It appears that, based on the email exchanges on the 23rd and 24th, Respondent indicated it would be able to complete the work “the same day”, i.e., the 24th, had the City inspector been present on September 24, 2019 and approved the work so that the concrete could be poured. 11 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has not violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(3) or ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE Section R4-9-108. 12. The hearing record established that Respondent‘s signage at the Complex, apparently regarding the large sewer project, did not have the acronym ROC in front of Respondent’s license number; there was no evidence that any signage was utilized at the J114 site. The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent’s bid/contract paperwork with Complex did contain the acronym ROC.27 As to the instant case, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has not violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32- 1154(A)(12) or ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1124(B). 13. The hearing record demonstrated that the permits, which had raised the concern of Respondent’s use of its licensed name, were permits issued for the sewer project. This concern was brought forward in the September 6, 2019 warning letter to Respondent. There was no evidence to dispute Respondents’ explanation that the City had erred in putting the wrong “DBA” on those permits. Thus, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent ever acted in a name other than that as set forth upon Respondent’s license. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent has not violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1154(A)(14). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that Respondent’s License No. 308142 shall not be disciplined as a result of this Complaint, and Complainant’s Complaint should be closed. 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. Recommended this date, January 13, 2020 /s/ Kay Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

27 See Respondent’s Exhibits 1 and 2. 12 RECEIVED 1.14.2020 ROC LEGAL

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

13