2023A-02231-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-02231-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-01

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Stephen D Newlin , Case No. 2023-02231 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-02231-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Sonora West Development Inc License No. ROC 164411,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

December 18, 2023 1:00 PM Sondra Vanella Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on August 4, 2023. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is

cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will

be a party to the hearing.

Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge. The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing.

RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented

by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32-

1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of

any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092

to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles

regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE

The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via

video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for

the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below.

SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a

disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the

party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/content/prehearing-disclosure- statement.

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the

assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties.

The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced

or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay.

A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION

In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the

Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.” Dated November 2, 2023.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail November 2, 2023 to:

Respondent(s) Sonora West Development Inc 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Complainant(s) Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-02231 /

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Scott Christian Pfeiffer Sonora West Development Inc 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Creative Environments Design and Landscape Inc DBA: 8920 S Hardy Dr Tempe, AZ 85284

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

February 17, 2023

Dismissal Letter Re: Complaint No. 2023-00332;

Dear Complainant:

The Registrar received and investigated your complaint. The Registrar determined that the Respondent’s work was subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. For that reason, the Registrar is prohibited from issuing a citation for the Respondent’s alleged poor workmanship or the alleged departure from applicable building codes. See A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2).

Therefore, the Registrar will not issue a citation in this matter. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Please understand that nothing in this letter is intended to prevent you from seeking relief in another forum.

Sincerely,

Chris Fultz Chris Fultz, Investigator #209 (602) 771-6746 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

CC:

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-00332 Investigator: Chris Fultz Inspection Date: February 15, 2023 Inspection Time: 2:00 PM

Complainant: Scott Christian Respondent: Creative Pfeiffer Sonora West Development Environments Design and Landscape Inc Inc Not Present: Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes: JSI photos were taken with my Cell phone. JSI audio was recorded with my Olympus Digital Voice Recorder. Refer to Compliance JSI photos for reference. Photos and recordings have been uploaded to the case file.

On 02/15/2023 at about 1400 hours, I conducted a jobsite inspection at the home of Steve Newlin. The complaint was filed by the builder, Sonora West Development. All parties were present at the inspection.

There were several issues on the complaint and a couple other discussed at the inspection.

Work was completed and approved of the project on 06/28/2021. After the completion, the homeowner filed several complaints about the fountain not working properly. During those complaints, the respondent documented that fountain was not being properly maintained. The Respondent, then provided 4 weeks of free maintenance. After this time frame, the homeowner signed off on the fountain working perfectly. The homeowner was then responsible for the maintenance of his fountain. A heavy buildup of calcium and bee caucuses. There is no evidence to show poor workmanship. The fountain has more likely failed due to poor owner maintenance.

During the inspection the homeowner was also discussing issues with dead or dying plants. He stated that the irrigation system wasn’t working and this was the result. He also stated he has had other companies working on the system. There was also 2 guys there at the inspection making changes to the work. The ROC doesn’t have any recourse for a living plant dying. The ROC also cannot hold the respondent responsible for anything that has been altered or modified by others. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

We also looked at a couple of areas where the irrigation lines have come uncovered. This is a homeowner maintenance after the first year.

This case will be dismissed at this time.

Complaint Item: 1 - Deficient construction of water fountain; tile and grout issues; causing massive water loss - reported to Respondent on numerous occasions, but not remedied, and remains inoperable. Investigator’s Observation: Work was completed 06/28/2021. There were several complaints of the fountain not working. Documents show the fountain was not being properly maintained. After several visits to fix the poor maintenance of the fountain, the respondent provided 4 weeks of free maintenance. The homeowner again signed off on the fountain working. After being turned back over to the homeowner, it appears the fountain has not been properly maintained. There was a heavy buildup of calcium and bee caucuses.

Complaint Item: 2 - Original Contract Items Not Delivered/Installed, Nor Credit Issued: (1) 120 ft of steel edging for lower level turf; Queens’s mix for 14 pots-not applied; 20 tons Madison gold 2" depth - only 10 tons delivered and depth did not exceed 1". Aggregate value of items not delivered/installed for which credit is required: $8,600.00. (2) Reveg seed mix, not allowed by HOA. Value of seed unable to be used: $3,219.70. (3) Downgrade of 6 boxed specimen Texas Laurels, Single trunk at $950.00 each, replaced by 6 potted pigmy palms and petunias, elephants trail at $290.00 each. Credit due for difference at $3,960.00. (4) Credit due for 200 feet pot sleeving and 14 drainage pottery which was not installed due to lack of project coordination by Respondent and Respondent's late start, as concrete was already poured. Credit due of $1,200.00. Total aggregate credit due: $16,979.70. Investigator’s Observation: This issue is a financial dispute between the parties. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract.

Complaint Item: 3 - Respondent knocked down and destroyed mature saguaro cactus. Replacement cost is $4,000.00 - Credit not given by Respondent for

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

damage to project site. Total aggregate credit due: $4,000.00. Investigator’s Observation: There is no evidence to prove the respondent was responsible for this allegation.

Complaint Item: 4 - Re: Change Order 1 - Items Not Delivered/Installed, Nor Credit Issued: Transformer not installed. Charged for 3 transformers, but only 2 on plans and 2 installed. Credit due: $700.00. Total aggregate credit due: $700.00. Investigator’s Observation: This issue is a financial dispute between the parties. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract.

Complaint Item: 5 - Re: Change Order 2 - Items Not Delivered/Installed, Nor Credit Issued: Vegetation never planted by Respondent; It all died; Vegetation hauled off and not replaced. Credit due: $1,944.10. Total aggregate credit due: $1,944.10. Investigator’s Observation: Although This issue is a financial dispute between the parties. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract. Secondly, the ROC doesn't have any guarantee to life of a living plant. Lastly, the homeowner has hired other landscaping services to work on the system. Therefore, the work has been modified from the original and the respondent isn't responsible for the irrigation system on the project any further.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

March 15, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-02231

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for May 2, 2023 at 11:30 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection. If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 (602) 771-6735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

March 16, 2023

Re: Complaint Number 2023-02231

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

Due to a conflict in scheduling of one of the parties, the jobsite inspection scheduled for May 2, 2023 at 11:30 AM has been rescheduled for April 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM.

If either party is unable to attend, the Registrar requires 36-hours advance notice for cancellation or continuance.

Complainant: Safe access is required to any area to be inspected.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.

Sincerely,

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 (602) 771-6735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

April 19, 2023

Dismissal Letter Re: Complaint No. 2023-02231;

Dear Complainant:

The Registrar received and investigated your complaint. Section 32-1162(A) provides a two year statute of limitations for when a complaint must be filed with the Registrar, and prevents the Registrar from proceeding against a contractor on complaints that were not filed within the limitations period. Specifically, the complaint must be filed:

• For new home builds or other new building construction, within two years after the earlier of the close of escrow or actual occupancy. A.R.S. § 32-1162(A)(1). • For all other projects, within two years after the completion of the specific project. A.R.S. § 32-1162(A)(2).

Section 32-1162(A) prohibits the Registrar from proceeding against a contractor on complaints that were not filed timely. Based on the information submitted to the Registrar, the act was committed more than two years prior to the date of filing the complaint.

Therefore, the Registrar will not issue a citation in this matter. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Please understand that nothing in this letter is intended to prevent you from seeking relief in another forum.

Sincerely,

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 (602) 771-6735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C017 4/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

April 24, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-02231

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for May 15, 2023 at 1:30 PM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 (602) 771-6735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2023-02231 05/11/2023 ROC Legal

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Complaint 2023-02231 message

Carolyn Harrison <[email redacted]> Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:11 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: David Fagerburg <[email redacted]>

To Whom It May Concern,

Please see attached letter and accompanying correspondence referencing Complaint 2023-02231 for request of dismissal.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Carolyn Harrison

Vice President

Cell 480.390.1608

Office 602.667.3145

[email redacted]

Sonora West Development, Inc.

17767 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85255 | ROC164411

www.sonorawestdev.com

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: S Newlin <[email redacted]> To: Marty Guthmiller <[email redacted]> Cc: Carolyn Harrison <[email redacted]>, Dale Lesperance <[email redacted]>, Scott Pfeiffer <[email redacted]> Bcc: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:00:00 +0000 Subject: Fwd: TV's and completion schedule Hi Marty,

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 1/4 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2023-02231 05/11/2023 Would you please get back to me on the items on this email from March 1? ROC Legal

Just to update since a week ago when this was sent:

The wine cellar was completed. Nothing else from this request has been completed

I was told Friday, as your guys were leaving, the security alarm for the main home is working. I appreciate that but they left without showing me how to use it- need that Monday as the home is furnished and I need to set alarm at night.

We are not getting very far with the lighting autonomation and I would like this stepped up please Marty. It takes forever for me to simply turn off the lights. There is no consistency for which button does what and very few do anything at all. Usually only 1 per station, and it rotates. Also dimming is an issue, can't make the lights "soft" as they go off at about 40% unlike what you did at my home in DM. We expect a CO this week and we need to get these done. We also need to schedule a tutorial...I have received no instruction or much of anything other than 10 minutes on how to do 1 of the TVs, nothing at all on how to manage HVAC, Security, etc.

Also, where are we on the TV lift for the kitchen? I have art but need to make sure this works.

How about shades automation tie-in as I am told shade people will be there Monday?

We need the low voltage exterior path lights set up on the C 4 timer to go on a dusk and off at 11:00 PM every day, same with water feature light in front ....this has been discussed several times going back as far as our Flagstaff meeting.

On a related note, they unnecessarily added three Control 4 switches to the garage...why? Only 1 was needed there by the entrance door.

Please provide the latest generator install and hook-up update.

I look forward to your response and hopefully full completion by end of the week.

Thanks, Steve

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: S Newlin <[email redacted]> Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:02 AM Subject: TV's and completion schedule To: Marty Guthmiller <[email redacted]>

Hi Marty,

First of all, I want to compliment you on your people. They have great "people skills "and all very polite. It's very noticeable and appreciated and reflects highly on the PAVAZ culture.

Looking forward to finally getting the generator installed this week...please keep me informed of the schedule.

Please send me the TV proposal and the additions we are discussing to include: Skyvue 20 -43"TV outside by kitchen pass, add small TV same size (32")as exercise in Master bath, add 65" low end to the upper game room.

When will all the water bugs, the wine cellar control and alarms (both temp and security) be complete? The cameras for front and rear gates? The lower wine fridges are to be hooked up to alarm as well...recall they are equipped with wifi and alarms.

Also, when will all the exterior lights be complete? They need to be on timer dusk to midnight. We need to add the LV timers to the Control 4 system so they come on daily at dusk and off at midnight. The front water feature should run from AM until 11 PM daily.

Looking forward to completion!

Steve

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 2/4 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2023-02231 05/11/2023 ROC Legal

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> To: Carolyn Harrison <[email redacted]> Cc: Bcc: Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 03:56:30 +0000 Subject: FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance

From: S Newlin <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:54 PM To: Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Newlin Proof for Insurance

Rebecca- Scott knows about me moving things into the home.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:57 PM Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Patti,

Here’s a copy of the permit which shows Stephen D Newlin Trust as the owner.

Does that help?

I’m putting together the next draw, if he’s moving in personal belongings we’ll need to expedite.

Thank you,

Rebecca

From: Kite, Patricia (US-POC1) <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:25 PM To: Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Cc: S Newlin <[email redacted]> Subject: Newlin Proof for Insurance Importance: High

Hi Rebecca,

Hope all is well with you.

In order to insure the Hideaway Lane home/property, Steve’s insurance company is requiring proof that Steve owns the home. Would you be able to provide a document proving ownership? It is quite urgent as Steve’s personal property is already in the home.

Thanks!

Patti Kite

Assistant to Stephen D. Newlin

440-714-5121

This email and any attachment(s) may contain confidential information. If you were not the intended recipient, please notify the Avient person who sent you this email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying them or disclosing them. Thank you.

To view this disclaimer in other languages: www.avient.com/disclaimer

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 3/4 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2023-02231 05/11/2023 ROC Legal attachments Complaint 2023-02231 - Request of Dismissal.pdf 298K Fwd: TV's and completion schedule.eml 22K FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance.eml 16K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 4/4 Received 05/11/2023 ROC Legal Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance - [email redacted] 05/11/2023 ROC Legal

Subject: FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Tue, May 2, 8:56 PM (10 days to Carolyn Harrison

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

From: S Newlin <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:54 PM To: Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Newlin Proof for Insurance Rebecca- Scott knows about me moving things into the home. On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:57 PM Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> wrote:

Hi Patti, Here’s a copy of the permit which shows Stephen D Newlin Trust as the owner. Does that help? I’m putting together the next draw, if he’s moving in personal belongings we’ll need to expedite. Thank you, Rebecca From: Kite, Patricia (US-POC1) <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:25 PM To: Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Cc: S Newlin <[email redacted]> Subject: Newlin Proof for Insurance Importance: High Hi Rebecca, Hope all is well with you. In order to insure the Hideaway Lane home/property, Steve’s insurance company is requiring proof that Steve o the home. Would you be able to provide a document proving ownership? It is quite urgent as Steve’s personal property is already in the home. Thanks! Patti Kite Assistant to Stephen D. Newlin 440-714-5121

This email and any attachment(s) may contain confidential information. If you were not the intended recipient, please notify the Avient person who sent you this email and immediately de the message and any attachments without copying them or disclosing them. Thank you.

To view this disclaimer in other languages: www.avient.com/disclaimer

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM Fwd: TV's and completion schedule - [email redacted] 05/11/2023 ROC Legal

Subject: Fwd: TV's and completion schedule S Newlin <[email redacted]> Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:0 to Marty Guthmiller, Carolyn Harrison, Dale Lesperance, Scott Pfeiffer

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

Hi Marty,

Would you please get back to me on the items on this email from March 1?

Just to update since a week ago when this was sent:

The wine cellar was completed. Nothing else from this request has been completed

We are not getting very far with the lighting autonomation and I would like this stepped up please Marty. It takes forever for me to simply turn off the lights. There is no consistency for which button does what and very few anything at all. Usually only 1 per station, and it rotates. Also dimming is an issue, can't make the lights "soft" as th go off at about 40% unlike what you did at my home in DM. We expect a CO this week and we need to get these done. We also need to schedule a tutorial...I have received no instruction or much of anything other than 10 minut on how to do 1 of the TVs, nothing at all on how to manage HVAC, Security, etc.

Also, where are we on the TV lift for the kitchen? I have art but need to make sure this works.

How about shades automation tie-in as I am told shade people will be there Monday?

We need the low voltage exterior path lights set up on the C 4 timer to go on a dusk and off at 11:00 PM every day same with water feature light in front ....this has been discussed several times going back as far as our Flagstaff meeting.

On a related note, they unnecessarily added three Control 4 switches to the garage...why? Only 1 was needed the by the entrance door.

Please provide the latest generator install and hook-up update.

I look forward to your response and hopefully full completion by end of the week.

Thanks, Steve

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 May 15, 2023 2023-02331 JSI Photos

11370 E Hideaway Lane Sco sdale, AZ 85255

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 P 25 P 26 P 27 P 28 P 29 P 30 P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 P 36 P 37 P 38 P 39 P 40 P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 5/23/23, 8:13 AM State of Arizona Mail - ROC Complaint 2023-02231

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

ROC Complaint 2023-02231 message

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]> Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bcc: [email redacted], [email redacted]

Hello,

Attached please find an electronic courtesy copy of the letter issued in this case. This document was also sent to your attention via US Mail.

Thank you

Mary Coyne, CP Paralegal Manager Arizona Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 602-542-1525 602-206-1564

Fill out AZ ROC’s survey to let us know how we’re doing and how we can better serve you!

20230523 Legal Reply to R's Dismissal Request MAILED 2023-02231.pdf 101K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_ftdOgnqQMdU-lZUO9JUGXkR92ufrgoEB0emh0FFuPxk1f8/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 1/1 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director May 23, 2023

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail

Sonora West Development Inc. Attn: Scott Pfeiffer 17767 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Re: Complaint No. 2023-02231, License No ROC 164411

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer,

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 18, 2023. Your letter reasserts that Mr. Newlin occupied the residence before March 2, 2021, and his complaint is therefore barred under A.R.S. § 32-1162(A).

While your previous letter of May 11 relied on A.R.S. § 33-1002 to argue that Mr. Newlin occupied the residence prior to March 2, 2021, the Registrar rejected that argument, as section 33-1002 relates to mechanics liens, and has no bearing on the Registrar’s determination of actual occupancy under section 32-1162(A). Your recent letter asserts that “Mr. Newlin slept in the home prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy which solidifies the fact the home was occupied.”

The date of Mr. Newlin’s “actual occupancy” is a contested issue that does not warrant dismissal of the complaint. To be successful, a request to dismiss a complaint based on statute of limitations grounds must set forth facts that clearly and convincingly show that dismissal is required. But where, as here, there are disputed facts, dismissal on the technical grounds of limitations is not appropriate. See, e.g., UMB Bank, NA v. Parkview School, Inc., 523 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. App. 2023).

Based on the foregoing, the Registrar will proceed with its investigation in this matter. If the Registrar issues a citation and the matter proceeds to hearing, you may present your arguments and evidence to the administrative law judge.

Sincerely,

/s/ Chance Peterson Chance Peterson General Counsel Legal Department 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director CC: Complainant Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-02331 Investigator: David Fagerburg #210 Inspection Date: May 15, 2023 Inspection Time: 1:30 PM

Complainant: Stephen Newlin, Respondent: Sonora West Homeowner, Steve Beeghley, Development Inc. Scott Pfeiffer Q.P. Attorney, Western Roof Joshua & CEO, Carolyn Harrison Vice Sawyer President, Jeff & Kimberly Mossman, Not Present: Owners Mossman Brothers Pools Inc. Brett Ruretich, Owner Pro Cap Roofing, Jeff Sterling, Engineering Consultant, Michael Obert, Attorney Representing Pro Cap Roofing, Yoshi Suzuki MCA Clay Roof Tile Manufacturer, Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes: Both parties were present at this jobsite investigation JSI photos taken with my Pixel 6 Pro Cell Phone JSI audio recorded with my Olympus Digital Voice Recorder model DM-620. Photos #1 and #2 are of the complainant’s residence and address.

Investigator Notes: 1: The complainant provided a 2 page narrative on the complaint form. The complaint items have been separated into 42 individual complaint items for clarity. 2: Complaint Item 10 has been separated into 3 individual complaint items and will be addressed as Complaint Item 10a thru 10c for clarity. 3: Complaint Item 14 has been separated into 2 individual complaint items and will be addressed as Complaint Item 14a and 14b for clarity.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 1: Sub-Pro Cap Roofing-ROC looked at this preliminarily via BCP about 18 months ago and I didn't file then, hoping things would stabilize. Since then things have gotten much worse and are easily highly visible as the roofing contractor attempted cosmetic" cover ups" using spray paint and some foreign substance that have badly faded and significantly discolored. Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed roof tiles installed throughout the home and casita with what appears to be paint or other foreign material applied with a brush or other means. I also observed roof tiles installed in the field of the roof using roof tiles designed to be used for gable roof ends with a foreign material used to fill the holes. See P (3) thru P (16). The respondent shall correct the roof tiles installed throughout all structures with cosmetic cover ups or foreign substance and roof tiles installed in the roof field designed for gable roof ends by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 2: Pro Cap the roofer made poor tile installation against the manufactures' specs, the manufacturer shipped bad tiles, tile contractor tried to "cover this up" by applying spray paint and a tar substance over numerous bad tiles- (I have videos and photos); Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 1 and 4. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 3: I have had 2 other roofers look at this and agree its a terrible installation and look. I have emails from the manufacturer and my builder recognizing the problem and seeking remedy. Investigator’s Observation: This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 4: There are also cracked and loose tiles, damaged peeling roof vents, rodent access open, Valley alignment of tiles(not cut), flashing debris Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed roof tiles installed throughout the home and casita that are loose, have a head lap that exceeds the manufacturer installation specifications, damaged peeling roof vents and the valley alignment of tiles that are not cut within the roof valley per industry standards. See P (3) thru P (16). During this jobsite investigation I did not observe any cracked roof tiles, open rodent access or flashing debris. The roof valley tile is irregular and unsightly. The respondent shall correct the loose roof tiles, valley roof tiles that are irregular, unsightly and not cut in the roof valleys per industry standards, roof tiles that exceed the required head lap including the peeling roof vents by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 5: -the biggest issue is cosmetic damage done by attempted cover-up which looked less bad for about 4 months and now has badly faded and looks horrible- never should have applied tar or spray paint to hide the bad material. My builder agrees but has not been able to get the sub to remedy it. My new home needs a new roof which will be $150,000. I shouldn't have to pay for two roofs just because the first was installed improperly and covered up. This is a very serious matter that needs a full and comprehensive remedy. My contractor has filed a lawsuit against the roofer and the supplier and agrees the installation is unacceptable. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint items 1 and 4. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 6: Sub-Mossman Pools subcontractor- (this work was completed November 15,2021 Rear Water Feature, not built per plans or spec- jackhammered 6 inches off the top concrete level as they were built at the wrong elevation and too shallow., not per spec. Water overflows saturating the outside wall /causing erosion Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a water feature installed in the rear of the home. See P (17) and P (18). The respondent’s sub- contractor acknowledged the water feature is not built per the original plans or specifications and jackhammered 6 inches off the top of the concrete level as the water feature trough was built at the wrong elevation and was too shallow. The respondent’s sub-contractor and the complainant acknowledged there is a change order agreed upon by both parties with a credit offered and accepted by the complainant. During this jobsite investigation the respondent’s subcontractor agreed to correct the water feature where water flows over the end of the trough saturating the outside wall and causing erosion. This correction will also address complaint item 8. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 7: The wrong pebble tec color was applied 91 have records and photos). Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a water feature in the rear of the home with a brown colored Pebble Tec finish installed. See P (17) and P (18). The complainant stated that the color has always been brown, is not the color chosen and is not the result of algae. During this jobsite investigation the respondent’s subcontractor stated that as a good faith gesture the color of the Pebble Tec can be enhanced with a coating that may resolve the issue of color. Per the ROC Workmanship Standards, substantial completion for swimming pools and spa interior cementitious finishes means 30 days from the day the pool/spa is filled with water and the equipment is in operation. This also applies to water features. This investigator has not been provided with any evidence or documentation that the respondent or the respondent’s subcontractor was informed in writing of the wrong Pebble Tec color being installed within 30 days. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 8: Unit not built per plan and specs. Depth too shallow was to be 10 inches deep and is only 4.5 inches deep Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a water feature in the rear of the home. See P (17) and P (18). The respondent’s sub- contractor acknowledged the water feature is not built per the original plans or specifications, the water feature trough was built at the wrong elevation and was too shallow. During this jobsite investigation in measuring the water level while the pump was on, the water level is approximately 5-1/2” deep. The respondent read me the approved change order that states the fountain depth is to be 6” and does not specify the depth of the water. The respondent’s sub-contractor and the complainant acknowledged there is a change order agreed upon by both parties with a credit offered and accepted by the complainant. During this jobsite investigation the respondent’s subcontractor stated that the water level will be corrected when complaint item 6 is corrected by allowing the water level to be higher. After this jobsite investigation the respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the water feature. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 9: No weir in water feature Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation all parties agree there is no weir in the water feature and the water feature is not designed to have a weir. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 10a: Pool- laminars not installed per spec, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a negative edge pool filled with water in the rear of the home. See P (19) thru P (23). The respondent’s subcontractor showed me a signed change order and stated a credit has been provided and explained that there was not enough room to install the pool Laminars per the original specifications. See P (20) and P (23). After this jobsite investigation the respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the pool Laminars. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 10b: Pool- wrong tile, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation all parties agree that the pool tile is not wrong. The complainant stated that the glass tiles keep falling off and a week prior to this jobsite investigation some of the tiles were reinstalled. The respondent’s subcontractor acknowledged 4 tiles had fallen off and were recently reinstalled using a platinum thin set which is much stronger. All parties agree there are no tiles missing at this time and the tile installed is not wrong. P (19) thru P (23). Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 10c: Pool- water often overflows the pool as cleaning jets require too much force and water goes over the negative edge-Ive had $600 water bills from this. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to what the complainant pays for water. During this jobsite investigation I observed a negative edge pool filled with water in the rear of the home. See P (19) thru P (23). The respondent and complainant agree a negative edge pool will overflow during heavy wind events. During this jobsite investigation the respondent’s subcontractor explained that adjustments can be made to the cleaning heads to prevent some water overflow but that there will always be some overflow captured in the basin and returned to the pool. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 11: pool light out for 2 months and hasn't been replaced as it is "stuck in the pebbletec-contractor is attempting to repair this Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant acknowledged the respondent’s subcontractor corrected this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 12: Spa fire feature does not meet the code, malfunctions constantly- service visits in a year, used galvanized pipe and is corroding Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a fire feature installed at the end of the spa. See P (24) and P (25). The respondent acknowledged the piping installed is galvanized and has used a stainless steel product to prevent the piping from rusting. During this jobsite investigation both parties acknowledged the local jurisdiction passed final inspection and C of O was issued March 12, 2021. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the spa fire feature does not meet the code or malfunctions constantly. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 13: Spa- complete misalignment of fixtures, jets, etc, leaks along basin, destroyed wall cap; Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a spa installed at the rear of the home. During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me that the spa fixtures and jets are misaligned and not in the center of the spa. See P (24). I did not observe any leaks along the basin or destroyed wall cap. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the spa fixtures, jets etc. are all to be centered and aligned in the spa. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 14a: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched windows, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed a scratches on the office sliding door window glass. During this jobsite investigation both parties acknowledged the local jurisdiction passed final inspection and C of O was issued March 12, 2021. After this jobsite investigation the respondent informed me that there is documentation regarding any issues the complainant had with workmanship over the past 2 years and the scratches were never on the list. I am unable to verify whether or not the scratches observed are the result of the respondent’s poor workmanship or if the scratches occurred after the complainant took possession of the home. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 14b: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- pitted windows, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen of the home the complainant explained that during welding of materials the glass was exposed to sparks and showed me window glass with what appears to be pits in the glass. See P (27). Per the ROC Workmanship Standards glass and mirror defects should be reported to the contractor at the time of the walk-thru. If no walk-thru has been held, these defects should be reported within 10 days of occupancy or replacement installation. This investigator has not been provided with any written documentation that the respondent was made aware of any pitted windows within 10 days of occupancy. During this jobsite investigation while standing in a normal position 15 feet away from the window glass I am unable to identify any pits in the windows. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 15: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- improper hardware, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed windows installed in the kitchen with locking hardware installed at a height that requires a step stool to operate the Hardware. See P (28). During this jobsite investigation the complainant did not provide any documentation or contract specification that the window hardware should be operable from the floor level. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the window hardware is improper. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 16: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched cladding and frames not remedied and attempts to cover this up have faded and visible, Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation I observed sliding glass door frame cladding with what appears to be an attempt to repair the damaged surface of the door frames. I am able to verify that the repair attempt on the window cladding has faded and is visible. See P (26). The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 17: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- weatherstripping chronic problems, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I did not observe any chronic problems with the window weather stripping. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 18: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- office door not built per plans and specs. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the respondent explained that after the door in the office was installed there was a change order to install an additional glass panel and there is not enough room for the electric motor to be installed within the wall cavity that operates the sliding glass doors. During this jobsite investigation the respondent stated that a credit was provided to the complainant to compensate for not being able to install the electric motor per the approved plans. After this jobsite investigation the respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the office door modifications. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 19: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- the electric door doesn't work, Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation both parties agree the electric door in the office does not work without manually forcing the doors closed. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 20: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- master window door leaks Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there appears to water damage on the wood flooring inside the master sliding glass door. See P (29) and P (30). The damage appears to be isolated mainly at the area of passage thru the door entrance. The sliding glass door is under a covered patio protected from the elements. After this jobsite investigation the respondent informed me that the patio area and master sliding glass door is used for the complainant’s main dog run, the patio is subjected to being hosed off on a regular basis and that the type of sliding door track installed only leaks with pressurized water hitting the door track. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate whether or not the master window door leaks are the result of the respondent’s poor workmanship or if the water damaged flooring is caused by other means. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 21: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- office door scraping top and can't close it- not installed per specs and drawings; Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At this jobsite investigation both parties agree the office door is scraping, makes a rubbing sound and is difficult to operate. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 22: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- misleading completion dates misrepresented to ROC when my builder filed against them-builder did not provide the evidence I have-photos, emails, time stamps, specs.etc., Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to whether or not the respondent’s subcontractor provided misleading completion dates. This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 23: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- destroyed Saguaro on my property and offered credit but never provided that Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to whether or not the respondent’s subcontractor destroyed a Saguaro on the complainant’s property or if a credit was offered and not provided. The ROC does not get involved in financial disputes nor have jurisdiction over living plants that die. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 24: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Failed to deliver items billed for on contract and didn't credit for them-charged for 3 transformers and only installed2, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the respondent stated that the transformers installed have a larger capacity and 3 transformers were not required. After this jobsite investigation it was verified that this complaint item has been previously addressed by ROC Investigator Chris Fultz during a jobsite investigation conducted on February 15, 2023 filed by this respondent under ROC complaint 2023- 00332. At that time it was determined that this is a financial dispute between the parties and the respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 25: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- change order #2 was never provided and no credit issued, charged for 120 ft steel edging not provided, charged for 20 tons Madison gold 2-inch depth and not provided, never provided 6 Texas Laurels and substituted plants that were $3800 less expensive Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to whether or not change order #2 was ever provided, if there was no credit issued or what the complainant was charged for that was not delivered. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 26: Sub Creative Environments Landscape-Failed to bury irrigation lines. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant did not show me any irrigation lines that are not buried with the exception of an area the complainant acknowledged was exposed by a landscape contractor. See P (35) thru P (37). Governing Rule: No Action 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 27: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- The irrigation system has too few loops and emitters so some areas too dry while others are saturated due to different dryness and sunlight. Need more loops Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant acknowledged that a landscape contractor has attempted to adjust the irrigation controls and modify the irrigation system loops. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 28: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Inadequate irrigation controls- too few loops to provide moisture consistency Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 27. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 29: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Water feature CE built in front is not built per specs and photo and does not work. It settled and the pump is out- the system worked for only 3 months post-completion in June of 2022,. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to how long the water feature may have worked or when the pump went out. During this jobsite investigation I observed a water feature at the front entrance to the home that has no water and is not in operation. See P (38) and P (39). After this jobsite investigation it was verified that this complaint item has been previously addressed by ROC Investigator Chris Fultz during a jobsite investigation conducted on February 15, 2023 filed by this respondent under ROC complaint 2023-00332. At that time it was verified that Creative Environments on multiple occasions returned to address any concerns of what was considered to be poor maintenance and provided 4 weeks of free maintenance. The 2023-00332 jobsite inspection notes determined that the complainant signed off on the fountain being restored to a working order and the maintenance was turned back over to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate who may be responsible for the water feature that is currently inoperable. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 30: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- The tile skin is falling off. Tile was not mitered and also has too much grout space for a negative edge. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 29. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 31: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Lights not installed Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant did not show me where there were landscape lights to be installed. In reviewing the current draw cost breakdown provided by the complainant I am able to verify there was a landscape credit applied to the budget of $12,803.19. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate whether or not there are landscape lights that were not installed or what the credit applied to the budget is for. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 32: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Pump not working Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 29. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 33: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Water loss as well not sealed tight front water feature they installed only worked 4 months and has tile popping off and the pump does not work, Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 29. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 34: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- irrigation system malfunctions, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant did not demonstrate or provide any evidence that the irrigation system malfunctions. During this jobsite investigation the complainant acknowledged that a landscape contractor has attempted to adjust the irrigation controls and modify the irrigation system loops. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 35: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- failed to provide items in contract-lights, plants, timer, sleeving borders and adequate pots/ sleeving, exposed irrigation lines yet billed for them Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there are drip irrigation lines installed without sleeves. See P (37). After this jobsite investigation in reviewing the proof of payment submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the complainant was provided with a landscape credit in the amount of $12,803.19. There is insufficient evidence to determine what items are included in the credit the complainant received. This is a financial dispute between the parties. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 36: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- applied Hydroseed against HOA compliance and refused to remove or refund (I had to have my landscaper do this), Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation the complainant acknowledged another contractor corrected this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 37: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- damaged my property out of the building envelope, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I did not observe any damage to the complainant’s property outside the building envelope. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 38: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- failed to provide trees of similar value when others died and they couldn't find replacements; Investigator’s Observation: The ROC does not have jurisdiction over living plants that die nor get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 39: My General Contractor- SWD-has been attempting to get the subs to remedy all the above but as we are approaching 2 years so I must file the complaint. Investigator’s Observation: This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 40: My GC has some minor things to do which he has agreed to such as stucco, and paint and there is an open issue in the pool eqpt room which leaks badly and has ruined sheetrock. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to what minor things the respondent has agreed to with the complainant. During this jobsite investigation I observed a covered, enclosed pool equipment room located below a set of stairs with sheetrock installed on the ceiling. I did not observe any ruined sheetrock. See P (31) thru P (34). The complainant stated he has concerns regarding the Efflorescence that is developing on the CMU block wall. During this jobsite investigation I informed both parties that per the ROC Workmanship Standards the potential for efflorescence exists in all Portland cement-based products. Efflorescence is a salt that is left on the surface of concrete upon drying and is generally of only cosmetic concern in nature. It often dissipates with contact with water or the passage of time. Efflorescence that is severe, recurring, or accompanied by degradation of the concrete surface may indicate the application of excessive moisture, an elevated concentration of salts in the applied water, numerous cycles of wetting and drying and/or a more substantial presence of salts within the surrounding environment. Efflorescence is not considered poor workmanship. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the pool equipment room leaks badly or that the sheetrock is ruined. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 41: Also termites found 3 X in Casita. I feel my GC is very conscientious and ethical, and trying, but subs aren't cooperating in the above areas, hence the complaint; Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to how many times termites may have been found at the Casita. In reviewing the contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the complainant or any successors agree to look solely to the pest control company for costs and expenses associated with investigating and remedying any termite infestation covered by the Termite Certificate and waive all claims of liability against respondent for losses, costs, and expenses in connection with the existence of termites at the residence, except for the respondent's one-year obligation of repair as set forth in this section. The remainder of this complaint item is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. During this jobsite investigation both parties acknowledged the local jurisdiction passed final inspection and C of O was issued March 12, 2021. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 42: See Sub Mossman Pools above as it keeps getting mingled with roof. Thank you Investigator’s Observation: This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

May 31, 2023

License No. ROC 164411

Re:Complaint No. 2023-02231

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Friday June 23, 2023.

RESTRICTIONS • You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license. • If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons 1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

Investigator Notes:

1: The complainant provided a 2 page narrative on the complaint form. The complaint items have been separated into 42 individual complaint items for clarity.

2: Complaint Item 10 has been separated into 3 individual complaint items and will be addressed as Complaint Item 10a thru 10c for clarity.

3: Complaint Item 14 has been separated into 2 individual complaint items and will be addressed as Complaint Item 14a and 14b for clarity.

This means the license is suspended for lack of qualifying party, lack of bond, nonrenewal, Recovery Fund payout, or for any reason listed in A.R.S. § 32-1124(F).

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliant Item 4: There are also cracked and loose tiles, damaged peeling roof vents, rodent access open, Valley alignment of tiles(not cut), flashing debris Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent shall correct the loose roof tiles, valley roof tiles that are irregular, unsightly and not cut in the roof valleys per industry standards, roof tiles that exceed the required head lap including the peeling roof vents by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 16: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched cladding and frames not remedied and attempts to cover this up have faded and visible, Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I am able to verify that the repair attempt on the window cladding has faded and is visible. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 19: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- the electric door doesn't work, Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliant Item 21: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- office door scraping top and can't close it- not installed per specs and drawings; Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 7: The wrong pebble tec color was applied 91 have records and photos). Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent’s subcontractor stated that as a good faith gesture the color of the Pebble Tec can be enhanced with a coating that may resolve the issue of color. Per the ROC Workmanship Standards, substantial completion for swimming pools and spa interior cementitious finishes means 30 days from the day the pool/spa is filled with water and the equipment is in operation. This also applies to water features. This investigator has not been provided with any evidence or documentation that the respondent or the respondent’s subcontractor was informed in writing of the wrong Pebble Tec color being installed within 30 days. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 8: Unit not built per plan and specs. Depth too shallow was to be 10 inches deep and is only 4.5 inches deep Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the water feature. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 9: No weir in water feature Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. All parties agree there is no weir in the water feature and the water feature is not designed to have a weir. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 10a: Pool- laminars not installed per spec, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the pool Laminars. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 10b: Pool- wrong tile, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. All parties agree there are no tiles missing at this time and the tile installed is not wrong. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 10c: Pool- water often overflows the pool as cleaning jets require too much force and water goes over the negative edge-Ive had $600 water bills from this. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent’s subcontractor explained that adjustments can be made to the cleaning heads to prevent some water overflow but that there will always be some overflow captured in the basin and returned to the pool. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 11: pool light out for 2 months and hasn't been replaced as it is "stuck in the pebbletec-contractor is attempting to repair this Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The complainant acknowledged the respondent’s subcontractor corrected this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 12: Spa fire feature does not meet the code, malfunctions constantly- service visits in a year, used galvanized pipe and is corroding Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. Both parties acknowledged the local jurisdiction passed final inspection and C of O was issued March 12, 2021. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the spa fire feature does not meet the code or malfunctions constantly. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 13: Spa- complete misalignment of fixtures, jets, etc, leaks along basin, destroyed wall cap; Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I did not observe any leaks along the basin or destroyed wall cap. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the spa fixtures, jets etc. are all to be centered and aligned in the spa. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 14a: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched windows, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I am unable to verify whether or not the scratches 0bserved are the result of the respondent’s poor workmanship or if the scratches occurred after the complainant took possession of the home. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 14b: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- pitted windows, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. While standing in a normal position 15 feet away from the window glass I am unable to identify any pits in the windows. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 15: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- improper hardware, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the window hardware is improper. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 17: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- weatherstripping chronic problems, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I did not observe any chronic problems with the window weather stripping. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 18: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- office door not built per plans and specs. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract related to the office door modifications. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 20: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- master window door leaks Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate whether or not the master window door leaks are the result of the respondent’s poor workmanship or if the water damaged flooring is caused by other means. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 22: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- misleading completion dates misrepresented to ROC when my builder filed against them-builder did not provide the evidence I have-photos, emails, time stamps, specs.etc., Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 24: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Failed to deliver items billed for on contract and didn't credit for them-charged for 3 transformers and only installed2, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The respondent provided documentation of credits in the contract. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 25: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- change order #2 was never provided and no credit issued, charged for 120 ft steel edging not provided, charged for 20 tons Madison gold 2-inch depth and not provided, never provided 6 Texas Laurels and substituted plants that were $3800 less expensive Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I had no knowledge as to whether or not change order #2 was ever provided, if there was no credit issued or what the complainant was charged for that was not delivered. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 26: Sub Creative Environments Landscape-Failed to bury irrigation lines. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the respondent’s subcontractor failed to bury irrigation lines. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 27: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- The irrigation system has too few loops and emitters so some areas too dry while others are saturated due to different dryness and sunlight. Need more loops Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The complainant acknowledged that a landscape contractor has attempted to adjust the irrigation controls and modify the irrigation system loops. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 31: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Lights not installed Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I am able to verify there was a landscape credit applied to the budget of $12,803.19. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate whether or not there are landscape lights that were not installed or what the credit applied to the budget is for. The ROC does not get involved in contract or financial disputes. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 32: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Pump not working Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 29. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 34: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- irrigation system malfunctions, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The complainant acknowledged that a landscape contractor has attempted to adjust the irrigation controls and modify the irrigation system loops. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 36: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- applied Hydroseed against HOA compliance and refused to remove or refund (I had to have my landscaper do this), Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. The complainant acknowledged another contractor corrected this complaint item. Governing Rule: No Action, ARS §32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Compliant Item 37: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- damaged my property out of the building envelope, Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. I did not observe any damage to the complainant’s property outside the building envelope. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Compliant Item 40: My GC has some minor things to do which he has agreed to such as stucco, and paint and there is an open issue in the pool eqpt room which leaks badly and has ruined sheetrock. Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. Efflorescence is not considered poor workmanship. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the pool equipment room leaks badly or that the sheetrock is ruined. Governing Rule: No Action

Compliant Item 41: Also termites found 3 X in Casita. I feel my GC is very conscientious and ethical, and trying, but subs aren't cooperating in the above areas, hence the complaint; Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified. In reviewing the contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the complainant or any successors agree to look solely to the pest control company for costs and expenses associated with investigating and remedying any termite infestation covered by the Termite Certificate and waive all claims of liability against respondent for losses, costs, and expenses in connection with the existence of termites at the residence, except for the respondent's one-year obligation of repair as set forth in this section. Both parties acknowledged the local jurisdiction passed final inspection and C of O was issued March 12, 2021. Governing Rule: No Action

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 602 7716735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 June 27, 2023

Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint No. 2023-02231

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A Compliance Inspection has been scheduled for July 31, 2023 at 11:30 AM to determine the current status of the items listed on the issued Directive.

The Complainant is required to be present for this inspection. The Respondent is encouraged to be present but is not required to attend.

Complainant: SAFE ACCESS IS REQUIRED TO ANY AREA TO BE INSPECTED.

Sincerely,

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 602 7716735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 July 31, 2023 2023-02231 CJSI Photos

11370 E Hideaway Lane Sco sdale, AZ 85255

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 4/21 Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 4/21 Case No.: 2023-02231 Investigator: David Fagerburg Inspection Date: July 31, 2023 Inspection Time: 11:30 AM

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: Both parties were present at this compliance jobsite investigation CJSI photos taken with my Pixel 6 Pro Cell Phone CJSI audio recorded with my Olympus Digital Voice Recorder model DM-620 Photos #1 and #2 are of the complainant’s residence and address.

Compliance Findings:

Compliant Item 4: There are also cracked and loose tiles, damaged peeling roof vents, rodent access open, Valley alignment of tiles(not cut), flashing debris Investigator’s Observation: Both parties have agreed on the scope of the corrective work, the materials have been ordered and are expected to arrive within the next 4 to 6 weeks with an estimated completion date of October 15, 2023. Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 4/21 Compliant Item 16: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched cladding and frames not remedied and attempts to cover this up have faded and visible, Investigator’s Observation: The metal cladding on the patio door exterior frame is in the same conddition as previously observed. The cladding appears to have been painted and the paint is fading. Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive.

Compliant Item 19: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- the electric door doesn't work, Investigator’s Observation: The complainant stated that arrangements were made through the Sierra Pacific Windows warranty department and this item has been corrected. Governing Rule: The respondent is in compliance with the directive.

Compliant Item 21: Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- office door scraping top and can't close it- not installed per specs and drawings; Investigator’s Observation: The complainant stated that arrangements were made through the Sierra Pacific Windows warranty department and this item has been corrected. Governing Rule: The respondent is in compliance with the directive.

Note:

Please review the complaint items listed above. If any of the items have not been corrected at the time of the compliance inspection this complaint will be forwarded to the Registrar’s legal department and a citation may be issued.

If all items are corrected after receipt of this letter, please notify the Registrar’s legal department by sending a notice of compliance signed by the complainant to fax number (602) 364-0416 or by mail to: Arizona Registrar of Contractors, P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona 85005-8244. Sincerely,

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 602 7716735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013 4/21 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Stephen D Newlin, Case No. 2023-02231 COMPLAINANT, v. Sonora West Development Inc CITATION License No. ROC 164411,

RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to Sonora West Development Inc (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by August 21, 2023, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT On March 13, 2023, Stephen D Newlin (“Complainant”) filed a written complaint with the Registrar. A copy of that Complaint is attached to this Citation. A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENT The Registrar investigated this matter and finds cause to charge Respondent with violation(s) of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Respondent is charged with violating: Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 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 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. If the matter proceeds to a hearing and the administrative law judge determines that any of the charges listed above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then Respondent’s license(s) may be subject to suspension or revocation, and Respondent may be subject to other penalties provided by law, including civil penalties under A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(E) and (F). FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER Respondent must appear by filing with the Registrar a written answer to the citation and complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading “Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is Case No. 2023-02231. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways: In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted]

The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the Registrar actually receives it. of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the Registrar no later than August 21, 2023. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). INVESTIGATOR’S APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. If either party demands the attendance at the hearing of any other person, that party must obtain and serve a subpoena in compliance with the rules and processes established by the Office of Administrative Hearings. RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, if Respondent submits a request to the Registrar for an informal settlement conference, the Registrar must hold a conference within 15 days after receiving the request. Respondent’s request for an informal settlement conference must be in writing and must be filed no later than 20 days before the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41- of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 1092.06(A). The Registrar will not close or settle any case without both parties’ appearance at the Settlement Conference. The parties participating in the settlement conference must have the authority to settle the case and must waive their right to object to the participation of the Registrar’s settlement conference representative in the final administrative decision. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). Any statements, either written or oral, made by the parties at the conference, including a written document, created or expressed solely for the purpose of settlement negotiations, are inadmissible in the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). RESPONDENT’S PRIOR RECORD Under A.A.C. R4-9-117, in determining the appropriate discipline, the administrative law judge and the Registrar may consider not only facts in the current case, but also facts in prior cases and any documents regarding Respondent on file with the Registrar. Respondent’s prior disciplinary record and current license(s) status may be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated August 4, 2023. By: /s/ Eric Ulinger Eric Ulinger Legal Department of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Arizona Registrar of Contractors COPY of the foregoing mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, August 4, 2023 to:

Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted]

Sonora West Development Inc 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to:

Sonora West Development Inc 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Complainant Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Ln Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2023-02231

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

Person Filing Complaint Full Name (First Middle Last) Business Name (if a licensed contractor or supplier) ROC License Number(s) (if any)

stephen d newlin Mailing Address (Enter jobsite in Contract/Project section) City State Zip

11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale Arizona 85255 Phone Number Email

I consent to receive communications electronically in connection with this case Name of Attorney (if any)

Street Address of Attorney City State Zip

Phone Number of Attorney Email of Attorney

Contractor Information Name (as shown on contract/invoice) ROC License Number(s)

Sonora West Development Inc ROC 164411 Street Address City State Zip

17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 210 Scottsdale AZ 85255 Phone Number Email

602-667-3145 Name of Person(s) Representing License

Scott Pfeiffer, CEO Contract/Project Information Contract Date Contract Amount Amount Paid

May 11, 2018 $6,000,000.00 $5,930,000.00 Date Work Started Date Work Stopped Date Work Was Completed

March 20, 2019 March 1, 2023 June 15, 2022 Close of Escrow (New Home) Move-In Date (New-Home)

March 15, 2021 March 16, 2021 Jobsite Street Address City State Zip

11370 E Hideaway Lane scottsdale AZ 85255 Name of Construction Site Owner Construction Site Name (if applicable)

stephen d newlin Lot 1866 Silver Leaf at DC Ranch Phone Number of Construction Site Owner Email of Construction Site Owner

This complaint is for Poor Work;Other I have contacted the contractor by Phone/Text;Email Have you filed a complaint in court? No Has any work been corrected? Yes

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 1 of 3 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

Some subs-partially only-items listed remain open The contract was Both All change orders were Written This project was Residential This project involved New Home

A building permit was obtained by Contractor 250476 scottsdale List and briefly describe each complaint item (Please do not write "see attached" or use additional pages unless necessary to further describe issues or list more complaint items) (limited to 100 characters per line)

Sub-Pro Cap Roofing-ROC looked at this preliminarily via BCP about 18 months ago and I didn't file then, hoping things would stabilize. Since then things have gotten much worse and are easily highly visible as the roofing contractor attempted cosmetic " cover ups" using spray paint and some foreign substance that have badly faded and significantly discolored. Pro Cap the roofer made poor tile installation against the manufactures' specs, the manufacturer shipped bad tiles, tile contractor tried to "cover this up" by applying spray paint and a tar substance over numerous bad tiles- (I have videos and photos); I have had 2 other roofers look at this and agree its a terrible installation and look. I have emails from the manufacturer and my builder recognizing the problem and seeking remedy. There are also cracked and loose tiles, damaged peeling roof vents, rodent access open, Valley alignment of tiles(not cut), flashing debris -the biggest issue is cosmetic damage done by attempted cover-up which looked less bad for about 4 months and now has badly faded and looks horrible-never should have applied tar or spray paint to hide the bad material. My builder agrees but has not been able to get the sub to remedy it. My new home needs a new roof which will be $150,000. I shouldn't have to pay for two roofs just because the first was installed improperly and covered up.This is a very serious matter that needs a full and comprehensive remedy. My contractor has filed a lawsuit against the roofer and the supplier and agrees the installation is unacceptable. Sub-Mossman Pools subcontractor- (this work was completed November 15,2021 Rear Water Feature, not built per plans or spec- jackhammered 6 inches off the top concrete level as they were built at the wrong elevation and too shallow., not per spec. Water overflows saturating the outside wall /causing erosion The wrong pebble tec color was applied 9I have records and photos). Unit not built per plan and specs. Depth too shallow was to be 10 inches deep and is only 4.5 inches deep No weir in water feature Pool- laminars not installed per spec, wrong tile, water often overflows the pool as cleaning jets require too much force and water goes over the negative edge-Ive had $600 water bills from this. pool light out for 2 months and hasn't been replaced as it is "stuck in the pebbletec-contractor is attempting to repair this Spa fire feature does not meet the code, malfunctions constantly-17 service visits in a year, used galvanized pipe and is corroding Spa- complete misalignment of fixtures, jets, etc, leaks along basin, destroyed wall cap; Sub-Sierra Pacific Windows- scratched and pitted windows, improper hardware, scratched cladding and frames not remedied and attempts to cover this up have faded and visible, weatherstripping chronic problems, office door not built per plans and specs. the electric door doesn't work, master window door leaks office door scraping top and can't close it- not installed per specs and drawings; Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- misleading completion dates misrepresented to ROC when my builder filed against them-builder did not provide the evidence I have-photos, emails, time stamps, specs,etc., destroyed Saguaro on my property and offered credit but never provided that Failed to deliver items billed for on contract and didn't credit for them-charged for 3 transformers and only installed2, change order #2 was never provided and no credit issued, charged for 120 ft steel edging not provided, charged for 20 tons Madison gold 2-inch depth and not provided, never provided 6 Texas Laurels and substituted plants that were $3800 less expensive Sub Creative Environments Landscape-Failed to bury irrigation lines. The irrigation system has too few loops and emitters so some areas too dry while others are saturated due to different dryness and sunlight. Need more loops Inadequate irrigation controls- too few loops to provide moisture consistency Water feature CE built in front is not built per specs and photo and does not work. It settled and the pump is out-the system

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 2 of 3 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

worked for only 3 months post-completion in June of 2022,. The tile skin is falling off. Tile was not mitered and also has too much grout space for a negative edge. Lights not installed Pump not working Water loss as well not sealed tight front water feature they installed only worked 4 months and has tile popping off and the pump does not work, irrigation system malfunctions, failed to provide items in contract-lights, plants, timer, sleeving borders and adequate pots/ sleeving, exposed irrigation lines yet billed for them applied Hydroseed against HOA compliance and refused to remove or refund (I had to have my landscaper do this), damaged my property out of the building envelope, failed to provide trees of similar value when others died and they couldn't find replacements; My General Contractor- SWD-has been attempting to get the subs to remedy all the above but as we are approaching 2 years so I must file the complaint. My GC has some minor things to do which he has agreed to such as stucco, and paint and there is an open issue in the pool eqpt room which leaks badly and has ruined sheetrock. Also termites found 3 X in Casita. I feel my GC is very conscientious and ethical, and trying, but subs aren't cooperating in the above areas, hence the complaint; See Sub Mossman Pools above as it keeps getting mingled with roof. Thank you

Signature I declare under penalty of perjury that the information and documents contained on this Complaint Form, included with this complaint, or hereafter submitted in support of this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will, if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. Printed Name Signature Date

stephen d newlin \complainant1\ \complainantd1\

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 3 of 3 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-02331 Investigator: David Fagerburg #210 Inspection Date: May 15, 2023 Inspection Time: 1:30 PM

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Compliant Item 32: Sub-Creative Environments Landscape- Pump not working Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been addressed in complaint item 29. Governing Rule: No Action

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 11/18

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director May 23, 2023

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail

Sonora West Development Inc. Attn: Scott Pfeiffer 17767 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Re: Complaint No. 2023-02231, License No ROC 164411

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer,

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 18, 2023. Your letter reasserts that Mr. Newlin occupied the residence before March 2, 2021, and his complaint is therefore barred under A.R.S. § 32-1162(A).

Sincerely,

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

ROC Complaint 2023-02231 message

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]> Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bcc: ,

Hello,

Attached please find an electronic courtesy copy of the letter issued in this case. This document was also sent to your attention via US Mail.

Thank you

Mary Coyne, CP Paralegal Manager Arizona Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 602-542-1525 602-206-1564

Fill out AZ ROC’s survey to let us know how we’re doing and how we can better serve you!

20230523 Legal Reply to R's Dismissal Request MAILED 2023-02231.pdf 101K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/ADwNV_ftdOgnqQMdU-lZUO9JUGXkR92ufrgoEB0emh0FFuPxk1f8/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 1/1 Received 5/12/23, 4:16 PM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2023-02231 05/11/2023 ROC Legal

Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Complaint 2023-02231 message

Carolyn Harrison < > Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:11 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: David Fagerburg <[email redacted]>

To Whom It May Concern,

Please see attached letter and accompanying correspondence referencing Complaint 2023-02231 for request of dismissal.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Carolyn Harrison

Vice President

Cell 480.390.1608

Office 602.667.3145

[email redacted]

Sonora West Development, Inc.

17767 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85255 | ROC164411

www.sonorawestdev.com

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: S Newlin > To: Marty Guthmiller < > Cc: Carolyn Harrison >, Dale Lesperance < >, Scott Pfeiffer < > Bcc: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:00:00 +0000 Subject: Fwd: TV's and completion schedule Hi Marty,

Just to update since a week ago when this was sent:

The wine cellar was completed. Nothing else from this request has been completed

Also, where are we on the TV lift for the kitchen? I have art but need to make sure this works.

How about shades automation tie-in as I am told shade people will be there Monday?

On a related note, they unnecessarily added three Control 4 switches to the garage...why? Only 1 was needed there by the entrance door.

Please provide the latest generator install and hook-up update.

I look forward to your response and hopefully full completion by end of the week.

Thanks, Steve

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: S Newlin > Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:02 AM Subject: TV's and completion schedule To: Marty Guthmiller < >

Hi Marty,

First of all, I want to compliment you on your people. They have great "people skills "and all very polite. It's very noticeable and appreciated and reflects highly on the PAVAZ culture.

Looking forward to finally getting the generator installed this week...please keep me informed of the schedule.

Looking forward to completion!

Steve

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rebecca Madsen > Cc: Bcc: Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 03:56:30 +0000 Subject: FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance

From: S Newlin < > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:54 PM To: Rebecca Madsen > Subject: Re: Newlin Proof for Insurance

Rebecca- Scott knows about me moving things into the home.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:57 PM Rebecca Madsen > wrote:

Hi Patti,

Here’s a copy of the permit which shows Stephen D Newlin Trust as the owner.

Does that help?

I’m putting together the next draw, if he’s moving in personal belongings we’ll need to expedite.

Thank you,

Rebecca

From: Kite, Patricia (US-POC1) > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:25 PM To: Rebecca Madsen < > Cc: S Newlin < > Subject: Newlin Proof for Insurance Importance: High

Hi Rebecca,

Hope all is well with you.

Thanks!

Patti Kite

Assistant to Stephen D. Newlin

440-714-5121

To view this disclaimer in other languages: www.avient.com/disclaimer

Subject: FW: Newlin Proof for Insurance Rebecca Madsen <[email redacted]> Tue, May 2, 8:56 PM (10 days to Carolyn Harrison

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

From: S Newlin > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:54 PM To: Rebecca Madsen > Subject: Re: Newlin Proof for Insurance Rebecca- Scott knows about me moving things into the home. On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:57 PM Rebecca Madsen < > wrote:

Hi Patti, Here’s a copy of the permit which shows Stephen D Newlin Trust as the owner. Does that help? I’m putting together the next draw, if he’s moving in personal belongings we’ll need to expedite. Thank you, Rebecca From: Kite, Patricia (US-POC1) > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:25 PM To: Rebecca Madsen > Cc: S Newlin < Subject: Newlin Proof for Insurance Importance: High Hi Rebecca, Hope all is well with you. In order to insure the Hideaway Lane home/property, Steve’s insurance company is requiring proof that Steve o the home. Would you be able to provide a document proving ownership? It is quite urgent as Steve’s personal property is already in the home. Thanks! Patti Kite Assistant to Stephen D. Newlin 440-714-5121

This email and any attachment(s) may contain confidential information. If you were not the intended recipient, please notify the Avient person who sent you this email and immediately de the message and any attachments without copying them or disclosing them. Thank you.

To view this disclaimer in other languages: www.avient.com/disclaimer

Subject: Fwd: TV's and completion schedule S Newlin < > Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:0 to Marty Guthmiller, Carolyn Harrison, Dale Lesperance, Scott Pfeiffer

You are viewing an attached message. State of Arizona Mail can't verify the authenticity of attached messages.

Hi Marty,

Would you please get back to me on the items on this email from March 1?

Just to update since a week ago when this was sent:

The wine cellar was completed. Nothing else from this request has been completed

We are not getting very far with the lighting autonomation and I would like this stepped up please Marty. It takes forever for me to simply turn off the lights. There is no consistency for which button does what and very few anything at all. Usually only 1 per station, and it rotates. Also dimming is an issue, can't make the lights "soft" as th go off at about 40% unlike what you did at my home in DM. We expect a CO this week and we need to get these done. We also need to schedule a tutorial...I have received no instruction or much of anything other than 10 minut on how to do 1 of the TVs, nothing at all on how to manage HVAC, Security, etc.

Also, where are we on the TV lift for the kitchen? I have art but need to make sure this works.

How about shades automation tie-in as I am told shade people will be there Monday?

On a related note, they unnecessarily added three Control 4 switches to the garage...why? Only 1 was needed the by the entrance door.

Please provide the latest generator install and hook-up update.

I look forward to your response and hopefully full completion by end of the week.

Thanks, Steve

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/d/ADwNV_dN5IpO1HrrnyhaXdD_JSIhcLjO1D9ceGWc1sCK2NAlU51C/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3… 1/1 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-00332 Investigator: Chris Fultz Inspection Date: February 15, 2023 Inspection Time: 2:00 PM

Complainant: Scott Christian Respondent: Creative Pfeiffer Sonora West Development Environments Design and Landscape Inc Inc Not Present: Not Present:

There were several issues on the complaint and a couple other discussed at the inspection.

We also looked at a couple of areas where the irrigation lines have come uncovered. This is a homeowner maintenance after the first year.

This case will be dismissed at this time.

Complaint Item: 3 - Respondent knocked down and destroyed mature saguaro cactus. Replacement cost is $4,000.00 - Credit not given by Respondent for

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

damage to project site. Total aggregate credit due: $4,000.00. Investigator’s Observation: There is no evidence to prove the respondent was responsible for this allegation.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

CV Curriculum Vitae Joshua Sawyer B u i l d i n g E n c l o s u r e C o n s u l t a n t

623-810-6766 R O O F C O N S U L T I N G [email redacted] E X P E R I E N C E Joshua has been with inspections, and evaluations, while Peoria, Arizona crafting precise specifications,

WRECORP since 2020 Western Roof Evaluation scope of work, and construction Corporation details. Furthermore, Joshua (623) 878-7117 and has over 5 years of ensures that quality assurance is maintained throughout the entire www.wrecorp.com previous experience in roofing and construction installation

the construction industry. process.

Joshua collaborates with a diverse group L I T I G A T I O N of stakeholders including building owners, E X P E R I E N C E E X P E R I E N C E architects, property managers, general •2020 – Present | Director / Roof Consultant – WRECORP contractors, and roofing contractors to • Manzanita Villa HOA vs. Payne & Sons (Western Roof Evaluation Corporation) oversee the entire process from initial • Krupnik & Speas - Monaco South assessment to design, installation, and Condominiums •2015 – 2020 | Production Supervisor – Williams project completion. He conducts • Rutila/Seibt/Nash - Discovery at Tatum Scotsman (WILSCOT/Mobile Mini) thorough and detailed assessments, • Lang & Klein - Parkey Residence

CERTIFICATIONS I N D U S T R Y E D U C A T I O N / RRO – Registered Roof Observer (IIBEC – International T R A I N I N G Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants) International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants (IIBEC) and Arizona AHERA Building Inspector (The Asbestos Institute) Roofing Contractors Association (ARCA) Training (Over 200 hours of educational credits) LBP Inspector (Lead) • BURSI (Better Understanding of roofing Systems) • Security Clearance – Sky Harbor International Airport Certified Uplift Test Specialist (CUTS) • OSHA 10 TRI Alliance Manual Certification (TRI – Tile Roofing • Numerous Manufacturer Certifications Institute Alliance) • ARCA Education Classes – 150 HRs • IIBEC Education Classes – 50 HRs EDUCATION P R O F E S S I O N A L • United State Army (2009 – 2013) • Associates Degree (Automotive Technology) A F F I L I A T I O N S Arizona Automotive Institute (2008 – 2009) • Raymond S. Kellis High School (2004 – 2008) • ARCA (Arizona Roofing Contractors Association) – Affiliate Member • IIBEC (International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants) – Consultant Affiliate Member April 20th, 2023

Steve Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale AZ 85255

Project: Roof Assessment

Inspection Date: 04/18/23

Inspector: Joshua Sawyer, RRO

WRECORP was retained to inspect the newly installed roof system at above listed address. This report contains WRECORP’s opinions on the existing conditions found at the time of inspection.

All opinions, conclusions and/or recommendations within this report are subject to change in the event that any additional information is discovered or brought to the attention of WRECORP.

Industry standards use: TRI (Tile Roofing Industry Alliance), NRCA (National Roofing Contractors Association), and IBC (International Building Codes).

Summary: Upon arrival, WRECORP initiated the roof investigation to verify concerns raised by the client (MR. Newlin) regarding tile color and fading. A visual check of all the roof areas identified by the client was conducted, revealing that the roof tile color and sheen were not consistent. It was discovered that a non-UV stable black paint or coating had been applied to remedy minor chips and scratches, likely incurred during shipping and un/loading of the palletized clay tiles. The coating and/or paint used is not UV stable, allowing discoloration to occur. Furthermore, the inspection revealed that clay tiles in several locations were completely painted with this non-UV stable coating in an attempt to match the kiln-fired black color of adjacent tiles. A “scratch” test procedure was performed on the painted tiles to verify this condition. Coatings applied to this clay tile have only exacerbated the appearance, making it distinctively different from other portions of the roof, with chips and splotches remaining unresolved. Additionally, the investigation uncovered multiple clay tile installation concerns. Improper tile layout has caused multiple courses of tile to be "stretched," allowing the tile securement fastener to be visible. A minimum 3-inch overlap must be maintained for all tile, unless the tile design precludes it. The actual layout of the roof courses is determined by the length of the specific tile being installed, per Tile Roofing Institute (TRI) new construction requirements. Improper tile penetration flashing has been observed at multiple penetrations, as shown in the photo report below. Mortar used as weather blocking and tile securement has fractured throughout, leaving the roof system exposed to the elements. The mortar also appears to be painted with a spray-applied paint that has faded due to UV degradation. Proper attic ventilation has not been followed per TRI requirements, as indicated in the photo report below. Furthermore, perimeter tile fastening is not in compliance with table 1B of the TRI manual; multiple areas at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes are missing fasteners. Lastly, construction debris has been noted throughout the roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations. In conclusion, the roof investigation revealed numerous installation deficiencies, including inconsistent tile color and sheen, improper tile layout, and penetration flashing, fractured mortar, and inadequate ventilation. The use of a non-UV stable black paint or coating only exacerbated the appearance of the chips and splotches, making them distinctly different from other portions of the roof. Proper tile securement was also lacking, and construction debris was present throughout the roof system. These deficiencies can lead to further deterioration of the roof system and should be addressed promptly to prevent further damage. Based on the investigation, the following non-compliant issues were found: • Inconsistent roof tile color and sheen due to non-UV stable black paint or coating used to remedy minor chips and scratches, which has exacerbated the appearance and caused discoloration. • Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners. • Improper tile penetration flashing observed at multiple penetrations. • Mortar used as weather blocking and tile securement has fractured throughout, leaving the roof system exposed to the elements. The mortar also appears to be painted with a spray applied paint that has faded due to UV degradation. • Lack of proper attic ventilation in violation of TRI requirements. • Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. • Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations. Photos below depict onsite conditions

Photo # 1 Description: Residence identification: 11370 E Hideaway Lane, Scottsdale AZ 85255 Photo # 2 Description: View of a sample tile sent to the client; sample tile shows typical condition of tile scratches due to shipment.

Photo # 3 Description: Typical view of the inconsistent roof tile color and sheen due to non-UV stable black paint or coating used to remedy minor chips and scratches, which has exacerbated the appearance and caused discoloration. Photo # 4 Description: Un-even eave course due to slipped tiles. Slipped tiles are a result of improper perimeter tile securement.

Photo # 5 Description: Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. This photo depicts an unsecured and stretched eave tile. Photo # 6 Description: Typical/systemic view of brush applied coatings.

Photo # 7 Description: A “scratch” test procedure was performed on the painted tiles to verify coating was applied. Photo # 8 Description: Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners. Black spray paint was applied to white caulking used to secure tile to the adjacent course.

Photo # 9 Description: Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners. Photo # 10 Description: Zoomed view of coating applied to the clay tiles. Coating has begun to curl and flake away.

Photo # 11 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar. Photo # 12 Description: Evidence of coating application, stained tiles from boot prints throughout.

Photo # 13 Description: Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system under the roof tile at inspected locations. Photo # 14 Description: Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. This photo depicts an unsecured tile with the

Photo # 15 Description: The inspection revealed that clay tiles in several locations were completely painted with this non-UV stable coating in an attempt to match the kiln-fired black color of adjacent tiles. Photo # 16 Description: Lead flashings were painted with a non-UV stable coating, allowing for discoloration to occur.

Photo # 17 Description: During the investigation, it was observed that the tile penetration flashing was improperly installed at multiple points, with sub flashings secured directly to the underlayment without the installation of an underlayment apron. The recommended installation option to properly flash and seal the penetrations is a three- course application with polyester fabric and coatings, as per TRI guidelines, but this was not performed. Photo # 18 Description: During the investigation, it was observed that the tile penetration flashing was improperly installed at multiple points, with sub flashings secured directly to the underlayment without the installation of an underlayment apron. The recommended installation option to properly flash and seal the penetrations is a three- course application with polyester fabric and coatings, as per TRI guidelines, but this was not performed.

Photo # 19 Description: PVC plumbing vents were painted with a non-UV stable coating, allowing for discoloration to occur. Photo # 20 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar. Fractured mortar has been noted throughout.

Photo # 21 Description: Missing mortar could allow moisture entry into the structure. Photo # 22 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar.

Photo # 23 Description: Fractured mortar could allow moisture entry into the structure. Photo # 24 Description: Construction debris along with excess tiles noted on roof surface at multiple locations.

Photo # 25 Description: Underlayment turns up vertical surfaces a minimum of 4” throughout. This follows TRI installation guidelines. Photo # 26 Description: Typical view of the closed valley design of the roof system. Tiles at valley locations are not secured and multiple tiles have slipped into the valley causing a blockage.

Photo # 27 Description: Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations. Inspector/Consultant: Joshua Sawyer, RRO 04/20/2023

Limitations on Consultant’s Responsibility, Indemnity & Insurance Client acknowledges that Consultant is performing professional service on behalf of Client and in the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the negligence of Contractor or Client or both, Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, and Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against liability for all Professional Liability claims, losses, damages and expenses whether or not insured, including reasonable attorney’s fees. TRI/ WSRCA 15

Appendix A

TABLE 1B (Alternative option) For Roof Slopes Below 4:12 See Table 1A ROOFING TILE APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCKING CONCRETE AND CLAY TILES WITH PROJECTING ANCHOR LUGS WHEN INSTALLED ON ROOF SLOPES OF 4 UNITS VERTICAL IN 12 UNITS HORIZONTAL (33% Slope) AND GREATER

UNITS VERTICAL IN 12 UNITS HORIZONTAL (33% Slope) and over

Deck Requirements Sheathing must be adequate to support the loads involved, but not less than nominal 1-inch thick lumber or 15/32- inch thick plywood or other decking material recognized in a code evaluation report or by the local building official. The use of sheathing less than 15/32- inch will require supporting data.

Underlayment Solid sheathing one layer of ASTM D226 Type II (No. 30) (ASTM D4869 Type IV), or approved equal, lapped 2 inches In climate areas subject to wind horizontally and 6 inches vertically, except that extending from the eaves up the roof to a line 24 inches inside the driven snow, roof ice damming exterior wall line of the building, two layers of the underlayment shall be applied shingle fashion and solidly cemented or wind regions as defined by together with approved cemented material. As an option a code approved self adhering membrane may be used. local building codes

Underlayment for For spaced sheathing, approved reinforced membrane. For solid sheathing, a minimum single layer ASTM D226 Other Climates Type II (No 30) (ASTM D4869 Type IV), or approved equal, felt lapped 2 inches horizontally and 6 inches vertically.

Attachment1 Fasteners shall comply with IRC section R905.3.6 and IBC section 1507.3.6 and UBC Section 1507.3 and shall comply with Type of Fasteners ASTM F1667 for tolerances. Corrosion resistant meeting ASTM A641 Class 1 or approved equal, or number 11 gauge diameter and of sufficient length to properly penetrate ¾" into or through the thickness of the deck or batten 3, whichever is less. The head of the nail used for tile fastening will not be less than 5/16 inches and shall comply with ASTM F1667 for tolerances. Other fastening systems such as screws, wire or adhesive based systems as approved by code, or local building officials will be allowed. Horizontal battens are required on solid sheathing for slopes greater than 7 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (58.3% Slope).1, 2

Number of fasteners 5 units vertical in 12 units horizontal and below (42% slope), fasteners not required. Above 5 units vertical in 12 units Spaced/Solid sheathing horizontal (42% slope) to less than 12 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (100% slope), one fastener per tile every With Battens or spaced sheathing 1, 2 other row or every other tile in each course. Twelve units vertical in 12 units horizontal (100% Slope) to 24 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (200% slope), one fastener every tile4. All perimeter tiles require one fastener5. Tiles with installed weight less than 9 pounds per square foot require a minimum of one fastener per tile, regardless of roof slope. See current codeapproved evaluation report for additional installation requirement.

Solid sheathing without battens 1, 2 One fastener per tile

Field Tile Head Lap 3 inches minimum unless precluded by tile design

Flashing Flashing shall be (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) not less than 0.019 inch corrosion-resistant metal with a minimum of 0.90 ounce zinc/sq. ft. (total for both sides) G90 sheet metal or equal.

For jurisdictions enforcing the:

IBC: In snow areas, a minimum of two fasteners per tile are required or battens and one fastener. IRC: In snow areas, a minimum of two fasteners per tile are required. UBC: In snow areas, a minimum of two fasteners per tile are required, or interlocking tiles with anchor lugs engaged on battens with one fastener. In areas designated by the local building official as being subject to wind velocities in excess of 100 miles per hour “basic (3 second gust) wind speed”

per the IBC and the IRC or where mean roof height exceeds 40 feet, but not more 60 feet above grade, all tiles shall be attached as follows; 2.1 The head of all tiles shall be fastened.

2.2 The noses of all eave course tiles shall be fastened with clips, or other methods of attachment as approved by building code officials.

2.3 All rake tiles shall be secured with two fasteners when required by IBC table 1507.3.7 and IRC section R905.3.7.

2.4 The noses of all ridge, hip and rake tiles will be set in a bead of approved roofers mastic.

2.5 Other methods of tile fastening will be allowed based upon submission of testing and approval of building code officials.

2.6 For jurisdiction enforcing IBC and IRC, see appendix B for design considerations for high wind applications. Battens shall not be less than nominal 1-inch by 2-inch complying with IBC Chapter 23, section 2302. Provisions shall be made for drainage beneath battens

by a minimum ¼-inch riser at each nail or by 4 foot long battens with at least ½-inch separation between battens or other methods approved by local building officials. For jurisdictions enforcing the UBC, battens shall be fastened with approved fasteners spaced not more than 24" O.C. For jurisdictions enforcing the IBC horizontal battens are required for slopes over 7:12. On roof slopes over 24 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (200% slope), the nose end of all tiles shall be securely fastened. Perimeter fastening areas include three tile courses but not less than 36 inches from either side of hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Abutment: The intersection between the roof and the beneath the horizontal battens and roof tile chimney, wall or other vertical face. Cricket: See Saddle. Adhesives: A bonding agent to join two surfaces for the purpose of permanent attachment as approved by the Dead Loads: The weight of all materials of construction local building official. incorporated into the roof assembly including but not lim- ited to, fixed service equipment, roof tiles, battens, Anti-Ponding: A device such as beveled cant strip or shop- underlayment, flashing, roof deck, etc. formed sheet metal is recommended at all raised fascia conditions to support the underlayment. Direct Deck: Those tiles fastened directly to the roof deck without the use of battens. Batten: A nonstructrual horizontal fastening strip to which the roof tiles are attached. Eave: Outer edge of the roof downslope.

Batten Lugs: Protrusions (anchor lugs) on the underside of Eave Closure: A material available for S-tile or Pan and the tile designed to engage over the upper edge of tiling Cover tile. Eave closures are used to close the convex battens. opening created by the shape of the tile at the eave. This accessory also provides the proper rise for the first Bedding: Refers to the installation of roof tiles to a mortar course of tile. See Bird Stop. or adhesive foam patty and is structural in nature for the basic securement. Eave Riser: Method/material used for elevating the nose of the first course of tile to the plane of the field tile. Bird Stop: A product used at the eave of a profile tile roof to stop birds from entering below the tile. Fascia: A decorative board concealing the lower ends of the rafters or the outer edge of the gable. Booster Tile: Normally 3"-4" long tile strip used to lift up the cover tile. Sometimes it is used in boosting up field tile Flashing: Impervious material used to cover, waterproof, to create an authentic looking roof. and direct water away from roof penetrations and from intersections between the roof tile and other materials. Cant Angle: The angle formed between the upper surface of the installed roof tile and the roof deck. Fully Engaged: The horizontal batten material thickness shall be equal to or greater than the design depth of the Clay Rooftile: An interlocking or non-interlocking clay roof anchor lug of the tile. covering, used to cover the roof surface. Gable End: The generally triangular area at the end of a Concrete Rooftile: An interlocking, or non-interlocking sloped roof extending from the eaves to the ridge. concrete roof covering, used to cover the roof surface. Head Lap: The measurement of the overlap between a Counter Battens: Vertical furring strips running beneath course of roofing components and the course above. and perpendicular to horizontal tile batten, to allow drainage and air flow beneath the roof tile. Also known as Headwall Flashing: The flashing that is installed at the strapping. horizontal, intersecting wall or other vertical surface.

Counter Flashing: A flashing material that provides the Hem: An edge of metal bent back on its self to give Appendix D

enclosure at the transition line between the roof to wall strength to the edge of the metal. flashing at intersecting vertical surfaces. High Profile Tile: Those tiles having a rise to width ratio Counter Batten System: A method of elevating horizontal greater than 1:5. (Typically referred to as “S” or barrel, battens above the roof deck to allow drainage and air flow 2-piece, Pan & Cover tile). Measured in the installed condition.

Hip: The exterior sloping ridge formed by the intersection Non-Interlocking Tile: Those tile that do not have vertical of two inclined roof surfaces. rib(s) or grooves creating an interlocking tile.

Hip/Ridge Tile: Accessory trim tile used to cover a hip or Nose Clips: A fastening device designed to hold the nose a ridge. (or butt) end of the tile against uplift or sliding down the slope. Also known as wind clips or tile locks. Hip Starter: The closed hip piece which is used at the out- side corner, intersecting of two eaves to start the hip tile. Nose Lugs: Protrusion(s) on the underside of the tile that are designed to restrict the flow of weather between two Interlocking Tile: Those tiles with a system of rib(s) or consecutive courses of tile. groove(s) enabling the joining of adjacent tiles in the same horizontal or vertical row, with the overlapping lock Pan and Cover Tile: Semi-circular shape tile. Also known as covering the underlapping lock. two piece mission or barrel mission tile. There are tapered and straight two piece mission styles available. Length: The maximum overall dimension of the tiles as measured parallel to the water course. Pan Flashing: Metal flashing running under the tile at the side walls. Live Loads: A load produced by the use and occupancy of the building or other structure that does not include con- Point-up: The application of mortar to fill voids to various struction or environmental loads, such as wind load, snow ends, sides and angles of a tile roof, which are non struc- load, rain load, earthquake load, flood load, or dead load. tural in nature.

Low Profile Tile: Low profile tiles are defined as those flat Profile: The contour of the top surface of the tiles when tiles having a top surface rise equal to or less than ½". viewed from the nose end.

Rake Trim: A roof tiling accessory used to cover the inter- Medium Profile Tile: Tiles having a rise greater than ½" and section between the gable end and a roof. a rise to width ratio of less than or equal to 1:5. Ridge Trim: The piece of ridge available to close off the Metal Drip Edge: Perimeter metal flashing installed to pro- gable end and peak of a roof. Some ridge tile have an tect raw edges of roof deck. interlocking feature and require either a “starter” or “finisher”. Mortar: A mixture of cementitious material, aggregate, and water used for bedding, jointing, and bonding of Ridge Tile: See hip/ridge tile. masonry or roof tile and accessories. Roof Live Load: A load on the roof produced (1) during the Nail Hole: A small opening passing partially or totally maintenance by workers, equipment, and materials and through the tiles to allow the penetration of a nail, screw (2) during the life of the structure by moveable objects, or other approved fastener for the purpose of fastening such as planters or other similar small decorative appur- the tile to a support. tenances that are not occupancy related.

Nailer Board/Stringer: A piece of wood or other material of Saddle Flashing: The flashing at the upper intersection proper height, attached to a roof at the ridge and/or hips between a chimney or skylight and the roof. (Commonly Appendix D

to allow for proper support and means of attachment for referred to as a Cricket or Backpan) the hip and ridge tile. Can also be used in pan and cover applications under the cover tile for proper support. Side Clips: A fastening device for tile with a side interlock (Commonly known as a vertical stringer) designed to prevent rotation of the tile when subjected to uplifting forces. Also known as hurricane clip.

Side Lap: The measurement of the overlap between a Underlayment: A water shedding membrane installed roofing component and a component to one side of it. over the roof sheathing, rafters, or trusses. The under- layment may be rigid or roll form. Side Wall: The vertical intersection that runs parallel to the roof slope. Valley: The angle of a roof where two slopes intersect internally. Spaced Sheathing: Sheathing boards or battens, which are mechanically attached to the rafters or framing members, Closed Valley: Where tile(s) are cut to meet at the with gaps or spaces between them and is used in lieu of a center of the valley metal. solid sheathing. Open Valley: Where tile(s) are cut to expose the Standard Weight Rooftile: Roof tile of mass/unit area of 9 trough area of the metal. lbs/ft2 or greater installed weight excluding all other roof- ing components. Vent Tile: A tile designed to allow air circulation from the roof space to the outside. Starter Tile: First course of cover tile for two piece misson. Normally 3"-4" shorter than the field tile. Water Course: The valley portions of profiled tiles along which water drains. Step Flashing: A piece of flashing material covering each course of tile at sidewalls. Weather Blocking: A barrier of moldable or preformed rigid material which blocks the entry of wind driven Stringer: See nailer board. moisture at openings between the field tile and trim tile or the field tile and roof flashing. Sweat Sheet/Bleeder Sheet: A layer of underlayment under the valley metal to prevent moisture/condensation from Weather Checks: Protrusion(s) on the tile that are designed entering the roof deck. to restrict the flow of water between two consecutive courses of tile. Tile Course: The horizontal increment of exposure. Width: The maximum overall dimension of the tiles as Tile Thickness: Any vertical measurement of the cross sec- measured perpendicular to the length of the water channel. tion of the tiles excluding the lapping area, head or nose lugs, and weather checks. Width, Exposed: The maximum overall dimension of the tile as measured perpendicular to the length of the water Tile Thickness (visual): The overall thickness of the tile channel minus the side lap of the adjacent roof tile. profile when installed as measured from the top surface of the lower tile to the top surface of the upper tile. Wire Tie System: A roof tile fastening system approved by the local building code, that limits the penetration of the Tile Batten: See Batten underlayment and allows tile to be fastened to non- nailable roof decks. Appendix C

COPYRIGHT © 2015 TILE ROOFING INSTITUTE/WSRCA Uniform ES ER-2015 01/2000 Revised 7/2015 /7 rr^^ c/(_ I'KatiA.a^ A^at— ^ ■^'^|{n»8n*2tiaiil»lyBar«Ba ^ ^ K7 DUEFOR CALLED SCHQKiLfO COMPIETE LOCA-mWI gggarooN remove mark TRe on Order Bum mark on stone I. sand d ^rr*^ '•* "ui > ill "" rtuML, tupjldu tweli af^a^ ruip.», ^ ^..m«c ■ pm Cracks arour>d Futgrior ^ntry-ptaJaa-side. Cotitritt p-mirt hrn "^'rsjeod rant, ' f - P-pavers total h^^g^gyglpiifcJto»4iPout witli polirgrout EntfyfiaiftAFca _ Bful rhilli maiKi from rtona lnyniitjoastoaeiJpmfiVft nwrte cracked and need replaced

needs deaned UP on tile

SH!tiafatHc/.i>H«Att Kitchen 4 windows over kitchen are pitted > Need touched up ^^<^QAtU Pmuirfevorificatianthatthewfndowdoesnotifflk Master Bedroom wood floor Master Bedroom Sliding door does not stop elanents from entering, water comtng in during rain dam Kitchen Bi- Fold door rubbing on metal- left side needs touched up Master Bedroom perly (big marhfen metal) Great Room Bete 17'Mav SheatonHle CiutiimlTlh.'l!iiUl flUW HeBlaco/ Fin Ctilpimd Tilnf imdLi uflkt jiidtr 17-May ^^HQtoQiOBttewrtite in closet' Uiuiiiutai^ill'll^pjg; 17-Mav

Mined CmekodTliB on ttuiu, nutdj repiarnri la-Ma I meLb wtiidew with siarfa OvoheadQwal Waiting on call back Tin Works Kitcban Miilaihoed aemn rnncostonirasimfiaapatted

Bar light Fan switdi/ middle light at bar *— 18-Mav Alan Ray/Door MCT Lauoitat [Km sluu needs la uttuched Maflid^jggaiSiip_dootnn^ and hitr hnrnhoard. y —^ Safe room door rubblr^/Sand moulding New&i Warranty 1 year wa(k ^SONOITA west] i> V i o.»» c M ■* • " « 11370 Ehideawiav In $cirttsilale«K08&

DUEFOR CALLED SCHEDULED COMPtETE TRADE LOCATION DESCRIPTION Lf^BUlluuiltukilcudlnninrfimprhiouin > Exterior Master Sfaff" natch needed around drains Exterior Pool Stucco around drains/ clean oiits Exterior water feature • backyard Cracks on lower wall Generator area Marks on the wall from regulator repbcement Casita OiivewaY Stucco patch on waB • retaining wall rfghtside Backyard nil column with stucco • railings Exterior tialii ■ hartyanL CiacksonbadetdoofeUili wall Pool Dill I rCTtry Stairs to Master Expansion joint cracklnB/ buMglng Lower level fwfpk* cracks by beam / header at lower level mechanical room Exterior master above pool room Cracks at the header Exterior lower bedroom cracks on celHtig. Patio Cracjs by tiarxfiall/header Steps to Master Cracks along wall, walking up the stairs Front Wall by Drivewav Slwwlna block outlines - might need another coat of stucco

Musty Odor In powder bath, on eolnB on and off smell Speaking with Hughes Gecko Powder/Master Fifciito a —■ nmpltmniiliri i iinry Igpj^^ji^i^i^^^^gglgfgfflwboth ■ iRULUfftSBSaWBrillUiUBUUldUUlld- IS^yiay SWD Pool Room Cutoff black otee In drain . 18-Mav ExcerslveRoom Fxtertor FroprfiTitB. feodwnltbta ghiknyfrnnt rull lUBT "I till— InYTitiipTa goglMgjgakgBMB^to" fawlbbq area Office Shutters for Exterior , .a Both Pod Rooms water teak in pool equipment rooms-Solve i/ViO Uf ifrtnr/MTrtew- Oulur imw tuaettittengJsfrom hughes

Scott ProCap Roof Replace Roof Rod ,Re-palnt vents/ penetrations, tilack paint coming off easily Roof Roof dtrintegratlna/ Dye coming off Roof Spray print and "goop* discolored Roof VaBev drains Improperly Installed » I -±' Roof Provide rodent Inflltratkm protection

Pool » Tile at rear of pool neg edge are fb^ Mossman currently working on\^ Pebble tech finish/color Issue t Mossman currently worldng on Water Feature ( ^amrs - J Spa Repair spokteak that keeps effervescing fervesdng on stucco wall ^. Qj/L^Ly-JLp Ot/L^Ly-JLa /itS IJCj Mossman currently working ^ ■fe-C'-'r rTV--^ Creative Environments Yard Replace dead plants Yard AddRghts Yard maintenance to water feature in front yard

FtM^neaii^*fr^°^'' ^'^|inmetn3buyuu^ * fSMod Avmm# allfiwani III ImMIR -• Yard Add Irrigation flow to spa planter and front driveway beds t Yard

16*May PAVAZ RearGate IS-May Step lights SWp tlglii) Hf plutuuutt 16-May Exterior Strn'lnHr "ra dnfhrthm. Uphts aro tadiogZeolngoutTol^re^ Kewfin Warranty 1 year walk 4;, iuMouA ^ k V ► J '.f wmi • N <"1 11370 Ehtdeareyay in scottiiiatea«ffi086 DUEFOR jMaSfcSHB ——1 16^ay I^Fj Manw dnn'ti^|mric. (l(LAOt4lillf1Sw 16-M3V StiHuVti iigtWIillUhBlMaybeprogrsmmlng) 16-May Hearth Room Ate tehts. only shtne on upper 2-3 feet of the wall. (need a solution) M^r Pcdraom/jO* laiTitfnm ***** ItwtnffdMi #8w4 #o#a 16^y 16-Mav ftontOoorBed a Mhlocncd-Marausmallwallndoor ^0«vt-fTfO CtJ RAO Draw # 17 Name: Newlin Date: 2022 Review Finalize Property Address: Lot 1866 Please enter data in highlighted fields only. Work Completed Draw % Complete Original Change Revised Advanced to Total Completed Balance To Description Request This and Cost to Date (Over- Updates and Notes from from Estimate Amount Costs Date Finish Period Under %) Draw 15 PERMITS $ 16,120.00 $ (428.56) $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 100.00% $ - DUST PERMITS $ 2,650.00 $ (530.00) $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 100.00% $ - WATER/SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES $ 6,000.00 $ 985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 100.00% $ - SEWER TAP $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION $ 12,000.00 $ 680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 100.00% $ - STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASINS (#23) $ 25,000.00 $ (17,092.00) $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 100.00% $ -

ELECTRICAL SLEEVE Credit - Reduced SWD Fee -$16,650.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 53,187.49 $ 60,687.49 $ 60,687.49 $ 60,687.49 100.00% $ - GAS SLEEVE/DESIGN $ 2,500.00 $ (2,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - STAKING $ 9,000.00 $ 8,270.00 $ 17,270.00 $ 17,270.00 $ 17,270.00 100.00% $ - TEMPORARY FENCE $ 3,500.00 $ 8,621.21 $ 12,121.21 $ 12,121.21 $ 12,121.21 100.00% $ - GRADING/EXCAVATION/ DRAINAGE/PIPE $ 135,000.00 $ 84,280.00 $ 219,280.00 $ 219,280.00 $ 219,280.00 100.00% $ - SOILS TESTING/REPORTS $ 1,600.00 $ (1,600.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - FINAL GRADE $ 15,000.00 $ 985.00 $ 15,985.00 $ 15,985.00 $ 15,985.00 100.00% $ - CONCRETE $ 96,720.00 $ 236,877.00 $ 333,597.00 $ 331,852.00 $ 331,852.00 99.48% $ 1,745.00 TERMITE CONTROL $ 3,355.06 $ 1,202.94 $ 4,558.00 $ 4,558.00 $ 4,558.00 100.00% $ - MASONRY STRUCTURE $ 62,500.00 $ (62,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - JZ Invoice/waiver provided $2,250 STEEL STRUCTURE (moved from line #56 to match budget $ 45,000.00 $ 8,537.55 $ 53,537.55 $ 53,537.55 $ 53,537.55 100.00% $ - #17).

FRAMING CR adjust per budget recon/key error $ 257,920.00 $ 29,475.51 $ 287,395.51 $ 287,395.51 $ 287,395.51 100.00% $ - corrected and credited draw -$4558.00 ELEVATOR $ 25,000.00 $ 2,444.00 $ 27,444.00 $ 27,444.00 $ 27,444.00 100.00% $ - DOWNSTAIRS OPEN FIRE PIT $ 15,000.00 $ (15,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - MASONRY FIREPLACES $ 33,000.00 $ 46,221.50 $ 79,221.50 $ 78,832.50 $ 78,832.50 99.51% $ 389.00 SITE WALLS $ 40,000.00 $ (40,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - Moes Invoice/waiver provided $5,500.00 Invoice not previously paid with draw; RETAINING WALLS upon reconciliation with budget amount $ 300,000.00 $ 199,590.00 $ 499,590.00 $ 494,090.00 $5,500.00 $ 499,590.00 100.00% $ - should be paid. PERIMETER WALLS $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - WATER PROOFING $ 30,000.00 $ 18,516.00 $ 48,516.00 $ 48,516.00 $ 48,516.00 100.00% $ -

WINDOWS/EXTERIOR DOORS Per Steve - Hold draw funds regarding $ 225,000.00 $ (16,179.00) $ 208,821.00 $ 203,805.00 $ 203,805.00 97.60% $ 5,016.00 Sierra Pacific Windows WINDOW INSTALL/Included $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - POCKET DOOR INSTALL/WINDOW AUTOMATION $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - PLUMBING $ 72,540.00 $ 8,708.69 $ 81,248.69 $ 81,058.69 $ 81,058.69 99.77% $ 190.00 ROOF DRAINS $ 7,500.00 $ (7,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - PLUMBING FIXTURES $ 35,000.00 $ 2,675.70 $ 37,675.70 $ 36,243.50 $ 36,243.50 96.20% $ 1,432.20 CENTRAL VAC $ 7,500.00 $ (7,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - SOFT WATER/RO/FILTER SYSTEM $ 8,000.00 $ (8,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - FIRE SPRINKLERS $ 12,090.00 $ 1,240.00 $ 13,330.00 $ 13,330.00 $ 13,330.00 100.00% $ - STEAM SHOWER $ 5,000.00 $ (5,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - HVAC UPGRADE $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - HVAC $ 84,000.00 $ 30,628.00 $ 114,628.00 $ 112,664.00 $378.00 $ 113,042.00 98.62% $ 1,586.00 CUSTOM GRILLS $ - $ 13,172.00 $ 13,172.00 $ 13,104.00 $ 13,104.00 99.48% $ 68.00

ELECTRICAL $ 120,900.00 $ 51,120.61 $ 172,020.61 $ 172,020.61 $ 172,020.61 100.00% $ - LIGHT FIXTURES $ 50,000.00 $ (14,884.22) $ 35,115.78 $ 33,901.72 $ 33,901.72 96.54% $ 1,214.06 STEREO/SECURITY/PREWIRE $ 20,000.00 $ 22,023.13 $ 42,023.13 $ 42,023.13 $ 42,023.13 100.00% $ - HOME MANAGEMENT EQUIP $ 250,000.00 $ (57,772.34) $ 192,227.66 $ 192,227.66 $ 192,227.66 100.00% $ - WINE ROOM CHILLING SYSTEM $ 10,000.00 $ 64,287.69 $ 74,287.69 $ 74,267.69 $ 74,267.69 99.97% $ 20.00 WINE ROOM RACKING $ 30,000.00 $ (30,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - WINE ROOM DOOR $ 30,000.00 $ (30,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - Roofing Holdback 10% -11,164.00 TILE ROOF $ 94,500.00 $ 21,146.00 $ 115,646.00 $ 100,482.00 $ 100,482.00 86.89% $ 15,164.00 and -4,000.00 METAL ROOF $ 45,500.00 $ (45,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - FOAM ROOF $ 40,000.00 $ (40,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - WALL DECK WATERPROOF $ 25,000.00 $ (25,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - INSULATION $ 32,240.00 $ (2,010.00) $ 30,230.00 $ 30,230.00 $ 30,230.00 100.00% $ - SOUND BOARD $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - Updated and reconciled line budget DRYWALL $ 56,420.00 $ 17,301.72 $ 73,721.72 $ 63,315.99 $10,405.73 $ 73,721.72 100.00% $ - ivoices and amouts not paid. GYPSUM FLOORS $ 8,000.00 $ 5,630.00 $ 13,630.00 $ 13,630.00 $ 13,630.00 100.00% $ - PAINTING $ 32,240.00 $ (5,855.80) $ 26,384.20 $ 26,384.20 $ 26,384.20 100.00% $ - STAIN PACKAGE $ 24,180.00 $ 36,035.80 $ 60,215.80 $ 60,215.80 $ 60,215.80 100.00% $ - TRIM CARPENTRY $ 50,000.00 $ 44,173.51 $ 94,173.51 $ 93,590.43 $ 93,590.43 99.38% $ 583.08 TRIM INSTALL $ 20,000.00 $ (11,500.00) $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 100.00% $ - SECONDARY CLOSETS/PANTRY $ 12,500.00 $ 9,185.00 $ 21,685.00 $ 21,672.50 $ 21,672.50 99.94% $ 12.50 MASTER CLOSET $ 25,000.00 $ 686.00 $ 25,686.00 $ 25,636.00 $ 25,636.00 99.81% $ 50.00 FRONT DOOR/HARDWARE $ 20,000.00 $ 5,235.00 $ 25,235.00 $ 25,235.00 $ 25,235.00 100.00% $ - CABINETS $ 175,000.00 $ 11,208.75 $ 186,208.75 $ 186,199.43 $ 186,199.43 99.99% $ 9.32 CABINET HARDWARE $ 3,500.00 $ (103.15) $ 3,396.85 $ 3,227.57 $ 3,227.57 95.02% $ 169.28 GRANITE COUNTERS $ 45,000.00 $ 53,187.00 $ 98,187.00 $ 97,327.00 $ 97,327.00 99.12% $ 860.00 MASTER SHOWER/TUB TILE $ 18,000.00 $ 6,734.34 $ 24,734.34 $ 24,211.94 $ 24,211.94 97.89% $ 522.40 SECONDARY SHOWER/TUB TILE $ 22,000.00 $ 4,453.09 $ 26,453.09 $ 26,453.09 $ 26,453.09 100.00% $ - POWDER ROOM TILE $ 2,500.00 $ 7,529.20 $ 10,029.20 $ 10,029.20 $ 10,029.20 100.00% $ - MASTER BATH FLOOR TILE $ 6,000.00 $ (6,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - SECONDARY BATH FLOOR TILE $ 4,800.00 $ (4,800.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - STONE FLOORING $ 18,000.00 $ 28,032.52 $ 46,032.52 $ 45,709.52 $ 45,709.52 99.30% $ 323.00 WOOD FLOORING $ 60,000.00 $ 11,478.32 $ 71,478.32 $ 70,454.03 $ 70,454.03 98.57% $ 1,024.29 CARPET $ 7,500.00 $ 2,783.80 $ 10,283.80 $ 10,283.80 $ 10,283.80 100.00% $ - BACK SPLASH TILE $ 9,375.00 $ (2,551.08) $ 6,823.92 $ 6,823.92 $ 6,823.92 100.00% $ - PATIO/WALK DECK TILE/STAIRS $ 7,500.00 $ (7,500.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - MISCELLANEOUS FLOORING $ 15,000.00 $ (7,139.58) $ 7,860.42 $ 7,860.42 $ 7,860.42 100.00% $ - STAIR RAILINGS/DECORATIVE IRON $ 15,000.00 $ 25,620.00 $ 40,620.00 $ 40,620.00 $ 40,620.00 100.00% $ - INTERIOR STAIR $ 18,000.00 $ (18,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - FIREPLACE SURROUNDS $ 45,500.00 $ (19,087.54) $ 26,412.46 $ 26,412.46 $ 26,412.46 100.00% $ - LOG SETS $ 7,600.00 $ (7,600.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - CEILING FINISH (T&G) $ 40,000.00 $ (40,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - SHUTTERS/SHADES $ 75,000.00 $ (21,648.00) $ 53,352.00 $ 53,352.00 $ 53,352.00 100.00% $ - BATH ACCCESSORIES/MIRROR INSTALL $ 15,000.00 $ (12,250.00) $ 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 100.00% $ - SHOWER ENCLOSURES $ 6,000.00 $ 3,670.00 $ 9,670.00 $ 9,670.00 $ 9,670.00 100.00% $ - APPLIANCES $ 45,000.00 $ 39,364.00 $ 84,364.00 $ 84,364.00 $ 84,364.00 100.00% $ - APPLIANCE INSTALL $ 3,000.00 $ 1,110.00 $ 4,110.00 $ 4,110.00 $ 4,110.00 100.00% $ - STUCCO $ 64,480.00 $ 24,890.00 $ 89,370.00 $ 89,370.00 $ 89,370.00 100.00% $ - T&G $ 30,000.00 $ (30,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - EXTERIOR STONE RET WALLS $ 40,000.00 $ (40,000.00) $ - $ - N/A $ - EXTERIOR STAIR RAILINGS/IRON/VIEW FENCE $ 75,000.00 $ (18,185.00) $ 56,815.00 $ 56,815.00 $ 56,815.00 100.00% $ - GARAGE DOORS $ 10,500.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 20,100.00 $ 20,100.00 $ 20,100.00 100.00% $ - EXTEROR BRICK/ LIMESTONE/CHIMNEY & CAPS $ 225,000.00 $ 26,137.32 $ 251,137.32 $ 250,482.32 $ 250,482.32 99.74% $ 655.00 BRICK/LIMESTONE EXTERIOR $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - GATES $ 7,500.00 $ 16,845.00 $ 24,345.00 $ 24,345.00 $ 24,345.00 100.00% $ - STUCCO/PAINT FENCE $ 15,000.00 $ (11,447.00) $ 3,553.00 $ 3,553.00 $ 3,553.00 100.00% $ - MAIL BOX $ 1,000.00 $ 145.00 $ 1,145.00 $ 1,145.00 $ 1,145.00 100.00% $ - DRIVES (CONCRETE/PAVERS) $ 42,000.00 $ (20,535.00) $ 21,465.00 $ 21,465.00 $ 21,465.00 100.00% $ - PATIOS WALKWAYS (SAND SET TRAVERTINE) $ 78,000.00 $ 19,810.00 $ 97,810.00 $ 97,495.00 $ 97,495.00 99.68% $ 315.00 1/18/2022 Steve Newlin Paid $15,000/Mossman and 1/26/2022 Paid $7,000. Per Steve, Mossman issued POOL & SPA ALLOWANCE Credit of -$3,000 (pending adjustment. Balance $27,091.65 reduced to $2091.65 after payments $ 175,000.00 $ 7,828.00 $ 182,828.00 $ 180,736.35 $ 180,736.35 98.86% $ 2,091.65 and credit. Landscape Credit -$12,803.19 applied LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE $ 85,000.00 $ 65,059.25 $ 150,059.25 $ 132,284.66 $ 132,284.66 88.15% $ 17,774.59 to budget. BBQ/EQUIP ALLOWANCE $ 25,000.00 $ (20,675.00) $ 4,325.00 $ 4,325.00 $ 4,325.00 100.00% $ - EXTERIOR WATER FEATURE/FIRE PIT $ 32,000.00 $ (21,282.00) $ 10,718.00 $ 10,718.00 $ 10,718.00 100.00% $ - POWER USAGE/TEMP POWER $ 4,000.00 $ (2,814.85) $ 1,185.15 $ 1,185.15 $ 1,185.15 100.00% $ - WATER USAGE $ 4,000.00 $ (1,651.23) $ 2,348.77 $ 2,348.77 $ 2,348.77 100.00% $ - GAS USAGE $ 500.00 $ 243.86 $ 743.86 $ 696.94 $ 696.94 93.69% $ 46.92 J-JONS $ 1,800.00 $ 2,045.58 $ 3,845.58 $ 2,920.85 $ 2,920.85 75.95% $ 924.73 TRASH REMOVAL $ 4,800.00 $ (146.67) $ 4,653.33 $ 3,934.86 $ 3,934.86 84.56% $ 718.47

FINAL CLEAN Steve and Scott agreed to split cost of $ 8,060.00 $ 10,407.00 $ 18,467.00 $ 14,417.00 $4,050.00 $ 18,467.00 100.00% $ - $8100. $4050 to be paid by Steve. COMMON LABOR $ 5,367.20 $ 13,319.47 $ 18,686.67 $ 18,686.67 $ 18,686.67 100.00% $ - MISCELLANEOUS $ 13,418.00 $ 7,124.65 $ 20,542.65 $ 16,860.68 $ 16,860.68 82.08% $ 3,681.97 GARAGE EPOXY $ 20,000.00 $ (14,143.97) $ 5,856.03 $ 5,856.03 $ 5,856.03 100.00% $ - SAFE ROOM $ 25,000.00 $ (16,683.11) $ 8,316.89 $ 8,316.89 $ 8,316.89 100.00% $ - CASITA $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - LANDSCAPE PLANS $ 8,500.00 $ 1,566.51 $ 10,066.51 $ 10,066.51 $ 10,066.51 100.00% $ - CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT $ 10,300.00 $ (10,000.00) $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 100.00% $ - BLUEPRINTING $ 3,000.00 $ (784.92) $ 2,215.08 $ 2,172.68 $ 2,172.68 98.09% $ 42.40 DESIGN REVIEW $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 100.00% $ - ENGINEERING/SURVEY $ 4,030.00 $ 15,025.00 $ 19,055.00 $ 18,605.00 $ 18,605.00 97.64% $ 450.00 SALES TAX $ 251,172.50 $ 32,614.93 $ 283,787.43 $ 273,998.99 $6,541.65 $ 280,540.64 98.86% $ 3,246.78 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE $ 40,894.34 $ 5,531.16 $ 46,425.50 $ 46,326.72 $ 46,326.72 99.79% $ 98.78 BUILDERS RISK/PROP INS $ 19,719.79 $ 6,288.41 $ 26,008.20 $ 26,008.20 $ 26,008.20 100.00% $ - SWD PROFIT $ 500,000.00 $ (27,628.41) $ 472,371.59 $ 458,969.49 $7,641.17 $ 466,610.66 98.78% $ 5,760.93 $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - DEPOSIT Apply Final Draw $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - $ - Cost Breakdown Total: $ 5,111,791.89 $ 663,766.59 $ 5,775,558.48 $ 5,674,856.57 $34,516.55 $ 5,709,373.12 98.85% $ 66,185.36 Pre-Paid Total: $ 159,500.00 Balance $ 5,111,791.89 $ 5,616,058.48 Architectural/Design 136,111.17 136,111.17 TOTAL PAYMENTS TO DATE $ 5,810,967.74 $ 5,845,484.29 Draw # 17 Name: Newlin Date: 2022 Review Finalize Property Address: Lot 1866 Please enter data in highlighted fields only. Work Completed Draw % Complete Original Change Revised Advanced to Total Completed Balance To Description Request This and Cost to Date (Over- Updates and Notes from from Estimate Amount Costs Date Finish Period Under %) Draw 15 PERMITS $ 16,120.00 $ (428.56) $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 100.00% $ - DUST PERMITS $ 2,650.00 $ (530.00) $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 100.00% $ - WATER/SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES $ 6,000.00 $ 985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 100.00% $ - SEWER TAP $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION $ 12,000.00 $ 680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 100.00% $ - STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASINS (#23) $ 25,000.00 $ (17,092.00) $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 100.00% $ -

Steve Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale AZ 85255

Project: Roof Assessment

Inspection Date: 04/18/23

Inspector: Joshua Sawyer, RRO

WRECORP was retained to inspect the newly installed roof system at above listed address. This report contains WRECORP’s opinions on the existing conditions found at the time of inspection.

All opinions, conclusions and/or recommendations within this report are subject to change in the event that any additional information is discovered or brought to the attention of WRECORP.

Industry standards use: TRI (Tile Roofing Industry Alliance), NRCA (National Roofing Contractors Association), and IBC (International Building Codes).

Summary: Upon arrival, WRECORP initiated the roof investigation to verify concerns raised by the client (MR. Newlin) regarding tile color and fading. A visual check of all the roof areas identified by the client was conducted, revealing that the roof tile color and sheen were not consistent. It was discovered that a non-UV stable black paint or coating had been applied to remedy minor chips and scratches, likely incurred during shipping and un/loading of the palletized clay tiles. The coating and/or paint used is not UV stable, allowing discoloration to occur. Furthermore, the inspection revealed that clay tiles in several locations were completely painted with this non-UV stable coating in an attempt to match the kiln-fired black color of adjacent tiles. A “scratch” test procedure was performed on the painted tiles to verify this condition. Coatings applied to this clay tile have only exacerbated the appearance, making it distinctively different from other portions of the roof, with chips and splotches remaining unresolved. Additionally, the investigation uncovered multiple clay tile installation concerns. Improper tile layout has caused multiple courses of tile to be "stretched," allowing the tile securement fastener to be visible. A minimum 3-inch overlap must be maintained for all tile, unless the tile design precludes it. The actual layout of the roof courses is determined by the length of the specific tile being installed, per Tile Roofing Institute (TRI) new construction requirements. Improper tile penetration flashing has been observed at multiple penetrations, as shown in the photo report below. Mortar used as weather blocking and tile securement has fractured throughout, leaving the roof system exposed to the elements. The mortar also appears to be painted with a spray-applied paint that has faded due to UV degradation. Proper attic ventilation has not been followed per TRI requirements, as indicated in the photo report below. Furthermore, perimeter tile fastening is not in compliance with table 1B of the TRI manual; multiple areas at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes are missing fasteners. Lastly, construction debris has been noted throughout the roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations. In conclusion, the roof investigation revealed numerous installation deficiencies, including inconsistent tile color and sheen, improper tile layout, non-compliant penetration flashings, fractured mortar, and inadequate ventilation. The use of a non-UV stable black paint or coating only exacerbated the appearance of the chips and splotches, making them distinctly different from other portions of the roof and adjacent tiles. Proper tile securement was also lacking, and construction debris was present throughout the roof system. These deficiencies can lead to further deterioration of the roof system and should be addressed promptly to prevent further damage.

Based on the investigation, the following non-compliant issues were found: • Inconsistent roof tile color and sheen due to non-UV stable black paint or coating used to remedy minor chips and scratches, which has exacerbated the appearance and caused discoloration. • Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners. • Improper tile penetration flashing observed at multiple penetrations. • Mortar used as weather blocking and tile securement has fractured throughout, leaving the roof system exposed to the elements. The mortar also appears to be painted with a spray applied paint that has faded due to UV degradation. • Lack of proper attic ventilation in violation of TRI requirements and local building codes. • Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. • Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations.

Recommendations: Based on the investigation, it is strongly recommended that the entire roof tile system is removed and reinstalled to address the numerous installation deficiencies noted, including improper tile overlap, improper tile layout, improper tile penetration flashing, and improper perimeter tile fastening. Additionally, the underlayment should be replaced due to the damage caused by the removal of old battens, which could lead to moisture intrusion. The defective and improperly coated/painted clay tiles should be replaced, and a tinted mortar should be applied to the mortar caps where needed. All clay tiles that have not been painted/coated but contain scratches and chips will need to be replaced to comply with the desired aesthetic per manufactures notes to the roofing contractor, “The tile should not be installed yet if you find fault with the tile. Roofer/contractor should always inspect and layout the pieces before installation occurs.” Scratches and chips caused by shipping would be included under “fault” with the tile and should have not been installed. Construction debris, excess roof tiles, and fractured roof tiles should be remedied. It is also recommended that proper attic ventilation be installed in compliance with TRI requirements to ensure proper air flow and prevent moisture buildup. These corrective measures are necessary to ensure a proper and long-lasting roof system that meets industry standards and complies with local building codes. Photos below depict onsite conditions

Photo # 1 Description: Residence identification: 11370 E Hideaway Lane, Scottsdale AZ 85255

Photo # 2 Description: View of a sample tile sent to the client; sample tile shows the typical condition of deficiencies that the roofing contractor attempted to correct with coatings. Photo # 3 Description: This photograph depicts a typical view of the roof, highlighting the inconsistent color and sheen of the tiles. The issue has been caused by the use of non-UV stable black paint or coating to remedy chips and scratches, resulting in a worsened appearance and discoloration.

Photo # 4 Description: Un-even eave course due to slipped tiles. Slipped tiles are a result of improper perimeter tile securement. Photo # 5 Description: Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. This photo depicts an unsecured and stretched eave tile.

Photo # 6 Description: Typical/systemic view of brush applied coatings. Photo # 7 Description: A “scratch” test procedure was performed on the painted tiles to verify coating was applied.

Photo # 8 Description: Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners. Black spray paint was applied to white caulking used to secure tile to the adjacent course. Photo # 9 Description: Improper clay tile layout causing stretching of multiple courses and visible tile securement fasteners.

Photo # 10 Description: Zoomed view of coating applied to the clay tiles. Coating has begun to curl and flake away. Photo # 11 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar.

Photo # 12 Description: Evidence of coating application, stained tiles from boot prints throughout. Fractured tiles to be replaced. Photo # 13 Description: Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system and under the roof tiles at inspected locations.

Photo # 14 Description: Perimeter tile fastening not in compliance with TRI table 1B, with missing fasteners at hips or ridges and edges of eaves and gable rakes. This photo depicts an unsecured tile within 36” of a head-wall perimeter. Photo # 15 Description: The inspection revealed that clay tiles in several locations were completely painted with this non-UV stable coating in an attempt to match the kiln-fired black color of adjacent tiles.

Photo # 16 Description: Flashings were painted with a non-UV stable coating, allowing for discoloration to occur. Photo # 17 Description: During the investigation, it was observed that the tile penetration flashing was improperly installed at multiple points, with sub flashings secured directly to the underlayment without the installation of an underlayment apron. The recommended installation option to properly flash and seal the penetrations is a three- course application with polyester fabric and coatings, as per TRI guidelines, but this was not performed.

Photo # 18 Description: During the investigation, it was observed that the tile penetration flashing was improperly installed at multiple points, with sub flashings secured directly to the underlayment without the installation of an underlayment apron. The recommended installation option to properly flash and seal the penetrations is a three- course application with polyester fabric and coatings, as per TRI guidelines, but this was not performed. Photo # 19 Description: PVC plumbing vents were painted with a non-UV stable coating, allowing for discoloration, flaking, and peeling to occur within the coatings applied.

Photo # 20 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar. Fractured mortar has been noted throughout. Photo # 21 Description: Missing mortar could allow moisture entry into the structure.

Photo # 22 Description: Additional view of spray applied paint to tiles and mortar. Photo # 23 Description: Fractured mortar could allow moisture entry into the structure.

Photo # 24 Description: Construction debris along with excess tiles noted on roof surface at multiple locations. Photo # 25 Description: Underlayment turns up vertical surfaces a minimum of 4” throughout. This follows TRI installation guidelines.

Photo # 26 Description: Typical view of the closed valley design of the roof system. Tiles at valley locations are not secured and multiple tiles have slipped into the valley causing a blockage. Photo # 27 Description: Construction debris along with fractured tiles noted throughout roof system valleys and under the roof tile at inspected locations.

Photo # 28 Description: Description: This is a systemic view of the rake edge tiles showing the absence of mortar application. (Yellow arrow) Additionally, there are noticeable chips at the cut tile locations, which is likely due to the absence of a wet cutting method required by the manufacturer for kiln-baked color tiles. (Red arrow)

Inspector/Consultant: Joshua Sawyer, RRO 04/28/2023 Limitations on Consultant’s Responsibility, Indemnity & Insurance Client acknowledges that Consultant is performing professional service on behalf of Client and in the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the negligence of Contractor or Client or both, Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, and Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against liability for all Professional Liability claims, losses, damages, and expenses whether or not insured, including reasonable attorney’s fees. TRI/ WSRCA 15

Appendix A

UNITS VERTICAL IN 12 UNITS HORIZONTAL (33% Slope) and over

Solid sheathing without battens 1, 2 One fastener per tile

Field Tile Head Lap 3 inches minimum unless precluded by tile design

Flashing Flashing shall be (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) not less than 0.019 inch corrosion-resistant metal with a minimum of 0.90 ounce zinc/sq. ft. (total for both sides) G90 sheet metal or equal.

For jurisdictions enforcing the:

per the IBC and the IRC or where mean roof height exceeds 40 feet, but not more 60 feet above grade, all tiles shall be attached as follows; 2.1 The head of all tiles shall be fastened.

2.2 The noses of all eave course tiles shall be fastened with clips, or other methods of attachment as approved by building code officials.

2.3 All rake tiles shall be secured with two fasteners when required by IBC table 1507.3.7 and IRC section R905.3.7.

2.4 The noses of all ridge, hip and rake tiles will be set in a bead of approved roofers mastic.

2.5 Other methods of tile fastening will be allowed based upon submission of testing and approval of building code officials.

Counter Flashing: A flashing material that provides the Hem: An edge of metal bent back on its self to give Appendix D

Hip: The exterior sloping ridge formed by the intersection Non-Interlocking Tile: Those tile that do not have vertical of two inclined roof surfaces. rib(s) or grooves creating an interlocking tile.

COPYRIGHT © 2015 TILE ROOFING INSTITUTE/WSRCA Uniform ES ER-2015 01/2000 Revised 7/2015 Draw # 17 Name: Newlin Date: 2022 Review Finalize Property Address: Lot 1866 Please enter data in highlighted fields only. Work Completed Draw % Complete Original Change Revised Advanced to Total Completed Balance To Description Request This and Cost to Date (Over- Updates and Notes from from Estimate Amount Costs Date Finish Period Under %) Draw 15 PERMITS $ 16,120.00 $ (428.56) $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 100.00% $ - DUST PERMITS $ 2,650.00 $ (530.00) $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 100.00% $ - WATER/SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES $ 6,000.00 $ 985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 100.00% $ - SEWER TAP $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION $ 12,000.00 $ 680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 100.00% $ - STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASINS (#23) $ 25,000.00 $ (17,092.00) $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 100.00% $ -

9382 E. Bahia Drive, #B102 * Scottsdale, AZ 85260 [email redacted] Phone : (480) 596-9020 lic #:B05-ROC094188, #A9-ROC178485, #B-ROC264845 Fax : (480) 596-9021 www.MossmanBrothersPools.com

Swimming Pool & Spa Proposal Items Listed in Red Are 'By Others' OR Important Info Sonora West Development~Newlin Residence 11370 E Hideaway Lane, Scottsdale

Specifications Pool Spa Perimeter 110 49' Surface Area 600 sq ft 136 sq ft Depth 3'6"-5'0"-3'6" 3'6" Gallons 19125 2550 Step Footage Approx 24' Per Plan Bench Footage Approx 24' Per Plan Max. Dimensions 32' x 16'6" 16' x 8'6"

Excavation *Open Access Into Pool Area *Difficult Access costs are included down to due to the multiple elevation so the excavation. *Retaining Walls, Grading, Fill & Compaction to Within 4" of Finished Deck Elevation 'By Others' Prior to Pool Excavation *All Excavated Soil to be Removed From Job Site

Plumbing *Filter Run: Pool-67', Spa-47' *(2) Auto Water Levelers w/ Vacuum Breaker to Meet Codes *Paramount PCC 2000 In-Floor Cleaning System in Pool and spa (Includes Separate booster pump, Wall Jets and Vector Jets as required) *Paramount MDX3 Drain In Pool w/ SDX Side Wall Safety Relief Suction *Schedule 40 Plumbing Throughout Pool *Returns: Pool-(In floor Heads to Function as Returns), Spa-(Therapy Jets to Function as Returns) *(2)Dedicated Suction Cleaner Lines (Includes Safety Vac Lock to Automatically Close When Not in Use) *(3) Filtration Returns to Bypass In Floor Cleaning System *(8) Upgraded Waterway Spa Therapy Heads with separate 3 HP booster pump and 2 HP air blower *Install All Required Ball Valves Due to Difference In Elevation Between Pool-Spa, & Equipment *3" - 4"Negative Edge Suction Lines with 2.5" - 3" Return Lines to pool *Accessible Water Supply within 50' of Pool/ Spa for Automatic Water Leveler

Steel Reinforcement *#3-12" O.C., 6" O.C. At Coves & Radii & Stress Points *4 Bars, 3# Continuous In Bond Beam Around Perimeter of Pool *Back of Pool AND Spa Designed to be Self Supporting as Required For Negative Edge Page 2 of 5 7/10/2019

Electric *Builder To Provide Adequate Electric Supply to Equipment Location *Pentair Intellicenter w/ i5kit Control System w/ Load Center & Screen Logic Interface Kit for iPhone/iPad/iPod & Android (CRITICAL: Builder to Supply CAT5 to Equipment Location for WIFI control) *Up to 450 lineal feet of PVC conduit with low voltage wiring for all LED lights

Lighting *(6) LED Savi LED lights in pool *(2) LED Savi LED light in spa *(6) LED lights to illuminate steppers revised $ 2,999

Shotcrete *Pneumatically Applied *Steps & Benches to be Installed 'Per Plan' *Minimum 6" Thickness In Walls & Floors, 8" In Coves & Stress Areas *3000 Psi Concrete Curing to 3200 Psi In 7 Days & 3500-3700 Psi In 28 Days *Wires to be Run Prior to Shotcrete Application to Ensure All Corners Are Square & Accurate *Fibermesh to be Used in Shotcrete Mix to Help Prevent Shrinkage Cracks *Pool-Spa Walls That are to Finish Above Grade Will be "Stripped & Finished" (This Will Result in a Surface That Will Allow Proper Application of Materials (Stucco & Paint, Stone or Tile)) *Note: top 24" of spa shell to be shot on top of builder's retaining wall, waterproof, stripped and finished *(2) benches near negative edge that attach to only one 18" side of bench attaches to the pool wall (this bench will enable viewing over the Negative Edge of the pool while sitting on the bench (these are the benches Newlin requested at one of our meetings and is per plan dated 6-4-19 revised Ceramic Tile *Choice of Approximately 50 Standard Selections (Natural Stone Looking Ceramic Tiles Included In Standards) *Hand Set Around Waterline of pool & spa as needed 'per plan'

Clean Up *Pool-Spa Interior, Exterior & Removal of All Construction Debris

Pebble Sheen (By Pebble Technologies) *Pebble Sheen to be Used as Interior Finish In Pool & Spa *Choice Of: White Diamonds, Irish Mist, French Gray, Desert Gold, Blue Surf, Blue Granite or Aqua Blue

Misc. *Engineered Plans, Building Permits & Layout *Public Liability, Negligent Property Damage & Workmen's Compensation Insurance *Oral & Written Operating Instructions at Pool Start-Up *(2) Year Warranty on Workmanship & Materials Per AZ Registrar of Contractors Guidelines *Maintenance & Chemical Kit

Equipment *(1) Pentair 520 Clean & Clear Cartridge Filter for Pool *(1) Pentair 320 Clean & Clear Cartridge Filter for Spa *(2) Pentair Intelliflo VSF Variable Speed / Flow Programmable Filtration pump for pool *(2) Pentair Intelliflo VSF Variable Speed / Flow Programmable Filtration pump for spa *(1) 2 HP Air Blower *Separate 3 HP Pentair Whisper Flow Booster pump for spa with upgraded jets $ 1,554 *(8) Upgraded Waterway Spa Therapy Heads with separate 3 HP booster pump and 2 HP air blower $ 974 Page 3 of 5 7/10/2019

Equipment continued * Paramount PCC 2000 In Floor Cleaning & Circulation System w/ MDX3 Drain & SEPARATE 3/4 HP Pump *Rotating Pop-Up Cleaning Jets Are Placed In Floors, Walls, Steps, & Benches to Clean The Entire Pool *The Only In Floor Cleaning System w/ Wall Jets *These Cleaning Jets Work Together to Sweep Debris Toward the Patented Debris Collection Zone *Lifetime Warranty on Heads w/ 99% Clean Pool Guarantee When Installed w/ the MDX3 Drain System *Separate In-Floor Cleaning System in Spa with separate water valve $ 3,524 *Pentair MasterTemp 400,000 BTU Programmable Heater For Spa *Pentair Intellicenter w/ i5 Kit Control System w/ Load Center & Screen Logic Interface Kit for iPhone/iPad/iPod & Android *Control Pool Functions From iPhone, iPad, PC or any Android Devices *Allows Control Via Local Wi-Fi Signal or Via Cellular Network w/ Free App *Compatible w/ Home Automation w/ Purchase of Pentair "I-Link" (Builder to Supply Communication Cable to Equipment Location or an Extender May be Necessary) *(1) Pentair XF Variable Speed / Flow Pump to Run Negative *(1) Pentair XF Variable Speed / Flow Pump to Run Wet Edge $ 1,557

Chemical Systems *Pentair IC-20 IntelliChlor Salt Chlorination System w/ Separate IntelliChlor Powercenter for Spa $ 1,392 *Pentair IC-40 IntelliChlor Salt Chlorination System w/ Separate IntelliChlor Powercenter for Pool $ 1,602

Gas Line *Hook Up Heater to Gas Stub Provided to Heater Locations by Builder *Gas Stub to be Located Next to Heater Locations, No Underground Gas Line Installation or Permits Included Mossman to Install Heaters w/ Power Vent . Builder to Have 4" Double Walled Vent Pipe Run From Flue Collar, Thru Wall to Termination Point- by builder

Steppers $ 2,527 *Shoot in (5) 3' x 2' pedestals $ 833 1322 *Complete tile wrap and all tiled sun shelf below $ 1,694

Water Features *(3 ) SAVI LED Bubblers Installed Flush on Sun Shelf in pool $ 1,291revised $ 2,425 *(4 ) LED Laminar Deck Jets Around Pool ' per plan' $ 1,827 $ 7,054 *(1) SAVI LED Bubbler Installed Flush on Sun Shelf of Spa $ 430 $ 1,312 *(3) Valve Actuators (1 for each feature) to allow operation from Automation $ 276

Negative Edge Pool ( *See Revised Detail in lieu of Detail 9 on A-2 of Architect's Plans) *Approximately 40 ft of Negative Edge on Back of Pool 'Per Plan' *All Special Engineering & Construction Requirements *Pebble Sheen on Knife of Negative Edge & Inside Trough Basin to Match Interior of Pool *Negative Edge Not to Exceed 2'6" Ft High From Top of Negative Edge to Bottom of Trough *Barrier Wall Behind Negative Edge by Builder *Standard Ceramic Tile on 12" of Visible Vertical Wall of Negative Edge $ 1,751 *(2) rows of waterline tile in trough Page 4 of 5 7/10/2019

Wet Edge around 3 sides of Pool $ 9,686 *Excavation for 12" Wide x 12" Deep Trough Around Three Sides of Pool 'per plan' $ 994 *Steel Reinforcement of Wet Edge Trough $ 994 *Shotcrete of Trough $ 3,758 *Leveling Tile with Tile on Exposed Vertical Surfaces at Lower Deck Elevations $ 1,032 *Pebble Finish on Knife Wet Edge $ 994 *4" Suctions From Wet Edge to Pump $ 773 *3" Returns From Wet Edge Pumps to Pool $ 526 *Waterproof and test Inside of Trough $ 614 *Standard Ceramic Tile on exposed vertical walls , on both sides of pool (approximately 150 sq ft total) * "Recreonics" Grate Over Lower Wet Edge Trough for Mexican Beach Pebble $ 1,018

Negative Edge Spa (*See Revised Detail in lieu of Detail 9 on A-2 of Architect's Plans) *Approximately 21 ft of Negative Edge on Back of Spa 'Per Plan' *All Special Engineering & Construction Requirements *Separate Pentair XF Variable Speed Pump For Negative Edge *Pebble Sheen on Knife of Negative Edge & Inside Trough Basin to Match Interior of Spa *Negative Edge wall to be up to 2'6" tall *Standard Ceramic Tile on 12" of Visible Vertical Wall of Negative Edge $ 827 (Includes a Standard Ceramic Tile Allowance of $5.00 PSF) NOTE: trough walls to be engineered and formed to be shot ON TOP OF builders retaining wall *(2) rows of waterline tile in trough

Wet Edge around Front of Spa $ 2,931 *Excavation for 12" Wide x 12" Deep Trough Around Three Sides of Pool 'per plan' $ 351 *Steel Reinforcement of Wet Edge Trough $ 351 *Shotcrete of Trough $ 1,216 *Leveling Tile with Tile on Exposed Vertical Surfaces at Lower Deck Elevations $ 435 *Pebble Finish on Knife Wet Edge $ 351 *Waterproof and test Inside of Trough $ 227

Spa Fire Feature $ 3,155 *Install ( 6 )ft Stainless Steel Fire bar mounted on Spa Negative Edge Wall w/ Riser & Key Valve $ 1,120 *Add Electronic Igniter for Fire bar $ 2,035 (Electric supply to Igniter- By Builder) *Gas line run from equipment to fire feature (others) revised *Fire Feature to be controlled from automation

No overbreak is included in price. *If there is overbreak, it will be billed @ $215 per yard. Owner to approve and we would be happy to meet on site so there is a clear understanding PRIOR to shotcrete application Total cost for all in items #1 - #22 $ 153,518 revised Remove over break $ (1,400) Pebble Brilliance Upgrade *Upgrade interior finish in water feature from Pebble Sheen to NORTH SEA Pebble Brilliance $ 345 *Upgrade interior finish in pool and spa from Pebble Sheen to CLEARWATER Pebble Brilliance $ 3,502

Rough Plumb in Equipment Room prior to Builder's Retaining Wall Construction (may be less) $ 5,060 to be determined (This Would Be Required if Equipment is to go into a Sunken Pool Equipment Room Where Retaining Walls are Going in or Already in place. Core Drill into Builders' Retaining Walls Pipe Penetration Sealing, Waterproofing, Etc.,- NOT INCLUDED) *Rough in Electric in Equipment Room prior to Builder's Retaining Wall Construction $ 1,265 Page 5 of 5 7/10/2019

Additional Heat Options *Pentair MasterTemp 400,000 BTU Programmable Heater for Pool $ 2,600 *Hook Up Heater to Gas Stub Provided to Heater Locations by Builder $ 425 *Gas Stub to be Located Next to Heater Locations, No Underground Gas Line Installation or Permits Included Mossman to Install Heaters w/ Power Vent . Builder to Have 4" Double Walled Vent Pipe Run From Flue Collar, Thru Wall to Termination Point- by builder *Pentair Hi Efficiency Gas Heater In Lieu of MasterTemp included in base price (Pool Only) $ 3,690 *95% efficiency compared to 84% with standard heaters only spa heater was *Allows indoor equipment rooms to utilize PVC for venting included in base price so *Provisions need to be considered for disposal of condensation water these need to be added in *Pentair Hi Efficiency Gas Heater In Lieu of MasterTemp included in base price (Spa Only) since the $3690 is the cost $ 3,690 *95% efficiency compared to 84% with standard heaters to upgrade FROM the *Allows indoor equipment rooms to utilize PVC for venting standard heater *Provisions need to be considered for disposal of condensation water

Wet Edge / Neg edge Water Feature at Rear Covered Patio $ 28,441 *Excavation for 4'0" Wide x 29' Long (max 12" deep), Three Tiered Basin with Negative Edge 'per plan' $ 1,799 *Steel Reinforcement of Water Feature & Negative Edge $ 2,354 *Shotcrete of Trough $ 4,888 *Multi Level, 29' long Wet Edge water feature with (3) Basins (Up to 40' of Wet Edge) $ 4,422 *Waterproof and test Inside of Trough $ 311 *Leveling Tile & Tile on Face Of Spillway Walls $ 1,084 *Leveling Tile with Large Format Tile on Raised Walls of Wet Edge $ 1,243 *Pebble Sheen Interior Finish & Finish on Knife edge $ 3,319 *Dedicated vacuum line for cleaning $ 3,307 *(6) LED Savi lights $ 2,000 *(4) SAVI LED bubblers in lower basin $ 1,722 $ 3,735 *Fountain Equipment: (1) Pentair VS Pump, Cartridge Filter, & Water Leveler $ 2,014 *Equipment to be located in vault with pool and spa equipment *Separate Automated Valve Actuator $ revised 276 *Paramount Ultra UV Water Sanitizer $ 967 *Shoot in base for pedestal at middle level with tile on all vertical walls and platform below $ 1,216 *Water Feature to Only Be 8" Deep Now *Fountain to be built separate from pool, all MINIMUMS apply *Remove Wet Edge from all areas of water feature, water line tile to be installed $ (5,500)

Items Not Included *Sales Tax (Add to Total @ 5.554%) *Additional Excavation Costs Due to Abnormal Soil Conditions (Clients Will be Notified Prior to Proceeding) *Additional Concrete Required for Pool Shell to Fill In Voids Caused by Cave-Ins or Abnormal Soil Conditions *Barriers on Residence to meet applicable City Pool Codes (Auto Door Closures, Door Alarms, Fencing) *Decks Around Pools or Any Other Patios (Except as Indicated In Proposal) *Coping around Pool / Spa Perimeter *Masonry (Planter Walls, BBQ's, Fireplaces, Firepits or Any Other Masonry Items Except as Indicated in Proposal) *Accessible Water Supply within 50' of Pool for Automatic Water Leveler *Adequately Sized Subpanel Located at Equipment Location (Mossman Can Provide Requirements) *Adequately Sized Gas Line Supplied to HEATER Location (NO UNDERGROUND RUNS are included unless indicated)

Total cost for all in items #1 - #26 $ 189,311 "discount based on full scope of work" $ (8,700) Revised total $ 180,611

7/11/19 #105 see email from Steve 4-23-20 attached

#105 4-23-20 8/15/2019 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 27777 -45,152.75 12/15/2019 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 27951 -45,152.75 5/15/2020 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28127 -5,217.00 12/15/2020 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28312 -27,091.65 3/12/2021 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28333 -36,122.20 12/15/2021 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28409 -15,000.00 12/15/2021 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28409 -7,000.00 TOTAL PAID -180,736.35

HOLD: 7/26/2022 Mossman Brothers Pools, Inc. Newlin - Invoice 28409 - FINAL -2,091.65 HOLD Draw # 17 Name: Newlin Date: 2022 Review Finalize Property Address: Lot 1866 Please enter data in highlighted fields only. Work Completed Draw % Complete Original Change Revised Advanced to Total Completed Balance To Description Request This and Cost to Date (Over- Updates and Notes from from Estimate Amount Costs Date Finish Period Under %) Draw 15 PERMITS $ 16,120.00 $ (428.56) $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 $ 15,691.44 100.00% $ - DUST PERMITS $ 2,650.00 $ (530.00) $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 $ 2,120.00 100.00% $ - WATER/SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES $ 6,000.00 $ 985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 $ 6,985.81 100.00% $ - SEWER TAP $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION $ 12,000.00 $ 680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 $ 12,680.00 100.00% $ - STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASINS (#23) $ 25,000.00 $ (17,092.00) $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 $ 7,908.00 100.00% $ -

FINAL CLEAN Steve and Scott agreed to split cost of $ 8,060.00 $ 10,407.00 $ 18,467.00 $ 14,417.00 $4,050.00 $ 18,467.00 100.00% $ - $8100. $4050 to be paid by Steve. COMMON LABOR $ 5,367.20 $ 13,319.47 $ 18,686.67 $ 18,686.67 $ 18,686.67 100.00% $ - MISCELLANEOUS $ 13,418.00 $ 7,124.65 $ 20,542.65 $ 16,860.68 $ 16,860.68 82.08% $ 3,681.97 GARAGE EPOXY $ 20,000.00 $ (14,143.97) $ 5,856.03 $ 5,856.03 $ 5,856.03 100.00% $ - SAFE ROOM $ 25,000.00 $ (16,683.11) $ 8,316.89 $ 8,316.89 $ 8,316.89 100.00% $ - CASITA $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - LANDSCAPE PLANS $ 8,500.00 $ 1,566.51 $ 10,066.51 $ 10,066.51 $ 10,066.51 100.00% $ - CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT $ 10,300.00 $ (10,000.00) $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 100.00% $ - BLUEPRINTING $ 3,000.00 $ (784.92) $ 2,215.08 $ 2,172.68 $ 2,172.68 98.09% $ 42.40 DESIGN REVIEW $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 100.00% $ - ENGINEERING/SURVEY $ 4,030.00 $ 15,025.00 $ 19,055.00 $ 18,605.00 $ 18,605.00 97.64% $ 450.00 SALES TAX $ 251,172.50 $ 32,614.93 $ 283,787.43 $ 273,998.99 $6,541.65 $ 280,540.64 98.86% $ 3,246.78 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE $ 40,894.34 $ 5,531.16 $ 46,425.50 $ 46,326.72 $ 46,326.72 99.79% $ 98.78 BUILDERS RISK/PROP INS $ 19,719.79 $ 6,288.41 $ 26,008.20 $ 26,008.20 $ 26,008.20 100.00% $ - SWD PROFIT $ 500,000.00 $ (27,628.41) $ 472,371.59 $ 458,969.49 $7,641.17 $ 466,610.66 98.78% $ 5,760.93 $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - DEPOSIT Apply Final Draw $ - $ - $ - N/A $ - $ - Cost Breakdown Total: $ 5,111,791.89 $ 663,766.59 $ 5,775,558.48 $ 5,674,856.57 $34,516.55 $ 5,709,373.12 98.85% $ 66,185.36 Pre-Paid Total: $ 159,500.00 Balance $ 5,111,791.89 $ 5,616,058.48 Architectural/Design 136,111.17 136,111.17 TOTAL PAYMENTS TO DATE $ 5,810,967.74 $ 5,845,484.29 Sonora West Development, Inc. Invoice 17767 N. Scottsdale Rd. Date Invoice # Suite 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 5/10/2022 5417

Bill To Stephen D. Newlin, Trustee of the Stephen D. Newlin Revocable Trust U/A dated April 5, 1994 re: DC Ranch Lot 1866

P.O. No. Terms Project

+++++++++++ Construction

Quantity Description Rate Amount

Newlin Residence - Lot 1866:

Per Meeting with Stephen and Scott on 4/29/2022 - REVISED INVOICE 5/11/2022

'HOLD" - Mossman Pools Balance draw 16 $27,091.65 - Before Adjustments: 27,091.65 27,091.65 Mossman Pools - Newlin Payment Ck 5876 1/14/2022 $15,000.00 -15,000.00 -15,000.00 Mossman Pools - Newlin Payment Ck 5764 1/26/2022 $7,000.00 -7,000.00 -7,000.00 Mossman Pools - Per Steve, Mossman applied additional Credit of -3,000.00 -3,000.00 -$3000.00 "HOLD" Dispute - Balance Mossman $2091.65 -2,091.65 -2,091.65

"HOLD" Dispute - ProCap Roofing - 10% 11,164.00 0.00 "HOLD" Dispute - ProCap Roofing - Repairs/Stucco Change 4,000.00 0.00

"HOLD" Dispute - Sierra Pacific Windows 5,016.00 0.00

"HOLD" Dispute - Creative Environmental Landscape (This amount due includes 17,774.59 0.00 credits applied of $12,803.19) Original Price: = 138,410.34; CO 1-4 +24,452.09; Less CO 5 Credit - 12,803.19 = 150,059.25) Less payments received 132,284.66 = balance : 17,774.59

0.5 "Scott and Stephen Split 50/50" - Peak Maintenance Cleaning 8,100.00 4,050.00

"Newlin okay to pay" - JZ Drywall - Balance of $5,805.00 5,805.00 5,805.00

Calculations balance: "Newlin okay to pay" - Sales Tax 9,314.74 9,314.74 "HOLD" Sales Tax on Items on hold/dispute -2,427.35 -2,427.35

"Newlin okay to pay" - SWD Profit 13,405.00 13,405.00

Total $30,147.39 Complainant: Stephen D Newlin 11370 E Hideaway Lane Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 Respondent: Sonora West Development Inc. 17767 N Scottsdale Rd Ste. 210 Scottsdale, AZ 85255

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 June 27, 2023

Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint No. 2023-02231

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A Compliance Inspection has been scheduled for July 31, 2023 at 11:30 AM to determine the current status of the items listed on the issued Directive.

The Complainant is required to be present for this inspection. The Respondent is encouraged to be present but is not required to attend.

Complainant: SAFE ACCESS IS REQUIRED TO ANY AREA TO BE INSPECTED.

Sincerely,

David Fagerburg David Fagerburg, Investigator #210 602 7716735 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812

CC: Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov

C012 05/21 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director