2023A-04094-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-04094-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-03

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Richard Wright Murphy , Case No. 2023-04094 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-04094-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON Remblake Builders LLC CONTESTED CASE License No. ROC 269391,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for: October 30, 2023 1:00 PM Jenna Clark 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 24, 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)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158 Charge: 3 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 September 28, 2023.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail September 28, 2023 to: Respondent(s) Remblake Builders LLC 1870 W Prince Rd Ste 70 Tucson, AZ 85705 Christopher Lloyd, Esq. 3430 East Sunrise Drive, Suite 110 Tucson, AZ 85718 Complainant(s) Richard Wright Murphy 737 W. Paseo Norteno Tucson, AZ 85704

Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Respondent’s Attorney at email address of record with Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2023-04094 /

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, 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

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, 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

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, 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: Richard Wright Murphy 737 W. Paseo Norteno Tucson, AZ 85704

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: Remblake Builders LLC 1870 W Prince Rd Ste 70 Tucson, AZ 85705

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 17, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-04094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

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

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for May 10, 2023 at 9:00 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, John Smith John Smith, Investigator #194 (520) 483-0027 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St,Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

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 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

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: Richard Wright Murphy 737 W. Paseo Norteno Tucson, AZ 85704

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: Remblake Builders LLC 1870 W Prince Rd Ste 70 Tucson, AZ 85705

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

May 1, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-04094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

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

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, John Smith John Smith, Investigator #194 (520) 483-0027 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St,Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

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 Katie Hobbs, Governor Martín Quezada, Director

Complainant: Richard Wright Murphy 737 W. Paseo Norteno Tucson, AZ 85704

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

Respondent: Remblake Builders LLC 1870 W Prince Rd Ste 70 Tucson, AZ 85705

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

May 5, 2023

Re: Complaint Number 2023-04094

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

The jobsite inspection scheduled for May 10, 2023 at 9:00AM has been rescheduled for June 8, 2023 at 9:00 AM.

If either party is unable to attend, the Registrar requires 3 business days 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,

John Smith John Smith, Investigator #194 520 4830027 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St,Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Complainant: Richard Wright Murphy Respondent: Remblake Builders LLC

Present for the complainant: • Richard Murphy • Carol Murphy • Amir Saebi of Strata International Group, Inc • Caleb of Strata International Group, Inc Present for the respondent: • Mike Remblake • Russell Krone

Overview of project: As stated in the contract: “A new home addition, demolition and remodel to existing facilities located at 737 W. Paseo Norteno Tucson, AZ 85743. Building the home additions and renovations per the plans and specifications prepared by SDG Architecture LLC and Strata International Group – See Appendix”

This home is constructed with what is considered to be alternative construction materials. As stated in a report from Polycoat Products: “At the core of the SABS Building System is a EPS foam which acts as the skeleton and frame of the structure; Once the EPS foam skeleton is installed, it is fully coated with Strata's proprietary patented mix, a fiber reinforced polymer- modified cement, called Sabscete on both sides of the EPS foam in a way that sandwiches the foam.”

General Notes: This complaint was submitted in a narrative form. The complete narrative is included in these notes. Allegations from the narrative, are numerically listed after the complete narrative.

Complete narrative: “There are 3 parts to this complaint: roof (poor work); gutter fascia (poor work); & security doors (incomplete work).

Part 1 (Roof): Installation of roof deck waterproofing in 2020 was conducted improperly. As a result, we have had significant roof leaks in 6-20 areas, damaging interior surfaces and delaying our ability to fully use the house. Polycoat USA examined the roof deck water proofing layer and concluded that an identifiable Polycoat system was not installed. Polycoat USA has recommended full removal and reinstall of the waterproofing structure.

Also, we were overcharged by $20k for roofing by Remblake Builders, yet they underpaid Alpha Roofing by 4k.

Next in regard to the roof, the required 1/2” thickness of Sabcrete was not applied to the ceiling under the roof deck. (Sabcrete is a fiber reinforced polymer-modified cement used with Styrofoam to create the SABS Building System.) Also, no ASTM thickness samples were sent for testing for all of Phase II (the RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes entire main house). When we took 7 thickness samples, post construction, 5 of 7 (70%) were not 1/2” thick. The affected ceiling areas must be repaired if the SABS Building System is to achieve its published physical properties & function properly.

Part 2 (Gutter Fascia): This was installed incorrectly & incompletely. What was installed was too thin a gage and hail has dented it. In bangs against the house and prevents sleep. We paid in full 1 1/2 years ago and this has not been rectified.

Part 3 (Security Doors); The contract was signed in 2019 and we paid in full. None of the 3 doors have been completed yet. The sub-contractor says he was paid $6500 on the $16,725 contract.

There is also a punch list. For example, we paid in full in 2019 for window installation. Two windows that were already cracked were installed at that time. They have not been replaced.”

General Notes: Starting on Page 5 of the pdf complaint documents: The “MOU”, Memorandum of Understanding, signed 1/24/2016 • This document includes: “Once the final agreement is in place this MOU will no longer be valid”

Starting on Page 23 of the pdf complaint documents: The “AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER and CONTRACTOR” Includes “This Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into this 10th day of January 2020 by and between Richard and Carol Murphy (Owners) and Remblake Builders LLC, (Contractor)” • This agreement is not signed.

Photos taken with agency issued Canon PowerShot ELPH180 and/or agency issued Google cell phone. Audio recorded with agency issued Olympus recorder and/or agency issued Google cell phone.

Complaint Item 1: “Part 1 (Roof): Installation of roof deck waterproofing in 2020 was conducted improperly. As a result, we have had significant roof leaks in 6-20 areas…Polycoat USA examined the roof deck water proofing layer and concluded that an identifiable Polycoat system was not installed. Polycoat USA has recommended full removal and reinstall of the waterproofing structure.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. A report from the manufacturer of the Polycoat roofing material includes: Inspection Details include: • A completed, identifiable, Polycoat Products waterproofing system was never installed. • General Guidelines by Polycoat Products for all installations were not adhered to. Recommendations include: • Completely remove all the existing coatings. Reference Pictures: 3-11 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Damage to light fixtures Reference Pictures: 12-26 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: “Also, we were overcharged by $20k for roofing by Remblake Builders, yet they underpaid Alpha Roofing by 4k.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The cost for roofing is not itemized in the “MOU”, Memorandum of Understanding, signed 1/24/2016, or in the “AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER and CONTRACTOR”, which is not signed by either party. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 4: “Next in regard to the roof, the required 1/2” thickness of Sabcrete was not applied to the ceiling under the roof deck. (Sabcrete is a fiber reinforced polymer-modified cement used with Styrofoam to create the SABS Building System.) Also, no ASTM thickness samples were sent for testing for all of Phase II (the entire main house). When we took 7 thickness samples, post construction, 5 of 7 (70%) were not 1/2” thick. The affected ceiling areas must be repaired if the SABS Building System is to achieve its published physical properties & function properly.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Specific to the roof and the ceilings: The Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. A report from the manufacturer of the Sabcrete structural coating material includes: • …the insufficient thickness of the structural coating Sabscrete contributed to the problem. The sabscrete was not consistently applied at the required thickness of 1/2" throughout the roof and ceiling. When the sabscrete layer is thinner than the recommended thickness, it fails to adequately support the loads experienced during expansion and contraction of the structure. • To address the issues with the sabscrete, we recommend the following steps. First, the finishes applied to the ceiling should be removed, ensuring that any residue is cleaned thoroughly. Subsequently, the sabscrete should be reapplied. Regarding the roof, the Sabscrete can be applied once the roofing material is removed, and the surface is cleaned and inspected thoroughly to prepare for the application of the sabscrete. Reference Pictures: 3-11, 27-28 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 5: “Part 2 (Gutter Fascia): This was installed incorrectly & incompletely. What was installed was too thin a gage and hail has dented it. In bangs against the house and prevents sleep…” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent acknowledged these conditions and stated the materials will be replaced. Reference Pictures: 29-32 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 6: “Part 3 (Security Doors); The contract was signed in 2019 and we paid in full. None of the 3 doors have been completed yet. The sub-contractor says he was paid $6500 on the $16,725 contract.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant stated this is now done. Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Complaint Item 7: “There is also a punch list. For example, we paid in full in 2019 for window installation. Two windows that were already cracked were installed at that time. They have not been replaced.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant stated this is now done. Governing Rule: N/A

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract. Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information: • An estimated date of completion • The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. • The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. • The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. • Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar • Contact information for the registrar • A signature of the property owner • A signature of the contractor Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract. Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the homeowner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information: 1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number. 2: The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3: The date the parties entered into the contract. 4: The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5: A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6: The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7: The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8: The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9a: That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. 9b: The contract shall contain the registrar's telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. 9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten point bold type... 9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor's designated representative. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a copy of a current contract form that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

RCC100 11/14

Jobsite Inspection Photos 1 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Jobsite Inspection Photos 2 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Image from Google Maps.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 3 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 4 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 5 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 6 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 7 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 8 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 9 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 10 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 11 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704

Roof deck: Sabcrete coating/substrate does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer. The polycoat water proofing coating does not meet the minimum thickness per the manufacturer.

Removal of the Polycoat water proofing coating has been started, but a demolition hammer was used which caused additional damage.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 12 Case No.: 2023-04094 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 6/8/2023 Inspection Time: 9:00AM Address: 737 W. Paseo Norteno, Tucson, AZ 85704