2023A-07352-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-07352-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-09-18

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

William Edelstein , Case No. 2023-07352 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-07352-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON Reimagine Roofing LLC CONTESTED CASE License No. ROC 332022,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for: November 2, 2023 9:00 AM 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 22, 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)(2)(a) Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Charge: 4 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 18, 2023.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail September 18, 2023 to: Respondent(s) Reimagine Roofing LLC 1100 E Washington St Ste 200 Phoenix, AZ 85034 Complainant(s) William Edelstein 2921 S Jeftoria Rd Tucson, AZ 85713

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. 2023-07352 /

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

Complainant: William Edelstein 2921 S Jeftoria Rd Tucson, AZ 85713

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Reimagine Roofing, LLC 1100 E Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85034

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 July 12, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-07352

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

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

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for July 21, 2023 at 8:30 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.

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 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.

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, Gregory Johndrow Gregory Johndrow, Investigator #195 (520) 628-6896 [email redacted] 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 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.

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 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 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 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.

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 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.

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 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Case No.: 2023-07352 Investigator: Greg Johndrow #195 Inspection Date: 7/21/2023 Inspection Time: 8:30AM

Complainant: William Edelstein Respondent: Reimagine Roofing LLC

Overview of project: Roof Replacement General Notes: Site inspection was performed on this date and time. The respondent was not present for this inspection. Photos taken with agency issued Canon PowerShot ELPH180. Audio recorded with agency issued Olympus recorder.

Complaint Item 1: “City of Tucson permit not pulled for changing roofing material/type per contract” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. No permit has been obtained for this project, as required by the City of Tucson Building Department, for the type of work performed. The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive. If the local jurisdiction finds corrective issues relating to the respondent’s work, the respondent will be required to correct those issues by appropriate means. The respondent is required to submit a copy of the approved inspection results to the ROC Investigator. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Complaint Item 2: “Manufacturer’s warranty (GAF 20 year NDL) not obtained due to failed inspection per contract” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The manufacturer’s warranty has not been provided per contract due to the deficiencies identified by the manufacturer during the manufacturer’s site inspection. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 3: “Operable skylights not installed per contract” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Operable skylights have not been installed as specified in the contract. Reference Pictures: 3-5 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 4: “Delamination of base fabric from decking in field” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the areas of inadequate adhesion of the base fabric in the field areas located throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 6-9 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.

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes 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: “Air pockets/delamination around mechanical fasteners spanning entire field of roof” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the mechanical fasteners. This condition was noted throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 17-18 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 7: “Air pockets/delamination around drip edge fasteners” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the fasteners for the drip edge metal. The condition was noted throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 19-21 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 8: “Air pockets/delamination where drip edge meets roof base” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate installation and adhesion of the drip edge metal against the roof base / deck. It was also noted that the fasteners for the edge metal were not installed according to manufacturer’s installation requirements. Reference Pictures: 22-27 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 9: “Deflection of roofing materials” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the deflection areas of the roofing material. The conditions were located in multiple locations throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 28-31 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 10: “Tiger striping of roof coating” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the conditions noted in multiple areas throughout the roof. The condition presents as a bleed through of a darker color through the applied top coat. Reference Pictures: 32-34 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 11: “Insufficient thickness of roof coating” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Documentation presented by the complainant from the manufacturer shows inadequate mill thickness of the finish coat. 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 12: “Poor application of base coat fabric wrinkled, lifting, fishmouthing, delaminated, and/or folded in numerous areas”

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 35-41 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 13: “Evidence of standing water due to poor installation of decking over iso board” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions in multiple locations located throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 42-44 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 14: “Overspray onto eaves and rafters” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant point it out and showed me the overspray on the eaves and rafters. Reference Pictures: 45-49 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 15: “Damaged counter flashing during removal of old roof not replaced” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the damaged counter flashing, which has not been replaced or repaired. Reference Pictures: 50-53 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 16: “L metal flashing not installed according to common practice” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. L metal flashing has not been properly secured to the wall or sealed at the ends. Reference Pictures: 54-54 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 17: “Unsightly chimney flashing” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out the unsightly and inadequate flashing installed around the chimney. Reference Pictures: 56-60 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 18: “Chimney flashing not installed according to common practice” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The unsightly and inadequately installed flashing around the chimney does not meet industry standard. Reference Pictures: 56-60 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.

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Reference Pictures: 61-65 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 20: “Replacement cricket on chimney improperly sized” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108. The installed cricket will divert water around the chimney. Reference Pictures: 66 Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 21: “Crickets missing from three skylights according to code” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are no crickets installed on the 2’x4’ skylights as required by code for this type of installation. Reference Pictures: 42-43 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code... 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 22: “Drip edge factory paint coating damaged/removed (scraped off by workers after install in various areas across entire length of drip edge)” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof. Reference Pictures: 67-72 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 23: “Drip edge overlap not installed to code” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drip edge overlap does not meet the minimum code requirement. Reference Pictures: 72-73 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code... 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 24: “Drip edge leaving exposed wood” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me a section of the drip edge which did not cover completely, leaving exposed wood. The location was noted on the back of the carport. Reference Pictures: 77 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 25: “Wavy” and oil-canned visual drip edge” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the described conditions in multiple locations on the drip edge. Reference Pictures: 80-84 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 Complaint Item 26: “Landscape plants damaged by workers cleaning tools onto plants, overspray, and installation of roofing products” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. Reference Pictures: 85,113,115 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 27: “Landscape hardscape damaged by various roof application materials spilled onto bricks and rocks” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. Reference Pictures: 86-101, 108-114 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 28: “Coax cord embedded in top coat” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. Reference Pictures: 74-76 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 29: “Screw protrusions through eaves in various spots” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. Reference Pictures: 116-118, 121-126 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 30: “Replacement wood not installed with edge detail in spots” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. The chamfer edge detail was left off some of the wood trim replacements. Reference Pictures: 102-107 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 31: “Replacement wood improperly installed to eave” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. The unpainted 2x4 material used on the underside of the eaves is inadequately installed. Reference Pictures: 119-120 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 32: “Concern with scope of solution needed for remedying defects” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Complainant: William Edelstein 2921 S Jeftoria Rd Tucson, AZ 85713

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Reimagine Roofing LLC 1100 E Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85034

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Reimagine Roofing LLC PO Box 45499 Phoenix, AZ 85064

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 July 28, 2023

License No. ROC 332022

Re: Complaint No. 2023-07352

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 August 14, 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.

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

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 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 3: “Operable skylights not installed per contract” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Operable skylights have not been installed as specified in the contract. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 4: “Delamination of base fabric from decking in field” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the areas of inadequate adhesion of the base fabric in the field areas located throughout the roof. 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: “Widespread debris under roof coating causing sharp protrusions, air pockets, and unsightliness” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions throughout the roof. 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: “Air pockets/delamination around mechanical fasteners spanning entire field of roof” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the mechanical fasteners. This condition was noted throughout the roof. 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 7: “Air pockets/delamination around drip edge fasteners” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the fasteners for the drip edge metal. The condition was noted throughout the roof. 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.

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 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 9: “Deflection of roofing materials” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the deflection areas of the roofing material. The conditions were located in multiple locations throughout the roof. 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 10: “Tiger striping of roof coating” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the conditions noted in multiple areas throughout the roof. The condition presents as a bleed through of a darker color through the applied top coat. 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 12: “Poor application of base coat fabric wrinkled, lifting, fishmouthing, delaminated, and/or folded in numerous areas” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof. 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 13: “Evidence of standing water due to poor installation of decking over iso board” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions in multiple locations located throughout the roof. 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 14: “Overspray onto eaves and rafters” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant point it out and showed me the overspray on the eaves and rafters. 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. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Complaint Item 15: “Damaged counter flashing during removal of old roof not replaced” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the damaged counter flashing, which has not been replaced or repaired. 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 16: “L metal flashing not installed according to common practice” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. L metal flashing has not been properly secured to the wall or sealed at the ends. 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 17: “Unsightly chimney flashing” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out the unsightly and inadequate flashing installed around the chimney. 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 18: “Chimney flashing not installed according to common practice” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The unsightly and inadequately installed flashing around the chimney does not meet industry standard. 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 19: “Paint on chimney sandstone bricks” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed paint on the sandstone bricks around the chimney. 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 21: “Crickets missing from three skylights according to code” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are no crickets installed on the 2’x4’ skylights as required by code for this type of installation. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code... 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 22: “Drip edge factory paint coating damaged/removed (scraped off by workers after install in various areas across entire length of drip edge)”

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof. 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 23: “Drip edge overlap not installed to code” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drip edge overlap does not meet the minimum code requirement. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code... 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 24: “Drip edge leaving exposed wood” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me a section of the drip edge which did not cover completely, leaving exposed wood. The location was noted on the back of the carport. 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 25: “Wavy” and oil-canned visual drip edge” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the described conditions in multiple locations on the drip edge. 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 26: “Landscape plants damaged by workers cleaning tools onto plants, overspray, and installation of roofing products” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. 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 27: “Landscape hardscape damaged by various roof application materials spilled onto bricks and rocks” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. 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 28: “Coax cord embedded in top coat”

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. 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 29: “Screw protrusions through eaves in various spots” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. 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 30: “Replacement wood not installed with edge detail in spots” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. The chamfer edge detail was left off some of the wood trim replacements. 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.

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

Sincerely,

Gregory Johndrow Gregory Johndrow, Investigator #195 (520) 628-6896 [email redacted] 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

CC: 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 Picture 1 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-07352 Date: 7/21/2023 Address: 2921 S. Jeftoria Rd; Tucson, AZ 85713 Picture 2 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-07352 Date: 7/21/2023 Address: 2921 S. Jeftoria Rd; Tucson, AZ 85713 Picture 3 Jobsite Inspection Photos