2023A-08472-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-08472-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-01

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Ricardo B Murrieta , Case No. 2023-08472 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-08472-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Val Val Construction LLC License No. ROC 328123,

RESPONDENT.

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

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

December 18, 2023 9:00 AM Amy Haley 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 October 20, 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)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158

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 November 2, 2023.

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

Respondent(s) Val Val Construction LLC 5010 E 17th St Tucson, AZ 85711 Complainant(s) Ricardo B Murrieta 1250 W Allegheny St Tucson, AZ 85705 Bernardo M. Velasco, Esq. 259 N Meyer Ave Tucson, AZ 85701

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 Complainant’s Attorney at email address of record with Registrar

Case No. 2023-08472 /

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: Ricardo B Murrieta 1250 W Allegheny Street Tucson, AZ 85705

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: Val Val Construction LLC 5010 E 17th St Tucson, AZ 85711

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

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 August 2, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-08472

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

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

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for September 14, 2023 at 9:30 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 8/7/23, 8:34 AM State of Arizona Mail - AZ ROC Case 2023-08472

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

AZ ROC Case 2023-08472 Ramon Valdez <[email redacted]> Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:43 PM To: [email redacted]

Mr Johndrow, here is a quick response to the Murrieta Fam. Just to inform you that Rick Murrieta filed this complaint after I hired legal representation seeking a $14,600 balance. This is 3 months after I had completed the project. Most of all the changes to plans were requested by him or approved my him. I am in shock to the lies Mr. Murrieta had mentioned . If there is anything I need to correct, I am 100% willing to do so. But Mr Murrieta has not paid me in full yet.

Ramon Valdez Val Val Construction

attachments Response Murrieta page 1.pdf 1434K Response Murrieta page 2 .pdf 1413K Response Murrieta page 3.pdf 1357K Truss calcs Murrieta .pdf 225K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 X01

X01 X03

X02 X02

X03 X01 X01

X04 8'-0"

X02

XC X02

A RECEIVED FOR RECORDS X03 X03 P22BP03715 T2-REV1 A01 10/24/2022 AA6577 C C A02 1. All construction shall comply with the International Residential Code (IRC) 2018 and Pima County local A03 Amendments. A04

A05

VAL VAL CONST A06

A07

MURRIETA RESIDENCE A08

A09

A10

B11 FIELD FRAME THIS OVERHANG

B10 B AC UNIT C01

B09

B08 C02 B07 D C03 B06 C04 JOB B05 P22-0650 C05 B04

B03

1250 W ALLEGHENY ST B02

C C B01

TUCSON AZ X03 X03 A 2X8 FRAMING TRUSS LAYOUT

X02 XC

X02 8'-0"

A LUS26

X01 X01 B HUS26 X04

X03 X03 X02 X01

X02

X01

C THJU26

D SUL26 9/14/23, 5:05 PM Complaint number 2023–08472 additional items on contractor complaint. - [email redacted]

Subject: Complaint number 2023–08472 additional items on contractor complaint. Rick Murrieta <[email redacted]> Thu, Sep 7, 1:33 PM (7 days ago) to gregory.johndrow

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

Fuse box, wrong circuit boards, plans, call for a 30 amp 20 amp were installed Leak in garage from master bath shower Electrical box in garage behind water, faucet and shower of master bath. Water lines wirsbo appear to be yellow, discoloration and sun rotted in attic,dates on the water lines 2017- 2019 (not acceptable for new build)Door bell not working correctly. Kitchen cabinets shelf not added doors to boxes out of alignment, and hardware not properly drilled. Guest bath, vanity drawers do not close properly. ,aster bath light switch not functioning correctly. It is noticeable that toe kick along boxes in kitchen and master bath are bowed, and not properly installed. Thresh hold in front door needed adjustment.(light coming through bottom of door.) Sliding glass door in dining room needed adjustment. Call stem wall in garage as noted in plans. Pavers are stained by mortar not cleaned properly. (Motor wash.) pavers not tempt after grading was done. Garage door did not work properly. Garage guy had to return for adjustment,lights are not as noted on plan wiring to lights are on opposite side as doors open. Placement of front beam on porch column is not built to plan scale. Water bib located on north west corner of home was left too far out.(contractor was notified about this and refused to, correct) On April 7, 2023, Contractor requested final payment and would not call for final inspection. My wife and I made a decision to call for final inspection. The items that are listed were discussed with Contractor ,but he refused to fix or correct any of these mistakes. Contractor said would pass inspection as is. Final inspection did not pass repairs were needed in Oder to pass final.

Sent from my iPad

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/popout?ver=1c1fj0t6u2uj&msg=%23msg-f%3A1777055558528568214&attid=0.1 1/1 Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Case No.: 2023-08472 Investigator: Greg Johndrow #195 Inspection Date: 9/14/2023 Inspection Time: 9:30AM

Complainant: Ricardo Murrieta Respondent: Val Val Construction LLC

Overview of project: New residence General Notes: The site inspection was performed on this date and time with both parties present. In attendance with the complainant was Ida Marietta (spouse) and present for the respondent was Ramon Valdez. The respondent explained, at this inspection, there is no written contract or written change orders for this project. Photos taken with agency issued Canon PowerShot ELPH180. Audio recorded with agency issued Olympus recorder.

Complaint Item 1: “House has one coat of wrong color paint.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. There are no specifications for the Paint color and I am unable to determine the amount of paint that was applied to the wall surface. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 2: “Pop outs are all wrong.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The parties have a conflicting verbal disagreement regarding this allegation and I am unable to make a determination if the work was accepted or not, by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 3: “Square frames stucco column way too big.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The column constructed at the front entry does not match the specifications of the building plans. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 4: “Floor in garage same as finish floor, should be 4” lower and no slope.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The garage floor was poured at the same elevation as the interior of the house and there is no slope. The conditions do not match the specification of the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 5: “Depress floor for garage doors not wide enough.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The depressed area of the garage floor, at the garage entrance, is not wide enough to accommodate the garage door track and has resulted in the garage doors being installed on the interior floor elevation. 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)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 7: “Replace 10 broken roof tiles that were broken.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 8: “Cocked or sealed exposed nails on ridge barrels on the roof.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 9: “Nail and secure some shifted tiles on roof.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 10: “Plans call for 5 hose bids, only two were installed and had to replace one.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. I observed only two hose bibs have been placed on the exterior of the house. This does not meet the building plan specifications. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 11: “Low water pressure throughout house.” 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 water was turned off to the house at the time of this inspection. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 13: “Septic tank pipe connected wrong. Had to call a licensed plumber to fix problem.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 14: “Pipe sticking out of the north side of House, don’t know what it’s for. Not in plans.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A gas line was stubbed out and capped on the north side wall of the residence. This was not specified on the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 15: “Gas pipe did not have a cap.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 16: “Relief water pipe from heater goes into garage, then into wall. Should all be inside wall.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drain line from the water heater drain pan has been routed through the path of the doorway opening. 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: “Past inspection with wrong insulation. He then changed what owner could see.” 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 complainant was unable to point out the conditions at the time of the inspection. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 18: “Vents in garage were opened where bugs could come in.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 19: “Plans asked for gas heater, contractor suggested electric heater because tile was already installed.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complainant stated he accepted the electric water heater. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 20: “Did not install fluorescent lights in garage and laundry room.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The light fixtures installed in the garage and laundry room do not match the specification of the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 21: “Took upon himself to select fan and lights in front porch.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to verify a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The complainant has no specifications for the fan or the light. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 22: “Failed final inspection, needed 5 GFI ‘s for bathrooms, laundry room and kitchen.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 23: “Had to hire a floor professional cleaning company to clean floors.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 24: “Counter in Master Bath only 17” instead of 22”. Sink barely fit.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The countertop in the master bathroom does not match the specifications of the building plan. RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 25: “Only one air vent in a hallway for AC, should be 2 air vents.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The hallway received one air return for the HVAC system. This. Does not match the building plan, which calls out for two air returns. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 26: “AC and furnace were wired incorrectly. Has to have it corrected. Have no written warranties for them. ” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 27: “Pavers were installed incorrectly. No tamping or sand underneath pavers just graded.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The Pavers in the driveway outside of the garage were observed to have settled in multiple areas. This has resulted in the pavers being uneven, wavy in appearance and broken in some locations. 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: “Wrong color paint was used inside house. Hired someone else to repaint inside house.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 29: “Had to replace two door handles that were broken and adjust self closing door in laundry room.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 30: “Plug for RV was upside down.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 31: “Master bedroom, too big 16 inches.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The master bedroom was not constructed to the size of the specifications in the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 32: “Bedroom number two, too small 20 inches.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Bedroom 2 was not constructed to the size of the specifications in the building plan.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 33: “Dining room and kitchen 8 inches to small.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The dining room and kitchen were not constructed to the size of the specifications in the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 34: “Hallway 8 inches, too wide.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The hallway was not constructed to the size of the specifications in the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 35: “No doors in water heater room.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. No doors have been installed on the water heater closet. Doors are specified in the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 36: “Door in storage room in garage opens opposite way.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. These storage room door has been hinged on the wrong side and swings in the wrong direction. This does not match the specification of the building plan. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 37: “Both doors and laundry room opened the wrong way.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The doors in the laundry room were not installed according to the specification of the building plans. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 38: “Linen closet has regular door should be cabinet doors.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The linen closet door was not installed according to the specifications of the building plans. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 39: “Oven / microwave combo did not fit correctly in cabinet and was wired incorrectly. Also too high of cabinet. ” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

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 41: “Vent above stove was not installed in wired properly.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 42: “All door handles were installed upside down and took it upon himself to select door handles.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 43: “Floor tiles throughout the house improperly installed. keep tripping.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Tile lippage exceeding the allowable tolerance was observed in multiple locations of the living room, kitchen and dining room. The locations were marked with tape by the complainant. 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 44: “Tile in both bathroom showers did not put cuts, grouted solid. ” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Both bathrooms have unsightly tile cuts around the perimeter edges, the condition has resulted in uneven grout joints. Additionally, small pieces of tile were omitted and the space was filed with grout. 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 45: “No key for sliding door in living room.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 46: “Master bedroom bath - plug to sink does not close.” Investigator’s Observations: Conditions described are present; however, not verified as the responsibility of this respondent. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 47: “Install cable to TV and Internet without consulting us. (on wall)” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The complained it has no specifications for this allegation. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 48: “Allowing only $4,250.00 for countertops, not in the budget.” 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

Complaint Item 49: “Damage concrete bench and brand new mailbox.”

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The conditions were not on site at the time of this inspection. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 50: “Didn’t want owner to be present when inspector was at residence.” 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

Complaint Item 51: “Told his employees not to talk to homeowner.” 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

Complaint Item 52: “Fuse box, wrong circuit boards, plans, call for a 30 amp 20 amp were installed” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 53: “Leak in garage from master bath shower” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The water to the residence was turned off at the time of this inspection. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 54: “Electrical box in garage behind water, faucet and shower of master bath.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 55: “Water lines wirsbo appear to be yellow, discoloration and sun rotted in attic, dates on the water lines 2017- 2019 (not acceptable for new build)” 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. I am unable to determine the age of the plumbing lines. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 56: “Door bell not working correctly.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item has been corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 57: “Kitchen cabinets shelf not added doors to boxes out of alignment, and hardware not properly drilled.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate of complaint item 40. 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 58: “Guest bath, vanity drawers do not close properly.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The top drawer on the guest bath vanity does not operate correctly. RCC100 11/14

Complaint Item 59: “Master bath light switch not functioning correctly.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. At the time of this inspection, the light switch functioned correctly. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 60: “It is noticeable that toe kick along boxes in kitchen and master bath are bowed, and not properly installed.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Duplicate of complaint item 40. Master bath toe kick was not pointed out to me at the time of this inspection. 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 61: “Thresh hold in front door needed adjustment.(light coming through bottom of door.)” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 62: “Sliding glass door in dining room needed adjustment.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 63: “Call stem wall in garage as noted in plans.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The stem wall of the garage does not follow the specifications listed in the building plans. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 64: “Pavers are stained by mortar not cleaned properly. (Motor wash.) pavers not tempt after grading was done.” Investigator’s Observations: Conditions described are present; however, not verified as the responsibility of this respondent. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 65: “Garage door did not work properly. Garage guy had to return for adjustment” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 66: “lights are not as noted on plan wiring to lights are on opposite side as doors open.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. The alleged conditions were not pointed out to me at the time of this inspection. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 67: “Placement of front beam on porch column is not built to plan scale.” RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The construction of the front porch post and beam are not built according to the building plan specifications. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 68: “Water bib located on north west corner of home was left too far out.(contractor was notified about this and refused to, correct)” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. This item was corrected by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 69: “On April 7, 2023, Contractor requested final payment and would not call for final inspection. My wife and I made a decision to call for final inspection. The items that are listed were discussed with Contractor ,but he refused to fix or correct any of these mistakes. Contractor said would pass inspection as is. Final inspection did not pass repairs were needed in Oder to pass final.” 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

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

Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.

RCC100 11/14

Picture 1 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-08472 Date: 9-14-23 Address: 1250 W. Allegheny St; Tucson, AZ 85705 Picture 2 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-08472 Date: 9-14-23 Address: 1250 W. Allegheny St; Tucson, AZ 85705 Picture 3 Jobsite Inspection Photos