ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-05334-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Gayle Starr,

COMPLAINANT,

James Howard Perdue

DBA: Coconino Roofing Company

License No. ROC 220931,

RESPONDENT.

Nos. 2024A-05334-CHC-ROC

2024A-09314-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 2, 2025

APPEARANCES: Gayle Starr appeared on her own behalf. James Perdue appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of Coconino Roofing Company. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Otero appeared as a witness, as did Rick Stanionis and David Prescott.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

James Howard Perdue, doing business as Coconino Roofing Company (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 220931 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about October 22, 2023, Gayle Starr (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a deck at her home with Trex and railing. The contract was for labor only and the price was $13,900.00.

On or about May 6, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project. The Complaint was assigned Case Number 2024-05334.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero. After a June 6, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated June 12, 2024, in Case Number 2024-05334, that provided as follows:

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 Monday, July 1, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: - Contractor, James Perdue left work site unsafe.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the deck was not safe due to the hand rails not being installed on the deck or the stairs. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Contractor did not secure post or set them securely.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the posts were not secure. The deck was not completed but the posts that were installed were not secured properly. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Contractor did not screw more than 30% of boards left, them loose.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there were some screws installed and some were missing. This took place throughout the entire deck.

The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: - Deck project abandoned by contractor, James perdue, with no notice.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.

Complaint Item: - Contractor, James perdue, did substandard work.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.

Complaint Item: - Work - put new product (trex) over rotted beams that he did not replace.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the original floor joists had some paint missing in area but the tops were covered with the TREX decking product, the sides and the ends of the boards were covered with the newly installed 2x material. The Complainant provided no evidence to support this allegation. No correction is required by the Respondent.

Complaint Item: - I also have transcript of text.

Investigator’s Observation: The allegation does not implicate workmanship issue.

Complaint Item: - Contractor damage some of the product so that I will have to replace product.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore and cannot be evaluated by the ROC.

Complaint Item: - Contractor did poor work, not to code.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed the Complainant failed to demonstrate the complaint item. The deck has not completed and the permit has not been finialed. Once a permit has been inspected by The City of Flagstaff, the inspector will determine if the allegation meets or exceeds minimum workmanship standards. The permit outcome will determine corrections or approval. All required inspections shall be scheduled and passed. Contractor shall perform all work in a professional manner. Completed project must comply with original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufactures installation instructions.

Complaint Item: - See photos.

Investigator’s Observation: The allegation does not implicate workmanship issue.

Complaint Item: - He placed new 2x4 boards next to rotted boards without priming, painting, ceiling boards for moisture protection and did

All errors in original.

During the period of the Written Directive, Investigator Otero received email correspondence from both parties concerning negotiations between them. Respondent also indicated in his correspondence that he “could not make the repairs.”

On July 2, 2024, Investigator Otero conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection in Case Number 2024-05334 during which he ascertained that “[n]o work has been done on the written directive and the respondent has not obtained an appropriate license to complete the job.”

Thereafter, Investigator Otero forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On July 19, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation in Case Number 2024-05334 against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(c), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). The Citation did not charge Respondent with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

On August 12, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order (Default) in Case Number 2024-05334, due to Respondent’s failure to file a timely written Answer to the Citation.

On or about August 15, 2024, the Registrar received a second Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project. This Complaint was assigned Case Number 2024-09314.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Otero. After a September 6, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 13, 2024, in Case Number 2024-09314, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Work not done to code, Code violations:

IRCSectionR317.1(6),R507.6.2,R502.8.1,R507.2.3,R301.5,R311.7.7,R703.4#5,3302.1,

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint has been partially verified. During the inspection, multiple code violations were observed, as documented in reports from both the City of Flagstaff and a private structural engineer hired by the complainant. Several issues raised in the complaint had already been addressed in a prior investigation and adjudicated, so no further action is required for those items. The specific items inspected during this visit are listed below. Any newly verified issues that were not part of the previous adjudication will need to be corrected by the respondent, along with the completion of the project. Additionally, any building code deficiencies identified by the City of Flagstaff Building Department or code violations caused by the respondent must be corrected by appropriate means.

The respondent is required to complete the project in accordance with the original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer installation instructions.

Given the number of issues in this complaint, each item has been listed separately below.

It is important to note that the respondent is not currently licensed to perform this type of work. Refer to the restrictions outlined above: "You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license."

Complaint Item: 3 - IRC Section R317.1(6)-Protection of wood and wood based products

Investigator’s Observation: Protection of wood and wood-based products from decay shall be provided in the following locations by the use of naturally durable wood or wood that is preservative-treated in accordance with AWPA U1.

Wood structural members supporting moisture-permeable floors or roofs that are exposed to the weather, such as concrete or masonry slabs, unless separated from such floors or roofs by an impervious moisture barrier.

Trex decking, the manufacturer's installation guidelines, the ICC Evaluation Services report, and the Intertek Evaluation report, indicates it is not a requirement that Trex decking be installed over pressure treated joist lumber. Use of pressure preservative lumber for joists or beams would be required by IRC section R317.1(6) only if joists or beams were replaced.

Verified, At the time of the Inspection it was observed there is a joist that was cut multiple times for unknown reasons but will need attention. If by replacing the joist or any others throughout the remodel, they will need to be code compliant. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - IRC Section R502.8.1- Sawn Lumber

Investigator’s Observation: Notches in solid lumber joists, rafters and beams shall not exceed one-sixth of the depth of the member, shall not be longer than one-third of the depth of the member and shall not be located in the middle one-third of the span. Notches at the ends of the member shall not exceed one-fourth the depth of the member. The tension side of members 4 inches (102 mm) or greater in nominal thickness shall not be notched except at the ends of the members. The diameter of holes bored or cut into members shall not exceed one-third the depth of the member. Holes shall not be closer than 2 inches (51 mm) to the top or bottom of the member, or to any other hole located in the member. Where the member is also notched, the hole shall not be closer than 2 inches (51 mm) to the notch.

Observed on at least 1 joist are vertical relief cuts. Also observed were notches in the top edge of several joists in which notches were cut that exceed the code prescribed maximum of 1/6 of the joist depth per IRC section R502.8.1. These joists must be replaced due to this damage. with SectionR317.3 and Table R507.2.

Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there was a joist that has been mentioned and evaluated many time in the previous inspections that has been requested to meet standards and compliance per City of Flagstaff inspection report quoted in this allegation.

The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - IRC Section R507.2.3-Fasteners and connectors

Investigator’s Observation: Metal fasteners and connectors used for all decks shall be in accordance

Nails used to fasten 2x4s sistered to existing 2x8 joists must be galvanized (or equivalent alternative) per IRC table R507.2.3. Nails must be spaced at 24" on center per IRC table R602.3(1).

Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed on the sistered 2X4s have the wrong fasteners used along with the wrong sized lumber by height and length. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 8 - IRC Section R311.7.7-Stairway Walking surface

Investigator’s Observation: The walking surface of treads and landings of the stairway shall be sloped not steeper than one unit vertical in 48 inches horizontal (2-percent slope).

At the time of the inspection it was verified the staircase is partially removed and unsafe to use since the railing is gone and many fasteners are missing, the staircase is incomplete. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - IRC Section R703.4#5- Flashing,

Investigator’s Observation: R703.4 Flashing

Approved corrosion-resistant flashing shall be applied shingle-fashion in a manner to prevent entry of water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building structural framing components. Self-adhered membranes used as flashing shall comply with AAMA 711. Fluid applied membranes used as flashing in exterior walls shall comply with AAMA 714. The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at the following locations:

Where exterior porches, decks or stairs attach to a wall or floor assembly of wood-frame construction.

Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there was no flashing installed per code and appears flashing was not installed in the initial installation of the deck build. Since the Deck is still incomplete, it will need to be brought up to compliance prior to completion. The

Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10 - IBC-3302.1Alterations, repairs and additions

Investigator’s Observation: 10.IBC-3302.1Alterations, repairs and additions IBC-3302.1Alterations, repairs and additions:

Required exits, existing structural elements, fire protection devices and sanitary safeguards shall be maintained at all times during alterations, repairs or additions to any building or structure.

The City of Flagstaff building department has determined that: “The open perimeter edge of the deck must be protected per IBC section 3302.1 during alteration construction and while the guard rail is being replaced adequate substitute provisions for a guard rail must be provided.”

Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Complaint Item: 16 - Contractor damaged joists with notching and cuts damaging existing joists damaging joists, violating code

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint has been verified. During the inspection, multiple code violations were observed, as documented in reports from both the City of Flagstaff and a private structural engineer hired by the complainant. Additionally, any building code deficiencies identified by the City of Flagstaff Building Department or code violations caused by the respondent must be corrected by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 19 - 7-Stairs damaged and left completely unstable by tearing out nails on one side and no rails

Complaint Item: 20 - Deck dangerous because of joists damaged, made unstable by Contractor to support Trex

Complaint Item: 22 - 10No Galvanized nails used causing one board to fall off

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - R405.2,R312.1.1,R507.2.4, Deck unsafe even for furniture, only 30% screws applied, no flashing, resident structure at risk

Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and a broad allegation, with the complaint being partially verified.

Each listed code violation will be addressed individually with its current status. Some items have already been adjudicated in a previously closed complaint, and the ROC does not reassess duplicate complaint items.

“IEBC R405.2

[BS] 405.2 Repairs to Damaged Buildings

Repairs to damaged buildings shall comply with this section.”

This allegation is noted as a violation in the engineer's report. The City of Flagstaff holds jurisdiction over the deck. Since the city's report does not reference any specific code, no action is required from the respondent at this time.

R312.1.1

R312.1.1 Where Required Guards shall be provided for those portions of open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, ramps and landings, that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard. (this is a duplicate complaint item from Complaint

(This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.)

R507.2.4 Flashing

Flashing shall be corrosion-resistant metal of nominal thickness not less than 0.019 inch (0.48 mm) or approved nonmetallic material that is compatible with the substrate of the structure and the decking materials.

This allegation is listed on the engineers report as a violation. The city of Flagstaff is the authority that has jurisdiction over this deck. Specific reference to the code is not listed on the cities report so no action required by the respondent.

Deck unsafe even for furniture (This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.) “,only 30% screws applied”,(This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.)“ no flashing, resident structure at risk”

This specific allegation is listed below in item number 9 and addressed by the city. No additional action required.

Complaint Item: 4 - IRC Section R507.6.2-Deck Joists

Investigator’s Observation: Joist ends and bearing locations shall be provided with lateral resistance to prevent rotation. Where lateral restraint is provided by joist hangers or blocking between joists, their depth shall equal not less than 60 percent of the joist depth. Where lateral restraint is provided by rim joists, they shall be secured to the end of each joist with not fewer than three 10d (3-inch by 0.128-inch) (76 mm by 3.3 mm) nails or three No. 10 x 3-inch (76 mm) long wood screws.

The City of Flagstaff noted the following:

“A rim board is already provided with existing structure. A rim board of taller depth is not required. Per IRC section R507.6.2, lateral restraint (to prevent rotation of joists) is already provided as required with the 2x8 rim board, as well as blocking between joists on top of the supporting beams. Installation of the Trex facia board over the existing rim board must follow the manufacturer's instructions.”

Unverified. At the time of the Inspection, insufficient evidence was observed since the Complainants representative was unable to demonstrate poor workmanship with the complaint item. All metal brackets/hangers appeared to be intact from the original installation with the proper fasteners. Blocking also appeared to be in place from the original installation.

Complaint Item: 7 - IRC Section R301.5- Live Load

Investigator’s Observation: The Minimum uniformly distributed live load shall be as provide in Table R301.5.

The 4x4 posts to support the deck perimeter guard rail, as they are currently installed, will not Withstand the code prescribed lateral load of 200#, IRC table R301.5. Additionally, the posts are not installed per manufacturer's instructions, here beginning on page 57. As indicated in the manufacturer's instructions, there are several ways to achieve this lateral support. The guard rail is incomplete and non-compliant: guard must be 36" high minimum, the in-fill elements spaced must be maximum 4" apart.

At the time of the inspection it was verified the hand railing and posts were not completed and the posts that are installed do not meet standards. Since this allegation has been adjudicated from the prior complaint there will be no action required at this time.

Complaint Item: 11 - IRC Section R405.2 Wood Foundations

Investigator’s Observation: 11.IEBC Section R405.2

This allegation is noted as a violation in the engineer's report. The City of Flagstaff holds jurisdiction over the deck. Since the city's report does not reference this specific code, no action is required from the respondent at this time.

Complaint Item: 12 - IRC Section R312.1.1

Investigator’s Observation: Guards shall be provided in accordance with Sections R312.1.1 through R312.1.4.

R312.1.1 Where Required Guards shall be provided for those portions of open-sided walking surfaces, including floors, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard.

R312.1.2 Height

Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height as measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface or the line connecting the nosings.

Exceptions:

Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height of not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings.

Where the top of the guard serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) as measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings.

R312.1.3 Opening Limitations

Required guards shall not have openings from the walking surface to the required guard height that allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter.

Exceptions:

The triangular openings at the open side of stair, formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard, shall not allow passage of a sphere 6 inches (153 mm) in diameter. Guards on the open side of stairs shall not have openings that allow passage of a sphere 43/8 inches (111 mm) in diameter.

R312.1.4 Exterior Plastic Composite Guards

Plastic composite exterior guards shall comply with the requirements of Section R317.4. (This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.)

Complaint Item: 13 - IRC Section R507.2.4

Investigator’s Observation: Flashing shall be corrosive-resistant metal of nominal thickness not less than 0.019 inch (0.48mm) or approved non-metallic material that is compatible with the substrate of the structure and the decking materials.

Complaint Item: 14 - Contractor walked oft job, Did poor work, not to code, damaged deck Trex materials that now need to be replace

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item cannot be inspected or addressed during a job site inspection and is provided for informational purposes only.

Complaint Item: 15 - Contractor violated code sections: R317.1(6), R507.6.2, R502.8.1, R507.2.3, R602.3(1), R301.5, R311.7.7 3. R703.4#5.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a duplicate of complaint item 3

Complaint Item: 17 - Contractor "planed" boards by hacking with a hammer like tool, not using a planing tool, damaging joists

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the complainants representative had insufficient evidence to prove complaint item specifically, it was demonstrated other joists that had been sistered and damaged that were to be repaired based on the information from the reports given. Therefore this item will not be required for the respondent to correct since it is covered in other corrections in the Written Directive.

Complaint Item: 18 - Deck posts highly unstable, not tied into deck, cannot hold 200 lbs, violating code

Investigator’s Observation: (This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.)

Complaint Item: 21 - No flasing where deck connects to house, damage to residence at risk

Investigator’s Observation: The alleged violation has been addressed in item #9 above. The claim of damage to the building remains unverified. This project involves remodeling an existing deck. While flashing is now required, it was not installed on the original deck. Any reported damage is likely preexisting.

Complaint Item: 23 - Not enough nails used, only 30% of deck boards screwed down - Unstable even for deck furniture

Investigator’s Observation: (This is a duplicate complaint from Complaint 2024-05334, which has already been investigated and resolved.)

All errors in original.

After the expiration of this Written Directive, Investigator Otero ascertained that Respondent had not performed any of the required corrective work.

Thereafter, Investigator Otero forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On October 4, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation in Case Number 2024-09314 against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a) and (b), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

The collective testimony of the parties and Investigator Otero established that on or about September 19, 2024, Respondent requested that the Registrar set aside the Default Order in Case Number 2024-05334, and that on or about November 6, 2024, the Registrar granted Respondent’s request. The Registrar thereafter consolidated Case Numbers 2024-05334 and 2024-09314, and on December 2, 2024, issued the Notice of Hearing for the consolidated matters.

The Notice of Hearing sets forth the following charges:

Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(c)

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Because the Registrar did not charge Respondent with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), the Administrative Law Judge cannot find a violation of this statutory provision. The Registrar also did not charge Respondent with contracting beyond the scope of its license.

At hearing, Investigator Otero testified consistently with the Findings of Fact as set forth above. Investigator Otero testified that any code violations were within the jurisdiction of the local building municipality and that the Registrar “does not enforce code.”

Investigator Otero testified that the job was “clearly abandoned” and there was no compliance with either Written Directive.

Investigator Otero testified that the Notice of Hearing should have contained a charge of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(b), not A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(c), as Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(c). Investigator Otero explained that there was a “glitch” in the Registrar’s computer system, and he did not realize that the charge was erroneously noticed.

Complainant testified that she has known Mr. Perdue for 30 years and that he has done work for her over the years without issue. Complainant asserted that she believed because Mr. Perdue was licensed, that he “could do anything.”

Complainant testified that the parties’ agreement was that Mr. Perdue would provide labor and she was to pay for materials separately.

Complainant testified that on May 6, 2024, she had discovered that on April 25, 2024, Respondent abandoned the project. On May 8, 2024, Complainant received an email from Mr. Perdue stating that he was “abandoning” the project “because [Complainant] was argumentative.”

Rick Stanionis, a Supervisor with the City of Flagstaff Building Department, testified at hearing. Mr. Stanionis testified that he “could not speak to workmanship, as the City of Flagstaff is charged with enforcing building codes. However, Mr. Stanionis testified that Respondent did not comply with the building codes in the construction of the deck. Mr. Stanionis testified regarding a July 12, 2024 inspection performed by the City of Flagstaff that found numerous code deficiencies, including that damaged joists needed to be replaced, incorrect nails were used and not properly spaced, the guardrail is not code compliant, however, it is incomplete, the landing must be replaced, and the stairs were not safe for construction purposes, among other items of deficiency.

David Prescott testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Prescott testified regarding his background and experience in the construction industry. Mr. Prescott testified that the joists were rotting and not code compliant, that two-thirds of the screws were missing, that the posts were improperly installed as they are “wobbly,” there was no railing installed, and the stringers for the stairs were not properly attached. Mr. Prescott asserted that it would be dangerous to use the stairs because they are not attached to the fascia. Mr. Prescott testified that the project is incomplete and Respondent abandoned it.

Mr. Perdue testified that Complainant did not have a contract with Coconino Roofing. Mr. Perdue asserted that he contracted individually with Complainant for this project and that when he left the project, the deck was ninety percent installed. Although Mr. Perdue further acknowledged that the deck did not have a railing or stairs, and the nailing was only fifty percent complete. Therefore, the deck was incomplete.

Mr. Perdue contended that he did not comply with the Written Directives because Complainant “interfered,” and he “does not think he should be here.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 16, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 220931 was first issued on June 9, 2006, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that Case Number 2024-09314 is the only open complaint, there are no resolved/settled complaints, and that Case Number 2024-05334 resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license with a closure date of August 21, 2024.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is: “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

The evidence of record established that Respondent failed to complete the project and abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence of record failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(c), as the City of Flagstaff has adopted building codes applicable to Respondent’s work. Therefore, this Administrative Code section is inapplicable to the instant matter and Investigator Otero testified that it was improperly noticed.

The evidence of record established that Respondent did not complete the required corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directives. Respondent’s arguments that it did not comply with the Written Directives because Complainant became argumentative or attempted to interfere are not persuasive. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes, based on the evidence of record, that valid justification did not exist for Respondent’s failure to comply with the Written Directives and consequently, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following Written Directives from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 220931 for a period of seven (7) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, January 17, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Gayle Starr

[email redacted]

James Howard Perdue

Coconino Roofing Company

[email redacted]

Daniel Otero

ROC Investigator

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff