ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-05808-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Richard Busch,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Pro Power Painting And Restoration LLC
License No. ROC 315211,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-05808-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 13, 2025 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Richard Busch, Complainant; Kyle Polansky, on behalf of Respondent; Cliff Corlett, Registrar of Contractor Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractor Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”), Complainant Exhibits 1 – 5, Respondent Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pro Power Painting and Restoration, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 315211 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about January 26, 2024, Richard Busch (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new paint job over the stucco covering the residential home and the recreational vehicle garage located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. The total contract amount was $7,800.00 and the work started on May 6, 2024. Between May 17 and May 19, a team lead from Respondent conducted a walk-through with Complainant. A few items were fixed as a result of the walkthrough. However, the work was not done to Complainant’s expectations. The work stopped on May 20, 2024.
On or about May 20, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
On June 11, 2024, Complainant added an addendum to the initial Complaint.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett (“Investigator”). A jobsite inspection was scheduled on July 2, 2024 with both parties present. After the jobsite inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent on July 22, 2024 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 or before August 9, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Front of House – Upper Garage
1. Front Eaves - No preparation. Visible cracks in wood lacking caulk and lacking paint in several areas. Previous color also appears to be bleeding through dark color.
Investigator’s Observation:
ROC: The length of this complaint would appear to indicate that this is an extremely poor paint job. To the contrary this appears to be a fairly typical paint job on stucco and existing, weathered wood fascia that needs some general touch-up of the caulking and paint around the entire house and garage. There are areas around the house that require additional work. Unable to verify “No Preparation”. Additional caulking, and paint needed. Some trim wood paint appears to be blistering. There is some overspray and masking clean-up needed around the house. There is some paint drips and there is some cleaning damage to RV garage doors.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 - Trim boards – No preparation. There are visible holes and cracks lacking caulk and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Complaint Item: 3 - Peak of front trim boards – obvious gaps – no preparation. Old paint bleeding through and paint has already begun to peel.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 - Right front trim board – no preparation. Holes not filled with caulk. Lacking paint, old Paint bleeding through.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 5 - Right front flashing. Lacking paint. Metal is visible.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 - Metal flashing below wrought iron on upper garage and at roof line. Lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 15 - Base of rail. – Base plate – lacks paint. Old color showing through.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 19 - Trim wood inside front patio – No preparation. Visible nail holes, cracks & Gaps, lacks caulking and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 20 - Metal flashing at roof line – obvious scratches not painted.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 25 - Flashing at roofline – Appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 27 -New patio doors. - Drip lines and paint on doorframe.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 28 - New windows – Drip lines and paint on doorframe.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 29 - Trim boards & Eaves inside patio – No preparation. Several cracks and gaps and holes. Missing caulking and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 30 - New electrical outlet covers – Obvious overspray.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 33 - Right side of door/ gate opening – Appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 34 -Dripping on concrete patio.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 35 - Side East Trim Boards – No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks. Nail Holes are not filled with Caulk and also lack paint. Paint already bubbling and ready to peel.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 36 - Eaves – No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks and nail holes. No caulk was applied and appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 37 - Flashing at roof line – Appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 42 - Trim Boards - No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks. Nail Holes are not filled with Caulk. Also appears to be lacking paint. Paint already bubbling and ready to peel.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 43 - Metal Flashing – appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 44 - Trim boards under flashing – lacking / uneven paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 45 - Eaves – Appear to be lacking in paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 46 - House Rear Trim Boards (Outside patio) – No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks. Nail holes are not filled with caulk. Also appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 47 - Eaves - – No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks are not filled with caulk. Also appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 50 - Metal Flashing at roofline – Appears to be lacking on paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 51 - East Pony wall – Brown Overspray.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 52 - New Kitchen Window – Obvious overspray & drip marks.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 54 - House Rear West. New primary bath window – Obvious overspray & paint drip marks.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 55 - Back gate – Obvious overspray. Appears painting crew tried to clean overspray and removed paint in several areas.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 56 - Eaves – Wood not prepped. Nail holes not filled.
Appears to be lacking in paint in several areas.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 58 - Trim Boards – no preparation. Lacking paint in some areas. Paint is beginning to bubble and flake.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 61 - Master Trim: Trim Boards - No Preparation. Visible gaps and cracks. Nail Holes are not filled with Caulk. Also appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 62 - Eaves – Wood not prepped. Nail holes not filled.
Appears to be lacking in paint in several areas.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 63 - New slider – obvious overspray and paint drips on frame & glass.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 64 - Garage Deck: Trim Boards - No Preparation. Visible gaps, nail holes not filled and visible cracks are not filled with Caulk. Also appears to be lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 65 - Eaves – No Preparation – Visible gaps and cracks.
Paint appears to be lacking and uneven.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 66 - Stucco at the base of walls of garage deck – Appears uneven and lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 67 - Wrought Iron on patio deck – overspray everywhere (west side / east side & handrails).
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 68 - South lower wall of garage deck – Painter applied caulking over paint and did not re-cover in paint.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 69 - Lower Garage West Side. Wall paint uneven throughout this entire area. Paint appears uneven and lacking.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 70 - Obvious cracks and gaps everywhere – Lacking preparation, caulking and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 71 - Metal flashings lacking paint. And # 72. Obvious staining under drain spouts- Lacking proper paint coverage.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 76 - Light Fixture – Obvious Overspray.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 77 - Driveway Concrete – Paint Overspray and drips left to damage new concrete.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 78 - Steel Garage doors – Obvious overspray all over the face of the door.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 79 - Steel Garage doors – Painting crew used something abrasive to try and clean door scraping the paint off down to the metal, placing the owner’s lifetime warranty at risk. Manufacturer has specific guidelines to correct damage or warranty will be null and void to the owners.
Investigator’s Observation: ROC: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 80 - Upper Den Patio. Eaves where camera was installed
– Camera area was not properly taped. Lacks paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 81 - Slider door – Obvious overspray and paint drips on frame & glass.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 82 - Eaves surrounding patio – No prep work. Obvious gaps and cracks with no caulking and lacking paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 83 -Wrought iron – Obvious over spray throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: Allegation Confirmed, see # 1.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
. . . .
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent made many repairs on the project. Investigator granted an extension to September 5, 2024 and a second extension was granted with a new deadline date of September 19, 2024.
A compliance jobsite inspection was held on October 15, 2024 with both parties present. Investigator produced compliance notes which found that 34 items in the Written Directive were corrected except these 18 items listed below:
Complaint Item 27 Complaint Item 28
Complaint Item 30 Complaint Item 33
Complaint Item 34 Complaint Item 35
Complaint Item 42 Complaint Item 52
Complaint Item 54 Complaint Item 55
Complaint Item 63 Complaint Item 67
Complaint Item 76 Complaint Item 77
Complaint Item 78 Complaint Item 79
Complaint Item 81 Complaint Item 83
In addition, Investigator found that Respondent was not in compliance due to these outstanding 18 issues. The Investigator’s Jobsite General Notes held:
Respondent has returned to this project and addressed the majority of the Written Directive items. The issues remaining are primarily overspray, drips, masking residue on windows and wrought iron and the unfinished repaint of the garage doors.
Furthermore, Investigator’s Initial Observation states:
The length of this complaint would appear to indicate that this is an extremely poor paint job. To the contrary this appears to be a fairly typical paint job on stucco and existing, weathered wood fascia that needs general touch-up of caulking and paint around the entire house and garage.
There are areas around the house that require additional work. Additional caulking, and paint. Some trim wood paint appears to be blistering. There is some overspray and masking clean-up needed around the house. There is some paint drips and there is some damage to RV garage doors.
On October 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
HEARING EVIDENCE
Investigator Corlett testified and believed strongly that Respondent’s paint job on this project was a standard paint job which was reiterated in the Written Directive and subsequently the compliance jobsite inspection notes.
Complainant testified that there were many delays on the project and that Kyle Polansky was not available and difficult to communicate with on this project. At one point, Mr. Polansky accused Complainant of denying him access to the property. Complainant denied this accusation. Complainant admitted that he was at a doctor’s appointment on September 12, 2024 from 8:00am to 11:00am and during this time there was no access to the residence. In addition, Complainant testified that he received five different bids for this paint job and that all of the contractors told him they could work with or repair the fascia for the paint to properly adhere to its surface.
Mr. Polansky testified that much of the masking/dripping of paint items was because Respondent could not get back onto the property in time and that delay in time and access created the issue. In addition, Mr. Polansky testified that parts of the fascia on the project was old and that a company “can only do so much,” with old wood fascia.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 13, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 315211 was first issued in 2017, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint which is the current matter at issue in this hearing.
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.”
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent did make sincere attempts to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued, however, there were still 18 items that were outstanding and not properly addressed prior to the September 19, 2024 deadline. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 No. ROC 315211 for a period of one (1) day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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 29, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Pro Power Painting And Restoration LLC
3925 Breakwater Ln
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
[email redacted]
Richard Busch
1851 Cabana Dr
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86404
[email redacted]
Cliff Corlett
Registrar of Contractors
1845 McCulloch Boulevard, Suite B-5
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff