ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07799-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Windy Jones,

COMPLAINANT

Crested Construction Company

License No. ROC 328766,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-07799-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 10, 2025

APPEARANCES: Jeffrey S. Koppelmaa, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant Windy Jones. Thomas Brennan appeared on behalf of Respondent Crested Construction Company. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jim Dimond appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A-D were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Crested Construction Company. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 328766 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 13, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to perform construct a motel in Jerome, Arizona.

On or about July 10, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. The jobsite inspection was performed on July 25, 2024.

Investigator Dimond then issued a Written Directive on or about December 3, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, December 27, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Incomplete correction list from Jerome Inspector; issued 12/20/2023

Investigator’s Observation: As of this writing most of the issues have been corrected however the engineering for the lower floor trusses does not appear to have been provided as of yet.

The respondent is to provide the engineering to both the Jerome inspector and this investigator in an appropriate manner

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 4 - Water intrusion through side block walls

Investigator’s Observation: A water test confirmed this issue.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Threshold is bowing on unused new slider

Investigator’s Observation: This is as stated.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Complaint Item: 8 - Trusses changed from plans without approval from project's engineer/architect

Investigator’s Observation: The respondent it to obtain an as-built approval from the engineer and provide it to the Jerome Inspector and this investigator in an appropriate manner

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)...

On January 10, 2025, Investigator Dimond conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection, and provided the following findings, in pertinent part:

Complaint Item: 3 - Incomplete correction list from Jerome Inspector; issued 12/20/2023

Investigator’s Initial Observation: As of this writing most of the issues have been corrected however the engineering for the lower floor trusses does not appear to have been provided as of yet.

The respondent is to provide the engineering to both the Jerome inspector and this investigator in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation:

X CORRECTED NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - Water intrusion through side block walls

Investigator’s Initial Observation: A water test confirmed this issue.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: A water test was conducted on the west wall and water seeped through the block and exited at the baseplate.

The block walls likely need sealed. The respondent did perform some work on the mortar joints however that work is poorly done and there is excess mortar on the ground on the east side that needs cleaned up.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 7 - Threshold is bowing on unused new slider

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This is as stated.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation:

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

X CORRECTED NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 8 - Trusses changed from plans without approval from project's engineer/architect

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The respondent it to obtain an as-built approval from the engineer and provide it to the Jerome Inspector and this investigator in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation:

X CORRECTED NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On January 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 30, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about March 10, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on April 10, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Dimond testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Dimond testified that during the Compliance Jobsite Inspection, a water test was performed on the wall, and there were still leaks present.

Complainant testified that she had communicated with Mr. Brenner numerous times as to how to correct the leaks, and many attempts were made, such as repairing and replacing the roof, installation of scuppers, and downspouts. Complainant testified that all of these efforts were made yet as of March 25, 2025, leaks were still present.

Complainant also testified that once she received Respondent’s response in this matter, she reached out to her architect to rebut Respondent’s claims about the wall, and the architect too stated that it was unlikely that any of the interior work would have caused the leaks, and the damage was likely due to the exterior wall not being properly sealed.

Mr. Brennan testified that the leaks were likely caused by something faulty in the blocks that Complainant chose rather than his work, as everything was built according to plan, and passed all building inspections.

Further, Mr. Brennan testified that he sent is mason to make the repairs per the Written Directive, but he did not personally inspect the corrective work, rather he looked at pictures the mason sent.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 25, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 328766 was first issued on May 7, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one disciplined case. The License record also reflected that the license was currently suspended due to insufficient bond.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(A), as Respondent had not provided the engineering plans to both the inspector nor Investigator Dimond at the time of the initial jobsite inspection, and the trusses were a modification from the original plans.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed was not completed in a workmanlike manner as there were leaks in the walls, the threshold was bowing on unused new sider.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), as leaks were still occurring from the walls.

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. 328766 for a period of three 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 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, April 25, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jeffrey S. Koppelmaa, Esq.

[email redacted]

Crested Construction Company

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff