ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07879-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christina Mcmillan,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Skill Center Workshops LLC

License No. ROC 319720,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-07879-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 13, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Christina Mcmillan appeared on her own behalf. William Brewster appeared via telephone on behalf of Respondent Skill Center Workshops LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jim Dimond appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Skill Center Workshops LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 319720 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 8, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to perform work at her commercial RV center in Dewey, Arizona.

On or about July 12, 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 August 21, 2024.

Investigator Dimond then issued a Written Directive on or about October 31, 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 Wednesday, November 20, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - can lights on back covered patio are incorrectly installed and stucco does not meet the openings for cans stucco is bad

Investigator’s Observation: The can lights are poor fitting and won't align in a manner that allows the lights to function as intended.

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

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Complaint Item: 1 - rear sliding glass doors were installed incorrect they are leaking letting in air and letting out air bugs and debris

Investigator’s Observation: The Jeld-Wen sliding doors were cut by others in an attempt to improve the doors performance.

Additionally the track appears to have been modified as well.

Pursuant to ARS 32-1155.D.2, this door installation has been modified and the Registrar is prohibited from including this item on a citation.

No action is required of the respondent

Complaint Item: 3 - installed incorrect plumbing to the outside shower it freezes in the winter and can only be accessed through attic to of

Investigator’s Observation: There was no evidence presented that the shower and water fountains are not installed improperly and the jurisdiction having authority approved the installation.

My review of the installation instructions for the fountains found no information either way about exterior cold weather installations.

No action is required of the respondent at this time...

(All errors contained in the original).

On December 5, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about December 5, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about January 10, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 13, 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 there was no Compliance Jobsite Inspection performed as Complainant informed him that there had been no compliance with the Directive.

Further, Investigator Dimond testified that it appeared that when the lights were installed it was not allowing the line up with the components, thus resulting in a lesser light pattern.

Complainant testified that Mr. Brewster did not reach out to her during the corrective work period to resolve the issue, therefore the lights were never fixed. Further, Complainant testified that her concerns did not seem important to Mr. Brewster because he believed that there was enough light coming through.

Mr. Brewster testified that there was some misalignment of some of the light but that he was simply installing the lights per the architect’s design. He also testified that he believed that the housings were inappropriate but installed the same anyway. Mr. Brewster also testified that this was really a cosmetic issue, and there was no safety issue with the lights.

Mr. Brewster also admitted that he never e-mailed Complainant directly during the corrective work period, as Complainant’s husband and son were usually the ones he communicated with on the project.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 27, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 319720 was first issued on May 1, 2018.

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, and Mr. Brewster admitted, that the can lights did not fit correctly which caused them to not function as intended. Thus, Complainant has proven that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. While it was understandable for Mr. Brewster to try to e-mail Complainant’s husband and son, he should have at least copied Complainant as well. Further, there was no excuse for waiting until two days prior to the corrective work period expiring for him to reach out. 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).

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. 319720 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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, February 27, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Skill Center Workshops LLC

[email redacted]

Christina Mcmillan

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff