ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-09764-CHC-ROC-RHG · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Adam Rabin Dalesandro,

COMPLAINANT

Tucson Pool Chemical Service, Inc.

DBA: Tucson Pool and Spa,

License No. ROC 147876 and 355297

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-09764-CHC-ROC-RHG

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 27, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Dr. Adam Dalesandro

Respondent: Alex Thompson

Tracy Johnson

Registrar of Contractors: John Smith, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Tucson Pool and Spa (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 147876 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 10, 1999.

On or about May 10, 2022, Dr. Adam Dalesandro (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, design/engineering of a spa, demolition of an existing spa, construction of the newly designed spa.

On or about August 25, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on August 26, 2024, scheduling an inspection for October 17, 2024.

After rescheduling twice, Investigator Smith conducted a jobsite inspection on October 25, 2024, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 28, 2024 that provided as follows:

You are directed to:

• Obtain all necessary permits from the local building authorities

• Satisfy all requirements of the local building authorities

• Complete all work per contract

• Remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: “The mechanical area of the spa never looked correct and I caught the owner of Tucson Pool and Spa lying to me when he said a permit was not needed to construct the spa.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions observed in the mechanical area:

• There are several areas of flexible conduits not secured

• Extension cords are installed for permanent use

• At least one electrical/junction box is not securely fastened to the masonry wall

• Note:

o This is not an all-inclusive list of deficiencies.

Additionally, this project included removing a pre-existing in ground spa, and installation/building of a new in ground spa structure. This is permit required work that was performed without a permit being obtained. The respondent acknowledged no permit was obtained for this project.

. . . .

Complaint Item 2: “Tucson Pool and Spa failed to get a permit,”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This project included removing a pre-existing in ground spa, and installation/building of a new in ground spa structure. This is permit required work that was performed without a permit being obtained. The respondent acknowledged no permit was obtained for this project.

. . . .

Complaint Item 5: “Never used drawing”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent acknowledged there were no, and are no, plans for this project.

The contract includes:

• Cad draft, plans,

. . . .

Complaint Item 6: “Never used...licensed workers”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent acknowledged hiring one unlicensed subcontractor, named Ralph, to perform work on this project.

. . . .

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

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

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:

• The contractor’s business address

• The contractor’s ROC number

• An estimated date of completion

• A payment schedule

• Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar

• Contact information for the registrar

• A signature of the property owner

• A signature of the contractor

. . . .

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

Pool Contract

Investigator’s Observations:

The contract does not include Provisions 1, 3, and 4 of A.R.S. § 32-1158.01.

The contract does not include a payment schedule as specified in Provision 2 of A.R.S. § 32- 1158.01.

. . . .

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158 and § 32-1158.01

Beyond scope of License

Investigator’s Observations:

This project included removing a pre-existing in ground spa, and installation/building a new in ground spa.

During the time of this project, and as of the date of the ROC Jobsite Inspection, October 25, 2024, the respondent has one contractor license.

The one contractor license held by the respondent is a:

• KE (As Restricted by the Registrar), specifically titled “POOL REPAIR”

o The scope of work allowed under this licensed is specifically identified as, and limited to:

Service and Repair

Replacing pumps, motors, filters, and misc. equipment

Plumbing for pools and spas

Electrical for pools

Electrical for spas

Concrete slabs

This project included removing a pre-existing in ground spa, and building/installing a new in ground spa.

• Work performed on this project is beyond the scope of work allowed under the respondent’s license.

Note:

• October 23, 2024, the respondent submitted an application for a KA-5 Dual Swimming Pool Contractor license.

• As of the date of the ROC Jobsite Inspection, October 25, 2024, that application has not been approved.

• As of the date of the ROC Jobsite Inspection, October 25, 2024, the respondent still has just one contractor license, ROC 147876, KE (As Restricted by the Registrar), specifically titled “POOL REPAIR”

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Smith of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 2, 2024, with an extension granted to December 20, 2024.

On January 6, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Smith that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On January 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with the following nine violations:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9.108(A)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9.108(B)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.01

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on January 20, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted it was unclear why it was receiving a Citation when it had obtained a permit and was waiting for the county to schedule an inspection. Thereafter, on the same day, Respondent submitted a second Answer asserting it had learned it must have the project reviewed by both a structural and electrical engineer prior to scheduling an inspection with the county.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing in this matter convened on May 29, 2025, but neither Complainant nor Respondent appeared.

On or about June 3, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision concluding that the complaint be dismissed. The Registrar accepted that Recommended Decision.

On July 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Rehearing on Contested Case setting a rehearing in this matter for August 27, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 27, 2025.

Investigator Smith testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, warning letters issued, the written directive, and the Citation. Investigator Smith further testified that although Respondent applied for a permit on December 23, 2024, Respondent did not appropriately disclose to the regulator that the permit was for a structure already built and not in fact a new build. Additionally, on January 30, 2025, Respondent submitted an updated contract, but it still did not meet minimum contract requirements.

Complainant testified in support of the Complaint and Investigator Smith’s testimony and that due to the resulting issues of this project, his home was not able to be sold. Complainant further testified he was told by Respondent that a permit was not needed for the project because it was a “remodel,” though, in fact, it was not a remodel it involved demolishing the existing spa and replacing it with a new build.

Respondent testified that its subcontractor (Ralph) told Respondent that he would get the CAD plans and permits, but did not. Ralph was absent often and as a result Respondent fired him. On questioning, Respondent testified that he had never had to pull a permit and was unsure how to go about the process once permitting became an issue. Respondent admitted, on questioning, that it was advised by at least one engineer that the solution was to tear down the existing structure and rebuild it. Respondent further admitted that it understood at the time of its bid for the project that it was contracting to perform work outside the scope of its license and actively chose to do so anyway.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 26, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 147876 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), specifically regarding Compliance Item 5.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1 and 2.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 2, and 5.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 2, and 5.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent hired an unlicensed contractor in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158 and A.R.S. § 32-1158.01.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license(s) in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The preponderance of the evidence 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 147876.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.01. If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158 and A.R.S. § 32-1158.01 within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 15, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Tucson Pool Chemical Service, Inc.

DBA: Tucson Pool and Spa,

[email redacted]

John Smith

[email redacted]

Adam Rabin Dalesandro

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff