ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00851-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Gary Chinn,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Raindance Builders LLC

License No. ROC 294081,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-00851-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 13, 2025, and January 8, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Gary Chinn

Respondent: Karen Palecek, Esq.

Kent Sheppard

Brandon Quinn

Brandon Martin

Registrar of Contractors: Miles Crosby, 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.

Complainant Exhibits 1-3, 4 (except 4A2), 5, 9L-9M, 10 (water shear picture)

Respondent Exhibits 3, 14, 16, 18

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Raindance Builders, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 294081 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on August 5, 2014.

On or about January 20, 2023, Gary Chinn (Complainant) purchased a “spec” home built by Respondent while the pool was still under construction. Complainant provided input regarding the pool and improvements not yet completed at the time of purchase.

On or about January 24, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Wiskow, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on January 30, 2025, scheduling the inspection for February 24, 2025.

Investigator Wiskow conducted the jobsite inspection on February 24, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Wiskow issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on February 25, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Master bathroom backsplash too short.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The 3/4 inch wide backsplash on the main top has caulk gaps on both sides that exceeds the 1/ inch maximum allowable caulk joint. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - Sealant around the master bathtub missing on the front side.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There should be sealant on the fron tide of the tub. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Wall jam not square at the master bathroom entryway.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Both sides of the Master bath door are out of square by 3/8 of an inch in less than a foot. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - Kitchen cabinet that’s right of the range built incorrectly (upside down shelf.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Cabinet may not be installed upside down, but the underneath side is a different color than the rest of the cabinets. The cabinets should all be a consistent color. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 12 - Pool travertine uneven in different areas surrounding the pool.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are some travertine tiles with excessive gaps as well as lippage that exceeds 1/8th of an inch. The contractor should verify these areas and repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 13 - Water feature shears collapsing closed due to the inadequate materials they are made of for the environment.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The water feature does not flow uniformly. There should not be excessive gaps in the water flow. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 14 - Outdoor wall light junction boxes not suitable for wet locations or do not prevent water intrusion.

Investigator’s Observation: There are gaps around some of the exterior light fixtures. There should be no gaps around the fixtures and the rough boxes should be of exterior grade (waterproof). Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 15 - Water feature lights do not work correctly.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The water feature lights work sporadically. The lights should be fully functional. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 19 - The grout on the laundry floor is separating from the tile and water runs towards the wall.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The grout in the laundry room is cracked. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 20 - Door trim molding in the Jack and Jill bath is not installed correctly.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The gap at the left piece of trim differs from top to bottom by 3/8 of an inch. The gap should be consistent. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 21 - Kitchen cabinet door is binding.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. Kitchen cab door rubs. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 22 - Stucco on the ceiling at the exterior ceiling.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is stucco on the ceiling at the exterior ceilings. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 25 - Water feature leaks water internally when used at low speeds.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The water feature was leaking through the back wall upon operation of the water fall. The water feature should not leak. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 26 - The water feature has cracks in it.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is a crack in the back of the water feature. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 27 - The wall around the entry garage door frame in unfinished.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The wall around the entry needs to be finished. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 28 - Window trim coming off.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The window trim has popped out of the track. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 30 - Utility closed door pin doesn't lock.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The top lock pin cannot be locked. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 32 - Driveway pavers uneven.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There is one brick that is raised by the sidewalk. Contractor should verify this area and repair by appropriate means.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Wiskow of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2025.

On March 18, 2025, Investigator Wiskow issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for March 28, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, and 30 were deemed not completed.

On March 31, 2025, Investigator Wiskow issue a Warning Letter to Respondent advising that the Registrar had received information indicating Respondent may have been contracting with an unlicensed person named Angel. Contracting with an unlicensed person is a violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(9) and (13).

On April 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); 32-1154(A)(9)(a); and 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on April 12, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted a general denial of all claims. Specifically, Respondent did not have knowledge that Angel Parker was not a licensed contractor, the complaints regarding the water feature were a manufacturing defect, not a workmanship issue, Respondent did not understand why the directive would require repair or replacement of a defective appliance, Complainant did not allow access to complete directive work, Complainant delayed some repair approvals and restricted access on some days during the directive period, and Complainant refused to accept any offered solutions to remedy the exterior lighting in Complaint Item 14. Additionally, Respondent noted that Complainant allowed Respondent to continue corrective work after the directive period expired.

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

On May 9, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for June 18, 2025.

The hearing was continued four times on Respondent’s request due to previously scheduled plans, attorney scheduling conflicts, and an expert witness scheduling conflict; and was continued once on Complainant’s request because the ROC Investigator was unavailable to testify.

On or about October 3, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to November 13, 2025. The Order Granting Continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on November 13, 2025, with further hearing held on January 8, 2026.

Investigator Miles Crosby testified in support of then retired Investigator Michael Wiskow’s jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, no communication alleging that Complainant denied access to Respondent had been received by Investigator Wiskow until after the compliance period deadline. Further, Investigator Wiskow did not receive communication from either party that corrective work was completed after the compliance deadline.

On questioning, Investigator Crosby stated that if the junction boxes were not installed in a wet location, verification of Complaint item 14 would have been made in error. However, he clarified, the issue here was that water was present. Regarding the Registrar’s position on responsibility for manufacturer’s defects, Investigator Crosby testified that it is based on reasonableness, and an investigator would question whether a quality check had been performed. Investigator Crosby further explained that if the issue was just that the homeowner did not like the way the product worked, then there would not be a violation of the statute. However, if the product was not functioning as intended or if it was not installed as the manufacturer instructed, then a violation of the statute would be found. Investigator Crosby further testified that an investigation into the matter regarding Angel Parker’s licensing status was completed when Investigator Wiskow directly questioned Mr. Parker and Mr. Parker advised that he was not employed by Jesus Milan. Investigator Crosby further noted that Respondent could have complied with the directive by submitting documentation supporting a claim to the contrary.

Complainant testified in support of Investigator Wiskow’s jobsite and compliance inspection observations and the Written Directive and rebutted Respondent’s Answer. Specifically, Complainant testified that although now retired, he was a licensed electrician in the State of Washington for many years and was, therefore, familiar with the National Electrical Code (NEC). Regarding Complaint item 14, Complainant testified that NEC § 314.15 (2020) governed the installation of the junction boxes at issue and required that junction boxes installed in wet locations be listed for use in wet locations.

Regarding the complaints related to the water feature—13, 15, 25, and 26—Complainant testified that the issues were the result of poor workmanship, specifically installation errors. Regarding Complaint item 13, Complainant testified that three sheer descents, each 35.4 inches in length, were installed. The manufacturer’s installation instructions included specific directions for installing multiple units, which included, “. . . will need to include a separate 2-way valve for each unit. These valves are used to control the amount and distribution of water between each of the waterfall units.” Complainant testified that these valves were not installed. Additionally, Complainant contended that the sheers were collapsing because the spillway was made of acrylic plastic and not designed to support the weight of the travertine on top. He noted that one 24” by 16” slab of travertine weighed over 32 pounds. Further, plastic tended to soften in extreme heat which caused it to collapse and close. Complainant noted that he opted for a water sheer with lights and automation, but it was Respondent, not he, who selected the materials with which it was constructed.

Regarding Complaint item 15, Complainant testified that LED lights were part of the water sheer and had failed previously in 2023. Respondent replaced them under manufacturer’s warranty in February 2024; however, they failed again. Complainant contended the light failure was due to the leak addressed in Complaint item 25.

Regarding Complaint item 25, Complainant testified that in February 2024, he advised Mr. Quinn of the leak in the water feature via text message and attached several videos documenting it. Complainant further advised that when he adjusted the water flow to a higher rate, the leak appeared to stop.

Complainant further testified that in or around May 2023, Mr. Sheppard sent him an invoice that Respondent had received from Angel Parker and asked Complainant to pay Mr. Parker directly. Complainant noted the invoice was billed to Respondent from Parker Pool Remodeling & Electrical, LLC and emailed to Respondent from Angel Parker’s email address. In or around September 2023, Complainant became aware that Angel Parker was not a licensed contractor. He subsequently communicated the information to Respondent and advised that he did not want Mr. Parker to perform any more work on his project. Mr. Sheppard responded that Mr. Parker was contracted to complete the work and if Complainant wished to hire a different contractor himself, he could do so. Complainant and Mr. Sheppard exchanged multiple text messages through October 4, 2023, in which Complainant continued to insist that because Mr. Parker was not licensed he would not allow Mr. Parker to perform work on the project, specifically noting that Mr. Parker had wired a pump to a Non-GFCI breaker, which was against the NEC. Mr. Sheppard expressed frustration and impatience with Complainant’s unwillingness to allow Mr. Parker to work on the project. On October 5, 2023, Respondent sent Jesus Milan, a licensed electrician to complete the remaining work.

Brandon Martin, Ph.D., a Senior Electrical Engineering Consultant, testified on behalf of Respondent, solely regarding the NEC as it related to junction boxes and the installation thereof. Dr. Martin testified that Respondent sent him photographs of the exterior of Complainant’s home and at least one of the junction boxes at issue, along with a request that he identify the junction box and how it was installed. In his official written opinion to Respondent, Dr. Martin opined that Complainant’s central argument, while referencing a valid code section, was flawed in its application. Specifically, Dr. Martin stated, in pertinent part, that NEC § 314.15 required electrical boxes in “wet locations” to be equipped to prevent moisture from entering or accumulating within the box. Dr. Martin continued, that for an exterior application, a basic box like the one Respondent installed required a proper weatherproof cover or enclosure to meet the moisture prevention mandate of the Code. Thus, sealing the interface between the box and the light would meet the weatherproof requirements. Dr. Martin further opined that, “in essence,” the junction box was “covered” because five of its six sides were internal to the wall, and once an appropriate waterproof light fixture covering was placed on the exterior of the box face, it “essentially moved [the junction box] into a dry space where it was protected, [re-classifying] the location as ‘no longer wet’.” Further, if the box had been just nakedly installed it would have been problematic, but, in this case, it was in fact protected by a weatherproof seal, because it had a waterproof fixture covering it. Dr. Martin stated that creation of a weatherproof seal, such that water could not intrude and moisture was prevented from getting into the junction box, “was in the spirit of the code.” Therefore, the junction box installation was compliant with the NEC.

On questioning, Dr. Martin clarified that, used together, the junction box and exterior weatherproof light were sufficient to comply with NEC § 314.15. He explained, this was because the seal, which provided further weatherproofing, created a condition that moved the junction box from a wet location to a dry location. Dr. Martin stated that the interior of a wall, properly sealed, was not considered a wet location. He claimed, therefore, “the light was in a wet location, but the box was not.” Dr. Martin testified that he believed because the NEC “specifically called out ‘unprotected’ locations,” the junction boxes, here, were properly installed for their intended use.

Brandon Quinn, Project Manager, testified on behalf of Respondent in agreement with Dr. Martin’s testimony that the installation of the junction boxes complied with the NEC. Specifically, Mr. Quinn claimed that “stucco created a waterproof membrane around the junction box.” Regarding the Complaint items pertaining to the water feature—13, 15, 25, and 26—Mr. Quinn testified that after viewing videos received from Complainant documenting the leak, he concluded it was potentially caused by low-speed water flow. After Complainant advised that the leak stopped when the water flow was set at a higher rate, Mr. Quinn determined the solution was to place siliconized grout around the edge of the water feature to prevent water from going back into the cavity; however, Complainant did not approve of that solution. Mr. Quinn testified that, during the directive period, no corrective work was attempted on the water feature because Respondent was uncertain whether it would be entirely replaced.

On questioning, Mr. Quinn admitted he only viewed Complainant’s videos and never personally inspected the leak. From the videos alone, Mr. Quinn testified he was unable to determine the rate of water flow and whether the leak was due to a plumbing failure. Thus, to avoid having to remove the top of the water feature, he concluded the solution was to run the feature at full water flow and place a seal around it. However, Mr. Quinn admitted that at the time the leak was discovered and filmed by Complainant, the top of the water feature was already removed to repair the lights. Despite that, he never viewed the leak onsite, and the water feature was resealed before any attempt was made to repair it.

Kent Sheppard, owner and qualifying party of Respondent, testified that he asked Colton Cluff of Wright Engineering, an acquaintance that Respondent had worked with on a previous project, to opine whether the junction boxes were installed in compliance with the NEC. Mr. Cluff responded, via email, that “from the photos provided of the installation, it was a typical and approved installation method for an exterior junction box for mounting a light fixture.” Mr. Sheppard asked Mr. Cluff to provide his qualifications in his email signature and received a response from Cliff Tolman advising that Mr. Cluff was a registered engineer in-training (EIT) with the State. However, Mr. Tolman, as a State of Arizona registered professional electrical engineer (PE) had reviewed Mr. Cluff’s response to Mr. Sheppard prior to delivery.

Regarding the water feature, Mr. Sheppard testified he believed the complaint issues were due to a manufacturer defect, and as an appliance, Respondent was not responsible for the repair. Therefore, a necessary change to the water feature because it did not function properly or in a way that Complainant liked, would have required a change order. Mr. Sheppard testified that he believed a change order had been submitted, but without viewing it, he could not recall the details. Mr. Sheppard stated he believed Complainant had proposed replacing the water feature and that Respondent had been willing to install it. Additionally, based on correspondence, it was his understanding and impression that Complainant had prevented Respondent from completing any work on the water feature.

Mr. Sheppard further testified that he believed Angel Parker was referred to him and when he first contacted Mr. Parker and asked him about his license, Mr. Parker claimed to work for San Francisco Electric. Mr. Sheppard testified that he researched San Francisco Electric and verified that Jesus Milan was a licensed electrician. Mr. Sheppard stated, “[Jesus Milan] never said that Angel did not work for him.”

On questioning, Mr. Sheppard testified that although he could not remember, it was possible he had received further communication from PE Tolman advising that to determine whether the junction box installation was NEC compliant, PE Tolman would need to view the installation onsite. Regarding the water feature, Mr. Sheppard stated that the instructions, to use valves when installing multiple waterfall units, provided in the manufacturer’s installation guide, were optional. Specifically, Mr. Sheppard testified the instructions stated, “You can install. That’s an option.” He further testified that the objective of the referenced valves was to regulate the flow of each individual waterfall, but they were not installed.

In closing, Complainant argued that he did not refuse Respondent access to complete corrective work. He simply wanted the junction boxes installed per NEC code, which required they be wet rated because they were installed in a wet location. Regarding the water feature, Complainant argued that although Respondent replaced the water sheer lights once under warranty, they repeatedly failed because Respondent did not correct the other presenting issues including the leak, crack, and sheer descent collapse. Complainant further argued that Respondent’s failure to perform any corrective work on the water feature during the directive period based on an “assumption” that Complainant did not want it repaired was not supported by the evidence.

On behalf of Respondent, Ms. Palecek argued in closing that Complaint item 14 should be dismissed because Complainant’s inaccurate assertion that the junction box itself must be rated for a wet location and subsequent refusal to allow Respondent to apply silicone seal around the light sconce to “weatherproof” the junction box effectively denied Respondent access to perform corrective work. An argument, Ms. Palecek contended, supported by Dr. Martin’s testimony, that in practically applying NEC § 314.15, once the exterior light and sconce were installed over the junction box it was no longer in a wet location. Ms. Palecek further argued it was possible that the water feature complaints were not a matter of workmanship, but rather a manufacturer’s defect. In fact, Respondent had provided Complainant with the manufacturer’s information and encouraged him to file a claim with the manufacturer. Regardless, Ms. Palecek argued, Respondent was denied access to perform corrective work on the water feature by Complainant’s refusal to accept Respondent’s proposed solution. Therefore, Complaint items 13, 15, 25, and 26 should also be dismissed. Ms. Palecek also argued that Complainant’s testimony and witness cross-examination regarding the valves for a multi-unit waterfall installation should be disregarded as the valves were not addressed in the directive. Finally, regarding the aiding and abetting violation, Ms. Palecek argued, Angel Parker was not required to be licensed because he “worked for” Jesus Milan—a licensed electrical contractor—who was onsite and involved in the project.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 13, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 294081 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.”

NEC § 90.5(A) provides:

Mandatory rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are specifically required or prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not.

NEC § 100 provides definitions essential to the proper application of the Code, in pertinent part:

Dry Location: A location not normally subject to dampness or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.

Wet Location: Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas, and in unprotected locations exposed to weather.

NEC § 314.15 provides in pertinent part:

In damp or wet locations, boxes, conduit bodies, outlet box hoods, and fittings shall be placed or equipped so as to prevent moisture from entering or accumulating within the box, conduit body, or fitting. Boxes, conduit bodies, outlet box hoods, and fittings installed in wet locations shall be listed for use in wet locations. . . . Wet locations include those where the boxes, fittings, or conduit bodies are exposed to weather.

NEC § 680 governs swimming pools, fountains, and similar installations, and provides, in pertinent part:

680.1 provides:

The provisions of this article apply to the construction and installation of electrical wiring for, and equipment in or adjacent to all swimming pools...fountains...whether permanently installed or storable, and to metallic auxiliary equipment, such as pumps, filters, and similar equipment.

680.2 defines the term “Fountain”:

An ornamental structure or recreational water feature from which one or more jets or streams of water are discharged into the air. The definition does not include drinking water fountains or water coolers.

(C) Part V of § 680 governs fountains and provides, in pertinent part:

Effective in and for the year 2023, the City of Scottsdale adopted, with amendments where applicable, the following Codes: 2020 National Electric Code, 2021 International Residential Code (IRC), 2021 International Plumbing Code, and 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC).

Complainants do not have the right to dictate how a contractor satisfies the directive items. When a complainant refuses to allow a contractor to take corrective action, a complainant effectively denies the contractor a meaningful opportunity to correct their work, which constitutes a denial of access for the impacted directive items.

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.”

Unless defined by the legislature, words in statutes are given their ordinary meanings.

Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute or rule must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.

In the instant matter, Ms. Palecek argued Complainant effectively denied Respondent access to correct Complaint item 14 when he refused to accept Respondent’s method of corrective action. Specifically, Respondent’s installation of non-wet rated junction boxes in the interior of a stucco finished exterior wall was compliant with the NEC, so long as the light sconces, which covered the junction boxes, were sealed with weatherproof material. Therefore, in this case, Respondent needed only to apply silicone sealant around the light sconces to be compliant; however, Complainant refused to accept this method of correction and instead insisted that the boxes must be replaced with those rated for use in a wet location.

Actions that are specifically required or prohibited, by the NEC, are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not within the Code. A “wet location” is defined as one subject to saturation with water or other liquids. Further, the NEC provides that in wet locations, junction boxes shall be placed or equipped so as to prevent moisture from entering or accumulating within the box, and boxes installed in wet locations shall be listed for use in wet locations.

There was no dispute in this matter that the exterior wall location at which the lights, sconces, and junction boxes were installed, was classified as a wet location. Dr. Martin contended, however, that specific to the instant matter, because the junction boxes were installed in the interior of a wall with a light fixture covering the exterior of the box face, the boxes were essentially moved into a dry, protected space, which reclassified the location as “no longer wet.” Dr. Martin argued that the sconce provided weatherproofing and as long as the light itself was rated for use in wet locations, then nothing else was needed. Contrary to Dr. Martin’s contention that locations are classified based on intended use of the junction box or the presence of additional weatherproofing, the NEC does not contemplate exceptions or scenarios in which a wet location would be reclassified as “dry.” However, NEC § 100 specifies that a dry location may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness. Additionally, the NEC specifically mandates that the interior of raceways installed in wet locations above grade, shall be considered to be a wet location. That the NEC directly addresses when dry locations may be considered wet or damp, while not providing exceptions or scenarios in which wet locations may be reclassified as dry, and mandating that the interior of raceways—enclosed channels expressly designed for holding wires, cables, or bushbars—installed above grade are classified as wet locations, illustrates the Code’s intentionality and highlights the absence of contemplation regarding the potential reclassification of wet to dry locations. The argument that installing a junction box within an exterior wall of stucco finish—a water-resistant but porous material—reclassifies the location of the box from wet to dry, is unpersuasive, when the NEC does not contemplate such reclassification but specifically and intentionally mandates that even the interior of a raceway installed in a wet location above grade, is classified as a wet location. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the installation of the junction boxes in the interior of the wall did not reclassify the location as “dry,” and the boxes were installed in a wet location.

In the alternative, Dr. Martin contended that even when junction boxes are installed in wet locations, in general, to meet the moisture prevention mandate of the Code, an exterior installation of a junction box not listed for use in a wet location, only required a proper weatherproof cover or enclosure. Within NEC § 314.15, the terms “shall” and “wet location” were specifically defined by the Code. As there was no dispute that the wall was in a wet location, analysis of this term as applied in Section 314.15 is not necessary. However, applying the Code’s definition of “shall” to Section 314.15, provides clarity and illustrates the Code’s intent: “In wet locations boxes are required to be placed or equipped so as to prevent moisture from entering or accumulating within the box. Boxes installed in wet locations are required to be listed for use in wet locations.”

Dr. Martin’s argument fails to consider the second sentence of NEC § 314.15. If, as Dr. Martin contended, the Code was satisfied so long as the junction box, regardless of rating, had a weatherproof cover or enclosure to prevent moisture, the second sentence of Section 314.15 would be void. Considering the specificity and intentionality with which the NEC was drafted, the lack of use of coordinating language in Section 314.15, equating the requirements of moisture prevention and junction boxes rated for wet locations as possibilities, alternatives, or choices, requires the sentences to be considered as separate parts of the rule. Therefore, NEC § 314.15 must be interpreted to require that when boxes are installed in wet locations, they must be listed for use in wet locations and placed or equipped to prevent moisture from entering or accumulating within the box. These are separate and distinct requirements applied to junction boxes installed in wet locations, not equal possibilities for Code compliance. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the junction boxes installed by Respondent were not compliant with NEC § 314.15.

Furthermore, Investigator Wiskow observed that the junction boxes were not, but should be, of exterior grade (waterproof) and directed Respondent to repair by appropriate means. Respondent disagreed with Investigator Wiskow’s observation, and was advised that compliance could otherwise be met if the building inspector signed off on Respondent’s installation of the non-wet rated junction boxes. Respondent subsequently advised Investigator Wiskow that the inspector declined to provide such written documentation, but in the alternative Respondent had obtained the written opinion of Dr. Martin. Investigator Wiskow declined to accept the Dr. Martin’s opinion and deferred to the Administrative Law Judge. Even if, arguendo, the Administrative Law Judge found that the installation of the junction boxes complied with the NEC, the only appropriate corrective actions permitted by the directive were to install junction boxes listed for use in wet locations, or in the alternative, provide signed documentation from the building inspector approving the installation of non-wet rated junction boxes. Respondent did not comply with either of the directive options. A complainant only effectively denies a contractor a meaningful opportunity to correct their work when the complainant refuses to allow a contractor to take appropriate corrective action. In this case, Respondent’s proposed corrective action was not appropriate as it did not comply with the NEC. Therefore, Complainant’s refusal to allow Respondent to perform corrective action did not constitute a denial of access.

Concerning the four water feature complaints, the questions before the Tribunal are whether the cause of the complaints was the result of a defect in installation or manufacturer material, and whether Complainant effectively denied Respondent access to perform corrective work. Defects in appliances and plumbing and electrical fixtures properly installed by the contractor should be limited to the manufacturer’s warranty.

Regarding Complaint item 13—sheer descent collapse—Complainant presented three potential causes, all of which would have resulted from an installation defect or error, including the sheer descent was not designed to support the weight of the travertine placed on top, the spillway material was made of plastic which tended to soften and collapse in extreme heat, and the manufacturer’s instructions for installing multiple waterfall units were not followed. Complainant did not design the water feature nor select the sheer descents. Complainant could not be held responsible for corrections 0required due to a design defect, such as the weight the sheer descents would be required to support or the materials with which the selected sheer descents were made. Likewise, a manufacturer could not be held responsible if a product was used incorrectly or outside known specifications. Despite the manufacturer’s instructions requiring the use of a 2-way valve for each unit in a multiple waterfall installation, Respondent failed to install them. The purpose and importance of the valves were noted repeatedly in the manufacturer’s instructions. Additionally, Mr. Sheppard’s argument that the manufacturer’s use of the statement “you can install . . .” rendered the valves optional failed to consider the entirety of the instruction. In full context, the instructions provided that multiple units could be installed “in exactly the same way as a single unit except that you will need to include a separate 2-way valve for each unit.” The manufacturer’s statement that “you can install” multiple units the same way as a single unit merely explained that installation of multiple waterfalls was possible, and if multiple units were installed the same instructions used for a single unit would be followed for all units. However, importantly, the manufacturer immediately thereafter provided an exception that installing multiple units required including the valve. That the purpose of the valves was to control and balance the flow of water from each waterfall, and Investigator Wiskow verified that the water feature did not flow uniformly, noting excessive gaps in flow, lends credence to a potential cause. Furthermore, Mr. Sheppard’s inconsistent testimony regarding the water feature coupled with his testimony that Respondent had “reached out to the manufacturer” and repaired the sheer descent LED lights under warranty previously, undermines his testimony and argument now that the sheer descent is an appliance and/or the collapse of the sheer descent is a manufacturer’s defect and as such it is Complainant’s responsibility to contact the manufacturer regarding warranty. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes no determination as to the exact cause of the sheer descent collapse. However, Complainant’s arguments, providing rationale that the sheer descent collapse was likely caused by defective installation, were more persuasive than Respondent’s unsupported assertion that a manufacturer’s defect was merely possible.

Regarding the water feature Complaint items 15, 25, and 26, the evidence and testimony supported that Respondent was aware of the issues Complainant had with each of the items; however, no corrective work was attempted on those items during the Compliance period. Testimony provided by both parties agreed that Complainant discovered the leak in February 2024, while LED lights on the sheer descents were being replaced. Testimony further established that after viewing only Complainant’s videos documenting the leak, Mr. Quinn proposed a solution which Complainant rejected, and that was the only time the issue was discussed. Mr. Quinn testified that during the Compliance period Respondent “basically” decided to not do any work on the water feature because it was unclear whether the sheer descents were to be completely replaced. A complainant only effectively denies a contractor a meaningful opportunity to correct their work when the complainant refuses to allow a contractor to take appropriate corrective action. In this case, it was Mr. Quinn’s own testimony that the only time a leak repair was discussed with Complainant was in February 2024, nearly a year prior to the Complaint, and further, during the Compliance period Respondent decided to not do any work on the water feature. Therefore, Complainant did not deny Respondent access to perform corrective work.

A final issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr. Sheppard contracted with an unlicensed individual, and if so, was there either intent to evade the law, as charged, or knowledge of the violation. The holder of a license or any person named thereon pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 10 may not attempt to evade the Chapter by aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person. It is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) to knowingly enter into a contract with a contractor for work to be performed for which a license is required with a person who is not duly licensed in the required classification. In consideration, an Administrative Law Judge’s decision must conform the findings to the evidence presented at the hearing.

It must first be determined whether the individual with whom Respondent contracted—Angel Parker—was a licensed contractor. Mr. Parker performed electrical work for Complainant’s project,. Complainant’s testimony and admitted evidence, particularly Mr. Parker’s own admission to Investigator Wiskow, established that Mr. Parker was not listed as a licensed contractor through the Registrar. There is no dispute that Mr. Parker contracted with Respondent to provide work on the project.

Having established that Mr. Parker was not a licensed contractor, it must be determined whether there was either intent to evade the law or knowledge of the violation. After the complaint was filed in early 2025, Mr. Sheppard provided inconsistent and evolving justifications regarding his knowledge of Mr. Parker’s licensing status. Mr. Sheppard initially told Investigator Wiskow that Mr. Parker had represented himself as a licensed contractor. Later, in his Answer to the Citation, Mr. Sheppard denied having knowledge that Mr. Parker was unlicensed and claimed he was informed that Mr. Parker worked for a licensed contractor. And finally, in his hearing testimony, Mr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Parker stated he worked for San Francisco Electric, LLC, after which Mr. Sheppard researched San Francisco Electric and verified that Jesus Millan was a licensed electrician. Not only were Mr. Sheppard’s statements inconsistent, they were also contrary to the evidence.

In May 2023, Mr. Sheppard received an invoice from Parker Pools Remodeling and Electrical, sent from Mr. Parker’s email address. Mr. Sheppard subsequently forwarded the invoice to Complainant and asked him to pay Mr. Parker directly. In or around September, Complainant became aware that Mr. Parker was not a licensed contractor and advised Mr. Sheppard that he would not allow Mr. Parker to complete any more work. In multiple text messages over the course of the following month, Complainant continuously refused to allow Mr. Parker to perform any work on the project and Mr. Sheppard became increasingly frustrated. Specifically, Mr. Sheppard advised Complainant that Respondent was contracted with Mr. Parker, the work was already in progress, and if Complainant wanted to hire his own contractor he could. Mr. Sheppard repeatedly attempted to assure Complainant that Respondent was licensed and bonded, and Mr. Parker’s work would be reviewed and inspected. Tellingly, on two occasions, Mr. Sheppard specifically replied that Respondent would have a “licensed guy” check Mr. Parker’s work later. Finally, Mr. Sheppard advised Complainant that Respondent had scheduled a licensed electrician, Jesus Millan, to complete the work.

Licensees that hire independent contractors must hire only ROC licensed subcontractors. Mr. Sheppard was obligated to verify whether Mr. Parker was licensed before contracting with him. Even if, arguendo, Mr. Sheppard’s second statement that Mr. Parker worked for a licensed contractor was an accurate statement, Mr. Sheppard would have had to contract with the licensed contractor, not Mr. Parker, the employee. Mr. Sheppard told Complainant that he was contracted with Mr. Parker, therefore, in this scenario, Mr. Sheppard would still have contracted with an unlicensed individual. Finally, assuming arguendo, Mr. Sheppard’s third statement was an accurate statement, Mr. Sheppard “knew” Mr. Parker worked for San Franscisco Electric and the Qualifying Party was Jesus Millan. Thus, again, Mr. Sheppard would have had to contract with San Franscisco Electric or an authorized representative thereof. It is impossible to accept any of Mr. Sheppard’s claims regarding Mr. Parker’s status, as the results do not reconcile with the established facts. Together, the inconsistencies, non sequiturs, and evidence establish that Mr. Sheppard, on behalf of Respondent, was aware that Mr. Parker was not a licensed contractor. This awareness satisfies the “knowing” requirement of Section 32-1154(A)(13) but does not rise to the level of a specific intent to evade the law. The evidence supports Mr. Sheppard’s awareness of the act but fails to support that Mr. Sheppard contracted with Mr. Parker in a calculated attempt to evade statutory regulation.

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)

The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent attempted to evade this chapter by (a) Aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9). However, the preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly entered into a contract for work with a person not duly licensed in the required classification in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13). The Citation is modified accordingly.

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).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for ten business days Respondent’s License No. 294081.

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).

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, March 6, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mike Wiskow

[email redacted]

Gary Chinn

[email redacted]

Karen A. Palecek Esq.

PALECEK & PALECEK, PLLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff