ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06175-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lorelei Sanborn and Josh Rogers,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Always Green Synthetic Grass, Inc.

DBA: Always Green Turf,

License No. ROC 328641,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-06175-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 19, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainants Lorelei Sanborn and Josh Rogers appeared on their own behalf. Daniel Buesing appeared on behalf of Respondent Always Green Synthetic Grass, Inc. Investigator Aaron King appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-10 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-18 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Always Green Synthetic Grass Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 328641 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 22, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to install artificial turf at the residence in San Tan Valley, Arizona.

On or about June 29, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King. The jobsite inspection was performed on August 20, 2025.

Investigator King then issued a Written Directive on or about August 26, 2025, 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, September 12th, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: -1- Seams are showing.i submitted a warranty claim on 12/9/2024. They came to repair turf on12/20/2024. It is still not done

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint identified concerns with visible seams in the artificial turf, and I documented with photographs showing seam lines that remain apparent even after a repair attempt. I reviewed the turf and noted that several seams are visible at angles and in normal viewing conditions, including one area where the seam is particularly pronounced and poorly aligned. Industry standards for synthetic turf, including the Synthetic Turf Council (STC) guidelines and ASTM F1551, require seams to be secure, durable, and visually inconspicuous. Best practices, such as use of S-seams or properly aligned straight cuts with consistent pile direction, are intended to prevent obvious seam lines. The current condition does not meet these expectations of professional and workmanlike installation. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the seams must be corrected to eliminate visible lines and achieve an inconspicuous appearance. Additionally, one small piece of turf has come loose and separated as a seam, leaving an obvious gap. This area also required repair to restore the turf to a professional finish. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the seams must be corrected to eliminate visible lines and the separated piece must be corrected. The Respondent will correct these by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9 -108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.. . .

On September 17, 2025, 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).

Respondent timely submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about October 17, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on November 19, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator King testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Mainly, Investigator King testified that there was a pronounced seam in the turf, and there was peaking above the rest of the installation which protrudes out and that this was not a professional and workmanlike installation.

Investigator King testified that Respondent failed to appear at the Jobsite Inspection, although was not required to be present at the same. Further, Investigator King initially testified that Mr. Buesing had initially e-mailed him on September 5, 2025, and then again on September 15, 2025, when he requested the jobsite photographs. Investigator King testified that he did not release the jobsite photographs until a formal request was made through the Registrar.

On cross-examination however, Investigator King testified that he did not see an initial email on August 27, 2025, from Mr. Buesing as it was a “sub indent” on the September 5, 2025 e-mail. Investigator King testified that he acknowledged his mistake, however, even if he were to have seen the August 27, 2025 email, he still likely would not have granted an extension to Respondent as no work had been completed.

Complainants testified that Respondent’s workers had been out in December 2024, and on May 23, 2205 and took pictures so there would be no excuse for Mr. Buesing not to have pictures on the turf.

Mr. Buesing testified that once the complaint was filed he was attempting to work with the manufacturer to have them replace and/or upgrade the turf, however, they required additional pictures. Mr. Buesing testified that this was why he requested the inspection photographs on August 26, 2025.

In conclusion, Mr. Buesing notified Complainants that the manufacturer was willing to grant the replacement and upgrade of the turf at no cost, albeit once the Directive expired.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 328641 was first issued on April 28, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

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)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the turf was not installed in a professional or workmanlike manner as there were visible pronounced seam lines, as well as a gap in the turf in one small area.

Finally, 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). While it was unfortunate that Investigator King did not see the August 26, 2025, it is unclear why Mr. Buesing waited until September 5, 2025 to follow-up. Further, it was unclear why the previous photographs taken a few months prior were insufficient to be submitted to the manufacturer, or why Mr. Buesing did not appear (or send a representative) to the Jobsite Inspection to take photographs. That being said, the tribunal notes an appreciates Mr. Buesing’s willingness to follow through with the manufacturer to obtain replacement albeit late.

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. 328641 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 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, December 3, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Always Green Synthetic Grass, INC.

DBA: Always Green Turf,

[email redacted]

Lorelei Sanborn

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff