ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09324-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rodger Wells,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Hornick Contracting Co Inc,
License No. ROC 146081,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09324-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 4, 2026 at 1:00pm and February 5, 2026 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Complainant Rodger Wells appeared on his own behalf with witnesses Katherine Mills, Todd Christianson, Dwayne Muhammad, and Valerye Boyer-Wells. Tim Bottorff appeared on behalf of Respondent Hornick Contracting Company, Incorporated. Investigator Steven Avila appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Observer Anne St. Pierre.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1 through 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Hornick Contracting Company, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 146081, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on June 7, 1999.
On or about May 28, 2024, Rodger Wells (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, to install a new septic tank. Approximately, 15 years ago, Complainant had installed a new septic system at his residential home located in Paradise Valley, Arizona. Ultimately, Complainant hired Respondent to replicate a new septic system, similar to the older system on the opposite side of the property, for a future casita and two-car garage.
Respondent’s contract/estimate included the installation of the septic system, drip field, and electrical work. The contract was in the total amount of $37,530.61 and Complainant paid $33,037.50 to Respondent. Respondent’s contract included a blanket disclaimer that stated, “Hard dig costs are not included. Costs are billable at prevailing rates for our time and materials. These costs are due and payable when completed.”
On or about September 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and job abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. On October 8, 2025, Investigator Avila conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent did not attend.
Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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, November 14, 2025.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – Septic not installed for the tops to be only a couple inches above grade.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the tops of the installed system sat well above grade level and the grade level of the adjacent buildings. Measurements taken showed the lids to be approximately 14 inches above the backfilled dirt. Review of the installation instructions of the AX20 System which is what the contractual obligations show as the expected unit state - The bottom of the AX20 lid should sit 2 inches (50 mm) above final grade. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 2 – Installation still incomplete with the starting date of
5/28/2024. Permit expired on 8/2/2025.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner stated that the respondent is still to complete the project. No drip field was installed at the time of the inspection which leaves the septic system inoperable. Given the time line of the contract and the lack of movement it is determined that the respondent is not fulfilling the contractual obligations in a diligent manner. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Avila was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On November 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Avila testified that at the jobsite inspection he viewed the old septic tank and was informed that the new septic tank should be installed in the same manner. Investigator Avila testified that the new septic tank was not installed properly and was only about 60% complete when he visited during the job site inspection. Investigator Avila noted that the septic system was not even operable without the installation of the drip field. Investigator Avila testified that he determined this project to be a job abandonment issue, as well, because the incomplete installation did not reflect what was in the signed contract.
Complainant, Dwayne Muhammad (Complainant’s General Contractor), and Valerie Boyer-Wells (Complainant’s spouse) all testified that Tim Bottorff, Respondent Owner and Qualifying Party, saw the old/original septic tank located on the opposite side of the property and he understood that the new septic tank should be installed at grade or below grade level, in the same manner. In addition, the new septic tank was not installed per the manufacturers specifications.
Katherine Mills, Principal Engineer of Mills Engineering, LLC, testified on behalf of Complainant. Ms. Mills credentials include decades worth of experience as an engineer, primarily in the design and testing of septic tank systems. Ms. Mills designed and tested the original septic tank system at Complainant’s house over a decade prior. In regards to the new septic system, Complainant testified that Ms. Mills filed for the permit for its installation, which was subsequently approved and included a one-year deadline from issuance. Ms. Mills testified that she saw the septic tank system installed by Respondent and believed it to be “higher than normal” above ground. In addition, Ms. Mills further stated that she was tasked by Complainant “to build [a] custom wall to kind of hide [the tank] because it’s so high...[that she was] going to build a six-foot wall...to cover [the septic system] up.”
Complainant, Mrs. Wells, and Mr. Muhammad all testified that the drip field was not completed by Respondent and that they believed Respondent only physically worked onsite about 3 1⁄2 to 5 days. Complainant testified that the excavator was delivered to his property on September 9, 2024, excavation work was performed on September 10 and 11, no work was performed on September 12 through 14, excavation work was performed on September 17, and the tank was dropped into the ground on September 18, 2024.
In contrast, Mr. Bottorff testified that Respondent was physically working on the excavation and septic tank installation for seven days straight but could not supply the exact dates. Complainant, Mrs. Wells, and Mr. Muhammad testified that loud machinery and digging work could not be done in their community over the weekends due to Association rules. Mr. Bottorff testified that Respondent did work physically at the property, over the weekend. Mr. Bottorff further testified that Respondent excavated approximately nine feet down, and in order to have the septic tank installed at ground level, then Respondent would have taken another three or four days of hammering to dig down another foot. Complainant, Mrs. Wells and Mr. Muhammad all confirm that Respondent did not inform them of a hard dig and did not confirm with them whether or not the pod sitting 12” above grade was acceptable. Complainant and Mrs. Wells were surprised when they received an invoice in the amount of $11,840.64 from Respondent for a hard dig. At first, Complainant and Mrs. Wells believed the “invoice” was an estimate, for potential future work, because the tanks were sitting so far above grade. In October 2024, Mr. Bottorff invoiced Complainant $11,840.64 for a hard dig.
Complainant testified that there was no sufficient communication from Respondent beginning October 9, 2024 through September 18, 2025. Around July 2025, Mrs. Wells testified that she reached out to Mr. Bottorff and asked him to reach out to Complainant regarding permit extensions and the like. In September 2025, Mr. Bottorff testified that he hired Todd Christianson, owner of Premier Environmental Products (“Premier”), to complete the project. Mr. Christianson testified on behalf of Complainant, and stated that Premier installed the control panel, internal parts, and treatment system. Mr. Christianson testified in regards to the new septic system install that “risers that far above grade was not normal...[the installation was] typically flush with grade.”
Mr. Christianson further testified that Premier invoiced Respondent in the amount of $9,224.62 and Premier had not been paid for their work. During this time, Complainant hired Premier to work on the electrical components of the original septic tank system, Premier completed that work, and Complainant paid Premier for that work. Mrs. Wells testified that Mr. Bottorff informed them that they would need to pay Premier’s $9,224.62 bill. Mrs. Wells testified that they disagreed to pay that bill because the electrical installation work that Premier performed on the new septic system was included in the original contract with Respondent.
Mr. Bottorff argued that Complainant still owed Respondent $4,493.11 (for the balance of the contract) plus the hard dig which equated to $16,333.75. In addition, Mr. Bottorff further argued that Complainant needed to pay Premier. Complainant and Mrs. Wells argued that the tank was not installed as they requested, Respondent hired a subcontractor Premier to install the electrical components, and Respondent did not perform the drip field work which was part of the contract. Complainant further testified that because the contract was not fulfilled, Respondent was not owed any further money, however, the Wells were willing to compromise on the hard dig and pay Respondent $6,343.20, which ultimately was not accepted or agreed upon.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 4, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 146081 was Suspended. Such prior License record also reflected that there were two open complaints and one complaint resulting in discipline 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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not complete the work in the bid. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent was aware that the septic tank should have been installed at ground level. In fact, Mr. Christianson and Mrs. Mills with their vast experience testified that when they saw how the new septic tank was installed that it was not “normal” because it should have been flush to the ground. Aesthetically, the Wells have a septic tank sticking way above the ground and was an eyesore, whereby Complainant came up with more money to disguise the tank. In addition, Respondent did not even attempt to perform the work on the back field which was contracted work. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 146081 for a period of ten days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Done this day, February 5, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 25, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Rodger Wells
4821 East Clearwater Parkway
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
[email redacted]
Steven Avila
[email redacted]
Hornick Contracting Co Inc
P.O. Box 770
Laveen, AZ 85339
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff