ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-10347-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mario Rawson,

COMPLAINANT,

Custom Water Creations LLC

License No. ROC 208541,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-10347-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 24, 2026 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Mario Rawson appeared on his own behalf with witness Christie Rawson. Josh Procknow appeared on behalf of Respondent Custom Water Creations, LLC. Investigator Daniel Otero appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1-2 and 4-5. Respondent Exhibits A through K.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Custom Water Creations, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 208541, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on June 11, 2005.

On or about July 4, 2023, Mario Rawson (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new pool at Complainant’s residential home located in Sedona, Arizona. The total amount of the project was $89,380.00 and the total amount Complainant paid was $86,500.00.

Respondent’s proposal/contract did not contain an estimated date of completion, sales tax that needed to be paid, and no information provided to customers regarding their right to file a complaint with the Registrar.

On or about October 9, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging job abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero. On November 6, 2025, Investigator Otero conducted a jobsite investigation with both parties present.

On November 19, 2025, after the jobsite inspection, Investigator Otero 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 Tuesday, December 9, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: Structural Integrity.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified, at the time of the inspection it was observed and determined by the Yavapai County Building inspector, From County Inspector Report 5/7/2025: Freestanding Pool wall Footing to be 18' Below Grade per Clarification from Engineer at time of Gunite Inspection. There was no verification or reports that constitute the wall structure was to be built otherwise per a verified engineered design. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Since this project was properly permitted as required by applicable regulations, all permitted work shall be subject to inspection by the local building inspector. Any building code deficiencies or violations identified during inspection that are attributable to the Respondent shall be corrected by the Respondent in a timely manner. All required inspections must be scheduled, conducted, and passed in accordance with the permitting authority’s procedures. The Contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. The completed project shall conform to the original contract agreement, all properly executed change orders, applicable local building codes, and the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Once the permit is finalized and approved by the Yavapai County Community Development Department, the specific items of complaint shall be considered resolved and shall be considered resolved with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC).

. . . .

Complaint Item: Wire Bonding.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified, at the time of the inspection the bonding wire was installed but had not been approved per the permitting process. Additional bonding is required for the handrail, as well as the elevated pool area, along with the metal window frames and niches that are within 5 feet of the pool edge requiring additional protection. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

The completed project shall conform to the original contract agreement, all properly executed change orders, applicable local building codes, and the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Once the permit is finalized and approved by the Yavapai County Community Development Department, the specific items of complaint shall be considered resolved and shall be considered resolved with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

. . . .

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Otero was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On December 12, 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)(2)(a), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(8); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Otero testified that he was not provided a copy of the contract prior to the issuance of the Citation. Investigator Otero testified that the Yavapai County Inspector was also present during the job site inspection and was unable to give final approval because the pool was already full of water. However, Josh Procknow, Respondent’s Qualifying Party, testified that the inspector told him that the swimming pool permit could not be finalized until the new home construction permit was finalized which had not happened at the time of the Registrar’s job site inspection.

Complainant and Cristie Rawson, wife of Complainant and lead on helping with the design of the pool, both testified to the numerous failed inspections and delays with the pool. Complainant testified that there was an outstanding balance that he owed to Respondent of $2,880.00.

Mr. Proknow testified that Complainant’s owed an outstanding balance of $10,609.31. Mr. Proknow testified about the pool lans, in that the contract called for the pool walls to be 18” below grade, however, there were erosion concerns expressed by the engineering firm hired by Respondent. In a report by AMMTEC Consultants, PLLC, a consulting engineering services firm, they determined the following, “[i]t is AMMTEC’s professional opinion that the project has been excavated on material that is able to support the addition and therefore is in accordance with the project plans.” Mr. Proknow further testified that the wire bonding that he was responsible for was laid properly, however, the exposed wire bonding located up the wall and elsewhere was the general contractor’s responsibility.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 24, 2026 at 1:00pm. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 208541 was active. Such prior License record also reflected that there was one open complaint.

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.”

As to the job abandonment charge, Investigator Otero testified that items kept getting “drawn out” and were not completed to final inspection. The holder of a license may not abandon a contract or refuse to perform work after submitting a bid without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1). Complainant failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of this Statute. In this case, the swimming pool was completed, water was in the pool, and the pool was being utilized. Although, final inspection had not been finalized, the actions of Respondent do not constitute a job abandonment charge.

As to the departure from plans charge, Investigator Otero testified that if the city Inspector had finalized the pool, this violation would not be in the Written Directive. Unfortunately, at the time of hearing, the pool had not been finalized by the city Inspector. Mr. Proknow testified that pool permit finalization was tied to the new home construction being finalized and he had no control over that timeline. In this case, the evidence established that better Respondent communication and coordination could have led to the dismissal of this charge or possibly requesting a Registrar extension but that was not done in this case. As such, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent or the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans or applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) or (b).

As to the workmanship charge in the Citation, neither verified complaint item pertains to a violation of workmanship in the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

No convincing testimony was presented to establish that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(8).

As to the contract charge, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include three required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued per the Structural Integrity complaint item in the Written Directive. 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 208541 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 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.

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 nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, March 16, 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]

Daniel Otero

[email redacted]

Mario Rawson

40 Calle Taa De Oro Road

Sedona, AZ 86336

[email redacted]

Custom Water Creations LLC

PO Box 607

Rimrock, AZ 86335

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff