ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-00082-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Steve Taplin,

COMPLAINANT

SSK Concrete LLC,

License No. ROC 338216,

RESPONDENT

No. 2026A-00082-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 23, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Steve Taplin appeared on his own behalf. Shawn Kilifi appeared on behalf of Respondent SSK Concrete LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mark Nipp appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

SSK Concrete LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 338216 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 4, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to install concrete for a pickleball court at his residence in Scottsdale, Arizona. The total contracted price was $20,00.00, and Complainant paid $15,000.00.

On or about January 5, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp. The jobsite inspection was performed on January 29, 2026.

Investigator Nipp then issued a Written Directive on or about February 2, 2026, 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 Monday, February 23, 2026

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

The complaint items annotated as “Verified” require corrective work. You are directed to remedy the violations by the appropriate means.

1 Complaint Item:

The slab was not engineered and installed according to written specifications.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

The Complainant clarified that he meant there was only supposed to be one saw cut and it should be engineered to support only one under the net. The Complainant showed me multiple saw cuts. The Complainant explained that the concrete pad was a designed sports court and was going to be coated with acrylic (by another contractor). The coating contractor refused to do their work because of the condition of the concrete pad.

Both parties agreed that there was only supposed to be a single saw cut (control joint) under the net.

The Respondent stated that he added additional control joints so the concrete wouldn’t crack.

I saw there were a multiple control joints (saw cut) throughout the concrete project.

I reviewed the demand letter provided by the Complainant and noted the following:

The written estimate (proposal) is included in the demand letter and was dated 12/4/2025.

The estimate bears the handwritten name of the Respondent’s company along with the handwritten name of the Complainant.

The estimate bears a signature, presumably from the Respondent. The acceptance block is not signed.

The estimate proposes the following work to be completed:

Grade and level designated area for concrete. Remove trees, bushes and plants. Save all ground lights.

Level dirt to design elevation. 60’ x 30’

New concrete 4” thickness 3000 psi pump mix w 3/8” rebar @ 4’ O.C. All sleeves and conduit under concrete.

Saw cut all concrete after concrete pour. 1 day after.

I reviewed a series of text messages between the Respondent and Complainant and noted the following:

. . .

I reviewed the 2023 American Sports Builders Association (ASBA) Pickleball Court Construction and Maintenance Manual and noted the following:

(a). Page 117, “Particular attention should be given to verify all construction/control joints for curling. Leveling, if required, should be done by grinding down the high areas and filling the low areas with an approved patching material. The compressive strength of the patch material should be equal to or greater than that of the concrete.”

(b). Page 131, “With concrete courts, most cracks will be structural in nature, running through the vertical profile of the slab, although this type of cracking is more common in reinforced concrete courts rather than in post-tensioned concrete courts.”

(c). Page 131, “The methods for repairing concrete court cracks are similar to those of repairing asphalt cracks. In the concrete industry, epoxies and urethanes are often used to repair cracks. Pressure injection of epoxies and urethanes can effectively fill small cracks in concrete courts.”

ASBA Summary: The ASBA suggests that control joints may be added but I could not find any requirement for their specific location for a concrete application. I could not locate a definitive standard that prohibits concrete cracks of a certain width or profile. However, the ASBA does suggest methods of repair. These methods are not strict requirements, rather suggestions.

Despite the lack of a signed contract, the text messages and the Respondent’s agreement at the Jobsite Inspection indicate that the Respondent was aware of these design specifications and materially altered the project without the Complainant’s consent.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s):

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) Departure from or disregard of (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner...

. . .

2 Complaint Item:

The slab is already cracking due to poor installation.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed there were an unusually high number of cracks in the slab.

Both parties agreed that there were several “spider web” type cracks.

The Respondent expressed concern that the concrete mix may have been significantly different between trucks.

The Respondent also stated the concrete trucks were slow and there were larger than ideal breaks between trucks.

I inspected the slab and noted an excessive number of cracks. Some cracks intersected others and each section appeared to lack adhesion. The Respondent’s comments could account for this extensive cracking. While none of the cracks exceeded the allowable tolerances, they were excessive and raise questions about the durability of the slab. The work on the slab was not professional or workmanlike especially considering the Respondent’s knowledge that this slab would be coated as a sports court.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s):

2-12

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-

108(a): A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

. . .

3 Complaint Item:

The slab didn’t include a broom finish.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed that the slab was supposed to be a broom finish.

Both parties agreed that the slab did not end up with a broom finish.

I inspected the slab and confirmed that it has a smooth finish.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s):

1-13

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) Departure from or disregard of (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner...

. . .

4 Complaint Item:

A separate footing for the light was not installed.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed that there was supposed to be a separate slab for the light.

Both parties agreed that the separate light slab did not get installed.

I inspected and saw that a separate slab for the light was not present.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s):

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

. . .

5 Complaint Item:

The worksite was not cleaned up, including cement that spilled over into landscaping.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified

Both parties agreed there was overflow concrete in the planter.

I inspected and saw that there was a large section of concrete that had overflowed into the planter.

Required Actions:

The respondent is directed to remedy the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s):

Governing Rule:

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

On February 26, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 3, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about March 16, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on April 23, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Nipp testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Investigator Nipp testified that on February 24, 2026, Complainant sent an email informing him that no corrective work had been performed. Further, Investigator Nipp testified he emailed Mr. Kilifi to verify the same, to which Mr. Kilifi stated that Complainant had denied him access.

Complainant testified that the work left his yard in shambles. Further, Complainant testified that Mr. Kilifi sent him a text message on February 8, 2026, requesting access to the property, and that Complainant informed him to come on Monday or Tuesday. Complainant testified that no representative from Respondent appeared. Complainant also testified that again on February 15, 2026, Mr. Kilifi sent him a text message requesting access to the property, and that Complainant informed him to come on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. Kilifi testified that the job was beyond the scope of his expertise, and that it was way more than what he expected. Mr. Kilifi also testified that it was his fault as to the communication surrounding the corrective work as he was working another job in Cave Creek.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 8, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 338216 was first issued on May 16, 2022. The license record also 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)(2)(a), as Respondent admitted that he did not follow the design specification for the concrete court.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as there were multiple issues with the workmanship of the concrete installed.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly established that all items remained incomplete, and . Therefore, Complainant 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 338216 for a period of five business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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, May 8, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Steve Taplin

[email redacted]

SSK Concrete LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff