ALJDEC - Licensing
2026A-00350-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Vern Eugene Peltzer
Peltzer Plumbing Inc,
COMPLAINANT
v.
City Pro LLC,
License No. ROC 312439,
RESPONDENT
No. 2026A-00350-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 10, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Verne Eugene Peltzer appeared on his own behalf. William Baillie appeared on behalf of Respondent City Pro LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator James Carter appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
City Pro LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 312439 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about July 7, 2025, Complainant hired Respondent to install a new foam roof at his residence in Wickenburg, Arizona.
On or about January 12, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. The jobsite inspection was performed on February 18, 2026.
Investigator Carter then issued a Written Directive on or about February 19, 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 Thursday, March 12, 2026.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Roof Repair completed and interior damage repaired Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed an area in the dining room ceiling that had evidence of a water damage. The roof directly above that area showed a spot with a temporary patch. That area of the roof was also soft and "Spongy" Throughout the area of the roof where the elastomeric material was applied also shown signs of uneven application along the edges. Material was uneven and inconsistent as it went up the sides.
A second area in the hall bath and bedroom next to the bathroom also showed evidence of water was also observed. I was unable to access that area of the roof due to the weather but was able to observe that the area had been worked on by the Respondent as well. Solar panels where in the area and per the contract Respondent was to lift the panels to unsure all areas under the panels were repaired and and coating would be complete under the panels. Per Respondent he was unable to fully lift the panels so he only sprayed under the panels as far as his spray wand would reach. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship. . .
On March 24, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about April 3, 2026, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about April 28, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on June 10, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Carter testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. He testified that on March 16, 2026, he emailed Complainant to verify if work had been completed and Complainant replied in the negative. Investigator Carter then testified that he sent an email to Mr. Baillie and called him the next day. Investigator Carter testified that Mr. Baillie informed him that he did not receive the Directive in the mail and could not open the emailed copy. Then, Investigator Carter testified that he gave Mr. Baillie a day to contact Complainant to schedule the corrective work. However, when that did not occur, Investigator Carter referred the matter to the Registrar’s legal department for issuance of the Citation.
Complainant testified that the contract required Mr. Baillie to pull up the solar panels and that Mr. Baillie failed to do the same. In addition, Complainant testified that Mr. Baillie knew of the existing leaks as well per what was written in the contract.
Mr. Baillie testified that he was sorry that “it got to this point.” Further, he admitted that he did not pull up all the solar panels but did his best to spray the foam under the same. In addition, Mr. Baillie testified that while he did not remember the specific date, he offered to make the necessary repairs. Finally, Mr. Baillie testified that he did not believe that his work caused any of the leaks.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 29, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 312439 was first issued on March 30, 2017. 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)(3) – R4-9-108(A), as there spongy spots in the roof; the foam spray was unevenly applied; and the leaks were not stopped.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence credibly 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 Nos. 312439 for a period of two business days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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, June 29, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
City Pro LLC
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Vern Eugene Peltzer
Peltzer Plumbing Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff