ALJDEC

99F-P0085-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-04-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|WHITE MOUNTAIN LAKE UNIT 18, |§|CASE NO.: P99-0085 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-P0085-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 130110, Class A of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |HATCHMARK INDUSTRIES INC., |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: April 9, 1999, at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its authorized board member, Harwell Cooper. The Respondent appeared through qualifying party, Danny Hatch. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on April 9, 1999. The Complainant appeared through its authorized board member, Harwell Cooper and the Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Danny Hatch. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class A- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. The Complainant is a neighborhood association. This matter is based upon an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to chip- seal the roads in the neighborhood association. 3. There was no dispute that the Respondent submitted a written proposal for the project.

4. Credible evidence established that the Complainant then asked for a written contract which the Respondent declined to provide. The Complainant then submitted a written list of specifications which it obtained from the county building department.

5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the list was added to the Respondent’s written proposal and signed by representatives for both parties.

6. The written proposal along with the seven item list of specifications is found to be one document and to constitute the written agreement for construction work between the parties.

7. The parties then became embroiled in a sharp dispute regarding the terms of their agreement, particularly with regard to item number six, which specified the type chips to be utilized in the chip seal application.

8. The Respondent declined to install the specified type of chip.

9. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s failure to complete its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

10. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to properly complete the construction project.

11. The Respondent failed to comply with the corrective work order.

12. After the issuance of the corrective work order, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement wherein the parties agreed that the Respondent could substitute its own chip material so long as the substituted material complies with all applicable industry standards and code requirements.

13. This agreement was shown to have been knowingly and voluntarily entered into and is found to be binding.

14. Credible evidence established that the Respondent did attempt to complete the project but was prevented from doing so by equipment problems and weather conditions.

15. The Respondent shall properly complete the chip-sealing to the Complainant’s road system as specified in the parties’ two page agreement, as modified by the parties to allow the Respondent to substitute its own chip material.

16. Notice has to be taken of weather conditions in the area. The Complainant neighborhood association is located at an elevation in excess of 5000 feet and the chip-seal material can only be applied during appropriate temperature and weather conditions. The general recommendation for the chip-seal application is that it should not be applied before June 1 at the elevation of the Complainant neighborhood association.

17. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that, commencing on June 2, 1999, the Respondent’s Class A- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly completed the chip-seal application to the Complainant’s road system as set forth above in Finding of Fact No. 15.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before June 2, 1999, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No. P99-0085 shall be closed.

Dated this 20th day of April, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of April, 1999 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

-----------------------