ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01411-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Donald Baker Sheppard,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Edge Restoration LLC
dba Streamline Builders,
License No. ROC 332597,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-01411-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 30, 2025
APPEARANCES: Donald Baker Sheppard appeared on his own behalf and with the assistance of Ronald Cook. Owner Adam Akers and Jeff Mattingly appeared representing Edge Restoration LLC dba Streamline Builders. Investigator Arlo Houston appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Respondent’s Exhibits: 19 communications with Complainant, and a time-line document. _____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Edge Restoration LLC dba Streamline Builders (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 332597, a KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in March 2021.
In August 2024, Donald Baker Sheppard (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for insurance restoration work after a water leak in the kitchen. The work began on August 5, 2024 and stopped on October 12, 2024.
On February 5, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged multiple items of poor work and/or incomplete re-installation work.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Arlo Houston (“Investigator”), who scheduled a jobsite inspection for March 11, 2025.
The matter was on hold while the parties discussed possible resolution; however, in April 2025, Complainant requested the matter be reopened.
At a jobsite inspection on April 24, 2025, both Complainant and Respondent were present. Investigator reviewed the Complainant and Addendum items with the parties and took multiple photographs to document the poor workmanship and resulting conditions of the project.
The photographs taken at the jobsite inspection depicted the deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of the inspection.
At that time, Respondent “accepted” each of the 17 alleged workmanship items, “as specified” and advised that it would make the needed correction.
On April 28, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which set forth the 17 items needing correction and set a May 19, 2025 deadline for corrective action to be completed.
In the April 28, 2025 Directive, Investigator also directed that Respondent was required to submit to the Registrar an updated version of a contract template for future use that complies with provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1158.
On July 17, 2025, Investigator conducted a Compliance Jobsite inspection. Both parties were present. Investigator made the following Compliance Inspection Notes:
Complaint Item: 1 - Countertop seams are not acceptable
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-counter top seam poorly placed and poorly completed
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the counter tops
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 2 - Sink cutout in countertop does not match the sink
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-sink cutout poorly completed: exposed gaps at corner of sink
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the counter tops
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 3 - Sink cutout not centered in countertop
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-sink cutout poorly completed
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the counter tops
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 4 - Countertop's oak backsplash not flush with countertop
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-oak backsplash poorly installed: excessive gap between counter and backsplash
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 5 - Stove was caulked to the replacement countertop
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-caulking applied to gap between range and counter tops
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the counter top to then correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Range removed from gap; areas of caulking remaining on counter top and range.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 6 - Oak backsplash mitered corner and seams are gapped
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-oak backsplash mitered cuts poorly completed
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 7 - Oak backsplash finish is fading quickly
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-oak backsplash poorly stained: areas of excessive variation
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 8 - Oak backsplash is not same size as original
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 9 - Oak backsplash is not same color as original
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-oak backsplash poorly stained: areas of excessive variation
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 10 - Countertop and backsplash do not look level
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would replace the counter tops and back splash
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 11 - Newly installed cabinetry does not have the same configuration measurements as original
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 12 - Original custom lazy susan two shelves not reinstalled correctly
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 13 - Dishwasher and stove are not spaced correctly
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-dishwasher reveal uneven on right and left side.
-range caulked in to counter tops
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 14 - Original hinges and face frame wood pieces were not reinstalled and reused, as photographed and agreed to, by the demo
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-mismatched cabinetry hardware
Respondent specified they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 15 - The sink already had repairs done to it, but after being reinstalled, there are new chips in it
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-chips in enamel of sink
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 16 - Lazy susan door will not close properly
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
-lazy susan door poorly installed and does not close fully
Respondent accepted allegation as specified and advised they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 17 - Carpeting and pad installation is not of same quality and color as was removed
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:
Respondent specified they would correct this issue
Compliance Observation: Work not completed for this item.
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.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
On July 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) 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.
Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158
Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.
Prior to the hearing, Respondent corrected and completed multiple items. At one time, Respondent proposed a settlement.
At the time of the hearing, Items #10, 11, and 13 remained unresolved between the parties.
At the December 30, 2025 hearing, Investigator testified regarding the background of the Complaint, his findings, and the Directive items. Investigator testified that the parties had worked together in good faith to resolve the Complaint.
At hearing, Complainant testified that, although Respondent had continued to offer the reconstruction on the remaining Directive items, without knowing the detail of how and what was to be done, he was just at his limits in putting up with another deconstruction to accomplish those remedial items.
At hearing, Respondent again expressed its interest in resolving the matter monetarily.
At hearing, Mr. Akers testified that Respondent had developed, and provided to the ROC, a written contract form for purposes of compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. Mr. Akers further noted the submittal had needed revisions, but expected the revisions to resolve the written contract issue.
Since the time of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the parties have resolved the matter.
Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public records and Respondent’s ROC License record on January 19, 2026. The public record indicates that Respondent has one open case with the Registrar, i.e., the instant case. The public record indicates that two prior cases were resolved, one with confirmed compliance and one through ROC legal. The public record indicates one prior case in 2024 resulted in a discipline of suspension.
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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.
The Directives mandated correction of the Investigator-determined workmanship issues. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period. The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent did perform the majority of the directed corrective work.
The hearing record demonstrated that Respondent had developed, and provided to the ROC, a written contract form for purposes of compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
The evidence established that Respondent’s construction work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established 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).
The evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
It is recommended that Respondent’s ROC License 332597 be suspended for (2) two business days beginning on the effective day of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter.
It is 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 (30) 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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, January 19, 2026.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Arlo Houston
ROC Investigator
[email redacted]
Donald Baker Sheppard
[email redacted]
Edge Restoration LLC dba Streamline Builders
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff