Shepard_ROC_Emails.pdf

2025A-04941-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-11

From: Alex Figueroa <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 3:32:02 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: Bcc: [email redacted] Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941 RE: Shepard's

Afternoon Mr. Norton, I am reaching out to you concerning the above referenced complaint. I am one of the Assistant Chiefs at the Agency and also INV Barrett's supervisor.

INV Barrett has informed me that you feel ARS 32-1155 (D) 1 is not being properly exercised and feel the complaint should be dismissed, and that you feel the Registrar has placed yourself in a position of no due process. I have read your emails with INV Barrett and would like to address that the Registrar is not trying to keep you from conducting work to provide for your family. However, the ROC and its Investigator(s) need both parties to communicate and if access is denied in that communication seeking compliance with ARS 32-1155 (D) 1, then the ROC may use its sole discretion to dismiss a case.

I understand you reached out to the Shephard's to open a line of communication, but it has been determined that access has not been denied at this time. I am asking what in specific did the Shephard's present or say denying you access to the property, this too would likely be asked by an administrative law judge to look at. Please understand while I cannot give you legal advice or tell you how to proceed, I can explain the administrative process moving forward. The ROC process is voluntary and if you disagree with the Registrar's findings and/or written directive, you always have the option to argue your case at a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings at a later date as INV Barrett has suggested, that is your due process. This matter is still open and I would encourage you to work with the Shepard's for the items that were directed.

I trust that this email clearly sets forth the Registrar's role in this matter and the expectations of you as a respondent, as it is important that you understand the complaint process if you wish to proceed. Respectfully

Alex Figueroa #145 Assistant Chief of Investigations Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6768 Website https://roc.az.gov/ From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 1:09:23 PM To: "Alex Figueroa" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Fwd: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

Hi Alex, Can you review the above email chain and provide a response if you feel it warrants one? We can discuss as well if needed.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Date: Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:57 PM Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941 To: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]>

Sorry, but the inspection letter does not trump the law. The statute does not specify that a specific request is required. And, I did request. I asked for a call back to discuss the process. The process includes our inspection.

In addition, the Registrar's position on directive and hearing violates the right to repeal law. The only way you let the directive go to hearing is for us to break the law by not complying with the directive. You put us in a no win position with no due process. It really needs to stop. You guys are killing us here. Your effecting our ability to feed our children while allowing the complaintant to ignore our rights because of a little color issue on their pool deck. Color on a deck v. The livelyhood of 20 families. Where's the justice there?

Did you run this by legal? What was their response?

Bill

Sent from my Galaxy

-------- Original message -------- From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Date: 6/24/25 12:26 PM (GMT-07:00) To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email. The complaint will not be dismissed, the jobsite inspection notice says "upon request" you should be allowed to inspect and you did not request an inspection. If you feel this is incorrect you can always argue your case during the citation and hearing process with the assigned Administrative Law Judge should the complaint move to a hearing. At this time a written directive will be issued and if no corrections are completed during that time frame the case will move forward through our process.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/ On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:09 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

Thank you for your reply.

It seems my previous email may not have been fully considered. While your inspection letter states “upon request,” ARS 32-1155(D)(1) does not include that language. The statute reads:

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.”

There is no mention of a required request. My voicemail stated that I wanted to “discuss the complaint and the complaint process,” which clearly includes the opportunity to inspect—as the process cannot move forward without it.

Moreover, the inspection letter you sent to the complainant informed them of our right to inspect within the 15-day window. Having received that letter and my messages, they had every reason to expect that scheduling an inspection would be part of the conversation. They admitted receiving my calls and chose not to respond. If we, as the contractor, ignored communication from the Registrar or the complainant, it would not excuse us from our responsibilities. The same standard should apply to the complainant.

I was particularly surprised to hear that you told them they could simply ignore my calls if no inspection was explicitly requested. As noted, the statute imposes no such condition, nor does it define the language or format required for asserting this right. A voicemail requesting to “discuss the complaint and the process”—in light of the letter they received—reasonably includes intent to coordinate an inspection.

Perhaps you could run this by the legal department for review. If they share their opinion on the matter, I would like to see it.

If a directive is issued against us on this basis, we will have no choice but to appeal. It sets a concerning precedent for complainants to ignore contractor outreach without consequence, especially when the law protects our right to inspect.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290

From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 10:25 AM To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email and follow up. Unfortunately a request to inspect the project was not made in the voicemail I listened to and there is not enough to dismiss the complaint at this time. I did exchange an email with the complainant when you left that voicemail and told them they had to allow you an opportunity to inspect if requested and if no request was made they could wait until the jobsite meeting. Asking to discuss the complaint and walk them through the process is not a request to inspect. Were you able to reach an agreement for corrections after the inspection?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator

Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Suite #105

Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775

Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:39 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

Thank you again for your time yesterday. While we may have a few differences of opinion, I appreciate your professionalism and straightforward approach.

I had expected my phone app to store recordings of my calls to Mr. Shepard, but it only retains a limited number unless I archive them. The last saved recording is from June 12. My call logs indicate that I contacted Mr. Shepard on May 29 and June 2, leaving voicemails of 23 and 37 seconds in length, respectively (see attached screenshot). Both were sufficient to leave a message, and as you heard today, messages were indeed received.

In the message, I stated that I wished to discuss the complaint and its process—which includes the right to inspect the work, as per ARS 32-1155. Your Jobsite Inspection letter dated May 27, 2025, states:

“Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect... the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action...”

That letter was sent to the complainant, informing them of our legal right to inspect. They acknowledged receiving my messages and had you listen to one—clear proof of our good-faith effort. While the letter says “upon request,” the statute itself does not. ARS 32-1155(D)(1) reads:

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.”

Additionally, my voicemail mentioned wanting to “discuss the complaint and the process,” clearly referencing our inspection right.

After the inspection, I remained to apologize for any behavior by our employee that may have made Mrs. Shepard uncomfortable, though I was not directly aware of the details. I stayed for an hour attempting to resolve their concerns. Mr. Shepard was reasonable; however, Mrs. Shepard remains fixed on certain claims, such as footprints.

During our conversation, Mrs. Shepard mentioned that after receiving my messages, they called you to ask if they were obligated to return my call. She said you told them they didn’t need to. While I find it hard to believe, nor do I think you would advise them to ignore communication from us, her statement further supports the notion that they knowingly chose not to ignore, despite the clear directive in the inspection letter.

This is not the first time they have been difficult to reach. I have phone records of multiple calls from our office prior to receiving any response.

We maintain that we were denied our statutory right to inspect within the 15-day window. I’ve also attached the contract and highlighted sections relevant to the complaint items.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290 From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/9/2025 11:46:40 AM To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Morning, I will be rescheduling the inspection for 6/23/25 at 11:00 AM.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:29 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: No, sorry, we're out of town till the 23rd. Thanks, Bill

Sent from my Galaxy

-------- Original message -------- From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Date: 6/5/25 11:49 AM (GMT-06:00) To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Good Morning,

Thank you for the update. Are you available the week of June 16th?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 12:57 PM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Inspector Barrett,

Both myself and Alan, the other business principal, will be out of town on June 11, so we need to reschedule the jobsite inspection. I will be traveling a lot this summer. I will be in town and available all week June 23-27.

Below are our answers (in bold) to each complaint item.

Thanks,

Bill Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

480-539-5944

1. A lot of areas sanded, ground with a grinder & roughed up exposing grey concrete with no dye color. Customer did some grinding on the concrete. He used one of our grinding disks on his own tool and did some grinding while our technician was present. We do not know how much he did when we were not there. 2. Sharp left concrete forms on pool edge for 4 weeks with wet concrete which dried on pool tile (won't come off). Some concrete forms need to be left on the cantilever edge to allow for the concrete to cure. This project was a pool deck remodel. Our portion of the project was to do a deck overlay which required removing some of the coping. It was not in the contract for us to do any other part of the remodel. It was understood that there would be next steps in the remodel process that the homeowner would be managing. The customer continually reiterated that understanding by asuring our technicians “I’ll take care of that,” when it came to the tile, etc. 3. Screws, oil, old pool edge chunks, most of the form pieces they left in pool & all over our yard with chunks of concrete (which we ended up hauling off because they wouldn't do it). We do not use oil in our proccess. We cleaned up as per our contract. The contract indicates that some final cleanup may be needed by the customer because we often cannot do a final cleanup due to fresh concrete, etc. 4. dropped wet concrete in pool on pebble tec which stuck & we believe stained pebble tec, chunks of pebble tec broken, broken tile & ground tile. Sharp promised they would clean trash & oil out for 6 weeks & never did. The pool turned black & green & we cleaned for 7 weeks at our expense. Cleaned up as per contract. Did not come near pebble tech. Customer said he’d take care of tile. Tile repair, etc. not part of contract. Customer over workers shoulders mentioned numerous times that he would take care of tile. 5. Sharp grounded off original grout/concrete on inside of pool edge & left wide open for water & insects to go into & behind, "William, a Sharp employee, came 5/5/25 & smeared white caulk & didn't even it out & smeared on pool concrete edge & wiped stain on inner edge with a rag. We did not grind out grout. We removed the deck as per contract & repoured. Our portion was just the deck. Caulking was done later as a courtesy for the customer. Not done, customer has not responded to attempts to schedule to inspect and make any additional touchups. 6. Tore existing paint off stem wall & ripped polyaspartic porch coating off. These items are in our contract as not our responsibility. Nevertheless, we repaired as a courtesy to the customer. Item has been fixed. 7. The boot stomp marks are holding water & discoloring & rocks are popping up. No boot marks, part of normal pattern & texture. 8. William kept dropping wet concrete on stamped concrete & walking through it tracking & left gritty marks during repair. If any of this occurred, it was cleaned up by the technician. Other final cleanup may fall within the contract as customer responsibility as previously explained. 9. William used grey concrete to fix some areas & applied with his finger, then painted colored water on it. That is the process, we often use non-colored repair material and then stain as per industry standard. Coloring is not just “colored water.” Although, it may look that way to a homeowner. 10. Exposed Outer edges of concrete forms were in our opinion not set correctly & the concrete sloughed off & had to be cut off & they ground off some of mistakes & William wiped with a rag with stain. Fit is typical for concrete to slough under forms. The sides of the concrete are unfinished, as per our specs in our brochures. It is anticipated that sloughing and sides will be covered by landscaping. Nevertheless, our technitail removed much of the sloughing as a courtesy. 11. Alan Norton told us multiple times that they could fix everything & William was here 5 times & it got worse than before. N/A 12. The 5th time William said "we can't fix this.” N/A 13. Alan Norton on 5/15/25 told Roy they could "paint it" or " lay pavers over or whatever, even if it takes a year" N/A (the comment that was made was when were were asking the customer what he wanted. He was told we are fine waiting for him to make a decision, even if it takes a year. The “takes a year” comment was in relation to his actions, not ours.) 14. Alan Norton also said " we could jackhammer it up" Roy asked if he was going to pay for that & he wouldn't answer & changed the subject. N/A 15. We also pointed out some mistakes on day one, Feb 24th 2025, we could see from a distance & the foreman "Coco" said "they would fix it later " N/A

We are always ready and willing to make a customer happy. We will often do things as a courtesy, even if we are not required to do so per the contract, to have a happy customer. We have always been happy to help the complainant resolve their concerns. In this case, the complainant has not responded to our attempts to schedule opportunities to fulfill that goal. From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/27/2025 9:23:40 AM To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

Good Morning, A written directive was issued with a compliance date on the directive, so the "intent" is for the poor workmanship to get corrected within that timeframe. As explained at the inspection, if a resolution is met, the complaint will be closed. I spoke with the complainant and they are aware to reach out if a resolution is reached. If a resolution is not met and there is good cause for an extension, one may be granted.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 2:18 PM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

We received your Directive. I thought you were holding that till Thursday to give the complainant time to determine what they wanted to do. I spoke with the Shepards yesterday, and they, too, were surprised to see the Directive. Mr. Shepard informed me that he would send you an email to inquire about why you sent the Directive early and to request an extension of their decision-making period until next week. What is your intent? Is the Directive in force, or are you giving the complainant some time as originally indicated?

Bill

From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:27 PM To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Afternoon,

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator

Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Suite #105

Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775

Website https://roc.az.gov/ On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:09 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

Thank you for your reply.

It seems my previous email may not have been fully considered. While your inspection letter states “upon request,” ARS 32-1155(D)(1) does not include that language. The statute reads:

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.”

Perhaps you could run this by the legal department for review. If they share their opinion on the matter, I would like to see it.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290

From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 10:25 AM To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Morning,

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator

Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Suite #105

Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775

Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:39 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett, Thank you again for your time yesterday. While we may have a few differences of opinion, I appreciate your professionalism and straightforward approach.

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.”

Additionally, my voicemail mentioned wanting to “discuss the complaint and the process,” clearly referencing our inspection right.

This is not the first time they have been difficult to reach. I have phone records of multiple calls from our office prior to receiving any response.

We maintain that we were denied our statutory right to inspect within the 15-day window. I’ve also attached the contract and highlighted sections relevant to the complaint items.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290 From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 12:57:45 PM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

Did you run this by legal? What was their response? Bill

Sent from my Galaxy

-------- Original message -------- From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Date: 6/24/25 12:26 PM (GMT-07:00) To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Afternoon,

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:09 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

Thank you for your reply.

It seems my previous email may not have been fully considered. While your inspection letter states “upon request,” ARS 32-1155(D)(1) does not include that language. The statute reads:

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.”

Perhaps you could run this by the legal department for review. If they share their opinion on the matter, I would like to see it.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290

From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 10:25 AM To: William Norton <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Good Morning,

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator

Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Suite #105

Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775

Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:39 AM William Norton <[email redacted]> wrote: Mr. Barrett,

Thank you again for your time yesterday. While we may have a few differences of opinion, I appreciate your professionalism and straightforward approach.

“The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.” Additionally, my voicemail mentioned wanting to “discuss the complaint and the process,” clearly referencing our inspection right.

This is not the first time they have been difficult to reach. I have phone records of multiple calls from our office prior to receiving any response.

We maintain that we were denied our statutory right to inspect within the 15-day window. I’ve also attached the contract and highlighted sections relevant to the complaint items.

Sincerely,

Bill Norton

Sharp Manufacturing and Contracting

602-910-0290 From: j & r Sent: 6/6/2025 1:54:10 PM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you

Mr Barrett, June 23rd at 11:00 am will be ok. We have received 2 calls from Bill from Sharp Contracting saying he wants to " walk us" thru the ROC process & talk about some of the complaints, we thought that is what the inspection date is for. We don't know who he is and he hasn't asked to come out and look. Are we obligated to call him back ?

Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 8:06 AM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Morning,

Unfortunately this is the week the respondent returns. I also have the 24th or 25th at 10:00 AM available if either of those work better for your schedule?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 2:06 PM j & r wrote: Mr Barrett, We would have to reschedule some things for the 23rd, are there any other dates sooner ?

Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:08 AM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Morning, Thank you for the email, I have updated your mailing address. The respondent is unavailable on the scheduled inspection date. Are you available on 6/23/25 at 11:00 AM for a jobsite inspection?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 7:27 AM j & r wrote: Mr Barrett, Two mailings of correspondence to us went to our street address & were given to our neighbor as we don't get mail at street address. Please mail any future correspondence to our P.O. BOX 2419 Gilbert, Az 85299

Thank you, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 3:32 PM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Afternoon, Thank you for the confirmation and list, an updated jobsite inspection notice was sent out.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:52 PM j & r wrote: Mr Barrett,

Confirming June 11th 2025 at 10:00 am for inspection. Listed are some other concerns we would like to discuss at inspection:

* A lot of areas sanded, ground with a grinder & roughed up exposing grey concrete with no dye color

* Sharp left concrete forms on pool edge for 4 weeks with wet concrete which dried on pool tile (won't come off) screws,oil, old pool edge chunks, most of the form pieces they left in pool & all over our yard with chunks of concrete (which we ended up hauling off because they wouldn't do it) dropped wet concrete in pool on pebble tec which stuck & we believe stained pebble tec, chunks of pebble tec broken, broken tile & ground tile. Sharp promised they would clean trash & oil out for 6 weeks & never did. The pool turned black & green & we cleaned for 7 weeks at our expense *Sharp grounded off original grout/concrete on inside of pool edge & left wide open for water & insects to go into & behind, "William, a Sharp employee, came 5/5/25 & smeared white caulk & didn't even it out & smeared on pool concrete edge & wiped stain on inner edge with a rag * Tore existing paint off stem wall & ripped polyaspartic porch coating off

*The boot stomp marks are holding water & discoloring & rocks are popping up * William kept dropping wet concrete on stamped concrete & walking through it tracking & left gritty marks during repair. William used grey concrete to fix some areas & applied with his finger, then painted colored water on it

* Exposed Outer edges of concrete forms were in our opinion not set correctly & the concrete sloughed off & had to be cut off & they ground off some of mistakes & William wiped with a rag with stain * Alan Norton told us multiple times that they could fix everything & William was here 5 times & it got worse than before. The 5th time William said "we can't fix this"

Alan Norton on 5/15/25 told Roy they could "paint it" or " lay pavers over or whatever, even if it takes a year" Alan Norton also said " we could jackhammer it up" Roy asked if he was going to pay for that & he wouldn't answer & changed the subject.

We also pointed out some mistakes on day one, Feb 24th 2025, we could see from a distance & the foreman "Coco" said " they would fix it later "

Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:00 AM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Morning,

Thank you for the follow up. Are you available on June 11, 2025 at 10:00 AM for a jobsite inspection? Please email me an itemized list of additional items you would like inspected.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/ From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/6/2025 8:06:08 AM To: "j & r" Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you

Good Morning, Unfortunately this is the week the respondent returns. I also have the 24th or 25th at 10:00 AM available if either of those work better for your schedule?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 2:06 PM j & r > wrote: Mr Barrett, We would have to reschedule some things for the 23rd, are there any other dates sooner ?

Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:08 AM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Morning,

Thank you for the email, I have updated your mailing address. The respondent is unavailable on the scheduled inspection date. Are you available on 6/23/25 at 11:00 AM for a jobsite inspection?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 7:27 AM j & r < > wrote: Mr Barrett, Two mailings of correspondence to us went to our street address & were given to our neighbor as we don't get mail at street address. Please mail any future correspondence to our P.O. BOX 2419 Gilbert, Az 85299

Thank you, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 3:32 PM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Afternoon,

Thank you for the confirmation and list, an updated jobsite inspection notice was sent out.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:52 PM j & r > wrote: Mr Barrett,

Confirming June 11th 2025 at 10:00 am for inspection. Listed are some other concerns we would like to discuss at inspection: * A lot of areas sanded, ground with a grinder & roughed up exposing grey concrete with no dye color

We also pointed out some mistakes on day one, Feb 24th 2025, we could see from a distance & the foreman "Coco" said " they would fix it later "

Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:00 AM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Morning,

Thank you for the follow up. Are you available on June 11, 2025 at 10:00 AM for a jobsite inspection? Please email me an itemized list of additional items you would like inspected.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 7:20 PM j & r > wrote: Mr Barrett, Just reading Job Site Inspection Notice & noticed that only what was in original complaint form would be discussed. There wasn't enough character space to list everything, so we would like to file an addendum to add other items to discuss during inspection. Do we do that online again ? Didn't see anything about that , so we might have missed it. Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 6:52 PM j & r > wrote: Mr Barrett, Received your voicemail 5/27/25 and returned with a voicemail. This email is a follow-up of voicemail. We will not be able to do June 9th 2025 as we have prescheduled doctor appointments From: j & r <j Sent: 7/21/2025 1:35:42 PM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared a file "20250624 Written Directive 2025-04941.pdf" with you

Attachments: 002.PNG ,001.PNG

Mr Barrett, Haven't heard anything since Bill's last text to us on july 3rd 2025. We got the impression from his text we would not hear from Bill. Attached is Bill's last correspondence. Please let us know what we need to do from here. Thank You, Roy & Julie Shepard

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:11 PM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Afternoon,

I am following up to see if the items from the written directive have been corrected to your satisfaction?

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 12:13 PM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Afternoon, The contractor has until July 18th to complete the work, as stated in the written directive. They are to schedule with you during normal business hours to complete the work.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775 Website https://roc.az.gov/

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:04 PM j & r > wrote: What kind of timeframe does Bill at Sharp contracting have to respond to us ? Thank you for your response

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 2:13 PM Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> wrote: Good Afternoon,

If the respondent does not correct the items per the written directive, I will conduct a compliance inspection and cite the complaint to our Legal Department and on to a hearing. Access was not denied by you but it is the respondent's right to be heard in a hearing if they choose. I will be at the hearing with you and the respondent if the work is not corrected or resolved in another fashion.

Regards,

Doug Barrett #222 Investigator Arizona Registrar of Contractors

1700 W Washington St. Suite #105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-771-6775