[redacted]---

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/ Email Header: Bcc : [email redacted] MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:32:02 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 10: 32:39 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2b0e:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id ha14csp3609733qtb; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 41be03b00d2f7-b31f1e25cf0sor634252 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:32:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCWTJYYNoNLgVmFcajFIHEa6J1H6/6oqJHeeEdfM9XdsLWkJt2op+k2stapKXGqznScusr5phY3kv+IYUsY="@roc.az.gov" X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUYYEIi+TteJEvjNv+e0sxqpAcxWv0icM/yPNWVaDOJlJa9XK4chIhWnVrAHWnwcSehLuTeg68MUgSSk/M="@roc.az.gov" X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:448f:b0:215:eac9:1ab3 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-2207f2a225fmr1403980637.29.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:32:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d008:b0:312:1b53:5e98 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-315f26c401fmr675696a91.34.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:32:38 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="Nl3KQhNPR2zC+ILPh7rzjyoHQenIfGjWG2FAwrKT5ACIZ7QXL7phBVZzgU8Dz9T5Zy Ot05whXIePYRFROQHCvSGHyaZwZ2Zm78RCoCgSujksfhGTZU6kBOeZPywNuEH2EHmKmT ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:dkim-signature"; bh="ldeZ6nmI4CGUvBdLOgNviCeDAt5Ns4zcw7PCbw08Y0E="; fh="ddPN722coVakOLZ2elKcAYVRHmJquCunH+wEXiYqztI="; b="P+HHoUTJJJV6+tT8xnqRgdUuWHMM4OlJqEtRxaETbJ+52F6fdea5USiGZ5zyVjTBU/ utLHzZGqqdX11hmRv7w4JfpEHPg1opN8fKKLmsfM2BdCbtt9QRA9ArjIG5xgjPzDIYQi dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gsrg header.b=qwjwXaG0"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=roc.az.gov"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gsrg header.b=qwjwXaG0"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=roc.az.gov"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="roc.az.gov"; s=gsrg; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="ldeZ6nmI4CGUvBdLOgNviCeDAt5Ns4zcw7PCbw08Y0E="; b="qwjwXaG0Bde4N/+gUnY8nB6+iVMuUyRq+1uKmqpKqbyvEvTAXZhfwi0JQz0nqVe82F ePMUQh45jb//x1YWvXM03fehupL5urZ0ywaF5MDDt8JWScbzHlSRAHzYKRC5YhJcEPCC X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="ldeZ6nmI4CGUvBdLOgNviCeDAt5Ns4zcw7PCbw08Y0E="; b="Va8WFPdLIrEzQZvxxQ5jnC42PJxdAZL1yD/Q6nvXa4DfPFl2+J9lFtQn6ML4jUHdFL wreR7zgSLM8t15i2IGbXEAj6dX2g/Zod1LKz5jYYsB58uErthEztECAaOB1WhDmojIJy X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy7puVm02b47+jnQFDfk+jQrylmJk7TrzBWeA8bphimVu7Pe/Rs Rn6GzxleCYZwv6zfNI0/9T6vTj9twPTq7d6RJgH5QXGxooYka066LQbQVejHyyCM5fQjp7z1b+h O X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs93drJp0rz8JAzEDzsnC9MCKSeNClAybpYsXPXPgBX95K7/aTeG3H07FrKBoH xUwezHbH/9lbD0/ba7z1gn00EEetySy5V8XMM7yfUNxA4ay8s6HPWMY1/+17QSRGnLNt9GzWYhz o X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGclVCMSV4ojsRV536w7bCMWTeyZquPvroADeeUDKJ2Wc8xDLZ7JZysCADcPxXKonSMvfuU7DWyGX71IuZtvxc= X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXy9aNGWvz8nV2yusIvWLabmFcmMzyMdGfLGXaW6x3AiRKPe7rDrBfSpOgA Bcc: [email redacted] To: [email redacted] From: "Alex Figueroa" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941 RE: Shepard's From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 1:39:19 AM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: Screenshot_20250624_004942_Phone.jpg ,SHEPARD_Contract.pdf

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:39:19 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 08: 39:24 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2b0e:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id ha14csp3136706qtb; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12on2070f.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2417::70f]) by m Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by LV3PR06MB9382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:19f::18) with Micr Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:39:19 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:39:19 +0000 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:60c5:b0:876:1c5e:8c50 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-8762d1e8bf4mr1948714239f.7.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:60c5:b0:876:1c5e:8c50 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-8762d1e8bf4mr1948694939f.7.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7GkJY1l3tBnCie3ebz4/bXQav9C3H9p3IoGkew+cxdno9uEw+YYDA1/biX359/J7ge99j ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="jhq8goRcHLvfxkAkjEG+mJcjmORbcOvdV+I1np5aI0V53CIMgkl1mdx2R5YnzE+zHN JQyGlc/MIuuqWMauaybjg3qIYGVGQ0EnIIPyAYnalNckG+VtlKOqqZ8ZqU7hx93SrQ9U ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="RR+9gBg78H49fsdF4Z1mcEou262aPaKnls1qjmRsNvg1iXV1O506RyxZjC2K22/hZPXrUttKTr6BQGTcSHq86xesDEyVojBPeirudjvCsfv0kgb1iqDkZpULwS31W1RKy8Sx7T60/aqXE7jpgq/eA6 ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:content-language:accept-language:message-id:date :thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to:from:dkim-signature"; bh="hrCq5AMPJR7xJZQ/B/Az4IKWOnpfEg7tsE4lQ5B4kiM="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="QsAl5bbCM/aOU6hgTEGyPMR1/za/F0cZ9u9EHU5hobJa9zwziaTK3KmmqsXPkALLW0 DInBk/8VYCc5JU65gGK8bvKEJPOKWeXdHdkZ16v+8Rm8iMQwc54TU65Irp+1AGM0E3a9 dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="hrCq5AMPJR7xJZQ/B/Az4IKWOnpfEg7tsE4lQ5B4kiM="; b="WGOhpVeU0s9a0gg0TtxyeOhkcp3EFmDEH75G2O0fBmcIwG4J40fNmavukFC0bnsgZiNRHdRuewQJUu+2AtaXTHYOseOL5GUBusc45XsiaxZZRaWdMQ6yGNZ1q4RjLDKCPTIKSqK9NrQxXT7MXbYVSR ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=aP3bc3Aa"; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2417::70f as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bill@thesharperedge. ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; dkim="pass header.d=thesharperedge.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2417::70f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2417::70 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com"; s="selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com"; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck"; bh="hrCq5AMPJR7xJZQ/B/Az4IKWOnpfEg7tsE4lQ5B4kiM="; b="aP3bc3Aah88vdY+G2GL8TfXm+ArOYstrTIsXh4c3E3tTA+I4O5EC6kvHag+7qKoNwcSr34AeC9cK/EBuEE8WSS22kHqibUI8cXAz0oqZg/TG5/NmKFBhPw86uDXPUDME2oujykWonxowUUZNKHlgb6 Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: Advk28cmiVSQFW8IScyP47Ssk1oCcw== Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|LV3PR06MB9382:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 29e032bb-4b16-48d3-d320-08ddb2fa9c57 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|376014|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: MDX5ZisME5gcaj5xnN4LzrIqkqOxPvNqIpsqaGGclcHKPU0GydtkEmC4NBY6Z3jE69LnpIwXrf509OraQN23VCSgbRKxQaP9pLoQS+HjG9Pof/qPj+ff2l2b x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)(376014)(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: YxginLTDywVn6okcCpeh12T1Nwida+Q9v8bQdx2EJYOxXwiiLLtjnIPLZ6bt52vpj2WOmw+qwsfiut0B1hbD/P9VyGGSkbERT2jf5oxu8/ZbHfpJAUBHR X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 29e032bb-4b16-48d3-d320-08ddb2fa9c57 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jun 2025 08:39:19.0528 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: lKtHqPoE/5347t/sk5heVKCgNsB8ArrddYweDtFHij7D3YupuucrgiJa+q+7LOHd/XMUMiFV642HhA+C5n7Iyw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LV3PR06MB9382 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/4/2025 12:57:29 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941

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. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:57:29 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Wed Jun 04 07: 57:32 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:579b:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id eh27csp3372878qtb; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11on20705.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2416::705]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 46e09a7af769-735afa0ed8bsi7877963a34.299.2025.06.04.12.57.32 for <[email redacted]> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by PH7PR06MB8996.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:12f::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.8813.21; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:57:29 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d%3]) with mapi id 15.20.8769.019; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:57:29 +0000 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHMcoOgcGNMR5ScOwX+rKHWFj0/5E2mIHMrH2UPSjlxTjyrBF7A0Agtkg4H2SOJD1CXxSDc X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:6588:b0:72b:9b1f:2e1d with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-73869d12827mr3460959a34.2.[number redacted]; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=GFx5nXsN70AuEDwsajv6kXVonwySbZJwQGGDatPEEcMujzjMipEStaP3X1YycieS02 Cw/t0pC6+TeAQxWTNkVA4w0mNwRmT2pEE2mSe9zDaROpVzdVGKchxiJBDJN2Hw2fdyxL mqwvgkG1wwabrx13KldiqfmFsZnc8y0fJC2R2QWhUHIlcRPk1Zw7mixNK5p6I9P12S2g 1tgO6eb4hfZ1e+oZat/8jMzm/j9BGKJIcaZgM9+MEG2Hs3uyI0wX0s2FNhZL2EIff74N aJj1QcZqoAktMUAper8EmrczBarZEuM4qE3r+Tte+i1srP61ckPJfaWOreMcz7h64Eub WVzA== ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=xwCNM3aaq9no1dFb01j6BsYxCblKyvJGzFcLEgVwitDNNFv1CsvO23WvRTrCf+Sd51CbEqBN5JKpzSHwisWg3wnczxZ7cECd3oLIQRaAzYCZjQX8PHW2RkbjZ+WE4ZNQmZlsQfyS9SU44nA ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=mime-version:content-language:accept-language:message-id:date :thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to:from:dkim-signature; bh=7x48NXluroHdGJJZ4yMXq2AcdSamiG8ZdHLhfkzQ+NM=; fh=wThXU5i6IMcLuXLMg+zR0t25HiiLeLlfPjFpf6uY0+s=; b=cMI4U9G4VXzsdyAQFpdTnTkJ8INftyjxZFgAs53rO25ZTH0vvpdd+hYtLhRDQx/Oqd OtCkCDxLnyRsZGPY3tIfr2VhV7GeCVmpgSYGMnmBcGg6y7NvPP+pc4WMGCkv/AHH7bQm Rh3Jf6WyqaAGf6huaLCsVj9TSnd9UaZWi9x23JcKKvWItyPqOaxKZmoy0M9chZ4RkgbC gNQiJmf7nWiYdyQnlgOZVOcOhmdVsvtrTA2WNJTePmeDHzT//MKoxIvKhNPLKDrrpxxC w2efuGWZE/MpcX/L2yvfa9nWsadJtLAzyvXfdOiKosyqGzyVQi6BhiCGS4bM9lRHW8eW g7cg==; dara=google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange- bh=7x48NXluroHdGJJZ4yMXq2AcdSamiG8ZdHLhfkzQ+NM=; b=TBJdpa6/ROuZEhFP50OUh2eYsHqaYU2RGCXerMSFB812YpXWXfhVSijHwcq0t7YzTYp8uh5FwTgzrAq+wTtQwNxmbHTX1TI1QjrZ3IF+t4fnhpfjpju6hjN5VxiPaCYcRU+1YxMGGhDv/dikn0+kcLLv ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim=pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=Dj65CYo1; arc=pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com); spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2416::705 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted] ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com; dkim=pass header.d=thesharperedge.com; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2416::705 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2416::705; authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc=none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7x48NXluroHdGJJZ4yMXq2AcdSamiG8ZdHLhfkzQ+NM=; b=Dj65CYo17TVrC44rIwCuwwrk9GIyS2DWYUxGLp7+9tFMuBGXeennrsThu5mVKH+56tsJRkE27BTR3csfI6aZizk5DddMQiTWGTgUoggVrI5ImwYzSVAcH5MG9Lv1LFg1Qt1MxYtX1YUhE2+PLd47WOu8 Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: AdvViVSi+uZBLJheRZiUFB7R+7I2yQ== Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|PH7PR06MB8996:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dd5902fb-bd1d-419e-ad66-08dda3a20932 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|366016|376014|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Vu9LmxSa7nT9Qa4MCOEnGmtu7BcVTBHpo2CA6V3C82i1ZBa2voc2dUoV1nJ9HcsvB5m4E0AKY1H+2NaFWCOH8CJ8ISvOOWqQOKe+T+0J/2E0Vd06umRaTOYN x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:; IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])([number redacted])(366016)(376014)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: pFDT+sTDe1g6fnzVe3/WxAhRQjoqWryQzq4YN63126akOwoEviL5X0ase9ObT/akxMDh23VY/D9JKDzgXkbQRoeHG1R4oQML0vRh5/3PK0fC40imB2oyD X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dd5902fb-bd1d-419e-ad66-08dda3a20932 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jun 2025 19:57:29.0771 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: qjKB5r5789aWXrVf+3WWiNje1XGxwyYQjm+P6pSvCfwSISPVc6AB5AH0VFpLBiQV/TAL6kQfXWXpylPgnFaAfw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR06MB8996 To: [email redacted] From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Complaint No. 2025-04941 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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:09:23 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykwd6eFtMdD2=[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 08: 09:23 2025 References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "Alex Figueroa" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Fwd: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: Jesika Chaput <[email redacted]> Sent: 8/14/2025 2:46:13 PM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Invitation: CvR 2025-04941 Roy Shepard v. Sharp Manufacturing and Con... @ Wed Sep 17, 2025 9am - 1pm (MST) (Doug Barrett) Attachments: invite.ics Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 21:46:13 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Aug 14 09: 46:14 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:5f48:0:b0:4a9:da76:ffb4 with SMTP id y8csp1968507qta; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f73.google.com (mail-sor-f73.google.com. [209.85.220.73]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id ca18e2360f4ac-883fac7678csor629672 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7712:0:b0:864:68b0:60b3 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-88433987140mr774085939f.12.[number redacted]; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3f89:b0:883:e4c9:93bc with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-8843387801cmr942935239f.9.[number redacted]; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 14:46:13 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="j2E9BiaNK2x9hlCdDjAp6ut688mpYkXG44sqvxB2bQtquu/TzuQ6tmjtkZQ+hBB7wH PDZYke9G/Q6hWA+e280RW9QDq2M+Rv1brI9dwnNrIpbnqaUzM/NZQe1B/mWrZ9d4/ajl ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:from:subject:date:message-id:sender:reply-to:mime-version :dkim-signature:dkim-signature"; bh="6ft/+cLoiMQxYF8+6B2ENTixb71apwQcrRKqa0MLlDc="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="HOVATviDSL0dnWjwB0OOCUjkW/lLLDKR1ORo194f/UOOQb+uI6gk/iB6cjJYXEh3Xf +1Xj5qiqWFxHcAzxyE6DxptceeDckqNh2TEmuDH4vidL3g5wAx9H5UEi+Y0KLUSZj5ls dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=yFEhVW5Q"; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gsrg header.b=Plk27Ct7"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.73 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=roc.az.gov"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.73 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.73; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=yFEhVW5Q"; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gsrg header.b=Plk27Ct7"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.73 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=roc.az.gov"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:from:subject:date:message-id:sender:reply-to:mime-version:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="6ft/+cLoiMQxYF8+6B2ENTixb71apwQcrRKqa0MLlDc="; b="yFEhVW5Q2u40HQoLayNIV1YDnutGxEFozKORynJlcU9ElWxastSn+jxDT1h/iLKzlU UNFldTqiqP8gz+V9xMamJIGglVhiuMjamr0g9NxslrhAxZE6GAE+dCARvZp7CJs/BlEx DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="roc.az.gov"; s=gsrg; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:from:subject:date:message-id:sender:reply-to:mime-version:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="6ft/+cLoiMQxYF8+6B2ENTixb71apwQcrRKqa0MLlDc="; b="Plk27Ct7aMeSx6lmrQCXrLeE759xzs4fdvadLPoZNzuHBPoyXUfS/S9ZVV3M2RPeMI HQdCWYOpRYlIqTGgvjOg91U0P2nOyotnCJWtm8y4s3knRocblzQt6it9/pc/4wA8wUyp X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:from:subject:date:message-id:sender:reply-to:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="6ft/+cLoiMQxYF8+6B2ENTixb71apwQcrRKqa0MLlDc="; b="MgNA7rahdBcmshe9MH2PvuKb7pTe0LdjeWeqWt6MkUdSdvUw9xane2BCH6LnpVUn2j LTDDCghwXhdHRH/JT4c8ZxXACVi1gN06RhnxQVD0170z5XP58zbnjqn7fcPGfznwCKZn X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxGIXhB1ezSdAoL55Nvmv8PVrF85H52eN8Jlp5W+h8lWWsM2Ags Ee7dPKWbSqXmUYcHv73/m8pi+261aWW/aY3MoOW2HGl33fo8m1SRoaOYhUPaUscKxdbPvZyXF6i 0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGVUljB2FKqrz4iMZdPikZDRwCsPz0sZU64u+cL0hMA1cZNISc2hIr1SCZRNRkfdJrV1BYDwsUS6qGmlSDpYF5O Reply-To: "Jesika Chaput" <[email redacted]> Sender: Google Calendar <[email redacted]> To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "Jesika Chaput" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Invitation: CvR 2025-04941 Roy Shepard v. Sharp Manufacturing and Con... @ Wed Sep 17, 2025 9am - 1pm (MST) (Doug Barrett) 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. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 11:46:40 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykyiG8z=[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Mon Jun 09 06: 46:40 2025 References: <[email redacted]> <[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/5/2025 10:29:17 AM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941

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. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 17:29:17 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 05 05: 29:22 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:528c:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id dr12csp408510qtb; Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11on2072d.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2416::72d]) by m Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by CH3PPF539002F01.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:61f:fc00::40e) with Thu, 5 Jun 2025 17:29:18 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353 Thu, 5 Jun 2025 17:29:17 +0000 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGIPjZLAPEuw6QCutE/8V6dlnNIsew37Ck899uXv7mYxMYwAt0EIZUGW8Ve+pFiA/Q2OnUv X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:dcb:b0:736:89e:bcb2 with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-73888ed56fcmr282503a34.24.[number redacted]; Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="Pgw3NWGNSTvE+K5i8twEYxoqBithxz1l2rw7J2p+3EU5JGb/OAm6pNqJPH7JFqshdx 1OXFKSuLvwe7FRP0V1Il9XBSuuC+0exuMclnT78hiRT0nc0bHCmfm6rJW1HXxPan699w ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="eLaa4HCGucPs6IvY3Rc9cDc7jJsEj+7FcR3n4VK5zqL8PruFPKvaXL6MGf4nXKWWBz8I9/Zf8OveuyZOzCa8iyEg8TPnvAewemNT6g4kRvURuY7eizGSkPt3INipJvrvGk4i9I/SZR3arhlugBK43m ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to :fro bh="bZUS6dLnzli5cCUD+DUzbiVIoc2RjtkL76RLI4rIWpI="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="OimRNGghW2Jd4lH1HrErG0DfgRyHLrxATv780Xo6FCBrKbZYxODMwy9A/NiFYb5G2d Lhy7ah3Gbr2dTfD4JGKCpmpc0rPXjlzbVizhV/n/CQPtwrd/2bINFUyloFL35Kjcm9BI dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="bZUS6dLnzli5cCUD+DUzbiVIoc2RjtkL76RLI4rIWpI="; b="HHxhLVZNnpglICvZeP+Cb6bhOqC1JP/5AJ7xqFb5zhZ7FUCw8s6fMLNbpeiFnlcHleRjYLOA7bhbN8Jyvi552F7KtQSyfcoBPdx+8quiGKf8yBzrJxuoIOlcnVKqeZQ1tc2QeFNgsoBFHlQf9yYqje ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=YKkxjoq0"; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2416::72d as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bill@thesharperedge. ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; dkim="pass header.d=thesharperedge.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2416::72d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2416::72 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com"; s="selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com"; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck"; bh="bZUS6dLnzli5cCUD+DUzbiVIoc2RjtkL76RLI4rIWpI="; b="YKkxjoq0vGAYj5uqrl9caXpj2wHZ+DtS80WD17ZoFwFwafDn3a9Mr1MT+R79ccR2F1XiNgpvToaB4OlsEPtnsr50p8sEBbxLPJlzKTqvceDTWyIJIY/yINS8sdyLnncG5C0x1jZFjVp11Ye8gzmGGJ Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: AdvViVSi+uZBLJheRZiUFB7R+7I2yQAsGrCAAAFngnE= References: <[email redacted]> <[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|CH3PPF539002F01:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 69900eb0-515d-41c0-4732-08dda4567ffc x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|376014|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: seKcHKuF0PvZhCIwqT355R0Z6bNPS5+ijPajYgSVfLUizmBDma2dXFHpkw1nFOTbzapyOWRceoMe5kt6avCR9jyuYCfWLb4+1tvrwcfnKhDJxL6l+EgfDrtj x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])(376014)(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: lfFLHbqicqka6qh97xIl/m58xWLhMwouEGpx7ngw0tlKjUhyVGgGHyl0c1DXCVymF5XmNFGadeHS9eNJ2BMnFdG8SFie8Wa55+JBUAvHnvL3DNjeybwyY X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 69900eb0-515d-41c0-4732-08dda4567ffc X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jun 2025 17:29:17.7762 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: bZJgrrXBtggX4NSS5YE9w8wChn9j/E6wzaA6+OZepwOYj5BISZ7emw/39ioimPowaaJxhC7W0ULGvHRb9BkpAg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH3PPF539002F01 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/5/2025 9:49:05 AM To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> Cc: 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. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:49:05 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 05 04: 49:05 2025 References: <[email redacted]> In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 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,

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:40 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Fri Jun 27 04: 23:40 2025 References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/26/2025 2:17:57 PM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

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,

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 26 09: 18:01 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:640c:0:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id mm12csp544736qtb; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam11on2070c.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2415::70c]) by m Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by DM4PR06MB9052.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:8:46::11) with Microso Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:17:58 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353 Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:17:57 +0000 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFGR1NCySpQqerxH2RJ6Vikx67LYj2IRpVKua6i4Q/b1hCp+UFBi73FaxU7aHoGJ50XVuMq X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:6a89:b0:e84:4a7f:65c2 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e87a7ba2eb6mr919253276.35.[number redacted]; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:18:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="GsManOwU5dokBpuROvx0lrgA169lidipEK1+JofFTXbZV/1p0qhyAt07+GNrfLNxit lPPWgXEml2sMMvjcFDKM7Km7ADlI2gqlk/ds5tY1lOqQPy4LVJADtV8Vd1nLuUhQS8NA ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="jAhQ35/RDNM/8c3H0Brc5e2Aom3ovm+TpWYy8HiZNfsG2x409ihtzmD/sUt5k9uU5jSXO9EKSFLCqdPulV+pYj4aVpE2xWiC4wG08KyIUAQlycOQTE7j1mxYYEy7+YrdLTfULYjLIoS9yobyrto+a1 ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to :fro bh="IY4OVaOkP2nBuXMleJRbTOuPPGkU8sKLVjcRKPbYICU="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="Lte0hlb3jFviDZrXyu6Z8lTwqAuXqa833DQgvwjsIBsCwV3iSgZj3tb+nv6Zw/LfNV n4Dye5/AlUEnEfOFuWvCjmxhRba36AsFkvveVFgxOZ6IBQ5G+5DSpeqrbdZuAyLC6Z+Y dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="IY4OVaOkP2nBuXMleJRbTOuPPGkU8sKLVjcRKPbYICU="; b="fpqcjJrSH2rL9aFrF+5f4Unkm8YZ2i8xog7uCr4CqkCqJxVpOwh1+ReM4tIofpfOEKS08oz8aoH0dsxpqvQBvU0Mg3Kqs9GTK3wL3kicK/5dpf6yYDzqSQKLiV8KSwaQxaiZMVTOdYIoHNvjc9XBdZ ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=dUS0518a"; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2415::70c as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bill@thesharperedge. ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; dkim="pass header.d=thesharperedge.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2415::70c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2415::70 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com"; s="selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com"; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck"; bh="IY4OVaOkP2nBuXMleJRbTOuPPGkU8sKLVjcRKPbYICU="; b="dUS0518ahma7F5ymlPJ1UFtTULqKOGTTevh+ranHkj7beip2XHa9YVUbgZHvU5wyZww+ia519hw3HNHIAW10Zi588Ev2gVUwUthkIUqYfR4fMYQrNMS5eU59cYd1hRqs2g8fI0ISX40I/aq6FOKJBW Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: Advk28cmiVSQFW8IScyP47Ssk1oCcwAUSdUAAACXxUAAA6b5gABoVkJw References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|DM4PR06MB9052:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c92d76b4-1529-42ea-3d88-08ddb4f6ec73 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|376014|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 4YiQO7UEBMM/3xT18Hin1L3K8q06dRcIKhKsiju2T5UOi15qThF86mztCQUUNa5dpQ287/oZVchtieU5Cxt5YtDBTQoVoaHqaiywXwCV1vwwiwRCwsAA9nrl x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])(376014)(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: pDuue31eM0Ka8MTk5KLnM0p9URitmKwkXlUn9zSsHvV4fJFUnIkBV059CST90SLhfZp/ebjdBf/s9esAe/Ci5jYQ2b/UHF3xXZULWFkM2ujpPdcryM5Cm X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c92d76b4-1529-42ea-3d88-08ddb4f6ec73 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jun 2025 21:17:57.8254 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: slIOGjYyNNlVPHjpOCkTviNSnHDAPjdRfzMELk8Xm+pbNrsAev110pRx32u0R63STDEH6Eeij6egsA3Gp5/QnA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR06MB9052 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941 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

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 19:57:45 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 07: 57:49 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2b0e:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id ha14csp3538118qtb; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn7nam10on20721.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2009::721]) by m Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by SA3PR06MB9089.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:2f5::18) with Micr Tue, 24 Jun 2025 19:57:46 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 19:57:45 +0000 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFKF6o4uBuO8ui7MqxT2McJsRjoXZMmzgRbZHS43etOlSdxZS0tn4nJsxWcSyNsEaB1BP64 X-Received: by 2002:a92:c245:0:b0:3dd:ebb5:6382 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3df32874dd2mr5450525ab.4.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:57:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="Zr9jagudis375OPLilY/kdvEmN62Q6ymCf+GCo2eF5ueIRmm270ShNWM/UGCbC0ztK ve2kBj/ydHTctJg61fg2ySG0KRIPxTXMxFQPP+rbNAkGQcjkor672qndNgAXp17aqN5z ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="exq/clCPm5qEA1eZtClGNIS34aydk2ZX2YYCDgN2hAIympEEa4o33YpxfMk6Gn2pOULmd4638OcwEn6iATvZ7hdwIw7SKhkMD4hfUbozMpcjqn6CwCr70gVbhRtxTtdQVpnOPhj3FSEAjx2NToYCcZ ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to :fro bh="60K/KRdQ2j0OJj2W0HIKFwIGTYhHpBfXTsdbgarz1dg="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="PxVEIvPHzdOpQWQLHqq1dF3vH9LZf9jFQUePASRRG5zFdRxfP6+2j7WRNrn1Eu342a P3XonVcbxaRvfXu7lAr7TYWnd//spz1DxWbaRfEvzRDr2rrNcNUJU8G1yIrYkwiX5LJI dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="60K/KRdQ2j0OJj2W0HIKFwIGTYhHpBfXTsdbgarz1dg="; b="iKq4pi7WUTy50QbPaiC+gWlkn59wXKiALM48JHG0eoXT+Ype5MbeHDVWB196yGFmnPyMNMf/03Nkgn155mxtU/Zt6Adn+J1l3JZCnEyXtYOsYwj719wcBzANVMLEqS3ta4MlVnoO/dJzWPWiemhhgB ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=eig13DFM"; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2009::721 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bill@thesharperedge. ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; dkim="pass header.d=thesharperedge.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2009::721 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2009::72 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com"; s="selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com"; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck"; bh="60K/KRdQ2j0OJj2W0HIKFwIGTYhHpBfXTsdbgarz1dg="; b="eig13DFM8xNy8r1BxXtWfZKAwuXn+LwGT4SkIK85CfME4jfgTZqX6z5bMYNO/awFJY77ink7wHmWEAa/P2DQKeoYYa0WygZfmjEQx3FCMx0DQwAaWXu1/R200WhNDVOc8WHvQ3tCbQ/baD66+dsyg/ Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: Advk28cmiVSQFW8IScyP47Ssk1oCcwAUSdUAAACXxUAAA6b5gAABFd0l References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|SA3PR06MB9089:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c285a8a6-466a-4ce9-f1a6-08ddb359637c x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|376014|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: qse696ypXfxJ3TcpI/9WOgU8bEozKVRbIHZ4iIlUNvCkpl2Jhwp4J6ZMYF1lgjIWWiXKSlqHSpuT2Bh4YE7z+ntnQelwln2S5BcnigbO2J5AsHFdIzYpzNmA x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])([number redacted])(376014)(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: jAPg+2FaAAmCg9hSAQ+eoz6MGefIlAo03YEWln9i73X5tatkU4hwSnLhW4/AHF9cCjBZNRATA3zSfQKdwUeh+BHmhtyttJYhqM7/fw6lJLwg9bWcI0kSs X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c285a8a6-466a-4ce9-f1a6-08ddb359637c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jun 2025 19:57:45.8716 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: SNg5dU5yMdGUDffevN04Q95oCyzo1ZNJ5AgDay3o6OO2w/8BlohgLU6v4W7I83Cx7U5FEkgdN9RJdGGk1Vv/Gg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA3PR06MB9089 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 12:26:41 PM To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:26:41 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 07: 26:41 2025 References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: William Norton <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 11:09:32 AM To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> Cc: Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941

Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:09:32 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 06: 09:39 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2b0e:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id ha14csp3483236qtb; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SJ2PR03CU002.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-westusazon11023128.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [52.101.44.128]) by mx.google Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:e4::12) by BL4PR06MB9717.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:4e4::20) with Micr Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:09:34 +0000 Received: from MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353d]) by MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::28fa:11f3:91a2:353 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:09:32 +0000 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHXzR1kMQx7rGnd/DiniuSiK6/Lo8jndlGlYsOip091CXq9V2ipUiKHwAYFaknIySqs9zmI X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:2143:b0:3df:2f9e:3db4 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3df328c3e3amr543525ab.13.[number redacted]; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:09:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="J2deDHsJ5DgwMkUVA+aGL30L4ixwMJHRxUHiN3sIIWn4vIMYqG/h/CJ74jKXWKR54b COa/MG42AsrRYeBX+EHjyYJTKt3E1twz+n/DRLwiD4kVkO4GuNtPGBsBrUIOX7Th6OOb ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="E5gsalQynzp4oCHu8lNFskIdaDlYkO+Hsnasj7n+gd1XHM11Snf9d9TemME77AVoDSrNdG6CVfb8/VuIG9IttHrOuARbyvYtMcnSsyFZXt+TiwG8jJLuRJNsA2KfpiTlNxK/AgdYjfzcQxC6jsQ6yK ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:to :fro bh="TOfVirUkP6mJxkUPl3MtsTeX2G7t4s4ud0n9maYGv9k="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="Q4cQOi0Vm87/P+v7k3Oi8DL3pahdoyXwar+HJyC+XHURIdhNka5V1wKCVtRGRwDLzy 6ve9GFbIGf4rsc7einxducXTy80119+50WcUgL7RNf5zplMnSKjWF1lr6MmFwjsmrhOK dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="TOfVirUkP6mJxkUPl3MtsTeX2G7t4s4ud0n9maYGv9k="; b="FpAKHRDav12LQ8VVY9DjbqPlZyHhn7SBQDyAD3CxqMJm1jGazKbClWGjwDGhb6DHH7H6FybFldDAUjHz66nXgBYt0ZAGk4frBSeT7TptIuk6GCZ2ckaKp9xxRKOLqLhx0aqnlSULvcl0FpJegQ5C6Y ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com header.b=FucGk6SM"; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=thesharperedge.com dkim=pass dkdomain=thesharperedge.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=thesharperedge.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 52.101.44.128 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=thesharperedge.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; dkim="pass header.d=thesharperedge.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 52.101.44.128 as permitted sender) client-ip=52.101.44.128; authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=thesharperedge.com"; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="libertycreekhome.onmicrosoft.com"; s="selector2-libertycreekhome-onmicrosoft-com"; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck"; bh="TOfVirUkP6mJxkUPl3MtsTeX2G7t4s4ud0n9maYGv9k="; b="FucGk6SMY5zCowJrzQXezShRWuA8eRQMBiKttBcbrUTaj90sSkWCify6hacR2pLAff6Ho3QUZJr36ECPkUSIT7OvVaRKvZqe4RWmd1tQZ0YkGWiHUCltdDB5SMu7FpYdY4I69/slSV8hJu6osHlQjv Thread-Topic: Complaint No. 2025-04941 Thread-Index: Advk28cmiVSQFW8IScyP47Ssk1oCcwAUSdUAAACXxUA= References: <[email redacted]> <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted] In-Reply-To: <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted]> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR06MB6112:EE_|BL4PR06MB9717:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 165e16ca-d419-4fa2-4df0-08ddb34a451a x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|376014|[number redacted]|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: SyMiQpPafodRIiiK4cI4zd6en8r412zM7cD2Ex3AuPIP+oLiWL5Bgvo61y4SjX3iy3kV+uwkLUIWwrj8tpJxBfxcOVcLVCKlBFnT0IBlXUk/d7u2QVeH8jtD x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])(376014)([number redacted])(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: VeF/yX3xPN9Ak9itHbOXnmfBEVgxwS7PKtttguw3Zc+V1JXEqhv6mTQFxtP9YOkvIzjaYh0zKlqxvbn2HVnRyPs7e1lPlHgyrLIOKTK+BRj5equZnz9ER X-OriginatorOrg: thesharperedge.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR06MB6112.namprd06.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 165e16ca-d419-4fa2-4df0-08ddb34a451a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jun 2025 18:09:32.4332 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4d1c4cad-6c05-4076-a713-6115d1b6a6fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: LsUhPXu8JIgIwiICk/3NYoxGHfENg0tBlHi6DU2ApAHGJn/NT+OI/mKaZqrfyPpqkPnzllxX+rIHr5dalz5W6Q== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL4PR06MB9717 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: RE: Complaint No. 2025-04941 From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/24/2025 10:25:08 AM To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> Cc: 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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:25:08 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsyky0D=[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Jun 24 05: 25:08 2025 References: <[email redacted]> In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "William Norton" <[email redacted]> From: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Complaint No. 2025-04941 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

* 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/

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:06:08 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykwW0rzJuRvBHDAF=+[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Fri Jun 06 03: 06:08 2025 References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <CAHQaXBNREMPYV82TivpWdYbjMN5aWk0joOuLf -[email redacted]> To: "j & r" From: "Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: j & r > Sent: 6/5/2025 2:06:32 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, 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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 14:06:32 -0700 Message-ID: <CAHQaXBNREMPYV82TivpWdYbjMN5aWk0joOuLf -[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 05 09: 06:45 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:528c:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id dr12csp523268qtb; Thu, 5 Jun 2025 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-ade1d605c94sor713 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27c9:b0:6fa:a797:477c with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fb09c104f9mr1726786d6.3.[number redacted]; Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6e8a:b0:ad8:9257:5741 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-ade1a916f83mr57776166b.9.[number redacted]; Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:06:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="QD7zFos7lVWgr0x6Ep8nH+oeX7qfbzO0797prPCsSjfym2cX1rhaZCbmjFR8eVbvKB qwTEskPz201gvpobY67z20HXLLyUgY8XcvFIxd1IbvkXgSSs3uNbk8JshQhyBh4z6 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature"; bh="ED95zNrPWiE4etNqOvn0BgawJUXfSuuMzqJTbbFRzFE="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="aqg37errxHqP+AbK1A7UrTc1wc23ympGKuE976Y9sr/pXxUFNZNGXnKejrSExcAbPd 4KO1kbPBlwZE3pkdjgR9tbjRCrOljwZerJ95TXyne0+CSy2uLvXyWoVA/FhtNfwWu dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=ZvCH2Eqv"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of m designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: < m> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=ZvCH2Eqv"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=j "; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="gmail.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="ED95zNrPWiE4etNqOvn0BgawJUXfSuuMzqJTbbFRzFE="; b="ZvCH2EqvAKGeKCiTFLgUUbSYqBwq75fnE5uIE3rq0RyM8UlyD1aotIS9kBLYs/72IE biIHGY7TmQ1+2ltciAz853xdbPXKHm8MtYpdHAXeeVW91p/HN/50jDqf+xIUXJ7Ji X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to" bh="ED95zNrPWiE4etNqOvn0BgawJUXfSuuMzqJTbbFRzFE="; b="PVk7jJbqAusRUdMuN5MS/j0kf9YtsbxPxEu98e+H78hXhM5Z1YeYwtfMJYo+JddsmP ds7bFznDBkeXZ8vJTTx+B6NnoOygYQsxLFd08UmgYUABo1rRdLinf+6XT7vMl14+P X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzgN0k6XrC9onWxYVab6L14Y9YLy4B45DDG9jpyhP8gYigAikV/ YuHdLp1hbOB+XPlH1zcQpNTavAgXBKc9M5mnDQF8pIfLZlvXgu2e/44C5G9h5Ez0I5VLp6KKdr X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuaFmA7cjkZdsYmuNE4b5//eILeZsAIHI80GrxZ8Lh5qc8OfSKm7xXHTEpRscT 5RZiR8kf3TWmLb5pnlHyAxlSyBI4f/EUdxjjeo9ke2l8w/1zwDrvoCZX1mBtcfIltRuq5glI0r X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHiGVsCpd+tCk1v0TegFSP2eVIr4YtGrWee/b6ncG2VHaLWEDCgs+LXhX+uMfuVjbAckY3q/99CJNqVY+fqINs= References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <CAJDsykxAek9FsaCFVDrLuZjP1JYCfv6u2X3QokAapw9st [email redacted]> X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFs4Bzw4mcXvApoRkJO KGcgMXsEFYLoAVuBjUXrR3ky9Vbb2oNTR3SSQA8 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "j & r" < CKX-Bounce-Address: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/5/2025 10:08:48 AM To: "j & r" < Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you

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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:08:48 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykxAek9FsaCFVDrLuZjP1JYCfv6u2X3QokAapw9st [email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 05 05: 08:48 2025 References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "j & r" < From: "Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: j & r Sent: 6/5/2025 7:27:22 AM 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, 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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:27:22 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Thu Jun 05 02: 27:35 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:528c:b0:4a4:4b0e:7b05 with SMTP id dr12csp280997qtb; Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-adde529598dsor311 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:27:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1905:b0:7d1:f4c8:8117 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d21a8dd2c9mr1096956685a.54.[number redacted]; Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:27:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2d9e:b0:ad5:55db:e40d with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-addf8ea43a6mr572785966b.34.[number redacted]; Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:27:33 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="AcUbH0mJLD7aAqwq7yRqCmyaIIfqYJ7tIWzaP1GFNbfj/86srzYn+ej00s7gPhQrz7 +dNVZyrUwWZSuoQOWawX1BkL9RQu5AX0dJ5JIFmB7UF68faT2GKlOGz48IuEkKztd ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature"; bh="PQ/DOsTr0gNYDU0hsC53u3ZEAUcNP2f6ELj0urtG4zA="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="KSB2sAqwTXRxhxtz7Nl/QyghSqCavJaZxaoyxTHF7tQ+Q93RCe4EkIJ4L0oGta6BCO ZC7D0JbRNE610yjrvalvV/a1KWdMrPRrtt57paHMmWrEGSmGY/z389XWNuEye3OGj dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b="aDC5Zgy/"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of il.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=j ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: < Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of .com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b="aDC5Zgy/"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=j ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="gmail.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="PQ/DOsTr0gNYDU0hsC53u3ZEAUcNP2f6ELj0urtG4zA="; b="aDC5Zgy/d3G1xTi4Zpan1TS0ySvSYhy/BVg7vtasUpzoT0l9ZTDV+vx0tYOceXZYs3 6iNp4ZU1h2piVRe5lfboYdT3WM476UKvDUeXoOJ+CwsrznZ9G+Y34M9yCKLtxWuv3 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to" bh="PQ/DOsTr0gNYDU0hsC53u3ZEAUcNP2f6ELj0urtG4zA="; b="bptyOQvcDU9QTXoCkTYO42mMsasIed2ndPeHGmBkOS65CShQce3DoTvQp2UUA00h8X PdTXOyUYIOuyD3uOVJBJXaRq+WxlA6MpAmfjvt2aZhcWGylhxPYdqhY/e+LI2BxJl X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxNPgvWwgMfoQyTDPnUKfeseXAiHXKfh6xFFC/nA/NTPVBNToPe TjmV/H28kLDAzYKPHKNOr95d1xHl10F6/1+9fe9VMv4WVS1XHGOVhsEe4/lkYYVf9hcmARRsLF X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctqT6bqav/XIemdRKEJHzGzq0QKFHAE59h777oGXomEvi/Iumc7c1rci66NMul Nkds4cGNiTkHAX7EnK4yNv6NI6RAFLqYVvFj+qokHk6CKBvNOIDr+zBRXoW571Psj+3bDAmNFg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGvNh9n6paAE4k4Db+KPnWYK5KmCP+GIP5Pd8x0zvvw6vOlS0Ebq9YR+Tsq9q8nbsEU6+fgAogJ9EQXIMtIUcw= References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <CAJDsykyLZZvFNypg0hjwn95PRYwJHbtTS42CZ [email redacted]> X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFserVF Iyk8gdgeLvOguLk7gvpckktwfjbljv2m6F5ItzYaoKTs6h8BlKY To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "j & r" CKX-Bounce-Address: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 5/28/2025 3:32:20 PM To: "j & r" > Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you

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, Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 15:32:20 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykyLZZvFNypg0hjwn95PRYwJHbtTS42CZ [email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Wed May 28 10: 32:20 2025 References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "j & r" < From: "Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: j & r < Sent: 5/28/2025 2:52:11 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,

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/

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, Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:11 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Wed May 28 09: 52:24 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:a05:622a:4487:b0:490:deb7:1b83 with SMTP id kb7csp40624qtb; Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-ad89ff87ca1sor987 Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5fcb:0:b0:6fa:c0c8:4666 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fac0c84808mr45101756d6.11.[number redacted]; Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:c1e:b0:ad5:7048:5177 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-ad8b0e379dfmr100717766b.23.[number redacted]; Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:23 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="IN0+puOiBQqZLyLPAVkI6tU6P5SYsIF2mJ8tayDTdTgIcnnzOo9j2tbG7duywRb/Wl 3U0gq63cv1X6XzO/iH5D0qWQz0hYSsDryHUof77lxssPhARV1zk1vzv08labxbi5O ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature"; bh="DY7rOOtHtpJcCKdpB3kfGhMLHqXorXZ97siFWFkZf+o="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="TI4sVV5KQfoU3bxUdPw0n+tulybMuSBHOC1Lt9HuOWx5kYOXMLvO5GVRQplxjvYNJM mp76F4X8QOitGzxnAfKh+nkJFWiNwBI1fQy2vFC5h3UbdBVG6YtDMX/iB5z2n0Ykb dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b="X5iH/U4N"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="n @roc.az.gov" Return-Path: > Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] he header.b="X5iH/U4N"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="gmail.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="DY7rOOtHtpJcCKdpB3kfGhMLHqXorXZ97siFWFkZf+o="; b="X5iH/U4NgfGHT4Iw4SNOAzV89zg+Kc05h8Zob73b5CpszZqvG+TH4IA8fXjfgJQlmL HOyAZr60v3T9fzlACUWN/cp+ggZldt8AULMnHf0kAWgs9JIVQ267PYu1jelE5OCzU X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to" bh="DY7rOOtHtpJcCKdpB3kfGhMLHqXorXZ97siFWFkZf+o="; b="iAGqgVKPjbnip7BoAFitDe2Mjy92XYjUMztwtigXHqqXOnv4SiNs9fhEaYnfR/pVOa 10WMyUz9ouQ1jx2ZtRCRn0HpyhPbX55YSPGiAtnXbSjIvWwIS1BQCPO7YnabZAVbu X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2adVw2tCPCJCntutRrhc+oZxKtEcBtxssdJddqgN7AF0delaC MWIdOUocTeMZSvc8xTFmja+YHWtst6F0MPRPFTNuqRgZi0jrcKT0r29zm3uTCVJkiTV+iot265 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctZS14GC214DSebzy6Sgn7YWhkG15P3mqv/JVINbViyZmIhy57THmhVo+Of+XT QPZjWvs036UMKcl5HB+2v4xMoKBG3xdnLEu4dgiDIsiDUhgVUQWI1jC4eN3NkMmMeQhTZv0YFW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEbs2qwgTuQhR3Qu9TkJnLMGtk6TeCoo04OHI549k8WmUV2JauB+7L4TibaEe1Pf8WJF/4XEKs6DPwZfjyMQNU= References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <CAJDsyky6qKr=AGOKGei2WcYF-tMv-JjKn38ZV8=[email redacted]> X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFv229AAkVkx8tXw9vc9vm0NwJPCxQ2MWY5iHrtLYiiuY2ynKKnIefR0jKM To: "Doug Barrett" <doug [email redacted]> From: "j & r" CKX-Bounce-Address Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 09:00:41 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsyky6qKr=AGOKGei2WcYF-tMv-JjKn38ZV8=[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Wed May 28 04: 00:41 2025 References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <[email redacted]> To: "j & r" From: "Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 19:20:29 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Wed May 28 02: 20:41 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:7e49:0:b0:490:deb7:1b83 with SMTP id c9csp5246953qtk; Tue, 27 May 2025 19:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-ad8864cdd23sor211 Tue, 27 May 2025 19:20:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f04:b0:6f8:ae32:39ad with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fa9d02b627mr234939716d6.15.[number redacted]; Tue, 27 May 2025 19:20:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9406:b0:ad8:93a3:29ab with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-ad893a32b90mr386620666b.12.[number redacted]; Tue, 27 May 2025 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="Y5Mq8I0QkGqH9Mpicir6FE5MJ1gg1ZfFKkvK1rBZFcF/nZ7QYwN9hwltuK5Qtwdryz HSJiS7etfJgdxbNt2dT4fkYR+CBaH+wRYnEMpgzcNCrNOTCHioGR8lnBUvy3PxeKv ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature"; bh="zyCWiqZUvN1BtnUsJXYGIvNo3wugVftSZ1SMq+aQfXU="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="WC4PIC7Ik/f5szKGMNFOuIeFBldyuGAso58rHh6ovuBBjL0dc8P4BFH1+F8eLT7bcU CNYfCsb5bnapGOmsITuM+wk5izf7qZ8HZVA2H7RG+NpbHjodi+l73K11tBD/pBCNV dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=a9NpraSI"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=j ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: m> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of j designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header s=20230601 header.b=a9NpraSI"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="gmail.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="zyCWiqZUvN1BtnUsJXYGIvNo3wugVftSZ1SMq+aQfXU="; b="a9NpraSI1G2Too8CdjHtu1qoFjNn9MwzW44QcwzFF0Hb5bnAqiH2MkPXe9kNIZ8Fat aYK31BEEnEr1YfpdMIi86ULLSr++zCjW4SiROtOxkixtTnUHDJj8HiXkijWJgSJvQ X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to" bh="zyCWiqZUvN1BtnUsJXYGIvNo3wugVftSZ1SMq+aQfXU="; b="wZB4vNwFbKMrhlElPkCv3VyeSoYjRNSyAi4g/42xd1rEc02G66UUpjiIBwv5ZzpWxr iQzOrKiOjJGHXe8JSOTIHcAnnF9L2riaA1UxP6dYNqKuPT4cyj9lI6/P91mAAzzP+ X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzbDf8ycGrp3bZLSshJC7Z5KEEkwtM9d4C1ZffSzEGcJcSl2+m/ IxapbvWT/BHLVgqf9DzC9uQ16MqL14pc23IFNp5AQqByPm9gvq0IWjcdJy+S1nw/U6IFgZ9746 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctpSmRmuPLeHv5vJVzztmC285TACIaCNCdEHihR8IYudRGdExoAAF44vB2neDw hxbrG5jVIhW70skVldvfAYmCWYSyCtpMrxxKPhhL69ArxlZzTUUODYQ5q/MVU8J5dPH04OgTkj X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHcgp0L6Oo4xJvqP4EFfqC9fuzx1F3ODTI++TpICZYOp1U/47DYB07cuE3sNwh22l4QbXGUgvBEHBmS8irqMC4= References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> In-Reply-To: <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFuDb3wUfeQ-KHM 63n9GaxNDjWJJ1g3w7Lq1OG9EV33wPaOLvlg5AtGnH0 To: "Doug Barrett" <[email redacted]> From: "j & r" < CKX-Bounce-Address: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you From: Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> Sent: 6/9/2025 11:46:02 AM To: "j & r" < Cc: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you

Good Morning, Thank you for the follow up, I will get the inspection re-scheduled for the 23rd. You are required to allow the contractor a chance to inspect the complaint items within 15 days of the inspection notice if they request. The goal is resolution so if they offer to reach a resolution we recommend working it out, but you can also wait until after the inspection to allow any work as well, it is up to you.

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 Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 1:54 PM j & r < wrote: 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: Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 11:46:02 -0700 Message-ID: <CAJDsykzm9VdWxwWNh+ni2OLzF=wGjcVf-KXcW9Bc5Hp=[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Mon Jun 09 06: 46:02 2025 References: <[number redacted].2677.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBPujGmWC1uTr-M5DRSd [email redacted]> <CAHQaXBOe2 In-Reply-To: <CAHQaXBP RHmkM6R1XGF=[email redacted]> To: "j & r" < From: "Doug Barrett <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared "20250527 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2025-04941.pdf" + 1 files with you 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 Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:35:42 -0700 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Mon Jul 21 08: 35:55 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:598d:0:b0:4a9:da76:ffb4 with SMTP id e13csp2117684qte; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a640c23a62f3a-aecccee0eabsor342 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:8806:b0:7e3:3650:23b4 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7e343614312mr2967521585a.40.[number redacted]; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9711:b0:ae3:65a7:5621 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-aec4fbea41bmr1801364666b.37.[number redacted]; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:35:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="cVbAA8kM1uzmHqCBrlmiAK1SmFmlNxXTOQjuP7ljTUARKO4J+Dbo+Ey7T9hr1Zt2LU zL1K8E6H5z5NsDf0GLERxLvAM9s2wQpDpVuu9Czh1zisarSOne0EZU3M2iqOHwUWV ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :dkim-signature"; bh="3gq8+IDJTEsObX0P5wbsWW/mJNyemyJSjZVuPXcPgDg="; fh="GT1YynqMN1q/rQC/VBC+SUDNvOcht6zJHtFYf9yboxw="; b="b44cFGYuobUiFdl4TgP6YHWYJibh8LjOeZ/Z0yPM7R9RaBuVyoJzt2EiIZTq9DxgyF VS48ID3KoA5CfhDhSWlLaXOHCiiyzAA3hkb2r5zTiuOrOU9zTQk8d6qkJS+An6+NC dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=SdXwCRmn"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: < > Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of m designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=20230601 header.b=SdXwCRmn"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of m designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= ; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="gmail.com"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="3gq8+IDJTEsObX0P5wbsWW/mJNyemyJSjZVuPXcPgDg="; b="SdXwCRmnWvESBGxQzVIM+aMOL/30XrXU5jRaiOuOGhj8V3XPL/Z5IUcwx6uN46Y761 +1iKGdgGvmMleB1b2xfiNddFwHFe9azQT2rvAIMMdpTYnSUn2sGsVIcuPu0v1c05T X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to" bh="3gq8+IDJTEsObX0P5wbsWW/mJNyemyJSjZVuPXcPgDg="; b="hJcA9blvDFEhz4YKvyf/rtC32g0dhAvsBfq9YJDGATIicGX0m+/jIjiF+gUimlKmp6 SVElY/YE4gA+D/PMthIWOjvIbxCUIfFJKzSEnsos/+z6/XaZOfI5SI4QuQPhLN4DL X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzEt/4vT1T/hWuBkZcnSp/ojnb508/HskU0kisuu84sqDUNMyYK m1tCOElpHmoDsFRdUNmBuXUkagJvsGGePNZusMp/T1XLq6nFLnERYh4ywmY0ZOo+LCLvcPzPXF X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsS9ocCTpt0KpcMu9wDzOp0+2pdEExDZ/Ouw3MAE7vpUmXxHvRK5yReDgzxiDh K0tSm0zfUOHU2CLYkgddNSNY9TxtCwZfiCbwukmv51biI+6OKP+TPGjWzlCx/Hl3CGR215Ix88 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEZF0XXOlXZA2mwFk6GOXo8A1o7OJNTn/2lFnb74Q8qeoVPEfAxPaUzY43ENLfRmA/rCqp8ZDLHlZYqEddwtVs= References: <[number redacted].5429.[number redacted].[email redacted]> <CAHQaXBMPO-FWUje tYb5S=1pg XDcD1+ii=J9y-GjRw8vNng [email redacted]> <CAJDsykzh In-Reply-To: <CAJDsykzEy9+0c3qGVE+Yb9uWJPr1cMs1nAwjqR=[email redacted]> X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXx5qLHC-zkaM63kAnKOwZ9Mv3-h2lvefS XYjJ02sfwLGdvgLE5n6Gps9w To: "Doug Barrett" <doug [email redacted]> From: "j & r" CKX-Bounce-Address: Subject: Re: Doug Barrett has shared a file "20250624 Written Directive 2025-04941.pdf" with you From: Larry Felder <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 12:02:45 PM To: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Subject: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Attachments: 2025-09-02 NOA Complainant.pdf

All: Notice of appearance, just filed, attached. Thank you, Larry Felder

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. Resolvere Law PLLC 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 http://www.resolverelaw.com D: (480) 725-9135

Please note that we have moved to Suite 850. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 07: 02:53 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp125293qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10on20702.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2413::702]) by m Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:34b::9) by DM4PR20MB6463.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:8:18a::19) with Microsof Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:02:49 +0000 Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a346]) by CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a34 Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:02:45 +0000 X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=3; AJvYcCUATA17+rRJZMYpyQRIFyZ7jvbtCFFz5eRsBNJS9XSw2UL2dHBL1TgJ2J+UHHJ7/koTvJX00huyhXDmBJo="@roc.az.gov" X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGnD/EeshelFOb6AyvzUdsG7FFlw26ktCr+rSUFJGmN8vIsNwVyaKqa/le9BenjFX6xbMkI X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2ec7:b0:327:e59d:2cc2 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-32815436083mr18061232a91.10.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="i1tcDi30JuV7bm2Fia8KTykzPij8p2pNX7+VyJn2CxZUukiWkQuV9YUkHuTieAfbKf gmfDsRDDH1UtqqfFq9nJffpIzAWLQwcXobEwGqEK+1OO/ucaS4vPHU7ZetAvhZGyeB/0 ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="wu7YpLklroKrn4eeS1F5ayg2q1yIwKRZyeRVWs/WFlXxqRiIwJiDD5nulP+zk4a2y0eV+L+uJbDKKMlTn8Zw18AzzaxDsrau6qlYU8g+OtvX3sNeOBuAck2rv6SvQIXueeVJkR5eQTlGnjRXu1W5Qz ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:msip_labels:content-language:accept-language :message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to:from"; bh="ej2NEGsIM9VOZcw4tGuvIW2HgyhhE2Vq96hAlzW01uw="; fh="7KVeW/xLIIYONYLxCX2tS6YxIfeRMUqWrfeFom7NnUQ="; b="bSAeVaclGfc28kFGyEzgsQNhtKyiOfqx/N2X2pU2ZNSrDbpY5KnarkCkNu/1iwH00s Wdc7oQkRzkzBFkJUo5FJURUmk8TLd3UK2lw1AANY1VOZS4h6exxdKxo+JnFiuia7eZ8K dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="ej2NEGsIM9VOZcw4tGuvIW2HgyhhE2Vq96hAlzW01uw="; b="CzM54+Y/ncoGGQ50w2eIRTcndH3/q43zhTjvAiXvOtzHeFpnUssGfRY5/XRCQdTrKSQzQ0fFN9hU1OdUidG86NUZMdWk8/IMZexuf+AbJs+FkP8GylORadB1Lyv2ZdFWyM1oP5RVYsO+koXRnwTflK ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=resolverelaw.com dkim=pass dkdomain=resolverelaw.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=resolverelaw.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2413::702 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted] ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=resolverelaw.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; dkim="pass header.d=resolverelaw.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2413::702 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2413::702 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Thread-Topic: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Thread-Index: AQHcHDv2Sa89HpuVeEub1XnG/kZqvQ== Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO6PR20MB3633:EE_|DM4PR20MB6463:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6dd4b6fb-576f-436a-f448-08ddea534d6c x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|376014|366016|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ldAa1eFqVGymd1yh2I8NlXaS5g5Nyf3jqevyLAfazPbzC/BIaA5w5jvqRq8YlUqjqpuuk/8ZzrXbSgm6Ah19qCf+3Tw6daj43wKcCOT9XYkfLHk9hiMQKwz2 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)([number redacted])([number redacted])(376014)(366016)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: g472ST+IDlJIpEEPe5PVbRpWBM2/KKIqd62m8mC2o7GIUiRud2lj6eZpx2zAXXbxtsB3ecT7I8nzPOQxqH/rHHDWwFKQef/6W+Fbnh9ARanWz7nuFUKB8 X-OriginatorOrg: resolverelaw.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6dd4b6fb-576f-436a-f448-08ddea534d6c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Sep 2025 19:02:45.8337 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5f6a2e33-25e1-4af6-8248-2e911f8038cb X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: HBMm7fCRz9wWe/cpVfWdcNJNY/XFr3bxMQMEqFJIs5709mqzZUiP9A40OojqHEfs9m7SzZpPCnELhlE39tSGxQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR20MB6463 TO: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> From: "Larry Felder" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC From: Larry Felder <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 2:34:28 PM To: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Subject: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Attachments: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Reclassify.pdf

All: Objection to Respondent's Motion to Reclassify, just filed, attached. Thank you, Larry Felder

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. Resolvere Law PLLC 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 http://www.resolverelaw.com D: (480) 725-9135

Please note that we have moved to Suite 850. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 21:34:28 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 09: 34:32 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp196166qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 14:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12on2071f.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2417::71f]) by m Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:34b::9) by SA1PR20MB4537.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:23d::6) with Microso Tue, 2 Sep 2025 21:34:28 +0000 Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a346]) by CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a34 Tue, 2 Sep 2025 21:34:28 +0000 X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=3; AJvYcCWgfyn5wgcS4/aQ62wSWauY9FHHHmr1sqXh31mCLlAhyDv5kJVsV85h87CRCZWR9lVFFmk10VQ4Hnp0kYM="@roc.az.gov" X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2986:b0:249:f16:f073 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-24944a1ec8fmr176234575ad.27.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:34:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2986:b0:249:f16:f073 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-24944a1ec8fmr176232915ad.27.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGGTMrNN8V7cknLx8gvJb4u9AnlQ2Y4evt3xI8RWGZxyvPvaE9ahJLMuQmC87PhUbIe7ELP ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="AYNdYjcnr0JFoRgOf8UDf3lbD5LHGeylSq6WftktP4bo6eQSNpTd67vTKnJLUiEgrK OcRLuiC4bUbOubIAY4XoYQNasjXJpwUeX8SJDJDOMotv7Ol8VNrm4BO7z5NPqiCCpHq2 ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="GW98Mt4wIBuzLQs0fsmiAMBxUCkjy4/mCbaHTzdmD64OcvWNXLaru+KBfHLaaixOAjcttzELXHi73JRXJ8FYkDZ9zNf0a6UFCd6YxRn0Wrz7q+rNxNQ4w+jOnZkll+MoFF93a4ycaH2qX/MSoXQ4VA ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:msip_labels:content-language:accept-language :message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to:from"; bh="WEuaARTWLTpw9kSU4b2hfHPkKAJJ8lrNqvU80Kb4z88="; fh="nXMAXaVLuXhE+BvlEM/BUGOh4O7eMUrbDvGpfiTwiWg="; b="eIr/ADwHJwvEZE1z0Nno4NlEsh6o9J68LEIbh1DLqM2vDuNseN/Ym7HhlZXomgF5uz HfiCQQGdi7+Mp6Js+G3pLAJNqePbs+INZaIL3r1+13A0a2DDZnFoOZGVhLo73xMzs0eo dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="WEuaARTWLTpw9kSU4b2hfHPkKAJJ8lrNqvU80Kb4z88="; b="wjdp/FxkUxzskVdNCFWsMwIH4jYrTizYLltAGg6scCFw5/KL4H1Ki+kOJMdHkdLP6xVtHIm9ysTd+Jgnp1Hria7UgDRi9XbZr+mlWWAK/Eq6Tf1kTHR3SYFvUKoAxhhSExlcie9gcdRWSEzhziKGVg ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=resolverelaw.com dkim=pass dkdomain=resolverelaw.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=resolverelaw.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2417::71f as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted] ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=resolverelaw.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; dkim="pass header.d=resolverelaw.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2417::71f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2417::71f authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Thread-Topic: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Thread-Index: AQHcHFE0q2063LhJiUq5xyUN7uTreA== Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO6PR20MB3633:EE_|SA1PR20MB4537:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2394712e-0727-475d-3a33-08ddea687ed9 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|366016|[number redacted]|376014|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: LeFdoijBBPYp8+dABeKQda6rZEvIy+2A1/NGqXQ4RYEK7Hd1mAoifQYjIklMg74EW6bcXl1amIjTld1lWQpFq76YlGqrZuWDUT46zX/SNWHP31+fHtVv+B56 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)(366016)([number redacted])(376014)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 3WZ8MS3nPWJTOeopE1WqQA/EuD6VqzB0cFHlTFR1V3hqyclpTHdmGvGbIkYz+6qII2EWcLm+NOxkVeuyP1SI3Vl1yaCJ7N55avLmC5K73O2lWw6CJ2vP9 X-OriginatorOrg: resolverelaw.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2394712e-0727-475d-3a33-08ddea687ed9 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Sep 2025 21:34:28.1537 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5f6a2e33-25e1-4af6-8248-2e911f8038cb X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Qn7zPqV6GbajLCjNUhraiXFPkWklduqzWgVI/u+c/4jlLX/eBTnfMH482I/9WqiyMPQ/MR03c7WUxQlqXgukbA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR20MB4537 TO: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> From: "Larry Felder" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Shepard/Sharp - 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC From: Larry Felder <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 1:13:36 PM To: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Subject: Shepard/Sharp Attachments: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Continue Hearing.pdf

All: Objection to motion to continue hearing, just filed, attached. Thank you, Larry Felder

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq. Resolvere Law PLLC 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 http://www.resolverelaw.com D: (480) 725-9135

Please note that we have moved to Suite 850. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 20:13:36 +0000 Message-ID: <[email redacted]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 08: 13:39 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp159993qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10on20705.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [2a01:111:f403:2413::705]) by m Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:34b::9) by BN7PPF2FF2E06D7.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:40f:fc02::74f) with Mi Tue, 2 Sep 2025 20:13:36 +0000 Received: from CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a346]) by CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ba9a:debf:ecb7:a34 Tue, 2 Sep 2025 20:13:36 +0000 X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=3; AJvYcCUFkgAc4s5bcUZpqAcfKQgFuJMz1adGYVG6eyina/YeXcKKn1Z77IcTmi3sKY/3OboLv426nmhiCizm7CY="@roc.az.gov" X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:20c6:b0:e97:258:a126 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e98a586979emr13909411276.46.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:20c6:b0:e97:258:a126 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e98a586979emr13909251276.46.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEYttL2+y0qM84YRtprYJsfU5Cclklu8bDxUw+awyu28azxWV8RhXGeqX2qVyg5Xiq1RU4v ARC-Seal: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=pass; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="K3DNdVsDWXQckd8BWEIiVtxQ2l+QOv8gBB5rBsC6bp1JoWrotLT9MqG06Y1leMpR6W 0zdTl+BYwLsxaQ0Y0s7E9hfQt4yeGyDCfqRbTBe865FPPud32arKAPSwo3TltAxZum6t ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; s=arcselector10001; d="microsoft.com"; cv=none; b="emcZq84T4BhvU1jwEprZ3T5nob0n7uXv/+54C65UUJbjJ1hj+j2rMak0kild2ArYcapdOggnRXn+oQ7ZMYyOrwKnSHD7esibxrHguuWW+TAAx8xW7NhVQGb1UxzgLvqEvue9iaVlCB04SoJR9LKKZw ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:msip_labels:content-language:accept-language :message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to:from"; bh="hO5u5N28BVqR5MQi7BghcX1jtMCbZrQlMtLUGUVYoco="; fh="7KVeW/xLIIYONYLxCX2tS6YxIfeRMUqWrfeFom7NnUQ="; b="WBnTbw8/G3y632H3U9bo8VfklIFRMhptR7QhM2BtzHjR+jwZe0qgPY6pVCdHAt36ty 4fQa/xm/lltPoPaG9WBAgJXy7MHhJZ+2uL5NrrWPIZa32o+FTD3nR12dEuGohLGwNz06 dara="google.com" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="microsoft.com"; s=arcselector10001; h="From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchang bh="hO5u5N28BVqR5MQi7BghcX1jtMCbZrQlMtLUGUVYoco="; b="ujRuWiXQFGPWoI6i1NCgD//Z526PE8SkHLMjQluDkDQP1U9r10nyNrJIXvhalblgtVP4db37jA5+gHP8NJalqTXN7gUBeUOodD6E+v/NJof6sv9rNNYS+PFempBaG/V7lQpN1mqJdpNBniwUKasjt/ ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; arc="pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=resolverelaw.com dkim=pass dkdomain=resolverelaw.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=resolverelaw.com)"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2413::705 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted] ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf="pass smtp.mailfrom=resolverelaw.com"; dmarc="pass action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; dkim="pass header.d=resolverelaw.com"; arc=none Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 2a01:111:f403:2413::705 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:111:f403:2413::705 authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; dmarc="none action=none header.from=resolverelaw.com"; Cc: "Victoria" <[email redacted]> Thread-Topic: Shepard/Sharp Thread-Index: AQHcHEX5ZCRA8oTfx0CQN8NOOZwfUA== Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO6PR20MB3633:EE_|BN7PPF2FF2E06D7:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 253f42e4-a9df-4f5e-0f5e-08ddea5d32fb x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; ARA:13230040|366016|[number redacted]|376014|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]|[number redacted]; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: CFGq2upBHZ+u6Emcri64Y5Tpq056u2tF45fHwh04AGUVsz7xFWymnKm//XQwDbEQVLz8RGJtpPcLjb+OA9Odwc7T90b2EKliZA5G/YEV7M6Yn4AywbnVydoG x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM; H:CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230040)(366016)([number redacted])(376014)([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted])([number redacted]); DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 6Lwii3Kl/FO0vfix0ME3yPanXucJkn9lzPfPHO1S/UigqgNX/KUUXhItHPCnzIzDBGHgpe6NfR0/Cj0fwm7Wh5ATGKkj9ZEzYfyf9cRCK5bujbD33R5Rs X-OriginatorOrg: resolverelaw.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO6PR20MB3633.namprd20.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 253f42e4-a9df-4f5e-0f5e-08ddea5d32fb X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Sep 2025 20:13:36.3771 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5f6a2e33-25e1-4af6-8248-2e911f8038cb X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: GgoRpYC4kPiioIXBbRhKemqn4fWrbOM1hcKPKqbeNDtk+NeEmg3IkHZeAQddL6dxW0HbdRsSUkK0k/JvyhuRqQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PPF2FF2E06D7 TO: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "Legal New Mail - AZROC" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]> From: "Larry Felder" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Shepard/Sharp From: OAH Electronic Submission System <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 1:13:39 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC

Attachments: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Continue Hearing.pdf

This is a message from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to inform you that a submission has been received for 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC.

The details are as follows:

Submission ID: 112673 Submission type: Other Docket number: 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Hearing date: 09/17/2025 Filed by: Lawrence J. Felder ([email redacted]) (480-725-9135) Mailing address: Resolvere Law, PLLC 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Filed on: 9/2/2025 Sent to: Administrative Law Judge Copies e-mailed to: [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] Filing party will also notify: (none) -------------------------- Objection to Motion to Continue Hearing --------------------------

The following files were included with the submission: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Continue Hearing.pdf If any files were included with the submission, they should be attached to this e-mail. In the event that a file seems to be missing, please contact the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Thank you for using the OAH Electronic Submission System. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:39 -0700 Message-ID: <O7LZPALP3RU4.WXUJKZ9RSGJD3@ATREIDES> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 08: 13:42 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp159998qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f97.google.com (mail-sor-f97.google.com. [209.85.220.97]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 71dfb90a1353d-5448cb16144sor268186 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.235.2.1] ([159.87.126.70]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id 71dfb90a1353d-544910f337csm1230194e0c.0.2025.09.02.13.13.40 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:2022:b0:543:88f1:6621 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-544a018f9e2mr4145331e0c.3.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:2022:b0:543:88f1:6621 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-544a018f9e2mr4145301e0c.3.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:2517:b0:53c:6d68:1cce with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-544a033e269mr4603826e0c.16.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 13:13:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="Nq1/xLRHDVIjG2BCjvD2SvMo2FtE+lXk3akAWkJzGOPqlh1GPyBPyFzO8TqV5mafxR i3KGzZ/V8LrDd8Wwjzk8K4xTa17eUcerLeIaQwD+dPR2AkB8TV1D0zieKWgRS/zZITCS ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:dkim-signature"; bh="UCNVMum+4pAoJrbFKmbU3NxFARYSeZRuGE3LqpVC62M="; fh="SthGBo9tJ259Ar3dqlhdigUvJU0OFpOZ73pmjSpF3Ds="; b="dVhhdbACUgmswdTNIWhBE6ai7NpXeBk68nwF3U+7P8m74qvj0TWr2kYc6CmHqqvEK5 KXyRjmPVcaZpjcRKI2Y+Y7/QI6pvw16fTK+DSlS7Y7pY7BCaH1cZTLnVdn+p/mmRnKyD dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=V+kjB6qx"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.97; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=V+kjB6qx"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="azoah.com"; s=gshg; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="UCNVMum+4pAoJrbFKmbU3NxFARYSeZRuGE3LqpVC62M="; b="V+kjB6qxvP8jdCcAKJ+B2vjzCqpiwEl0LUgPULVfRc1zE1WuLMkJDcZ1JhcZET16l9 GgR39gtB9OjParoqixGsBW/ay7pYdVaKcyqckn9dgellzfj/HiM/NzDIvR32/dZhjGs1 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="UCNVMum+4pAoJrbFKmbU3NxFARYSeZRuGE3LqpVC62M="; b="H0ztrID3yyshfoM+194qv0e7Sogu22dtY3M8t8ADg+h1d3YIPWreeXXrhcUzTBsPx6 SgozCNV79tURKgpFMlIcYJrtrryU0KyNCkKSjHJwGmJtq8S8sOitXPKsKgVuXYGkCuG+ X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxGhBsPZIJsgrjBZpjIFzso8LwxTrCGSBVIjuy/gfwJj4HOfk0K l0DnUqp5XQL8g2PpVuvMx6UUEaRkR0zOkt/bHKr2D4ggn1RtufU3lDU6Vcwgc30CMLErRU2yLIj X X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctbMgZ2Oi/Pg7GiwaTz/3Sp1trn0dOcI748YHqPEH/oA4Yn6ErubLyMUtLivsZ 1q1Izp9KlEKpFI4hALrlxeE71e28zFAsWNCvKxulr3GcokuNsFWU+Xt2V685K4ZoSkIIAtKUBMg F X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJMZ5A7beCGPAXC40UHzFrj5EqV9AFsPVt8aziAKq+NDz5K0mz5GSBB6Hv3NeKsr3ijDFpwAx13EYG X-Relaying-Domain: azoah.com To: [email redacted] From: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC From: OAH Electronic Submission System <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 12:01:39 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC

Attachments: 2025-09-02 NOA Complainant.pdf

This is a message from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to inform you that a submission has been received for 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC.

The details are as follows:

Submission ID: 112661 Submission type: Notice of appearance Docket number: 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Hearing date: 09/17/2025 Filed by: Lawrence J. Felder ([email redacted]) (480-725-9135) Mailing address: Resolvere Law, PLLC 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85-12 Filed on: 9/2/2025 Sent to: Administrative Law Judge Copies e-mailed to: [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] Filing party will also notify: (none) -------------------------- Notice of Appearance for Complainant --------------------------

The following files were included with the submission: 2025-09-02 NOA Complainant.pdf If any files were included with the submission, they should be attached to this e-mail. In the event that a file seems to be missing, please contact the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Thank you for using the OAH Electronic Submission System. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:39 -0700 Message-ID: <EWA0CG1P3RU4.HZXC55OQQI7R1@ATREIDES> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 07: 01:42 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp124853qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f97.google.com (mail-sor-f97.google.com. [209.85.220.97]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 00721157ae682-72287e347f8sor282043 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.235.2.1] ([159.87.126.70]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id 00721157ae682-723a84cc419sm1881787b3.21.2025.09.02.12.01.40 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:b06:b0:71b:f46e:691 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-72276370c8cmr143104747b3.11.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:b06:b0:71b:f46e:691 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-72276370c8cmr143101967b3.11.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:45c8:b0:720:4ec:3f8a with SMTP id 00721157ae682-72273d722bemr129596657b3.20.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="ZWgmf2q679lgh4G6TjePWJ+ccXjwmkzL2xOXTW0L86uHq/iUAE349vQzOSVyOL6Q2C 7iighmagkK/9D8PTMZVvLv6r1/WrhteqvXl9h2l39dWcKkdq4C91sL30mDAe5xtWObR2 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:dkim-signature"; bh="JepGuaI/w2TAJWrPgaPCVrn8kdq7qZ3cksiAifLz3vM="; fh="SthGBo9tJ259Ar3dqlhdigUvJU0OFpOZ73pmjSpF3Ds="; b="NPj2WhJVepRYbqgYGfFSI5FdecCKkBR5R2yvkaw9vuASszIAxvYpwZmBEpvXFK6KHW Y5B5tbej3mS2eitbeoXLnFqN+JKV4c+nKl5UMlM2XQXHhhB4wdqp+EamCpv3oI1tIKPU dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=drWPShrb"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.97; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=drWPShrb"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="azoah.com"; s=gshg; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="JepGuaI/w2TAJWrPgaPCVrn8kdq7qZ3cksiAifLz3vM="; b="drWPShrbsi3rGYOxzH9Z/GOQA/fh4FjKdU1xvuVNzxURTMyD9f/SSHGQBnKGZmyYs8 rtGgcQxpMn+AHnrM9a6k27A0IS+eul20LyBsVOoeIpWzk6UQ5RNp1qDY0xa3xsPq0rPS X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="JepGuaI/w2TAJWrPgaPCVrn8kdq7qZ3cksiAifLz3vM="; b="MrMdpFm14OlyNANDytKTZ+8O2NHbD0X/2o41QwyhfYTi6Z4Cma2k8pPyo1ucuHfKxY IeferkL1/t7XgMlNbWNmF8vMOcx+vl+8BLGfeXIc1VRfmUpVd4sw6HhLWB1varS53wXw X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw6vn9qfNJYj7Kh1R1i8vdXJZBsxqXf+ObiZkMHV+ruoB4yx786 gjz+jaJS4fp9vTQY9WZ6CFYfzcUWDIxrtOycpK3xJIkKoOwM5njGA360Qht7rDHdgmbbFMAP1/Q v X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncujYq/4b8zmH8mm3QQm/lCTuP1wVq2ciZyRp80fa0LPGXMb4Hc2Upnxx4FxsW0 93gAEFqS591hi/S8YV9Mif0BAuObtr5iy2nebC29Vi/r6TuGalnsSiBfQkj0N+ewOqIATMSJ/aD W X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHhNUzvVumNr0e8NiikF5WB9J9AZqCu4icu4+hY0CpI5EoPvzfUij7AgGSovSuMOmY3URFiaHxcNDqf X-Relaying-Domain: azoah.com To: [email redacted] From: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC From: OAH Electronic Submission System <[email redacted]> Sent: 9/2/2025 2:42:30 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC

Attachments: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Reclassify.pdf

This is a message from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to inform you that a submission has been received for 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC.

The details are as follows:

Submission ID: 112704 Submission type: Other Docket number: 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC Hearing date: 09/17/2025 Filed by: Lawrence J. Felder ([email redacted]) (480-725-9135) Mailing address: Resolvere Law, PLLC 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 850 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Filed on: 9/2/2025 Sent to: Administrative Law Judge Copies e-mailed to: [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] [email redacted] Filing party will also notify: (none) -------------------------- Objection to Respondent's Motion to Reclassify --------------------------

The following files were included with the submission: 2025-09-02 Objection - Motion to Reclassify.pdf If any files were included with the submission, they should be attached to this e-mail. In the event that a file seems to be missing, please contact the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Thank you for using the OAH Electronic Submission System. Email Header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:42:30 -0700 Message-ID: <3A8XCS9Q3RU4.EFS98VBP2B9D@ATREIDES> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------[number redacted]" X-Priority: Normal From [number redacted]-[number redacted] Tue Sep 02 09: 42:33 2025 Delivered-To: [email redacted] Received: by 2002:ac8:57cf:0:b0:4b3:495a:88a6 with SMTP id w15csp198935qta; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 14:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f97.google.com (mail-sor-f97.google.com. [209.85.220.97]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 6a1803df08f44-70f9f65d583sor123462 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.235.2.1] ([159.87.126.70]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id 6a1803df08f44-720ae045e6esm1959476d6.20.2025.09.02.14.42.31 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:42:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1245:b0:704:f7d8:7030 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-70fac8e562fmr167811696d6.50.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5f85:0:b0:70e:dc07:d74c with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-70fac8d30d3mr178990696d6.45.[number redacted]; Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:42:31 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; t=[number redacted]; cv=none; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; b="DvcjlpohiAecjHTgY5whSnoqBG925OSBrIYO1iVBjv5M+J0Z2xPUy9KWkcPIQHaYKV 82JJw7DcWiqih0NmWh/9RTREj4E6qy8+V8hYr4RvxCQ+BI1oOo/vPtfcFIC8ab5oKsHN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="google.com"; s="arc-20240605"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:dkim-signature"; bh="lJ3xNpNAYrZHnWP5ChTIw0N7z6gkeJL8cqTMJcpAzYM="; fh="SthGBo9tJ259Ar3dqlhdigUvJU0OFpOZ73pmjSpF3Ds="; b="Zk9ulWzVyJQOE+C3sl/iFBeDIqHhTopfP1G10VA2bISGQ/EkQSqVNjMzRW8NTbwUMZ 9nyI6Nqv0lIUR1axsok4YQomn5VRkVjhUKZbrihT+ql7M5c1R7gAxGv2oXo4L2YCGaSz dara="google.com" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=PmQfL5IP"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Return-Path: <[email redacted]> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.97; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim="pass [email protected] header.s=gshg header.b=PmQfL5IP"; spf="pass (google.com: domain of [email redacted] designates 209.85.220.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[email redacted]"; dmarc="pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=azoah.com"; dara="neutral [email protected]" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="azoah.com"; s=gshg; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; darn="roc.az.gov"; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="lJ3xNpNAYrZHnWP5ChTIw0N7z6gkeJL8cqTMJcpAzYM="; b="PmQfL5IPs22I0T5i+mD4Hv7WW2AEoVk0naiZdpYvws0DK+OpCTnvdCh/Ej3uNIn8oM 63X9+7VD3DGk5VaZJJWG+6v2EtvyjV4VQxFZCB3OnT4OjWn8J1b01khgc9xetvsHHDzV X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a="rsa-sha256"; c="relaxed/relaxed"; d="1e100.net"; s=20230601; t=[number redacted]; x=[number redacted]; h="mime-version:to:message-id:subject:date:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to"; bh="lJ3xNpNAYrZHnWP5ChTIw0N7z6gkeJL8cqTMJcpAzYM="; b="YO1V2XmoYwY39jTAHlEwLOKfiinKG3EcxolnCVbg49EgubpHwFhJJpjT+T2gzCrIi5 t9E7V2TREYiLrMZ0UZLMoBqJm+j6S8pq87es7+9cetDD9/6L+i3zYZXml7Q8Lcvd0G/C X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzx2LCrJuawG1X/b1OTb5BQeu9uVC5bMPML8XfimO+baFwgEHQa qd0H+ND2msjBLJQeqY61F71kw3YyWYp3PjYul1kKXiqO4Mccio+xG7c7JZRKBOQ1fuUAtEoUd4h I X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvfRj4HtRLCnHBqotGEP8CDiSffooaxIOB6R5oICbXNhEsvjI7M3awqEkzejeW MLtUQ8Tm8pyWSxlm5Qt7lOS+oKxVTJsi2bAVQ+f2fD9W/S/5JDeW1UY8pvhC1EsvTxd6RKh3+YH n X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEtLiiWzOiWFQwZaz1TOsqr+1iEfxsIzaJgN6grPqhoqUclpK+ypmJmKqgayZyor/JJA8MD+7U217We X-Relaying-Domain: azoah.com To: [email redacted] From: "OAH Electronic Submission System" <[email redacted]> CKX-Bounce-Address: [email redacted] Subject: Submission received for docket number 2025A-04941-CHC-ROC