Pool contractors sue county to block regulation

Clark County's 1997 ordinance tightening requirements for pool contractors is heading for a challenge in court.

The Southern Nevada Chapter of the National Spa and Pool Institute sued the county, alleging an ordinance adding licensing requirements for pool building companies violates the state and federal constitutions.

Under the November 1997 ordinance, pool contractors must undergo extensive background checks, including fingerprinting. The background checks are required of company owners -- meaning anyone with 10 percent or greater interest -- and managers.

Also, the ordinance required contractors to obtain identification cards, as well as a $25,000 surety bond and $500,000 certificate of insurance. In contrast, the state Contractors Board does not require insurance or fingerprinting.

The lawsuit contends the county is "unconstitutionally imposing different, more intrusive, and substantially greater burdens on pool contractors than other contractors."

Information on the contractors is due to the county by May 29 and the suit seeks a preliminary injunction blocking county regulation as well as a declaration the act is unconstitutional.

"What they're trying to do is enact laws above and beyond what the state Contractors Board has in place," said Don Forman, executive director of the Southern Nevada Chapter of the Spa and Pool Institute.

He said complaints on pool contractors are not disproportionate to those of plumbers, carpenters or electricians. Forman also criticized the county's measure because any forfeited surety bond would go to the county, not the consumer.

"Why are they building the county coffers under the guise of protecting the consumer?" Forman said.

The ordinance was passed in response to complaints by people losing their money to unscrupulous contractors. Passage of the county's measure came about three months after Gov. Bob Miller vetoed a state bill that stiffened requirements for pool builders.

However, another emergency bill passed that placed limits on down payments contractors could collect. That bill was to expire in December, but was adopted into state Contractors Board regulations. The provisions also mandated that consumers be given lien releases at each stage of completion so that subcontractors can't come back asking for money if they are not paid by the general contractor. Also, the rules require that contractors bill only for work actually done.

Forman said the state regulations are enough to protect consumers.

Mary-Anne Miller, the county's counsel, said she had not yet seen the suit.

"We're not aware of any constitutional defects," she said.

archive