A local pool builder is challenging the Nevada State Contractors Board on its interpretation of the laws and regulations that apply to pool constructors.

Renaissance Pools & Spas on Thursday presented a 13-point petition to the contractors board, seeking clarification of the rules it uses to monitor and regulate pool construction in the state.

According to the Renaissance petition, the tussle between the builder and the contractors board began in June.

That was when the board's newly appointed ombudsman, Paul Easton, asked investigators to reopen eight consumer complaints against Renaissance that were either denied or closed. Easton said he believed the agents had either missed or failed to completely address some issues during the course of the initial investigations.

Board staff then issued subpoenas demanding that Renaissance turn over documents related to the complaints.

Renaissance's attorneys argued that the reopening of the cases and the issuance of subpoenas exceed or violate legal and regulatory authority given to the board's staff. They filed a petition in asking Clark County District Court to nullify the subpoenas; Judge Nancy Saitta ruled that Renaissance needed to petition the contractors board for an interpretation of its laws and regulations.

Through its attorney, Kevin Stolworthy of Jones Vargas, Renaissance asked the contractors board at a Thursday meeting in the agency's Henderson offices to clarify 13 applications of laws and regulations applying to the board.

Among Renaissance's points: The contractors board has incorrectly asserted that complaints against licensees need not be in writing; if the board declines to open a complaint, that complaint should be deemed denied permanently, and not available for reopening at a later date; the board must advise a contractor in writing when it has started an investigation; contractors are always entitled to a 14-day period to resolve consumer complaints; and board staff can only investigate complaints not resolved in 14 days.

Renaissance is also asking the board to acknowledge that state law allows contractors to charge for work and services they have yet to complete, rather than hold contractors to a rule that limits up-front charges to either 10 percent of the pool's price or $1,000 -- whichever amount is lower. In addition, Renaissance said homeowners should have the right to release a pool builder from the statute that requires work to begin on their pool within 30 days of payment. This would be an issue if, for example, a hard-to-find, custom pool component was on back order for a period longer than a month.

Dennis Haney, an attorney for the contractors board, said the Legislature enacted tougher laws regarding pool construction in the late 1990s, following numerous consumer complaints about contractors who would abscond with tens of thousands of dollars in up-front payments without completing their work.

"Based on what the board is doing now, its rules, regulations and policies are reasonable and fair, and they protect the public," Haney said. "(Renaissance) wants to be able to change the amount they can charge and the time period in which they perform work. But when we went to the Legislature, a lot of good pool contractors gave us input. Where they said requirements were too strenuous, we adjusted them. These laws weren't made in a vacuum."

But Renaissance's attorneys argued at the meeting that laws developed in the aftermath of pool-contractor scandals in the late 1990s have lost their balance between protecting consumers and equitably dealing with contractors. They said the laws strip consumers of the ability to negotiate with contractors.

"The pendulum has swung toward an extreme bias against some licensees," Stolworthy said.

Jim Alexander, president of Renaissance, said his company has built 3,000 pools in 15 years and had just 23 complaints.

Alexander discounted the board ombudsman's contention that the eight cases involving his company were reopened because they weren't properly investigated initially.

Rather, he said, the contractors board's scrutiny of closed cases involving his pools resulted from his consideration for a seat on the board.

"When we have complaints, we immediately deal with them," Alexander said. "We have no pools we've failed to finish. We've even finished pools customers didn't have money to finish. At the point my name was mentioned for the board, I had no complaints. I had the best reputation in the industry."

But Haney said executives and staff of the state agency have no say over who serves on the 7-member board.

"Those are political choices the governor makes," he said. "There's no trouble with having pool builders on board. Anyone who is qualified is certain welcome, subject to appointment by the governor."