County approves $350,000 settlement with Las Vegas Paving

A $350,000 settlement with Las Vegas Paving Corporation was approved Tuesday by the Clark County Commission.

Nine years ago, the county failed to keep its end of a deal to honor a program that allowed companies that emitted particular types of air pollutants to offset them with credits. The county also failed to pay the company for roads that were initially paved in exchange for credits to be used in this system, which was later eliminated by the commission.

The credit program was established in 1996 by the Southern Nevada Health District. The program was later transferred to the county in 2001.

From 1996 through 2001, Las Vegas Paving paved about 190 valley roads and received credits from the health district for its work. Ten of the roads were in Clark County's jurisdiction. The county did not pay the company for paving the roads, and the company never presented any claim to the county for payment, according to court documents.

Las Vegas Paving brought a breach of contract claim after it said the county failed to assess and enforce the local emissions offset requirement. The company had about 6,000 credits it hadn't used or sold.

Four years later, the commission terminated the program, repealing the local emissions offset requirement and the ability to use local road paving credits to satisfy any offset requirement. Las Vegas Paving Corporation filed a lawsuit against the county in 2006, alleging, among other things, a breach of contract.

The settlement addresses cases in Clark County District Court and the Nevada Supreme Court. In settling the matter, Catherine Jorgenson, deputy district attorney, said the county is not admitting liability.


Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.


Due to an increase in uncivil behavior and dialogue the Review-Journal has temporarily disabled the comment boards. The Review-Journal will use the time to evaluate the effectiveness of the comment boards and find an appropriate time to reintroduce them to