Opinion ID: 2452967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The City had a contractual duty to investigate whether prevailing wages were being paid on the Cabela's project

Text: The City argues that it did not have a duty under NRS 338.070 to investigate whether prevailing wages were being paid on the Cabela's project. The district court concluded, however, that the City had a statutory duty to investigate prevailing wage discrepancies on the Cabela's project. We agree that the City had a duty to investigate, but we conclude this duty derived from the financing agreement between the City and Cabela's. The standard for reviewing petitions for judicial review of administrative decisions is the same for this court as it is for the district court. Weaver v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 498, 117 P.3d 193, 196 (2005). Like the district court, we decide pure legal questions without deference to an agency determination. Jones v. Rosner, 102 Nev. 215, 217, 719 P.2d 805, 806 (1986). We do not give any deference to the district court decision when reviewing an order regarding a petition for judicial review. Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1105, 146 P.3d 801, 805 (2006). Here, the City entered into the financing agreement with Cabela's that specifically stated prevailing wages would be paid and that NRS 338.010 through NRS 338.090 would be complied with. The financing agreement also required Cabela's to submit documentation to the City showing that prevailing wages were being paid and required the City to investigate Cabela's statutory compliance. Thus, by contract, the City undertook the responsibility to investigate prevailing wage discrepancies on the Cabela's project, even if it was not required to do so under NRS 338.070. The City conceded that it had this contractual duty during the hearing before the Labor Commissioner. Although we do not grant deference to the district court's decision, we affirm the district court's order insofar as the court determined that such a duty existed and granted the petition for judicial review. See Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 575, 747 P.2d 230, 233 (1987) (stating that this court will affirm an order of the district court if it reached the correct result for reasons that differ from our own).