Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

man000177 109

Image

File
Download man000177-109.tif (image/tiff; 26.72 MB)

Information

Digital ID

man000177-109
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    M r. W illia m R e in h ard t J u ly 22, 1952 Page 2 We feel that the overhead item could veil he eliminated from the valuation of the property. It is true that engineering expense was required for a part of the system hut other parts required little or no engineering. It le felt that the forfeited portions of the advances in aid of construction would offset the engineering costa. The charge for general expenses, according to Mr. Wehe's report, has not been made prior to 1951 and it would seem that it could veil he eliminated from a valuation made for purposes of sale. Interest during construction is a hypothetical value. Much of the system was built with funds advanced for construction and, if interest during construction is allowed, then interest should he paid an the advances. These are some of the reasons that the overhead item has been eliminated from our appraisal. The item for removal and replacement of paving has also been from our appraisal. Our figures show that the area of paving actually removed and replaced when cast iron was substituted for the original wood pipe was much lees than that claimed In your appraisal. It is felt that even the smaller amount Should not be allowed because the community should not be penalized for an original installation of short-lived pipe. As stated above, our appraisal was based on May 1, 1952 prices. Therefore ve have taken credit for an additional 16 This amounts to $109,500. month depreciation. Our appraisal Shows advances In aid of construction amounting to $^03,762. This figure is an estimate and may be more or less +.hgn the actual amount which is now held by the Water Company. Whatever the correct amount proves to be, it is our opinion that the District should assume othfi st heo bplriogpaotsieodn baosn adn isospueer.ating expense and thus reduce the total amount We feel that the Water District should receive credit for the $5.00 advance which the Water Company has collected for the installation of each water service. Tn making an appraisal of the water system it is felt tshysatte mt.his amount is an investment which the public has already made in the When you have had an opportunity to go over our figures we shall be glad to again meet with you and further discuss the purchase of the water facilities by the las Vegas Valley Water District.