upr000275 70

* Las Vegas - May 9 > 19^9 W 2>1-A Mr. Wm. Reinhardt: Acknowledging your letter May 5th, file L-733&, regarding proposed modification of the water main extension rule, in connection with proposed construction of houses by the Nomellini corporation: We have given careful thought to the effect such change would have, and respectfully suggest consideration be given the following before such change is recommended: 1, There appears to be no assurance that the Nomellini company would be satisfied with the new refund rule proposed; their letter April i+th specifies came type of contract as was given to the Huntridge Tract, which was refund of full cost of water mains as soon as houses are completed, regardless of whether they are occupied. 2. Assume we would have to make the proposed new refund rule retroactive; in fact, we would probably have no choice in the matter, once ,we let the bars down. As a result of news paper publicity concerning the pro^* posed Nomellini development, several of the recent sub­dividers who have invested their capital in new con­struction here have been quite disturbed about a rumor that pressure was being brought to bear on the Water Company to grant "special privileges" to the Nomellini corporation in the form of immediate refund of water main costs,, which they stated would result in unfair competition. I assured them that we had offered the Nomellini representatives exactly the same Rule 9-A refund arrangement we had offered each of them, and. that our company had no intention of doing otherwise. Their response was that if we attempted to do so, they would complain to the Commission and fight it with thb last dollar they had, as they felt Nomellini had alfj^dy been granted unfair concessions by the City Planning^ Commission (of which Mr. Campbell is a member) in -tlie -i* s . , - office of <ND. on r1 1R:0 19< ft- CO