Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
660 Market Street W M . R, Mflr 12 W i Mr. Edward C. Renwick, Assistant General Solicitor, Union Pacific Railroad Comparer, it22 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, California* Pile 8Q-J Subject: 1951 Revenue Estimate from Rate Spread Las Vegas Land and Wafer Company Dear Mr. Berwick: I have completed the revenue estimate for the year 1951 based W>on the rate spread data developed by Mr. Bertolacci in Mr* office. Johnson’s Revenue Estimate: The attached Table develops a revenue estimate of #312,882.8& under the proposed rates, Hals coapares with #236,700 (21*2,200 - 5,500) Page 3, Exhibit B at present rates. The difference is 176.182 for the increase, which compares with the stated increase from liable "R" in Exhibit A of S9uj4t86, or a lesser increase by 118,301*, This estimate includes the Table *8* proposed rates for Apartments or #6,0l*5«60 more than set up in Mr, Bertolacci»s Work Sheet (2). Motels have been priced out on the revised Motel Rate, The bungalow courts, not classified as Motels, have been left on the old classification and priced out at the proposed rates in Rable ”R”. On Page 2 of the rate spread sheets, there has been a transfer of 50 apartment units to Motels on pages ll* and 15. However, it does not appear to me that the Bungalow Court units on Page 2, from which the Motel units have been deducted, were increased by the 5G units transferred. In my calculations, I have so increased them. This had the effect of increasing estimated 1951 revenues by #1(350. do©® uot appear to me that the basic spread data, as of January 31 j \9$0$ that was the starting point* is correct on the Bungalow Courts classification, as between those with and without toilet and bath. The contrary appears to be true from the detail analysis on Pages ll* and 15. If I interpret the figures correctly, there would be no bungalow court units with toilet and bath, after deducting the Motels - for practically all of the latter have such facilities, as per sheets 11* and 15. Since such a conclusion would, of course, be in error, I maintained approximately the same relationship as heretofore for the bungalow court group.