Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000279 203

Image

File
Download upr000279-203.tif (image/tiff; 23.24 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000279-203
    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

    L o s A n g e l e s , M arch 2 , 1 9 5 1 MEMORANDUM: Mr. R. L. Adamson: Subject: Re Electric Power charge LVL&WCo. 1949 1950 Electric Current - $5226 $10,350 The above amounts on the Auditor*s recorded costs for electric current charged LVL&WCo. for the two periods shown. The increase is substantial. Mr. Johnson has checked in at Las Vegas ^ d phoned me today (Friday) that the charges as reported are based upon sub-meter readings each month. I am handing you the file on the monthly statements - for the last two years. You will see that the last items on each monthly bill covers this item of power. Mr. Johnson further said, based upon his inquiry, that the designation was in error. 1* Booster pump charge from $6.00 to $12.00 per month applies to railroad and not for the production of water. 2. The designation water well #1 and #2 should be circuit #1 and circuit #2. You will observe from their monthly reports that substantial billings for power occur in all months of the year - winter months are heavy too. Problem: It is necessary to know whether the billings and charges are reasonably correct. What occasioned the $10,350 •<. charge in 1950 as compared with $5,226 in 1949. Apparently we must look to this office for the answer. My suggestion is something like this: 1 2 3 1. Check the logs of the pump operations to ascertain whether pumps operated regularly. 2. Secure kwh billing. 3. On the basis of the size of the motor and load would it be physically possible to utilize the kwh billed.