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
Los Angeles, Calif. March 29, 1950 Memorandum concerning proposed application for increase in water rates, Las Vegas, Nevada. Messrs. Renwick and Wshe discussed this matter with Messrs. Hulsizer and Barnes on telephone today, and following is outline of understanding reached concerning the various data requested in Mr. Reinhardt’s letter March 3rd and referred to in Mr. Hulsizer*s letter of March 23rd. References are to the subject headings in list attached to Mr. Reinhardt’s letter of March 3rd, headed "Additional Data for use in Preparing LVL&WCo. Application for Rate Increase". Ao FIXED CAPITAL I - Readjustment for "Betterments". Mr. Hulsizer and Mr. Barnes understood that a detailed restatement of the accounting involved in the work orders referred to in this item was desired. They said the Auditor had advised that it would take two men sixty days to complete the work, and they did not think the material was necessary in view of historical cost statement previously furnished by Mr. Hulsizer. They were also opposed to restatement of betterment accounting previously used. In a previous conversation with Mr. Hulsizer, Mr. Renwick ascertained that Mr. Hulsizer had no objection to the use in the rate proceeding of the historical cost shown in the statement previously furnished by him. Mr. Wehe told Mr. Hulsizer that he intended to use his historical cost figures, and that he merely desired a general description of the work covered by the work orders in question so that he would be in a position to intelligently answer questions of the Commission as a witness in the rate proceeding. He pointed out that the Commission had the investment cost of the facilities in the annual reports submitted to it, and that he should be in position to give the reasons for the increase in cost reflected in Mr. Hulsizer’s historical cost statements. Mr. Hulsizer felt that such a general statement coula be readily ftarnished. We also advised Mr. Hulsizer and Mr, Barnes that it was not our intention to recommend a restatement of the accounting. _ 1 =