upr000064 124

Los Angolas, November 11, 1950 Tot Mr. Fromt Mr. Subject! Rules and Regulations - Rate Schedules 4j Las Vegas Land and Water Company Mr. Bertolaocl and I have reviewed the proposed revised Rules end Regulations as set up by Mr. Folger. ' Some changes have been made as compared to the current- ly effective rules. The changes are two-fold In effectj In some Instances present rules become less stringent, while in others, the provisions are more restrictive and result in Increases in charges assessed against the customer. It is my view that generally the proposals are war­ranted and are satisfactory. A few points need discussion, and Mr. Bertolucci can take up with you possible rewording. Rule 9A - New Extensions M Edward G. Renwiek Roy A. Wehe {CC - Mr* E. E. Bennetdr Mr. R. A. Wehe / Mr. R. L. Bertolucci) Company present and proposed refund is 50$ of the gross revenue. This is a very high allowance. Insofar as I know, 55$ is the maximum in California. Many are 25$. With the substantial growth and high costs, a retention of but half the gross revenue falls far short of meeting out-of-pocket costs, and it would appear to me a 55$ refund figure might be more appropriate. You might get the reaction of those dose to the work as well as management. Rule 13 - Penalties and Discounts Question is raised as to the desirability of the proposed 25$ per month per bill discount for prompt payment. None Is now provided. With 8,000 customers, this would mean a possible discount of $2,000 per month, or a loss in revenue of $24,000 a year. Probably not less than 30$ would qualify, so a loss of some $19,000 would be realised. No such item is reflected in our revenue estimate. At the present time, penalty payments of around $2,000 a year are in our revenue estimates. Such discounts, as far as I can see, would not reduce the cost of the Water Company operations - possibly a few dollars in stamps and stationery - personnel would not change. I H