Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000283 218

Image

File
Download upr000283-218.tif (image/tiff; 26.68 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000283-218
    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

    He also knew that there had become effective on April 1, 1951 a 10% increase in wages and that in 1951 there would be a re­placement of a 4-inch main by 6-inch and 8-inch mains on Tenth and Stewart Streets which would involve an operating expense charge of $7,500.00, of which, in order to be conserv­ative,, he assigned to 1951 only $2,500.00. In estimating $36,000.00 as the operation and maintenance expense of the Water Company rather than $41,200.00, the Commission has dis­regarded entirely the undisputed testimony as to the added expenses which will be incurred in the latter part of the year 1951. In Exhibit Q, witness Wehe estimated the Las Yegas office administrative and general expense to be $36,340.00. * His testimony (June Tr. 54 to 57) shows that this estimate was based upon the experience of the first four months of 1951 and that it was very conservatively made. The Commis­sion’s opinion disregards this evidence and uses the earlier estimate contained in Exhibit B from which it arbitrarily de­ducts $5,000.00, all without explanation. Without stating reasons, the Commissi on also made certain adjustments upward or downward in other portions of the administrative and general expenses which differ from those shown in Exhibit Q,. The overall result is that the Commission’s estimate of $42,900.00 as compared with the esti­mate of $52,340.00 contained in Exhibit Q, understates adminis­trative and general expenses $9,440.00. When that amount is -6 4 -