upr000275 37

Mr. Wm. Reinhardt: ^SiLPtri1 cf £t Las Vegas - September W 2 > 7 ( cc Mr. E. E. Bennett) I enclose copy of letter from the Public Service Commission and also one from Cleveland Schultz representing the Las Vegas Motel Association, in which we ®.re requested to apply the hotel rate to motels and auto courts. I enclose also copy of a study we made show-ing the effect this would have on our revenues. The rate provided for Bungalow Courts is $1*0.0 per unit plus §0.25 for each toilet and bath. The hotel rate is §2.50 for the first ten rooms plus $0*15 for each additional room and $0.15 for each private toilet and bath. There are two or three things to be considered in a request of this kind. 1. fZ> 4 % <£JUU»^-ir / 1 1 7 7 7 T /f t Jr _____ c, v 1 2 i 3 « The effect it would have on our revenues. The average saving to each of the auto court owners would be $13.60 per month, but this would result in a loss of $8,650 annually to the Water Company. We grant vacancy allowance in Auto Courts but not to hotels. An auto court usually has a lawn in front, whereas a hotel does not. If we establish a precedent by classifying auto courts as hotels we can expect that apartment house owners will also claim their building is actually a hotel and entitled to the lower rate. I enclose copy also of a letter from the Motel Association, the general trend of which seems to be "We can get it for you wholesale*11 As a matter of fact the Water Company was granting vacancies to auto court owners before the Association was formed, and will continue to do so whether the motel owner belongs to the Association or not. I do not see how we can consistently grant this re­quest for a change in classification without affecting other consumers covered by the rate schedule.