upr000275 60

Las Vegas - May 1 8 , 19^9 W 2 3 -1 -A Mr. Wm. Reinhardt: In accordance with your letter May 11, file l-733^> we attach statement of water refund contracts in effect, showing the information hy sub-division outlined in your letter. Under item 6 , "Estimated total number of consumers", it is difficult to say what addi­tional construction will take place in any sub­division and we, therefore, used the potential maximum, based on one house on each lot because that was the Intention of the sub-divider at the time the water mains were installed. You will note that there are now 588 consumers against a potential maximum of 952 or 6l$; however, this number of consumers was not in service during the entire life of the contract, as construction was progressive. So far $15,170.1^ has been refunded on the total amount advanced or about 1 1 • to March 3 1, 19^9. Under our present rule 9A, 7 6 % of the amounts deposited will be refunded if houses are constructed on each lot served; whereas 73$ would be refunded under the proposed 50 foot rule. The advantage to the sub-divider lies, of course, in the time element: Under the 50 foot mile he would receive his money back in ninety days after construc­tion is completed and houses occupied, after which he has no interest in whether the houses are occupied or not. My thought is that if the sub-divider becomes a partner with the Water Company under rule 9A it will serve as a brake on over-building the community and leaving a large number of unoccupied houses on water mains from which we receive no revenue, but on which we will have continuing maintenance and taxes*