Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000092 11

Image

File
Download upr000092-011.tif (image/tiff; 26.85 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000092-011
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

with Mr. Wehe, and he believes that 10% is a rough, average figure to use for going value in the absence of a more com-plat. f g g j & l f g } r#pras,ntatiTas of the District have al­ready made some comment that in view of our present earning position our company does not have a going value. That view overlooks the fact that the company for many years filed earnings statements with the Commission showing a favorable earning position and it is because of the recent increased costs which are being incurred which have not been fully met by rate increases that it is not in a favorable earning po­sition. It cannot be assumed that the courts of Nevada will allow the company to remain in an unfavorable -earning posi­tion even though because of politics the Public Service Com­mission has been reluctant to increase our rates by the a-mount we proposed. The important fact to remember is that the Company is capable of being placed in a favorable earn­ing position. The people of Las Vegas are well able to pay rates for water which would provide a fair return, ^o in no sense is the Water Company an obsolescent plant such as some street railways are where it is impossible for the u-tility to earn a fair return under any reasonable rate schedule1 E, g, B. 2* ^952 Just as a matter of illustration I should like to quote from the case of U.S. v* Boston C«C» & N.Y. Canal Co... 27.1 Fed. #77 at page #$6 , involving the condemnation of the Cape Code Canal by the United States. This quotation deals with the ascertainment of going value and points out clearly that going value should attach to a plant which operates profit­ably or which has a reasonable probability of becoming a profitable venture. The Court said* *In ascertaining the fair value of a public utility, apart from its franchise, consideration has to be given to the value of its physical property, including preliminary and overhead costs necessary to prepare the plant for service, and also to those costs incurred in creating the business and revenue of the enterprise, or what is generally known as ’going value’ of the conr earn, provided the business has become profit­able, or there is a reasonable probability of its becoming so. "In ascertaining the ’going value* of such a utility, consideration may properly be given