upr000061 162

? •rater H a te s - L a s V e g a s . Dear Father: Las Vegas, Nevada, Mar. 31,1932. Replying to years af March 26th relative to the above, and particularly answering the question asked In Mr. Gray’s letter t© Mr. Knickerbocker as to why our appli­cation for increased rate® did not ask for one hundred per cent increase in all rates, will say that we did not place a literal interpretation on the instructions to Increase the rates 100$ In all classifications, inasmuch as the schedule under which we were then operating was antiquated, over 85$ of the ela self lea tions therein listed being obsolete, and there being some twelve or fifteen classifications, which were ma,|©r consumers, not listed. It was necessary for us to re-classify the services so as to make the same conform with the classes of service that we were giving • At the time the old schedule was adopted, for instance — there was no apartment houses mentioned and in fact at that time there were no apartment houses in the City of Las Vegas nor were there any bungalow courts. Last year, however, and for several years prior thereto a considerable portion of our revenue was derived from apartment houses and from bungalow courts. When working under the old schedule we made an arbitrary classification of apartment houses and charged |ll.00 each, the same as a dwelling, and under the new classi­fication we doubled said flat charge, and we also asked for 'SCM additional for bath and toilet. The foregoing also applies to bungalow courts. With the exception of the following items - Extra chair in barber shop; public baths; additional rooms to houses; bath and toilets for private houses; extra families; restaurants; public toilets; and private 'toilets in stores, there were only 35 actual users at the time the list was pre­pared, in the classes where no increase was asked, namely,- 23 Restaurants, 5 Public Halls, 1 Court House, and 1 Blacksmith Shop.