Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Los Angeles - May 25# 19^9 1-7231* v Mr. A. M. Folger: (co Mr. E. E. Bennett) Referring to your letters of April 29th and May 1?th, file W-25, regarding suggested new rates for private swimming pools; The correspondence has heretofore concerned only private pools, and developed from our proposal to reoognize that it was not equitable to charge the operator of a small private pool the same rate as that charged for public pools. The operation of the latter is usually governed by local health regulations requiring frequent draining, cleaning and refilling, and involve the use of water greatly in excess of private pools. As it appears from Mr. Scott's letter of April 5th that members of the Commission recognize the fairness of establishing a lower rate for private pools, I am unable to understand why you make a comparison of the revenue under the present and proposed rates for the several pools listed, most, if not all, of which would not be affected by the proposed rate. Further, if, as you state, the Commission would probably refuse any differential between public and private pool rates, then undoubtedly it would not approve a flat rate of |10 for private and I30 for public pools as you suggest. The whole Intent of the alternate suggested rate schedules is to offer the operators of private pools an inducement to conserve water by offering a low rate to those installing and maintaining circulatory systems. The flat© rate of |10 per month you suggest would, I believe, only defeat our purpose. As suggested in my letter of April 26th, we should endeavor to secure approval of the first suggested schedule. This would; (1) Permit the operator to secure a low rate if the pool is equipped with circulatory facilities only so long as such facilities are maintained and operated. Based on a normal use of water for such pools, we estimated the quantity of water used over a three-month period would approximate twioe the capacity of the pool, producing a revenue of approximately 15 ^ per thousand gallons. (2) Permit the Water Company to refuse service to private pool not so equipped, unless the owner paid the regular schedule rate of t30 per month.