Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

man000204 157

Image

File
Download man000204-157.tif (image/tiff; 26.25 MB)

Information

Digital ID

man000204-157
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

8 Manager Renshaw advised that he felt that granting the easements would be of material benefit to the District, since it would enable the Power Company to pro­vide an intermediate source of power and increase the dependability of the supply to the well field. He called attention to the fact, however, that the easement along southerly boundary of Section 30 had been laid out to permit construction of a 100 foot street and was, therefore, separated from the boundary of the District property by 30 feet. He questioned whether this would be as desirable from the Districts standpoifat as a location adjoining the boundary. He also pointed out that the ease­ment would cross the forty acres on which an option was being given the School District. In response to a question, Attorney McNamee advised that the option had not actually been prepared and it could be made subject to the easement. Following a lengthy discussion it was agreed to defer action on the matter until a later date and the Manager was instructed to discuss the location of the easement further with the Power Company. APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS The following statements were submitted for approval by the Board: J. M. Montgomery statement dated April 20, 1956 in the amount of $70.35 covering blueprinting for the month of February 1956. J. M. Montgomery statement dated April 20, 1956 in the amount of $207*98 covering mill inspection for the month of March 1956. Conway, Moe, Hibbs and Funston statement dated April 23, 1956 in the amount of $1,780.60 covering semi-annual examination of accounts. A motion was duly made by Director Cornwall, seconded by Director Thorn, and unanimously approved by the five Directors present, that the statements as submitted be approved. UNAUTHORIZED WATER CONNECTION - MEYERS ET AL Manager Renshaw noted that previous action by the Board allowed the people involved in the unauthorized water connection near the Stewart Burial Plot until May 1 to sign up for water service and arrange for payment of the back charges or the water would be shut off. He requested authority to postpone shutting this line off for two weeks, since steps were being taken by the people involved to extend a main and take individual services. A motion was duly made by Director Cornwall, seconded by Director Thorn, and unanimously approved by the five Directors present, that the Manager be authorized to postpone the May 1 shut off ordered on the unauthorized connection near the Stewart Burial Plot f£r two weeks. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBERSHIP A letter received from the Chamber of Commerce dated April 19, 1956, requesting the District*s membership in the Chamber of Commerce and participation in the Live Wire Fund was read and discussed briefly. It was agreed to request an opinion from Counsel relative to the propriety of expending funds for this purpose. MAIN EXTENSION ON "STRIP" Manager Renshaw requested authority from the Board to authorize main extensions across the strip of smaller than 6—inch minimum size pre­viously established. He explained that, if approved, this precedure would only apply to certain cases where the arrangement of property holdings are such that the extension