upr000175 161

Las Vegas * May 9 , 1 9 ^ f 2 3 - 1 - A Hr. Via, Reinhardt! Acknowledging your letter May 5 th, file 1—733*** regarding proposed modification of the wafer main extension rule, in connection with proposed construction of houses by the Momelllni corporation! We have given careful thought to the effect such change would have, and respectfully suggest consideration be given the following before such change Is recommended! 1 . there appears to be no assurance that the Komellinl company would be satisfied refund rule proposed} their letter April &th specifies p a a type of contraot as was given to the Huntridge Tract, which was refund of full cost ^ water natas as soon as houses are coaqpleted, regardless of whether they are occupied. 2-, Assume we would have to make the proposed new refund rule retroactive} in fact, we have no choice in the matter, once we let the bars down. As a result of news paper publicity concerning ^ e pro­posed Horaellini development, several of the r^«it sub- dividers who have invested their capital in new con- struotlon here have been quite aistta-bed about & rumor that pressure was being brought to bear on the Mater ^ Company to grant •special privileges to the y^elH^nl e ^ ^ t t o n intfce form of immediate refund of water main coats, which competition, I as stuhreeyd s ttahteemd twhoautl wde had off«r©dthe Momellinl representatives exactly the same Rtae jgj refund arrangement we had offered each of th^, and that our company had no intention of doing otherwise* wToheuilrd rceosmppolnasien wtaos tthhea tC oimfm iwses iaotnt eamnpdt feidg thot d1o* wsoi,f n the last dollar they had, as they felt NomellJf*^*^ready been granted unfair concessions by the City Planning C omission (of which Mr, Campbell is a member) in thg