Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

man000177 90

Image

File
Download man000177-090.tif (image/tiff; 26.85 MB)

Information

Digital ID

man000177-090
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

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS TH O M A S A £ CAMPBELL PRESIDENT SPENC*^ L. BUTTERFIELD VICE PRESIDENT W ILLIAM COULTHARD SEC'Y-TREAS. HARRY E. MILLER E. O T T O UNDERHILL JAM ES CASHM AN JO H N BUNCH LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 9 0 0 S O U T H 5 T H S T R E E T LAS VEGAS, NEVADA T E L E P H O N E 5 9 2 0 P. ? . COMMENTS AND C c o IP A* gsf forth In the explanatory note of the accompanying Summery, in order that the Appraisal developed by the Union P acific would be cm the some basis as that m adefcr District by James M . Montgomery, Consulting Engineer, the reproduction cost method evaiuatlr^j the production and distributing facilities o f the Las Vegas Land and Water Company's system was used. The valuation for tend and water arrived at by the Distrh Is based upon a tentative appraisal figure submitted by the Americas Appraisal Compan which was retained by the District few this purpose. The accompanying tabulation ©f the comparative appraisals made by the Union Pacific Company and the District dhows a difference o f $ 2 3 9 ,9 1 5 , between the Company's figures and those of the D istrict. However, In the opinion ©# the District deductions totaling approximately $573,161 (per Une N o, 5 o f the accompanying Summary) shoal be made front the overall value of the system. The reaom supporting the first four dedt Hons itemized under Paragraph 5 are explained In considerable detail in c report daf August 8 , i9 5 2 , prepared for the District by Consulting Engineer James M . Montgor St |s the ©pinion of die District that the fa Mowing additional factors must be taken Into consideration in arriving at a fair purchase price of the property: 1 . The District has a limited bonding capacity and cannot afford to pay mere than Is necessary to acquire the Water Company. 2 , The Las Vegas Land and Water Company has apparently reached the end of Its wot resources and, in purchasing the water system, the District will be giving them a fe ll capital gain as well as bailing them out ©f a bad situation* 3 . 4. 5. The prosperity of the entire Las Vegas area, including the Union P a cific, depends upon the Increased water facilities which the District alone can provide. The existing system Is admittedly inadequate and Immediately system the District will be faced with the construction of addl tributfon facilities in addition to the construction of the lake The Water Company Is admittedly operating a t a very low rah investment cost, after purchasing th tionai storage end < Mead delivery syst i o f return on even t August 2 2, 1952