man000204 48

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors of Las Vegas Valley- Water District was held on Friday, February 9, 1951, at 135 South 4th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, at 4:00 P.K. The following Directors were present: President Campbell Vice Pres. Butterfield Directors Bunch Cashman Underhill The following Directors were absent: Director Miller, out of town. Director Coulthard, in State Legislature. Also present was Chief Engineer and Manager Clark, who was des­ignated Acting Secretary for this meeting in the absence of Director Miller. The minutes of the last meeting on January 5, 1951, stood approved, there having been no objections or corrections to the typed copy thereof circulated to all Directors. The Directors discussed the amendments to the Enabling Act for the Water District, as prepared by the office of O'Melveny & Myers, of Los Angeles, in the absence of but yet under the general direction of Mr. Beebe, away from his office temporarily. There was a general discussion of the purpose and effect of each of the changes proposed in the text of the Enabling Act. The objectives of the amendments were (1) the elimination of all references to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of Nevada over the District and (2) full authority to issue only revenue bonds, if so desired. It was also believed necessary to insert a clause in the Act which would state positively that the Water District was in fact a municipal water utility in contra distinction to a public utility, and, as such, was to be so considered under the laws of Nevada, and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of Nevada. The Manager suggested that the text prepared by O'Melveny & Myers did not permit the Water District to provide in revenues for a sinking fund to replace retired or obsolete parts of the utility properties. He referred to the text prepared by Chapman and Cutler, former bond attorneys for the District, in which text there had been provision for such a fund for "repairs and replacements"; but, he added, that this part of the Chapman and Cutler text relative to a depreciation fund had been deleted by O'Melveny & Myers. The point made concerned the source hereafter of money needed to replace retired units of the system as, for instance, replacement of one of the main pumping plants after its useful life expectancy of 20 years was past. The Manager believed it might be wise to have a legal basis in the Act for creating a depreciation fund and including such an allowance in the rate structure. The Manager also suggested that the Directors would soon have to make a decision as to the number of years, more than one, which would be allowed to elapse before the first of the bonds are retired. Should the construction period of the District’s project run over one and one-half years, the capital for retiring the matured bonds must then be available. He suggested a period of two years might well be allowed before permitting the first of the bonds to mature.