Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000167 191

Image

File
Download upr000167-191.tif (image/tiff; 26.62 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000167-191
    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

    Las Yagas - Mar oh 1, 1944 W 23-1-22 Mr. Frank Strong} Please refer to Mr, Oakey*s letter February 7 regarding refunds on pipe lines installed In Buntridge Subdivision* copy of which X sent you with ay letter February 18 to Mr. MeHamee. In aocordanee with your request we have made a physical check of the house# completed, under eaoh of the contracts referred to in hie letter and X attach hereto three separate sheets showing by blocks and lots the location of these completed houses. You «ay wish to have this Information Inserted on the blueprint which Engineer Pirie had when we previously cheeked the Subdivision September 24. the 178 houses referred to in first para­graph are now completed, and as I see it we will be la a position to refund the cost of line installed in Tract #8 as soon as we receive Bill of Sale, after valve boxes have been set, and labor bills satisfied. Concerning second paragraph only 38 of the houses are completed whereas contract K.L.D. 991-A requires 44 houses. While your letter September 23 to Mr. Ashby recommends refund on the basis of 36/44ths of the cost, so far as X know no supple­mental agreement has been drawn as your letter September 28, H i e 1-7334 mentions, only a supplemental agree­ment on the first 100 houses. Do you think we should proceed with drawing a supplemental agreement on N.L.B. 991-A to cover refund of 36/44ths of costt The third paragraph of Mr. Oakey's letter