upr000091 137

Brought Forward I 390,893 Bistriot Engineers that they were using 1952 costs and no question was raised In this re­spect since the appraisal we were cheeking was admittedly as of Dec. 31* 1950. I recommend that no reduction he allowed for this item when considering "Sale Fries" as I believe the District has already set up too much depreciation hy using shorter service lives for pipe than can he Justified, In setting up lailroad Company Estimated Cost of Beproductlon New - Less Depreciation as of May 1, 1952 as shown in 3-page statement dated June 18, 19 5 2 , it will he noted that I have not shown any additional depreciation in lepro- duetlon Costs to provide for depreciation in period Deo, 1950 to May 1952 for the reason that depreciation occurring in this period is more than offset hy an appreciation in value due to increased construction costs, including both labor and material, which fact is well supported by statistics and our experience. Total exclusions suggested hy James M* Montgomery I 390.893 Total exclusive of Land 82,184,821 III Add Land and Water Rights This amount represents appraisal value of land only as determined hy Mr. G. M. Bates for the portion of water hearing lands which the District has proposed to purchase, Talus of water rights was not includod hy Mr. Bates Total for Land Total including 'Last $ 267,650 # 267.650 82.452.471 IT Credit to District Estimated amount refundable under contracts,Mr. $ 403,762 Montgomery admits that above figure is purely an estimate and will fluctuate as time goes on. Service installation charges 34,385 Mr, Montgomery takes the position that since the Water Company makes a charge of #5.00 for each service installed, the District should he allowed