Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000065 315

Image

File
Download upr000065-315.tif (image/tiff; 26.75 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000065-315
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

(bco - Mr. Wm. Reinhardt Mr. W. H. Johnson Mr. Galvin M. Cory) December 4, 1951 File 4705-11-22 Mr. Robert A. Allen, Chairman Public Service Commission State of Nevada Carson City, Nevada Dear Mr. Allen: Re: Las Vegas Land and Water Company, I Is S Docket No. 127_____________ This will refer to our recent telephone conversation con­cerning the rates on motels with respect to which I wrote Mr. Lee S. Scott on November 27, 1951. In our telephone conversa­tion you suggested that the Las Vegas Land and Water Company give consideration to voluntarily placing in effect the motel rates which were proposed by the Las Vegas l)and and Water Com­pany in Exhibit "W" in I & S Docket 127 for application to mo­tels as distinguished from bungalow courts. As stated in my letter to Mr. Scott, the rates which were set forth in Exhibit *¥** were only a part of the proposal of the Water Company. Our proposal of those rates was related to our other rate propos­als contained in Exhibit "V". If the rates whioh we proposed in Exhibit "Vw and in Exhibit had been allowed to go into effect, the Water Company would have increased its revenues by approximately $90,SI3 a year, using 1951 as the test year. The rates prescribed by the Commission in its order of August 24, 1951, allowed an increase of only approximately $25,000 a year Under the allowed increase the Water Company is earning no re­turn at all and is suffering a deficit. If we were to place in effeot the rates shown in Exhibit ".W", the revenues of the Water Company would be further de­creased because they would return less revenue than the rates for motels prescribed by the Commission in its order of Aug­ust 24, 1951. -We can see no Justification for any voluntary action on our part which would result in a decrease in our revenues in view of the fact that our revenues under the Com­mission-prescribed rates are entirely inadequate. Further­more we think it would be Improper for the Commission to or-