man000174 90

The mjor difference in thas© two appraisals under productI c e . facilities was in the pipelines which increased by $lk2,&55> reproduction cost, and an increase of $69,^53 in depreciated cost. The increase in reproduction cost is attributed to the fact that most of the pipelines were installed in solid rock, or ’’caliche", with such greater trenching cost than if ordinary earth trenching had been encountered. Th© install­ation costs as shown in the J.M.M. & Co. appraisal are low for this type of trenching. Other appreciable differences under production facilities resulted from low unit costs for reinforced concrete and ©accawaticE. in the various structures. Under distribution facilities the mjor difference in the appraisals for reproduction cost and depreciated cost was in service connections and pavement work. The reproduction cost of services as shewn in the J.M.M.& Co. appraisal is $73,99^, with a present value of $56,333. The reproduction cost of service connections as appraised by the Las Vegas Land and Water Co. was $152,6^5 and the present value was $91#58?. In the limited time available it was impossible to make a field check of approximately 6900 services and therefor® the Union Pacific figures vere used la this appraisal. However, since the majority of the distribution rnina are located In alleye, the average length of service line installed by the water ecsgany is probably quite short and further check may shew that thee© figures are high. The great difference in pavement work resulted frt» a discrepancy between the quantities shown la the J.M.M. & Co. appraisal and the quantities reported by the Union Pacific. J.M.M. & Co. showed approximately 36,000 sq. ft. of pavement work whereas the Union Pacific shewed over 250,000 sq. ft. A field Investigation Indicated that the latter figure was very nearly correct but that very little of the total had been laid by the Water Co. -3"