Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

Letter from A. M. Folger (Las Vegas) to E. E. Bennett, September 20, 1948




Creator: Folger, Al M.




Contract negotiations for connecting a new subdivision to the water company mains.

Digital ID


Physical Identifier

Box 47 Correspondence File 1948


hln000787. Union Pacific Railroad Collection, 1828-1995. MS-00397. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada.


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 ( or contact us at?

Standardized Rights Statement

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Digital Processing Note

Manual transcription





Las Vegas - September 20, 1948 W 23-1-51 Mr. E. E. Bennett: ( cc - Mr. Wm. Reinhardt Mr. C. M. Cory) Your letter September 15, file 36-15, transmitting proposed agreement with Philip A. Shipley and associates to cover extension of water mains into Great-wood Homes Tract, under Rule 9-A: The agreement was presented to the subdividers for execution and, after conference with their Attorney, Lt. Governor Clifford A. Jones, the subdividers request the following changes. (1) Article II, Paragraph 2: They state that the largest portion of the cost covers the 2550 feet of 8-inch approach piping along Charleston Boulevard to the Tract; and that refunds are limited to revenues received from the first three blocks. Only 36 houses could be constructed in the first three blocks and with this restriction they could never get back even a reasonable portion of the cost. They ask that refunds on subsequent houses constructed be also applied to this refund. I recognize the fairness of their request, but do not see how we can make reference in this contract to a second contract which does not yet exist. The original plan was to make one contract to cover the entire con-struction, but at their request, for convenience in financing, we divided the water main installation into 2 parts. (2) Article III, Paragraph 3, regarding estimated cost: the subdividers draw attention to the fact that this provision places the contract on a cost-plus basis, to which they object on the basis that they have made some commitments to their associates on the total cost of constructing on facilities in the tract and this might run the water main cost up to an unreasonable figure. I have advised them that we do not anticipate an expenditure over the estimated cost of $5965.00, which includes a contingency item, the unused portion of which will be refunded to them. However, they state they would prefer flat contract and we can return the unused portion of the contingency item, if they have a guaran-tee that it will not cost them in excess of $5965.00. I have received their check for the estimated cost, $5963.00, and I am enclosing herewith a revised agreement re-written by their Attorney with the changes outlined above. Will you kindly give it your considera-tion and advise if it is in form acceptable to our Company? They are, of course, anxious to start installation of the water line at the earliest possible date, as they have the land cleared off and are ready to start house construction as soon as water is available. A. M. Folger