man000177 180

SPENCER L. BUTTERFIELD V I C E P R E S I D E N T WILLIAM COULTHARD S E C Y . - T R E A S . HARRY E. MILLER E. OTTO UNDERHILL JAMES CASHMAN JO H N BUNCH Officers and Directors THOMAS A. CAMPBELL PRESIDENT cc: C o l. Clark LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 900 SOUTH 5TH STREET LAS VEGAS, NEVADA T e l e p h o n e 5920 June 9, 1951 HOWARD F. CLARK C H I E F E N G I N E E R A N D M A N A G E R P. O. Box 1448 Mr. Franklin Hamilton O 'M elveny & Myers 433 South Spring Street Los Angeles 13, California Deer M r. Hamilton: l a s V e g a s C i t y C h a r t e r Analysis of Powers and Jurisdiction Your attention is directed to the accompanying self explanatory news story which appeared in the Thursday June 7, 1951 issue of the Las Vegas Morning Sun. Until publication of this story, quoting the new Mayor C . D . Baker, I personally was completely unaware of any provision in the Las Vegas C ity Charter which would require that consumation of the properties of the Las Vegas Land & Water Company would be subject to approval by the Las Vegas Board of C ity Commissioners. As a matter of fact, I am not yet completely satisfied that this is actually the case. Following publication of the story 9 asked C o l. Clark to contact C ity Attorney Howard Cannon and request him to point out the pertinent sections of the City Charter to which Mayor Baker referred. After seeing the C ity Attorney, C o l. Clark reported back that the latter stated he did not know to what specific portion Mayor Baker may Have had reference. Then f suggested that Mayor Baker be contacted d ir rectly, but he is out of town until Monday, June 11th. Meanwhile, C o l. Clark examined the City Charter and found that Section 31 thereof covers the general powers of the Board of Commissioners. I am enclosing an extract taken from - The Code of Las Vegas - 1949 - Pages 42, 55, and 56. It occurs to me that in all probability you may want to, and probably should, care­fully examine and research the entire C ity Charter in order to determine whether or not there is actually any jurisdiction or power conferred upon the Board of City Com ­missioners to exercise a right of approval with respect to whatever acquisition arrange­ments may be consumated by the District for the facilities of the local utility. In this connection I want to point out that the District raises no objection whatever to such procedure as long as it is confined to the realm of actual legal jurisdiction and does not take on the color of political ramifications. If there Is actually merit and fact behind Mayor Baker's statement, then the District must know its ground, because I am sure that the counsel for the District w ill want to be very sure that everything is