UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
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
Transcription
Memo While we do not have complete records to show the accruals of val- uat^Jijis and depreciation at different periods, we find that on January 1, 1924 the value of our water system was $16,509.86, and after addding^thru Work Order VP-12^- $3540.88, the total investment on December 31, 1924 was $20,050.74. Accrued depreciation on December 31, 1924 was $16,274.71 and it appears that prior to starting replacements under Work Order VP-12, our ? \ ? entire water system had practically been depredated. This Work Order involved an expenditure of $20,542.75, charges being made to Operating Expense $17,001.87, Investment $3,540.88. ^hese t iuvJ-L . ' < U)yi'i-V charges were based on Mr. Barry s letter of November 15, 1923, 'file D-301. However, it seems to me that where the entire system had been depreciated,^ that the original value of the parts to be replaced should have been charged to that account, and all in excess of that amount should have been charged to Investment Accounts, inasmuch as the value of our improved system would be greater than the value of our original system which was composed of smaller pipe lines. Also as, had the exhorbitant charge of $17,000.00 which was made to Operating Expense, been charged to Investments, we would have been entitled to earn a fair profit on thatanount. ./Uml/ I^YO pb "Y'\ ^ v5-/- 5' 'Yo s'7 ^ n r*ig. yf y
