Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
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.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
^ h h h h , B. S, B, 7. July 10, 1952 At Page 41 of bis original report in the rata ease (Exhibit Mr* Weha stated that a study indicated that but approximately 55# of the advances would be refunded in a ten-year period at 50# of the revenues then currently being received. To be conservative, however, and to give weight to the pending increase in water rates he concluded that 70# of the advances would be refunded. Since the date of the Commission^ decision the refund has been reduced to 35$ of the annual revenues rather than 5052, which will reduce the eventual refund even though a further increase in rates is given. Therefore I think it would be very conservative to say that the District would be eventually required to pay only 70# of the advances in refunds if it takes over the liability under the contracts. Furthermore I believe it should be our opening position that the District should not receive a credit of more than 70# of the construction advances. This leaves out of consideration the fact that the obligation under the contracts bears no interest and that the District has an obligation to refund charges deferred over a period of years* It would, therefore, be proper to further discount the credit to which the District is entitled in view of the fact that the District will save considerable interest on the investment on the pipe lines covered by subdividers* contracts over the period of years necessary to pay out the refunds. Franchise We have a 50-year franchise from the City of Las Vegas to lay mains in the city streets which has approximately 30 years to run. This is not an exclusive franchise, but it undoubtedly has a value. In a rate case I do not believe it would be given any value, but in a condemnation case X believe that it would be possible to have a value assigned to the franchise as well as to the right which the Water Company owns to conduct a public utility business. Under the Nevada laws it is necessary to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity before going Into the water utility business. A value in case of sale would attach to this right. As you know, certificate rights to operate motor vehicles on the highways of this state are frequently sold for considerable sums of money. Since these franchise rights are entirely separate from going value,I think they are elements which should be considered in bargaining with the District* C. R.