Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000153 156

Image

File
Download upr000153-156.tif (image/tiff; 26.59 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000153-156
    Details

    Rights

    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

    Los Angelec - March 24, 1950 Files 80-8 M E M O R A N D U M In connection with Mr. M a s s o n * s letter to Mr. Reinhardt of M arch 23d and the supplement thereto relative to analysis of the Greeley and Hansen Report of cost of the proposed water district facilities and in connection with the annual cost of o p e r a tin g these facilities, including the servicing of the bonds. _ In the Greeley and Hansen Report, on Page XIX, they assume 3$ Interest bonds retired over a 30-year period and state the annual payments therefor are 5.102$ of the first cost. In Table 21 of the Greeley Report, they show for 1950 an annual payment of #102,000 which figure Is presum­ably 5.1$ of #2,000,000.00. They also show an annual pay­ment of #120,500 representing 5.1$ of approximately #2,750,000 which i s presumably their capital expenditure for new facilities as of 1950, or total annual payments to ser­vice the bonds of #230,500*00* They then show the mainten­ance and water costs (no power costs being included} for 1950 of |5l,800 and operation and administration costs of #53*80©', or a total of those two figures of #85,600.00* This presumably includes maintenance of the present facilities of the water company and the railroad company as well as all