upr000175 162

Mr. Reinhardt* % Kay 9, 1 9 ^ way of reducing the minimum lot size, eliminating street lights and other requirements listed In the City ordinance and which other sub&ividers had to comply with. 3* Our last Central B&l&noe Sheet reflects that we haw# over $122,500 1® Aeooimt 173 -"Donations subject to complete or partial refund* to which these water main advances are credited. We h- v# been re­funding on the basis of $0$ of the revenues , but with the adoption of the proposed new refund rule, we would probably be called upon to Immediately dissipate the balk of money in this account, as the majority of sub- dlv divisions furnished with water under Rule 9-A are pretty well built up, with the outstanding exception of the McNeil tract. Those depositors who could not qualify for immediate refunds would feel that they were being discriminated against, resulting In more complaints* kw It is noted no 50-ft. limitation is placed on the proposed new rule, such as we now have on Rule 9-A, and this 50-ft, margin has been of considerable assistance to us in the case of off-line connections. Our original Rule 9-0 in affect during the War Emer­gency also provided for completion of the houses, and hence the contract, in not to exceed two years for housing projects and it might be advisable to retain this feature. 5* while no menticm is made of the cost of ?approach piping* I assume its cost would also be considered in arriving at the average cost of 50 feet of main refundable for each house completed within the tract* In the case of Crestwood Homes, as an example, a long run of approach piping was required to arrive at the tract, resulting in a cost of about 1509 per bouse for the 36 houses to be served with the water main. Chder the proposed new rule, it would pay the subdivider to Install dummy tenants in M s houses with rent free for the first 9© days in order to get back his water main costs* general speaking, the feeling here in Las Vegas is that the preeent M e 9-A is about as fair and equitable as can be made to cover all cases. At the time this rule was placed in effect, we canvassed various California and Nevada utilities for a basis for our rule. Some of them refunded <**JH»* -2 -