Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000274 67

Image

File
Download upr000274-067.tif (image/tiff; 23.93 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000274-067
    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 Angeles, Calif. March 29, 1950 Memorandum concerning proposed application for increase in water rates, Las Vegas, Nevada. Messrs. Renwick and Wshe discussed this matter with Messrs. Hulsizer and Barnes on telephone today, and following is outline of understanding reached concerning the various data re­quested in Mr. Reinhardt’s letter March 3rd and referred to in Mr. Hulsizer*s letter of March 23rd. References are to the subject headings in list attached to Mr. Reinhardt’s letter of March 3rd, headed "Additional Data for use in Preparing LVL&WCo. Application for Rate Increase". Ao FIXED CAPITAL I - Readjustment for "Betterments". Mr. Hulsizer and Mr. Barnes understood that a de­tailed restatement of the accounting involved in the work orders referred to in this item was desired. They said the Auditor had advised that it would take two men sixty days to complete the work, and they did not think the material was necessary in view of historical cost statement previously furnished by Mr. Hulsizer. They were also opposed to restatement of betterment account­ing previously used. In a previous conversation with Mr. Hulsizer, Mr. Renwick ascertained that Mr. Hulsizer had no objection to the use in the rate proceeding of the historical cost shown in the statement previously furnished by him. Mr. Wehe told Mr. Hulsizer that he intended to use his historical cost figures, and that he merely desired a general description of the work covered by the work orders in question so that he would be in a position to intelligently answer questions of the Commission as a witness in the rate proceeding. He pointed out that the Commission had the investment cost of the facilities in the annual reports submitted to it, and that he should be in position to give the reasons for the increase in cost reflected in Mr. Hulsizer’s historical cost statements. Mr. Hulsizer felt that such a general statement coula be readily ftarnished. We also advised Mr. Hulsizer and Mr, Barnes that it was not our intention to recommend a restatement of the accounting. _ 1 =