upr000342 114

A l i e p f c u p u a r t i w a s ^ W ater District Act Changes Face Rough Go CARSON CITY, March 15 p|J The senate-approved : bill to amend the Las Vegas water dis- j trict act appeared to be facing ; tough opposition in the assembly I today as at least two members of the county delegation indicated j disapproval of some features of : the proposal. Opposition to the p l a n s to ? amend the bill developed duf- j tag an open hearing here yes- ? terday in which District Attor­ney Robert E; Jones and Harry Miller, president of the water district b o a r d , discussed the bill with members of the as- ? . sembly delegation from Clark ; county. Assembly. Harley E. Harmon : and Paul Warner both said they| were not "Satisfied with the sen-1 ate-approved - amendment to the I existing act which would permit § county commissioners to levy j taxes for the retirement °*- bonds issued by the district. ' The bill, which was introduced I March 7 by Senator C. D. Baker,' won approval of the upper"hor^e! Wednesday and was sent to; the; members for study and recom­mendation. • ^ Outlining the necessity for the I amendments, Jones told the as- . semblymen yesterday that it was the present intention of the board not to levy taxes for the conduct of the district but- that such a p r o v i s i o n would strengthen the'district’s position - when bonds for the purchase of existing utilities or water ; sys­tems are put up for sale. He admitted that the act as proposed would j circumvent: the : taxpayer’s right to vpte on the issuance of bonds but recalled that in approving the district two years ago “the voters by an eight to one margin approved. f qrma- Jtion of the district and the right | [to issue bonds.” [ J o n e s said the proposed [amendments would set up two--: | public hearings by the water dis-1 | trict board before bonds would | I be issued and at these hearings | ] all persons would be given the right to discuss the proposal. No- Itice of such meetings would be; published in the Las Vegas news-t paper, he said. Jones pointed out also that ' the statute of limitations would I prevent the district from at­tempting to issue bonds "in ex­cess of five per cent of the as­sessed valuation and that such would have to be paid off be- i fore more could be issued. The district attorney admitted to the assemblymen and others jj at the hedrmgs, including City ; Manager J. M. Murphy, William 1 1 J. Moore, Robert Blonde and Ray E. Marks-, that the tax levy pro­posal does give the water district;• “broad powers, but such are ‘ needed to clarify the existing I act.” I I He said that the district stands | to profit by at least $40,000 in the I issuance of bonds if the proposed j act is approved and signed by j the governor. “We do not propose to issue anything but revenue bonds,” j I Miller declared. “The tax lien is i I merely a precaution against j eventualities.” __ si Harmon asked Blonde, repre­senting the Union Pacific rail- I road and the Las Vegas Land and Water company if the water com-1 | pany was holding back in its pre- [ I vious agreement to negotiate I with the water district for the sale oi the utility. B l o n d e an­swered in the negative and said that as “far as I know, the comt, pany has not yet been requested to negotiate.” ; This brought a comment from Miller who said that he and board members had met w i t h George Ashby, former president of the railroad, but that “Mr. Ashby didn’t give us much satis­faction.” Jones then said that he had I written to the Los Angeles offi- I ces of the water company 60 days- I ago seeking to start negotiations I through the appointment of ap­praisers but that “I have not yet received an answer from the -company.” Blonde said that he knew ; nothing about such a letter but said that “ you know railroad procedure is rather slow.” “Yes, but it looks like an an­swer should have been received by this time,” Harmon inter­jected.