upr000065 325

1 Mr. Lee S. Scott 2. November 27, 1951 to the Commission rates less than those shown in Exhib­it nW* and entered into no agreement whatsoever with the Motel Association as to the rates that would be made ef­fective because that was entirely in the hands of the Commission. It is our position that the Commission should have prescribed rates no lower than the rates proposed by the Las Yogas Land and Water Company in its proposed tariff and in the amended proposal above mentioned. It would be entirely inconsistent with our position to voluntar­ily make effective the greatly reduced rates for bunga­low courts and motels shown on first revised sheet PSCN No. 2. The rates shown on first revised sheet PSCN No. 2 reduce the rates previously prescribed by the Commission not only for motel operators but for numerous owners of bungalow courts which cannot be considered as motels. At page 89 of the transcript of the June hearing in I&S Docket No. 127 It was pointed out by Mr. Wehe that inso­far as Hate No. 9 shown in Exhibit "V" applied to motels, as opposed to bungalow courts, the word "motel* should be stricken and the rate be limited to bungalow eourts and that the rates set forth in Exhibit "W” be substituted for the rates originally proposed under rate Item 9 for motels. In its order of August 24, 1951, the Commission did not follow the suggestion of the Water Company that the rates on bungalow oourts and motels be separated, but prescribed the same rates for both bungalow oourts and mo­tels. The rates set forth under Item 9 in first revised sheet PSCN No. 2 follow the same pattern in spite of the fact that only the motel operators have evidenced dissat­isfaction. At this time we are unable to estimate exactly the revenue loss which Las Vegas Land and Water Company would suffer under the rates suggested by the Commission. An accurate estimate could be made only after a considerable study of our records with respect to both bungalow courts and motel operators. However our Manager, Mr. Johnson, tells me that the loss in revenue would be very substan­tial and might amount to as much as f10,000 to #15,000 per annum.