upr000276 134

Mr. Mclamee; #0 April 1, 1932. es $ 5 .5 0 . la the case o f cream eries, where no old r a te was shown, our heels of charge was the 's t o r e ” ra te o f $ 1 .0 0 ; the new ra te was # 2.00, In ad d ition to the oharge fo r r e f r ig e r a ­tio n . ^aragee under the old schedule were charged on the '’s to r e ” b a sis o f # 1.00; the new ra te provided # 2,00, plus & # 2.00 charge fo r wash rack . In some in stan ces, w@ found our old ra te so high th a t i t was p r a c tic a lly out o f the question to a ek fo r an in ­cre a se ; fo r example, t o i l e t s and baths, the ra te on whioh was 25 cen ts each, and no in crease was requested. Poring the years 1922-1929, there was an excessive charge to Operating Expenses covering replacem ents o f water lin e s here in Las Vegas, as noted on monthly balance sheets furnished by our Accounting department; for example in 1922, $ 5 ,8 5 3 .7 7 ; in 1924, $18,748*32; in 1926, $ 1 7 ,5 4 3 .9 9 , and others I t is ray opinion th at inasmuch as d ep reciatio n had been accrued for years on th is property, the charge should have been to th at account, or when improvements were made, to Investment or 0&pi« ta l Account. however, I suggest th a t you r e f e r th is m atter to Mr, harry, Auditor, in order th a t you may,g et c o r r e c t informa­tio n regarding expenses shown in Mr, Gray a l e t t e r . Also in Mr, Gray g e x h ib it, he r e -s ta te d the expenses on use of h a il road f a c i l i t i e s back as fa r as 1927. I t would be im possible fo r us to go before the Commission and hope to convince them th a t we should be granted r a te s based on an ex­h ib it of th is kind, as they have a t th e ir d isp osal oar annual rep o rts which show what a c tu a lly paid the R ailroad Company. I f I can be of any fu rth er a s s is ta n c e , please w rite me. : a Yours very tru ly , I M f i . BRACK H 8, Vic# ^ resid en t and Agent. ce - Mr. F. H. K nickerbocker* Mr. Leo A. MeJSaraee.