Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000070 37

Information

Digital ID
upr000070-037
    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

    He: Sal© of Lae Vegas water system Los Angeles, June 8, 1934 80-11 Mr. W, H. Rouse: (cc - Mr. A. E. Stoddard) Copies of Mr. Wm., Reinhardt ) enclosures Mr. R. M. Sutton 1 to each Mr. L. R. Maagi__ -4- I enclose copy of letter dated June 4, 1934, from Mr. Franklin T. Hamilton, attorney for the Las Vegas Valley Water District, to which are attached two let­ters dated June 3# 1954, from Kelson Conway, one of the auditors for the District. I suggest that we enter into an agreement with the District assigning to the District for collection only any amounts unpaid as of the sale date for water fur­nished under Rate Item 21 for air-conditioning, refrig­eration, ice-making and other similar equipment. I en­close suggested draft of assignment contract, copy of which I have also furnished to Mr. Hamilton for his con sideration. If you and Mr. Hamilton approve this agree ment, I will prepare it for execution by Mr. Reinhardt, whose execution can be ratified by the Board of the Wa­ter Company at its next meeting. You will note that the other letter from the ac­countants for the District refers to a difference of $18,500 in the purchase price as of April 30, 1954. I believe this difference relates entirely to donations received by the Water Company under Rule 9 contracts with respect to fire hydrant connections. As soon as Mr. Hamilton receives the final report of the auditors of the District with respect to the purchase price, I will endeavor to have him agree that this item should be added to the Basic Purchase Price under the provi­sions of the contract of June 1, 1953. £• E. Bennett ECR:MSB Enel.