upr000091 98

Mr. Wm. Reinhardt August 7, 1952 credit for the $5 advance which the Water Com­pany has collected for installation of each water service and which they feel is an in­vestment which the public has already made in the water system and should, therefore, be de­ducted from the appraisal. I do not believe that the District could rightfully claim this credit since the #5 charge for installation of a service represents money actually spent by the Company and has no bearing on what the Dis­trict would have to pay for the water system. As a matter of fact the service connections are owned by the Company and the |5 charge is mere­ly a token charge since the cost of making a service connection today is three to four times treater. The total credit claimed is based on 77 services at $5 or |34,3&5» Total credit claimed 1372,467 Mr. Montgomery has not yet prepared a formal revised statement of his position since changes were made, but each of the items has been discussed with him, and I be­lieve them to be in accord with his ideas, both as to statements made and figures shown. Attached please find one copy of a 3**peg© summary of appraisal data, dated August 5* 1952, in which I have sum­marized the revised figures and claims by the District un­der date of August 6th on the basis indicated above. In reference to the attached summary please note that after adding land value and deducting Depreciation claimed by the District to bring their appraisal to date of May 1, 1952, but excluding other adjustments and credits claimed, the District*s total is only 4»4$ lower than the Railroad Company total, which I consider to be a virtual check with the Railroad Company appraisal. Mr. Montgomery has con­sistently taken the position that their figures reflect a lower reproduction cost due to the savings which would be effected through lower costs resulting from one large con­trast being assumed for reproduction of entire property