Letters to the Editor, Dec. 6

Voters should approve expense for new aquatic center

Ninety million dollars — $90,000,000 — is the cost for the new aquatic center. This includes the just revised upward price from $40 million to $50 million for the preferred design and the interest of $40 million for the 30 year bond at 4.5 percent. Boulder City has a population of 16,000 people. This is ridiculous.

Roger Hall, Boulder City’s director of Parks and Recreation, stated at the aquatic center public meeting (Nov. 28) that an aquatic center has a lifespan of 25 years. This means that the new aquatic center will be obsolete in 25 years, but there will still be five more years of debt to pay: $3 million per year. That’s very bad financial planning.

I use the existing aquatic center very often for lap swimming. It needs lots of repairs. An investment of less than $5 million would totally restore the filtration system to code standards and eliminate the corrosive chlorine vapors; the pool could be rebuilt to the 7-foot depth needed for swim team competitions; the erratic shower temperature control valves could be replaced; and other needed repairs made.

Where is the money? Interstate 11 has caused a drop in tax revenue and some businesses are leaving Boulder City. School enrollment is decreasing. Another recession is predicted by 2020.

The cost of living and running our city is more expensive every year.

I would love to enjoy swimming at a new aquatic center. But as a Boulder City property owner and taxpayer I regard this $90 million expense as a fantasy wish that will have a terrible hangover — even worse than the Boulder City golf course fiasco council approved.

The Boulder City Council should put this on the ballot for a direct referendum vote.

Fred Dexter

Parks should create habitats for insects

The New York Times magazine’s Nov. 27 issue has an article that causes me to take a fresh look at how Boulder City parks are landscaped. Typically park lawns are mowed to their edges so that they look “nice.”

Some borders of a meter wide or so should be left not mowed to provide habitats for insects, spiders, etc. Food is then available for birds, reptiles and rodents. In the case of Hemenway (Valley) Park, a meter-wide strip from the toilets all the way around to the back of the tennis courts could be left unmowed. An interesting plaque could be set up to explain to visitors the reason for the unmowed strip.

Gary Vesperman