Letters to the Editor, May 23

Woodbury’s experience, vision for community merits support

I know from firsthand experience that our mayor must not only focus on local Boulder City issues, but also be able to reach out to political and community leaders throughout Southern Nevada. Our residents need to be aware of the crucial importance of our city’s representation on the major regional boards in Clark County.

Mayor Rod Woodbury has achieved outstanding results for Boulder City as our member on the Regional Transportation Commission (of Southern Nevada), (Clark County) Regional Flood Control District and the board of Southern Nevada Health District (as chairman). He has obtained multimillions of dollars for our roads and flood control projects, and has persuaded the board of health to authorize a major expansion of our landfill despite initial objections by staff and some board members. This approval extended the life of our landfill up to 150 years, saving Boulder City tens of millions of dollars.

I have witnessed the great respect and trust he has earned from the mayors, council members and commissioners. His reputation is just excellent. The competition for these regional allocations of funds is fierce, and yet little Boulder City continues to get a very strong share of the money. Woodbury is a very big reason for that positive outcome.

Tens of millions of dollars are at stake each year. I am friendly with Councilman (Kiernan) McManus; he has a role to play on the council, but he does not have the experience or relationships that are vital to our city. We cannot afford to lose Woodbury’s experience and leadership on these regional boards.

I believe both candidates want what is best for our city and I appreciate all of the council members’ work on the City Council. I support Woodbury because he is a wonderful ambassador for our city and to all of Southern Nevada. I know that he works extremely hard on our behalf. Woodbury has my support because he has a responsible and sustainable vision for our city.

Roger Tobler

Off-highway vehicles likely to bring problems to city

Question 4 asks residents to support allowing off-highway vehicles to operate on city streets pursuant to NRS 490.100. This NRS states that OHV travel may be allowed on city streets “for the purpose of allowing OHV to reach a private or public area that is open for use by OHV,” and subsection 4 indicates that the OHV may not be operated for any purpose other than travel to and from that private or public area. NRS 490.110 limits the operation of OHVs to not more than 2 miles on a paved highway.

Regarding health issues related to dust and asbestos, proponents respond: “Dust is not a factor because question 4 only relates to operation of OHVs on paved city streets.”

Proponents, including the (Boulder City) Chamber of Commerce, claim that Boulder City will benefit economically by becoming an OHV tourism destination. First, it is unlikely OHV users would be attracted to Boulder City just to ride 2 miles on a city street. Second, our business districts are more than 2 miles from the proposed access points to the desert areas south of Boulder City. Third, if, as the proponents state, 23.9 percent of the Nevada population are OHV users, then Clark County with a population of 2,204,079 has 526,775 users. If just 1 percent of users alleged to be in Clark County were to gather in Boulder City or the Eldorado Valley for an event, there would be 5,267 people with probably over 1,000 OHVs and truck-trailer transports.

Questions: Traffic? Parking? Porta-potties? Noise? Support from police/emergency medical technicians? Dust? Asbestos exposure? Taxpayer monies to support this? What will our city look like on weekends? One can only imagine the problems.

Question 4 is a red herring. Vote no on question 4.

Ron and Fran Milne

City benefits from Leavitt’s dedication, honest nature

My name is Charles Leavitt, the husband of city Councilwoman Peggy Leavitt. The following are my personal opinions.

For the past eight years I have watched from the sidelines as Peggy has spent countless hours serving the city to the best of her ability, always with honesty, integrity and love for its citizens. In fact, I have continually observed how she has shown concern and friendship to all those she comes in contact with. This is just her nature.

But, over the past four years, since Peggy’s election to this current council, I have been appalled as I have listened to and observed the continual verbal abuse that she and some others on council, including our current mayor, have been subjected to. This abuse has been facilitated by a certain group of individuals, mostly a special interest group, whose goal it is to take control of city government.

This group, and its mayoral choice, continually disseminates unsubstantiated rumors and misleading information, trying to make it appear as though the city is being run in a corrupt manner. The truth is that dishonesty and corruption are not in Peggy’s nature. In fact, I don’t think these negative attributes are found in the majority now serving on City Council.

Having lived in Boulder City for 35 years, and being in business here for 20 years, I have never seen the city in better financial condition, nor observed city staff working so well together for the good of the city. We should get out and vote for these thoughtful, experienced and informed leaders we have at this time.

Personally, I did not want Peggy to run again, but I know Boulder City needs her and others just like her. Ask anyone who has served with her in the city and state, including a number of governors, legislators and mayors, along with those on the many regional boards that she has had the opportunity to serve on. They all express their love and support for her.

I suggest you get to know her.

Charlie Leavitt

Credit for preserving Eldorado Valley belongs to Woodburys

Kiernan McManus falsely claims that he has been successful in removing more than 2,000 acres of land supposedly proposed for development by Mayor Rod Woodbury. Perhaps McManus needs a history lesson.

Due to rapid growth within Boulder City, citizens passed a referendum in 1979 resulting in our controlled growth ordinance. However, most of Eldorado Valley was in the unincorporated county, and developers were constantly lobbying both the county and the federal government to release it for development.

Bruce Woodbury spent most of his 28 years on the (Clark) County Commission successfully fighting to prevent that.

After years of negotiating, Commissioner Woodbury won approval for the sale of 168 square miles to Boulder City as a buffer against development. This land was deeded to the city in 1995 for a nominal price, increasing the city’s area from 33 to more than 200 square miles.

Commissioner Woodbury also led the charge to ensure that the area would be perpetually set aside to protect threatened species, including the desert tortoise. When developers proposed 7,000 homes on private land in Eldorado Valley, he stopped that, too.

Mayor Woodbury has continued that battle, working continuously to maintain Boulder City’s buffer against development in Eldorado Valley. In recent years, he has been at the forefront of intergovernmental negotiations to prevent annexation of privately owned land into the city of Henderson for residential development in Eldorado Valley.

Without the tireless work of the Woodburys, our beautiful Eldorado Valley would almost certainly be overrun with thousands of homes, and Boulder City would be just another suburb of sprawling Las Vegas.

With half-truths and lies, McManus continues to intentionally twist the land management plan process to confuse voters. For somebody who pretends to be the champion of historic preservation, McManus sure doesn’t know much about history.

Linda Faiss

Woodbury, McManus work together for city’s benefit

I attended the candidates forum on May 13, which was sponsored by the Boulder City Review.

It was enlightening to me when Councilman Kiernan McManus and Mayor Rod Woodbury were in total agreement that all of the new city staff positions that have been added over the past two years were necessary and provided significant financial and operational benefits to Boulder City through new and innovative policies and procedures. They both indicated that these staffing levels have resulted in more efficiency, transparency and cost savings.

I realized that both Woodbury and McManus voted to approve the annual budgets including these staffing levels. Despite all of the online vicious and questionable attacks and rumors directed at Mayor Woodbury on these issues, the truth is that these two gentlemen voted together in taking those actions. And they did so for the benefit of our city.

I occurred to me that we should keep both of them working for our city by re-electing Mayor Woodbury. Then for the future, Woodbury and McManus would continue working together for the benefit of Boulder City.

Ross Johnson

Mayor’s support of city evident at events throughout community

Being an effective mayor of our fine city requires so much more than just saying you will oppose any change to the community, as Councilman (Kiernan) McManus does. The unsubstantiated rumor, phony claims and divisive attacks by the McManus campaign do not represent community. On the issues of limited growth and historic preservation, there are no real differences for Mayor (Rod) Woodbury and the councilman.

However, our mayor must also be deeply involved in all facets of our community life. Unlike McManus, you constantly see Woodbury and his family actively supporting, contributing to and participating in the activities of our schools, our library, our hospital, our Heart of the Community Gala, our churches, the (Boulder City) Chamber of Commerce, St. Jude’s (Ranch for Children), Emergency Aid (of Boulder City), Red Mountain Music Co., Dance Etc., (Boulder City) Little League, Boulder City (Parks and) Recreation (Department) youth and adults sports teams, and Boulder City Museum and Historical Association. Their caring, compassion, giving and active service in our community are well-known to all.

Woodbury has participated in all the above activities because being part of the community is showing up and participating — giving of your time and talents.

On the other hand, do you recall McManus at events other than political? Neither do I.

Vote for Woodbury.

Teresa Giroux

Vote no on ballot questions 2, 3

I am voting no on Questions 2 and 3 on June 11. Question 3 asks the voters to approve the issuance of $40 million in general obligation bonds for “recreational projects,” primarily a proposed “aquatic center.” Total estimated cost of this project is $79,254,630 ($40 million for the project plus $39,254,630 in interest). I shall not suggest how others should vote on this question, but I shall vote no because 1.) The cost seems beyond excessive, and 2.) I am sure there are ways to spend that money which would better serve all the residents of Boulder City.

Question 3 leads us directly to Question 2. Question 2 seeks to eliminate the requirement that the city gain voter approval before incurring any debt obligation in excess of $1 million. This requirement was put into effect by a significant majority of Boulder City voters in 2010 in direct response to previous City Council actions which had left the city burdened with debts of nearly $122 million. Had the voters not passed this restriction in 2010, Question 3 would not be on the ballot today because the City Council would have had the power to approve the issuance of these $40 million in general obligation bonds regardless of how the voters of Boulder City felt about the proposed project.

Supporters of Question 2 say it is about restoring the city’s ability to refinance current debt, but it is about far more. Pass Question 2 and you will free the city to incur new debt without allowing the residents, those who will ultimately repay any such debt, any significant voice in the matter. Learn from history and vote no on Question 2 That is what I shall do.

James C. Douglass

Editor’s note: According to Clark County Elections, the question reads “Shall the Boulder City Code be amended to provide that Boulder City and its agencies and enterprises may refinance existing debt obligations, as determined by the City Council?”

Use of councilman’s picture without consent appalling

We are appalled, sickened, disgusted and saddened by the (Rod) Woodbury political ad of May 16. To place an ad with a picture of Warren Harhay without his knowledge or consent is beyond words. We helped in the 2017 campaign efforts for Harhay and Kiernan (McManus) by walking door-to-door, handing out flyers for both at Boulder Dam Credit Union, and when Harhay had some health issues, we continued without him, and they both got elected.

After the primary, we communicated with Harhay about his support and he stated he would not make a public endorsement. Imagine the shock when we read this ad. We contacted Harhay, and he replied he had no knowledge and had no input. Harhay also posted on Facebook the same message.

Due to an accident, Harhay has not been unable to attend council meetings and has participated by phone from his hospital room. We suggest Mayor Woodbury and his political supporters give Harhay a break and let him recuperate so he can get back to his lovely family and his coffees at Starbucks.

The message we have for the supporters of Councilman Harhay is as follows: Vote with your heart; you are good people and do not need anyone to tell you how to vote. Let’s all keep good thoughts and offer our prayers for Harhay’s speedy recovery.

Other ads in this issue were misleading. (Charles ‘Pepper’) Coombes, James Howard Adams graduated from college 10 years ago and is successful in business and other endeavors; he also volunteers locally; and Claudia Bridges has been volunteering for Emergency Aid (of Boulder City), (Boulder City) Chamber (of Commerce), Senior Center (of Boulder City), etc. and has more degrees than we can list in this limited letter. Coombes what have you done?

Sharon Newby and Judith Hoskins

Push for expensive pool calls for vote for McManus

Mayor (Rod) Woodbury wants to sell you an $80 million dollar aquatic center. He says it will cost $40 million. That is not true. The 30-year loan, plus interest, equals $79 million, plus many additional costs. Parks and Recreation Director Roger Hall stated in November that we should expect a $10 million dollar cost overrun.

This sort of evasive math, leaving out the 30-year cost of interest in the public discussion, is like a seven-year high-interest car loan. At the end of the loan the car is worth zero and you have paid double the sticker price. At the end of a 30-year pool financing, the pool is also at the end of its projected lifespan and is also worth zero.

Woodbury has repeatedly mentioned the need for aquatic center public information presentations. There are now large displays showing the new aquatic center design at the library, the pool and City Hall. None of these displays mentions the price. Woodbury’s mantra of information is just an advertising program for his expensive pet project.

In the 375-person telephone survey there was no mention of cost. Was it going to be cheap? Of course, we want it. Basing this big push by Woodbury for a new $80 million aquatic center on a flawed tele-survey is ridiculous in the extreme.

Woodbury’s administration has perpetuated poor maintenance and minimal upgrades, and now advocates for a new $80 million replacement. I oppose ballot Question 1. For $5 million a great many excellent improvements can be made to our existing facility.

I believe Councilman Kiernan McManus, careful and fiscally conservative, is the best choice for our next mayor. He will upgrade our existing Boulder City pool at a reasonable, affordable cost.

Fred Dexter