Leach Memorial Fund appreciates support
On behalf of the Dan Leach Memorial Fund, I would like to thank everyone who came out and supported our cause at the Cocktail Walk and the 5th annual Dan Leach Memorial Fund Golf Tournament. It was a great weekend, and we are so thankful to have such support from everyone.
A big thank you to Boulder Creek Golf Course as well as our Cocktail Walk sponsors: The Dillinger, Jack’s Place, Milo’s Cellar, Boulder Dam Brew Pub and Evan’s Old Town Grille. All of your support helps us give back to this wonderful community.
Council needs to account for funds for utilities
In response to Eric Lundgaards’ comment: He is spot on. Where did $6 million go? That was supposed to go for the utilities.
The city council needs to go and the mayor along with the city attorney.
City needs to replace old electrical system
Please vote yes on Boulder City Ballot Questions 1 and 2. Our electrical system is old and dying. As Science Application International Corp.’s 2012 assessment report showed, the system is highly unreliable, difficult and expensive to maintain, unsafe and, in many respects, obsolete. It also lacks necessary redundancy, creating a high risk of citywide power outages.
The estimated replacement cost over the next give years is almost $25 million. And that doesn’t include millions more in vehicle replacements and future projects as the system’s components continue to age. It also doesn’t include the costly regulatory burden and astronomical environmental cleanup costs to which the city is potentially exposed by virtue of its old, leaky transformers.
And who can put a price tag on the costs to Boulder City residents and businesses alike if we experience a major electrical system failure?
We need a reliable electrical system that citizens can count on. We need to stop spending money on Band-Aid repairs that don’t pay long-term dividends. We need a system free of safety hazards and expensive regulatory burdens.
The City Council’s proposals to pay for these badly needed utility replacements by annually allocating a small portion of the city’s capital reserves and by selling a few acres of land may only get us a fraction of the way there. But it’s a long-overdue start. And one that will help keep rates low in the process.
Please support both Questions 1 and 2 when you go to the polls this coming week!
City Councilman Rod Woodbury
Concerned citizen urges yes vote on Questions 1, 2
I write to ask your Boulder City readers to vote yes on Boulder City ballot Questions 1 and 2. I do so as a thankful, yet concerned, citizen of Boulder City.
There are many considerations that our elected, and nonelected, representatives in city government must take into account as they make decisions and take action on our behalf. I don’t pretend to understand all considerations — past, present, or future — but I understand enough to conclude a couple things. (1) Our electrical system is in dire need of long-awaited improvements and money needs to be directed toward it immediately (hence, yes on 1). (2) Solar lease revenue, utility rate increases and other money will not be enough to pay for everything that is needed (hence, yes on 2).
So, I ask my fellow citizens to provide immediate and reasonable options to our city’s leadership by voting yes on both Boulder City Questions 1 and 2.
Question 3 not well thought out; vote no
I am writing in response to recent letters from Valerie McNay concerning ballot Question 3.
Ms. McNay is absolutely right that our children deserve quality education. I believe they deserve better than national rankings of 49th and 50th. I also agree that our educational system needs adequate funding.
I disagree, however, that Question 3 (referred to as the Education Initiative by proponents) is the solution to our state’s educational woes.
Ms. McNay cites a UNLV study indicating that jobs would be created. This study was reissued in August with a “more realistic” analysis of the impact this tax will have on jobs. All other studies done, outside of the UNLV study, predict net job losses in the thousands.
This same UNLV study concludes by stating that “The proposed margin tax could prove more costly to Nevada economic activity than a corporate income tax” (Las Vegas Review-Journal article Sept. 2).
The proposed legislation is flawed in at least three ways. (1) It uses revenue, not income as the basis for the tax and (2) there is no stipulation that requires the money be used for education and furthermore (3) no plan on how the funds should be spent to improve education.
In the end, this tax law gives Nevada one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country making it difficult to attract new business to regain the jobs lost without the promise of improved education.
Improving schools may require money and it will probably come from taxes on business. I’m not opposed to being taxed. I’m opposed to laws that are not well thought out.
Vote no on Question 3. Force lawmakers to create better tax laws that effectively solve the problem without damaging the Nevada economy.