WaterNow Grant

​Facts about the WaterNow project:
This grant was denied by the Board on 5/10/22 with a 4 to 3 vote. Gaiter, Mason,           Tietz, and Wiegand voting against it the first time.
Trustee Mason changed his mind and on 5/24/22 he motioned to bring this grant       back to the board, thereby joining Kinney, Macdonald, and Mayor Chaussee in         passing the grant on 6/14/22.
No money is being given to the town with this grant.
WaterNow is giving the town 250 hours of their time which is worth $25,000                ($100/hour)
There will be 6 meetings over 9 months to complete the project (May 2023-Jan              2024)
Will cost 70 hours of staff’s time (taxpayer’s money to pay for staff’s time)
Will cost the town $200 for each meeting to have a Spanish translator at the                 meeting
Will cost extra $ to translate any marketing material
Will require additional cost if the project goes over 250 hours 
Project is to come up with ways to advertise to Wellington residents on how to             conserve water. (specifically the Hispanic community, the HOA's, and residents         on fixed income). 
Once project is complete, town will have to pay to implement the marketing                 strategies.

10 Reasons to vote NO:
1) There is no proof that rejecting this grant will result in not getting future grants the Town applies for. Our taxes should pay to fix our streets, we shouldn't rely on grants to fix our town. We should not base our decisions on fear.
2) Water Conservation did not come up as a board priority at the Board Workshop at all. This is the past board’s priority. We shouldn’t start a project that is no longer a priority for our town.
3) Trustees were elected to do what the residents want, not what makes staff look good. Trustees who vote to bring this grant back to the board are putting staff needs above residents and are letting staff run the town instead of representing the residents.
4) Sunk cost concept. Just because staff spent 30 hours applying for this grant, doesn't mean we have to move forward with it if it is not the right direction for our town. Decisions shouldn't be made based on past actions but should be made based on future benefits.
5) Other towns spend a lot of money on water conservation with very little benefit. (https://tapin.waternow.org/meet-communities/#) For example, Aurora spent $242,335 on water conservation efforts. They saved 5.51 gallons per person per year which equates to $0.64 per person per year.
6) Wellington is already doing conservation techniques and already advertising to public through water bill inserts, social media posts, and website.
7) Wellington already spent $40,000 to Logan Simpson to come up with a manual on water saving landscape and irrigation techniques.
8) It is a waste of staff’s time (taxpayer money to pay for staff’s time) to study what we are already doing. Staff’s time better spent on more pressing community needs such as the 2022 priorities discussed at the Board Workshop.
9) Will cost money to translate meetings into Spanish and money to implement the marketing strategies given.
10) WaterNow is owned by Multiplier which is funded by Zuckerberg, Schwab, and Rockefeller, to name a few. Multiplier (WaterNow's parent company) is following the UN Agenda https://multiplier.org/about/ and https://sdgs.un.org/goals have the same goals and pictures as seen below:

Examples from other Cities:
Project cites Glenwood Springs campaign as a potential model for Wellington’s campaign. Therefore save money by using Glenwood Springs’ campaign instead of spending 9 months to come up with the same thing.
Glenwood Springs Water Efficiency Plan states that there is no financial benefit to conserve water, but they will do it anyways.
Glenwood Springs Water Efficiency Plan states: “financial benefits of increased water efficiency are essentially non-existent.”
“In spite of the lack of real financial incentive, Glenwood Springs remains committed to water efficiency and to current conservation efforts.”
“Recent climate change forecasts indicate a warming trend. . .One report indicates temperatures for the 2035 to 2064 time period are forecast to increase by an average of approximately 4 degrees F. It is important to consider both demand-side, as well as supply-side, impacts of future climate change on overall water supply conditions.”
Glenwood Springs is educating their residents through flyers and bill stuffers and providing materials upon request.
Aurora spent $242,335 on water conservation efforts. They saved 5.51 gallons per person per year which equates to $0.64 per person per year.
Boulder spent $3M on water conservation efforts. They saved 65 gallons per person per year which equates to $28.03 per person per year.