Alina Layng Response to Question #3:

Note: Some of the current challenges the SLV Water District faces require large financial commitments on the part of the District, which will eventually need to be paid either from rate increases or grants. In light of that, how would you answer the following?

3.  Fire-recovery and infrastructure repairs will require substantial additional funding. What are your recommendations for how SLVWD should remedy this need?

The district is going after more grants than ever before but a lot of money is still being left on the table.  For example, the district applied for Prop1 funding regarding the Fall Creek fish ladder but I had outlined in an email that the grant also covered fire recovery response and prevention.  The district could have applied for grants on both projects, and would have had a high chance of receiving them, because priority was being given to applicants that had suffered a fire in the past 2 years.

What if the district cannot get enough grants especially since they are out of the 2 year fire priority period now? The solution in the past has been to cut funding and positions, especially to the environmental department, which experienced 40% of the 5% cuts that were passed by Bob Fultz and prior board members.  This is not the solution and could actually lead to more costs in the long run by not being able to retain employees, paying overtime or consultants to pick up the extra work, and overall does not make a good working environment.  If grants, FEMA funding, and the fire surcharge does not balance the books then the last resort would be looking at rate increases.  My worry with rate increases is that water is life and we cannot continue to ask lower income households whose wages are stagnant to shoulder this burden. I believe in water equity and would propose a tiered rate increase by household income and size.