CRC_SlowTheFlowPhase2_ImpactAnalysis

Home Browse Search

focus was also placed on operating and programming different types of control clocl<s. As in the year previous, more time was dedicated to hands-on instruction as well as field inspections. Auditors were also required to successfully complete two exams before performing any inspections for the public. Irrigation Inspection Procedure* · Greet the homeowner and explain procedures of inspection · Review homeowner's current watering schedule . Perform visual inspection with homeowner · Measure dynamic pressure of system on multiple heads · Extract soil sample using probe to determine soil type and root depth · Conduct catch cup test in multiple zones · Gather data and complete calculations · Create recommended watering schedule based on soil type and precipitation rate · Tal<e landscape measurements · Communicate results and recommendations with homeowner · Answer questions and provide additional resources if desired *Non-residential properties differ in that a formal written report is drafted for a property manager or maintenance company. Quality Assurance In an effort to tracl< the quality of Slow the Flow Colorado inspections, all participants receive a mail-in evaluation from the auditor at the end of his/her appointment. The mail- in evaluation addresses issues such as auditor performance, usefulness of the inspection, most beneficial information received and/or information the homeowner would have liked to receive but did not. The mail-in evaluation has been a part of the program since its inception in 2004. Appendix A: Evaluation Form In 2006 we began several additional measures to ensure the high quality of our program. In order to receive feedback from participants who did not mail in an evaluation, we began conducting a phone survey. A number of participants from each city that did not mail in an evaluation were selected and then surveyed via the telephone. The phone survey addressed the same issues as the mail-in evaluation. The responses to both the mail-in evaluations as well as the telephone surveys were logged into an Excel spreadsheet for easy viewing and analysis. While feedbacl< and suggestions from the participating cities and utilities have always been encouraged, in 2006 a formal satisfaction survey was provided to the water contact within each participating entity. The survey covered topics such as the initial presentation of the program, the contract process, staff accessibility, billing procedures, water record retrieval and final report content. Appendix B: City Satisfaction Survey 16