Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Pitkin County Water Conservation Project <br /> <br />Project Summary <br /> <br />In September 1993, Pitkin County received a grant of $20,000 from the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Office for the purpose of offering water saving devices to residents in <br />twelve local governmental communities including Aspen, Basalt, Battlement Mesa, <br />Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Parachute, Rifle, Snowmass Village and the <br />Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin. The primary focus was installation of new ultra <br />low flush toilets to replace old, inefficient ones, and also the installation of efficient <br />showerheads and faucet aerators as part of a conservation retrofit package. Project <br />completion date was September 1, 1995, with the first year of the project to consist of <br />selling and installing devices and the second year collecting data. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The grant was to be administered by the Roaring Fork Energy Center (RFEC or <br />Subcontractor), which had approached the County with the idea of applying for the grant <br />in the fall of 1993. In January of 1994, Pitkin County entered into an agreement with the <br />Subcontractor to fulfill the obligations and perform the work required under the grant <br />contract. In exchange for performing all the requirements as outlined in the Scope of <br />Services, the Subcontractor would receive all the grant monies. Pitkin County was to act <br />only as a pass-through agency for the grant. <br /> <br />In July of 1995, the Subcontractor requested an extension of the grant deadline from <br />September 1995 until August I, 1996, or order to sell more devices and collect more data, <br />and this extension was granted by the State. At the same time, the State was concerned <br />that the Subcontractor had revised the Scope of Services without notifying the State and <br />also that they were not complying with the conditions of the contract. Subsequent <br />meetings between the Subcontractor, the State and Pitkin County occurred and were <br />unsuccessful in bringing the Subcontractor into compliance with the conditions of the <br />grant to the satisfaction of the County and the State. Therefore in February of 1997, <br />Pitkin County, with the cooperation of the State, elected to terminate its relationship with <br />the Subcontractor and close out the grant. In spite of the fact that little data was available <br />on the actual installation of water saving devices, and other conditions in the Scope of <br />Services of the Grant had not been met, Pitkin County, felt that in order to salvage what <br />remained of the project, the best alternative would be to compile what data was available <br />and submit the final grant report to the State. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />While Pitkin County regrets that it was not successful in subcontracting the <br />administration of this grant, and while the results were certainly not what we had <br />anticipated, we believe that it did have some successful outcomes, including <br /> <br />1 <br />