Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Participants <br /> <br />The original intent of the project was to have the following participants, which included <br />all the governments in the Roaring Fork Forum area: The City of Aspen, Town of <br />Basalt, Pitkin County, Town of Battlement Mesa, Town of Carbondale, City of <br />Glenwood Springs, Town of New Castle, Town of Parachute, Town of Silt, Town of <br />Snowmass Village, Garfield County, Eagle County. In actuality, only residents of <br />Aspen, Pitkin County, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of Snowmass Village, Garfield <br />County and Eagle County were documented as participating. <br /> <br />RFEC also listed as participants: Local Plumbers, Dahl Plumbing Supply/other vendors, <br />Homeowners/landlords/renters in service area, Civic Groups and volunteers. Actual <br />number of households participating in the study are listed in the Project Findings section <br />of this report. <br /> <br />Also helping with project promotion and sponsorship were local groups such as Energy <br />2000 and the Cornmunity Office for Resource Efficiency, Holy Cross Electric, City of <br />Aspen Water & Electric, Carbondale Environmental Board, Rotary Club of Aspen and <br />Carbondale, Snowmass Resort Association and local water and sanitation districts. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Project Findings and Water Savings Results <br /> <br />The Subcontractor's original proposal was to sell and install 300 toilets, 300 showerheads <br />and 1,000 aerators. However, the records provided to the County by the Subcontractor <br />only documented 19 toilets and the number of showerheads and aerators was never <br />determined. Of the 19 toilets that were documented only data from five of these <br />households was recoverable. Of the other 14 households, either they were on wells, had <br />no water meter, or the data was lost, or never recorded. The five households on which <br />data was recorded were all from the Town of Carbondale and the information collected <br />on these households is reported in the Table which is included as Attachment B. <br />However, we believe only one household had valid data. The other four households <br />included two where remodels were done shortly after installation, one which was new <br />construction and one in which the meter reading was estimated. All the meters were <br />calibrated to show only 1000s of gallons. <br /> <br />Pitkin County staff attempted to survey participants to determine their level of <br />satisfaction with the program. This process was hindered by the fact that so much time <br />had elapsed between the installation and when the participant was called for survey <br />information. Many people were unreachable, no longer lived at the residence, or were not <br />interested in responding. We attempted to reach twelve participants, however only six <br />. surveys were returned. Copies of these surveys are included as Attachment C. Also <br /> <br />4 <br />