Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />included in Attachment C is a copy of the consent form that the Subcontractor obtained <br />before a household participated in the Program. <br /> <br />Project Analysis <br /> <br />The Pitkin County Water Conservation Project results were different that anticipated for a <br />number of reasons which are outlined below. Certainly the outcome of the project was <br />not what either the County or the State expected when it entered into an agreement in <br />1993. We believe that the information contained in this report can be valuable to other <br />entities considering this type of project, and may be helpful in outlining why the expected <br />results did not occur. <br /> <br />I. The County relied on the Subcontractor to fulfill the grant requirements. The <br />Subcontractor's understanding of the these requirements differed from the County's and <br />the State's understanding and the Subcontractor felt free to change the scope of services <br />without notifying the either the County or the State. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. The price oftoilets available commercially went down and it also became more <br />difficult to find plumbers willing to do installations. The Subcontractor felt both these <br />problems contributed to lack of interested participants. People were able to purchase <br />toilets for much less than the Subcontractor was charging at large discount stores such as <br />Home Base. Instead of charging $125 for a toilet which included installation, participants <br />were charged $125 for a toilet, showerhead and faucet, and were responsible for doing the <br />installation themselves. Putting the burden of installation on the homeowner instead of <br />arranging the installation for them probably deterred some people from participating in <br />the program. <br /> <br />3. Initial meter readings were not taken by the Subcontractor and insufficient records <br />were kept on the sale and installation oftoilets and other fixtures. <br /> <br />4. The Scope of Services outlined that the grant award would be matched by other <br />local funding sources. The Subcontractor produced no record of this. The only funding <br />sources matched by the Subcontractor appear to be leftover inventory from a grant <br />provided by the Town of Carbondale. This inventory consisted of seven toilets at $90.27 <br />each and approximately 87 aerators @ $3.75. <br /> <br />Recommendations: <br /> <br />At the outset ofthe project, more emphasis on targeting our audience would have been a <br />valuable tool. Reviewing water records of the proposed participants and identifying <br />heavy water users, in order to concentrate publicity and outreach on these areas might <br />. have produced a more successful outcome. <br /> <br />5 <br />