Water Flow Meter Replacement San Juan, Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority May 3rd, 2006

Report Submitted To: Professor Ann Garvin Professor Creighton Peet David Marsh Thomas Ryan Daniel Wesolowski Submitted By: _______________________ _______________________ _______________________

In Cooperation With: Andres García, PRASA, Assistant to the President Miguel Luciano, PRASA, Director of Operations: Customer Service Glorimar Ortiz, PRASA, Assistant Director of Customer Service
This project report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority or Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Abstract
The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority (PRASA) is losing money because of failing water meters and under-billing. The goal of our project was to help PRASA by recommending an efficient replacement plan. To do this we performed a customer survey to determine their satisfaction with the authority. We also interviewed the directors of Customer Service to gain knowledge of the replacement effort and its problems. Replacement plans from around the world were compared to Puerto Rico’s to determine where Puerto Rico ranks. Finally, we performed a cost benefit analysis on metering systems using new reading technology. We made recommendations on new meter technology, as well as ways to improve the efficiency of the meter replacement plan, enabling the replacement of 200,000 meters a year.

i

Authorship
Initially, Tom Ryan drafted Chapter 1, the Appendices and the Abstract, David Marsh drafted Chapters 2, 4 and 5 and Dan Wesolowski drafted Chapter 3 and the executive summary. However, during the course of the project, all sections underwent revision by all group members. Additionally, all group members contributed equally achieving all parts of the methodology. Therefore, the authorship of this project is equally distributed among all three members.

ii

we would like to thank Andres Garcia. Nidla and Felix. Finally.Acknowledgments We would like to sincerely thank those who contributed to this project. iii . Additionally. We would like to thank Luis for driving us to and from work as well as all over the island. our office neighbors. The PRASA Customer Service directors helped us a great deal by taking the time to meet with us and answering our questions. we would like to thank all of PRASA for giving us the opportunity to do this project. Miguel Luciano and Glorimar Ortiz for their cooperation and assistance. Primarily. we would like to thank our advisors Creighton Peet and Ann Garvin for their help and guidance during the project. helped us when we needed it and made us feel welcome at PRASA. answered our questions.

........3 Water Meter Management ....................2........................................................... 31 4............................................................................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations ......................................................................3 PRASA...2 Island Considerations.......................................... 23 3.......3............... 22 3....................................................................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................ 24 3................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan .................................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .......1 Flow Meters ..................... 20 3............. 27 4....... 4 2..................................3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan...2.................................................................1........................................................2.......................................................................................................2 Evaluation of Current Information System ........................................................................................ 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ............................1 Water Resources ................................. 23 3...........................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology............. vii Executive Summary ......................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans...1.................................................................. iv Table of Figures...........................3... vi Table of Tables ....................................................................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ..................................... 17 2...Table of Contents Abstract...........................................................1..3........................................1........................... 34 4............ 5 2..........3...1.............3.................... ii Acknowledgments ....................1 General Replacement Considerations ............................... 4 2........................................2 Evaluation of Information System ................4 2...................................................................................................................... 15 2.. i Authorship ............................................1 Flow Meter Importance................................. viii Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................... 24 3............................................................................ 7 2........ 7 2..........................2 Director Interviews .................... 20 3..........................................................................1 Chapter 2: Background.......... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................... 20 3.................2.................1........... 39 iv ...........................................................................................................1......................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement...2....................1 Interview with System Administrators ............................................................................1..................1.................1 Customer Survey..............................1 Interview with Administrators ...................................... 32 4.................................. 37 4.....3 Plan Comparisons ...........1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan .............................................................................. 24 3............................................................................................................... 27 4..............................................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan ...................................................................................................1...........................................................................................................................................3 Puerto Rico’s Water System ..................1 Customer Survey.............................................3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations . 16 2...............................................................................2 Other Meter Replacements ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.................................................................................... 27 4...... 9 2....................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................................................. 16 2.................................................

......................................................................................4 Meter Testing ............................................... 41 5...1......................3 Meter Replacement Timeline............................................................................. 44 References ............... 56 Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region .................................................2 Information System Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas................. 99 v ..............................................................................5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done ................ 49 Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire ..... 63 Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region...2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology.................................................................................. 41 5................................................1.....1.............. 45 Appendices............................... 49 Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................................ 66 Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data . 43 5................................................................ 69 Appendix J: Sponsor Description........................................... 58 Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region...................... 54 Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 5................... 39 5.................................................................1..... 61 Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region...1.. 42 5.......................................................1 Metering Technology........1 Meter Replacement Strategies .................................................5........

.... 62 Figure 15 ................Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region ....... Reliability Rating ............... 60 Figure 13 .................. 60 Figure 12 .... 67 Figure 20 ...............South Region. 59 Figure 11 – Opinions on Current Meter Technology – East Region............ 65 Figure 19 ............Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – Metro Region ........................................... 57 Figure 8 – Opinions of the Price of Water ........ 59 Figure 10 ..... 96 Figure 24 ..................Technicians Present for Meter Replacement – Metro Region ................................................Overall Satisfaction vs................................ 64 Figure 16 ..Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction ..............................................................West Region ............. 98 vi ... 65 Figure 18 ..............Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow....Opinions on Reliability of PRASA Service ........ Price Rating .West Region.................................... 67 Figure 21 ...............Table of Figures Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA ......................................Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region................. 55 Figure 7 ............ 30 Figure 4 ...............Satisfaction with Service in Ponce ...............................Overall Satisfaction vs. 27 Figure 2 .......Opinions on Current Meter Technology ..................................Net Incremental Cash Flow..........Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region..........Number of People Required for Meter Replacement – South Region ................Overall Satisfaction of Customers with PRASA .............Plasa Las Americas .................................................Satisfaction with the Current Meters ............................................................South Region................................... 55 Figure 6 .......Cumulative Cash Flow......................Number of People Present at Meter Replacement ....Opinions on Current Reading Technology ..........West Region.........................Technicians Required for Meter Replacement ................................Ponce ...................................................... 57 Figure 9 .........West Region.........................Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – East Region ........ 68 Figure 23 ....................................................... 30 Figure 5 ....Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement ............. 62 Figure 14 ....................Plaza Las Americas .............. 29 Figure 3 ..................................... 67 Figure 22 . 64 Figure 17 ................ 97 Figure 25 ..........................

....................... B........Results from Director Interview ....Datamatic..........................................................Plaza Las Americas .... 56 Table 4 .. 61 Table 6 ........................Customer Survey Results ..Badger/AMCO ......................................... F................ G ...................Net Cash Flow .................................................Consumption Figures – A.............................. 90 Table 20 .................... 66 Table 8 .Director Survey Results – West Region............... P.. 34 Table 2 .....Return on Investment .......................................Water Rates ............................................... 94 vii ...............I..................... 74 Table 11 .....................Current and Future ............................ 78 Table 12 ...........................Cumulative Cash Flow ............Results from Director Survey .South Region....................................... 54 Table 3 ......................Possible Systems.............................................................................Return on Investment .....................................................Metro Region.ITRON/AMCO...........................................................Current System...... C............................... 81 Table 14 .........................................Ponce.... 82 Table 15 .............Return on Investment . 83 Table 16 .......................... 80 Table 13 .......................Return on Investment ....................Current System............................................................................................................ 70 Table 10 ............................................ R................................Comparison of AMR Systems.................................Incremental Cash Flow ..................................... 69 Table 9 ..Metro Region.....Net Cash Flow ...........Net Present Value..................................Consumption Figures ....Badger/Badger ................................. 91 Table 21 ................Payback Period .............. 63 Table 7 ......... 58 Table 5 .............................................. 92 Table 22 ....... 89 Table 19 .............................Proposed System..................Customer Survey Results ........Table of Tables Table 1 ................... 88 Table 18 .......................................................................................... 85 Table 17 . and Totals ...........................................Results from Director Interview ......Internal Rate of Return..................Incremental Cash Flow Summary .

Seattle. for improving PRASA’s current replacement efforts. In 2005. but could be improved.Executive Summary Failing water meters have been a problem for PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) since they took charge of the Puerto Rican water system in 2004. These failing meters and infrastructure problems. and Atlantic City. along with a desire to improve efficiency are what prompted PRASA to request assistance. During the preceding ten years. and other system errors that result in increased maintenance expenses. These companies allowed miles of pipe to fall into disrepair causing customers to be without water for extended periods of time. Studying similar projects completed in other cities is helpful in effective planning. Puerto Rico contracted the management of the water system to a succession of two different private companies. or have recently finished a replacement similar to PRASA’s such as Toronto. implementing new meter technology and addressing some customer concerns. PRASA replaced 130. the methods used in these cities can offer helpful insights and may be adapted for use in Puerto Rico. To satisfy the meter management section. Although no one plan will work for every situation due to variations in such things as geographic population distribution and terrain. Meter failures cause incorrect customer billing. specifically. PRASA viii . and they hope to replace 200. undetected leaks. meter management evaluation and the information system evaluation. The project was divided into two main sections. we performed comparisons on meter replacement efforts in Puerto Rico and in the United States. Their current replacement efforts are effective.000 meters. This project provided suggestions that satisfied the water meter management needs of Puerto Rico.000 in 2006. Many cities across the United States and the world are currently involved in.

This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. We evaluated PRASA’s current information system by inspecting it and speaking with its administrators to gain an understanding of how it works and if the current technology was adequate. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. we recommend that PRASA finalize their decision on AMR and begin installing the transmitters with every new meter in order to reduce the cost of retrofitting currently installed meters. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter. Finally. As PRASA continues to replace meters.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. The results of the cost-benefit analysis prompted the recommendation that PRASA keep their current meters and install the ITRON AMR technology at an initial investment of $187.customers were surveyed concerning their opinions of their services and information was gathered from Customer Service directors about the state of their region and any concerns they had about the current replacement effort. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200.6 Million. In light of this.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix . AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. Currently. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives.

each region would select enough meters to represent the health of the system. x . meaning that meters can be replaced more economically. We administered a customer survey and found that 61% of people said they were not informed in a timely manner of work that would leave them without water.testing program. and it was unnecessary for us to proceed with the investigation. However. Testing allows meter life to be calculated instead of estimated. These recommendations will help PRASA to improve their replacement effort and meter management while also reducing the Authority’s costs. Once enough data are gathered. This would have involved an inspection and administrator interviews to gain an understanding of the process and possible improvements. the database can be queried to identify meters due for replacement. Through random sampling or other such methods. It was our opinion that they had the situation under control. An evaluation of PRASA’s current information system was originally planned. Once a replacement interval is established. representative samples could be tested every few years. The opinions of the customers are very important to PRASA. The affected customer can then be notified of an impending meter change and interruption of service via an insert in the monthly bill. While not every meter can be tested. They plan to finish the upgrade process in 3 years. the PRASA data center had already collected bids for a new system and is currently in the process of analyzing them. and 64% indicated their preferred method of notification was postal mail. regions could accurately predict whether the current replacement timeline needs adjustment. Any problems we would report are already known and any recommendations we could give would not be as informed as the recommendations they will make.

1 . diminishes the authority’s ability to finance operations and improvements. Despite several upgrades. As the meters age. This. potable water provided directly to our homes and work places is an expensive commodity. Atlantic City has embarked on a ten year replacement effort in order to accommodate anticipated residential and commercial growth in their city. a large portion of those meters are reaching or have reached the end of their useful life. which. will provide enough revenue to the water department so that all operating and improvement expenses can be fully covered. Washington. has detailed a plan that encompasses every aspect of their water system in order to address maintenance and replacement concerns. all of which require a steady flow of income to finance. These plans have increased the constant revenue each department receives and financed various improvements to both their infrastructure and organization. This has lead to billing customers for less water than they have actually used. The Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) maintains the over 1. A water system. the current technology is obsolete. it will be unable to adequately finance continuing service and improvements to infrastructure. combined with an inefficient and inaccurate meter reading system. Seattle. run appropriately. Many water departments have implemented replacement plans to address the issues they have encountered with failing meters. If an authority is unable to properly bill customers for the water they use.Chapter 1: Introduction Fresh. Currently. in turn.3 million water meters under its jurisdiction. they begin to underestimate water usage. There are many processes and expenses that go into the treatment and transportation of potable water. contribute to PRASA’s difficulties in maintaining a sufficient revenue level. The incorrect billing of water usage has produced a reduced amount of revenue.

PRASA’s revenue generation abilities are hindered by several factors including their replacement plan. A reading system of this type is not only inefficient. In order to continue with the modifications to the system. relocated. and are able to read meters and bill customers with much improved accuracy and spend fewer man hours reading meters. but no conclusions have been made. and is currently involved in small pilot programs on several parts of the island. Of these issues. This system involves a pair of technicians who travel from meter-to-meter reading the actual numbers off of the meter-register and entering them into a handheld computer. In 2005. the company released a Request for Proposals from AMR companies in the hopes of initiating a move to a new reading system. PRASA recognizes that AMR is the next step. a large number of them have been buried. but is wary of proceeding with a full change-over due in part to the costs associated with such an endeavor. In late 2005. This poses significant problems when the meter is due for reading or replacement. The pilot programs have been running for several months. PRASA also realizes the importance of having correctly functioning meters. Human errors. the company will need to determine whether the benefits of the system outweigh the initial costs. however. but also inaccurate. along with the occasional inability to actually locate the meter. the archaic meter-reading system is the most problematic for the authority. PRASA understands the importance of AMR technology to the future of the organization. PRASA has received several estimates from related companies. the authority replaced over 130. For the success of the 2 . and meter-reading technology. more efficient Automated-Meter-Reading Technologies (AMR). Water authorities around the world are switching to newer. The current replacement effort is moving forward. information system. often lead to incorrect readings and therefore incorrect billing. or overtaken by plant growth.000 water meters. Since December 2005. the plan in use may not be the most effective. Of the meters installed before 2005. Currently.

current venture. as well as increase revenue and ensure customer satisfaction. 3 . PRASA should locate all missing or buried meters. These recommendations will enable the company to conserve money that would normally be spent on inefficient meter reading and replacement procedures. along with any future replacement. This will increase the annual revenue allowing the company to focus more resources on serving the customer. This project explored each of these issues and produced a set of recommendations which will aid PRASA in the minimization of costs and failing water meters.

1 Flow Meter Importance Correctly billing the customer is the primary use for a flow meter (Allender. It allows the water utility to properly measure how much water a specific house or business has used and charge them appropriately. 1996. This section will discuss why a flow meter is an important piece of a water distribution system and mention some technological and managerial flow meter considerations. Water meters are a large part of a water meter replacement plan. This chapter will present this information as it relates to Puerto Rico. Block rate billing. Replacement strategies are also an important part of a meter replacement plan. 4 . Puerto Rico is in a unique situation concerning the water authority.1. For some utilities.1 Flow Meters While it is the function of a flow meter to only record the volume of water that passes through it. Understanding the importance of a flow meter. This enables the water authority to accurately bill customers so that the funds necessary to maintain the system are collected. Detection). like PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) these bills are their only source of income. as well as the technological issues that must be dealt with is necessary in choosing the right water meter. General replacement strategies as well as specific examples of other replacement plans will be discussed to demonstrate what other water authorities are doing to keep their water meters functioning. A flow meter provides reliable water usage measurement.Chapter 2: Background Creating a water meter replacement plan is not a task to be taken lightly. the meter is needed for much more than that. Understanding how this fits in with their current water system and the water concerns of an island will be necessary to make proper recommendations for Puerto Rico. Finally. Many aspects must be considered in order to create a successful plan. 2. 2.

They can report the water usage for a community. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe. p. Horsman & Hanson. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. If a town pays for a certain amount of water from another town and then does not make all of that money back. In some areas. 2. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. 2004. Armed with this knowledge.1. 2002. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs. Bhardwaj. the result can be a cave in. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. revenue is lost. p. In order for this kind of billing to be possible. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea. The display 5 . functioning flow meters are necessary.1).which charges for the specific amount of water used.3). Optimum). 1996.000 a year in water bills. then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield. Bhardwaj.60). 2004. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. If the water meter is accurate. p. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for. Moreover.

this method shares many disadvantages with manual reading. This method does not require contact with the homeowner and any dangers of physically reading the device are avoided (Jim Deming. then 1. A solution to a few of these issues is an electric wand (Satterfield. Unfortunately. then meter reading is difficult. or a yard surrounded by a locked fence. markings on a spinning disk or just a readout on a small screen. then an incorrect number will be recorded and the billing will be wrong. the water company can read meters much faster than the other two methods allow. This means that if either the meter or the transmitter fails. but this is improving (Jim Deming. personal 6 . as there are in Puerto Rico. 2/9/2006). Each meter still needs to be read by hand and the wand must physically touch the meter’s surface.can read like an odometer. Nevertheless. Personal Communication. the other one does not have to be replaced. personal communication. This still involves going to the location of the meter but now the readings are interpreted by a computer instead of a person. p.3 million separate readings must occur every billing period and is a very time consuming process. the radio transmitter is usually much more expensive than the meter. meaning that readers and transmitters cannot be freely intermixed. If the meter is located in the basement of an uncooperative customer.3). If there are 1. The transmitter itself is attached to the body of the meter by a wire. A popular solution today is remotely read meters (Satterfield. The reader is an issue as well (Jim Deming. Bhardwaj. This removes the uncertainty of the reading and the measurement is recorded in a computerized system. p. 2004.3). radio transmitter technology is very proprietary. Using radio transmitters. Right now. Using radio frequencies or similar technology.3 million meters in an area. Bhardwaj. 2/9/2006). 2004. all the meters on a street can be read by traveling up and down the street with sensing technology. If the people reading the meter does not understand what they are reading or the reading is ambiguous. The physical location of the meter can also be an issue.

As the battery wears down. Reviewing solutions from other locations is a good way to understand the ideas behind a good replacement plan. They feel that a radio broadcaster in their house could put their health at risk. This means that customer availability or customer concerns about the technology used do not factor in as greatly and they are free to pursue the technology that will work the best for them. Currently. encompassing much more land and containing thousands more miles of pipes than most systems. Nevertheless. 2/9/2006). This effort is being made easier by the fact that all of the meters are on public property. What worked well for one city could fail for another. In the past. an effort to change over to automatic meter reading. 2.1 General Replacement Considerations There is no meter replacement plan that will work for every situation. This section will discuss general meter replacement concerns. people have expressed concerns about potential risks.2.2 Meter Replacement Considerations Replacing water meters is not an easy task. All aspects of the transmitter are reliant on battery life. Also. radio broadcasting requires a license.3 million meters. or reveal personal information. specifically using radio transmitters. There are many issues that need to be addressed before meters are bought and replacements are done. 2.communication. a few guidelines have been compiled that experts in the 7 . Finally. the range decreases until it ceases to broadcast. which is another added cost to consider. Puerto Rico’s water system is very complex compared to other water systems. PRASA uses manual reading on their 1. review past meter replacement efforts and discuss a few management issues. especially the range. however. management issues such as the economic life of a meter must be understood for any plan to be successful. There is.

a small town in northern Massachusetts (Personal Communication.field and research on this project suggest. When this has been completed. Once this decision has been made. For him. Choosing the technology to use is the most important part of planning a water meter replacement (Jim Deming. the average cost for a meter can be determined. regardless of the size of the system or replacement effort. choosing which meters to replace is a simple matter. This should continue until all meters in all sections have been replaced. Jim Deming is the Head of the Town of Acton Massachusetts Water Department. personal communication. 2/9/2006). This is an issue because all of the meters will be roughly the same age (1-2 years to each other) which means that they will all fail roughly at the same time. The final consideration to make is whether to do the replacement with local resources or hire an external company (Deming. The broken meters should be replaced first until there are no more. Are the main points of a water replacement plan. and in turn. a section of town should be chosen at random and all of the meters in that section should be replaced. The annual budget can be used to tabulate how many meters the city can afford to replace in a year. 2/9/2006). 2/9/2006). 2/9/2006). This is an advantage because their meters are stepped out in terms of 8 . personal communication. The water department must look at all of the available options before coming to a decision. so can the average total cost for replacement. Hiring an external company could produce faster results but at a higher price. Extending the contract to step out meter replacements would likely drive the overall cost higher by forcing the town to make payments over a longer period of time. personal communication. This is something unique to every town or city. Doing the replacement with town resources can be cheaper but may take as much as 5 to 10 years longer depending on the size of the town and resources available (Deming. Another problem with an external company is that they might complete the work much faster than if the town or city did it themselves.

so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. however. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry.2 Other Meter Replacements Looking at what other locations have done and are doing about their water meter problems will help to shape the efforts of cities and towns trying to solve their own problems. would not work with so many water meters. for example. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. Testing the meters a while after replacement. The meters that served the 40. This is the strategy used by a small town. All replacement plans and strategies should be looked at to determine whether a specific strategy could be used or adapted to work for Puerto Rico. 9 . 2/9/2006).age. but could be adapted to work.000 people living there were becoming 10 to 20 years older than they should have been and beginning to show signs of wear and tear. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. Anatomy). A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. 1993.2. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. 2. personal communication. They decided to replace every meter in the city over a span of 5 years with a meter that was factory sealed and prepared for installation. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. Additionally. This.

Anatomy). The meters needed to be technologically sound and equipped with radio frequency equipment but not so expensive that one meter would be too costly to replace if it were vandalized or another one needed to be added. Research). they decided to use radio frequency meters. To alleviate this problem. causing customer complaints. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. they were purchasing water from another city. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. 1996. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. Their aging meters served about 20. average billable water readings jumped from 3. Meter Replacement). Benefits). Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. 1996. and the 10 . Meter replacements were rare. Like Atlantic City. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. a significant amount of water and revenue. Research). and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees.65 billion gallons. so a boost in available personnel. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. 1996. At the same time. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. 1996.000 different clients. Michigan. In the end. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. was in a similar situation (Jackson. Pontiac. 1996. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson.05 billion to 3. Aging Meters). 1993. only for new houses or completely broken meters. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson.

The financial and technological concerns this town had about their meters are the same that Puerto Rico has. Toronto has three main account types: high volume accounts. low volume metered accounts. Background). Accounts are billed through a combination of manual reading. many of the meters they used were over 30 years old and beginning to break down. customer reading. Background).000 to the water department. 11 . remote reading and no reading. The rest of the meters were causing an estimated $15 million in losses for the company each year. 2002. The electrically based system reduced the need for repairs on the mechanical parts.safety of the people reading the meters was ensured. as they are exposed to more weather than meters located indoors. In order to address these and other issues. 2002. 2002. The low volume meters had similar problems. Meter Testing Results). With so many meters on the island. These three accounts provide a total of $408. The meters would have to be durable enough to withstand any weather situation in Puerto Rico. Toronto. with 27% of them being over 30 years old and beginning to misread water flow. the purchase of $200 meters would pose a financial burden on the authority. This was determined to be an inefficient use of the employee’s time.600. even relying on manual labor. several agencies within Toronto collaborated to solve these problems. A study of the high volume meters in the Toronto area revealed that only 35% of these meters were operating within acceptable parameters (City of Toronto. Canada and the surrounding area had a number of water meter problems in 2002 (City of Toronto. and low volume non metered accounts (City of Toronto. A significant percentage of accounts are read through manual reading. Eighteen percent of their accounts did not have meters and were paying a flat rate for water. Finally. Their meter reading methods were antiquated.

2002. Conclusion). If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up. Beyond 1”. Personal Communication. It was also recommended that all 8. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. Tampa’s meter replacement began in 1992 as a test to see if meters were appropriately sized for the environments they were in (Robert Lauria. including non metered accounts. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years.In the end.000 to 63. The first was to upgrade all accounts. 3/1/2006). This will result in a more satisfied customer base. Currently. 3/1/2006).000 meters replaced in a year. the larger diameter a meter has. These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico.000 the first year and 10. estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology.000 the second.000 over the next four years. some readings are estimated. In the Toronto area. Additionally.500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. Personal Communication. the more frequently it is tested. Purpose). Starting in year 2 and going to year 8. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons. Like Toronto. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20. doing 5. Replacements in Tampa. Meters that are 5/8". 2002. to radio meters. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period. they continued to check for meters that 12 . then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. Due to this.

because they indicated that they would have needed another full time employee to deal with the amount of paperwork that is associated with the meter replacements. The specifics of the plan were chosen rather arbitrarily. There were several problems they encountered when dealing with a private contractor.needed to be replaced for other reasons. They wound up doing 10. This plan exemplifies several items that are either not suitable for Puerto Rico or not currently used. 13 . are not something an island with so many water meters can consider. Personal Communication. the amount of testing done in Tampa is not something done in Puerto Rico. but they themselves keep track of everything that has been done and needs to be done (Cheryl Avila.000 – 15. Arizona does things a little differently (Cheryl Avila. they saw a 14% increase in billed water. a modified schedule that either spreads out testing or takes a representative sample of meters would need to be considered. the contractor was having trouble keeping enough people in the Tucson area to effectively do the work. If PRASA were to implement meter testing. 1".000 meters a year until they finished. They use a private contractor to carry out the actual meter replacement. Arbitrary choices. The start of the meter replacement was the southern part of Tampa because it was the oldest. hard to find meters) with easier replacements to make the replacement quota more reasonable. 1. They started replacing larger meters first because those garnered the most revenue and moved down in size as they progressed. nor can it be due to the number of meters. Personal Communication. Secondly. First and foremost was that the Tucson Water Department could not simply give the contractor a list of meters to replace and tell them to report back once it was completed.5" and 2" meters that are 20 years or older and mark them for replacement. 3/23/2006). access problems. Tucson. 3/23/2006). for example. Similarly. In the end. They try to balance difficult meter replacements (old pipes and valves. They determine all of the 5/8".

It is likely that PRASA would experience a similar inundation of extra work to be done if they switched to a private company. putting the lower priority ones at the end. Personal Communication. The first option. The cost of meter would represent not only parts and labor. Secondly. However. 3/26/2006). The third plan. First. Currently. In Seattle Washington. For their large meters. three replacement plans were reviewed before a decision was made on which one to use (Henry Chen. was to keep testing meters that were not deemed a problem and replace them as necessary (Henry Chen. Those that were deemed a problem were to be replaced on a priority basis. The whole process was to take six years. was to take the methods from the second option but stretch the timeline out to longer than six years. a few issues would need to be dealt with before the switch could be made. 3/26/2006).If PRASA were to switch to a private company. This is due to the fact that all companies have overhead to take care of. Personal Communication. inconsistencies in prices would confuse the customers. the resources needed to do this were beyond the resources of the office. the Tucson Water Department had to do a great deal of communication and paperwork when dealing with the company they used. there is a backlog of 710 large meters to be replaced that have been identified as having a problem. but other company expenses as well. It was estimated that it would take 20 years to finish the backlog of meters. 3/26/2006). the costs involved in dealing with a private company are likely to be higher than if PRASA were to use their own technicians. Option two. test until failure. Their small meters are allowed to run to failure and are replaced when they are discovered by the billing system. short-term priority replacement. Personal Communication. During this time. 14 . are the wrong size or their accuracy cannot be assured. with the meters that would garner the most profit being the highest priority. long-term priority replacement. The large meters are replaced when they become stuck or unreadable. was to keep testing and replacing meters until the decline in meter accuracy was noticeable from month to month (Henry Chen.

3/26/2006).2. so a compromise was made in order to meet the resource requirements and still solve the problem in an adequate amount of time. it was not possible due to the money and resources necessary. Personal Communication. However.Testing until failure reduces the risk of replacing a meter with life left on it. something that could happen with short term and long term priority replacement (Henry Chen. Personal Communication. Encompassing All Aspects). 2000. Seattle felt the likelihood that a meter so degraded that its decline is clearly visible in the billing system was too great to consider this option. The second option is the most desirable method. If one meter is having a problem. 3/26/2006). The process Seattle went through is a good example of weighing available resources against desired outcomes and making a compromise. Countless other states and counties are beginning to replace antiquated water meters in the same fashion. This is something that Puerto Rico may have to consider the needs of the customer and the water authority. solving their problem as quickly as possible. However. Long term priority replacement was their final choice. that same problem might be happening somewhere else.3 Water Meter Management Knowledge of how to maintain so many meters is crucial to keeping the system working (Schlenger. Short term priority replacement solves the issue of price inequality but was deemed to require too much money and resources (Henry Chen. An important thing to keep in mind is that each meter is part of a larger network. Long term priority replacement provides most of the benefits of the short term priority replacement with no need for an increase in resources and a slightly longer time table. 2. 15 . they cannot be considered individual pieces. turning more and more on electronic or wireless meter reading protocols to expedite the reading process.

2004.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. 2.3 MGD respectively.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. they have a very complex water distribution system.3. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson.1). being an island presents water concerns of its own. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. 16 . the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. Despite being a small island.393).2 and 183. Finally. 1996. In addition to this.25 per meter per year. p. p. their island concerns and the history of PRASA. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. In general. Maryland. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. Commercial. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. old meters were costing up to $13. 2. Optimum). It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. In the case of Anne Arundel County. 1996.

3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island.3). while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. Puerto Rico included. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. 2.3).Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. Most islands. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure.2 Island Considerations Puerto Rico is different from other places that do meter replacements in the sense that Puerto Rico is an island with many more customers and meters to deal with than smaller towns (Pigram. Golf courses and other large tourist attractions are also an issue because of the large amounts of water they use for chores like laundry and keeping the grounds green. should and do monitor their water supply. p. 2/3/2006). p. 2. Their replacement 17 . Despite this. It is easier for a city in the United States to buy water from other towns and cities than it is for an island to import water. personal communication. 2000. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram. Currently.3. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. their people are concentrated in one area. Even for the cities that have a similar population. Currently.3.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. 2000. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas.

In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. 2004. Vivendi. p.1). p. personal communication. the EPA fined them $6. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. 2005) By 2004. 2/3/2006). On top of this. Ondeo (Blasor. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. Aside from service problems. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. 2002. health problems arose from the lack of fresh water and the physical labor involved in carrying back large quantities of water from a river or other source. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. (McPhaul. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. Customers consistently complained of paying for water they did not use as well as interruptions in their water service for days or weeks at a time. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. During these times of drought. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3.11). the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. The first company. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. 2002. 18 . which rose to $695 million in 2001. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. 11). One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. Ondeo and Vivendi. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas.

Almost all areas that have water meters have a replacement plan to ensure that their meters are functioning correctly. This is a big factor in the water meter problems Puerto Rico is currently having. all residential meters are replaced every ten years and their larger meters every five years. Flow meters are essential to any water distribution system. At this point. 19 . When the government decided to cut their 10 year agreement short in 2004. It is this as well as the increasing numbers of failing water meters that sparked PRASA into requesting assistance with these issues. but it is not obvious as to whether this information is used. Ondeo said they had been misinformed as to the status of the system and the $93 million was necessary to maintain functionality. information is gathered on meters that may fail in the future. 2005. their plan is not as robust as it should be. 2003. Finally. In the case of Puerto Rico.1). “Preventive maintenance at PRASA doesn’t exist at all. any meter found to be ineffective is replaced immediately. Currently. According to the new president of PRASA the company was “a total mess” when they took over from Ondeo (McPhaul. Regardless of this. The only other stipulation is that all meters replaced must be ready to accept Automatic Meter Reading technology. the government stepped in and reclaimed control of PRASA.2 billion as of June. The meters must be managed and replaced correctly or else they will not be used to their full potential. they cited the fact that an extra $93 million was requested by Ondeo for the continuation of their services. They help with customer billing as well as system maintenance and monitoring. It is also reflected in the EPA’s quote. Relations between the government and Ondeo were not on stable ground towards the end.achieving a deficit of $1.” PRASA now has a replacement plan. p.

3. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard.Chapter 3: Methodology The goal for this project was to provide recommendations to PRASA (Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority) on how to improve their water meter management. The questionnaire 20 . we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. PRASA replaced 100. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. In 2006. We chose a survey because it enabled us to ask more questions to a larger audience within a shorter time frame than interviews would allow. At the same time. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. 3. the organization planed to replace 200.000. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005. In other words. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. To do this.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. 2006. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. 318).1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. Additionally.3 million meters. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. Lastly.1. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system. This section will describe the methods used to evaluate Puerto Rico’s current efforts for meter replacement and allowed us to make recommendations on how the effort can be improved.

Convenience sampling does not guarantee that the data collected were representative of the entire population of Puerto Rico. Appendix C contains the questionnaire we administered to PRASA’s customers. This method provided us with multiple perspectives on the replacement effort by gathering opinions and concerns from each director 21 . Therefore. due to time restraints and number of people willing to respond. water price and service reliability. Convenience sampling was selected as the best sampling choice given the time frame and that a mall would be the best place to carry out our survey. The data received were categorized by question and graphed to determine if any correlations existed. See Appendix A for a sample questionnaire 3. These malls are on different sides of the island. Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe were the two malls at which we administered our survey. Subsequently. we only received 84. Large numbers of people visit malls daily.2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan Our second method for evaluating the current plan was to survey/interview the customer service directors in all five regions of Puerto Rico. The sampling of different regions increased the quantity of responses and variety of the populace we questioned. shopped at by people representing their communities. By combining the results of the two malls. The survey results were analyzed by first gathering and quantifying the customers’ opinions of PRASA. Our goal was to have 150 questionnaires completed by the end of the survey.measured the satisfaction of the customers and their awareness of a problem with meters on the island. This meant that we had access to more people than if we were to go door to door or mail out surveys. The questionnaire was reviewed and revised by PRASA officials until it was ready to be administered.1. an attempt to increase the diversity of the responses was necessary. However. we used the same process for questions regarding their water consumption. a better representation of Puerto Rico was obtained.

we evaluated plans obtained from other agencies throughout the United States as discussed in Chapter 2. the agencies overseeing these other replacement efforts were asked what problems they encountered and if there was anything they would change about their plans. See Appendix B for a sample questionnaire. the actual meter replacement and fielding customer requests. In addition to the ones on the questionnaire. costs.3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations Researching past efforts was an important step in determining how to proceed. To create the survey questionnaire. We created specific questions that investigated these issues further to understand how each played a role in the department. we asked. This determination was influenced by the results of the director and customer surveys as well as conversations with our liaisons.1. We traveled to director meetings in each region to deliver our questionnaires. we were able to concentrate our focus on those sections and leave the functioning sections alone. specific questions about problems they were having with their replacement effort and their opinions on other matters. 3. The plan specifics of other water authorities were analyzed and the major replacement specifics were extracted. These responsibilities include meter replacement scheduling. In light of this. we reviewed the responsibilities of the customer service department in PRASA. This involved reviewing their processes and determining if each was feasible for Puerto Rico. By determining what the directors were having a problem with. we devised a small draft containing questions trying to elicit their thoughts on the efficiency of their current efforts. From this. Budget. Additionally. in person. and operating efficiency were all issues we felt were important to query on. staffing.about the replacement. After this. Information concerning progress of the current meter replacement was obtained and used to determine the state of the effort. each major plan specific was 22 .

4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. A cost-benefit analysis was performed on the current situation to determine whether purchasing a new meter reading system was more cost-effective than keeping the current one. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered. 3. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA. preventing PRASA from 23 . discounts on bulk purchases.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions.looked at and determined whether it could be directly implemented or adapted for use in Puerto Rico. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. 3. vehicle costs. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. Information concerning pricing. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. Using these figures. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. Costs on the current expenses. accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed.1. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement.

3.1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans After the evaluation of current plans from other locations. We asked what kinds of reading systems worked with the current system and how readings taken in the field were inserted into the database. we sent out employee questionnaires along with the director questionnaires. During the interview. These surveys were to be filled out by employees that use the information system. the data within the system itself could not be guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate.3.3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan Meter replacement plans currently in place are not as effective as they could be. 3. 3. Finally. This method involved taking aspects from other plans and tailoring them to work for Puerto Rico.1 Interview with System Administrators We spoke with the administrators of the PRASA data center to determine what problems existed and how they might be solved. Plan specifics from each plan were investigated and their suitability for Puerto Rico was judged.working efficiently. Additionally. the accuracy of the data and what data should be accessible were used to obtain employee reactions to the system. how inclusive the plan 24 . Questions regarding ease of use. we determined the age and shape of the system. Judgment was based on the size of the area the plan came from. Additionally.2. The plan must be enhanced with new procedures that are more efficient. we determined what steps the administrators were taking to improve the system. The following sections detail the methods used to create the new plan. applicable strategies were derived and combined with the suggestions from the staff and customers to create a final set of recommendations.

Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 . but came from a town with 20.3. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better.was for that area and how successful the plan was in meeting their needs. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors. This method was chosen because it allowed the sponsors to give feedback on recommendations and enabled creation of the best plan possible for the authority.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. The same idea is applicable to any meter replacement strategy: anything used from these plans must be applicable in a situation 10 times larger than the one it came from. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently. This method answers the question: what does an efficient plan look like? The final product was a series of recommendations given to improve their meter replacement strategies. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter.000 meters. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it. 3. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback.

Interviews with the data center administrators determined what was needed to improve the information system.whether it was better for PRASA to keep their current system or replace it with a new one. The final recommendations were made based on the results of our combined research. 26 .

Finally.Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis The goal of our project was to provide PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) with recommendations and suggestions on how to improve their meter management system. The main points of the plan comparisons will be detailed and the results of the cost benefit analysis will be presented.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement The purpose of this evaluation was to gain an understanding of the current system as well as its major problems. This section will present our findings on the customer survey. Service Reliability and Interruptions. The information collected from the questionnaires was separated into four different categories: Overall Rating of PRASA. people were willing to give us their opinions of PRASA. In general. 4.1 Customer Survey In total. 4. our observations on the information system will be explained. we describe the results of our customer and director surveys. we collected 84 Very Unsatisfied questionnaires from Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe in San 5% Unsatisfied In the Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Juan and Ponce. replacement plan evaluation and the cost-benefit analysis. In this chapter.1. but many people did not have the time to fill out a questionnaire. Pricing. 27 . Water Consumption Knowledge and 42% 22% 7% 24% Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA lastly. director survey. This chapter will focus on the analysis and presentation of our findings.

people could have been hesitant about reporting any under billing. 22%. In total. Our preliminary predictions had people rating PRASA very negatively with only a few positive results. Only 13% of people had nothing to say on the matter. a sensitive issue. so this may not be an accurate representation of the actual number. Given our identity as PRASA representatives. It is important to note that the results of this survey likely do not represent the poorer communities in Puerto Rico. planned or otherwise. half saying the downtime was acceptable while the rest said this was unacceptable. said they were very unsatisfied with PRASA’s service. A majority. only 34% reported that PRASA was informing them of their water usage. where water problems are the worst. the average downtime was reported in hours or days. The people living in these areas do not frequent large malls such as Plaza las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe. Whether interruptions. Expectedly. a large number of people reported they were not being under billed. were fixed promptly was a point of disagreement. Water consumption knowledge was the next concept analyzed. Only a few respondents reported 28 . Service and reliability were the final concepts analyzed. These results did not match our original predictions. Most of the articles studied about PRASA concerned the previous privatization.Overall opinions of PRASA were varied. preventing their opinions from being determined. Sixty-one percent of respondents said they were not given any warning before work was done that would leave them without water. These articles were critical of the privatization. of people said they were either satisfied or had no problem. A smaller percentage of customers. However. Around 47% of people know how much water they are using. painting a negative picture of what people thought of PRASA. We drew these conclusions from the news articles and other research we conducted. seventy-one percent. The rest were split down the middle.

Reliability Rating An interesting observation about this graph is that some people rated their service reliability higher than their overall satisfaction.having outages lasting longer than this. An interesting correlation between overall satisfaction and the service reliability rating was found. Price was something customers were also concerned about. the lower the service reliability rating. The following graph illustrates this point: Comparison of Overall Satisfaction to Service Reliability Rating 6 5 Reliabiliy Rating 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Satisfaction Figure 2 . From this. we can conclude that most people rated their satisfaction low because their service was not reliable. A scatter plot revealed that the lower the overall satisfaction. Approximately 57% of people surveyed said that they paid too much for their water. However. 29 . Overall Satisfaction reveals a trend similar to the one above.Overall Satisfaction vs. the bias of our survey does not allow us to know how long outages last in poorer communities. However. A scatter plot of Pricing vs. there are possibly other reasons why people are not satisfied with their water service. given that some people did not conform to this trend.

meaning neither category influenced their overall satisfaction more than the other.Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction About 42% of people rated their reliability and pricing equally with their overall satisfaction. respondents can be grouped into four categories. that is.Satisfaction VS Pricing 6 Satisfaction Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Price Rating Figure 3 . emerges in this graph as well. as seen in the following graph: Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction 3% 14% 41% 42% Both Equal Pricing Reliability Nothing Figure 4 . indicated that price was a larger factor than reliability in their overall reliability rating. people rating their overall satisfaction low when they rate their water prices fair. 41%. Price Rating The same trend. When the numbers are compared side by side. Only 14% said that reliability was the larger contributor and the 30 .Overall Satisfaction vs. A similar number of people.

Firstly. all regions agree that. South. with the west region experiencing it the most. we have the results of four: Metro. as the diameter of the meter goes up. Despite having problems. Of those regions. over 2000 meters were installed but not recorded into the information system. West Region officials are executing a 55 week plan to locate them all. In the East region. Some customers who followed the trend that pricing was a larger influence still rated reliability negatively. For these customers. West and Metro. all directors reported that. Our interviews and questionnaires revealed that there is one major problem common among the regions: buried or inaccessible meters. There were some common themes among the regions. the West region seems to 31 Figure 5 – Required Personnel for Meter Replacement Technicians Required for Meter Replacement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 34 51 23 45 12 34 51 23 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Responses Meter Size and Personnel Present . only that it was not the biggest influence.2 Director Interviews PRASA divides Puerto Rico into 5 regions: North. East. The West region has a large number of buried meters or meters that can not be accounted for. if given the chance. This is not to say the customers were totally satisfied with either factor. pricing was closer to their overall satisfaction rating and vice versa.remaining 3% were dissatisfied with both pricing and service reliability. This problem ranges from meters covered in trash to having the cover completely cemented over.1. West and South. they would hire more employees to help with their work. 4. East. However. See Appendices C and D for survey data. Secondly. so does the number of employees required to change it. Each region experiences this problem differently.

Their meter replacement plan is said to be the best and is being considered as a standard for the island. where a certain number of meters are replaced every year. The primary difference between each region is how many meters they are having trouble locating. private companies.3 Plan Comparisons For the plan comparison. and H for survey data. Besides comparing the plans. While each region has its own issues to deal with. future predictions and how to choose which meters to replace. While Seattle has a more sophisticated large meter replacement plan. does not have much more than simple goals for how many meters a particular area should replace in a certain amount of time. 4. any special consideration for each region can be dealt with separately. their residential meter replacement plan is to work the meters until failure. Puerto Rico’s plan is equivalent in caliber to the other replacement plans that we have researched. indicating the differences between the regions are minimal. See Appendices E. AZ. F.be leading the replacement effort. WA. which spent a great deal of time and money on their meter replacement. Toronto. that is. Tucson. and an island plan would ensure that all regions are operating under the same replacement methods. Their replacement schedule is similar to that of Tucson. On the whole. From there. G. no regional plans are necessary. set replacement schedules. plans were collected from locations such as Seattle. FL. Their responses to all other questions were very similar. There were several main replacement strategies that were encountered while going through replacement plans: meter testing. Even places like Toronto. and Tampa. Canada.1. PRASA wants island wide recommendations made. 32 . These problems can be solved by adapting the island’s plan. we extracted the replacement techniques and evaluated their usefulness for Puerto Rico.

3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider. Additionally. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. making testing every meter on the island impractical. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1. Tampa only has around 120. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour. 33 . it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing. Currently. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. This method.3 million. the beds are very expensive.699 people. Currently. The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas. but do not always use. Additionally.

such as contracting with a private company.1% 0% 623. could be adapted but would not be cost effective. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement.% 65. This system.5 Million $187.3% -0.6 Million 1303% 214. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico. 4. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order. to determine the overall costs of each. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems. over the course of 10 years.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. This works for most areas. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated.3 Million $197. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. will cost 34 . This system involves AMCO V100 water meters.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis The cost-benefit analysis performed allowed us to determine which metering and reading systems were the most cost-effective for PRASA. including the current system. Five different systems were analyzed.1.3 Million $438. but they can be adapted to work.4% 915.Comparison of AMR Systems AMR System/Meters Datamatic/AMCO Badger(ORION)/AMCO Badger(ORION)/Badger ITRON/AMCO Payback Period ROI 1 yr 5 mo ~11 years 3 yr 3 mo 2 yr 5 mo IRR Investment Total $142. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. From internal Table 1 . Some techniques.

Additionally. different transmitters would be needed. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. Badger AMR hardware and software. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438.35 Million meters. For the same system. On-Site training. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221.3 Million for a 10-system kit. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future.760. To use a fixed-network system.3 Million.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. significantly lower than the current reading cost. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle. however. including the AMCO Meters. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. or around $11.1 Million. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. There is. ten Mobile AMR systems. it would cost around $141. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. This system. which make it a good candidate for PRASA.PRASA around $88. and system optimization. a major drawback. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. they are a very high-tech company. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. If they were to switch to another meter. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. including its compatibility with a number of other meters.6 Million. Thirdly. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. and personnel 35 .

7 Million. would cost about $197. This system. using the same transmitters. 330. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. any meters installed after January 1st. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. but time as well. This system is very similar to the other Badger system. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. raising the total cost for this system by 7.5 Million dollars. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. at the least. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197.500. Additionally.training. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. if this system is chosen. it would be a reliable choice. However. However.5 Million. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. Again. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. 36 . the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. If this system did not represent such a large investment. The system. Besides this issue. accurately. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. with 10 mobile AMR systems. This means that.5 Million and would enable the authority to read the entire island’s meters in a fraction of the time it takes with manual reading. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. 2007. $7.

The final system analyzed was a system from ITRON Automated Systems which would use the AMCO V100 meter. This is a significant improvement in technology and puts the system in a much better position than we previously had thought. The transmitters can interface with either a vehicle mounted reading system or a fixed-network reading system. This system wound up being the second cheapest option with a final cost of around $182. 4. Our first impressions of the system were that it appeared to be outdated and difficult to use. boasts a very important feature. while not being the cheapest.1 Interview with Administrators Information we discovered upon meeting with the information system administrators contradicted initial impressions of the system. Additionally. During our interview.2 Evaluation of Information System The information system used at PRASA contains meter age and usage information as well as billing and similar information. or around $183 Million for a system with 20 mobile AMR devices.2. Our conversations with the system administrators were helpful in learning about the system to determine possible improvements. This means additional transmitters would not be necessary for the upgrade to fixed-network.1 Million for a system with 10 mobile AMR devices. 4. The data center has a very modern and professional look. First and foremost. This flexibility coupled with the inexpensive price tag makes this an ideal candidate. The administrators indicated that the current hardware 37 . the data center administrators demonstrated their knowledge and grasp of the situation by answering all our questions quickly and completely. this system is the preferred system of the Customer Service department and the system they were looking into the most. the hardware is only three. This system. while the billing software is roughly 10 years old.

The data and analysis presented in this section were used to reach conclusions and form recommendations that would benefit PRASA in both the near and distant future. 38 . The main problem they are having is maintenance. is not as efficient and user friendly as a newer program.setup was more than capable of meeting the needs of PRASA. Additionally. while still doing its job. A complete system shutdown and restart takes between 6 and 7 hours. a ten year old software program. the data center has been analyzing the bids it received for a new information system. They will be moving away from mainframes. Their goal is to have the upgrade process finished within three years. Currently. to a more traditional server model. powerful but older computers used for intensive calculations. newer computers based on a different architecture that makes them easier to use and maintain.

an investigation of other water authorities. 5. processes relating to customer service were investigated. Based on this.1 Meter Replacement Strategies The majority of this project dealt with meter replacement strategies. 5. for around 10 years. The current reading practices cost PRASA around 11 million per year which is significantly more than the costs to use the newer AMR systems.1. we formed conclusions and recommendations to help PRASA improve their meter management practices and information system. To this end. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues. specifically. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete.Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations The goal of this project was to provide recommendations and suggestions to PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) regarding their water meter replacement strategies and management techniques. The current system. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. Simply by switching to any AMR system. while using quality meters.1 Metering Technology The results of the cost-benefit analysis were used to determine which system PRASA should implement in order to reduce overall costs and improve the efficiency and accuracy of the meter readings. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use. PRASA will 39 . This section will detail our conclusions about each system. Additionally. we performed an evaluation of their current practices. no longer uses efficient reading practices. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available. and widely used.

represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. Additionally. To use this system. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. This represents at the very least a $7.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems.500. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. 40 . Similarly. and certainly more difficult to recover from. This cost is a large one. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. Adding this to the already expensive $197. Its low cost makes it comparable to Datamatic but the flexibility it offers when it comes to vehicle and fixed-network reading makes it the only real choice. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system. Based on these evaluations.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement. using the ITRON AMR system with the currently installed AMCO V100 water meters is the most cost-effective solution as it will save PRASA the same amount each year and provide them with quality and flexible AMR technology from a company they have been doing business with for many years. Thus we recommend that PRASA move to a newer AMR system as soon as possible in order to save money and increase its revenue generation potential.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. While being the cheapest system. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive.

3 Meter Replacement Timeline PRASA would like to be able to replace every meter on the island within a timeframe of 6 to 7 years. According to data received during the plan comparison.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.269.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. meters should be replaced in groups. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. These numbers average 18. Continuing their current trend. they replaced roughly 18. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology.000 meters a month. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been.000 to 30. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. the goal and the actual number should be compared. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. In order to facilitate this replacement. Meters close to 41 . The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year.000 meters should be replaced each year.000 meters. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip.1. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed.967 meters by the end of this year.5. If PRASA is within 20. In order to do this.1. 5. starting in 2006.000 meters of their goal. they should continue. an average of 200. Given this information.164 meters per month. In January they replaced 15. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. they could replace 217. If not. At the end of the year. In March.

not counting travel time or other breaks. Densely populated regions lend themselves to this strategy because their meters are close together. The increase in available personnel could be utilized for a meter-testing plan. Testing every meter is only possible if meters are grouped and tests are done over a long period of time.1. so grouping is easy. each region would need at least one test bed of its own. PRASA only has one small meter test bed. a refined meter replacement timeline could be made. Sparsely populated regions would benefit from this by reducing the travel time needed to go from meter to meter. For test beds to be used. however. The use of a test bed would allow many meters to be tested at once. Samples taken over time could provide a more accurate measurement of meter life and usage. fewer PRASA technicians will be needed to do meter readings. it would take 140 employees 11 weeks to test 130. 5. Therefore.needing replacement should be considered for replacement. a representative sample of meters could be used to determine the health of the system. Additionally. This could be done over the course of ten years until all meters had been serviced. a separate trip to the meter will not be necessary in the future. the time needed to collect and replace the selected meters and bring them back for testing is more work than doing the testing on site. Other water authorities have implemented similar techniques with positive results.4 Meter Testing With the introduction of AMR. This way. This would allow testing to be done on site and the results recorded immediately.000 meters. At half an hour a test. Replacing a still functioning meter may save money by doing so along with meters that do need replacing. Selecting which meters to test is important. 42 . From this. The number of meters PRASA manages is too large to test every one in a timely manner. This testing should be done with the equipment used to test a meter at a customer’s request.

If. If the increase in work is minimal. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. 5. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test. This will ensure that a meter is replaced once it begins to underestimate water usage. replacing the meters sooner. that region should replace their meters less often.5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done One of the major results of the survey was that 61% of customers felt they were not given sufficient time before work was done that would leave them without water. This way. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data. through testing. If the work is too much. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. Selecting meters from each route as opposed to from the entire region would ensure that each round of testing took meters from all over the region. It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement.1. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money.A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. If this is so. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. for example. removing the need to hire more workers. The current meter 43 . the replacement should be stepped up. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others. A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians.

They hope to have the upgrade process completed within three years. To save postage. Customers would be given a window of time. will help improve meter management and customer satisfaction by better utilizing resources and information. These recommendations. during which their meter would be replaced. 44 . PRASA should continue on its present course in the information system area without any changes. These two pieces of information can be combined and the customer could be informed approximately when services like meter replacement would happen. Based on the amount of progress the data center has already made and the level of competence we saw in the data center administrators. coupled with the experience and talent employees at PRASA.replacement plan states that meters needing replacement in the near future are searched for in the database. the PRASA data center is in the process of collecting and analyzing bids for a new system. the notification could be sent with the water bill in the form of an insert to catch the customers’ attention. The preferred method of notification as indicated by 64% of the customers was postal mail. Any possible concerns or conflicts could be dealt with prior to the work. 5.2 Information System Recommendations While PRASA is using relatively old software and slightly newer hardware that should be replaced.

Water Engineering & Management 143(9). V. (2005).org/New%20Projects/prasa-1. Retrieved on Jan 30th. IEEE Transactions on Reliability.. Hans D. Lorraine. Cost optimization of periodic preventive maintenance. Retrieved on Jan 30th.stm Provides water usage statistics for many areas around the world (including Puerto Rico) as well as other related statistics. Canada’s water system. Ondeo terminated in Puerto Rico. Retrieved From Aquastat online database http://www.htm Contains information concerning Ondeo and their relationship with the government. Provides recommendations and time tables on what to do and when to do it.ca/legdocs/2002/agendas/committees/wks/wks021009/it002. (2004). (2005). Document – Badger Meter Price Sheet. (2006).toronto. CFO. 4. Preventative maintenance plays a role in the replacement of flow meters before they actually fail. 35(1). Water Metering and Meter Reading Technology Options for the City of Toronto.References 1. BadgerMeters Inc. (1986).html This website is a source of suppliers and prices of water meters.flowmeterdirectory. Morera. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Land and Water Development Division. Larry. Canfield. Allender. 2006 7. 6. Retrieved Feb 20th from http://www. City of Toronto. A good general background for flow meters. Article talks about preventative maintenance and how to make sure you are getting the most out of it. 78-81. R. WI. Blasor. Milwaukee. Russell. (1996). Unpublished internal document. Research Methods in Anthropology 3rd edition. Flanagan.waterindustry.com/flowmeter_artc/flowmeter_artc_05082801. Retrieved Feb 26th from http://www. used primarily for the construction of surveys 3. Determining the economical optimum life of residential water meters. Gomez. 2006 8. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning Badger metering systems 45 . What is this thing called calorimetric?. (2002).org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/dbase/index. 2006 from The Flow meter directory http://www. Bernard.fao.pdf An in depth analysis on Toronto. 20-24. Retrieved on Jan 30th. 5. 2. (2006). Talks about water meter replacement and how often to replace them to minimize costs. New York: AltaMira Press. Considerations and research methods. H.

International Journal of Water Resources Development. 21-22.htm) Basic information on water meters as well as links to many other places on the internet dealing with water meters. Alphonso. This report detailed meter system prices given to Miguel by Datamatic. Luciano. Ortiz-Zayas. Will help us gain perspective on previous water replacement programs. 14. The Industrial Manufacturers Directory.une. Retrieved Jan 30 from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Atlantic City. This report contained data on internal PRASA costs and consumption figures. Puerto Rico: An Evolving Process. 387-398.R (2004). Perez. AMR installation: Make your own decision. 140(1). 12.edu. Unpublished internal document. PR. NJ. M. Henry. San Juan. McPhaul. WA. Anatomy of a water meter replacement program. J. Isabella. Miguel. ITRON. (1996). Spokane. Water Engineering & Management. (2005). Document – Datamatic Price Sheet. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Pontiac. Water management issues for an area of Puerto Rico. PRASA. 143(8). 2006 11. Jackson. Government took reins of water authority. (2006). faced strike. Pigram. (2006). 17. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning ITRON metering systems 10.pdf 46 . William P. Luciano. 22-23. PR. Unpublished internal document. (2006).au/cwpr/Papers/update. (2006).com/info/flow-meters/index. Will help us get an idea of what people have done in the past 15. Water Resources Management in Island Environments: The Challenge of Tourism Development.org/Water-Facts/puerto%20rico4. PRASA. Retrieved February 10th from http://www. It is important to know all of the water issues concerning all areas of Puerto Rico to better understand how the meters would be placed.htm This is article details PRASA’s previous experience with privatization 16. 2006 from http://www. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Luquillo Mountains.waterindustry. (2006). Michigan. 20 (3). Document – AMCO Meter Price Sheet. Mark. .Flow Meters (http://www. McLees. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning AMCO metering systems 18. Document – AAA Revenue and Consumption Figures. Miguel. Retrieved on Jan 30th. Water Engineering & Management. PR. John J. Unpublished internal document. San Juan. (1993).9.iqsdirectory. 30. 13. Unpublished internal document. Retrieved Jan. Document – ITRON Meter Price Sheet. (2000). John. AMCO.

gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. MA. (2005).org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile. (2004. Kendra. Zane. Vipin. Donald L. Shea. specifically the section on metering. Retrieved Jan 30th. Worcester. Smith. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. 2006 from http://www. Dale. WPI. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. Puerto Rico. 2006. Plant Engineering. U. 59(12).nesc.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. 2006. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. 47 . June).acueductospr.html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www. Retrieved Feb 20th. (2004). Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. 25. 26. Retrieved Jan 30th. (2006). It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance.S.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. Department of Energy. (2006).pnl. 23.com/english/operational_advantages/4. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Satterfield. 19. Water (http://www. 21.. Puerto Rico. Schlenger. 14-15.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. Water engineering & management. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so. & Hanson Eric. & Bhardwaj. (2002). IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. Water Meters.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes.wvu. Anthony M.polarisinstitute. (2000). 24.3opr_adv_infrastructure.htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. 2006 from http://www. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico. Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.pridco. Puscas. (2002). Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. Unpublished IQP report. from http://www. Retrieved on Jan 30th. Darren. Horsman.. 37. 147(8). PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan.

Wilson. (1985). Evaluation Strategies for Library/Information Systems. 48 . The IQP and the WPI Plan http://www. University of Sheffield.html Contains the definition of an IQP. WPI Global Perspectives Program. Tom.27.edu/Academics/Depts/IGSD/IQPHbook/ch1. Unpublished paper. (2004).wpi. Metrics and suggestions for evaluating information systems. 28.

1. se me factura por menos agua de la que uso.Appendices Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire Estudio Sobre el Servicio de Agua En Puerto Rico Aclaración: Este documento es un estudio sobre las opiniones del servicio de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 49 . estoy satisfecho con el servicio que ofrece la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA). Edad: _________ Ciudad: _____________________ Tipo de Residencia: ___________________ Casa Sexo: Masculino ó Femenino Ocupación: ________________________ Apartamento Condominio Otro Por favor circule el artículo que se siente retrata lo mejor sus opiniones. Comparado a lo que pago por otras utilidades. Será administrado por estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. La información obtenida de este estudio sólo será usada para los propósitos del proyecto. como parte de un proyecto educativo. Usualmente. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 5. No sé exactamente la cantidad de agua que uso. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 4. Se me factura por la cantidad de agua que uso. y por la Autoridad en un intento de mejorar servicio a sus clientes. como electricidad. También. toda de esta información será privada y anónima. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 2. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 3. En general. el precio de agua es apropiado. una universidad de los Estados Unidos.

Algunas interrupciones de servicio. ¿Ha tenido unos problemas sobre que debemos saber? Por Favor. Durante el día.6. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7. con tiempo suficiente. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 . el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. cuando ocurrieron. Se me notifica. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11. Debo estar notificado por: Correo Teléfono En Persona Correo Electrónico Toda de Estas Maneras 9. fueron corregidas pronto. sobre algún trabajo que la AAA va a realizar y me va a dejar sin agua. Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 10.

Los contadores usados ahora están los mejores por usar con AMR.Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire INSPECCIÓN DEPARTMENTAL – SERVICIO DEL CLIENTES Las respuestas de este estudio estarán usadas en un Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) por un grupo de estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 1) Por favor. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ a) ¿Cuántas personas están necesario por un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 51 . AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Convengo 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1) ¿En promedio. por favor conteste las preguntas lo más completa y honradamente que pueda. AMR es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer. dénos sus opiniones en las preguntas siguientes: Discrepo Los contadores usados ahora son los mejores para la Isla La tecnología para leer los contadores de agua usada ahora es la mejor. cuántos técnicos están en un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. no-técnicos.

¿qué tipos de problemas pueden ocurrir durante de un reemplazo? (a) Tubos Viejos (c) Seguridad (b) Control de Acceso (d) Vegetación o Hierba Excesiva (e) Otro _____________________________________________ 3) ¿Qué se puede hacer para hacer este proceso más eficiente? Discrepo Debe haber más técnicos. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. no-técnicos. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. Tubo y contador deben ser conectados antes de cada instalación: (Reemplazando los términos de los tubos cada vez) Especialización de los Técnicos: (Sólo trabajan en un tipo de contador específico: 5/8” o 2”+) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Convengo 5 5 5 5 4) ¿Cuántos empleados están en el departamento de Servicio de los Clientes en su región? _____________________________________________ a) ¿Debe haber más? b) ¿Debe haber menos? Sí Sí No No 52 . Debe haber menos técnicos.

¿Cuántos empleados crearían una situación ideal por su departamento? ______________ 53 .

7 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 4 2 2 7 4 4 1 2 5 5 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 5 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 5 5 3 2 3 2 5 1 2 1 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 8 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 5 4 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 2.26 Table 2 .9 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 0 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 1.Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas QUESTION ANSWERS: 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 3 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 Average: 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 2.9 11 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2.8 10 3 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2.Customer Survey Results .Plaza Las Americas 54 .9 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2.7 9 4 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.

Plaza Las Americas 55 .Overall Satisfaction of Customers with PRASA .Opinions on Reliability of PRASA Service .Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied In the Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied 5% 22% 42% 7% 24% Figure 5 .Plasa Las Americas Reliable PRASA Service 31% 46% Is Not Reliable No Decision Is Reliable 23% Figure 6 .

Ponce 56 .Customer Survey Results .Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe Age 1 24 59 64 59 38 63 22 52 31 58 50 54 60 38 57 68 30 60 54 75 67 48 73 37 23 52 51 31 33 53 1 1 4 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 5 2 1 5 2 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 4 1 3 2 3 3 6 5 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 7 6 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 4 5 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 8 5 5 3 2 1 5 12 5 13 5 1 5 123 1 3 3 23 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 5 5 otro 1 9 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 5 4 5 5 5 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 10 5 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 3 4 4 4 1 2 4 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 11 1 2 3 2 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 2 1 4 1 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 12 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 Table 3 .

Satisfaction with Service in Ponce Opinions on Price of Water 23% 3% 23% Very Expensive Expensive In the Middle Not Expensive Not Very Expensive 17% 34% Figure 8 – Opinions of the Price of Water .Ponce 57 .Satisfaction with Service in Ponce 10% 30% 27% 33% Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 7 .

d 5 1 4 4 3 2 52 66 1 2 2 4 1 2 42 50 1 2 1 2 1 2 39 47 1 5 5 5 5 1 70 NA 1 2 2 4 1 2 39 41 1 2 3 3 1 1 64 10+ 4 3 1 2 1 1 35 47 1 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Table 4 .Metro Region 58 .b NA NA NA NA no yes a.Results from Director Interview .b.Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region Question Are the current meters the best? Is the technology used to read the meters is the best? AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR How many technicians go to a replacement? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees go to a replacement? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians are necessary? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees are necessary? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? no yes a.b.c.b yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes yes a.d #1 2 2 4 4 3 #2 3 1 3 3 3 #3 3 1 3 3 3 #4 3 3 NA NA NA #5 3 1 3 3 3 #6 3 1 3 3 3 #7 2 1 3 3 3 #8 5 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 yes yes obs yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 no yes a.c yes b/obs yes a.b.

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – Metro Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Technicians Present For Meter Replacement Figure 10 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 9 .Technicians Present for Meter Replacement – Metro Region 59 .

Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region 60 .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 11 – Opinions on Current Meter Technology – East Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 12 .

Results from Director Interview .Metro Region 61 .d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.d 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes ALL 1 5 2 5 3 3 225 275 1 5 4 5 5 4 NA 10 1 5 5 5 5 5 62 70 1 5 2 5 5 3 250 70 1 1 1 5 5 5 20 20 2 4 3 5 4 1 300 310 1 5 1 5 1 2 250 300 Table 5 .Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region Question Are the current meters the best? Is the technology used to read the meters is the best? AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR How many technicians go to a replacement residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? #1 3 1 3 3 3 #2 1 2 5 5 1 #3 5 3 5 5 3 #4 NA NA NA NA NA #5 3 3 3 3 3 #6 3 1 5 5 4 #7 5 3 5 5 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 yes yes a.b.d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – East Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Figure 14 .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region 62 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 13 .

b.South Region 63 .Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region Question Are these meters are the best the technology used to read the meters is the best AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR how many technicians go to residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches how many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians is necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? yes yes all #1 na na na na na #2 1 5 5 5 na #3 2 2 5 5 5 #4 4 3 3 4 2 #5 3 3 3 3 3 #6 3 3 3 3 3 na na na na #7 5 #8 3 3 3 3 3 #9 4 4 na na na #10 1 1 1 1 1 #11 2 4 3 3 4 #12 2 3 5 5 2 #13 2 3 5 5 3 na na na na 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 na na na 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 5 1 3 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 na na na 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 yes yes abd 2 2 3 4 yes 2 3 3 3 no yes all 1 2 2 2 no 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 no no na 1 na na na yes yes ALL 1 2 3 3 yes yes b 1 1 2 3 na y bcd y 1 2 3 3 y n 3 3 3 3 n n 1 2 4 5 n n 1 2 2 2 yes a.Results from Director Survey .d yes all y abd 1 5 1 1 1 1 250 na 4 1 0 5 5 5 43 50 5 1 5 5 5 5 50 50 1 1 2 2 1 1 14 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 183 na 4 4 4 4 4 4 14 na 3 3 2 3 3 1 38 na 3 2 2 3 1 1 39 40 3 3 3 3 3 na 38 48 5 1 5 5 3 5 43 51 4 4 3 4 3 4 55 na 2 na 2 4 3 2 42 49 2 4 2 4 4 2 42 49 Table 6 .

Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region 64 .Satisfaction with the Current Meters the best 9% good 18% not the best 18% not the best not good neutral good neutral 27% not good 28% the best Figure 15 .South Region The Necessity of Automatic Reading very necessary 46% not at all not right away 9% 0% not at all neutral 36% necessary 9% not right away neutral necessary very necessary Figure 16 .Satisfaction with the Current Meters .

Number of People Required for Meter Replacement – South Region Number of People Who Actually Go 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12345123 451234512345 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Who Actually Go Figure 18 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" People Required Figure 17 .South Region 65 .Number of People Present at Meter Replacement .

Director Survey Results – West Region 66 .Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region Question these meters are the best the technology used to read the meters is the best AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR how many technicians go to residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches how many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians is necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? y y bd #1 5 5 5 5 5 #2 #3 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 3 #4 #5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 3 y y bd 1 2 3 3 y 0 0 0 0 y y abd 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 NA y bd y all 1 1 1 2 3 1 200 220 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 220 5 1 0 4 2 2 41 48 2 5 5 2 1 1 169 less 4 2 5 5 3 2 36 41 Table 7 .

West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .Opinions on Current Reading Technology .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .5 2 1.West Region 67 .5 3 2.5 1 0.Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .

Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .5 2 1.Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.5 1 0.5 0 123451234 512345123 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement Figure 22 .5 3 2.West Region 68 .

1 1.135.44 1.869.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.58 50.84 461.15 16 .03 910.35 > 35 > 10 0.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.49 131.33 61.65 2.93 1.37 569.86 77.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.71 19.013.258.65 4.15 16 . Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .13 294.95 38.607.13 1.28 Industrial 1.87 123.67 11.991.13 1.63 1.45 0 69 .45 0 Fase 2 21.6 1.07 1.72 107.6 2.22 85. 2006.41 Fase 2 1.456.56 1.584.85 213.162.18 26.Water Rates .88 1.61 2.43 31.6 16.97 786.11 384.67 2.64 171.9 1.Current and Future (PRASA.Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data Specific meter costs obtained from various meter manufacturers could not be made public and included in this report due to reasons of commercial confidentiality Water Rates Table 8 .77 277.84 94.23 36.51 22.09 1.09 638.35 > 35 11 .70 0 Fase 2 10.16 1.73 53.53 1.

49 $1. AAA Revenue.00 46.65 $1.00 1.119.90 0.784.00 18 274.466.36 3098 209.00 32 95.28 829.201.00 0.851.562.28 299.79 $1.07 1908 999.17 1939 120.20 $1.441.00 45 2.70 42 3.38 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.793.873.081.219.85 0.636. G (Luciano.450. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 1 13.77 0.36 2521 246.90 0.90 0.90 5.11 $1.87 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.61 70 . 2006) 3 264.82 $1.00 694. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.180.00 306.34 $1.394. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.218.Consumption Figures Table 9 .11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.00 10 1.00 32.74 0.42 0.843.367.00 Real B 9 37.00 0.16 0.494.00 20 5.00 Estimada C 58. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.47 $1.00 3 1.90 0. F.00 Real A 125 39.04 0.11 0.00 372. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.58 $1.28 3.03 Real C 49908 56.28 439.00 42.339.14 0.00 Estimada B 9.97 48 3. C.70 0.00 58 249.90 3.Consumption Figures – A.15 799 429.053.00 4 65.71 1783 1.39 655 558.148.45 0.28 2.61 $1.00 0.792.95 0.71 1430 137.347.90 0.28 189.39 $1.922.00 0.717.31 $1.96 0.00 0.00 2 4.00 2 1. B.

00 0. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.55 5 25.67 $1.00 0.00 0.00 24.49 $9.824.88 0.00 2 7.63 $1.00 106.39 0.00 245.28 223.00 4 5.17 0.996.809.25 0.00 0.00 762.28 1.292.476.02 $1.63 6 29.334.775.98 $1.00 11.00 0.32 119 7.28 593.631.00 862.615. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.96 0.827.99 0.23 $1.90 0.111.90 1.00 312.505.84 71 .410.90 761.36 $14.00 3 5.00 0.89 0.00 132.830.543.43 13 30.970.565.00 123 6.891.00 0.45 66.37 56. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.45 0.480.18 $1.00 195.398.705.00 12.653.00 31.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.074.099.49 15 30.

253.62 955.83 $1.466.43 41 16.00 590.00 Estimada G 5.00 1.648.00 5.49 $1.00 445.919.44 $1.695.00 Real F 1 8.91 177 4.180.68 39.90 3.350.094.414.029.349.090.784.523.145.00 84.504.95 0.00 481.945.067.00 0.90 98.558.90 Estimada Total 64.00 2.00 9.00 3.503.90 $1.94 $1.76 $1.912.17 1629 264.126.74 $1.446.00 115.18 $1.36 $470.769.00 0.25 3.492.091.062.421.668.90 $921.70 128 4.00 0.26 $1.706.488.00 819.14 507 149.136.833.34 983.522.482.00 6.35 $1.355.60 1.90 859.00 1.06 $1.889.90 387.00 72 .00 256.00 2.95 265 194.173.08 38 1.31 2.90 1.14 $1.031.34 $6.94 300.610.58 57 1.02 0.391.643.178.77 80.710.111.00 144.443.26 26 13.94 2.00 86.87 $1.37 $414.649.745.69 $2.879.082.184.086.15 $1.90 $5.90 505.87 0.90 107.502.00 1.451.501.43 0.818.23 0.811.95 328 621.00 135.686.00 1.14 659.00 22.80 $1.60 1001 265.513.90 $2.140.07 0.87 $1.222.00 0.95 3.635.295.90 $4.18 1735 1.22 0.00 64.99 $1.33 Real Total 53.45 550 461.157.23 1136 1.15 $7.67 1.32 247.26 0.00 0.00 166.52 4.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.95 $1.99 0.00 236.184.00 0.00 0.236.013.55 105.00 23.90 $304.851.68 $1.71 $1.072.846.90 $444.198.90 Real G 4004 112.062.92 56.91 $1.727.444.

148.00 8.11 $10.713.29 10.00 9.87 $0.22 $8.60 $949.286.662.5 192.00 59.00 1.24 $1.63 9.158. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .00 589.00 110.44 $19.930.00 451.623.408. C (comercial).685.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.048.44 63.268.633.28 $2.98 0.90 11.73 77.534.02 $22.08 6.789.12 G= Gobierno A = Cuentas de la AAA R = Residencial Privado (cuentas regulares) C= Comercial Tipo de Cliente = Basicamente te resume los Service Class ejemplo Los service class R (residencial).00 171.30 $1.90 4 92.00 1.888.28 704.955.781.406.621.343.95 $0.00 208.825.489.00 1.

551. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.35 2.65 160 260.015.85 2.413.80 110 698. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.54 1.374.01 2.50 2.34 1.53 85.95 74 1.67 451.361.039.525.02 301.54 1.123.16 1.67 137.86 2.49 140.66 1.695.97 12 566.16 Real R 967258 34.747.75 2.67 37 0.600.708.69 1.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.469.48 1.00 30.489.759.54 269 515.12 240 711.67 3.570.54 1249 97.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.Table 10 .34 18 7.67 390.01 4661 16.87 2.00 10 18.83 1.84 72.67 0.600.10 2.28 770 1.00 27 0.94 368.16 32.92 1.00 17 14.36 2.66 1 3.Consumption Figures .80 129 564.43 1. R. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 85.108.377.430. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.76 110 339.20 1.67 Real I 161 110.16 227. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.I.67 29.414.00 30. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.46 10 763.955.798.58 18 7.67 Estimada P 50.00 84.39 2.802.444.16 123.16 Real P 39673 32.49 264.45 146 390.16 69.16 277.00 6 10.22 4079 74 .085. AAA Revenue.69 299.87 2.570. and Totals (Luciano.52 55 224.07 2.800.90 2.86 1 5.66 795 902.16 Estimada R 1.783.67 62.763.025.81 1082 118.16 157.16 128. P.16 0.475.67 1.759.311.198.11 71.

010.119.00 94.051.740.16 60.784.15 0.88 1.00 2.67 209.57 4 1.38 105 10.821.606.50 1.312.206.16 12.11 529.90 3.30 1.243. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.720.697.16 23.00 34.133.67 2.88 0.223.333.26 19 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.515.25 12 28.770.27 876.71 30 32.27 15.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.66 543.376.67 34.313.404.184.733.85 101 9.353.380.638.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.47 2.825.08 2.896.53 2.292.67 1.27 73.87 2.48 12 27. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.702.858.75 5.00 2.67 0.321.71 1.754.98 1.00 30.45 4 1.16 1.67 0.16 1.00 39.20 1.488.388.85 30 31.Consumo Prom.03 1.00 31.898.67 12.526.44 1.708.425.75 1.882.591. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.67 1.646.00 972.00 32.77 75 .79 0.06 2.00 1.808.66 20 2.00 0.00 50.61 559. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.085.092.29 2.00 15.04 5.33 94.749.24 0.785.16 55.059.770.16 1.00 0.86 73.61 2.932.316.

708.71 6.26 574.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.17 163.376.752.963.136.017.254.48 334.757.700.86 1.00 181.464.85 2.98 Real Grand Total 1.18 1.00 4 2.27 34.652.39 13.186.00 362.00 2.980.82 1.198.391.028.707.700.31 4.28 Real Total 1.392.30 125.48 1.73 4.29 34.561.32 546.866.532.939.185.57 1.06 1.884.00 17.265.931.72 4.88 7.443.451.033.59 203.00 612.201.188.849.96 73.31 340.88 4.743.00 4 30.380.018.189.167.605.00 557.00 16.80 1.83 80.37 243.00 4 76 .00 4.201.594.94 1.26 108.00 59.014.73 8.00 105.31 8.81 1.00 125.746.474.785.04 74.982.00 489.994.549.146.23 655.706.53 9.578.146.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 3.009.007.76 1.712.157.132.00 64.00 573.007.065.004.202.00 890.359.172.679.98 251.55 5.638.828.00 71.976.78 1.552.491.40 4.142.022.00 4.740.424.00 17.267.00 97.498.00 118.16 1.495.00 2.825.413.88 1.189.133.00 4 40.48 28.226.061.21 90.00 193.11 135.00 752.906.419.27 2.081.29 792.00 2.400.824.401.262.53 4.092.823.00 48.00 2.00 1.491.25 425.605.00 56.49 242.89 Total 6 Months 2.98 1.549.00 404.336.759.813.06 4.026.53 79.19 1.520.894.708.00 4.00 4.07 2.336.56 30.06 1.16 1.87 7.011.994.70 16.984.16 90.442.00 11.79 2.00 5.00 131.647.00 2.00 4 902.18 160.197.12 6.75 543.89 294.00 4 54.24 10.00 11.00 206.00 10.68 135.459.72 120.74 75.53 4.Estimada Total 1.561.60 425.84 7.791.00 474.032.006.26 256.00 76.305.00 4 10.930.04 367.720.00 3.00 156.24 241.868.

1,607,127.52 12.00 9,602.68 577,312.98 1,144,469.00 50.28 82,885,016.69

1,661,994.01 12.00 9,044.48 543,754.20 1,013,831.00 60.89 81,700,912.80

3,453,350.28 23.00 60,113.15 2,626,201.72 1,221,812.00 63.85 102,666,806.29

3,083,023.01 21.00 34,156.73 1,493,709.65 1,077,237.00 79.91 104,386,545.92

6,536,373.29 44.00 47,134.94 4,119,911.37 2,299,049.00

623.36 23.00 4 148.88 1,221,812.00 4 10,307,696.56 4.98%

71.90
207,053,352.21

77

Net Cash Flow – Proposed Systems
Table 11 - Net Cash Flow - Proposed System Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data. (Gomez and Morera, 2006) and (Perez, 2006) and (Luciano, AAA Revenue, 2006) and (Luciano, Datamatic, 2006) and (Henry, 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cash Inflows / Benefits and Gains 1 2 3 4 Datamatic $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Badger/AMCO $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Badger/Badger $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 ITRON $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Year 7 7 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 Year 8 8 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Year 9 9 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Year 10 10 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Total $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703

Year 5 5 $650,071,434 $650,071,434 $650,071,434 $650,071,434

Year 6 6 $654,600,902 $654,600,902 $654,600,902 $654,600,902

Cash Outflows / Costs & Expenses Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON

(31,431,832.99) (67,619,023.95) (45,681,909.25) (37,882,642.99)

(21,742,513.79) (64,144,513.79) (25,375,783.22) (23,077,950.00)

(21,450,513.79) (63,852,513.79) (25,083,783.22) (22,785,950.00)

(21,158,513.79) (63,560,513.79) (24,791,783.22) (22,493,950.00)

(20,866,513.79) (63,268,513.79) (24,499,783.22) (22,201,950.00) Sub Total (158,337,185.17) (448,936,376.13) (194,386,878.00) (172,800,612.43)

(20,574,513.79) (62,976,513.79) (24,207,783.22) (21,909,950.00)

(20,282,513.79) (62,684,513.79) (23,915,783.22) (21,617,950.00)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

78

Datamatic

Cash Flow Summary Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow

631,953,559.35 (31,431,832.99) 600,521,726.36 631,953,559.35 (67,619,023.95) 564,334,535.40 631,953,559.35 (45,681,909.25) 586,271,650.10 631,953,559.35 (37,882,642.99) 594,070,916.36

636,483,027.93 (21,742,513.79) 614,740,514.14 636,483,027.93 (64,144,513.79) 572,338,514.14 636,483,027.93 (25,375,783.22) 611,107,244.71 636,483,027.93 (23,077,950.00) 613,405,077.93

641,012,496.52 (21,450,513.79) 619,561,982.73 641,012,496.52 (63,852,513.79) 577,159,982.73 641,012,496.52 (25,083,783.22) 615,928,713.30 641,012,496.52 (22,785,950.00) 618,226,546.52

645,541,965.10 (21,158,513.79) 624,383,451.31 645,541,965.10 (63,560,513.79) 581,981,451.31 645,541,965.10 (24,791,783.22) 620,750,181.88 645,541,965.10 (22,493,950.00) 623,048,015.10

650,071,433.69 (20,866,513.79) 629,204,919.90 650,071,433.69 (63,268,513.79) 586,802,919.90 650,071,433.69 (24,499,783.22) 625,571,650.47 650,071,433.69 (22,201,950.00) 627,869,483.69

654,600,902.27 (20,574,513.79) 634,026,388.48 654,600,902.27 (62,976,513.79) 591,624,388.48 654,600,902.27 (24,207,783.22) 630,393,119.05 654,600,902.27 (21,909,950.00) 632,690,952.27

Badger/AMCO

Badger/Badger

ITRON

659,130,370.86 (20,282,513.79) 638,847,857.07 659,130,370.86 (62,684,513.79) 596,445,857.07 659,130,370.86 (23,915,783.22) 635,214,587.64 659,130,370.86 (21,617,950.00) 37,512,420.86

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

6,507,423,702.81 (158,337,185.17) 6,349,086,517.64 6,507,423,702.81 (448,936,376.13) 6,058,487,326.68 6,507,423,702.81 (194,386,878.00) 6,313,036,824.81 6,507,423,702.81 (172,800,612.43) 6,334,623,090.38

79

369.160.160.056.259.056.056.160.056.070.64 Year 7 621.323.211.160.63 Year 9 621.20) (11.259.63 621.323.473.439.79) (15.056.259.439.434.732.070.323. (Luciano.473.439.63 (11.64 621.63 Year 8 621.259.63 Year 10 621.79) (15.720.43 621.259.056.592.732.842.566.43 6.070.63 (11.160.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.99) 605.089.79) (15.259.20) (4.63 (11.63 621.20) 610.070.63 621.64 621.99) 605.720.056.160.434.160.732.63 621.63 Total 6.160.056.259.160.00 (11.056.99) (11.056.259.056.160.160.99) 605.259.79) (15.20) (110.797.070.99) 621.63 621.439.160.99) (11.070.160.056.369.259.439.600.63 (15.29 (136.070.089.160. 2006) Year 1 Cash Inflows / Benefits and Gains Revenue Total cash inflows Cash Outflows / Costs & Expenses Reading Costs Meters Total cash outflows Cash Flow Summary Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow ` 621.20) (4.797.070.074.160.63 621.056.732.439.20) 610.070.720.63 621.919. AAA Revenue.20) 0.056.056.00 (11.160.720.160.056.63 621.160.99) (11.63 621.720.439.63 (15.63 621.056.566.20) (11.43 621.070.211.056.369.070.63 (15.211.63 621.29 (11.79) (15.732.056.919.Current System Costs Table 12 .20) (4.20) 610.473.63 (15.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .056.20) 0.259.056.160.20) 610.74) 6.732.63 621.63 (15.216.20) (4.732.Net Cash Flow .00 (11.63 621.732.070.160.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.74) (136.63 621.160.070.732.720.160.64 621.473.63 621.089.160.259.259.323.259.732.160.797.29 6.131.369.070.056.056.070.056.797.259.056.056.439.323.160.473.99) (11.439.681.369.702.089.056.20) (11.056.20) (4.259.056.259.74) 621.64 621.160.070.566.99) (11.160.79) (15.20) 0.160.160.99) 605.600.439.070.369.732.473.259.732.070.99) 605.160.43 621.64 621.63 (11.20) (4.323.600.439.056.63 (15.00 (11.439.00) (26.99) 605.20) 0.

23) (6.828.80) (9.439.381.547.852.780.780.412.23) (7.64 33.47 Year 5 28.845.59) (51.823.02) (10.716.72 (21.64 33.793.780.502.217.054.212.941.716.40 41.845.793.780.23 37.502.322.302.970.716.80) (48.716.89 19.01) Year 7 37. AAA Revenue.780.716.845.314.26) (35.845.910.30 15. 2006) (Luciano.40 Total 295.72 10.592.502.Table 13 .64 33.377.72 10.40 41.23 37.768.592.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.502.592.377.908.502.592.322. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.750.80) 10.793.793.39) (57. 2006) (Henry.06 Year 6 33.52 295.050.96) (30.242.502.377.40 Year 10 41.716.439.40 Year 9 41.06 28.352.911.134.716.524.177.793.793.59) (12.52 (9. 2006) (Luciano.908.72 10.716.72 10.06 28.00) (52.852.381.060.23) (7.217.050.050.179.72 10.69) 81 .440.346. 2006) (Perez.502.439.780.72 10.780.217.40 41.80) (47.01) (5.72 10.322.381.72 10.050.780.00) (6.936.992.970.592.254.793.40 41.254.780.100.136.793.440.30 15.52 295.852.823.793.40 41.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.136.716.716.644.217.592.881.780.050.136.40 41.80) (47.290.06 28.217.322.502.80) (48.314.762.793.30 15. (Gomez and Morera.23 37.23) (7.908.690.016.72 Year 2 15.23 Year 8 41.442.314.716.Incremental Cash Flow .72 10.440.439.502.852.467.793.136.592.502.440.592.908.911.47 24.80) (9.01) (5.176.793.536.911.30 Year 3 19.793.01) (6.793.971.592.89 19.614.970.80) (48.72 10.470.502.89 19.845.592.704.443.40 41.72 10.971.502. Datamatic.80) (9.40 41.377.502.502.01) (5.823.72 10.47 24.911.793.72 10.89 Year 4 24.716.80) (8.314.592.426.502.417.47 24.970.23) (6.823.010.120.26) (22.381.80) (9.43) (312.718.40 41.72 10.592.971.638.52 295.971.502.793.

179.510.193.326.26 295.780. (Gomez and Morera.935.217.23) 10.23 (12.12 41.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .762.704.823.992.693.72 52.80) 23.89 (6.290.716.54) 10.124.628.054.217.40 10.970.911.47 (7.52 (57.911.12 24.823.780.649.440.00) (11.381.510.30 (9.405.841.050.322.016.673.212.439.41 33.377.095.72 52.01) 17.242.80) 28.12 41.23) 5.050.322.768.217.095.127.059.793.828.352.12 41.09 295. 2006) (Luciano.440.592.672.510.502.095.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.064.095.750.095.80) (23. Datamatic.851.190.858.020.911.780.39) (16.46 295.40 10.40 10.30 (7.23 (10.40 10.852.592.793.845.780.780.716.758.908.12 41.970.970.02) 25.940.176.823.484.66 19.448.623.136.80) (18.417.936.222.823.80) 18.881.381.793.177.502.780.780.691. 2006) (Henry.385.971.08 15.908.386.872.40 10.502.254.643.67 24.795.43) 274.845.793.24) 10.377.403.72 52.52 (35.47 (48.684.560.592.506.095.06 (47.386.592.40 10.060.690.592. 2006) D Incremental Cash Flow Summary Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow 37.716.442.72 52.659.412.12 41.502.971.314.00) (5.80) 13.314.793.510.83 28.780.510.644.793.64 (6.327.095.217.716.72 52.510.510. 2006) (Perez.136.443.52 (21.718.52 (312.355.23) 15.470.80) (28.426.971.346.23 (9.095.592.852.502.80) (33.596.21 37.30 (48.793.852.971.01) 12.958.89 (9.050.095.12 41.439.64 37.381.095.72 52.05 33.306.614.25 24.254.010.502.83 28.793.439.340.780.381.23) 19.40 10.716.502.217.502.89 (7.716.377.01) 7.208.302.809.852.64 (5.64 (47.136.716.12 41.793.100.754.917.793.502.738.72 52.536.40 10.592.47 (5.716.663.12 41.389.33) 24.23) 24.72 52.74) 28.72 52.36) 37.095.941.59) (13.01) 22.377.716.467.510.050.510.941.59) 28.793.510.440.502.050.716.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .06 (9.40 10.149.16) 33.322.120.592.780.422.510.502.381.160.26 28.502.793.198.970.592.88 41.72 52.87) 295.638.72 (30.314. 2006) (Luciano.845.80) 27.72 (15.790.28) 15.136.12 41.72 (52.26) 238.69) 259.91) 19.524.30 (6.47 (9.12 19.43 10.40 10.407.40 10.502.439.314.50 15.908.911.095.095.01) 26.793.50) 15.84 33.510.40 10.716.06 (5.80) 9.921.26) (19.845.440.716.134.908.502.322.592.28) 10.89 (48.09 19.597.592.502.793.910.64 (8.72 (22.592. AAA Revenue.72 52.502.845.788.547.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.29 41.793.12 82 .06 (6.80) (14.970.72 52.793.029.804.23 (51.96) (41.

AAA Revenue.060.381.26) ($19.120.597.352.91) $36.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.872.971.06 ($9.810.198.852.663.28) ($3.673.80) ($33.326.28) Year 1 $10.83 ($19.502.593.810.24) Year 1 $10.596.908.780.841.80) ($28.908.649. 2006) (Perez.377.322.793.752.502.80) ($18.149.018.426.23) $5.322.01) $7.421.793.29 ($3.809. 2006) (Luciano.908.704.30 $19.780.822.290.01) $22.00) ($11.252.06 ($6.50 $13.560.757.652.30 ($48.72 $15.788.010.597.381.25 (145.89 ($48.217.340.858.24) $3.326.936.793.72 ($52.302.050.027.54) Year 1 $10.439.08 (103.448.261.99 Year 4 $24.439.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.327.780.389.663.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.47 ($7.502.89 $24.01) $12.06 ($47.780.385.407.217.852.66 (127.05 ($11.74) ($41.673.442.322. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.99) $8.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .09 $18.74) Year 2 $15.208.762.754.851.22 Year 2 $15.381.386.412.28) ($14.852.80) ($5.050.984.214.541.381.921.780.28 Year 5 $28.020.01) $17.23) $15.72 ($22.362.96) ($41.25 Year 5 $28.691.780.45 Year 4 $24.379.72 ($30.050.377.346.684.89 $25.100.502.061.89 ($7.852. 2006) (Luciano.88 $11.176.71) Year 5 $28.80) Year 3 $19.80) ($5.377.821.198.938.780.50) $17.908.439.30 ($7.659.33) $59.029.911.569.377.222.054.381. Datamatic.407.97) Year 4 $24.597.322.638.327.780.971.30 ($9.649.160.911.176. (Gomez and Morera.506.23) $19.65) Year 3 $19.793.217.869.853.992.971.484. 2006) (Henry.242.910.80) ($23.190.26 Cumulative Incremental CF Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF Badger/Badger Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF ITRON Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF ($5.828.47 $28.971.89 ($9.80) ($6.066.36 $48.23) $10.917.644.28) $9.00) ($6.54) ($74.403.67 $23.718.47 ($48.31 Year 3 $19.439.41 83 .788.911.47 ($9.448.179.911.217.976.495.050.964.46 $31.127.385.46) Year 2 $15.738.

502.12 $221.26 Year 10 $41.136.12 $169.998.050.502.592.693.64 ($8.12 $238.80) ($14.12 $207.845.592.09 Year 10 $41.592.59) ($13.064.71 Year 10 $41.440.417.758.592.64 ($6.716.041.845.02) $25.407.502.592.40 $10.12 $274.592.724.80) $28.895.12 $121.16) $160.793.510.823.875.52 ($35.39 ($16.314.97 Year 9 $41.592.090.41 $55.40 $10.84 $88.716.502.87) Year 10 $41.716.095.958.592.672.703.01) $26.443.72 $52.863.700.40 $10.09 Year 6 $33.845.502.21 $80.643.899.212.136.628.536.59 Year 9 $41.793.793.355.40 $10.83 Total $295.254.69) $259.02 Year 8 $41.793.440.26 Total $295.510.080149.502.780.440.095.290.85 Year 8 $41.716.355.100.510.72 $52.795.059.12 ($16.845.69 Year 6 $33.136.716.72 $52.050.72 $52.823.823.845.23 ($51.804.881.12 $154.87) Total $295.47 Year 8 $41.195.11 Year 8 $41.59) $28.095.40 $10.314.72 $52.193.793.503.793.716.306.502.193.23 ($9.510.750.14 Year 9 $41.970.23 ($10.23 Year 7 $37.935.095.524.314.793.52 $312.592.716.12 $185.43) $274.716.793.614.768.941.431.52 ($57.510.40 $10.40 $10.793.716.095.43 $102.80) $27.470.90 Year 7 $37.117.23) $24.12 ($68.592.254.510.793.40 $10.73 Year 7 $37.095.768.64 ($5.177.510.36) $173.217.970.26) $238.405.87 Year 6 $33.64 ($47.547.940.793.72 $52.592.592.422.716.502.467.823.99) Year 9 $41.617.124.335.502.40 $10.502.72 $52.804.095.095.095.23 ($12.405.40 $10.958.941.136.63 $74.440.12 $259.314.790.970.970.64 $116.095.623.845.598.72 $52.921.40 $10.213.016.52 ($21.134.780.09 Total $295.716.72 $52.095.510.Year 6 $33.502.385.693.510.12 $133.72 $52.690.095.510.502.72 $52.673.386.989.83 84 .825.72 $52.510.04 Year 7 $37.716.510.970.941.386.411.793.095.40 $10.

322.484.327.326.198. 2006) (Luciano.767.448.597) 1.029.851.377 ($47.852. 2006) (Henry.781) ($5.984.322.781) ($18.718.846 ($8.440 $24.976 $88.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.176) ($19.936.363) 3.908 ($48. 2006) (Perez.440.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28. 2006) (Luciano.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.53199599 Year 3 $19.992.252 1.846 ($47.971 $19.852.060.Payback Period Table 16 .768.503 ($30.53199599 Year 1 $10.010.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.381.061.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.306.385.191 $13.752) Years ($3.236658937 ($14.858 ($145.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.160835902 $31.810.828.659 $18.050) $24.793. AAA Revenue.117. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.674) ($74.781) ($23.872) $59.208.781) ($33.377 ($9.700.536.242.495 6.352.381.050) $19.908 $28.738.781) ($6.426.911.781) ($5.921 ($103.404) Year 6 $33.385.020.176.341) $36.050) $5. (Gomez and Morera.908 ($9.381.971 ($48.781) ($5.440 ($9.593 Years Year 2 $15.236658937 $11.618 85 .027.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.793.704.198.050) $10.440.674) 3.598) Years Year 2 $15.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.448.560.911.302. Datamatic.788) $3.917.672.503 $15.100) ($6.503 ($52.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.663.322.128 $23.095.179.440.120.134.644.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.788) N/A Year 1 $10.215) ($160.412.327 Year 6 $33.911.852.950470057 Year 4 $24.853.821.809) $17.793.080.971 ($9.381.440 ($48.841.377 $33.822 $55.781) ($14.781) ($28.386.663.066.291) ($41.596 $28.597) $9.390 ($127.050) $15.380 6.

793.503 $52.223 Year 4 $24.614.900) ($16.805) ($173.643.793.503 $52.823.421 $74.405.212.217) $22.137 ($312.160 Year 6 $33.095 Year 10 $41.908 ($7.691 Year 5 $28.217) $26.845.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.793.970.510.442.716.095 Total $295.292628695 $25.314 ($51.964.407) 2.101 $169.377 ($6.941) ($16.592 $10.018.503 $52.524) Year 8 $41.503 ($22.971 ($7.592 $10.346.653) Years $8.193.095 Year 9 $41.793.137 ($21.503 Total $295.503 Year 10 $41.716.716.095 Year 9 $41.095 Total $295.716.385.193.407) Year 2 $15.875.054.381.060 Year 8 $41.793.016.970.716.970.196 $221.440.989.750) $274.895.754 Year 3 $19.758.869.592 $10.793.314 ($12.217) $12.762.503 Year 9 $41.386 $116.322.805) Year 7 $37.510.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.940) Year 8 $41.592 $10.910) ($11.467.995) ($68.470.510.327.852.541.823.503 $52.292628695 ($3.793.716.386 Year 7 $37.592 $10.592 $10.440 ($7.684.217) $7.405.314 ($9.510.592 $10.217) $17.213.638.716.506.255) ($13.724.716.649.095 Year 10 $41.793.643443217 $48.592 $10.970.716.703.149.503 $52.649.510.793.911.261 6.503 $52.570 2.255) $28.510.443) 86 .291 $274.050 Year 7 $37.846 ($6.090) ($121.823.592 $10.417.137 ($57.793.

314 ($10.095 Year 10 $41.510.547.693 $80.845.178) $259.673 $154.592 $10.510.970.864 $259.941.355.095 Year 9 $41.793.503 $185.598 $238.431.095 $52.769 $207.095 Total $295.823.510.355.793.095 $238.793.510.503 $52.716.124.592 $10.959 87 .716.693 Year 7 $37.095 $52.422.137 ($35.$25.959 $102.716.825.408 $133.592 $10.941.510.411.623 Year 8 $41.790 $52.881.503 $52.691) $27.335.921.503 $52.510.

503 Year 10 $41."N/A") 88 .(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).971 $19.212. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.Return on Investment .793.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .381.781) ($5.781) ($5.716.793.911.100) ($6.314 ($9.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. (Luciano.970.908 $28. Datamatic.781) Simple ROI.592 $10.992.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data. 2006) (Luciano.716. 10 years: 1281.134.426.793.750) Year 6 $33.716.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.503 Year 9 $41.592 $10. 7 years: 217.322.255) Year 8 $41.440."N/A") Simple ROI.503 $15.823.781) Simple ROI.592 $10. 5 years: 151.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))). AAA Revenue.503 Total $295.793. 3 years: 62.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).440 $24."N/A") Year 7 $37.718.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.781) ($6.852.010.846 ($5.417.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.137 ($21."N/A") Simple ROI.302.

Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.941) Year 6 $33. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.440 $24.704.823.592 $10."N/A") 89 .781) ($47. 2006) (Perez.781) ($48.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.793.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).716. 10 years: -5."N/A") Simple ROI.781) Simple ROI.781) Simple ROI.781) ($48. 5 years: -59.291) ($48.381.970.908 $28.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.716.793. 3 years: -69.412.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).255) Year 8 $41.614.793.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).716."N/A") Simple ROI.137 ($312. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.911.592 $10.846 ($47.322. AAA Revenue.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .828. (Gomez and Morera..971 $19.503 Year 9 $41.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.793. 7 years: -50.503 Year 10 $41.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.592 $10.314 ($51."N/A") Year 7 $37.852.440.536.120.179. 2006) (Luciano.503 Total $295.503 $15.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).Return on Investment .016.

793.592 $10.050) ($9.381.793.Badger/Badger Table 19 .467.793.768.644.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).823.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.314 ($12.050) Simple ROI.971 $19.242.936.793.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.911.716.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).503 Total $295.352.322.592 $10.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.440.716. 5 years: 160.503 Year 9 $41.852.440 $24. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.443) Year 6 $33."N/A") Simple ROI. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.970.846 ($8.503 Year 10 $41.176) ($9.050) ($9.060.050) ($9.592 $10."N/A") 90 .503 $15."N/A") Year 7 $37.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0."N/A") Simple ROI. 7 years: 313.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).Return on Investment . AAA Revenue.716.908 $28.845.137 ($57.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))). 10 years: 585.050) Simple ROI. 3 years: 105.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.524) Year 8 $41.

823.381. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data. AAA Revenue."N/A") 91 .217) Simple ROI.793.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).910) ($7.503 Year 9 $41.217) ($6."N/A") Simple ROI.691) Year 8 $41. 7 years: 475.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .716.442.440 $24.638.793.217) ($7.314 ($10.217) Year 7 $37. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).503 $15.503 Total $295.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.970.716.592 $10.716. 2006) (Perez.178) Simple ROI.346.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).Return on Investment .592 $10.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0."N/A") Year 6 $33.793.793.440.322.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.217) ($7.911."N/A") Simple ROI.054.137 ($35.547.592 $10. 3 years: 170.881.503 Year 10 $41.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0. (Luciano. 10 years: 1077.908 $28.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))). 2006) (Henry.971 $19. 5 years: 245.852.762.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.846 ($6.470.

917.841.738.809) Year 3 (28.327. 2006) (Perez.341) Year 4 (23.385.560.663.921 Year 3 10.3% 92 .674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7. 2006) (Luciano.629 Year 1 (11.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.029.404) -1.872) Year 5 (18.484.754 Year 3 12. 2006) (Henry.691 Year 5 22.684.160 105.390 Year 4 15.970.649.327 64.596 28. (Gomez and Morera.9% #N/A Year 6 26.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.095.386.672.851.223 Year 4 17.935) Year 1 (41. AAA Revenue.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .858 Year 5 19.128 23.208.198.659 18.597) 9.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.506. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.306.7% #N/A Year 6 24.020. 2006) (Luciano.795 Year 1 (19.149.381. Datamatic.448.191 13.

510.959 93 .510.510.510.095 Year 9 52.510.095 Total 259.623 Year 8 52.758.095 Total 274.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.Year 7 28.941.805) Year 7 25.693 Year 7 27.643.124.386 Year 7 13.510.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 9 52.790 Year 8 52.422.510.095 Total 238.193.510.510.060 Year 8 52.405.510.510.095 Total (16.940 Year 8 52.095 Year 10 52.355.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.510.

327 (9.138) Year 3 10.219) (8.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data. 2006) (Henry.661.044.818.274) 6.854. 2006) (Perez.583) Year 1 (11.649.684.668) Year 1 (41.612) 4.752.191 13. 2006) (Luciano.703 10.669.385.020.028 Year 3 (28.293.381.326.835.107.327.998) 7.023 94 .354) Year 4 15.970.934.809) 10. AAA Revenue.306.907.272) (21.858 (12.457.969) (11.110 11.735 Year 5 22.701 14.001 7.610 Year 6 26.095.148 17.824) Year 2 5.452.921 (22.747.369.223 10.505.597) 9.956.506.037 9.558 Year 2 (33.564.208.341) 13.588.560.659 18. 2006) (Luciano.807) (16.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.298 Year 2 7.319.788) 7.484.665) Year 6 24.444) (27.746.424.663.696 Year 6 (14.680.766.595 12.927.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.443 12.128 23.672.213.590.841.351.691 12.746.917.801) Year 1 (19.865 (18.674) (28.543.390 (17.851.087 17.342 Year 4 (23.839 (4.029.623.448.467) (39.407) 4.752.596 28.179.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.821 Year 5 (18.167 14.754 8.160 16.112 15.539) Year 5 19.647 Year 4 17.023 9.724 12.386.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.005.319.370) 6.064 Year 3 12.412.669.046 13. (Gomez and Morera.067.198.149.459.404) 18.582.454.872) 15.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .725.886 16.433. Datamatic.399.265.396.714 10. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.638 (11.575.738.

604.181.196.604.095 32.196.940 (8.292 17.638 34.961 Year 7 27.374 Year 8 52.095 32.805) NPV (34.033 Year 10 52.831 Total 259.604.510.638 34.638 34.623 17.638 34.386 NPV 173.196.604.600.638 34.196.405.095 32.Year 7 28.510.643.027.703.638 34.552 NPV 170.817 95 .728.638 34.196.196.604.638 34.604.858.196.095 32.033 Year 9 52.196.095 32.885.124.510.814) (8.422.196.033 Year 8 52.040.313) Year 7 25.604.604.701.638 34.536) Total 238.033 Total 274.492 18.255.604.510.361.095 32.095 32.510.941.095 32.767.196.033 Year 9 52.638 34.047 Year 7 13.033 Year 10 52.033 Year 10 52.638 34.355.693 NPV 145.095 32.106 NPV 152.471.095 32.510.510.095 32.196.033 Year 8 52.332.959 NPV 162.079) NPV (35.922 Total (16.510.758.604.647 NPV 182.510.196.510.518 16.060 17.510.033 Year 10 52.790 15.638 34.033 Year 8 52.033 Year 9 52.604.881.193.604.856.033 Year 9 52.510.095 32.

000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 $40.000) ($30.000.000) ($50.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000.000 $20.000 $10.000) ($40.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000 $30.000.000.000) ($20.000 $50.000 $0 ($10.

000.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.00 $250.00 ($100.00 $0.000.00 $100.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.00) ($150.000.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.000.000.000.00 $200.000.00 $150.

00 ($50.000.000.000.00) ($100.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.00 $50.000.000.000.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .000.000.000.000.00 $0.00) ($150.00) ($200.00 $250.000.000.00 $200.000.00 $100.000.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .00 $150.

PRASA currently employs 4. 2005). East. the government contracted two private companies. they began looking into improving their billing and data storage system in order to maintain better records of meter information and customer records. receiving all of its funding from water service revenue (Andres Garcia. at different times. causing it to acquire massive amounts of debt towards the end of their contracts. At the same time. This technology will allow them to read meters from a distance and in greater numbers. is in charge of the water supply on the island of Puerto Rico (McPhaul. PRASA launched several programs to improve their current situation. and Metro. West. From the mid 90’s to 2004. 2/10/2006). After this re-acquisition. a year after the change over. The company has a series of directors that are in charge of their respective divisions that report directly to the president. The Authority is now a public corporation that is 100% governmentally controlled. Since its inception in the 1940s until the mid 1990’s it was a government run company. The companies did little for the authority.500 employees who are spread across the company’s 5 regions: North. to run the organization. The authority has a president/CEO that is selected by a board of directors. they began an effort to replace all meters on the island within 7 years. Finance and Operations. The four main divisions within PRASA are: Customer Service. 99 . they started researching AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) technology. Infrastructure. currently a government run entity. personal communication. South.Appendix J: Sponsor Description The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority (PRASA). In 2004 the government ended the privatization of the company which was referred to as “a mess” by the new president. Finally. In 2005.

PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. 1. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. 100 . personal communication. personal communication. government or independent. the water rates increased by 68%. (Andres Garcia.000. Water).600 Pumping Stations. 1.3 million water meters.3 million clients and 1.000 km of sewer lines. (Andres Garcia. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. 60 waste water treatment plants.200 km of water lines. 2006. and in July of 2006.000. 6. 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful