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

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

.......................................... 21 3........... 17 2.............................................................. 39 iv ....................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................1 Interview with System Administrators ..........................................................................................................................................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................3.....................................................3 Water Meter Management ....... 34 4.... 20 3................................................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ...................................... 5 2...............................................3....1.............................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement.............................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan ..............1 Customer Survey..........1.. 24 3................................................................................................................... 23 3................1 Water Resources ............................................................... 24 3...........1 Customer Survey...........2.......................2.................................................... 27 4.................................. 4 2.....................3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations ....................................................2 Other Meter Replacements .................... 27 4..................... 15 2..................................................................................................... i Authorship ................2.. 7 2............................................................................................2 Island Considerations................................................1.....3.....1........... 27 4................................................................3....2 Evaluation of Information System ................... 23 3.................................................Table of Contents Abstract.............................. 31 4....... 24 3...........................................................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan .............1 Flow Meters ................. 4 2................................................................................................................................ 9 2.........................2 Evaluation of Current Information System ......................................................................................................3 Puerto Rico’s Water System ..........4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ..................................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations .......................................1 Flow Meter Importance........................................2.................................. iii Table of Contents .............. vi Table of Tables .............................................................2 Director Interviews ........ ii Acknowledgments ......................................................1............................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology.........................3 PRASA............................................1............................................................. iv Table of Figures.......................1 Interview with Administrators .............................................. 37 4...................................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan .........................2....................... 16 2..................................................................................................... 32 4...................................................... 16 2.................................................................... 22 3.1 Chapter 2: Background......................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans..1..........................................................................3 Plan Comparisons ....................... 20 3.........................................................................................................4 2...........3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan.................................................................1.....1.......................................................1...............3..............1 General Replacement Considerations ................ 7 2..... 20 3. viii Chapter 1: Introduction .................................

......................1 Meter Replacement Strategies ...........2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology............................................................................1....................... 99 v .......................................................................... 66 Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data .. 41 5.5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done .......... 41 5.......................... 42 5......................... 56 Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region .......................... 45 Appendices....................................... 63 Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region............ 49 Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire ............................................. 44 References .................... 69 Appendix J: Sponsor Description.............................2 Information System Recommendations...................................................................................................................................................................................1............................................................................................ 39 5............................ 43 5.....................1 Metering Technology...4 Meter Testing ............................. 58 Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region............... 39 5...............................................................................................1............. 49 Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire ................................................... 54 Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe ............1......................................................................................1..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 Meter Replacement Timeline............5....... 51 Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas.............................................. 61 Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region........................................................................................................................................

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

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

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

the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. Finally.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. 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. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology.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.6 Million. 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 $187.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. Currently. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. 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. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix . We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. As PRASA continues to replace meters. In light of this. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money.

representative samples could be tested every few years.testing program. x . each region would select enough meters to represent the health of the system. While not every meter can be tested. Through random sampling or other such methods. An evaluation of PRASA’s current information system was originally planned. 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. 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. The opinions of the customers are very important to PRASA. and it was unnecessary for us to proceed with the investigation. 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. They plan to finish the upgrade process in 3 years. Testing allows meter life to be calculated instead of estimated. the PRASA data center had already collected bids for a new system and is currently in the process of analyzing them. The affected customer can then be notified of an impending meter change and interruption of service via an insert in the monthly bill. regions could accurately predict whether the current replacement timeline needs adjustment. However. It was our opinion that they had the situation under control. These recommendations will help PRASA to improve their replacement effort and meter management while also reducing the Authority’s costs. Once a replacement interval is established. and 64% indicated their preferred method of notification was postal mail. meaning that meters can be replaced more economically.

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

In 2005.000 water meters. PRASA also realizes the importance of having correctly functioning meters. Since December 2005. but is wary of proceeding with a full change-over due in part to the costs associated with such an endeavor. 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. a large number of them have been buried. This poses significant problems when the meter is due for reading or replacement. Human errors. PRASA understands the importance of AMR technology to the future of the organization. but also inaccurate. information system. the authority replaced over 130. Water authorities around the world are switching to newer. the company released a Request for Proposals from AMR companies in the hopes of initiating a move to a new reading system. PRASA has received several estimates from related companies. the company will need to determine whether the benefits of the system outweigh the initial costs. and meter-reading technology. and are able to read meters and bill customers with much improved accuracy and spend fewer man hours reading meters. For the success of the 2 .PRASA’s revenue generation abilities are hindered by several factors including their replacement plan. In order to continue with the modifications to the system. along with the occasional inability to actually locate the meter. and is currently involved in small pilot programs on several parts of the island. In late 2005. the archaic meter-reading system is the most problematic for the authority. relocated. The pilot programs have been running for several months. A reading system of this type is not only inefficient. or overtaken by plant growth. Of these issues. PRASA recognizes that AMR is the next step. Currently. The current replacement effort is moving forward. often lead to incorrect readings and therefore incorrect billing. but no conclusions have been made. however. more efficient Automated-Meter-Reading Technologies (AMR). the plan in use may not be the most effective. Of the meters installed before 2005.

These recommendations will enable the company to conserve money that would normally be spent on inefficient meter reading and replacement procedures. PRASA should locate all missing or buried meters. This will increase the annual revenue allowing the company to focus more resources on serving the customer. along with any future replacement.current venture. 3 . 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. as well as increase revenue and ensure customer satisfaction.

Detection).1. Finally. 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.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. 2. A flow meter provides reliable water usage measurement. Many aspects must be considered in order to create a successful plan. 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. 1996.1 Flow Meter Importance Correctly billing the customer is the primary use for a flow meter (Allender. Block rate billing. Water meters are a large part of a water meter replacement plan. 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. This chapter will present this information as it relates to Puerto Rico. This enables the water authority to accurately bill customers so that the funds necessary to maintain the system are collected. the meter is needed for much more than that. 2. Puerto Rico is in a unique situation concerning the water authority.Chapter 2: Background Creating a water meter replacement plan is not a task to be taken lightly. It allows the water utility to properly measure how much water a specific house or business has used and charge them appropriately. Replacement strategies are also an important part of a meter replacement plan. like PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) these bills are their only source of income. For some utilities. 4 . as well as the technological issues that must be dealt with is necessary in choosing the right water meter.

p. then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. the result can be a cave in. Armed with this knowledge. 2002.1). 2004. They can report the water usage for a community. Bhardwaj. revenue is lost. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. p. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield. Moreover.1.3). The display 5 . it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. If the water meter is accurate. 1996. Bhardwaj. Optimum). the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs.60). This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. 2004. functioning flow meters are necessary. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns. p. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea.000 a year in water bills. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. 2. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated. In order for this kind of billing to be possible. Horsman & Hanson. 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.which charges for the specific amount of water used. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200.

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

3 million meters. or reveal personal information. however. 2/9/2006). This section will discuss general meter replacement concerns. 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. Also. 2. What worked well for one city could fail for another. a few guidelines have been compiled that experts in the 7 . an effort to change over to automatic meter reading. In the past. PRASA uses manual reading on their 1.2. specifically using radio transmitters.2 Meter Replacement Considerations Replacing water meters is not an easy task. They feel that a radio broadcaster in their house could put their health at risk. the range decreases until it ceases to broadcast. There is. people have expressed concerns about potential risks.1 General Replacement Considerations There is no meter replacement plan that will work for every situation. management issues such as the economic life of a meter must be understood for any plan to be successful. especially the range.communication. which is another added cost to consider. There are many issues that need to be addressed before meters are bought and replacements are done. Currently. Reviewing solutions from other locations is a good way to understand the ideas behind a good replacement plan. Nevertheless. This effort is being made easier by the fact that all of the meters are on public property. encompassing much more land and containing thousands more miles of pipes than most systems. 2. radio broadcasting requires a license. All aspects of the transmitter are reliant on battery life. As the battery wears down. Puerto Rico’s water system is very complex compared to other water systems. review past meter replacement efforts and discuss a few management issues. Finally.

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

Testing the meters a while after replacement.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. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. 2/9/2006). The meters that served the 40. 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. but could be adapted to work. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. This. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. 2. personal communication. however. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. 1993. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. 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. This is the strategy used by a small town.age. Fewer meters will fail at the same time.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. 9 . for example. would not work with so many water meters. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico.2. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. Anatomy). A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. Additionally.

000 different clients. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. so a boost in available personnel. only for new houses or completely broken meters. Michigan. 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. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. Like Atlantic City. Research). 1996. was in a similar situation (Jackson. a significant amount of water and revenue.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. To alleviate this problem. 1996. Meter replacements were rare. Pontiac. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. 1993. and the 10 . Anatomy). Research). they decided to use radio frequency meters. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. 1996. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. they were purchasing water from another city. 1996. causing customer complaints. 1996. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. At the same time. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. In the end. Their aging meters served about 20. Benefits). Meter Replacement). Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years.65 billion gallons. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. Aging Meters). average billable water readings jumped from 3. and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth.05 billion to 3. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City.

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

they continued to check for meters that 12 . 3/1/2006). estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology. Meters that are 5/8". Currently. Personal Communication. to radio meters. Beyond 1”. Like Toronto. 3/1/2006). In the Toronto area.000 over the next four years. Purpose). the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years. 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. 2002. If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up. doing 5. some readings are estimated. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period.000 the second. the larger diameter a meter has. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. Conclusion).In the end. 2002. This will result in a more satisfied customer base. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20.500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8. 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. Additionally. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. the more frequently it is tested. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process.000 meters replaced in a year. including non metered accounts. Due to this. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons.000 to 63. These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. It was also recommended that all 8. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. The first was to upgrade all accounts.000 the first year and 10. Replacements in Tampa. Personal Communication.

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

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

turning more and more on electronic or wireless meter reading protocols to expedite the reading process. An important thing to keep in mind is that each meter is part of a larger network. 15 . However. 2000. that same problem might be happening somewhere else. However. 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. Countless other states and counties are beginning to replace antiquated water meters in the same fashion. Personal Communication. solving their problem as quickly as possible.3 Water Meter Management Knowledge of how to maintain so many meters is crucial to keeping the system working (Schlenger. something that could happen with short term and long term priority replacement (Henry Chen. Short term priority replacement solves the issue of price inequality but was deemed to require too much money and resources (Henry Chen. The process Seattle went through is a good example of weighing available resources against desired outcomes and making a compromise. 2.2. 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.Testing until failure reduces the risk of replacing a meter with life left on it. so a compromise was made in order to meet the resource requirements and still solve the problem in an adequate amount of time. Personal Communication. This is something that Puerto Rico may have to consider the needs of the customer and the water authority. If one meter is having a problem. they cannot be considered individual pieces. The second option is the most desirable method. Encompassing All Aspects). it was not possible due to the money and resources necessary. 3/26/2006). Long term priority replacement was their final choice. 3/26/2006).

2. they have a very complex water distribution system. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. Finally.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. 1996. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run.3.393). p. 2004. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. In the case of Anne Arundel County.25 per meter per year. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. 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. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. Optimum). Despite being a small island.1).2 and 183. In addition to this.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. old meters were costing up to $13. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. In general.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. Maryland. Commercial. 1996. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. p. 2. their island concerns and the history of PRASA. being an island presents water concerns of its own.3 MGD respectively.

Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. Their replacement 17 . should and do monitor their water supply.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. Currently. their people are concentrated in one area. Despite this.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island. 2. Currently. 2000. Puerto Rico included. personal communication.3). 2/3/2006).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. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22. Even for the cities that have a similar population. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers.3. 2000. 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. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand.3). p. 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. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. Most islands. 2.3. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. p. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island.

11). The first company. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. 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. 2005) By 2004. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. 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. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. (McPhaul. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. p. 18 . Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. During these times of drought. Aside from service problems. On top of this. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. p. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. 2/3/2006). personal communication.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. which rose to $695 million in 2001. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. Ondeo and Vivendi. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002. Vivendi. the EPA fined them $6. Ondeo (Blasor. 11). 2002. 2002.1). 2004.

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

3 million meters. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. 3. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. To do this.1. 3. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. Lastly. Additionally.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. 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. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard. The questionnaire 20 . This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005.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. 2006. 318). the organization planed to replace 200. PRASA replaced 100. 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. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans.000. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. In 2006. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system. At the same time. In other words.

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

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

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. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. Information concerning pricing.1. vehicle costs. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement. 3.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA.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. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered. Using these figures. discounts on bulk purchases. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. preventing PRASA from 23 . accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems. 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. 3. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA. Costs on the current expenses. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions.

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

000 meters. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well.was for that area and how successful the plan was in meeting their needs. 3. 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.3. 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 method was chosen because it allowed the sponsors to give feedback on recommendations and enabled creation of the best plan possible for the authority. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently. but came from a town with 20. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 .2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques.

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

Service Reliability and Interruptions. director survey. This chapter will focus on the analysis and presentation of our findings. Finally. Water Consumption Knowledge and 42% 22% 7% 24% Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA lastly. 4. 27 .1 Customer Survey In total. In this chapter. 4.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement The purpose of this evaluation was to gain an understanding of the current system as well as its major problems.1. our observations on the information system will be explained. The information collected from the questionnaires was separated into four different categories: Overall Rating of PRASA. The main points of the plan comparisons will be detailed and the results of the cost benefit analysis will be presented. but many people did not have the time to fill out a questionnaire.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. 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. we describe the results of our customer and director surveys. In general. people were willing to give us their opinions of PRASA. replacement plan evaluation and the cost-benefit analysis. This section will present our findings on the customer survey. Pricing.

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

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

emerges in this graph as well. Price Rating The same trend. A similar number of people. 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 . that is. respondents can be grouped into four categories. meaning neither category influenced their overall satisfaction more than the other. When the numbers are compared side by side. 41%.Overall Satisfaction vs.Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction About 42% of people rated their reliability and pricing equally with their overall satisfaction. Only 14% said that reliability was the larger contributor and the 30 . people rating their overall satisfaction low when they rate their water prices fair. indicated that price was a larger factor than reliability in their overall reliability rating.Satisfaction VS Pricing 6 Satisfaction Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Price Rating Figure 3 .

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

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

PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1.3 million. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. 33 . The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas. Currently. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. Tampa only has around 120. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing.699 people. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. Additionally. Additionally. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment. but do not always use. the beds are very expensive.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider. This method. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. Currently.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. making testing every meter on the island impractical.

1% 100% PRASA cost documents. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement.1. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. 4. such as contracting with a private company.5 Million $187. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems.3 Million $197. to determine the overall costs of each. This system. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. From internal Table 1 . including the current system.3 Million $438. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order.% 65. This works for most areas. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand.4% 915. could be adapted but would not be cost effective.1% 0% 623.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. Some techniques. over the course of 10 years.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. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority.6 Million 1303% 214. but they can be adapted to work.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. Five different systems were analyzed.3% -0. will cost 34 . or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money.

significantly lower than the current reading cost.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. Thirdly. they are a very high-tech company. including the AMCO Meters. and system optimization.1 Million. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1.3 Million for a 10-system kit. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. There is. On-Site training. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. however.6 Million. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle. or around $11.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly.760. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. If they were to switch to another meter. a major drawback. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. This system. it would cost around $141. Additionally. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221.3 Million. For the same system. and personnel 35 . ten Mobile AMR systems. different transmitters would be needed. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. Badger AMR hardware and software. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. To use a fixed-network system. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines.PRASA around $88. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438.35 Million meters.

000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. at the least. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. Again. with 10 mobile AMR systems.500. This means that. 330. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. This system. If this system did not represent such a large investment.training. Besides this issue. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. accurately. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. it would be a reliable choice. Additionally. if this system is chosen. 36 .7 Million.5 Million. would cost about $197. The system. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply.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. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. However. using the same transmitters. but time as well. raising the total cost for this system by 7. However.5 Million dollars. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. any meters installed after January 1st. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. 2007. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. This system is very similar to the other Badger system. $7. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one.

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

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

we performed an evaluation of their current practices. Simply by switching to any AMR system. 5. PRASA will 39 . we formed conclusions and recommendations to help PRASA improve their meter management practices and information system. specifically. no longer uses efficient reading practices. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete. The current system. and widely used.1.1 Meter Replacement Strategies The majority of this project dealt with meter replacement strategies. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues. To this end. Based on this.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. processes relating to customer service were investigated. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use. This section will detail our conclusions about each system. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. The current reading practices cost PRASA around 11 million per year which is significantly more than the costs to use the newer AMR systems. 5. Additionally. for around 10 years. an investigation of other water authorities. 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.

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. represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. Based on these evaluations. While being the cheapest system. This represents at the very least a $7. 40 . Additionally.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. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. To use this system. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. Similarly. Adding this to the already expensive $197. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system.500. This cost is a large one. 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. and certainly more difficult to recover from.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system.

PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. they could replace 217. At the end of the year. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. Meters close to 41 .2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed.269.3 Meter Replacement Timeline PRASA would like to be able to replace every meter on the island within a timeframe of 6 to 7 years. In March. If PRASA is within 20. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology.1. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. Continuing their current trend. 5.1. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. In order to do this. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip.164 meters per month.000 to 30. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology.967 meters by the end of this year. starting in 2006. they should continue.000 meters a month. These numbers average 18.000 meters should be replaced each year. According to data received during the plan comparison.000 meters of their goal.225 meters and in February they replaced 21. meters should be replaced in groups. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. they replaced roughly 18. If not. In January they replaced 15. the goal and the actual number should be compared. Given this information.000 meters. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. an average of 200. In order to facilitate this replacement. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter.5.

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

1. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. for example. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others. removing the need to hire more workers. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. If. The current meter 43 . This way.A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. 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. If the work is too much. that region should replace their meters less often. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. through testing. If the increase in work is minimal. 5. It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests. replacing the meters sooner. replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement. This will ensure that a meter is replaced once it begins to underestimate water usage. A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians. the replacement should be stepped up. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data.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. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. If this is so. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test.

Based on the amount of progress the data center has already made and the level of competence we saw in the data center administrators. To save postage. Any possible concerns or conflicts could be dealt with prior to the work. during which their meter would be replaced. These recommendations. The preferred method of notification as indicated by 64% of the customers was postal mail. They hope to have the upgrade process completed within three years. Customers would be given a window of time. These two pieces of information can be combined and the customer could be informed approximately when services like meter replacement would happen. 44 . 5. the PRASA data center is in the process of collecting and analyzing bids for a new system. PRASA should continue on its present course in the information system area without any changes. the notification could be sent with the water bill in the form of an insert to catch the customers’ attention. will help improve meter management and customer satisfaction by better utilizing resources and information. coupled with the experience and talent employees at PRASA.2 Information System Recommendations While PRASA is using relatively old software and slightly newer hardware that should be replaced.replacement plan states that meters needing replacement in the near future are searched for in the database.

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

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

2006 from http://www.pnl. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Anthony M. & Bhardwaj. 59(12).html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). Retrieved Jan 30th.pridco. Unpublished IQP report. from http://www. (2000). Darren. (2002). 25. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. (2006). IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. MA.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan. Water (http://www. 23. (2004. Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. Donald L. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria.nesc. 19. (2002).. Water engineering & management. (2004). Worcester. Smith. It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed. (2006). Schlenger.. & Hanson Eric.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile. Puerto Rico. Dale.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly. 21.polarisinstitute. 14-15. specifically the section on metering. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance. (2005). Plant Engineering.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Kendra. Department of Energy. 26. Puerto Rico.wvu.S.com/english/operational_advantages/4.3opr_adv_infrastructure. 2006. Retrieved Feb 20th. Retrieved on Jan 30th.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533.acueductospr. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. Satterfield. 47 . 37. Vipin. 24. Horsman. 2006. Shea. U. June). Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so. 2006 from http://www.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. Puscas. Water Meters. Zane. Retrieved Jan 30th. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. 147(8).htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. WPI.

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

el precio de agua es apropiado. como parte de un proyecto educativo. Se me factura por la cantidad de agua que uso. una universidad de los Estados Unidos. También. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 5. En general. como electricidad. y por la Autoridad en un intento de mejorar servicio a sus clientes. Comparado a lo que pago por otras utilidades. Usualmente. 1. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 3. Será administrado por estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 4. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 2. No sé exactamente la cantidad de agua que uso. toda de esta información será privada y anónima. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 49 . 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. estoy satisfecho con el servicio que ofrece la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA).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. se me factura por menos agua de la que uso. La información obtenida de este estudio sólo será usada para los propósitos del proyecto.

Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. Durante el día. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7. ¿Ha tenido unos problemas sobre que debemos saber? Por Favor. Debo estar notificado por: Correo Teléfono En Persona Correo Electrónico Toda de Estas Maneras 9. el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13. cuando ocurrieron. Se me notifica. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 10. fueron corregidas pronto. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. con tiempo suficiente. sobre algún trabajo que la AAA va a realizar y me va a dejar sin agua. Algunas interrupciones de servicio. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 . Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8.6.

por favor conteste las preguntas lo más completa y honradamente que pueda. 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. 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. Los contadores usados ahora están los mejores por usar con AMR. 1) Por favor. AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible. 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 es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer. no-técnicos. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. 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.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.

¿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. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. 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. Debe haber menos técnicos. 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 . no-técnicos.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los 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.Customer Survey Results .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 2.8 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.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 2.9 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 2.26 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.

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

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 .Ponce 56 .Customer Survey Results .

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 .Satisfaction with Service in Ponce 10% 30% 27% 33% Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 7 .Ponce 57 .

c yes b/obs yes a.Results from Director Interview .c.b.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 yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes yes a.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.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.b.

Technicians Present for Meter Replacement – Metro Region 59 .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 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 .

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 .

d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.b.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.Metro Region 61 .Results from Director Interview .

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 .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region 62 .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 .

b.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 .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.

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 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 .Satisfaction with the Current Meters .Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region 64 .

South Region 65 .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 .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 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.Opinions on Current Reading Technology .5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .West Region 67 .5 3 2.West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .5 2 1.Opinions on Current Meter Technology .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .5 1 0.

Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .5 1 0.5 3 2.5 0 123451234 512345123 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement Figure 22 .West Region 68 .Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.5 2 1.

77 277.53 1.13 294.9 1.16 1.Current and Future (PRASA.37 569. 2006.135.584.35 > 35 > 10 0.71 19.607.65 2.43 31.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.45 0 Fase 2 21.18 26.70 0 Fase 2 10.6 2.58 50.41 Fase 2 1.97 786.64 171.258.84 94.63 1.88 1.56 1.09 1.65 4.44 1.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.162.73 53.03 910.35 > 35 11 .869.11 384.93 1.23 36.86 77. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .15 16 .49 131.13 1.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.15 16 .6 1.61 2.51 22.85 213.87 123.28 Industrial 1.09 638.22 85.07 1.45 0 69 .456.991.13 1.67 2.95 38.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 .6 16.Water Rates .67 11.1 1.72 107.84 461.33 61.013.

58 $1.70 42 3.201.394.00 0.71 1783 1.38 0.04 0.15 799 429. Precio Costo Estimada A 177. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 306.16 0.87 0.00 58 249.792. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 3.00 2 1.39 $1.82 $1.843.85 0.562. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.450.00 1.00 Real B 9 37.053.494.00 Estimada C 58.Consumption Figures Table 9 .00 0.851.00 42.61 70 .873.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8. 2006) 3 264.00 1 13.34 $1.00 4 65.28 189.90 0.45 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.14 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.367.119.31 $1.71 1430 137.00 46.00 0.70 0.42 0.00 0.79 $1.922.61 $1.00 45 2.90 3.00 32.90 0.96 0.95 0.47 $1.00 2 4.339.20 $1.00 Estimada B 9.36 3098 209.90 0.00 3 1.97 48 3.00 372.11 $1. AAA Revenue. B. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.081. C.90 0.74 0.77 0.36 2521 246.148.793.00 Real A 125 39.Consumption Figures – A.28 829.441.28 299.90 0.28 2. F.347.00 20 5.65 $1.218.28 439.39 655 558.00 694.17 1939 120.717.00 32 95.07 1908 999.00 10 1.11 0.466.219. G (Luciano.90 5.784.180.00 0.00 18 274.03 Real C 49908 56.49 $1.636.

292.099.90 1.00 2 7.543.00 0.28 1.410.43 13 30.00 195.074.00 11.00 0.00 3 5.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.970.705.88 0.63 $1.00 312.55 5 25.00 0.111.631.809.00 24.36 $14.90 761.67 $1.28 593.334.02 $1.00 0.00 245.89 0.63 6 29.18 $1.00 4 5.00 132.99 0.49 $9.476.45 0.398.615.25 0.480. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 223.00 106. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 762.00 862.96 0.830.00 0.00 12.23 $1.505.00 123 6.996.90 0.824.891.565.775.45 66. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.37 56.17 0.00 0.827.84 71 .98 $1.49 15 30.00 31.653.39 0.32 119 7.

00 2.558.919.00 166.44 $1.90 $304.94 2.851.818.523.45 550 461.90 3.95 328 621.236.504.349.69 $2.43 0.36 $470.00 0.180.686.25 3.062.08 38 1.23 1136 1.60 1.643.22 0.90 $5.00 86.502.60 1001 265.668.295.649.00 0.90 $4.95 265 194.33 Real Total 53.58 57 1.727.00 0.391.18 $1.15 $1.648.513.140.443.355.32 247.136.77 80.90 859.00 84.55 105.769.00 3.062.091.00 1.74 $1.52 4.49 $1.072.70 128 4.00 72 .126.90 1.00 481.14 659.00 0.90 $921.414.00 144.90 $444.784.94 300.06 $1.02 0.157.222.34 983.00 23.00 0.99 0.99 $1.00 256.350.62 955.37 $414.00 9.00 135.31 2.00 5.90 Estimada Total 64.029.76 $1.00 22.451.67 1.00 0.90 $2.80 $1.00 236.488.253.90 107.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.00 0.184.26 26 13.492.00 1.00 1.00 6.26 0.178.95 3.522.87 $1.145.466.833.15 $7.710.68 $1.00 115.094.94 $1.446.91 $1.090.23 0.00 64.95 $1.184.91 177 4.95 0.846.07 0.444.912.00 2.945.43 41 16.082.031.17 1629 264.745.90 98.706.889.879.92 56.695.87 $1.87 0.90 Real G 4004 112.421.482.013.34 $6.90 505.198.811.501.83 $1.00 590.00 819.111.35 $1.00 445.610.14 $1.067.00 Estimada G 5.14 507 149.26 $1.68 39.18 1735 1.00 Real F 1 8.90 387.173.086.635.00 1.90 $1.71 $1.503.

00 1.00 1.781.44 63.268.00 59.87 $0.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.662.489.955.90 4 92.00 9.90 11.148.30 $1.02 $22.22 $8.048.11 $10.685.00 589.24 $1.5 192.60 $949.713.343.930.44 $19.789.00 451.98 0.00 1.95 $0.406.12 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).00 110. C (comercial).633. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .28 $2.408.621.158.00 8.00 208.534.888.825.00 171.63 9.08 6.29 10.28 704.623.286.73 77.

Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.11 71.798.20 1.28 770 1.747. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.67 451.87 2.01 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.94 368.600.551.00 30.16 123.108.Consumption Figures .955.02 301.695.84 72.570.07 2.34 1.361.I.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.92 1.800.28 85.67 37 0. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.025.85 2.12 240 711.67 0.67 29.Table 10 .86 1 5.66 1 3.35 2.43 1.16 Real P 39673 32. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.16 128.39 2.763.49 140.374.00 6 10.00 17 14.66 795 902.759.00 10 18.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.039.525.16 Estimada R 1.69 299.377.75 2.48 1.54 269 515.570.34 18 7.198.444.600.311.00 27 0.52 55 224.86 2.783.469.16 0.50 2.69 1.16 227. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.45 146 390.54 1.015.67 Estimada P 50.413.87 2.01 4661 16.81 1082 118.67 137.67 1.95 74 1.16 32.16 277.67 Real I 161 110.46 10 763.58 18 7.16 69. P.80 129 564.16 Real R 967258 34.802.53 85.97 12 566.54 1.414.00 84.80 110 698.22 4079 74 .67 390.49 264.10 2.76 110 339.475.085.83 1.65 160 260. R.16 157.123. AAA Revenue.00 30. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.708.67 3.90 2.54 1249 97.489. and Totals (Luciano.16 1.759.430.36 2.67 62.66 1.

86 73.00 2.697.25 12 28.Consumo Prom.526.85 30 31.784.380.20 1.11 529.896.740.785.67 2.04 5.66 20 2.059.67 1.708.404.67 12.15 0.00 30.57 4 1.312.85 101 9.515.754.206.71 30 32.61 559.26 19 2.87 2.30 1.03 1.051.606.858.47 2.591.53 2.085.733.243.75 5.00 39.67 209.66 543.821.45 4 1.61 2.67 34.770.00 2.16 23.16 60.292.88 1.24 0.488.67 0.808.00 15.184. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.00 0.27 73.00 32.749.33 94.932.00 94.88 0.119. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.29 2.16 1.321.898.50 1.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.00 34.010.79 0.44 1.425.00 1.16 1.316.770.27 876.133.16 1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.48 12 27.720.67 1.825.376.353.08 2.90 3.16 12.00 972.702.16 55.313.092.223.646.638.388.06 2.77 75 .16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.67 0.71 1.882.75 1.98 1.333.00 50.38 105 10.00 31.00 0.27 15.

82 1.48 334.19 1.188.172.25 425.18 1.Estimada Total 1.86 1.157.00 2.30 125.201.442.53 4.026.305.00 4 10.823.00 97.549.004.89 294.894.752.00 4 2.459.032.89 Total 6 Months 2.00 56.00 125.75 543.16 1.98 1.73 4.59 203.700.00 3.849.29 792.98 Real Grand Total 1.785.380.00 193.561.376.00 118.26 574.00 131.12 6.96 73.84 7.18 160.006.679.549.71 6.32 546.00 4.31 4.00 612.498.708.081.06 1.186.00 17.336.60 425.87 7.708.04 74.605.53 4.74 75.00 489.00 474.00 752.061.56 30.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.27 2.757.00 11.759.647.70 16.254.55 5.014.00 2.984.00 404.24 241.552.419.146.413.743.520.007.00 4 76 .21 90.04 367.00 181.028.49 242.226.336.78 1.906.29 34.451.28 Real Total 1.27 34.00 4 30.00 4 40.31 8.746.72 4.189.424.009.868.00 16.202.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 2.40 4.824.963.828.00 3.00 10.00 573.561.142.98 251.53 79.939.48 1.265.81 1.652.185.700.400.88 4.464.06 1.72 120.198.262.136.359.994.00 76.092.16 90.85 2.00 2.491.76 1.00 71.401.00 4.00 2.00 5.011.491.26 256.791.88 1.31 340.24 10.982.532.79 2.88 7.17 163.16 1.065.00 1.976.825.167.53 9.930.00 362.48 28.80 1.578.00 206.00 64.197.00 156.018.00 4.00 11.11 135.00 4 54.00 4 902.931.638.994.00 59.495.00 48.00 105.594.443.39 13.813.866.706.06 4.23 655.740.267.017.392.133.033.57 1.00 890.980.022.73 8.201.83 80.00 557.146.07 2.00 17.720.00 4.007.391.26 108.94 1.132.474.712.68 135.37 243.707.605.884.189.

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

089.63 (15.43 621.99) 605.323.439.566.63 Year 10 621.259.919.63 621.259.732.732.070.070.259.63 Total 6.259.056.79) (15.720.63 (15.160. (Luciano.20) 610.63 621.070.056.732.160.63 621.64 621.056.056.20) 0.160.056.20) (4.259.070.131.056.473.211.63 (15.63 621.056.089.732.160.070.211.160.99) (11.473.369.439.211.43 621.99) 605.20) (11.592.29 (11.216.720.259.056.797.63 621.369.732.259.369.160.074.160.056.259.20) (11.056.732.070.160.00 (11.439.259.160.160.20) (4.056.99) (11.160.323.056.056.160.056.473.439.323.439.439.160.79) (15.64 621.00 (11.74) (136.056.600.732.74) 6.Current System Costs Table 12 .056.600.070.323.732.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.070.259.056.63 621.056.63 621.99) (11.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .79) (15.63 621.070.070.64 621.20) (4.74) 621.720.160.434.29 (136.056.20) (4.720.600.323.63 621.160.439.439.99) 605.20) 610.29 6.259.056.160.63 (15.20) (4.20) 0.070.00) (26.63 Year 9 621.64 621.43 621.473.160.732.160.63 (11.056.439.160.00 (11.99) 605.160.160.160.79) (15.702.566.99) 621.259.79) (15.089.070.63 621.Net Cash Flow .070.259.566.63 (15.20) 0.369.160.160.259.439.63 (11.473.720.63 621.63 621.160.056.681.797.720.63 621.056.797.64 621.439.99) 605.259.160.259.20) 610.919.63 (15.056.20) (110.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.056.056.070.63 621.056. AAA Revenue.797.473.20) (4.64 Year 7 621.070.070.20) 0.732.63 (11.99) (11.089.439.732.79) (15.056.070.070.259.99) 605.056.160.63 621.434. 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 ` 621.160.20) (11.20) 610.259.323.842.160.63 (11.63 Year 8 621.369.732.00 (11.99) (11.369.43 6.056.160.

40 41.120.971.716.911.72 (21.592.793.39) (57.442.823.614.443.377.00) (52.47 24.64 33.72 10.502.02) (10.910.136.23 Year 8 41.502.52 295.43) (312.314.502.502.768.40 41.59) (51.377. 2006) (Perez.845.40 Total 295.852.440.06 28.970.716.467.911.59) (12.704.72 10.010.718.242.971.440.06 Year 6 33.016.793.439.80) (48.592.793.050.01) (5.780.936.72 10.852.502.592.72 10.322.793.780.314.592.52 (9.502.970.971.992.381.502.212.47 24.217.440. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.314.136. AAA Revenue.793.377.47 Year 5 28.26) (35.302.050.136.217.40 41.793.060.439.716.80) (9.322.828.80) (9. 2006) (Luciano.908.89 Year 4 24.23 37.290.30 Year 3 19.793.64 33.314.502.352.72 10.592.52 295.23) (7.908.72 10.592. 2006) (Henry.592.716.381.762.412.908.23 37.80) (9.970.592.Incremental Cash Flow .254.592.793.80) 10.502.780.80) (48.381.439.72 10.69) 81 .502.524.176.881.716.592.217.644.254.80) (48.72 10.793.40 41.050.716.716.64 33.72 10.941.690.050.845.845.716.23) (7.00) (6.970.01) (5.852.01) (5.793.780. Datamatic.80) (47.793.134.823.80) (9.780.823.72 10.80) (8.750.217.780. 2006) (Luciano.40 41.89 19.30 15.322.793.793.30 15.01) Year 7 37.911.52 295.439.470.136. (Gomez and Morera.72 10.911.050.971.793.217.01) (6.30 15.716.346.502.793.547.845.845.47 24.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.780.716.23) (6.908.Table 13 .06 28.179.40 Year 9 41.72 10.322.80) (47.780.100.177.536.502.592.426.40 Year 10 41.592.716.502.23) (6.793.054.638.823.502.40 41.72 Year 2 15.96) (30.502.381.72 10.377.40 41.780.23) (7.89 19.502.417.852.89 19.23 37.72 10.26) (22.40 41.40 41.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.440.716.780.06 28.

750.439.23 (51.941.23) 24.592.64 (47.921.780.793.467.992.908.754.222.02) 25.193. 2006) (Henry.25 24.623.502.381.716.12 41.852.149.72 52.510.684.596.673.80) 18.780.841.845.592.793.80) (33.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.40 10.72 52.828.095.095.502.12 41.40 10.80) (18.322.43 10.936.470.326.793.693.502.592.23) 5.346. 2006) (Perez.095.793.72 52.970.405.43) 274.26) (19.795.050.160.327.716.47 (48.89 (7.793.314.560.793.80) (14.970.010.23) 10.80) (28.793.64 (5.793.66 19.00) (5.780.440.690.502.84 33.40 10.06 (6.809.439.40 10.971.74) 28.12 41.510.389.322. AAA Revenue.52 (35.212.52 (57.386.407.190.72 52.306.020.217.716.314.059.592.095.80) 28.377.30 (6.592.510.381.417. Datamatic.124.510.095.716.72 52.502.83 28.40 10.935.21 37.095.72 (52.502.87) 295.217.510.12 41.716.095.41 33.502.01) 26.88 41.120.12 24.23) 15.254.59) (13.016.780.958.597.377.659.536.412.510.72 52.908.30 (9.01) 7.136.30 (48.72 52.26 28.72 (30.80) 27.793.716.592.52 (21.941.01) 12.377.718.643.638.592.47 (9.970.971.381.970.40 10.510.524.502.217.439.422.852.649.23) 19.06 (47.40 10.198.050.23 (9.780.793.502.30 (7.72 52.510.440.340.845.663.290.67 24.179.788.502.80) (23.24) 10.50) 15.83 28.26 295.592.780.385.80) 9.910.64 (6.09 295.59) 28.40 10.095.46 295.780.780.100.06 (9.00) (11.738.851.314.845.510.592.442.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .050.911.69) 259.89 (6.440.28) 15.029.095.40 10.72 (15.804.793.716.510.917.644.12 41.823.793.502.823.502.845.672.05 33.355.716.127.136.208.793.12 41.793.054.72 52.377.217.47 (7.762.793. 2006) (Luciano.448.381.322.12 41.72 52.386.426.177.716.52 (312.26) 238.050.064.704.502.443.12 41.12 19.793.852.96) (41.506.47 (5.40 10.592.971.242.64 (8.592.136.72 (22.614.758.23 (10.095.439.716.40 10.352.80) 13.80) 23.36) 37.08 15.502.72 52.12 41.940.06 (5.881.502.790.628.911.908.095.134.716.911.095.09 19.91) 19.502.39) (16.872.381.28) 10.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .403.33) 24.254.50 15.547.510.060.858.89 (48.691.780.16) 33.852. 2006) (Luciano.176.440.64 37.971.89 (9.970.050.780.716.217.768.592.302. 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 37.01) 17.510.322.823.29 41.314.54) 10.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.72 52.908.136. (Gomez and Morera.095.911.12 82 .823.845.23 (12.40 10.01) 22.484.

74) Year 2 $15.36 $48.821.23) $5.403.89 ($48.190.50) $17.377.050.569.362.992.91) $36.738.45 Year 4 $24.09 $18.448.780.381.99) $8. 2006) (Luciano.663.160.01) $17.852.302.780.780.484.06 ($9.386.858.822.788.502. 2006) (Henry.22 Year 2 $15.33) $59.976.439.780.80) ($6.852.326.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .217.502.88 $11.597.029.47 ($48.828.66 (127.754.06 ($47.596.502.050.908.198.89 $25.439.691.377.911.908.851.644.30 ($48.214.050.340.327.389.25 (145.793.597.381.673.020.65) Year 3 $19.01) $7.407.127.560.762.853.06 ($6.89 ($7. AAA Revenue.24) Year 1 $10.208.41 83 .495.72 ($30.46 $31.47 ($7.407.718.08 (103.911.31 Year 3 $19.242.80) ($5.060.252.96) ($41.217.852. Datamatic.869.911.984.050.908.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.921.222.426.841.704.00) ($6.28) ($3.793.176.346. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.30 ($9.322.066.72 ($52.541.502.381.810.80) ($28.80) ($23.29 ($3.23) $19.908.971.28) $9.663.448.971. 2006) (Perez.50 $13.793.872. (Gomez and Morera.99 Year 4 $24.780.385.659.198.176.72 ($22.385.71) Year 5 $28.649.652.442.018.780.971.80) ($5.30 ($7.917.01) $22.26 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 ($5.54) Year 1 $10.290.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.25 Year 5 $28.67 $23.217.179.971.649.80) ($33.24) $3.673.936.810.638.80) Year 3 $19.327.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.120.506.412.684.752.23) $10.054.26) ($19.23) $15.439.322.793.217.421.30 $19.83 ($19.010.00) ($11.01) $12.439.149.47 ($9.352.74) ($41.05 ($11.381.938.47 $28.28 Year 5 $28.377.261.757.593.89 $24.322.28) ($14.061.964.89 ($9.100.377.788.46) Year 2 $15.326.597.322.28) Year 1 $10.027. 2006) (Luciano.911.72 $15.80) ($18.780.379.97) Year 4 $24.381.852.54) ($74.910.780.809.

716.69) $259.823.417.80) $27.941.510.69 Year 6 $33.213.793.845.510.40 $10.693.12 ($16.52 ($21.716.716.254.355.09 Total $295.193.407.134.72 $52.780.99) Year 9 $41.39 ($16.970.12 $185.01) $26.941.064.502.02 Year 8 $41.12 $238.041.502.502.502.795.59) $28.793.85 Year 8 $41.40 $10.23 ($9.Year 6 $33.386.40 $10.72 $52.84 $88.431.895.41 $55.04 Year 7 $37.443.386.64 ($5.87) Total $295.804.124.64 ($8.136.716.14 Year 9 $41.47 Year 8 $41.64 ($6.23 Year 7 $37.510.195.970.592.502.502.12 $259.355.510.693.36) $173.72 $52.09 Year 6 $33.716.12 $121.716.724.87) Year 10 $41.440.23) $24.43) $274.12 $169.87 Year 6 $33.385.845.11 Year 8 $41.623.117.592.40 $10.177.716.502.52 ($35.40 $10.193.095.16) $160.989.716.703.72 $52.592.21 $80.405.845.958.793.90 Year 7 $37.217.510.26 Year 10 $41.83 Total $295.804.510.136.12 $221.592.547.40 $10.793.958.510.212.598.314.863.592.768.592.71 Year 10 $41.72 $52.592.768.40 $10.502.26) $238.059.72 $52.050.510.73 Year 7 $37.793.095.095.43 $102.12 $207.440.592.510.40 $10.40 $10.095.72 $52.716.095.422.716.793.790.825.59) ($13.23 ($12.80) ($14.12 $133.502.095.524.095.12 $274.40 $10.940.405.823.095.793.52 ($57.793.02) $25.72 $52.83 84 .617.467.050.095.52 $312.592.100.510.845.095.845.793.40 $10.63 $74.136.536.970.628.440.440.12 ($68.614.12 $154.314.095.845.941.592.592.899.470.592.503.970.095.502.080149.09 Year 10 $41.26 Total $295.80) $28.59 Year 9 $41.673.700.793.23 ($10.716.72 $52.72 $52.921.935.64 ($47.23 ($51.40 $10.72 $52.314.998.314.875.290.823.335.780.136.672.502.016.090.823.306.643.716.690.510.881.97 Year 9 $41.64 $116.254.72 $52.793.758.510.411.502.970.793.095.750.

100) ($6.598) Years Year 2 $15.596 $28.976 $88.412.176) ($19.911.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.440.781) ($5.322.027. 2006) (Perez.911.322.060.793.066.597) $9.503 $15.809) $17.767.821.176.781) ($14.704.597) 1.306.768.503 ($52.810.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.381.984.908 ($48. AAA Revenue.377 ($47.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.781) ($18.841.718.908 $28.095.674) ($74.846 ($47.846 ($8.160835902 $31.134.050) $10.852.448.448.788) N/A Year 1 $10.851.853. (Gomez and Morera.215) ($160.381.872) $59.484.117.503 ($30. 2006) (Henry.700.908 ($9.440.386.781) ($5.341) $36.352.Payback Period Table 16 .191 $13.440 ($48.793.363) 3.752) Years ($3.080.020.381.380 6.674) 3.781) ($6.322.828.950470057 Year 4 $24.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.788) $3.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15. Datamatic.377 $33.921 ($103.495 6.327.198.120.236658937 $11.971 ($48.911.852.53199599 Year 1 $10.53199599 Year 3 $19.663.208.917. 2006) (Luciano.050) $19.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.781) ($5.440 ($9.971 ($9.781) ($28.672.385.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.992.793.440 $24.644.618 85 .811) FALSE Year 4 $24.236658937 ($14.659 $18.440.050) $24.936.377 ($9.390 ($127.971 $19.560.061.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.252 1.385. 2006) (Luciano.781) ($23.198.781) ($33.029.128 $23.404) Year 6 $33.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.822 $55.536.663.858 ($145.010.302.242.050) $5. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.050) $15.852.179.291) ($41.426.738.327 Year 6 $33.326.381.593 Years Year 2 $15.

503 $52.910) ($11.875.703.510.970.255) ($13.467.964.510.614.750) $274.417.510.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.805) Year 7 $37.653) Years $8.911.846 ($6.385.793.314 ($51.050 Year 7 $37.193.503 $52.470.895.054.440.989.691 Year 5 $28.223 Year 4 $24.592 $10.716.137 ($312.970.101 $169.643.443) 86 .793.970.314 ($12.716.510.442.193.095 Total $295.592 $10.405.592 $10.941) ($16.852.724.649.845.440 ($7.314 ($9.137 ($21.292628695 $25.503 $52.217) $7.541.292628695 ($3.327.196 $221.793.524) Year 8 $41.716.386 Year 7 $37.407) Year 2 $15.716.716.322.869.823.095 Year 9 $41.095 Total $295.503 $52.754 Year 3 $19.758.649.407) 2.503 ($22.592 $10.908 ($7.793.149.716.592 $10.503 Total $295.160 Year 6 $33.503 $52.805) ($173.823.592 $10.762.217) $22.060 Year 8 $41.995) ($68.900) ($16.716.970.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.503 $52.377 ($6.016.255) $28.643443217 $48.793.638.261 6.716.212.503 Year 9 $41.592 $10.137 ($57.217) $26.940) Year 8 $41.095 Year 10 $41.684.217) $12.095 Year 10 $41.592 $10.570 2.405.095 Year 9 $41.793.503 Year 10 $41.592 $10.386 $116.793.291 $274.506.510.217) $17.018.823.793.716.793.510.793.381.090) ($121.971 ($7.421 $74.346.213.

793.095 $238.178) $259.941.825.$25.510.503 $52.592 $10.314 ($10.355.716.503 $52.845.411.355.422.959 $102.769 $207.592 $10.408 $133.510.137 ($35.693 $80.790 $52.716.716.823.510.970.335.503 $185.095 $52.095 Year 10 $41.623 Year 8 $41.921.510.510.598 $238.793.503 $52.547.124.959 87 .693 Year 7 $37.431.095 Year 9 $41.941.691) $27.673 $154.881.095 $52.864 $259.793.592 $10.095 Total $295.510.

(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).417. 5 years: 151.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.426.793.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).503 Year 10 $41.781) Simple ROI. 2006) (Luciano.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.592 $10.010. 10 years: 1281.970.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. 7 years: 217.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.971 $19.716.716."N/A") Simple ROI. (Luciano.852.503 Total $295.793.212.503 $15.Return on Investment .718."N/A") Year 7 $37. Datamatic. 3 years: 62. AAA Revenue.846 ($5.823.750) Year 6 $33.440 $24.134."N/A") Simple ROI.592 $10.314 ($9.381.440.781) Simple ROI.793.137 ($21.992.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.716.781) ($6.781) ($5.911. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.100) ($6.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13)))."N/A") 88 .592 $10.781) ($5.322.793.908 $28.503 Year 9 $41.302.255) Year 8 $41.

503 Total $295. 3 years: -69.120.704.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))). AAA Revenue.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.941) Year 6 $33.314 ($51.793.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26)))."N/A") Simple ROI.592 $10.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.255) Year 8 $41.503 Year 10 $41.016.381.291) ($48.503 $15. (Gomez and Morera.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .179. 2006) (Perez.781) ($48. 5 years: -59.137 ($312.828.614."N/A") Simple ROI.846 ($47.793.908 $28. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.852.Return on Investment .793.412.823.781) Simple ROI.592 $10."N/A") 89 .Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.971 $19.716.781) ($48.781) Simple ROI. 10 years: -5.970."N/A") Year 7 $37. 7 years: -50.440 $24.716.781) ($47.440.716.793.503 Year 9 $41.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).592 $10.322. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data. 2006) (Luciano.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).536.911..

793.592 $10.050) ($9.314 ($12.443) Year 6 $33.050) ($9.823.381.503 Total $295.242.440 $24.440.716."N/A") Simple ROI.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0."N/A") Year 7 $37.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.060.322.911.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.503 Year 9 $41.846 ($8. 10 years: 585."N/A") 90 .050) ($9.793. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.592 $10.176) ($9.644.970.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.503 $15.050) Simple ROI.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.524) Year 8 $41.793. AAA Revenue.768.845.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).908 $28.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))). 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.716.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).793. 7 years: 313.Return on Investment . 5 years: 160. 3 years: 105.137 ($57."N/A") Simple ROI.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.503 Year 10 $41.852.Badger/Badger Table 19 .467.050) Simple ROI.592 $10.936.716. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.971 $19.352.

"N/A") Year 6 $33.217) ($7. 3 years: 170.440.793.217) Year 7 $37. 2006) (Henry.846 ($6.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON. 5 years: 245.716.762. 7 years: 475.716.217) Simple ROI.971 $19. AAA Revenue.547. 10 years: 1077. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data. (Luciano.314 ($10.137 ($35.638.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .793.503 Year 9 $41.881.054.592 $10.346.970.503 $15.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).217) ($7. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.381.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).691) Year 8 $41.793.793.910) ($7.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52)))."N/A") Simple ROI.911.322.470.592 $10.823. 2006) (Perez.503 Year 10 $41.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.Return on Investment .716.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.440 $24.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.852.442.592 $10.217) ($6.908 $28.178) Simple ROI.503 Total $295."N/A") Simple ROI."N/A") 91 .

(Gomez and Morera.029. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.306.448.597) 9. 2006) (Henry.935) Year 1 (41.149.128 23.629 Year 1 (11.649.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.691 Year 5 22.7% #N/A Year 6 24.020.095.672.385.560. AAA Revenue.341) Year 4 (23.9% #N/A Year 6 26.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.795 Year 1 (19. 2006) (Luciano.841. 2006) (Luciano.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.386.663.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.684.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.970.390 Year 4 15.596 28.160 105.208.917.738.327.484.191 13.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .506.3% 92 .809) Year 3 (28.381.659 18. 2006) (Perez.223 Year 4 17.858 Year 5 19.921 Year 3 10. Datamatic.404) -1.754 Year 3 12.872) Year 5 (18.851.327 64.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.198.

510.405.095 Year 9 52.095 Total 274.510.959 93 .095 Total 238.422.Year 7 28.095 Year 9 52.693 Year 7 27.060 Year 8 52.510.510.510.095 Total 259.095 Year 9 52.095 Total (16.510.095 Year 10 52.510.095 Year 10 52.940 Year 8 52.941.193.510.355.758.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.510.095 Year 10 52.386 Year 7 13.790 Year 8 52.623 Year 8 52.510.805) Year 7 25.643.510.510.124.

921 (22.714 10.298 Year 2 7.725.649.064 Year 3 12.390 (17.623.969) (11.583) Year 1 (11.665) Year 6 24.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.028 Year 3 (28.956.369.351.596 28.588.412. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.005.213. 2006) (Henry.590.934.661.668) Year 1 (41.148 17.970.835. Datamatic.917.807) (16.575.067.998) 7.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.354) Year 4 15.223 10.595 12.448.696 Year 6 (14.459.293.319.564.001 7.854.752.680.095.037 9.407) 4.179.424.326.272) (21. 2006) (Luciano.766. (Gomez and Morera.582.198.454.087 17.160 16.839 (4.851.684.444) (27.219) (8.724 12. 2006) (Perez. 2006) (Luciano.128 23.327 (9.505.927.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.610 Year 6 26.404) 18.612) 4.370) 6.452.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .265.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.029.386.788) 7.672.107.023 9.824) Year 2 5.306.663.341) 13.396.701 14.543.638 (11.558 Year 2 (33.208.872) 15.746.597) 9.467) (39.023 94 .691 12.020.674) (28.669.669.138) Year 3 10.809) 10.399.907.385.167 14.443 12.110 11.858 (12.560.647 Year 4 17.149.747.735 Year 5 22.801) Year 1 (19.818.506.821 Year 5 (18.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.484. AAA Revenue.044.738.754 8.886 16.659 18.457.381.319.433.046 13.191 13.342 Year 4 (23.539) Year 5 19.327.112 15.703 10.865 (18.746.841.752.274) 6.

124.060 17.181.552 NPV 170.Year 7 28.510.604.790 15.638 34.033 Year 9 52.196.355.033 Year 10 52.510.805) NPV (34.196.332.405.196.095 32.196.604.196.361.638 34.758.510.033 Year 9 52.196.638 34.033 Year 9 52.600.196.106 NPV 152.033 Year 8 52.510.492 18.033 Year 8 52.095 32.604.255.196.604.095 32.079) NPV (35.510.858.193.638 34.814) (8.604.095 32.638 34.510.922 Total (16.510.422.518 16.638 34.959 NPV 162.831 Total 259.386 NPV 173.027.510.767.374 Year 8 52.095 32.881.643.033 Year 10 52.885.095 32.095 32.856.604.604.638 34.604.728.623 17.040.033 Year 10 52.703.638 34.647 NPV 182.196.095 32.701.536) Total 238.693 NPV 145.817 95 .095 32.095 32.638 34.510.047 Year 7 13.638 34.604.941.961 Year 7 27.033 Year 9 52.604.095 32.033 Year 10 52.510.196.510.033 Year 8 52.940 (8.471.095 32.033 Total 274.292 17.638 34.313) Year 7 25.604.604.196.196.638 34.510.

000.000 $0 ($10.000 $30.000.000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000) ($50.000) ($20.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000.000 $20.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000.000) ($40.000 $40.000.000.000 $10.000) ($30.000 $50.000.000.

000.00 $250.000.000.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.00 $100.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .00 $200.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $150.000.00) ($150.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.00 ($100.000.000.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.00) ($200.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.000.00 $0.

000.00) ($100.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $250.00 $200.000.00 $50.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .000.00 $0.00 $150.00 $100.000.00 ($50.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.000.00) ($150.000.000.

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

personal communication.000. and in July of 2006. (Andres Garcia. 100 . PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. government or independent. 1. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. 1. 60 waste water treatment plants. the water rates increased by 68%. Water).The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700.000. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco.200 km of water lines. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. (Andres Garcia. 1.000 km of sewer lines. personal communication.3 million water meters. 2006. 6.600 Pumping Stations.3 million clients and 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful