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

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

.............................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ...... 23 3...................3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations ....................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan .......................................................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan .......... 39 iv .3..................................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations ......... 4 2................ 15 2........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 3......................................................................................................................... 7 2..................... 5 2...............................................................................................................................2........................................................... 4 2........ 37 4.....................................................................................1.....................................................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement.................3............ 17 Chapter 3: Methodology.................................................Table of Contents Abstract....... 27 4...2...................................... 20 3............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ............................................ viii Chapter 1: Introduction ................ 24 3............4 Cost-Benefit Analysis .............................................2..................... i Authorship ....................................................................2 Director Interviews ................... 32 4............ 31 4.3....1......1 Flow Meters ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3........................................................1 Interview with Administrators .......................................... 9 2....................................................................................3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan.............................. vi Table of Tables ..... 16 2........................3 Plan Comparisons .......1 Customer Survey................................ 24 3............................. ii Acknowledgments ................................................1 Chapter 2: Background..... 20 3...........................................1 Water Resources ..............................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans.......................1 Customer Survey............................................................ 21 3.....2 Evaluation of Current Information System ............ 17 2................... 7 2...............................................1.................1............3 Puerto Rico’s Water System ...2 Iterative Drafting of Plan ............3 Water Meter Management .................................................................3............................................................................... 22 3........................................ 24 3..........................................................................................................................1......1 Flow Meter Importance............... 34 4....................................... 16 2........................2 Island Considerations.................................... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .........................4 2...........................3 PRASA.................... 27 4............................................................................2 Evaluation of Information System ......................................2....................1...................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology..........................................1........................ 27 4............ iv Table of Figures.............1................1.....................1 General Replacement Considerations ....................................................................................................................................3.....2 Other Meter Replacements ...2.......................................1 Interview with System Administrators ............................................................................................................................ 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary .................................................................................................1.....

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

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

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

but could be improved.000 meters. To satisfy the meter management section. for improving PRASA’s current replacement efforts. Studying similar projects completed in other cities is helpful in effective planning. the methods used in these cities can offer helpful insights and may be adapted for use in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico contracted the management of the water system to a succession of two different private companies. along with a desire to improve efficiency are what prompted PRASA to request assistance. PRASA replaced 130. These companies allowed miles of pipe to fall into disrepair causing customers to be without water for extended periods of time. In 2005. During the preceding ten years. meter management evaluation and the information system evaluation. Meter failures cause incorrect customer billing. This project provided suggestions that satisfied the water meter management needs of Puerto Rico. PRASA viii . and other system errors that result in increased maintenance expenses. or have recently finished a replacement similar to PRASA’s such as Toronto. we performed comparisons on meter replacement efforts in Puerto Rico and in the United States. and Atlantic City. specifically. The project was divided into two main sections. Their current replacement efforts are effective. undetected leaks. implementing new meter technology and addressing some customer concerns. These failing meters and infrastructure problems. and they hope to replace 200. Many cities across the United States and the world are currently involved in.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 2004.000 in 2006. Seattle. Although no one plan will work for every situation due to variations in such things as geographic population distribution and terrain.

As PRASA continues to replace meters. 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. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. 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. Currently.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1.6 Million. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. In light of this. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology. Finally. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter.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. 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. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. 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. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs.

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

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

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

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

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

2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. 1996. Optimum). This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. 2004. 2002. If the water meter is accurate. Bhardwaj. Bhardwaj. They can report the water usage for a community. p.1.000 a year in water bills. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. Moreover. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns. Armed with this knowledge. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs. functioning flow meters are necessary.3). the result can be a cave in. 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.60).1). p. 2004. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe. In some areas. The display 5 . In order for this kind of billing to be possible. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. p. revenue is lost. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for.which charges for the specific amount of water used. 2.

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

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

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

age. An analysis of their remaining life should be done.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. for example. All replacement plans and strategies should be looked at to determine whether a specific strategy could be used or adapted to work for Puerto Rico. 9 .2 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. personal communication. This. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. Testing the meters a while after replacement. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. but could be adapted to work. 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. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. 2/9/2006). Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. would not work with so many water meters. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. however. Anatomy). The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. 2. 1993. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. Additionally. This is the strategy used by a small town. The meters that served the 40.2.

they were purchasing water from another city. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. 1993. and the 10 . Research). Meter Replacement). average billable water readings jumped from 3. To alleviate this problem. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. a significant amount of water and revenue. Michigan. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. was in a similar situation (Jackson. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. 1996. 1996. At the same time. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. 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. they decided to use radio frequency meters. so a boost in available personnel. 1996.65 billion gallons. Anatomy). Like Atlantic City. Benefits). Their aging meters served about 20. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. 1996. only for new houses or completely broken meters. Aging Meters).000 different clients. Meter replacements were rare.05 billion to 3. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. 1996. Pontiac. Research). and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth. causing customer complaints. In the end.

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

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

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

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

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

1996. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. being an island presents water concerns of its own. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. p. old meters were costing up to $13. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. 16 .3. Despite being a small island.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430.2 and 183. In addition to this. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. 2. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. In the case of Anne Arundel County. Commercial. Maryland. 2004. 1996.393). In general. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with.3 MGD respectively. they have a very complex water distribution system. Finally. Optimum). The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. their island concerns and the history of PRASA.1).25 per meter per year. p.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. 2. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient.

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

the EPA fined them $6. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. p.1). 2002.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. 18 . Ondeo and Vivendi. Aside from service problems. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. which rose to $695 million in 2001.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. 2005) By 2004.11). Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. p. 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. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. 11). personal communication. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. Ondeo (Blasor. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. 2/3/2006). (McPhaul. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. 2004. 2002. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. Vivendi. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. During these times of drought. On top of this. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. The first company. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002. health problems arose from the lack of fresh water and the physical labor involved in carrying back large quantities of water from a river or other source. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system.

2003.1). Ondeo said they had been misinformed as to the status of the system and the $93 million was necessary to maintain functionality. p. any meter found to be ineffective is replaced immediately. The only other stipulation is that all meters replaced must be ready to accept Automatic Meter Reading technology. 2005.2 billion as of June. but it is not obvious as to whether this information is used. information is gathered on meters that may fail in the future. At this point.achieving a deficit of $1. The meters must be managed and replaced correctly or else they will not be used to their full potential. It is this as well as the increasing numbers of failing water meters that sparked PRASA into requesting assistance with these issues. the government stepped in and reclaimed control of PRASA. They help with customer billing as well as system maintenance and monitoring. When the government decided to cut their 10 year agreement short in 2004. Finally. Regardless of this. Almost all areas that have water meters have a replacement plan to ensure that their meters are functioning correctly. Currently. “Preventive maintenance at PRASA doesn’t exist at all. 19 . It is also reflected in the EPA’s quote. Flow meters are essential to any water distribution system. their plan is not as robust as it should be. all residential meters are replaced every ten years and their larger meters every five years.” PRASA now has a replacement plan. In the case of Puerto Rico. they cited the fact that an extra $93 million was requested by Ondeo for the continuation of their services. According to the new president of PRASA the company was “a total mess” when they took over from Ondeo (McPhaul. Relations between the government and Ondeo were not on stable ground towards the end. This is a big factor in the water meter problems Puerto Rico is currently having.

Lastly. the organization planed to replace 200. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. In 2006.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received. 318). To do this.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. 3. 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. 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. At the same time. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. 2006.000. PRASA replaced 100.1. 3. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. Additionally. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system.3 million meters. The questionnaire 20 . In other words. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow.

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews with the data center administrators determined what was needed to improve the information system. 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some techniques.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated.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.5 Million $187. This system. will cost 34 . we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system.3 Million $438. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement. could be adapted but would not be cost effective.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.% 65. 4. but they can be adapted to work. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. This works for most areas.4% 915.3 Million $197. to determine the overall costs of each. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand.6 Million 1303% 214. Five different systems were analyzed. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. including the current system. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order.1% 0% 623.1. such as contracting with a private company. over the course of 10 years.3% -0.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. From internal Table 1 . Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico.

significantly lower than the current reading cost. or around $11.1 Million. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. including the AMCO Meters. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. For the same system. and system optimization.35 Million meters. they are a very high-tech company. If they were to switch to another meter. On-Site training. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs.3 Million for a 10-system kit. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. To use a fixed-network system.3 Million. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. There is. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. it would cost around $141. however. Thirdly.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. This system. Additionally. ten Mobile AMR systems. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. and personnel 35 .6 Million.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. Badger AMR hardware and software.760.PRASA around $88. different transmitters would be needed. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle. a major drawback.

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

the hardware is only three. Our conversations with the system administrators were helpful in learning about the system to determine possible improvements. the data center administrators demonstrated their knowledge and grasp of the situation by answering all our questions quickly and completely. This system. or around $183 Million for a system with 20 mobile AMR devices.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. The transmitters can interface with either a vehicle mounted reading system or a fixed-network reading system.1 Million for a system with 10 mobile AMR devices. 4.The final system analyzed was a system from ITRON Automated Systems which would use the AMCO V100 meter. This means additional transmitters would not be necessary for the upgrade to fixed-network. Our first impressions of the system were that it appeared to be outdated and difficult to use. During our interview. while not being the cheapest. 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. 4. 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. this system is the preferred system of the Customer Service department and the system they were looking into the most.2. The data center has a very modern and professional look. Additionally. while the billing software is roughly 10 years old. First and foremost. This flexibility coupled with the inexpensive price tag makes this an ideal candidate.

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

we formed conclusions and recommendations to help PRASA improve their meter management practices and information system. This section will detail our conclusions about each system. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. 5. for around 10 years. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues. an investigation of other water authorities. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use.1 Meter Replacement Strategies The majority of this project dealt with meter replacement strategies. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete. 5. The current system. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available.1. we performed an evaluation of their current practices. To this end. Simply by switching to any AMR system. Based on this. while using quality meters. and widely used.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. PRASA will 39 . no longer uses efficient reading practices. processes relating to customer service were investigated. Additionally. specifically. The current reading practices cost PRASA around 11 million per year which is significantly more than the costs to use the newer AMR systems.1 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.

This represents at the very least a $7. Adding this to the already expensive $197. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system. This cost is a large one. Similarly.500. While being the cheapest system. 40 . To use this system. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. Based on these evaluations. 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. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million. Additionally. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system. represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement. and certainly more difficult to recover from. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. 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. 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.

the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. In March. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. they could replace 217. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip.269. If not. At the end of the year. they should continue.000 meters.225 meters and in February they replaced 21. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed. In order to do this. an average of 200. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. Given this information. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. meters should be replaced in groups.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. the goal and the actual number should be compared. 5.000 meters a month. If PRASA is within 20. These numbers average 18.1. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology. In order to facilitate this replacement.1. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. they replaced roughly 18.967 meters by the end of this year.5. Continuing their current trend.164 meters per month. Meters close to 41 .000 meters should be replaced each year. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology.000 meters of their goal.000 to 30.3 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 January they replaced 15. According to data received during the plan comparison. starting in 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

147(8). It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed.acueductospr. Water (http://www.com/english/operational_advantages/4. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile.wvu. Kendra. 26. 23.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. Retrieved Feb 20th.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. 19. Puscas. Darren. 59(12). Zane. 47 . Donald L. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Water engineering & management.. Horsman. 2006 from http://www. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. MA. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure. 37. 21. Worcester.nesc. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. (2000).com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria. specifically the section on metering. Puerto Rico. 2006. Unpublished IQP report. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan. 14-15.pridco. WPI. IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. (2005). 2006.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. from http://www. Smith. & Bhardwaj.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. Schlenger. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. Shea. 24.. (2002). Dale. 25. (2004). U. (2006).polarisinstitute. Puerto Rico. (2004. Retrieved Jan 30th.S. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. Retrieved Jan 30th. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria. Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort.3opr_adv_infrastructure.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile.html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). Retrieved on Jan 30th.htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. Water Meters. (2002). Satterfield. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www. Plant Engineering. Anthony M. Vipin. & Hanson Eric. Department of Energy. June). 2006 from http://www. (2006).pnl.

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

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

¿Ha tenido unos problemas sobre que debemos saber? Por Favor. sobre algún trabajo que la AAA va a realizar y me va a dejar sin agua. Se me notifica. cuando ocurrieron. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. Durante el día. fueron corregidas pronto. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 10. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. con tiempo suficiente. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 . Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7.6. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8. Debo estar notificado por: Correo Teléfono En Persona Correo Electrónico Toda de Estas Maneras 9. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11. Algunas interrupciones de servicio. Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13.

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

Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. 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 . 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. ¿qué tipos de problemas pueden ocurrir durante de un reemplazo? (a) Tubos Viejos (c) Seguridad (b) Control de Acceso (d) Vegetación o Hierba Excesiva (e) Otro _____________________________________________ 3) ¿Qué se puede hacer para hacer este proceso más eficiente? Discrepo Debe haber más técnicos. Debe haber menos técnicos. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad. no-técnicos.

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

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.Customer Survey Results .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.Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas QUESTION ANSWERS: 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 3 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 Average: 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 2.9 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 54 .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 .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 2.7 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.

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

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

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

c.b NA NA NA NA no yes a.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.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.Metro Region 58 .b.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 .b.Results from Director Interview .b yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes yes a.c yes b/obs yes a.

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 .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 .

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.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 .Results from Director Interview .b.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.d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.Metro Region 61 .

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 .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 .

Results from Director Survey .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.b.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 .

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

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 .South Region 65 .Number of People Present at Meter Replacement .

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 .Director Survey Results – West Region 66 .

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

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

18 26.11 384.6 2.09 1.77 277.35 > 35 11 .13 294.65 4.13 1.15 16 .93 1.9 1.67 2.37 569.97 786.49 131.85 213.13 1.15 16 .45 0 Fase 2 21.53 1.1 1.67 11.09 638.71 19.33 61.65 2.013.61 2.6 16.88 1.584.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.64 171.Water Rates . 2006.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.22 85.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 .869.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.87 123.Current and Future (PRASA.73 53.07 1.35 > 35 > 10 0.28 Industrial 1.58 50.03 910.43 31.63 1.72 107.23 36.135.51 22.456.991.258. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .6 1.44 1.16 1.45 0 69 .86 77.84 94.95 38.56 1.41 Fase 2 1.70 0 Fase 2 10.84 461.607.162.

00 32 95.28 3.28 829.00 1.00 42.367.61 70 .79 $1.00 4 65.70 0.90 0. B.70 42 3.82 $1.562.58 $1.20 $1.03 Real C 49908 56.00 20 5.17 1939 120.28 439.180.793.922.494.00 2 4.14 0.00 3 1.04 0.717.339.148.00 Real A 125 39.34 $1. Precio Costo Estimada A 177. C. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.85 0. G (Luciano.90 0.97 48 3. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 58 249.466.792.00 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.90 0.441.119.11 0.843.851.081.90 0.053.96 0.28 189.11 $1.28 2.28 299.873. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.90 5.218. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.16 0.Consumption Figures Table 9 .36 3098 209.784.36 2521 246.00 46.74 0.00 Estimada C 58.90 3.31 $1.90 0.45 0.00 0.07 1908 999.Consumption Figures – A.00 45 2.201.00 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 32.450.65 $1.00 18 274.39 $1.77 0.95 0.87 0.15 799 429.394.00 0. AAA Revenue.61 $1.71 1430 137.00 10 1.42 0.00 372.38 0.49 $1.00 Real B 9 37.71 1783 1.636.00 Estimada B 9. F.00 306. 2006) 3 264.47 $1.00 0.219.00 2 1.347.39 655 558.00 694.00 1 13.

00 312.45 66.398.00 0.17 0.55 5 25.827.49 15 30.00 11.88 0.28 1.90 1.809.705.00 0.96 0.00 762.099.28 223.00 0.28 593.43 13 30.00 0.00 24.00 12.90 0.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.775.891.67 $1.334.631.830.36 $14.39 0.410.00 862.63 $1.996.074.111.00 195.25 0.32 119 7.00 0.00 0.970.615.00 245. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 31.00 2 7. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.00 132.23 $1.99 0.476.98 $1.84 71 .292.480.00 123 6.00 106. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.90 761.45 0.37 56.00 3 5.00 4 5.653.02 $1.505.00 0.824.565.543.18 $1.49 $9.89 0.63 6 29.

23 1136 1.90 $2.90 Real G 4004 112.879.522.818.784.444.00 2.513.43 41 16.173.90 387.34 $6.062.140.00 590.90 $4.58 57 1.350.811.83 $1.00 166.00 5.55 105.686.18 1735 1.91 177 4.157.60 1.90 859.90 $304.00 84.67 1.90 505.35 $1.082.451.833.00 135.00 0.90 107.87 $1.391.00 6.355.90 98.466.253.95 3.111.26 $1.072.745.013.95 265 194.07 0.25 3.222.523.87 0.06 $1.70 128 4.90 $5.77 80.846.136.49 $1.648.22 0.90 $1.31 2.00 1.912.00 9.851.029.26 0.71 $1.00 144.60 1001 265.00 1.649.69 $2.094.184.94 $1.23 0.90 1.37 $414.94 2.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.91 $1.443.00 1.295.44 $1.90 Estimada Total 64.610.45 550 461.00 72 .504.15 $1.236.17 1629 264.32 247.00 Real F 1 8.488.00 0.90 $444.95 $1.00 0.80 $1.00 115.15 $7.00 1.92 56.889.635.00 2.87 $1.446.14 $1.90 $921.090.414.95 328 621.349.031.482.086.00 3.94 300.00 22.198.558.695.00 236.68 $1.501.52 4.00 0.76 $1.34 983.706.180.00 0.02 0.18 $1.00 445.668.36 $470.00 86.184.00 Estimada G 5.14 659.08 38 1.945.00 819.62 955.710.503.062.00 23.99 $1.919.90 3.33 Real Total 53.74 $1.14 507 149.68 39.00 481.067.00 64.421.502.26 26 13.091.727.00 256.00 0.99 0.178.00 0.643.95 0.43 0.126.769.145.492.

28 $2.00 1.73 77.98 0.633.789.489.268.534.888.00 59.343.44 $19.00 208.148. C (comercial).781.22 $8.44 63.713.662.623.825.30 $1.29 10.00 589.63 9.621.95 $0.90 11.5 192.685.408. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .60 $949.048.158.286.12 G= Gobierno A = Cuentas de la AAA R = Residencial Privado (cuentas regulares) C= Comercial Tipo de Cliente = Basicamente te resume los Service Class ejemplo Los service class R (residencial).00 171.955.406.930.90 4 92.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.87 $0.02 $22.24 $1.00 8.00 1.28 704.11 $10.08 6.00 110.00 451.00 1.00 9.

87 2.Consumption Figures .570.54 1.374.75 2.475.65 160 260.85 2.I. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.00 30.90 2.361.92 1.039.800.22 4079 74 .94 368.67 37 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.67 390. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.67 Estimada P 50.108.02 301.414.00 84. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.16 277.489.11 71.67 0.00 6 10.67 1.198.66 1 3. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.34 18 7.00 10 18.00 17 14.16 123.87 2. AAA Revenue.48 1.16 32.16 Real R 967258 34.67 451.798.45 146 390.49 264.50 2.759.46 10 763.54 269 515.86 2.67 Real I 161 110.695.53 85.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.377.67 137.69 1.802.10 2.444.413.16 Real P 39673 32.01 2.49 140.54 1.28 85.67 29.123.525.43 1.747.00 27 0. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.66 795 902.16 1.52 55 224. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.00 30.34 1.97 12 566.600.83 1.67 3. and Totals (Luciano.Table 10 .783.39 2.36 2.67 62.759.16 69.708.28 770 1.54 1249 97.80 129 564.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.430.66 1.763.58 18 7.469.86 1 5.085.35 2.81 1082 118.84 72.07 2.16 227.015.16 128.76 110 339.16 157.95 74 1.600.69 299.01 4661 16.16 Estimada R 1. R.025.12 240 711.570. P.20 1.955.80 110 698.16 0.311.551.

Consumo Prom.67 34.292.67 1.00 50.16 12.898.606.697.15 0.010.00 2.059.404.092.770.50 1.526.085.71 1.312.380. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.25 12 28.67 0.488.16 60.44 1.784.821.27 876.00 34.515.00 0.33 94.66 543.20 1.30 1.896.333.16 1.702.740.243. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.184.316.61 2.754.06 2.882.206.00 94.08 2.27 15.85 30 31. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.16 1.16 1.75 1.85 101 9.388.321.67 2.57 4 1.87 2.24 0.00 2.98 1.04 5.00 32. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.75 5.825.67 209.00 972.67 12.932.646.770.53 2.38 105 10.223.051.00 31.88 1.16 23.61 559.26 19 2.133.67 1.79 0.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.11 529.29 2.88 0.00 1.785.00 39.27 73.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.353.16 55.03 1.47 2.00 15.376.808.86 73.591.638.749.00 30.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.313.71 30 32.858.48 12 27.119.66 20 2.733.708.720.425.90 3.45 4 1.00 0.77 75 .67 0.

00 404.549.359.87 7.16 1.033.495.00 4 10.007.24 10.98 1.00 3.00 59.72 120.136.262.88 7.813.06 1.24 241.17 163.638.53 79.706.57 1.00 4 54.061.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 1.74 75.752.00 76.19 1.188.189.014.00 11.146.Estimada Total 1.12 6.16 1.532.00 125.00 4.146.86 1.00 890.081.89 Total 6 Months 2.594.68 135.28 Real Total 1.00 4 30.305.561.27 34.963.73 8.424.825.791.88 1.700.73 4.011.00 181.647.27 2.71 6.552.00 557.82 1.198.265.976.578.29 34.07 2.31 340.823.00 4.133.866.53 4.376.32 546.88 4.26 108.18 160.712.894.00 71.00 4 76 .443.31 4.254.132.00 206.652.00 131.720.23 655.185.032.605.00 16.11 135.413.00 2.00 10.25 425.39 13.96 73.868.004.59 203.26 574.00 17.00 4.464.157.202.759.78 1.00 4 40.824.75 543.026.85 2.00 573.007.79 2.55 5.48 1.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.89 294.189.980.520.006.84 7.00 64.00 56.48 334.028.48 28.707.491.70 16.00 3.00 97.930.605.53 9.172.29 792.785.06 1.022.336.00 2.80 1.72 4.994.201.00 48.49 242.474.982.76 1.00 11.18 1.708.31 8.00 105.419.984.00 193.00 156.009.491.757.931.00 118.391.549.700.00 752.53 4.459.065.37 243.98 251.201.04 74.267.392.26 256.60 425.197.451.167.743.092.98 Real Grand Total 1.380.06 4.00 4 902.04 367.740.94 1.906.708.00 2.00 489.442.746.00 4 2.186.561.16 90.00 2.226.83 80.81 1.884.994.401.498.00 17.00 474.828.400.142.30 125.849.018.00 2.00 5.939.017.00 4.21 90.679.00 362.00 612.40 4.56 30.336.

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

99) 605.20) (4.056.439. AAA Revenue.259.732.369.323.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.20) 0.20) (11.63 (15.732.056.160.43 621.64 621.20) 0.056.797.20) (4.99) (11.20) (4.070.732.720.056.056.720.056.439.00 (11.070.63 621.20) (110.056.160.20) (4.211.63 (15.99) (11.160.160.074.63 (15.63 621.160.259.259.64 621.160.99) (11.20) 0.070.089.64 Year 7 621.00 (11.20) (4.43 621.131.070.211.160.259.63 (11.160.056.732.369.63 621.473.160.160.64 621.99) 605.473.056.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.720.160.79) (15.732.720.79) (15.160.63 621.070.369.259.160.323.20) 610.63 621.63 621.216.070.74) (136.79) (15.070.439.00 (11.070.592.160.63 (11.63 (11.64 621.259.99) 605.29 6.473.20) 0.20) 610.473.160.566.732.056.74) 621.99) (11.056.070.259.439.056.566.20) 610.681.089.63 621.63 621.089.732.99) 605.259.056.439.473.056.070.056.Net Cash Flow .473.070.056.434.160.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .439.089.20) (4.259.056.20) (11.797.259.160.259.797.160.00 (11.056.160.056.79) (15.369.439.160.74) 6.63 621.63 Total 6.63 (15.702.056.79) (15.63 (15.259.63 Year 10 621.369.600.566.600.439.919.160.20) (11.211.434.323.259.43 6.070.070.732.323.600.797.64 621.369.259.842.63 (11.Current System Costs Table 12 .259.63 621.79) (15.29 (136.160.056.056.919.259.160.259.056.439.43 621.63 621.160.29 (11.160.259.720.63 Year 9 621.056.070.160.160.732.056. (Luciano.99) 605.732.056.720.732.99) 605.056.056.20) 610.323.63 Year 8 621.056.63 621.323. 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 ` 621.439.056.63 621.63 621.732.63 621.00) (26.070.63 (15.070.160.99) 621.070.99) (11.439.439.160.160.070.

592.314.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.970. Datamatic.30 15.381.439.314.793.302.377.00) (6.780.72 10.502.412.30 15.64 33.40 41.762.780.970.01) (5.823. AAA Revenue.322.80) (47.050.59) (12.40 41.592.716.502.01) (6.134.793.547.050.852.852.502.23) (7.69) 81 .136.217.768.793.823.02) (10.80) (9.592.440.780.52 (9.524.592.26) (35.780.050.322.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.179.440.845.72 10.72 10.467.52 295.793.060.992.852.502.502.381.823.793.Table 13 .23) (6.26) (22.136.908.64 33.40 Total 295.52 295.72 10.793.59) (51.793.89 Year 4 24.502.793.40 41.314.502.716.23) (6.971.23 Year 8 41.908.352.852.120.47 Year 5 28.30 15.793.440.96) (30.23 37.502.06 Year 6 33.426.716.502.780.502.592.908.72 10.716.502.644.80) (8.971.23 37.442.40 41.40 41.823.780.100.176.845.40 Year 9 41.80) (9.750.716.592.780.911.40 41.440.01) Year 7 37.322.971.592.970.780.502.72 10.89 19.314.23) (7. 2006) (Henry.89 19.592.217.443.40 Year 10 41.592.793.80) (48.80) (9.06 28.23 37.40 41.52 295.911.72 10.911.80) (47.911.936.050.716.212.716.470.793.716.716.970.016.908.828.72 10.06 28.704.72 10.80) 10.377.217.136.638.346.72 10. 2006) (Luciano.72 Year 2 15.381.502.40 41.780.439.716.254.054. 2006) (Luciano.72 10.64 33.Incremental Cash Flow .417.439.377.136.793. (Gomez and Morera.845.793.242.72 10.39) (57.72 10.80) (48.910.845.502.40 41. 2006) (Perez.050.254.47 24.72 10.592.716.30 Year 3 19.217.43) (312.80) (48.941.845.06 28.718.502.592.716.010.793.01) (5.690.217.72 (21.592.381.47 24.780.322.290. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.89 19.793.971.00) (52.614.793.439.536.01) (5.502.23) (7.80) (9.881.177.47 24.377.

422.502.095.302.89 (9.340.793.780.28) 15.845.12 82 .910.823.592.12 24.502.940.381.217.095.40 10.793.716.673.47 (7.970.40 10.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .12 41.793.28) 10.059.72 52.547.443.050.39) (16.872.12 41.793.72 52.502.788.716.72 (15.672.917.718.69) 259.72 52.64 (5.23) 5.793.510.852.80) (23.212.029.02) 25.439.160.738.386.845.23) 15.96) (41.26 28.908.64 (6.716.12 41.91) 19.134.46 295.80) 9.100.06 (9.060.502.793.36) 37.095.560.095.290.40 10.12 41.793.795.05 33.43) 274.40 10.01) 22.322.716.389.72 52.095.780.136.43 10.00) (5.510.254.64 (8.29 41.095. (Gomez and Morera.971.510.484.054.597.59) 28.510.502.440.510.30 (9.12 41.381.852.24) 10.716.693.095. 2006) (Henry.793.198.326.417.502.377.47 (5.716.050.314.381.74) 28.72 52.716.177.72 52.72 (22.52 (21.222.704.386.136.592.54) 10.217.80) (18.762.80) 13.80) (33.716.47 (48.911.63 B/A B/B I/A 41. AAA Revenue.095.314.663.845.970.841.470.592.01) 7.050.322.793.780.858.793.136.502.83 28.970.00) (11.23 (12.208.793.72 52.01) 26.64 (47.828.754. 2006) (Luciano.992.510.911.412.23) 19.780.684.80) 28.179.80) (14.064.09 295.502.596.659.50) 15.793.83 28.352.314.06 (6.16) 33.716. 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 37.25 24.095.780.780.327.510.643.217.23 (51.40 10.823. Datamatic.510.88 41.23) 24.217.377.136.524.936.448.346.768.935.793.72 52.80) 27.050.12 41.439.971.852.716.780.502.381.193.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.845.09 19.592.016.510.407.67 24.592.89 (6.010.592.095.793.592.72 (30.592.30 (48.01) 12.439.536.149.377.47 (9.377.12 41.095.941.502.66 19.502.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 . 2006) (Perez.355.80) (28.89 (48.242.941.190.40 10.30 (7.758.426.502.26) (19.403.510.50 15.095.971.440.502.439.40 10.12 41.908.750.01) 17.72 52.80) 18.911.970.908.30 (6.823.322.08 15.958.691.40 10.41 33.502.52 (312.852.72 52.440.89 (7.628.59) (13.40 10.176.592.314.823.40 10.52 (35.793.72 (52.12 41.72 52.254.52 (57.780.217.84 33.322. 2006) (Luciano.510.845.510.87) 295.23 (9.644.908.780.592.050.921.442.80) 23.614.440.971.381.809.804.780.40 10.020.21 37.306.502.120.06 (5.592.502.33) 24.64 37.467.790.23 (10.385.911.716.23) 10.851.26) 238.124.881.26 295.716.72 52.638.649.06 (47.623.793.506.970.405.095.690.592.40 10.127.12 19.

01) $7.010.72 ($22.506.426.30 ($7.649.198.691.01) $12.322.911.50) $17.822.26) ($19.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.828.917.80) ($33.389.08 (103.89 ($9.448.322.780.302.30 ($9. AAA Revenue.340.242.80) ($5.852.47 ($7.780.780.54) Year 1 $10.327.25 (145.23) $10.684.439. (Gomez and Morera.421.381.050.673.31 Year 3 $19.22 Year 2 $15.46 $31.704.793.25 Year 5 $28. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.346.439.050.208.23) $5.352.788.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.96) ($41.971.663.992.80) ($28.984.46) Year 2 $15.852.869.362.67 $23.752.100.718.71) Year 5 $28.560.45 Year 4 $24.217.780.054.74) ($41.23) $19.26 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 ($5.971.793.66 (127.976.936. 2006) (Luciano.290.322.938.47 $28.36 $48.80) ($18.908.853.964.597.439.780. 2006) (Luciano.72 ($52.027.066.908.190.80) ($5.851.020.252.00) ($11.149.377.407.502.644.377.01) $17.214.821.222.649.872.377.99) $8.858.852.910.971.176.23) $15.89 ($48.381.28) ($3.852.50 $13.385.24) $3.28) ($14.99 Year 4 $24.72 $15.810.442.72 ($30.018.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.326.810.050.484.971.06 ($9.89 ($7. 2006) (Henry.97) Year 4 $24.91) $36.24) Year 1 $10.80) ($23.029.663.911.217.780.793.793.127.060.65) Year 3 $19.198. 2006) (Perez.326.47 ($48.377.757.89 $24.738.593.80) ($6.762.322.217.176.54) ($74.412.00) ($6.541.597.061.908.74) Year 2 $15.217.05 ($11.569.050.29 ($3.261.502.381.120.921.379.01) $22.327.28) Year 1 $10.673.652.33) $59.780.30 $19.911.160.403.28 Year 5 $28.780.502.88 $11. Datamatic.788.502.28) $9.80) Year 3 $19.841.407.659.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .89 $25.908.41 83 .597.596.30 ($48.09 $18.06 ($6.754.911.386.448.385.638.495.381.83 ($19.179.06 ($47.809.47 ($9.381.439.

12 $207.52 ($21.510.72 $52.39 ($16.72 $52.80) $28.592.72 $52.628.970.09 Year 6 $33.47 Year 8 $41.43 $102.941.440.02) $25.502.716.290.845.41 $55.14 Year 9 $41.64 ($5.958.407.72 $52.124.510.716.04 Year 7 $37.23) $24.693.970.40 $10.845.99) Year 9 $41.405.467.592.825.502.40 $10.26 Year 10 $41.254.02 Year 8 $41.40 $10.958.40 $10.793.510.411.136.536.095.592.716.23 ($10.26) $238.793.592.510.502.23 ($51.700.193.12 $185.23 Year 7 $37.095.502.510.510.941.592.016.095.69 Year 6 $33.598.71 Year 10 $41.59) $28.095.72 $52.136.716.11 Year 8 $41.440.72 $52.793.40 $10.970.59 Year 9 $41.87) Year 10 $41.355.547.72 $52.21 $80.793.080149.40 $10.12 ($68.422.97 Year 9 $41.212.716.716.40 $10.693.12 ($16.314.52 $312.050.440.16) $160.823.623.43) $274.80) ($14.895.440.01) $26.52 ($35.690.12 $133.502.095.592.845.59) ($13.716.592.090.23 ($12.502.306.064.26 Total $295.40 $10.52 ($57.793.510.716.095.72 $52.845.935.177.09 Total $295.72 $52.87 Year 6 $33.793.793.213.095.510.941.72 $52.095.673.314.80) $27.84 $88.804.758.881.12 $121.503.592.795.63 $74.193.40 $10.40 $10.845.041.780.23 ($9.502.502.100.417.510.592.386.768.716.Year 6 $33.095.059.780.617.970.405.793.510.217.64 ($6.73 Year 7 $37.793.750.502.614.899.592.72 $52.703.921.64 ($47.117.136.355.095.095.768.40 $10.989.863.592.12 $169.83 Total $295.998.672.385.940.85 Year 8 $41.314.510.314.386.254.095.716.64 ($8.40 $10.83 84 .095.823.72 $52.12 $259.69) $259.875.64 $116.335.431.724.87) Total $295.12 $238.36) $173.592.502.510.804.823.970.90 Year 7 $37.524.443.12 $154.845.793.470.134.195.502.12 $221.716.643.502.12 $274.09 Year 10 $41.823.716.793.050.793.790.136.

852.381.822 $55.029.377 ($9. (Gomez and Morera.593 Years Year 2 $15.936.908 ($9.066.781) ($14. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.381.793.390 ($127.341) $36.846 ($8.781) ($6.027.767.176.242.858 ($145.386.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.853.440 ($48.672.327 Year 6 $33.700.911.674) ($74.050) $10.674) 3. 2006) (Luciano.950470057 Year 4 $24.911.440.781) ($33.302.503 ($30.050) $19.440. 2006) (Perez.781) ($23.381.252 1.841.971 $19.322.908 $28.598) Years Year 2 $15.128 $23.385.536.781) ($28.363) 3.781) ($18.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.236658937 $11. 2006) (Henry.781) ($5.291) ($41.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.306.160835902 $31.718.851.426.010.176) ($19.050) $15.208.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.810.352.984.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.322.597) $9.381.385.821.618 85 . Datamatic.380 6.663.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.191 $13.976 $88.828.100) ($6.322. AAA Revenue.908 ($48.120.404) Year 6 $33.412.659 $18.050) $24.663.781) ($5.236658937 ($14.788) N/A Year 1 $10.095.793.440 ($9.484.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.992.020.134.852.793.050) $5.080.738.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.53199599 Year 1 $10.596 $28.117.921 ($103.917.440.768.597) 1.198.846 ($47.971 ($48.809) $17.440 $24.872) $59.179.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.752) Years ($3.53199599 Year 3 $19.215) ($160.788) $3.911.971 ($9.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.503 ($52.781) ($5.Payback Period Table 16 .377 $33.326.560.060.377 ($47.448.198.448.704. 2006) (Luciano.852.503 $15.327.495 6.644.061.

592 $10.570 2.016.255) $28.653) Years $8.941) ($16.793.060 Year 8 $41.793.716.845.964.989.524) Year 8 $41.322.895.196 $221.716.443) 86 .649.793.503 $52.261 6.592 $10.823.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.095 Total $295.503 $52.846 ($6.510.292628695 ($3.716.470.970.217) $22.405.750) $274.703.762.869.510.503 Year 9 $41.793.503 Total $295.291 $274.592 $10.314 ($9.900) ($16.910) ($11.314 ($51.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.716.506.217) $17.212.160 Year 6 $33.758.592 $10.643.852.875.193.971 ($7.386 Year 7 $37.724.793.095 Year 10 $41.417.592 $10.823.385.149.592 $10.649.217) $7.716.193.050 Year 7 $37.691 Year 5 $28.614.793.716.716.638.592 $10.970.217) $26.510.643443217 $48.442.805) Year 7 $37.223 Year 4 $24.970.793.095 Year 10 $41.908 ($7.137 ($21.467.940) Year 8 $41.137 ($57.386 $116.970.440 ($7.805) ($173.793.510.407) 2.377 ($6.510.421 $74.217) $12.503 $52.510.911.716.090) ($121.346.716.995) ($68.095 Total $295.405.793.793.407) Year 2 $15.327.054.018.592 $10.314 ($12.095 Year 9 $41.255) ($13.592 $10.684.503 Year 10 $41.503 $52.754 Year 3 $19.503 $52.440.381.823.541.292628695 $25.101 $169.503 $52.503 ($22.095 Year 9 $41.137 ($312.213.

864 $259.716.411.510.592 $10.673 $154.422.790 $52.510.095 $52.547.503 $185.095 Year 9 $41.691) $27.431.693 Year 7 $37.959 87 .124.716.823.510.921.314 ($10.355.$25.510.178) $259.095 $238.503 $52.510.095 Total $295.355.693 $80.592 $10.769 $207.793.598 $238.941.881.845.959 $102.793.793.716.335.095 $52.970.825.941.137 ($35.510.503 $52.095 Year 10 $41.503 $52.623 Year 8 $41.592 $10.408 $133.

2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.781) ($5.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.716.255) Year 8 $41.426.302. 7 years: 217.137 ($21.322.793.971 $19. 5 years: 151.781) Simple ROI.592 $10.Return on Investment .Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .793.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.440 $24.134.592 $10.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))). AAA Revenue.781) ($6.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).212.314 ($9. Datamatic. 3 years: 62.970.592 $10.503 $15.100) ($6.718.793.750) Year 6 $33. 10 years: 1281.716.440.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))). (Luciano.716.417.846 ($5.381."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Total $295.908 $28.793.503 Year 10 $41.823."N/A") Year 7 $37.010.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.781) ($5.992.503 Year 9 $41. 2006) (Luciano."N/A") 88 .6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0."N/A") Simple ROI. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.781) Simple ROI.911.852.

941) Year 6 $33.781) Simple ROI. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.412.592 $10.793.793.781) ($47.781) ($48. 7 years: -50.828. 2006) (Luciano.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).255) Year 8 $41.440 $24.503 Total $295.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0. 5 years: -59.Return on Investment .5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).016.970. AAA Revenue.503 Year 9 $41.971 $19.592 $10.503 Year 10 $41.137 ($312.781) Simple ROI.291) ($48.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26)))."N/A") 89 .911.793. 10 years: -5. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.322.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc."N/A") Simple ROI.852.908 $28.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.716.314 ($51.781) ($48. 2006) (Perez.823.716.716.503 $15.381.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.793."N/A") Simple ROI.440. 3 years: -69.179.704.846 ($47.614.377 Total incremental outflows ($52..Badger/AMCO Table 18 .592 $10."N/A") Year 7 $37.120.536. (Gomez and Morera.

"N/A") Year 7 $37. AAA Revenue. 5 years: 160.137 ($57.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).592 $10.176) ($9.503 Year 10 $41.793.768.911. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.440.793.716.846 ($8.592 $10.592 $10.443) Year 6 $33.050) ($9. 3 years: 105.852.524) Year 8 $41.936.823.242.503 $15."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Total $295.716.314 ($12.352.050) ($9.050) Simple ROI."N/A") 90 .644.716.971 $19.845."N/A") Simple ROI.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.467.793.440 $24.Badger/Badger Table 19 .8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).050) Simple ROI.908 $28.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc. 7 years: 313. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.Return on Investment .377 Total incremental outflows ($30. 10 years: 585.503 Year 9 $41.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).970.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))). 2006) (Gomez and Morera.381.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.050) ($9.793.060.322.

592 $10.503 Total $295.971 $19. 3 years: 170. 7 years: 475.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0."N/A") Simple ROI.440 $24.503 Year 10 $41."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).381.217) Year 7 $37. 5 years: 245.823.178) Simple ROI.638.314 ($10.852.793.911.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.910) ($7.217) ($7.470.691) Year 8 $41.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.217) ($7.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.793. 10 years: 1077.322.137 ($35.716.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))). AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.908 $28.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).970.592 $10.881.716.054. 2006) (Henry.503 $15.716.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.217) ($6. (Luciano. AAA Revenue.Return on Investment .346."N/A") Year 6 $33.846 ($6.793. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.592 $10.442.503 Year 9 $41.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.440. 2006) (Perez."N/A") 91 .217) Simple ROI.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .793.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).762.547.

2006) (Luciano.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.506.795 Year 1 (19.809) Year 3 (28.448.754 Year 3 12. 2006) (Luciano.858 Year 5 19.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216. Datamatic.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.404) -1.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.659 18.672. (Gomez and Morera.208.921 Year 3 10. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.872) Year 5 (18. 2006) (Henry.684.691 Year 5 22.841.020.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.191 13.390 Year 4 15.029.649.223 Year 4 17.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .970.738.160 105.596 28.9% #N/A Year 6 26. 2006) (Perez.484.935) Year 1 (41.560.095.7% #N/A Year 6 24.341) Year 4 (23. AAA Revenue.198.149.385.663.851.327.597) 9.629 Year 1 (11.917.327 64.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.381.306.386.3% 92 .128 23.

193.510.758.623 Year 8 52.355.510.510.124.060 Year 8 52.095 Total 259.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.510.510.095 Year 9 52.405.095 Year 9 52.643.095 Year 9 52.386 Year 7 13.510.805) Year 7 25.Year 7 28.095 Total 274.095 Total (16.095 Year 10 52.510.790 Year 8 52.510.510.095 Year 10 52.941.693 Year 7 27.940 Year 8 52.959 93 .095 Year 10 52.095 Total 238.510.422.510.510.

138) Year 3 10.112 15.917.028 Year 3 (28.590.610 Year 6 26.319.934.046 13.148 17. AAA Revenue.854.272) (21.319.149.369. 2006) (Luciano.167 14.824) Year 2 5.539) Year 5 19.023 9.872) 15. 2006) (Henry.669.597) 9.128 23.354) Year 4 15.801) Year 1 (19.582.754 8.588.595 12.399.560.327 (9.459.543.752.505.746.110 11.684.596 28.037 9.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.738.370) 6.747.696 Year 6 (14.674) (28.351.385.390 (17. Datamatic.746.454.865 (18.029.448.659 18.735 Year 5 22.701 14.558 Year 2 (33.714 10.191 13. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.858 (12.023 94 .691 12.219) (8.444) (27.680.452.672.064 Year 3 12.160 16.668) Year 1 (41.342 Year 4 (23.404) 18.969) (11.005.407) 4.583) Year 1 (11.766.835.381.649.807) (16.020.623.506.457.821 Year 5 (18.703 10.564.724 12.725.223 10.788) 7.907.265.818.213.809) 10.484.001 7.970.851. 2006) (Luciano.647 Year 4 17.752.412.274) 6.306.998) 7.298 Year 2 7.669.665) Year 6 24.341) 13. (Gomez and Morera.433. 2006) (Perez.612) 4.095.087 17.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.067.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.921 (22.638 (11.044.663.661.841.386.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.886 16.424.467) (39.208.293.179.839 (4.396.956.327.198.326.575.443 12.107.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .927.

332.510.355.604.856.510.510.638 34.518 16.790 15.703.095 32.701.033 Total 274.386 NPV 173.196.181.510.Year 7 28.638 34.196.510.604.196.405.095 32.492 18.510.536) Total 238.858.552 NPV 170.027.313) Year 7 25.805) NPV (34.047 Year 7 13.604.033 Year 8 52.510.196.196.638 34.095 32.196.510.638 34.510.422.510.604.940 (8.095 32.292 17.814) (8.095 32.095 32.638 34.604.638 34.471.638 34.106 NPV 152.941.728.095 32.638 34.604.033 Year 9 52.638 34.885.079) NPV (35.193.604.255.196.196.033 Year 9 52.361.033 Year 10 52.959 NPV 162.033 Year 9 52.095 32.604.961 Year 7 27.817 95 .638 34.604.510.623 17.638 34.767.033 Year 8 52.095 32.033 Year 10 52.881.196.374 Year 8 52.033 Year 8 52.196.510.758.196.095 32.033 Year 10 52.693 NPV 145.033 Year 9 52.922 Total (16.196.124.831 Total 259.095 32.643.600.095 32.604.040.647 NPV 182.033 Year 10 52.604.638 34.604.060 17.

000 $50.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000 $30.000) ($30.000) ($50.000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000.000) ($20.000.000.000 $20.000 $0 ($10.000 $10.000.000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000) ($40.000.000.000.000 $40.000.

000.00 $150.000.000.00 $200.000.000.00 $100.000.00) ($150.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.00 $0.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.00 $250.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 ($100.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.

000.00) ($150.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.000.000.000.00 ($50.00 $150.000.000.000.000.00 $200.00 $50.000.000.00 $0.00) ($200.000.000.000.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .00 $100.000.000.00 $250.000.000.000.00) ($100.000.

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

Water). 100 . government or independent. 1.200 km of water lines.600 Pumping Stations. 1. 60 waste water treatment plants.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. 1. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. personal communication.000.000 km of sewer lines. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. (Andres Garcia.3 million clients and 1. 2006.3 million water meters. (Andres Garcia. PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants.000. personal communication. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. the water rates increased by 68%. and in July of 2006. 6.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful