Water Flow Meter Replacement San Juan, Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority May 3rd, 2006

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

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

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

i

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

ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. In light of this. As PRASA continues to replace meters. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. 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.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. Currently. we recommend that PRASA finalize their decision on AMR and begin installing the transmitters with every new meter in order to reduce the cost of retrofitting currently installed meters. The 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. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix .6 Million. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. 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. Finally. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using radio transmitters. then 1.3 million separate readings must occur every billing period and is a very time consuming process. The physical location of the meter can also be an issue. If the meter is located in the basement of an uncooperative customer. 2/9/2006). then an incorrect number will be recorded and the billing will be wrong. the water company can read meters much faster than the other two methods allow. all the meters on a street can be read by traveling up and down the street with sensing technology. This means that if either the meter or the transmitter fails. This removes the uncertainty of the reading and the measurement is recorded in a computerized system. markings on a spinning disk or just a readout on a small screen. Bhardwaj. Using radio frequencies or similar technology. The reader is an issue as well (Jim Deming. meaning that readers and transmitters cannot be freely intermixed. Unfortunately. Each meter still needs to be read by hand and the wand must physically touch the meter’s surface. A popular solution today is remotely read meters (Satterfield. as there are in Puerto Rico. Personal Communication. but this is improving (Jim Deming. This still involves going to the location of the meter but now the readings are interpreted by a computer instead of a person. Bhardwaj. the other one does not have to be replaced. A solution to a few of these issues is an electric wand (Satterfield. p.3). p.3). 2004. The transmitter itself is attached to the body of the meter by a wire.can read like an odometer. personal communication. If the people reading the meter does not understand what they are reading or the reading is ambiguous. then meter reading is difficult. personal 6 .3 million meters in an area. Right now. 2004. radio transmitter technology is very proprietary. this method shares many disadvantages with manual reading. If there are 1. 2/9/2006). or a yard surrounded by a locked fence. Nevertheless. the radio transmitter is usually much more expensive than the meter. This method does not require contact with the homeowner and any dangers of physically reading the device are avoided (Jim Deming.

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

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

personal communication. Additionally. Anatomy). 2. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. Testing the meters a while after replacement. however. They decided to replace every meter in the city over a span of 5 years with a meter that was factory sealed and prepared for installation. This is the strategy used by a small town. would not work with so many water meters. This. 9 . A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. but could be adapted to work. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. 1993. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. 2/9/2006). electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry.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. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced.age.2. 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. The meters that served the 40.2 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. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees.

is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. 1996. 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. To alleviate this problem. Benefits). The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth.65 billion gallons. Pontiac. and the 10 . Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. Michigan. Research). 1996. a significant amount of water and revenue. 1996. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. Research). average billable water readings jumped from 3.05 billion to 3. 1996. 1993. only for new houses or completely broken meters. they were purchasing water from another city. so a boost in available personnel. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. 1996. Anatomy).000 different clients. Aging Meters). Meter Replacement). Like Atlantic City. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. Meter replacements were rare. In the end.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. At the same time. they decided to use radio frequency meters. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. was in a similar situation (Jackson. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. Their aging meters served about 20. causing customer complaints.

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

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

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

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

The process Seattle went through is a good example of weighing available resources against desired outcomes and making a compromise. However. Countless other states and counties are beginning to replace antiquated water meters in the same fashion.3 Water Meter Management Knowledge of how to maintain so many meters is crucial to keeping the system working (Schlenger. Short term priority replacement solves the issue of price inequality but was deemed to require too much money and resources (Henry Chen. Personal Communication. 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. An important thing to keep in mind is that each meter is part of a larger network. 3/26/2006).Testing until failure reduces the risk of replacing a meter with life left on it. Personal Communication. something that could happen with short term and long term priority replacement (Henry Chen.2. Long term priority replacement was their final choice. If one meter is having a problem. 2. solving their problem as quickly as possible. This is something that Puerto Rico may have to consider the needs of the customer and the water authority. However. so a compromise was made in order to meet the resource requirements and still solve the problem in an adequate amount of time. 2000. 15 . 3/26/2006). that same problem might be happening somewhere else. The second option is the most desirable method. it was not possible due to the money and resources necessary. turning more and more on electronic or wireless meter reading protocols to expedite the reading process. Encompassing All Aspects). 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. they cannot be considered individual pieces.

1). the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. 1996.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. p. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. their island concerns and the history of PRASA.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. 2. 2. Optimum).3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. In general. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run.3. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. 1996. Commercial. In the case of Anne Arundel County. 2004. Despite being a small island. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. Finally. 16 . It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters. being an island presents water concerns of its own. Maryland. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171.25 per meter per year. In addition to this.2 and 183. p.3 MGD respectively. old meters were costing up to $13.393). the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. they have a very complex water distribution system.

Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. Their replacement 17 . Most islands. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population.3.3). p. It is easier for a city in the United States to buy water from other towns and cities than it is for an island to import water.3. 2000. personal communication. 2000. Golf courses and other large tourist attractions are also an issue because of the large amounts of water they use for chores like laundry and keeping the grounds green. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22. their people are concentrated in one area. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. Despite this. Puerto Rico included.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. Even for the cities that have a similar population. Currently.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. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers. p. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram. 2.3). 2/3/2006). Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. 2. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. should and do monitor their water supply.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. Currently.

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

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

the organization planed to replace 200.3 million meters. The questionnaire 20 . we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system. To do this. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. In other words. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. In 2006. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received. 3.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.1. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. Additionally. 318). 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 chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions.000. 2006. 3. Lastly. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. PRASA replaced 100. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard. At the same time.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. Meter replacement is important to PRASA.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. 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.

shopped at by people representing their communities. we only received 84. an attempt to increase the diversity of the responses was necessary. These malls are on different sides of the island. water price and service reliability. See Appendix A for a sample questionnaire 3. The questionnaire was reviewed and revised by PRASA officials until it was ready to be administered. Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe were the two malls at which we administered our survey. However. Subsequently. By combining the results of the two malls.1.2 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. Convenience sampling does not guarantee that the data collected were representative of the entire population of Puerto Rico. a better representation of Puerto Rico was obtained.measured the satisfaction of the customers and their awareness of a problem with meters on the island. This method provided us with multiple perspectives on the replacement effort by gathering opinions and concerns from each director 21 . we used the same process for questions regarding their water consumption. This meant that we had access to more people than if we were to go door to door or mail out surveys. The sampling of different regions increased the quantity of responses and variety of the populace we questioned. 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. Therefore. Our goal was to have 150 questionnaires completed by the end of the survey. The survey results were analyzed by first gathering and quantifying the customers’ opinions of PRASA. The data received were categorized by question and graphed to determine if any correlations existed. Large numbers of people visit malls daily. Appendix C contains the questionnaire we administered to PRASA’s customers. due to time restraints and number of people willing to respond.

From this. 3.3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations Researching past efforts was an important step in determining how to proceed. In addition to the ones on the questionnaire. each major plan specific was 22 . These responsibilities include meter replacement scheduling. We created specific questions that investigated these issues further to understand how each played a role in the department. 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 evaluated plans obtained from other agencies throughout the United States as discussed in Chapter 2. specific questions about problems they were having with their replacement effort and their opinions on other matters. Additionally. See Appendix B for a sample questionnaire. we were able to concentrate our focus on those sections and leave the functioning sections alone. in person. we devised a small draft containing questions trying to elicit their thoughts on the efficiency of their current efforts. costs. and operating efficiency were all issues we felt were important to query on. we reviewed the responsibilities of the customer service department in PRASA. The plan specifics of other water authorities were analyzed and the major replacement specifics were extracted.about the replacement. This determination was influenced by the results of the director and customer surveys as well as conversations with our liaisons. To create the survey questionnaire. Budget. Information concerning progress of the current meter replacement was obtained and used to determine the state of the effort. After this. By determining what the directors were having a problem with. we asked.1. In light of this. We traveled to director meetings in each region to deliver our questionnaires. This involved reviewing their processes and determining if each was feasible for Puerto Rico. staffing. the actual meter replacement and fielding customer requests.

an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement.1. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. 3. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. vehicle costs. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. 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. Using these figures. Costs on the current expenses. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered. preventing PRASA from 23 . The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. discounts on bulk purchases. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. 3.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed.looked at and determined whether it could be directly implemented or adapted for use in Puerto Rico. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. Information concerning pricing. accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems.

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

Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. This method answers the question: what does an efficient plan look like? The final product was a series of recommendations given to improve their meter replacement strategies. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors.000 meters.3. The same idea is applicable to any meter replacement strategy: anything used from these plans must be applicable in a situation 10 times larger than the one it came from. 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. 3. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. 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. but came from a town with 20.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 . This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently.

26 . 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

33 . Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486. but do not always use. PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour. making testing every meter on the island impractical. Additionally. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1. Currently.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced.3 million. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. Currently. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. Additionally. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. This method. Tampa only has around 120. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves. the beds are very expensive. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1.699 people. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing.

Some techniques. This system.% 65.3% -0. including the current system. will cost 34 . or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money.1% 0% 623. but they can be adapted to work. From internal Table 1 . This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems.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. Five different systems were analyzed.4% 915.5 Million $187. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand.1.3 Million $438.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. could be adapted but would not be cost effective.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order.3 Million $197. such as contracting with a private company. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico.6 Million 1303% 214.Comparison of AMR Systems AMR System/Meters Datamatic/AMCO Badger(ORION)/AMCO Badger(ORION)/Badger ITRON/AMCO Payback Period ROI 1 yr 5 mo ~11 years 3 yr 3 mo 2 yr 5 mo IRR Investment Total $142. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. over the course of 10 years. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. This works for most areas. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement. 4. to determine the overall costs of each.

The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. it would cost around $141. Thirdly.6 Million. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work.PRASA around $88. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. If they were to switch to another meter. Badger AMR hardware and software. as well as every other AMR system analyzed.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. different transmitters would be needed. and personnel 35 . One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. For the same system. To use a fixed-network system.760. they are a very high-tech company. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle.3 Million. On-Site training.3 Million for a 10-system kit. including the AMCO Meters. ten Mobile AMR systems. Additionally. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. This system. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. There is. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. and system optimization. a major drawback. or around $11.1 Million.35 Million meters. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. however. significantly lower than the current reading cost.

$7. However. 330. Besides this issue.5 Million dollars. The system. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. However. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197. if this system is chosen.000 worth of meters would have been wasted.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. This means that.7 Million. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one. 2007.5 Million and would enable the authority to read the entire island’s meters in a fraction of the time it takes with manual reading. would cost about $197. at the least. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. any meters installed after January 1st.5 Million. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. If this system did not represent such a large investment. Additionally. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. raising the total cost for this system by 7.training. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. 36 . Again. with 10 mobile AMR systems.500. but time as well. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. using the same transmitters. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. This system. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. accurately. it would be a reliable choice. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. This system is very similar to the other Badger system.

boasts a very important feature. The transmitters can interface with either a vehicle mounted reading system or a fixed-network reading system.The final system analyzed was a system from ITRON Automated Systems which would use the AMCO V100 meter. This is a significant improvement in technology and puts the system in a much better position than we previously had thought. Our conversations with the system administrators were helpful in learning about the system to determine possible improvements. Our first impressions of the system were that it appeared to be outdated and difficult to use. while the billing software is roughly 10 years old. This means additional transmitters would not be necessary for the upgrade to fixed-network. During our interview.1 Million for a system with 10 mobile AMR devices. the hardware is only three. 4.2. This system. this system is the preferred system of the Customer Service department and the system they were looking into the most. 4. First and foremost. This flexibility coupled with the inexpensive price tag makes this an ideal candidate. The data center has a very modern and professional look.1 Interview with Administrators Information we discovered upon meeting with the information system administrators contradicted initial impressions of the system. Additionally. The administrators indicated that the current hardware 37 . while not being the cheapest.2 Evaluation of Information System The information system used at PRASA contains meter age and usage information as well as billing and similar information. or around $183 Million for a system with 20 mobile AMR devices. the data center administrators demonstrated their knowledge and grasp of the situation by answering all our questions quickly and completely. This system wound up being the second cheapest option with a final cost of around $182.

while still doing its job. is not as efficient and user friendly as a newer program. Their goal is to have the upgrade process finished within three years. The main problem they are having is maintenance. a ten year old software 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. Additionally.setup was more than capable of meeting the needs of PRASA. 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. They will be moving away from mainframes. 38 . Currently. newer computers based on a different architecture that makes them easier to use and maintain. powerful but older computers used for intensive calculations. to a more traditional server model.

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

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

a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. In order to do this.5.000 meters a month. At the end of the year. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year.000 to 30. If not. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. In January they replaced 15. Given this information. Continuing their current trend. the goal and the actual number should be compared. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters.1. According to data received during the plan comparison. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly.164 meters per month. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology.967 meters by the end of this year. In order to facilitate this replacement. they could replace 217. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip.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. they should continue. If PRASA is within 20.000 meters of their goal.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.000 meters.1. meters should be replaced in groups. starting in 2006. an average of 200.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. Meters close to 41 . These numbers average 18. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed.269. they replaced roughly 18. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. 5.000 meters should be replaced each year. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. In March.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cuando ocurrieron. 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 10. Durante el día. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. Se me notifica. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11. con tiempo suficiente. ¿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.6. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7. Algunas interrupciones de servicio. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8. el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. fueron corregidas pronto. Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 .

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

y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. Debe haber menos técnicos. Tubo y contador deben ser conectados antes de cada instalación: (Reemplazando los términos de los tubos cada vez) Especialización de los Técnicos: (Sólo trabajan en un tipo de contador específico: 5/8” o 2”+) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Convengo 5 5 5 5 4) ¿Cuántos empleados están en el departamento de Servicio de los Clientes en su región? _____________________________________________ a) ¿Debe haber más? b) ¿Debe haber menos? Sí Sí No No 52 . no-técnicos.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) 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.

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

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

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

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 .Customer Survey Results .Ponce 56 .

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

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

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – Metro Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Technicians Present For Meter Replacement Figure 10 .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 .

Metro Region 61 .b.d 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes ALL 1 5 2 5 3 3 225 275 1 5 4 5 5 4 NA 10 1 5 5 5 5 5 62 70 1 5 2 5 5 3 250 70 1 1 1 5 5 5 20 20 2 4 3 5 4 1 300 310 1 5 1 5 1 2 250 300 Table 5 .d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.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.Results from Director Interview .

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

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

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 .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 .

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

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 .

Opinions on Current Reading Technology .West Region 67 .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .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.Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .5 2 1.West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .5 3 2.5 1 0.

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

03 910.63 1.86 77.013.43 31.35 > 35 > 10 0.135.53 1.456.64 171.95 38.584.72 107.45 0 69 .33 61.65 2.84 461.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.49 131.162.73 53.258.Water Rates .18 26.09 638.84 94.97 786.70 0 Fase 2 10.35 > 35 11 .09 1.607.85 213.991.67 2.6 1.16 1.65 4.28 Industrial 1.56 1.37 569.87 123.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.71 19.58 50.41 Fase 2 1.6 16.11 384.67 11.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 .Current and Future (PRASA.88 1.44 1.07 1.51 22.45 0 Fase 2 21.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.9 1.1 1.77 277.93 1.13 294. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .6 2.15 16 .869.23 36.22 85. 2006.13 1.61 2.15 16 .13 1.

28 299. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.71 1783 1.74 0.00 Real A 125 39.922.85 0.00 0.97 48 3.494. C.843.70 42 3.16 0.65 $1.45 0.148. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 58 249. B.00 0.58 $1.96 0.04 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.562.70 0.20 $1.00 306.793.00 372.00 0.441.00 32.00 20 5.79 $1.71 1430 137.14 0.00 10 1.180.367.39 $1.081.218.42 0.00 2 4.339.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.466.11 $1.49 $1.00 32 95.90 3.28 439.00 694. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.17 1939 120.28 189.792.873.Consumption Figures Table 9 .36 3098 209.347.07 1908 999. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.053.47 $1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 46.00 Real B 9 37.36 2521 246.851.00 1 13.77 0.450.00 45 2.90 0.90 0.219.39 655 558.00 4 65.15 799 429.28 3.00 0.61 70 .87 0.394.00 1.00 2 1.28 2.00 Estimada B 9.82 $1.00 18 274.784.00 0.00 42.90 0. 2006) 3 264.636.11 0.31 $1. G (Luciano.119.00 Estimada C 58. AAA Revenue.90 0.717.28 829.201.00 3 1.34 $1.38 0.Consumption Figures – A.61 $1.95 0. F.90 0.03 Real C 49908 56.90 5.

32 119 7.00 11.631.505.00 132.775.476.45 0.25 0.02 $1.00 0.45 66.398.99 0. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.49 $9.43 13 30.18 $1.28 1. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.55 5 25.00 12.37 56.074.00 762.17 0.00 31.824.00 0.480.49 15 30.39 0.970.89 0.111.00 0.00 106.28 223.099.00 123 6.996.36 $14.00 0.00 312.28 593.705.615.23 $1.809.90 761.90 0.830.00 245.98 $1.00 862.565.00 4 5.00 24.63 $1.543.292.334.67 $1.00 0.410.00 2 7.00 0.653. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.90 1.00 0.827.84 71 .63 6 29.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.88 0.891.00 3 5.00 195.96 0.

482.58 57 1.71 $1.36 $470.00 22.013.90 1.00 1.444.513.488.769.90 Real G 4004 112.912.23 0.94 $1.00 0.706.00 481.00 135.945.90 $2.00 1.745.90 $921.00 144.443.45 550 461.90 505.00 5.695.00 72 .198.15 $1.236.43 41 16.846.180.090.95 0.086.94 300.68 39.00 Real F 1 8.727.22 0.00 23.492.184.648.00 0.34 $6.031.26 0.522.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.90 $5.178.833.00 64.68 $1.95 $1.49 $1.686.643.00 0.14 507 149.35 $1.00 445.08 38 1.502.18 1735 1.919.136.501.391.355.635.00 2.74 $1.62 955.67 1.00 3.90 107.95 265 194.222.00 0.140.18 $1.710.34 983.37 $414.06 $1.00 0.44 $1.02 0.95 328 621.17 1629 264.889.126.00 236.60 1.184.610.90 $4.91 177 4.99 0.31 2.14 659.90 3.00 1.091.92 56.52 4.00 86.26 $1.00 1.851.067.23 1136 1.77 80.446.879.503.094.421.062.25 3.90 $1.173.87 $1.26 26 13.00 115.00 590.55 105.00 84.90 387.558.43 0.90 859.111.90 Estimada Total 64.14 $1.00 2.90 98.082.33 Real Total 53.15 $7.451.90 $304.90 $444.295.811.466.349.072.029.649.87 0.76 $1.157.062.80 $1.60 1001 265.00 819.07 0.69 $2.95 3.668.70 128 4.00 0.32 247.00 6.145.523.253.350.818.00 0.00 166.00 256.99 $1.91 $1.784.00 9.87 $1.83 $1.414.504.00 Estimada G 5.94 2.

90 4 92. C (comercial).00 208.90 11.00 1.00 1.713.11 $10.87 $0.534.00 59.00 9.12 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).408.00 589.633.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.00 171.44 $19.02 $22.286.60 $949.30 $1.28 $2. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .623.888.825.268.781.00 1.343.621.048.44 63.29 10.148.158.489.955.63 9.98 0.662.73 77.930.08 6.22 $8.00 451.685.28 704.789.24 $1.95 $0.5 192.00 110.00 8.406.

49 140.475.86 2.97 12 566.67 29.54 1.377.54 1.39 2.783.35 2.86 1 5.67 1.01 2.10 2.525.374.50 2.94 368.16 Real P 39673 32.361. R.16 277.07 2.81 1082 118.69 1.75 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.600.00 27 0.67 0.92 1.67 Estimada P 50.695.I.802. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.36 2.798.108.69 299.80 110 698. P.66 795 902.49 264.48 1.123.16 69.52 55 224.800.551.84 72.45 146 390.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.16 32.66 1. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.67 137.414.489.00 10 18.28 770 1.67 390.16 Estimada R 1.58 18 7.01 4661 16.311.Consumption Figures .67 Real I 161 110.444.11 71.763.469.708.039.76 110 339.025.85 2. and Totals (Luciano.34 18 7.413.22 4079 74 . Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.12 240 711.43 1.16 Real R 967258 34.16 0.67 62.90 2.00 17 14.955.16 128. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 85.015.16 157.085.87 2.00 30.95 74 1.Table 10 .83 1. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.198.00 84.16 1.570.430.65 160 260.759.67 3.87 2. AAA Revenue.00 6 10.67 37 0.16 123.759.34 1.66 1 3.600.00 30.570.20 1.53 85.80 129 564.747.54 269 515.46 10 763.54 1249 97.02 301.16 227.67 451.

66 543.353.00 0.53 2.00 94.85 101 9.27 73.858.75 5. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.38 105 10.825.67 0.488.67 1.697.33 94.00 34.591.932.04 5.00 30.20 1.30 1.821.010.784.67 34.133.86 73.47 2.06 2.26 19 2.48 12 27.79 0.61 2.67 0.898.45 4 1.206.00 32.085.733.16 55.57 4 1.092.03 1.184.313.526.16 1.50 1.00 1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.27 876.638.708.223.00 0.00 15.67 209.051.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.882.24 0.808.059.88 0.61 559. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.Consumo Prom.15 0.66 20 2.67 2.388.71 30 32.785.85 30 31.00 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.08 2.77 75 .98 1.770.44 1.29 2.00 50.16 1.316.425.333.754.380.16 60.71 1.243.25 12 28.770.00 31.312.896.67 1.16 1.16 12.720.00 39.321.67 12.27 15.88 1.376.00 972.749.75 1.87 2.702.90 3.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.404.00 2.16 23.606.292.11 529.515.646.740.119.

226.866.167.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.00 76.930.00 118.00 206.201.185.392.004.712.849.00 4.00 557.189.89 294.824.60 425.26 256.00 4 10.16 1.994.71 6.984.202.29 34.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 105.00 4 2.132.00 156.00 193.549.00 64.59 203.700.24 241.491.57 1.87 7.98 Real Grand Total 1.172.98 1.00 890.39 13.498.00 404.828.06 1.931.00 17.00 3.31 4.37 243.48 28.638.04 74.16 90.413.133.700.443.752.53 4.359.00 2.00 125.29 792.75 543.009.53 79.23 655.401.474.00 59.189.80 1.06 1.092.017.532.720.018.265.491.18 160.89 Total 6 Months 2.00 474.391.98 251.48 1.Estimada Total 1.00 56.85 2.336.74 75.267.706.00 10.94 1.982.00 4.16 1.28 Real Total 1.081.00 11.011.00 11.00 2.791.336.980.30 125.31 340.73 8.00 4 30.520.007.19 1.254.00 2.00 16.157.198.146.994.00 4 902.48 334.25 425.495.00 97.549.014.652.813.96 73.53 4.026.894.76 1.40 4.963.00 71.022.759.976.006.262.785.061.00 4 76 .380.746.32 546.81 1.825.82 1.459.07 2.68 135.708.552.00 3.142.561.72 120.305.00 489.376.00 4.55 5.605.84 7.136.00 573.939.00 362.56 30.679.578.740.79 2.88 1.400.00 2.868.24 10.27 34.884.201.18 1.49 242.83 80.00 4.00 17.197.21 90.12 6.00 181.188.032.451.00 4 40.561.028.00 2.065.27 2.757.26 574.31 8.146.647.442.86 1.186.78 1.00 131.88 4.707.419.00 5.823.007.73 4.594.424.708.00 612.00 4 54.033.70 16.06 4.00 752.26 108.53 9.743.11 135.04 367.17 163.00 48.906.00 1.464.72 4.605.88 7.

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

160.056.74) (136.64 621.473. 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 ` 621.070.600.99) (11.070.056.160.63 621.99) 605.259.056.63 621.64 621.473.160.732.63 (11.160.43 621.99) (11.732.369.160.056.056.566.056.369.64 621.473.20) (11.43 621.99) 605.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.20) (11.473.732.566.323.160.99) (11.00 (11.Net Cash Flow .056.160.29 (11.216.089.732.131. AAA Revenue.20) 0.323.259.160.439.323.63 621.160.00) (26.056.259.720.63 621.070.439.79) (15.160.20) 610.323.070.056.64 Year 7 621.Current System Costs Table 12 .63 (15.259.63 (15.439.43 6.070.259.20) 610.070.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.20) 610.434.592.070.99) 605.160.070.20) (4.259.732.259.259.160.20) 610.63 621.056.160.63 621.211.160.439.29 6.64 621.720.369.160.99) (11. (Luciano.259.20) (4.797.434.732.732.29 (136.056.63 Year 9 621.160.056.63 621.070.43 621.732.473.056.74) 621.259.259.056.842.211.79) (15.732.070.056.160.473.20) (4.79) (15.600.63 621.63 (11.070.369.160.259.681.160.259.20) 0.79) (15.99) 605.160.79) (15.056.63 (11.74) 6.056.99) (11.160.160.070.63 (15.00 (11.323.160.056.566.070.259.797.056.259.369.089.439.20) 0.439.63 (11.211.63 621.160.439.63 (15.070.160.919.00 (11.074.056.439.919.160.63 621.160.63 621.056.439.056.369.00 (11.720.056.64 621.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .070.070.63 621.20) (4.160.20) (4.056.720.797.63 (15.79) (15.732.63 (15.63 Year 10 621.070.20) (110.160.63 621.20) 0.056.160.259.732.63 Year 8 621.63 Total 6.63 621.20) (4.056.439.259.070.732.600.259.720.089.439.089.056.056.63 621.439.720.99) 605.20) (11.99) 621.797.702.99) 605.323.056.056.

352.780.716.050.793.016.502.780.439.439.502.716. Datamatic.381.72 10.72 10.72 Year 2 15.136.780.502. (Gomez and Morera.30 Year 3 19.910.217.440.69) 81 .254.06 28.179.852.72 10.793.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.440.Incremental Cash Flow .01) (5.52 295.592.502.592.23) (7.793.470.502.417.52 (9.72 10.439.89 19.381.592.06 28.40 41.845.134.47 24.970.440.718.100.80) (48.823.314.716. 2006) (Henry.412.780.80) (47.881.911.908.120.30 15.793.136.136.64 33.716.443.050.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.793.502. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.852.40 41.502.72 10.592.768.845. 2006) (Perez.322.936.592.524.72 (21.47 24.941.502.72 10.828.00) (6.40 Year 10 41.780.845.01) (5.89 19.06 28.72 10.64 33.054.971.439.716.502.780.377.780.217.40 Year 9 41.502.242.136.06 Year 6 33.254.614.290.823.911.314.970.80) (9.96) (30.212.793.908.010.704.40 41.502.59) (12.716.217.23) (6.911.72 10.911.592.793.780.00) (52.26) (35.40 41.823.23) (7.40 Total 295.793.971.80) (9.72 10.793. AAA Revenue.23 37.23 37.592.30 15.690.793.314.02) (10.80) 10.536.52 295.Table 13 .377.592.80) (9.346.80) (48.47 24.502.64 33.852.845.377.39) (57.23) (6.908.716.716.72 10.592.01) Year 7 37.793.23 Year 8 41.01) (5.440.793.177.23) (7.971.80) (9.381.322.40 41.908.40 41.442.80) (8.40 41.502.52 295.050.644.970.050.40 41.40 41.050.780.72 10.793.971. 2006) (Luciano.43) (312.72 10.780.176.547.502.26) (22.716.47 Year 5 28.89 19.060.377.716.793.716.638.217.823.762.01) (6. 2006) (Luciano.502.381.793.72 10.302.89 Year 4 24.750.322.716.30 15.592.80) (47.502.72 10.426.23 37.852.314.592.970.217.80) (48.467.322.59) (51.845.992.793.592.

592.06 (9.12 41.52 (21.095.40 10.502.958.136.780.377.40 10.340.26) (19.970.01) 17.72 52.638.095.592.69) 259.592.217.852.439.510.40 10.327.242.470.72 52.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.095. (Gomez and Morera.872.47 (5.12 24.00) (11.795.290.12 41.970.536.439.25 24.212.417.72 (15.355.72 (52.672. 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 37.050.793.72 52.448.217. AAA Revenue.510.506.971.16) 33.592.12 82 .72 (30.716.644.314.793.40 10.936.72 52.64 (6.510.26 28.971.01) 12.30 (48.89 (7.72 52.28) 15.326.72 52. Datamatic.208.23 (51.845.440.823.381.381.30 (7.386.23) 24.91) 19.72 (22.095.83 28.780.120.780.352.992.941.502.66 19.716.910.716.12 19.754.193.100.793.80) 23.851.970.24) 10.08 15.127.36) 37.179.40 10.908.12 41.716.52 (57.89 (48.80) 13.96) (41.502.217.050.510.74) 28. 2006) (Luciano.09 19.908.716.780.716.908.440.12 41.23 (9.377.01) 26.663.510.440.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .809.649.050.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.592.389.095.385.149.050.716.422.502.845.716.780.80) (33.30 (9.780.12 41.852.597.614.716.26 295.841.322.908.502.064.314.029.524.793.704.443.793.80) (14.381.917. 2006) (Henry.23 (10.72 52.738. 2006) (Perez.381.823.971.02) 25.095.054.322.845.33) 24.314.50) 15.64 37.762.47 (48.40 10.780.46 295.484.788.84 33.47 (7.510.510.768.502.790.403.322.502.693.23) 5.881.05 33.06 (6.134.793.412.40 10.21 37.439.502.793.623.793.793.80) (28.780.970.72 52.83 28.911.845.80) 28.911.502.921.510.780.502.254.136.502.502.911.52 (312.095.136.23) 10.88 41.592.254.64 (8.41 33.40 10.12 41.010.80) 27.970.12 41.780.54) 10.442.718.377.440.020.80) (23.804.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .845.095.01) 22.659.176.628.377.190.381.060.673.346.39) (16.095.222.28) 10.59) (13.823.40 10.50 15.12 41.643.935.592.592.592.716.684.095.405.426.716. 2006) (Luciano.64 (47.793.750.386.198.793.12 41.592.80) (18.059.439.940.40 10.016.01) 7.124.23) 15.793.502.592.941.793.06 (5.502.52 (35.177.510.302.23) 19.911.29 41.858.06 (47.095.592.510.67 24.306.828.80) 18.30 (6.510.00) (5.407.793.691.758.793.64 (5.793.136.547.43 10.40 10.09 295.050.823.72 52.87) 295.160.89 (6.690.467.971.095.314.217.72 52.59) 28.322.26) 238.095.502.80) 9.72 52.852.23 (12.89 (9.217.40 10.716.43) 274.596.852.560.72 52.47 (9.510.502.

412.80) ($23.80) ($6.754.984.971.322.821.80) Year 3 $19.362.89 $25.828.89 ($48.179.869.921.793.018.381.050.964.853.29 ($3.217.198.793.054.852.407. 2006) (Luciano.80) ($5.377.26 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 ($5.050.28) $9.502.72 ($30.302.28) Year 1 $10.327.06 ($47.47 $28.673.381.381.910.757.908.793.252.05 ($11.47 ($48.389.99 Year 4 $24.066.71) Year 5 $28.385.050.24) $3.649. AAA Revenue.208.495.83 ($19.911. 2006) (Henry.971.936.01) $17.502.673.439.780.67 $23.23) $19.780.217.54) Year 1 $10.72 $15.30 ($9.176.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.01) $12.80) ($28.377.327.23) $5.72 ($22.47 ($7.65) Year 3 $19.638. (Gomez and Morera.439.30 $19.261.917.89 ($9.06 ($9.346.80) ($33.502.029.23) $15.448.50) $17.386.00) ($6.852.439.810.377. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.027.738.322.810.01) $7.214.852.911.22 Year 2 $15.718.793.25 Year 5 $28.127.340.426.222.72 ($52.381.541.971.502.908.992.41 83 .908.01) $22.010.66 (127.421.407.644.060.322.46 $31.176.74) Year 2 $15.506.91) $36.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .28) ($3.691.597.050.822.663.120.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.872.377.484.36 $48.663.908.97) Year 4 $24.80) ($18.50 $13.780.23) $10.326.326.684.858.322.46) Year 2 $15.385.911.788.439.149.54) ($74.217.28) ($14.976.08 (103.89 ($7.379.809.28 Year 5 $28.752.061.851. 2006) (Perez.569.80) ($5.45 Year 4 $24.841.780.659.971.762.938.788.242.30 ($7.780.96) ($41.00) ($11.26) ($19.403.704.652.911.74) ($41.160.442.99) $8.352.89 $24.596. Datamatic.25 (145.852. 2006) (Luciano.780.09 $18.88 $11.448.780.217.597.020.33) $59.381.31 Year 3 $19.780.24) Year 1 $10.649.597.100.06 ($6.47 ($9.593.190.560.30 ($48.290.198.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.

845.095.592.690.80) $28.845.510.177.502.01) $26.643.623.941.510.23 ($51.793.41 $55.12 $259.39 ($16.411.941.40 $10.716.095.921.547.72 $52.12 $169.63 $74.80) $27.23 ($10.510.050.793.592.592.134.193.467.04 Year 7 $37.355.095.510.72 $52.716.386.716.940.804.503.11 Year 8 $41.90 Year 7 $37.12 $274.628.136.440.87) Year 10 $41.40 $10.502.970.970.87) Total $295.09 Year 6 $33.095.793.290.095.12 $133.510.716.899.64 $116.693.40 $10.64 ($47.790.845.16) $160.758.23) $24.823.502.136.40 $10.970.716.12 $121.095.016.72 $52.958.100.52 $312.592.041.386.52 ($57.84 $88.592.64 ($5.314.793.09 Total $295.780.12 $238.23 ($12.510.254.875.385.59) ($13.592.431.845.40 $10.405.72 $52.502.47 Year 8 $41.095.40 $10.716.502.502.59) $28.970.212.793.59 Year 9 $41.863.417.97 Year 9 $41.510.825.793.998.780.510.335.64 ($8.12 ($68.716.314.407.768.510.716.12 $207.095.895.12 $221.23 ($9.12 $185.136.970.614.592.064.716.502.750.40 $10.83 84 .845.69) $259.195.090.254.989.02 Year 8 $41.700.72 $52.117.80) ($14.72 $52.Year 6 $33.72 $52.050.673.502.510.440.958.703.21 $80.795.716.095.510.823.724.502.83 Total $295.136.080149.470.87 Year 6 $33.804.793.85 Year 8 $41.823.793.592.502.213.52 ($35.64 ($6.592.422.355.592.69 Year 6 $33.26) $238.02) $25.592.72 $52.43 $102.40 $10.99) Year 9 $41.845.716.52 ($21.72 $52.314.793.095.095.71 Year 10 $41.36) $173.40 $10.14 Year 9 $41.524.502.095.306.124.768.193.72 $52.443.716.40 $10.314.12 ($16.440.217.935.793.941.40 $10.440.592.26 Total $295.536.881.502.693.405.598.40 $10.26 Year 10 $41.059.793.43) $274.12 $154.23 Year 7 $37.510.72 $52.095.793.672.823.09 Year 10 $41.72 $52.617.73 Year 7 $37.

050) $5. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.936.781) ($33.198.134.179.381.390 ($127.385.236658937 ($14.618 85 .198.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.781) ($18.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.117.440 $24.950470057 Year 4 $24.386.352.852.858 ($145.781) ($5.810.448.381.377 $33.53199599 Year 3 $19.440 ($48.404) Year 6 $33.781) ($14.128 $23. 2006) (Luciano.176.440.971 ($9.846 ($47.326.852.484.302.215) ($160.322.120.738.597) 1.781) ($5.663.503 ($30.176) ($19.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.768.066.440.781) ($6.788) N/A Year 1 $10.503 ($52.872) $59.917.050) $19.560.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.448.Payback Period Table 16 .971 ($48. Datamatic.793.704.663.380 6. 2006) (Luciano.291) ($41.306.412.781) ($28.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.852.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.208.971 $19.846 ($8.781) ($23.596 $28.020.029.327 Year 6 $33. 2006) (Henry.160835902 $31.536.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.381.976 $88.060.341) $36.377 ($47.674) ($74.992. 2006) (Perez.908 $28.674) 3.191 $13.984. AAA Revenue.363) 3.322.644.788) $3.718.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.242.853.095.659 $18.322.672.440.252 1.793.426. (Gomez and Morera.050) $10.495 6.100) ($6.767.010.503 $15.598) Years Year 2 $15.921 ($103.061.327.841.851.793.908 ($48.440 ($9.385.381.781) ($5.700.911.593 Years Year 2 $15.597) $9.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.821.908 ($9.752) Years ($3.828.911.809) $17.080.911.050) $24.53199599 Year 1 $10.050) $15.236658937 $11.377 ($9.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.822 $55.027.

875.217) $17.793.845.212.793.592 $10.160 Year 6 $33.716.823.793.716.223 Year 4 $24.716.503 Year 9 $41.292628695 ($3.793.095 Year 10 $41.970.503 $52.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.291 $274.503 $52.405.503 Year 10 $41.793.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.653) Years $8.911.503 $52.503 $52.524) Year 8 $41.592 $10.793.018.149.758.941) ($16.541.443) 86 .592 $10.016.895.823.314 ($9.503 ($22.442.095 Year 9 $41.592 $10.638.407) 2.385.054.510.060 Year 8 $41.090) ($121.970.592 $10.386 Year 7 $37.292628695 $25.510.377 ($6.261 6.510.592 $10.995) ($68.643443217 $48.346.716.592 $10.381.503 $52.095 Total $295.793.217) $7.417.314 ($12.503 $52.805) ($173.510.940) Year 8 $41.754 Year 3 $19.716.716.793.137 ($21.684.750) $274.405.869.971 ($7.510.970.691 Year 5 $28.592 $10.095 Year 9 $41.327.793.137 ($312.322.805) Year 7 $37.570 2.193.255) ($13.217) $12.440 ($7.970.716.852.196 $221.900) ($16.989.716.095 Year 10 $41.910) ($11.255) $28.137 ($57.407) Year 2 $15.592 $10.793.703.762.314 ($51.649.724.503 Total $295.614.510.095 Total $295.643.823.846 ($6.217) $22.506.217) $26.716.470.213.050 Year 7 $37.908 ($7.467.421 $74.193.101 $169.649.386 $116.440.964.

095 Total $295.510.178) $259.691) $27.769 $207.716.355.510.335.095 $238.503 $52.716.693 $80.095 $52.921.592 $10.823.623 Year 8 $41.355.959 87 .$25.693 Year 7 $37.408 $133.881.790 $52.503 $52.673 $154.095 Year 10 $41.124.592 $10.431.793.864 $259.716.793.941.793.592 $10.845.598 $238.825.510.314 ($10.503 $52.095 $52.941.959 $102.095 Year 9 $41.970.503 $185.137 ($35.547.510.422.510.411.510.

6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.592 $10. 7 years: 217.440.212.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.302. 5 years: 151.010.793.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.417.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.852.322.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.781) Simple ROI.781) ($6. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.503 Total $295.503 Year 10 $41.781) ($5.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .911.592 $10.716. 10 years: 1281.716.503 Year 9 $41."N/A") Year 7 $37.846 ($5.426.314 ($9.137 ($21.823. AAA Revenue.134.970.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13)))."N/A") Simple ROI.503 $15.592 $10.100) ($6."N/A") 88 .971 $19.Return on Investment ."N/A") Simple ROI.255) Year 8 $41. 3 years: 62.908 $28.781) ($5.781) Simple ROI.440 $24.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).992.793. 2006) (Luciano.381.718.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.750) Year 6 $33.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))). Datamatic.793. (Luciano.716.793.

5 years: -59.793.440 $24.828. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.016.716.852.137 ($312.781) ($48.440.536.781) Simple ROI.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))). 10 years: -5.592 $10.781) ($48.503 Year 10 $41.255) Year 8 $41. 2006) (Perez. 7 years: -50.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).716.793. AAA Revenue.592 $10.846 ($47.941) Year 6 $33.381.781) Simple ROI."N/A") Simple ROI.716.911.908 $28.412.291) ($48.179.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.614.704.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).971 $19.970."N/A") Simple ROI.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0."N/A") Year 7 $37.Return on Investment .503 $15.793.314 ($51.377 Total incremental outflows ($52. 3 years: -69. 2006) (Luciano.793..120.781) ($47.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0. (Gomez and Morera.503 Total $295. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).503 Year 9 $41.592 $10.322.823."N/A") 89 .

971 $19.716. 5 years: 160.443) Year 6 $33.352.793.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).Badger/Badger Table 19 .467.322.592 $10.823. 7 years: 313.503 Year 10 $41. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.050) ($9. 3 years: 105.137 ($57.440 $24.768.381.644.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.592 $10.Return on Investment . 10 years: 585.050) Simple ROI.911.793."N/A") Year 7 $37.503 Total $295."N/A") 90 .716.050) ($9. AAA Revenue.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).716.314 ($12.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).793. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).377 Total incremental outflows ($30.846 ($8.050) ($9.852.936.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.524) Year 8 $41.060.793.908 $28.592 $10.440.242.050) Simple ROI.845.970.503 $15.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Year 9 $41.176) ($9.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0."N/A") Simple ROI.

"N/A") Simple ROI.322.503 Year 9 $41.716.440 $24.Return on Investment .381. 5 years: 245.217) ($7.178) Simple ROI.793."N/A") Simple ROI.881.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .440.793.377 Total incremental outflows ($22. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))). AAA Revenue.217) Simple ROI.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).793.691) Year 8 $41.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.217) ($7.852.592 $10.592 $10.971 $19.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.503 $15.137 ($35.054.592 $10.911.823. 7 years: 475.970.217) Year 7 $37.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.716.638.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))). 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))). 2006) (Henry. 2006) (Perez. 10 years: 1077.762.846 ($6.470.503 Total $295.908 $28.314 ($10.346.910) ($7. (Luciano.442. 3 years: 170."N/A") Year 6 $33.547.503 Year 10 $41."N/A") 91 .ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.217) ($6.793.716.

341) Year 4 (23.404) -1.198.385.629 Year 1 (11.691 Year 5 22.970.851. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.663.917.649.306.381.935) Year 1 (41. Datamatic.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7. AAA Revenue.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.208.7% #N/A Year 6 24.684.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.020.448.809) Year 3 (28.597) 9.560.3% 92 .128 23.386.795 Year 1 (19. 2006) (Luciano.841.484.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.659 18.327.327 64.872) Year 5 (18.858 Year 5 19.596 28.149. (Gomez and Morera. 2006) (Perez.029.754 Year 3 12.390 Year 4 15.506.223 Year 4 17.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.9% #N/A Year 6 26.095.191 13.738. 2006) (Luciano. 2006) (Henry.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .160 105.672.921 Year 3 10.

124.510.Year 7 28.510.193.805) Year 7 25.095 Total 259.095 Year 9 52.510.790 Year 8 52.510.510.095 Year 9 52.758.643.510.060 Year 8 52.959 93 .095 Year 10 52.693 Year 7 27.095 Total 238.422.510.623 Year 8 52.510.095 Total 274.941.510.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.510.386 Year 7 13.510.095 Total (16.940 Year 8 52.095 Year 9 52.405.095 Year 10 52.510.095 Year 9 52.355.

208.558 Year 2 (33.747. (Gomez and Morera.467) (39.623.138) Year 3 10.766.351.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.213.369.067.752.809) 10.596 28.110 11.927.028 Year 3 (28.020.788) 7.649.696 Year 6 (14.560.588. AAA Revenue.390 (17.023 9.738.319.354) Year 4 15.342 Year 4 (23.724 12.128 23.668) Year 1 (41.370) 6.424.044.807) (16.669.327.484.046 13.921 (22.663.543.037 9.725.087 17.459.801) Year 1 (19.746.274) 6.407) 4. 2006) (Perez.590.672.661.865 (18.191 13. 2006) (Luciano.680.595 12. 2006) (Henry.612) 4.583) Year 1 (11.386.381.064 Year 3 12.293.452.858 (12.674) (28.219) (8.701 14.917.703 10.505.029.752.444) (27.448.001 7.179. 2006) (Luciano.112 15.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.265.851.669.319.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.597) 9.854.396.148 17.223 10.969) (11.647 Year 4 17.582.298 Year 2 7. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.684.326.956.835.404) 18.149.327 (9.539) Year 5 19.443 12.691 12.754 8.160 16.907.433.839 (4.872) 15.714 10.306.998) 7.167 14.457.341) 13.005.107.818.659 18. Datamatic.564.746.023 94 .Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.506.385.886 16.821 Year 5 (18.575.610 Year 6 26.198.638 (11.412.970.399.841.824) Year 2 5.095.454.272) (21.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.735 Year 5 22.665) Year 6 24.934.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .

510.095 32.313) Year 7 25.941.124.196.600.510.196.095 32.604.033 Year 9 52.510.033 Year 10 52.790 15.856.638 34.638 34.095 32.510.638 34.033 Year 10 52.196.060 17.033 Year 10 52.693 NPV 145.292 17.518 16.Year 7 28.033 Total 274.604.040.604.196.033 Year 10 52.604.047 Year 7 13.758.374 Year 8 52.767.095 32.805) NPV (34.106 NPV 152.196.492 18.552 NPV 170.623 17.961 Year 7 27.604.510.510.196.510.510.386 NPV 173.831 Total 259.471.817 95 .033 Year 8 52.196.536) Total 238.604.196.604.638 34.701.095 32.638 34.638 34.033 Year 8 52.728.095 32.922 Total (16.643.033 Year 9 52.095 32.703.355.095 32.033 Year 8 52.647 NPV 182.885.033 Year 9 52.510.027.255.959 NPV 162.095 32.814) (8.422.604.405.604.510.095 32.095 32.196.079) NPV (35.638 34.638 34.196.033 Year 9 52.361.181.604.881.196.604.638 34.510.510.638 34.196.638 34.940 (8.332.193.638 34.095 32.604.858.

000.000 $10.000 $0 ($10.000) ($30.000 $40.000.000) ($20.000.000.000.000.000.000 $20.000 $50.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000) ($50.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000.000.000 $30.000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000) ($40.000.

00 $100.00 $150.000.00 $200.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .00) ($200.000.000.00 ($100.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.000.000.000.000.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.00) ($150.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.00 $250.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $0.

000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.00 $250.000.000.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.000.00) ($200.00 $150.000.000.000.00 $0.000.000.000.000.00) ($100.00) ($150.000.000.00 $100.00 ($50.00 $50.000.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00 $200.000.

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

000.000.600 Pumping Stations. 1. 1. 1. 100 . there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. (Andres Garcia. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. 2006.200 km of water lines. personal communication. Water). PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants. and in July of 2006. (Andres Garcia.3 million water meters. the water rates increased by 68%.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. 6. 60 waste water treatment plants. government or independent.3 million clients and 1.000 km of sewer lines. personal communication.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful