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

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

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

................. 56 Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region ................................................................................................. 49 Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire ............1 Metering Technology....................................................................4 Meter Testing ....................................1 Meter Replacement Strategies ....................... 39 5................... 66 Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data .................................................................................................... 41 5....................................................... 61 Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region......5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done ............... 45 Appendices......................... 41 5.....................3 Meter Replacement Timeline............................................................................................................................. 44 References .............................. 54 Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe .............. 42 5............................................................................................. 63 Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region.............................1............................1.2 Information System Recommendations..................................................... 43 5.................................................................................................................5...................................................... 39 5.......... 99 v ...........................1.........................1.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire ........................ 69 Appendix J: Sponsor Description................................................... 58 Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region.............2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology... 51 Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas.............1..................................................

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

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

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

AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter. Finally. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. 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. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix . Currently. As PRASA continues to replace meters. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs.6 Million. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. In light of this.customers were surveyed concerning their opinions of their services and information was gathered from Customer Service directors about the state of their region and any concerns they had about the current replacement effort. We 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

functioning flow meters are necessary.which charges for the specific amount of water used. Armed with this knowledge. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated. If a town pays for a certain amount of water from another town and then does not make all of that money back. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. p. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender.1). If the water meter is accurate. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe.3). In order for this kind of billing to be possible. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy.1. the result can be a cave in. Optimum). p. They can report the water usage for a community.000 a year in water bills. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns.60). Bhardwaj. This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. The display 5 . Horsman & Hanson. 1996. 2. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs. then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. 2004. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield. 2004. In some areas. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. p. revenue is lost. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. Bhardwaj. Moreover. 2002. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea.

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

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

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

An analysis of their remaining life should be done.2. Testing the meters a while after replacement. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. This is the strategy used by a small town. 2. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. would not work with so many water meters. for example. personal communication. 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. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming.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. Anatomy). The meters that served the 40. Additionally. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. 1993. This.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. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. 2/9/2006). This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. 9 . however. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. They decided to replace every meter in the city over a span of 5 years with a meter that was factory sealed and prepared for installation. but could be adapted to work. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico.age.

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

Background). The rest of the meters were causing an estimated $15 million in losses for the company each year. The low volume meters had similar problems. The financial and technological concerns this town had about their meters are the same that Puerto Rico has. many of the meters they used were over 30 years old and beginning to break down. 2002. 2002. Eighteen percent of their accounts did not have meters and were paying a flat rate for water. Toronto. These three accounts provide a total of $408.600. and low volume non metered accounts (City of Toronto. With so many meters on the island. Accounts are billed through a combination of manual reading. 11 . with 27% of them being over 30 years old and beginning to misread water flow. 2002. low volume metered accounts. Their meter reading methods were antiquated. 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. A significant percentage of accounts are read through manual reading. even relying on manual labor.safety of the people reading the meters was ensured. Meter Testing Results). Finally. In order to address these and other issues. customer reading. remote reading and no reading. 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. The electrically based system reduced the need for repairs on the mechanical parts. several agencies within Toronto collaborated to solve these problems.000 to the water department. Toronto has three main account types: high volume accounts. the purchase of $200 meters would pose a financial burden on the authority. as they are exposed to more weather than meters located indoors. Canada and the surrounding area had a number of water meter problems in 2002 (City of Toronto.

Purpose). Replacements in Tampa. Beyond 1”. they continued to check for meters that 12 . 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. This will result in a more satisfied customer base. to radio meters. doing 5. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8.000 meters replaced in a year. These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. In the Toronto area. 2002. If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up. Personal Communication. Due to this. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology.In the end. Currently. Like Toronto. Conclusion). some readings are estimated. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size.000 the first year and 10. estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto.000 the second. Meters that are 5/8". the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years. The first was to upgrade all accounts.000 over the next four years. Additionally. including non metered accounts. 2002. 3/1/2006).500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. the larger diameter a meter has. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period.000 to 63. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20. Personal Communication. 3/1/2006). 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. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico. the more frequently it is tested. It was also recommended that all 8.

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

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

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

2 and 183.3. 2004. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. 2. they have a very complex water distribution system. 2. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.25 per meter per year. being an island presents water concerns of its own. their island concerns and the history of PRASA. p. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. Maryland. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. In addition to this.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. Commercial. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. p. In the case of Anne Arundel County.393).9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. Optimum). Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient. 16 . 1996. Despite being a small island. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant.3 MGD respectively. 1996. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. old meters were costing up to $13. In general. Finally.1).

personal communication. 2. Currently. Most islands. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. 2000. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure.3.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. Puerto Rico included. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island. Currently. should and do monitor their water supply. 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. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. 2000.3. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers.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. their people are concentrated in one area. p. 2/3/2006). p.3). 2. Even for the cities that have a similar population. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22. Their replacement 17 .75 per meter (Andres Garcia. Despite this.3). 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. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram.

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. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work.11). p. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. p. 2/3/2006). During these times of drought. 2002. (McPhaul. 18 .plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. Ondeo and Vivendi. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. personal communication. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. The first company. 2005) By 2004. Ondeo (Blasor. Aside from service problems. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. which rose to $695 million in 2001. 2004. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. On top of this. the EPA fined them $6. 2002. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. Vivendi. 11). 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.1).

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

PRASA replaced 100. 3. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system. 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.000 water meters out of its approximately 1.3 million meters. Additionally. At the same time. In other words. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered.1. 2006.000. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. 318). prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. Lastly. 3. The questionnaire 20 .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. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received. In 2006.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005. To do this. 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. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. the organization planed to replace 200. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans.

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

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

discounts on bulk purchases. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. Using these figures. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. Information concerning pricing. vehicle costs. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered.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. 3.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. 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. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems.1. 3. an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. Costs on the current expenses.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions. preventing PRASA from 23 . Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed.

3. we determined the age and shape of the system. Additionally. the data within the system itself could not be guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate.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. 3. the accuracy of the data and what data should be accessible were used to obtain employee reactions to the system.3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan Meter replacement plans currently in place are not as effective as they could be. We asked what kinds of reading systems worked with the current system and how readings taken in the field were inserted into the database. Additionally. These surveys were to be filled out by employees that use the information system. Questions regarding ease of use.working efficiently. Judgment was based on the size of the area the plan came from. The plan must be enhanced with new procedures that are more efficient. Finally. applicable strategies were derived and combined with the suggestions from the staff and customers to create a final set of recommendations. we determined what steps the administrators were taking to improve the system. 3. This method involved taking aspects from other plans and tailoring them to work for Puerto Rico. During the interview. The following sections detail the methods used to create the new plan.2.3. we sent out employee questionnaires along with the director questionnaires. Plan specifics from each plan were investigated and their suitability for Puerto Rico was judged.1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans After the evaluation of current plans from other locations. how inclusive the plan 24 .

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. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors.was for that area and how successful the plan was in meeting their needs. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 . 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 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. 3.3. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved.000 meters. but came from a town with 20. Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better. Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development.

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. 26 .whether it was better for PRASA to keep their current system or replace it with a new one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. 4.1% 0% 623. including the current system. will cost 34 . Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order. could be adapted but would not be cost effective. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand.3 Million $438.1. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. Five different systems were analyzed. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system.% 65.6 Million 1303% 214. This works for most areas.4% 915.Comparison of AMR Systems AMR System/Meters Datamatic/AMCO Badger(ORION)/AMCO Badger(ORION)/Badger ITRON/AMCO Payback Period ROI 1 yr 5 mo ~11 years 3 yr 3 mo 2 yr 5 mo IRR Investment Total $142. over the course of 10 years. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. Some techniques.3% -0. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems. to determine the overall costs of each.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. From internal Table 1 . Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement. but they can be adapted to work.3 Million $197. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico. such as contracting with a private company. This system.5 Million $187.

significantly lower than the current reading cost. On-Site training. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. This system. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. a major drawback.PRASA around $88. ten Mobile AMR systems.35 Million meters.3 Million for a 10-system kit. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1. There is. and system optimization. and personnel 35 .6 Million. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. they are a very high-tech company. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. however. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems.1 Million.3 Million. it would cost around $141. For the same system. To use a fixed-network system. Thirdly.760. Additionally. including the AMCO Meters. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. or around $11. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. different transmitters would be needed. Badger AMR hardware and software. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. If they were to switch to another meter. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters.

the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. However. with 10 mobile AMR systems.000 worth of meters would have been wasted.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. at the least. This system is very similar to the other Badger system. using the same transmitters. $7. The system. accurately. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. If this system did not represent such a large investment. 36 . if this system is chosen. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above.5 Million dollars. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. Again. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. it would be a reliable choice. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one. A 20-system kit would cost around $438.7 Million. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. Besides this issue. However.training. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. 330. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197.500. This means that.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. any meters installed after January 1st. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. Additionally. would cost about $197. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. This system. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. but time as well.5 Million. raising the total cost for this system by 7. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. 2007.

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

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

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

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

PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. an average of 200. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed. they could replace 217. starting in 2006.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology.164 meters per month.269. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip. meters should be replaced in groups.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.1. In January they replaced 15. If PRASA is within 20. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. 5. In order to do this. These numbers average 18. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. they should continue. Continuing their current trend.000 meters a month. If not. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. the goal and the actual number should be compared.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.5.000 meters of their goal. In order to facilitate this replacement.000 to 30. At the end of the year. According to data received during the plan comparison. In March.000 meters. Given this information. they replaced roughly 18.000 meters should be replaced each year. Meters close to 41 . The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology.967 meters by the end of this year.1. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly.

a refined meter replacement timeline could be made. This testing should be done with the equipment used to test a meter at a customer’s request. This would allow testing to be done on site and the results recorded immediately. Sparsely populated regions would benefit from this by reducing the travel time needed to go from meter to meter. This could be done over the course of ten years until all meters had been serviced. fewer PRASA technicians will be needed to do meter readings. it would take 140 employees 11 weeks to test 130.000 meters. Other water authorities have implemented similar techniques with positive results. however. Selecting which meters to test is important. Testing every meter is only possible if meters are grouped and tests are done over a long period of time. not counting travel time or other breaks. 5. For test beds to be used.4 Meter Testing With the introduction of AMR. Replacing a still functioning meter may save money by doing so along with meters that do need replacing. Additionally. Densely populated regions lend themselves to this strategy because their meters are close together. 42 . The use of a test bed would allow many meters to be tested at once. This way. PRASA only has one small meter test bed. each region would need at least one test bed of its own. so grouping is easy. From this.1.needing replacement should be considered for replacement. Samples taken over time could provide a more accurate measurement of meter life and usage. The increase in available personnel could be utilized for a meter-testing plan. 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. Therefore. a separate trip to the meter will not be necessary in the future. The number of meters PRASA manages is too large to test every one in a timely manner. a representative sample of meters could be used to determine the health of the system.

It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test.A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. the replacement should be stepped up. If the work is too much. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. The current meter 43 . A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. If. replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement. removing the need to hire more workers. 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. This will ensure that a meter is replaced once it begins to underestimate water usage. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. that region should replace their meters less often. through testing. replacing the meters sooner. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. This way. for example. If the increase in work is minimal. If this is so. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. 5.5 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. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others.1.

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

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

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

pnl. 24. 147(8). Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. 21. from http://www. It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. Water Meters. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. Unpublished IQP report. 23. Horsman.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes. Zane. IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. Kendra. Water (http://www. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. Smith. Department of Energy. Plant Engineering. Schlenger. & Hanson Eric. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure. Dale.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. 2006 from http://www.pridco. Puerto Rico.polarisinstitute. & Bhardwaj. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance. U. 26.wvu.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. Retrieved Jan 30th. 59(12). (2005).com/english/operational_advantages/4.S. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. 2006. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria. Retrieved on Jan 30th. WPI. (2002). Satterfield. Puscas. Donald L. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly. (2002). 2006. (2006). Anthony M. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. Worcester. Retrieved Jan 30th.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria. (2000).acueductospr. (2004).htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so.nesc. specifically the section on metering. June). Darren. (2006). 14-15.3opr_adv_infrastructure. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. 47 . 37.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Water engineering & management. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. 2006 from http://www. 25. Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.. Retrieved Feb 20th.html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). 19. Vipin. Shea.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. Puerto Rico. (2004. MA. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico..

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

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

Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8. Algunas interrupciones de servicio. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13. fueron corregidas pronto. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 10. Debo estar notificado por: Correo Teléfono En Persona Correo Electrónico Toda de Estas Maneras 9. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11.6. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. cuando ocurrieron. Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 . sobre algún trabajo que la AAA va a realizar y me va a dejar sin agua. ¿Ha tenido unos problemas sobre que debemos saber? Por Favor. Se me notifica. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. con tiempo suficiente. Durante el día.

1) Por favor. 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. 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. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. Los contadores usados ahora están los mejores por usar con AMR. 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.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. no-técnicos. AMR es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ a) ¿Cuántas personas están necesario por un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 51 . AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible.

Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. ¿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. no-técnicos. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. Tubo y contador deben ser conectados antes de cada instalación: (Reemplazando los términos de los tubos cada vez) Especialización de los Técnicos: (Sólo trabajan en un tipo de contador específico: 5/8” o 2”+) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Convengo 5 5 5 5 4) ¿Cuántos empleados están en el departamento de Servicio de los Clientes en su región? _____________________________________________ a) ¿Debe haber más? b) ¿Debe haber menos? Sí Sí No No 52 . 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.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. Debe haber menos técnicos.

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

9 11 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2.8 10 3 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2.Customer Survey Results .9 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2.7 9 4 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.26 Table 2 .9 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 0 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 1.Plaza Las Americas 54 .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.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 .Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region 60 .

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

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 .

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

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

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

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

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.5 1 0.5 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 67 .Opinions on Current Reading Technology .5 2 1.Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .5 3 2.West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .

5 1 0.Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .5 0 123451234 512345123 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement Figure 22 .Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.West Region 68 .5 2 1.5 3 2.

13 1.869.15 16 .9 1.16 1.73 53.991.41 Fase 2 1.61 2.35 > 35 > 10 0.85 213.88 1.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 .70 0 Fase 2 10.65 4.43 31.13 1.84 94.87 123. 2006.37 569.72 107.18 26.45 0 69 .63 1.135.65 2.15 16 .456.58 50.22 85.49 131.33 61.09 1.45 0 Fase 2 21.67 11.71 19.584.28 Industrial 1.67 2.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.013.93 1.51 22. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.09 638.53 1.6 16.Current and Future (PRASA.56 1.1 1.Water Rates .13 294.258.03 910.11 384.07 1.607.44 1.95 38.64 171.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.97 786.23 36.162.35 > 35 11 .6 1.77 277.6 2.84 461.86 77.

2006) 3 264.20 $1.347.61 70 .79 $1.851.36 2521 246.28 299.28 3.90 0.843.180.494.16 0.00 20 5.39 $1.00 46.36 3098 209.87 0.65 $1.Consumption Figures Table 9 .081.49 $1.00 32 95. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.77 0.636.39 655 558.90 0.00 0.441.95 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 Real B 9 37.28 829.11 0.219.00 42.922.70 42 3.00 1.367.90 5.00 0.793.00 Real A 125 39.00 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 58 249.11 $1.339.00 3 1.14 0.00 0.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.792.717.38 0.61 $1.47 $1.82 $1. B.58 $1.42 0.71 1430 137.70 0.00 10 1. AAA Revenue.00 1 13.119. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.450.148.00 306.90 3. F.00 694. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 18 274.74 0.45 0.34 $1.Consumption Figures – A.97 48 3.15 799 429.90 0.03 Real C 49908 56.00 2 4.201.00 2 1.90 0.784.873.00 45 2. C.00 372.17 1939 120.394.00 4 65.00 0.466.04 0.71 1783 1.053.28 439.28 2.218.90 0.00 32. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.07 1908 999.96 0.85 0.00 Estimada C 58.562.28 189.00 Estimada B 9.31 $1. G (Luciano.

970.543.90 1.074.476.45 0.00 106.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.36 $14.00 12.00 245.00 762.111.23 $1.410.00 0.653.00 24.28 223.32 119 7.00 11.37 56.00 0.775.824.39 0.18 $1.17 0.00 123 6.00 3 5.00 4 5.63 $1.398.565.827.996.00 0.02 $1. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 132.67 $1.099.615.90 0. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.00 862.90 761.334.631.63 6 29.00 0.809.88 0. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.45 66.28 1.00 2 7.00 0.480.705.49 15 30.292.891.99 0.43 13 30.89 0.28 593.96 0.00 0.00 195.55 5 25.49 $9.00 31.25 0.98 $1.830.84 71 .00 312.505.

25 3.43 41 16.695.784.648.90 $1.58 57 1.157.00 144.919.222.17 1629 264.00 1.094.15 $1.14 659.111.74 $1.90 1.00 0.23 1136 1.68 39.18 1735 1.727.90 Real G 4004 112.184.811.668.013.649.090.26 26 13.18 $1.34 983.00 72 .55 105.745.90 98.349.635.710.00 0.686.90 $921.126.522.391.889.062.706.87 $1.851.83 $1.90 $4.71 $1.69 $2.00 481.067.70 128 4.32 247.501.145.49 $1.44 $1.136.198.37 $414.173.072.00 64.643.00 Real F 1 8.94 2.00 22.086.421.90 $304.00 166.91 $1.180.00 Estimada G 5.94 300.818.95 328 621.00 135.912.443.031.00 1.846.00 0.00 0.76 $1.00 84.350.52 4.60 1001 265.00 115.140.15 $7.00 6.444.945.87 0.62 955.90 387.488.92 56.00 236.95 $1.23 0.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.00 2.00 0.90 107.34 $6.91 177 4.99 0.26 0.029.610.558.355.02 0.22 0.523.062.00 86.00 819.00 0.00 9.99 $1.178.87 $1.90 505.67 1.31 2.295.95 0.43 0.14 507 149.00 1.90 $444.253.00 256.00 590.90 $2.00 5.06 $1.082.00 3.26 $1.00 23.08 38 1.95 3.466.90 859.77 80.35 $1.45 550 461.091.769.94 $1.14 $1.833.60 1.07 0.36 $470.451.68 $1.504.00 1.492.503.236.879.502.446.482.90 3.513.80 $1.00 445.414.90 Estimada Total 64.184.33 Real Total 53.90 $5.95 265 194.00 2.00 0.

I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .048.781.268.95 $0.789.28 704.5 192.955.90 11.685.825.489.713.286.00 1.662.00 110.30 $1.534.00 208.60 $949.621.00 1.148.343.00 589.00 9.08 6.02 $22.44 $19.633.406.00 8.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.63 9.29 10.888.00 451.90 4 92.22 $8.408.12 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).11 $10.00 171.44 63.930.87 $0.98 0.28 $2.00 1.00 59.73 77.158.623. C (comercial).24 $1.

430.65 160 260.00 84.67 451.86 1 5.86 2.66 1 3.16 123.67 62.00 6 10.10 2.34 1.16 Real P 39673 32.43 1.16 128.35 2.66 1.54 1.085.16 227.83 1.66 795 902.49 264.67 Estimada P 50.525.413.Consumption Figures .00 17 14. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.69 1.54 269 515.76 110 339.67 Real I 161 110.025.16 Estimada R 1. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.49 140.22 4079 74 .800.783.67 0. AAA Revenue.475.570.108.374.377.123.16 69.16 1.759.00 30.45 146 390.07 2.02 301.01 2.015.34 18 7.81 1082 118.36 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.Table 10 .53 85.708. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 27 0.798.16 Real R 967258 34. and Totals (Luciano.469.69 299.87 2.28 85.12 240 711.94 368.489. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.311.90 2.695.759.361.58 18 7.747.95 74 1.39 2.67 29. R.763.80 110 698.52 55 224.600. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.48 1.I.85 2.87 2.802.444.20 1.97 12 566.67 137.75 2.955.67 37 0.84 72.600.16 0.67 1.16 277.01 4661 16.11 71.00 10 18.67 390.28 770 1.16 157.414.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.54 1.039.80 129 564.16 32.198. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.54 1249 97.570.92 1.67 3.46 10 763.50 2. P.00 30.551.

88 1.48 12 27.00 0.882.206.67 34.16 23.085.67 1.858.16 1.27 876.85 30 31.27 15.243.71 30 32.67 209.184.133. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.292.71 1.11 529.50 1.00 15.30 1.75 5.092.66 543.67 1.00 39.16 55.223.00 30.00 1.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.77 75 .754.79 0.425.61 2.44 1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.785. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.00 2.00 32.353.749.770.47 2.697.932.896.316.00 34.733.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.708.25 12 28.26 19 2.85 101 9.00 0.67 12.66 20 2.059.00 94.388.00 972.67 2.591.90 3.88 0.702. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.312.29 2.45 4 1.57 4 1.53 2.321.515.526.08 2.051.646.67 0.15 0.821.119.98 1.86 73.010.24 0.784.16 12.00 31.376.770.Consumo Prom.00 2.333.06 2.03 1.75 1.740.20 1.33 94.313.67 0.638.898.808.16 1.404.00 50.87 2.16 1.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.27 73.488.16 60.825.04 5.720.380.38 105 10.606.61 559.

87 7.04 74.00 474.866.443.29 792.708.21 90.27 2.81 1.267.59 203.884.700.40 4.552.53 79.00 4.146.16 1.31 340.16 1.380.84 7.061.12 6.00 105.00 59.00 2.71 6.24 10.00 71.011.00 156.474.167.189.186.605.007.00 76.849.00 2.00 404.157.00 17.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.73 8.743.60 425.06 1.146.392.18 160.76 1.18 1.00 125.49 242.400.700.391.32 546.00 4.963.11 135.00 2.707.202.894.00 206.04 367.647.00 10.906.85 2.459.185.980.939.53 4.00 612.00 118.25 425.06 4.00 4 76 .72 120.39 13.791.57 1.00 5.00 4.72 4.561.30 125.028.00 17.757.464.752.930.00 2.009.994.442.78 1.824.007.188.17 163.189.00 4 10.83 80.73 4.26 256.706.89 294.401.265.549.88 7.033.133.549.00 3.48 1.00 4 902.53 4.94 1.74 75.00 11.00 97.198.825.00 573.19 1.018.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.55 5.00 4 2.201.00 2.451.06 1.197.336.740.80 1.96 73.491.00 193.00 48.172.532.498.359.48 28.26 574.520.712.31 4.679.424.37 243.26 108.88 1.00 1.89 Total 6 Months 2.720.00 4 40.00 3.00 181.201.813.23 655.00 64.262.53 9.032.00 890.994.081.006.413.226.982.605.88 4.931.336.017.652.785.00 489.00 4 54.00 557.07 2.68 135.828.27 34.28 Real Total 1.014.48 334.004.305.98 1.594.98 Real Grand Total 1.136.092.561.16 90.638.419.79 2.254.00 752.56 30.00 362.24 241.00 56.31 8.132.29 34.376.82 1.98 251.823.70 16.578.984.491.00 131.868.00 4.86 1.495.746.708.75 543.065.00 11.00 16.Estimada Total 1.00 4 30.976.142.759.026.022.

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

20) 610.919.842.259.369.63 621.160.259.732.056.259.473.160.63 621.323.732.070.919.056.439.160.566.070.74) 621.63 621.056.79) (15.63 621.720.259.20) (11.259.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.64 621.434.566.160.160.797.20) 610.63 621.070.43 621.99) (11.63 621.160.732.63 Year 9 621.439.160.64 621.259.64 621.720.99) 605.20) (110.259.63 621.473.160.211.63 621.99) (11.369.056.20) (11.070.29 6.64 621.99) (11.63 (11.323.056.439.20) (4.160.43 621.99) (11.160.323.63 (15.00 (11.259.720.056.99) 605.434.160.439.160.074.160.99) 605.20) 0.600.056.259.056.63 621.160.79) (15.720.Net Cash Flow .99) 605.369.160.63 621.99) (11.473.732.056.070.323.566.439.160.070.79) (15.160.99) 605.160.592.160.63 (11.797.63 621.63 Year 10 621.259.056.43 621.702.070.160.056.20) (4.056.439.63 621.259.732. 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 ` 621.056.070.20) (11.797.439.259.160.64 621.160.369.070.259.79) (15.439.63 621.070.732.29 (136.056.732.056.20) 0.439.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.070.160.056.070.070.056.20) (4.600.600.160.29 (11.056.732.056.Current System Costs Table 12 .056.20) 0.00 (11.63 (15.439.089.63 (15.070.160.20) (4.74) (136.20) 0.211.369.473.20) (4.160.089.070.056.259.439.323.74) 6.63 (11.056.056.259.00 (11.20) 610.63 (15.089.64 Year 7 621.259.056.00) (26.63 (11.79) (15.439.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .797.070.259.056.070.056. (Luciano.63 (15.63 621.732.056.63 Year 8 621.473.43 6.160.216.63 621.160. AAA Revenue.056.732.00 (11.99) 621.056.681.323.720.089.99) 605.070.160.732.63 Total 6.369.63 (15.160.211.473.20) (4.79) (15.720.259.056.20) 610.131.732.

80) (47.971.72 10.314.23 37.30 15.592.793.314.852.010.40 41.72 10.592.467.72 10.793.23 Year 8 41.314.908.417.970.502.502.524.00) (6.050.06 28.23) (6.64 33.614.23) (7.322.89 Year 4 24. 2006) (Luciano.911.59) (51.762.412.716.120.716.217.793.377.439.439. 2006) (Henry.971.40 41.016.06 28.69) 81 .440.502.911.40 41.290.01) (5.212.40 Year 9 41.502.845.780.592.852.64 33.314.40 41.908.780.381.716.322.793.217.592.52 295.06 Year 6 33.793.716.136.592.352.72 10.72 10.970.936.793.89 19.439.89 19.502.80) (48.716.30 15.780.47 24.01) (6.768.439.179.823.793.40 41.96) (30.72 10.40 Total 295.908.134.377.780.381. 2006) (Perez.050.136.26) (22.845.060.72 10.793.01) (5.23 37.852.47 Year 5 28.828.80) (47.910.217.780.592.100.780.377.750.47 24.502.970.502.502.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.690.80) 10.80) (9.381.381.06 28.136.217.80) (8.881.050.254.302.502.52 295.177.346.502.136.52 (9.716. (Gomez and Morera.440.40 41.72 (21.547.845.72 10.941.01) Year 7 37.59) (12.80) (48.23) (6.644.793.52 295.780.02) (10.638.26) (35.176. Datamatic.442.716.23 37.470.793.793.47 24.72 10.01) (5.845.254.30 15.592.00) (52.80) (9.780.852.440.718.72 10.80) (9.89 19.716. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.43) (312.780.40 Year 10 41.322.40 41.30 Year 3 19.971.242.23) (7.704.793.40 41.050.992.Incremental Cash Flow .793.716.793.845.716.40 41.911.426.592.443.592.72 10.592.823.793.64 33.502.502.72 10.050.72 10.322.217.Table 13 .716.970.823.971.793.377.054.536.908.716.502.502. AAA Revenue.23) (7.911.39) (57.823.780.502.80) (48. 2006) (Luciano.72 10.592.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.72 Year 2 15.80) (9.592.440.502.

405.638.26 295.08 15.064.149.89 (48.095.439.72 52.386.39) (16.845.970.750.592.120.908.467.095.84 33.510.06 (5. (Gomez and Morera.177.136.12 82 .40 10.89 (7.242.52 (57.502.793.060.691. 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 37.510.992.510.560.01) 22.64 (6.095.386.314.72 52.823.440.47 (5.254.693.908.823.40 10.09 295.190.440.793.23) 15.23) 5.510.502.36) 37.716.326.80) 23.592.306.780.059.510.412.716.793.050.095.828.136.40 10.12 41.80) 18.72 (22.136.649.407.381.377.40 10.442.780.134.971.43 10.659.72 52.28) 15.72 (30.502.314.00) (11.502.217.643.127.40 10.716.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .327.852.52 (312.422. 2006) (Luciano.793.21 37.502.12 24.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.439.716.908.72 52.322.80) (18.502.704.47 (9.12 41.623.80) 9.217.40 10.795. Datamatic.628.716.198.592.970.89 (6.510.823.30 (48.290.547.23 (51.917.254.502.852.217.12 41.510.716.12 41.050.403.02) 25.389.510.506.46 295.016.24) 10.510.80) (28.716.385.40 10.314.050.355.592.935.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .217.672.30 (6.439.718.095.28) 10.716.793.644.377.768.72 52.793.440.095.845.12 41.852.100.72 52.448.72 52.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.12 41.823.502.780.908.793.26) 238. AAA Revenue.592.352.793.758.72 (52.095.50 15.89 (9.793.69) 259.322.970.64 (47.684.788.346.23) 24.41 33.25 24.971.80) 27.179.592.314.050.426.193.50) 15.780.941.793.502.80) 28.970.440.673.502.83 28.780.690.095.26 28.12 41.804.417.52 (35.47 (48.054.716.64 (5.16) 33.64 (8.524.780.26) (19.322.52 (21.762.64 37.790.510.01) 26.614.80) (23.597.095.716.443.663.05 33.020.470.592.33) 24.510.72 52.881.941.921.09 19.592.208.160.00) (5.322.971.222.12 19.40 10.91) 19. 2006) (Perez.01) 7.738.23) 19. 2006) (Luciano.596.124.40 10.30 (9.845.911.340.510.06 (6.72 (15.54) 10.212.12 41.845.47 (7.43) 274.970.754.502.872.377.502.780.936.12 41.592.72 52.01) 17.06 (9.716.971.780.958.23 (10.592.80) (33.23) 10.095.845.851.502.83 28.30 (7.06 (47.381.96) (41.050.01) 12.841.095.40 10.502.80) (14.536.502.911.029.910.858.40 10.87) 295.911.381.095.793.217.716.852.780.29 41.911.59) 28.59) (13.484.940.010.780.381.502.72 52.381.592.40 10.377.809.793.136.74) 28.176.23 (9.793.439.793.793.67 24.592.302.72 52. 2006) (Henry.66 19.72 52.23 (12.88 41.095.80) 13.793.

762.502.780.852.704.010.71) Year 5 $28.47 $28.25 Year 5 $28.74) ($41.663. 2006) (Henry.66 (127.80) ($18.28) Year 1 $10.971.72 ($30.50) $17.01) $12.80) ($6.381.593.018.412.326.810.569.971.407.448.89 $24.908.179.176.596.09 $18.060. AAA Revenue.74) Year 2 $15.780.83 ($19.421.362.872.24) Year 1 $10.72 ($52.97) Year 4 $24.00) ($11.780.242.99 Year 4 $24.290.984.217.302.638. (Gomez and Morera.379.780.964.05 ($11.644.020.127.54) ($74.28) $9.495.852.208.198.673.910.911.439.29 ($3.80) Year 3 $19.852.442.22 Year 2 $15.67 $23.45 Year 4 $24.649.381.28 Year 5 $28.976.541.222.80) ($5.936.149.809.327.908.26) ($19.652.30 ($7.326.050.061.47 ($7.780.00) ($6.597.214.327.50 $13.911.54) Year 1 $10.908.160.971.30 ($9.322.120.793.407.822. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.793.793.88 $11.26 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 ($5.89 ($9.426.322.91) $36.01) $22.780.46) Year 2 $15.938.28) ($14.47 ($9.80) ($23.853.027.718.663.381.917.46 $31.23) $10.06 ($9.788.029.597.673.448.502.971.06 ($47.65) Year 3 $19.31 Year 3 $19.24) $3.752.506.386.439.992.381.757.066.25 (145.99) $8.484.80) ($28.502.47 ($48. 2006) (Luciano.198.050.050.72 ($22.560.252.89 ($48.597.261.30 $19.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .23) $15.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.30 ($48.659.96) ($41.828.821.89 $25.780.01) $17.403.793.36 $48.89 ($7.054.340.190.788.502.41 83 .176.08 (103.841.780.439.01) $7.33) $59.754. 2006) (Perez.381.684.80) ($33.908.06 ($6.911.80) ($5.385.851.439. Datamatic.100.346.852.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.738.389.858.649.352.23) $5.72 $15.23) $19.691.050.911.217.28) ($3.217.377. 2006) (Luciano.810.322.921.869.385.217.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.322.377.377.377.

716.510.592.693.700.673.845.510.958.02) $25.90 Year 7 $37.72 $52.750.716.440.97 Year 9 $41.26) $238.72 $52.510.136.40 $10.431.790.335.73 Year 7 $37.793.72 $52.758.795.716.780.895.502.12 $154.716.592.01) $26.405.117.195.845.314.26 Year 10 $41.40 $10.780.095.40 $10.212.845.970.716.502.69) $259.306.72 $52.095.941.502.26 Total $295.845.510.804.355.40 $10.510.095.502.124.672.623.823.80) $27.970.598.84 $88.502.40 $10.52 ($21.502.825.716.617.36) $173.40 $10.592.823.193.12 ($16.64 ($8.690.136.12 $133.958.99) Year 9 $41.881.21 $80.823.23) $24.417.385.12 $185.83 84 .405.095.095.059.63 $74.254.12 $169.23 ($51.09 Total $295.177.502.510.703.64 $116.050.440.845.59 Year 9 $41.23 ($12.136.Year 6 $33.314.502.016.52 ($57.12 ($68.510.14 Year 9 $41.050.502.80) $28.845.592.87 Year 6 $33.80) ($14.314.23 ($9.254.793.724.43 $102.970.467.443.12 $221.823.71 Year 10 $41.592.503.510.804.095.64 ($6.411.095.100.41 $55.83 Total $295.793.716.87) Total $295.386.40 $10.72 $52.793.64 ($5.02 Year 8 $41.768.72 $52.355.510.793.793.592.290.041.502.095.72 $52.935.12 $238.136.899.23 Year 7 $37.510.592.592.628.592.09 Year 6 $33.502.793.40 $10.40 $10.85 Year 8 $41.23 ($10.716.643.40 $10.39 ($16.47 Year 8 $41.768.59) $28.12 $259.080149.095.87) Year 10 $41.940.592.716.716.793.592.921.970.04 Year 7 $37.716.536.43) $274.12 $207.72 $52.72 $52.213.793.941.470.69 Year 6 $33.40 $10.16) $160.524.095.793.793.440.510.693.40 $10.59) ($13.314.547.502.12 $121.716.793.11 Year 8 $41.875.386.095.72 $52.193.52 ($35.095.941.64 ($47.217.52 $312.422.407.970.72 $52.614.440.090.064.134.998.510.989.12 $274.592.863.095.09 Year 10 $41.72 $52.

917.846 ($47.704.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.503 ($30.327.327 Year 6 $33.236658937 ($14.597) $9.936.306.908 ($9.208.377 ($47.390 ($127.718.215) ($160.908 $28.050) $24.160835902 $31.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28. 2006) (Luciano.Payback Period Table 16 . AAA Revenue.503 $15.242.080. 2006) (Perez.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.050) $15.971 ($48.381.781) ($5.700.252 1.380 6.050) $10.781) ($6.176.939) FALSE Year 3 $19. Datamatic.412.095.767.134.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.352. 2006) (Luciano.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.593 Years Year 2 $15.426.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.908 ($48.386.984.659 $18.503 ($52.852.793.911.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.853.911.793.851.809) $17.598) Years Year 2 $15.793.781) ($14.872) $59.781) ($33.010.788) $3.440 ($9.377 ($9.404) Year 6 $33.191 $13.596 $28.061.060. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.971 $19.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.050) $19.100) ($6.377 $33.448.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.976 $88.440.674) ($74.322.846 ($8.536.302.663. 2006) (Henry.752) Years ($3.858 ($145.120.385.663.971 ($9.828.852.322.674) 3.781) ($18.440. (Gomez and Morera.950470057 Year 4 $24.128 $23.179.326.672.788) N/A Year 1 $10.597) 1.381.385.781) ($28.322.236658937 $11.027.440 $24.738.852.029.53199599 Year 3 $19.117.781) ($5.821.381.363) 3.198.644.198.440.291) ($41.484.448.066.921 ($103.495 6.992.822 $55.560.341) $36.381.781) ($5.781) ($23.050) $5.768.53199599 Year 1 $10.176) ($19.440 ($48.020.618 85 .810.841.911.

823.137 ($312.845.716.095 Year 9 $41.971 ($7.510.137 ($21.291 $274.716.970.643.592 $10.875.793.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.970.823.193.503 Total $295.442.470.314 ($12.716.327.703.503 $52.503 $52.261 6.050 Year 7 $37.592 $10.793.054.758.716.193.643443217 $48.510.793.160 Year 6 $33.417.940) Year 8 $41.217) $12.467.941) ($16.653) Years $8.793.793.440 ($7.405.217) $17.060 Year 8 $41.510.908 ($7.440.503 Year 10 $41.691 Year 5 $28.090) ($121.970.217) $7.805) Year 7 $37.649.823.592 $10.407) Year 2 $15.793.292628695 ($3.684.095 Year 10 $41.255) $28.101 $169.223 Year 4 $24.793.592 $10.649.805) ($173.503 $52.510.503 $52.503 ($22.510.346.716.510.793.524) Year 8 $41.095 Total $295.716.750) $274.149.592 $10.995) ($68.137 ($57.716.196 $221.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.213.381.386 Year 7 $37.592 $10.503 $52.592 $10.754 Year 3 $19.592 $10.541.095 Year 9 $41.377 ($6.322.910) ($11.443) 86 .095 Total $295.570 2.716.503 $52.911.900) ($16.716.503 Year 9 $41.018.407) 2.212.095 Year 10 $41.314 ($51.638.852.970.421 $74.793.292628695 $25.314 ($9.386 $116.217) $26.964.592 $10.869.016.793.895.846 ($6.762.217) $22.506.405.614.385.724.989.255) ($13.

970.716.510.095 Total $295.503 $185.825.845.921.355.793.623 Year 8 $41.592 $10.881.503 $52.673 $154.510.124.823.693 Year 7 $37.314 ($10.431.355.$25.178) $259.793.095 $238.510.547.959 87 .769 $207.095 $52.510.793.095 Year 10 $41.510.503 $52.693 $80.959 $102.592 $10.408 $133.510.411.335.503 $52.095 Year 9 $41.941.137 ($35.941.790 $52.422.864 $259.592 $10.716.095 $52.691) $27.716.598 $238.

781) ($5.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).503 Year 10 $41.134. Datamatic.440.137 ($21.417.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).970.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.Return on Investment .781) ($6."N/A") 88 .793.781) Simple ROI.750) Year 6 $33.718.255) Year 8 $41.793."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).503 Year 9 $41.314 ($9. 2006) (Luciano.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.302.971 $19.781) Simple ROI. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.908 $28.010.503 $15. 5 years: 151.716.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.846 ($5.503 Total $295. 10 years: 1281.381.592 $10."N/A") Year 7 $37.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .592 $10. (Luciano.716.440 $24.992.716.592 $10. AAA Revenue.793.781) ($5.322.823."N/A") Simple ROI. 3 years: 62.212. 7 years: 217.852.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.793.426.100) ($6.911.

291) ($48.793.793.781) ($48.381.941) Year 6 $33.716.970.793."N/A") Simple ROI.592 $10.781) ($47. 5 years: -59.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).503 Year 9 $41. 2006) (Perez.781) ($48.440 $24."N/A") 89 .536."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).016.503 Total $295.592 $10.503 Year 10 $41.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.322.716.781) Simple ROI.137 ($312.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).823. 7 years: -50. (Gomez and Morera.179.793. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.592 $10.781) Simple ROI.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.852.Return on Investment .314 ($51.971 $19.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.120.828.255) Year 8 $41.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0..Badger/AMCO Table 18 . 3 years: -69.412.911."N/A") Year 7 $37.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).440.846 ($47.704.614. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.908 $28. AAA Revenue. 2006) (Luciano.716. 10 years: -5.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.503 $15.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.

050) ($9.242.060.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.592 $10.503 Year 10 $41.050) ($9. AAA Revenue.176) ($9.793. 5 years: 160.440.050) ($9. 7 years: 313.443) Year 6 $33.Badger/Badger Table 19 .970. 3 years: 105.768.793.440 $24.846 ($8."N/A") Simple ROI. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.852.137 ($57.793.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).845.716.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))). 10 years: 585."N/A") Simple ROI.503 $15.911.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.352."N/A") 90 .971 $19.Return on Investment .(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).592 $10."N/A") Year 7 $37.314 ($12.050) Simple ROI.644.503 Total $295.503 Year 9 $41.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.908 $28.936.381.793.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.592 $10.467.823. 2006) (Gomez and Morera. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.050) Simple ROI.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.716.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.716.524) Year 8 $41.322.

(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).322.440."N/A") 91 .547.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.881.217) ($7."N/A") Simple ROI.910) ($7. 7 years: 475.911.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .503 Total $295.793.440 $24.217) Year 7 $37.793. (Luciano.762.314 ($10.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0. 3 years: 170."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).908 $28.137 ($35. 2006) (Perez.503 Year 9 $41.793.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).217) ($7.691) Year 8 $41.852.054.381. 2006) (Henry. AAA Revenue.971 $19.217) Simple ROI. 5 years: 245.470.217) ($6.592 $10.Return on Investment .592 $10.846 ($6.716. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.970.793.592 $10.716.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.178) Simple ROI.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))). 10 years: 1077.503 Year 10 $41.442.346.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.823.638.503 $15."N/A") Year 6 $33.716. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.

484.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.872) Year 5 (18. AAA Revenue.095.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.9% #N/A Year 6 26.691 Year 5 22.841.560.386.341) Year 4 (23.390 Year 4 15.191 13.738.149.306.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.385.663.208.597) 9.649.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.754 Year 3 12.795 Year 1 (19.659 18.970.917.327.629 Year 1 (11. (Gomez and Morera.7% #N/A Year 6 24. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.851.921 Year 3 10.160 105.672. 2006) (Perez.029. Datamatic.858 Year 5 19.020.223 Year 4 17.128 23.448.684.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .198. 2006) (Henry.327 64.3% 92 .935) Year 1 (41. 2006) (Luciano.809) Year 3 (28.596 28.381.404) -1. 2006) (Luciano.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.506.

959 93 .643.510.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 9 52.510.Year 7 28.805) Year 7 25.095 Total (16.355.941.790 Year 8 52.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.124.510.095 Year 9 52.405.940 Year 8 52.693 Year 7 27.422.510.060 Year 8 52.095 Total 274.623 Year 8 52.510.510.386 Year 7 13.193.510.095 Year 9 52.758.510.095 Total 259.510.510.510.095 Total 238.510.

029. 2006) (Perez.623.342 Year 4 (23.110 11.821 Year 5 (18.160 16.223 10.839 (4.610 Year 6 26.274) 6.020. (Gomez and Morera.674) (28.023 94 .921 (22.647 Year 4 17.028 Year 3 (28.724 12.583) Year 1 (11.714 10.703 10.399.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.208. AAA Revenue.684.998) 7.564.672.854.341) 13.691 12.669.725.044.219) (8.738.001 7. 2006) (Henry.354) Year 4 15.543.747.612) 4.319.457.638 (11.351.452.669.970.824) Year 2 5.835.298 Year 2 7.588.198.809) 10.037 9.306.138) Year 3 10.444) (27.807) (16.506.191 13. 2006) (Luciano.575.424.149.590.448.023 9.696 Year 6 (14.327 (9.412.046 13.484.396.680.005.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.801) Year 1 (19.454.467) (39.595 12.369.746.582.752.505.858 (12.107.746.934.927. 2006) (Luciano.087 17.213.841.067.407) 4.128 23.969) (11.649.179.443 12.851.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.272) (21.390 (17. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.596 28.558 Year 2 (33.293.956.539) Year 5 19.766.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.752.754 8.148 17.404) 18.381.265.385.319.661.701 14.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 . Datamatic.865 (18.386.663.735 Year 5 22.597) 9.326.818.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.095.560.788) 7.112 15.459.659 18.665) Year 6 24.872) 15.064 Year 3 12.917.886 16.167 14.907.327.668) Year 1 (41.370) 6.433.

292 17.638 34.196.Year 7 28.040.033 Year 10 52.638 34.701.095 32.604.196.033 Year 8 52.510.805) NPV (34.095 32.422.060 17.355.703.033 Year 9 52.095 32.033 Year 8 52.386 NPV 173.471.536) Total 238.095 32.095 32.196.638 34.196.638 34.940 (8.361.095 32.510.638 34.638 34.643.922 Total (16.095 32.033 Year 10 52.255.193.510.604.510.492 18.510.856.604.638 34.638 34.604.181.196.604.033 Year 10 52.604.510.604.881.196.604.510.817 95 .758.600.033 Year 8 52.196.604.959 NPV 162.124.405.604.095 32.941.638 34.033 Year 9 52.638 34.095 32.079) NPV (35.106 NPV 152.604.604.510.510.332.767.885.374 Year 8 52.047 Year 7 13.196.033 Year 9 52.027.033 Year 10 52.095 32.831 Total 259.033 Year 9 52.638 34.510.196.313) Year 7 25.728.510.858.510.518 16.196.095 32.790 15.693 NPV 145.095 32.552 NPV 170.814) (8.623 17.033 Total 274.196.961 Year 7 27.647 NPV 182.638 34.196.

000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000) ($40.000 $10.000 $40.000.000.000.000.000) ($30.000 $0 ($10.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000.000.000 $20.000 $30.000) ($20.000.000) ($50.000 $50.000.

000.000.000.000.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.000.000.00 $250.000.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.000.000.00 $200.00) ($150.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.00 ($100.000.000.000.00 $0.000.00 $100.00) ($200.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .00 $150.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.

000.00 $200.000.000.000.00) ($150.00 $250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00) ($200.00 $0.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.000.00 $50.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00 $150.00 $100.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.000.00 ($50.00) ($100.

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

200 km of water lines. 60 waste water treatment plants.600 Pumping Stations. 100 . personal communication. 1. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. and in July of 2006.000 km of sewer lines. 2006. personal communication. the water rates increased by 68%.000.3 million water meters. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. 6.000.3 million clients and 1. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. 1. (Andres Garcia. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. Water). 1. government or independent. (Andres Garcia.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful