Water Flow Meter Replacement San Juan, Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority May 3rd, 2006

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

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

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

i

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

ii

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

..................................................................................................................1 Interview with Administrators ................................ 22 3...........................................................................2............................................................................................................. 31 4................................... 32 4.......3 PRASA.............. 15 2...................... 24 3..........................................................................4 2.. viii Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................... 4 2................................................................2..........................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan .........1 Interview with System Administrators .................. 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ........................ vi Table of Tables .... 16 2...............................................................................Table of Contents Abstract.................................... 20 3........................................................................... vii Executive Summary .. 21 3........................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology..................................................3 Plan Comparisons .......2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations ........................................ 39 iv .............................. 16 2..... 27 4............1...............2.....................................................................................1 Customer Survey....................................................... 20 3.............2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan ............. iii Table of Contents ...........................................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan ........................................................................3...................2 Evaluation of Information System ......................... ii Acknowledgments ....................................................................... 7 2................................. 5 2...........................................................................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................ 27 4..................1 Water Resources ....2 Island Considerations...................................................................3 Puerto Rico’s Water System ................................................................. 24 3.............................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement........1...... 9 2.......................................................................................... 23 3......................3................................................. 7 2.................................1..........2 Evaluation of Current Information System ..2 Director Interviews ...................................................................................... 17 2... 37 4..................................................................................... 27 4.........................................................................................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ..... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................1 General Replacement Considerations ..1.....3............3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations ....................................................................................... 4 2.............................................. 34 4.................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology.......3 Water Meter Management .................................................1 Flow Meters ..........................................................................................1 Flow Meter Importance....................................................1........................................................3.....................1 Chapter 2: Background.................................... iv Table of Figures.........................2..........................................................................................................................................................3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan........................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans.1 Customer Survey........1.................................................... i Authorship ..............................................3.....1.. 23 3..................................................1................ 20 3............................................................................................................ 24 3.........................2 Other Meter Replacements .............................................................................................1..........2.1....................

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

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

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

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

In light of this. Currently.customers were surveyed concerning their opinions of their services and information was gathered from Customer Service directors about the state of their region and any concerns they had about the current replacement effort. Finally.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix . As PRASA continues to replace meters. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. 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. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology.6 Million. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. we recommend that PRASA finalize their decision on AMR and begin installing the transmitters with every new meter in order to reduce the cost of retrofitting currently installed meters. The results of the cost-benefit analysis prompted the recommendation that PRASA keep their current meters and install the ITRON AMR technology at an initial investment of $187. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter.

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

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

In late 2005. relocated. This poses significant problems when the meter is due for reading or replacement. more efficient Automated-Meter-Reading Technologies (AMR). Since December 2005. 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. Human errors. the company will need to determine whether the benefits of the system outweigh the initial costs. but no conclusions have been made. PRASA has received several estimates from related companies. PRASA recognizes that AMR is the next step. the plan in use may not be the most effective. Of the meters installed before 2005. The current replacement effort is moving forward. and is currently involved in small pilot programs on several parts of the island. Water authorities around the world are switching to newer. A reading system of this type is not only inefficient. the company released a Request for Proposals from AMR companies in the hopes of initiating a move to a new reading system. often lead to incorrect readings and therefore incorrect billing. In 2005. along with the occasional inability to actually locate the meter. the archaic meter-reading system is the most problematic for the authority. a large number of them have been buried. In order to continue with the modifications to the system. the authority replaced over 130.000 water meters. PRASA understands the importance of AMR technology to the future of the organization. Currently. but is wary of proceeding with a full change-over due in part to the costs associated with such an endeavor. and are able to read meters and bill customers with much improved accuracy and spend fewer man hours reading meters. information system. The pilot programs have been running for several months.PRASA’s revenue generation abilities are hindered by several factors including their replacement plan. or overtaken by plant growth. Of these issues. but also inaccurate. PRASA also realizes the importance of having correctly functioning meters. however. and meter-reading technology. For the success of the 2 .

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

Finally. A flow meter provides reliable water usage measurement. For some utilities. This chapter will present this information as it relates to Puerto Rico.1 Flow Meter Importance Correctly billing the customer is the primary use for a flow meter (Allender. This enables the water authority to accurately bill customers so that the funds necessary to maintain the system are collected. as well as the technological issues that must be dealt with is necessary in choosing the right water meter. Understanding how this fits in with their current water system and the water concerns of an island will be necessary to make proper recommendations for Puerto Rico. 2. Understanding the importance of a flow meter.Chapter 2: Background Creating a water meter replacement plan is not a task to be taken lightly. It allows the water utility to properly measure how much water a specific house or business has used and charge them appropriately. 2. like PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) these bills are their only source of income. This section will discuss why a flow meter is an important piece of a water distribution system and mention some technological and managerial flow meter considerations.1.1 Flow Meters While it is the function of a flow meter to only record the volume of water that passes through it. 1996. Replacement strategies are also an important part of a meter replacement plan. Many aspects must be considered in order to create a successful plan. Puerto Rico is in a unique situation concerning the water authority. Block rate billing. Detection). the meter is needed for much more than that. 4 . Water meters are a large part of a water meter replacement plan. General replacement strategies as well as specific examples of other replacement plans will be discussed to demonstrate what other water authorities are doing to keep their water meters functioning.

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

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

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

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

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

and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth.05 billion to 3. was in a similar situation (Jackson.65 billion gallons. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. average billable water readings jumped from 3. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. 1996. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. a significant amount of water and revenue. 1993. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. only for new houses or completely broken meters. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. Meter Replacement). Meter replacements were rare. Research). 1996. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. To alleviate this problem. Like Atlantic City. so a boost in available personnel. Michigan. The meters needed to be technologically sound and equipped with radio frequency equipment but not so expensive that one meter would be too costly to replace if it were vandalized or another one needed to be added. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. they decided to use radio frequency meters. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. 1996. 1996. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. Their aging meters served about 20. causing customer complaints. Anatomy).The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. Benefits). and the 10 . 1996. Aging Meters).000 different clients. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. they were purchasing water from another city. Research). Pontiac. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. At the same time. In the end.

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

In the end. The first was to upgrade all accounts. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons.000 over the next four years. Beyond 1”. 3/1/2006). doing 5. Additionally. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8. the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. Personal Communication. the more frequently it is tested. These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. Meters that are 5/8".500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto.000 the second. the larger diameter a meter has. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. 2002. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period. Replacements in Tampa. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. Due to this. Currently. 2002. Conclusion). It was also recommended that all 8. If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up.000 to 63. 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. to radio meters. some readings are estimated. The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20.000 meters replaced in a year. Purpose). 3/1/2006). 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. including non metered accounts.000 the first year and 10. Personal Communication. In the Toronto area. This will result in a more satisfied customer base. Like Toronto. they continued to check for meters that 12 .

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

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

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

3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. 1996.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. they have a very complex water distribution system. Finally. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. their island concerns and the history of PRASA. being an island presents water concerns of its own.3.25 per meter per year. Commercial. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. In general. 2004. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. Maryland.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. Optimum). Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. In addition to this. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171.393).1). The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. 16 . A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. 2. In the case of Anne Arundel County. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.3 MGD respectively. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. 2. p. old meters were costing up to $13. Despite being a small island. p. 1996.2 and 183.

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

On top of this. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. 2004. 2005) By 2004. The first company. 2002. During these times of drought.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. p. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. personal communication. Ondeo and Vivendi. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. the EPA fined them $6. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. Vivendi. 18 . which rose to $695 million in 2001. 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. 2/3/2006). government controlled land (Andres Garcia. p. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. Ondeo (Blasor.1). the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. 11). (McPhaul.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. 2002. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. Aside from service problems.

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

Additionally.3 million meters. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard.000. 3. 2006. To do this. 318).1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. In 2006. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. The questionnaire 20 . the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. the organization planed to replace 200.Chapter 3: Methodology The goal for this project was to provide recommendations to PRASA (Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority) on how to improve their water meter management. 3. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. In other words. Lastly.1. We chose a survey because it enabled us to ask more questions to a larger audience within a shorter time frame than interviews would allow. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. PRASA replaced 100. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. This section will describe the methods used to evaluate Puerto Rico’s current efforts for meter replacement and allowed us to make recommendations on how the effort can be improved. At the same time.

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

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

vehicle costs. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered. 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. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. preventing PRASA from 23 . accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems. Information concerning pricing. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy.1.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions. Costs on the current expenses. 3. an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated.looked at and determined whether it could be directly implemented or adapted for use in Puerto Rico.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. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. 3. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. Using these figures. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. discounts on bulk purchases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. Currently. but do not always use. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced. Additionally. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. 33 .699 people. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing. Tampa only has around 120.3 million. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. 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. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. making testing every meter on the island impractical. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. Currently.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter. the beds are very expensive. Additionally. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1.

will cost 34 .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.3 Million $197. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. could be adapted but would not be cost effective.1% 0% 623. This system. to determine the overall costs of each.% 65. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money. From internal Table 1 . This system involves AMCO V100 water meters.1.5 Million $187.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 $142.3% -0. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority.6 Million 1303% 214. Five different systems were analyzed. Some techniques. including the current system. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. This works for most areas. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement. over the course of 10 years. 4.4% 915. but they can be adapted to work.3 Million $438.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order. such as contracting with a private company. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated.

but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. different transmitters would be needed. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. they are a very high-tech company. This system. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. including the AMCO Meters. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141.760.3 Million. On-Site training. and system optimization. To use a fixed-network system. Additionally.1 Million. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle. ten Mobile AMR systems. Thirdly. and personnel 35 . There is. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. significantly lower than the current reading cost. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. a major drawback. For the same system.6 Million. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment.PRASA around $88. or around $11. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. it would cost around $141. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly.4 Million for replacing all of the 1.3 Million for a 10-system kit. Badger AMR hardware and software. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. however. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438. If they were to switch to another meter.35 Million meters.

Again.7 Million. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. 330. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. However. Additionally. This means that.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. This system. any meters installed after January 1st. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece.training. it would be a reliable choice.5 Million dollars.500. The system. if this system is chosen. but time as well. at the least. 36 . This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. raising the total cost for this system by 7. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. If this system did not represent such a large investment. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. accurately. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. However. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. $7. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one. Besides this issue.5 Million. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. using the same transmitters. 2007.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. would cost about $197. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. with 10 mobile AMR systems. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. This system is very similar to the other Badger system.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.

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

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

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

40 . The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. Adding this to the already expensive $197. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. Additionally. Based on these evaluations.500. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. Similarly. To use this system. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. This cost is a large one.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. This represents at the very least a $7. and certainly more difficult to recover from. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million. While being the cheapest system. 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. Thus we recommend that PRASA move to a newer AMR system as soon as possible in order to save money and increase its revenue generation potential. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. while providing one of the better integrated solutions.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement. using the ITRON AMR system with the currently installed AMCO V100 water meters is the most cost-effective solution as it will save PRASA the same amount each year and provide them with quality and flexible AMR technology from a company they have been doing business with for many years. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system.

we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year.1.269. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17.967 meters by the end of this year.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. the goal and the actual number should be compared.000 meters.1. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. If not.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. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology. According to data received during the plan comparison. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. Meters close to 41 .164 meters per month. 5. These numbers average 18. If PRASA is within 20. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip. they should continue.5. In January they replaced 15. At the end of the year. they could replace 217. an average of 200. they replaced roughly 18. Continuing their current trend. Given this information. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. In order to do this.000 meters should be replaced each year. In March. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. In order to facilitate this replacement. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. meters should be replaced in groups.000 to 30. starting in 2006.000 meters a month. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed.000 meters of their goal.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.

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

replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement. The current meter 43 .A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. that region should replace their meters less often. If the work is too much. A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians. 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. through testing. removing the need to hire more workers. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others. 5. If the increase in work is minimal. replacing the meters sooner. If this is so. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. This way. for example.1.5 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. If. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data. the replacement should be stepped up. It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test.

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

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

M. 14. Mark. Henry. Puerto Rico: An Evolving Process. Retrieved Jan 30 from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Atlantic City. Miguel. Anatomy of a water meter replacement program. Luciano. Document – ITRON Meter Price Sheet. San Juan. (2006). Unpublished internal document.org/Water-Facts/puerto%20rico4. Luciano. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Pontiac. John. Unpublished internal document. Unpublished internal document.com/info/flow-meters/index. Spokane. 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. Retrieved February 10th from http://www. John J. 20 (3). 22-23.9. Perez. Water Engineering & Management. The Industrial Manufacturers Directory. 2006 from http://www. 387-398. (2006). International Journal of Water Resources Development. . 2006 11. (2005). Water Resources Management in Island Environments: The Challenge of Tourism Development. WA. (2006). Miguel.R (2004). NJ. (2000). AMR installation: Make your own decision. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Luquillo Mountains. William P. 17. San Juan.Flow Meters (http://www. McPhaul. Government took reins of water authority. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning AMCO metering systems 18. ITRON. AMCO. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning ITRON metering systems 10. This report detailed meter system prices given to Miguel by Datamatic. PRASA. 21-22.une. J. Water management issues for an area of Puerto Rico. Michigan. (1996). (2006). Will help us get an idea of what people have done in the past 15. 13. faced strike. PRASA. PR. Retrieved Jan. McLees. This report contained data on internal PRASA costs and consumption figures.iqsdirectory.htm) Basic information on water meters as well as links to many other places on the internet dealing with water meters. Ortiz-Zayas. Alphonso. 12. 143(8).htm This is article details PRASA’s previous experience with privatization 16. Document – AMCO Meter Price Sheet. Jackson. Water Engineering & Management. PR. (2006).au/cwpr/Papers/update. 140(1). Will help us gain perspective on previous water replacement programs.edu. Pigram. Document – AAA Revenue and Consumption Figures.pdf 46 .waterindustry. Document – Datamatic Price Sheet. Unpublished internal document. (1993). 30. Retrieved on Jan 30th. Isabella. PR.

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

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

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

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

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

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 . no-técnicos. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad. Debe haber menos técnicos. 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.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores.

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

8 10 3 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2.Plaza Las Americas 54 .7 9 4 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.9 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.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 2.9 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.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 2.26 Table 2 .7 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 4 2 2 7 4 4 1 2 5 5 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 5 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 5 5 3 2 3 2 5 1 2 1 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 8 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 5 4 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 2.

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

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

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

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

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 .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 .

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

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

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

South Region 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 Reqired For Meter Replacement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" People Required Figure 17 .South Region 65 .Number of People Present at Meter Replacement .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 .

5 3 2.West Region 67 .5 1 0.5 2 1.West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.Opinions on Current Meter Technology .5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .Opinions on Current Reading Technology .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .

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

13 1. 2006.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.95 38.456.33 61.85 213.73 53.45 0 69 .63 1.6 2.03 910.09 638.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.72 107.65 2.15 16 .88 1.09 1.135.1 1.13 1.35 > 35 > 10 0.23 36.45 0 Fase 2 21.41 Fase 2 1.9 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 .15 16 .607.86 77.77 277.35 > 35 11 .6 16.584.84 94.28 Industrial 1.49 131.Current and Future (PRASA.13 294.162.43 31.258.11 384.61 2.64 171.65 4.67 11.991.67 2.58 50.93 1.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.07 1.16 1.70 0 Fase 2 10.71 19.44 1.37 569.Water Rates .6 1.87 123.56 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 .53 1.97 786.22 85.869.84 461.18 26.013.

36 3098 209.00 Estimada C 58.00 4 65.77 0.851.Consumption Figures Table 9 .70 42 3.081.00 3 1.74 0. G (Luciano.90 5.00 32 95.87 0.17 1939 120.90 0.339. B.11 0.04 0.00 2 1.00 42. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.03 Real C 49908 56.00 Estimada B 9. Precio Costo Estimada A 177. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 2.71 1783 1.28 189.90 0.49 $1. F.00 10 1.65 $1.11 $1.201.39 $1.00 0.71 1430 137. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.Consumption Figures – A.00 1.47 $1.441.58 $1.466.90 3.07 1908 999. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.717.28 439.450.61 $1.00 694.28 299.00 Real B 9 37.00 306.15 799 429. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.394.347.82 $1.793.843.00 1 13.45 0.36 2521 246.16 0.90 0.00 0.00 46. C.31 $1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.922.28 3.85 0.00 45 2.61 70 .148.14 0.90 0.70 0.79 $1. 2006) 3 264.792.39 655 558.784.00 2 4.28 829.90 0.95 0.636.96 0. AAA Revenue.97 48 3.42 0.00 Real A 125 39.00 32.494.00 372.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.00 0.562.34 $1.219.00 18 274.367.053.00 20 5.218.119.180.00 58 249.20 $1.873.38 0.

00 4 5.17 0.099.505.824.00 0.90 1.334.90 761.43 13 30.00 24.653.830.809.111.410.631.00 0.00 123 6.565.00 245.39 0.00 12.476.63 6 29.28 223.00 762.45 0.45 66.00 862.99 0.00 3 5.89 0.28 1.00 0.775.49 $9.00 132.705.28 593.074.996.00 0.02 $1.98 $1.84 71 .25 0.00 106.00 312.55 5 25.32 119 7.827.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.63 $1.615. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.67 $1.398.18 $1.37 56.00 0. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 11.891.90 0.96 0.36 $14.970.292.23 $1.00 0.88 0.480.49 15 30.543.00 0.00 195.00 2 7.00 31. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.

18 $1.99 $1.414.00 236.67 1.00 166.07 0.833.95 328 621.71 $1.00 2.43 0.14 507 149.111.136.95 $1.00 1.00 1.00 84.349.180.90 $4.60 1001 265.236.710.91 177 4.851.919.68 $1.00 590.69 $2.00 9.00 1.99 0.94 $1.80 $1.635.08 38 1.02 0.558.846.222.15 $7.00 445.126.00 481.695.14 659.501.00 1.145.00 819.26 0.26 26 13.34 $6.33 Real Total 53.18 1735 1.492.668.74 $1.062.70 128 4.90 387.488.421.90 $304.55 105.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.090.22 0.253.45 550 461.072.466.00 72 .37 $414.87 0.00 115.031.184.00 135.00 23.00 0.83 $1.727.90 $921.15 $1.00 0.029.91 $1.95 0.90 98.23 1136 1.52 4.443.00 0.140.444.811.77 80.87 $1.502.31 2.90 1.745.76 $1.446.013.086.95 3.706.94 300.00 0.58 57 1.062.00 256.184.00 3.00 22.00 64.90 107.32 247.00 2.178.23 0.90 Real G 4004 112.648.17 1629 264.082.43 41 16.173.198.90 505.00 5.451.091.879.35 $1.391.87 $1.00 144.92 56.95 265 194.157.94 2.90 859.00 Real F 1 8.649.90 $1.60 1.818.34 983.784.62 955.00 0.26 $1.094.504.49 $1.643.912.36 $470.889.00 86.90 $5.90 $2.44 $1.00 0.522.769.00 Estimada G 5.90 3.503.14 $1.513.686.355.523.350.68 39.90 Estimada Total 64.295.610.482.06 $1.00 6.25 3.00 0.067.945.90 $444.

713.408.95 $0.00 8.489.08 6.00 451.00 110.87 $0.888.00 589. C (comercial).29 10.60 $949.02 $22.24 $1.90 4 92.5 192.00 9.00 1.90 11.00 1.22 $8.343.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.73 77.00 171.825.930.662.28 704.30 $1.268.633.685.44 $19.98 0.44 63.286.789.148.406.28 $2. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .623.00 59.781.00 1.63 9.534.11 $10.048.00 208.158.955.12 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).621.

16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.16 0.49 140.16 277.430.67 Real I 161 110.00 10 18.802. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8. AAA Revenue. P.34 1.65 160 260.39 2.87 2.469.16 1.86 2.67 Estimada P 50.66 1 3.90 2.54 1.16 128.Consumption Figures .551.85 2.570.708.46 10 763.444.67 37 0.52 55 224.00 17 14.75 2.83 1.11 71.22 4079 74 .108.28 770 1.67 3.49 264.16 32.16 69.413. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.66 1.67 390.95 74 1.374. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.525.01 4661 16.67 62. and Totals (Luciano.80 110 698.16 227.015.570. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.84 72.16 Real P 39673 32.798.759.085.67 137.800.763. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.I.94 368.87 2.414.361.20 1.54 269 515.67 1. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 27 0.00 84.00 30.80 129 564.600.50 2.67 0.48 1.00 30.66 795 902.759.123.198.600.Table 10 .45 146 390.16 157.97 12 566.489.039.747.955.36 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.43 1.69 299.12 240 711.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.783.07 2. R.16 Real R 967258 34.35 2.01 2.00 6 10.67 29.81 1082 118.377.34 18 7.54 1.28 85.76 110 339.92 1.311.025.16 Estimada R 1.10 2.02 301.695.58 18 7.475.54 1249 97.16 123.86 1 5.67 451.53 85.69 1.

Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.515.03 1.808.646.45 4 1.00 2.67 1.051.010.770.754.08 2.33 94.858.292.67 2.697.785.50 1.882.770.784.29 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.333.Consumo Prom.00 15. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.16 1.00 50.27 876.85 101 9.00 31.48 12 27.425.353.404.44 1.47 2.66 20 2.67 12.488.67 1.932.059.376.223.702.87 2.90 3.380.606.61 559.16 23.313.67 0.00 94.312.53 2.20 1.00 30.388.27 15.00 972.00 39.00 0.30 1.25 12 28.66 543.092.316.206.00 34.085.638.00 2.243.79 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.61 2.321.526.184.749.119.71 30 32.591.27 73.00 0.98 1.821.896.16 12.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.740.67 34.898.88 0.85 30 31.86 73.16 1.733.825.04 5.16 1.77 75 .06 2.57 4 1.16 55.24 0.67 0.720.38 105 10.16 60.00 1.67 209.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.00 32.71 1.708.75 1.88 1.133.15 0.26 19 2.75 5.11 529.

401.27 2.59 203.491.18 160.78 1.849.82 1.712.706.00 3.061.17 163.202.561.60 425.84 7.04 367.00 3.24 241.026.19 1.79 2.39 13.00 5.752.23 655.605.00 2.740.638.197.700.451.56 30.652.00 71.00 573.474.746.391.133.185.167.605.07 2.06 1.85 2.26 256.189.00 4 10.00 4 54.00 557.25 425.00 2.81 1.28 Real Total 1.00 11.00 17.98 1.00 1.065.00 4.707.31 340.359.00 362.29 34.00 474.00 156.561.53 4.785.825.186.549.48 1.980.27 34.142.267.55 5.443.380.647.201.146.254.189.265.00 56.491.004.578.00 11.011.226.994.520.Estimada Total 1.894.53 4.30 125.708.136.549.336.007.70 16.73 4.96 73.00 105.16 90.009.00 404.982.32 546.83 80.157.88 4.081.21 90.700.00 64.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.868.37 243.017.963.014.198.092.31 8.00 890.53 9.89 Total 6 Months 2.813.00 2.48 334.824.866.424.29 792.31 4.74 75.00 59.743.94 1.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 612.759.72 4.708.188.442.172.00 193.00 4.06 4.552.06 1.006.906.40 4.87 7.49 242.00 131.00 752.11 135.984.201.88 1.132.16 1.00 10.939.26 108.994.00 489.57 1.75 543.392.00 4 40.400.828.00 118.89 294.88 7.336.757.305.80 1.931.146.594.86 1.720.823.00 4 76 .00 4 902.98 251.00 4 2.459.884.00 206.00 125.028.18 1.413.032.498.976.018.12 6.930.00 4 30.00 2.262.73 8.76 1.00 2.791.00 16.376.00 4.007.26 574.04 74.532.53 79.00 97.24 10.00 181.71 6.679.00 48.68 135.033.00 4.16 1.022.00 76.495.00 17.464.48 28.98 Real Grand Total 1.419.72 120.

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

43 621.070.211.160.259.259.439.160.056.732.99) (11.63 (15.74) 6.056.070.369.797.732.056.63 621.64 621.323.720.089.259.439.070.63 621.63 Total 6.070.99) (11.732.732.63 (11.160.369.056.259.056.63 (15.439.29 (136.056.64 Year 7 621.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.070.160.99) (11.216.439.592.20) 610.473.056.00 (11.056.056.20) 0.00) (26.070.681.056.74) (136.63 Year 9 621.720.63 (15.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.259.070.473.369.797.056.00 (11.20) (110.160.323.089.99) 605.160.070.63 621.056.00 (11.473.20) (4.439.842.070.160.20) (4.20) (4.070.732.160.439.056.63 621.43 6.160.43 621.056.566.259.732.732.63 (15.63 (15.056.259.63 621.160.323.160.160.79) (15.79) (15.056. 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 ` 621.63 621.070.720.20) (11.160.99) 605.259.434.160.600.600.160.79) (15.20) (4.056.070.056.056.259.473.439.566.20) (11.64 621.720.259.473.00 (11.732.259.99) 605.473.369.732.160.089.211.63 621.160.439.160.20) 610.Net Cash Flow .600.Current System Costs Table 12 .056.070.056.323.63 621.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .43 621.732.160.056.20) (4.63 (11.259.797.99) 621.20) (11.99) 605.566.323.259.797.439.63 (11.259.070.99) (11.99) 605.056.63 621.089.63 Year 10 621.63 621.074.20) 0. (Luciano.919.64 621.63 621.160.369.070.070.63 (11.79) (15.63 621.259.131.20) 0.99) (11.702.211.20) 0.056.29 (11.056.63 621.439.056.439. AAA Revenue.63 Year 8 621.79) (15.259.160.20) 610.323.056.160.74) 621.160.732.79) (15.720.20) 610.160.720.29 6.369.160.64 621.056.160.919.99) 605.259.63 (15.070.056.732.63 621.160.63 621.160.439.160.070.434.64 621.160.259.20) (4.056.

502.823.06 Year 6 33.89 Year 4 24.442.254.381.136.52 (9.96) (30.716.823.23 37.716.793.845. (Gomez and Morera.59) (12.72 10.23 37.412.971.502.23) (7.100.780.314.89 19.793.217.322.177.01) Year 7 37.716.80) (9.992.40 41.439.322.440.23 37.120.592.80) 10.971.40 Year 9 41.768.852.06 28.828.793.64 33.823.592.352.80) (9.793.852.426.40 41.322.01) (6.911.40 41.908.780.780.592.136.72 10.502.439.467.72 10.217.016.381.524.793.970.80) (8.254.592.502.Incremental Cash Flow .176.762.054.502.908.72 10.217.40 41.01) (5.910.780.592.302.47 24.793.941.793.72 10.780.716.40 41.970.050.80) (47.793.050.716.592.440.72 10.290.970.00) (52.780.547.89 19.823.592. 2006) (Luciano.47 Year 5 28.971.780.52 295.502.377.Table 13 .52 295.80) (9.01) (5.52 295.704.30 15.136.314.40 Total 295.793.502.780.911.381.26) (35.134.750.40 41.40 41. 2006) (Luciano.592.40 41.010.780.59) (51.377.793.502.050.845.40 Year 10 41.502.80) (47.72 10.136.911.908.716.716.72 10.64 33.377.644.212.314.780.80) (48.30 15.01) (5.72 10.30 15.845.72 10.970.47 24.060.179.00) (6.443.217.845.592.89 19.911.690.793.23) (6.502. AAA Revenue.06 28.793.80) (48.716.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.716.614.592.793.23) (7.502.440.39) (57.971.23) (6.23 Year 8 41.502.242.718.470.793. 2006) (Perez.43) (312.502.72 10.06 28.217.793.793.72 Year 2 15. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.377.936.314.716.72 10.80) (9.502.02) (10.64 33.050.23) (7.26) (22.40 41.536.502.80) (48.881.72 10.592.716.72 (21.592.852.72 10.638.417. Datamatic.845.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.502.440.852. 2006) (Henry.346.716.322.381.908.439.050.69) 81 .439.47 24.30 Year 3 19.

758.663.80) 18.750.095.00) (11.881.095.23) 10.597.754.502.217.405.911.614.592.510.72 52.412.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .47 (7.254.502.179.327.306. (Gomez and Morera.326.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.47 (5.302.06 (9.510.502.440.440.780.46 295.718.029.793.809.050.592.41 33.149.054.510.793.160.592.40 10.936.72 52.823.72 52.684.01) 26.845.095.198.971.23 (10.795.30 (6.80) 13.127.43) 274.970.095.290.381.858.970.254.381.12 41.64 (8.059.502.30 (9.845.23) 19.502.88 41.440.89 (9.72 52.83 28.793.592.386.12 24.971.592.12 41.547.908.510.40 10.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .40 10.80) 28.91) 19.793.136.911.346.72 (52.592.780. Datamatic.788. 2006) (Luciano.638.780.01) 7.793.136.385.510.72 52.377.716.510.01) 12.124.314.12 41.793.790.381.80) (28.716.010.628.01) 22.21 37.40 10.39) (16.917.89 (6.06 (5.40 10.439.08 15.439.64 (47.716.502.314.40 10.502.502.72 (15.33) 24.738. 2006) (Luciano.12 41.780.690.992.242.00) (5.716. 2006) (Henry.592.74) 28.596.780.29 41.40 10.716.502.823.524.852.716.502.80) 9.80) (23.23 (51.793.872.510.06 (47.59) 28.845.80) (18.66 19.26 28.26) (19.136.355.780.193.28) 10.768.52 (312.26 295.50) 15.80) (14.190.23 (12.23) 15.502.120.908.970.095.67 24.673.01) 17.40 10.016.793.43 10.69) 259.12 41.217.381.852.672.72 52.908.502.941.314.971.716.322.502.52 (21.851.095.47 (9.716.72 52.940.25 24.050.30 (7.386.64 (5.510.176.536.12 41.958.592.26) 238.502.911.716.426.852.212.020.352.060.403.470.72 52.484.377.05 33.442.793.64 37.095.84 33.09 295.12 41.970.40 10.12 41.502.23) 5.716.095.83 28.80) (33.793.02) 25.54) 10.793.72 52.340.208.322.510.845.095.592.592.89 (7.314.217.417.12 41.908. 2006) (Perez.16) 33.217.381.36) 37.407.592.623.87) 295.80) 23.64 (6.693.72 52.704.050.30 (48.793. 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 37.448.828.716.72 52.095.439.177.095.780.649.911.560.47 (48.72 (22.12 19.823.72 (30.440.322. AAA Revenue.09 19.24) 10.96) (41.644.762.136.970.780.40 10.40 10.659.095.845.322.222.780.217.506.050.793.941.780.921.100.28) 15.439.80) 27.23) 24.52 (35.793.377.064.841.443.502.510.793.89 (48.823.12 82 .23 (9.422.971.643.377.716.134.050.510.691.510.40 10.52 (57.935.72 52.50 15.06 (6.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.095.467.389.592.852.804.59) (13.910.793.

403.23) $5.649.793.652.841.439.718.99 Year 4 $24.88 $11.47 ($9.80) ($33.593.30 ($7.673.780.412.810.74) Year 2 $15.30 ($9.80) ($28.984.964. 2006) (Perez.780.917.663.780.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.327.644.23) $10.439.908.502.908.938.26) ($19.377.06 ($6. AAA Revenue.22 Year 2 $15.50) $17.05 ($11.389.127.377.24) Year 1 $10.06 ($47.290.80) ($23.252.23) $15.029.01) $7.302.179.757.47 $28.222.597.214.810.448.149.793.89 ($7.691.381.638.704.47 ($48.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .208.659.852.377.386.752.97) Year 4 $24.762.322.217. 2006) (Luciano.80) ($6.381.362.71) Year 5 $28.673.908.911.407.858.971.793.326.780.46 $31.050.96) ($41.738.754.28) Year 1 $10.061.788.936.377.502.80) Year 3 $19.448.381.261.72 ($52.89 ($48.541.971.66 (127.50 $13.322.506.23) $19.684.46) Year 2 $15.30 $19.027.00) ($6.828.217.352.83 ($19.822.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.992.25 Year 5 $28.80) ($5.502.381.41 83 .340. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.100.72 ($22.780.911.06 ($9.054.33) $59.442.65) Year 3 $19.596.31 Year 3 $19.47 ($7.020.050.910.872.780.597.018.385. (Gomez and Morera.976.28 Year 5 $28.00) ($11. 2006) (Luciano.217.80) ($18.01) $22.28) $9.28) ($14.67 $23.54) ($74.852.439.495.29 ($3.09 $18.385.120.346.198.45 Year 4 $24.72 $15.80) ($5.793.24) $3.869.010.327.050.821.851.911.809.853.72 ($30.01) $12.28) ($3.26 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 ($5.921.908.971.381.326.89 ($9.050.242.30 ($48.190.502.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.426.597.322.788.322.484.176.407.971.852.160. Datamatic.91) $36.99) $8.217.852.911.421.569.066.89 $25.25 (145.780.379.176.198.649.01) $17.08 (103.36 $48.060.54) Year 1 $10.780. 2006) (Henry.663.560.74) ($41.89 $24.439.

290.823.40 $10.041.23 Year 7 $37.26) $238.970.385.095.87) Total $295.40 $10.793.510.895.592.23 ($9.958.941.23 ($10.72 $52.87) Year 10 $41.672.510.510.941.26 Total $295.16) $160.193.59) $28.059.69) $259.592.095.02 Year 8 $41.716.440.592.355.72 $52.935.470.804.547.52 ($57.467.503.72 $52.64 ($5.823.970.592.177.43) $274.72 $52.716.592.617.136.39 ($16.614.693.64 ($6.136.Year 6 $33.72 $52.23) $24.958.716.09 Year 10 $41.502.510.643.716.790.85 Year 8 $41.72 $52.716.921.823.40 $10.768.700.09 Year 6 $33.405.095.502.02) $25.72 $52.510.386.510.716.87 Year 6 $33.72 $52.314.83 84 .59 Year 9 $41.970.01) $26.795.217.510.40 $10.12 $238.213.59) ($13.502.758.440.41 $55.09 Total $295.690.314.12 $221.417.703.40 $10.095.940.71 Year 10 $41.793.100.64 $116.998.72 $52.355.536.26 Year 10 $41.592.72 $52.592.23 ($51.724.335.768.443.40 $10.80) $27.845.510.52 ($35.941.63 $74.823.84 $88.716.793.40 $10.899.12 $274.716.793.716.195.095.72 $52.314.881.095.117.623.73 Year 7 $37.793.306.598.14 Year 9 $41.875.90 Year 7 $37.502.52 ($21.99) Year 9 $41.095.095.12 ($68.136.970.592.793.845.673.845.095.804.780.314.050.510.502.43 $102.11 Year 8 $41.793.36) $173.510.212.440.386.095.780.12 ($16.254.750.12 $259.592.136.716.502.825.793.40 $10.40 $10.845.431.064.52 $312.592.40 $10.050.090.21 $80.863.989.64 ($8.422.845.12 $154.524.793.095.40 $10.016.845.12 $185.72 $52.47 Year 8 $41.134.970.83 Total $295.502.440.716.693.23 ($12.793.12 $169.12 $121.502.510.254.04 Year 7 $37.716.095.502.080149.502.592.407.793.405.502.12 $133.12 $207.628.510.592.124.095.411.40 $10.80) $28.793.69 Year 6 $33.64 ($47.97 Year 9 $41.80) ($14.502.193.

176.050) $24.936.53199599 Year 1 $10.593 Years Year 2 $15.390 ($127. Datamatic.788) N/A Year 1 $10.100) ($6.027.781) ($28.322.503 $15.908 ($9.53199599 Year 3 $19.440.674) 3.134.066.327.984.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.242.252 1.381.386.050) $15.322.448.128 $23.853.618 85 .061.781) ($33.117.208.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.176) ($19.215) ($160.659 $18.236658937 ($14.377 $33.326.793.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.793.536.198.841.050) $10.381.404) Year 6 $33.020.911.971 ($9.503 ($30. 2006) (Luciano.971 $19.852.846 ($8.Payback Period Table 16 .495 6.738.768.440 $24.821.644.377 ($9.440.911.663.381.781) ($5.306.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.781) ($14.793.781) ($5.672.767.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.029.426. AAA Revenue.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.095.788) $3.908 ($48.327 Year 6 $33.322.781) ($6.448.921 ($103.828.846 ($47.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.179.160835902 $31.810. 2006) (Luciano.050) $19.120.385.440 ($48.440.080.911. 2006) (Henry.010.050) $5.597) $9.872) $59.908 $28.950470057 Year 4 $24.560.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.597) 1.191 $13.291) ($41.852.781) ($23.503 ($52.976 $88.674) ($74.822 $55.704.484.858 ($145.917.718.381.781) ($5.598) Years Year 2 $15.851. 2006) (Perez. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.781) ($18.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.198.663.809) $17.380 6.385.377 ($47. (Gomez and Morera.236658937 $11.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.352.440 ($9.971 ($48.363) 3.852.412.341) $36.302.992.752) Years ($3.060.596 $28.700.

716.989.137 ($57.643.970.592 $10.381.443) 86 .614.592 $10.510.793.793.054.510.643443217 $48.213.137 ($21.970.510.322.592 $10.405.895.503 Total $295.193.762.754 Year 3 $19.941) ($16.255) $28.196 $221.716.684.970.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.405.503 $52.823.852.060 Year 8 $41.095 Total $295.758.793.503 $52.524) Year 8 $41.261 6.255) ($13.506.910) ($11.090) ($121.160 Year 6 $33.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.212.793.592 $10.691 Year 5 $28.592 $10.846 ($6.095 Year 10 $41.217) $17.407) Year 2 $15.407) 2.900) ($16.724.314 ($9.137 ($312.908 ($7.510.716.649.095 Total $295.716.649.823.467.095 Year 9 $41.716.149.653) Years $8.292628695 ($3.223 Year 4 $24.503 $52.541.217) $26.095 Year 9 $41.703.314 ($12.327.101 $169.095 Year 10 $41.386 Year 7 $37.385.570 2.421 $74.510.442.592 $10.510.716.440 ($7.869.217) $22.964.716.716.793.470.750) $274.291 $274.377 ($6.050 Year 7 $37.970.386 $116.793.875.503 $52.793.592 $10.805) ($173.417.592 $10.314 ($51.503 $52.845.793.016.823.793.440.292628695 $25.346.217) $12.638.503 Year 9 $41.716.503 $52.503 ($22.911.940) Year 8 $41.971 ($7.592 $10.793.805) Year 7 $37.217) $7.503 Year 10 $41.995) ($68.018.193.

823.178) $259.716.095 $52.547.864 $259.592 $10.941.623 Year 8 $41.693 Year 7 $37.503 $52.503 $52.095 $52.095 Year 10 $41.095 Total $295.095 $238.959 87 .408 $133.921.510.422.970.592 $10.510.124.845.769 $207.825.503 $52.355.673 $154.510.137 ($35.941.716.793.510.355.881.503 $185.510.716.095 Year 9 $41.592 $10.335.510.959 $102.790 $52.693 $80.793.431.$25.691) $27.411.314 ($10.598 $238.793.

716.592 $10.908 $28.781) Simple ROI. 5 years: 151. AAA Revenue.718.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.134. Datamatic.793.781) ($5.440 $24.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.Return on Investment .781) ($6.716.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13)))."N/A") Simple ROI.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.010.302.970.137 ($21.255) Year 8 $41.417."N/A") Simple ROI.314 ($9.793. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.212.592 $10.503 $15. 10 years: 1281.716.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .781) ($5.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).971 $19.781) Simple ROI.992."N/A") Year 7 $37.793.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))). 3 years: 62.426.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).823.592 $10.503 Year 10 $41.440.100) ($6."N/A") 88 .911.322.503 Total $295. (Luciano.750) Year 6 $33.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. 7 years: 217.852. 2006) (Luciano.793.381.846 ($5.503 Year 9 $41.

Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.793. 2006) (Luciano.592 $10.291) ($48.614.716.503 Total $295.016.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))). 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.503 $15."N/A") Year 7 $37.781) Simple ROI.440.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0. AAA Revenue.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.781) ($48.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .793.781) ($48.322.970.823.941) Year 6 $33."N/A") Simple ROI.781) Simple ROI.536. 7 years: -50.793.828. 2006) (Perez.255) Year 8 $41.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))). 10 years: -5. (Gomez and Morera.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.592 $10.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.179.314 ($51.440 $24.381.120.971 $19."N/A") 89 .412. 3 years: -69..716.852.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).503 Year 10 $41.704. 5 years: -59.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.911.Return on Investment .846 ($47.781) ($47.503 Year 9 $41."N/A") Simple ROI.908 $28.716.793.592 $10.137 ($312.

911. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.592 $10. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10. 3 years: 105.793.823.050) ($9.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.793. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.793. 5 years: 160."N/A") Simple ROI.242.524) Year 8 $41. 7 years: 313.440.716.352.503 Total $295.381.936.716.908 $28.793.852.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).845.060.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.314 ($12."N/A") Year 7 $37.503 Year 10 $41.503 $15.050) Simple ROI.768.440 $24.443) Year 6 $33.971 $19.137 ($57.503 Year 9 $41.Return on Investment .176) ($9.467.050) ($9.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).Badger/Badger Table 19 . AAA Revenue."N/A") 90 ."N/A") Simple ROI.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.592 $10.846 ($8.716.050) ($9.322.644.592 $10.970. 10 years: 585.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.050) Simple ROI.

911.503 $15."N/A") Simple ROI.470.217) ($6.793.970. AAA Revenue."N/A") 91 . (Luciano.217) ($7.762.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.881."N/A") Simple ROI.381.346.716.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0. 3 years: 170.716.440 $24. 10 years: 1077.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52)))."N/A") Year 6 $33.793.314 ($10.322.503 Year 9 $41.503 Total $295. 7 years: 475. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.793.178) Simple ROI.971 $19.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).638.793.691) Year 8 $41.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).823.440.442.716.846 ($6. 5 years: 245.852.Return on Investment . 2006) (Henry.217) Simple ROI.910) ($7.217) ($7.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .054. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.592 $10.137 ($35.592 $10.547. 2006) (Perez.217) Year 7 $37.908 $28.592 $10.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).503 Year 10 $41.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.

2006) (Luciano.386.917. AAA Revenue.327 64. 2006) (Perez.385.691 Year 5 22.809) Year 3 (28.754 Year 3 12.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.341) Year 4 (23.506.7% #N/A Year 6 24.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.381. 2006) (Henry. 2006) (Luciano.663. (Gomez and Morera.448.649.306.020.560.970.208.684.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .672.872) Year 5 (18.223 Year 4 17.921 Year 3 10.596 28.198. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.935) Year 1 (41.149.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.858 Year 5 19.841.327.795 Year 1 (19.404) -1.9% #N/A Year 6 26.629 Year 1 (11.128 23.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.484.191 13.160 105. Datamatic.095.738.851.029.390 Year 4 15.659 18.3% 92 .Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.597) 9.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.

095 Year 10 52.643.095 Total 259.510.124.095 Total 238.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.510.510.Year 7 28.422.758.386 Year 7 13.510.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 9 52.060 Year 8 52.355.095 Year 9 52.941.193.510.510.959 93 .940 Year 8 52.510.693 Year 7 27.510.510.095 Year 9 52.405.510.095 Total 274.510.790 Year 8 52.095 Total (16.510.623 Year 8 52.805) Year 7 25.

2006) (Luciano.433.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.596 28.341) 13.927.659 18.539) Year 5 19.272) (21.647 Year 4 17.807) (16.612) 4.725.191 13.851.457.747.917.327.714 10.001 7.404) 18.858 (12.543.661.672.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .327 (9.835.998) 7.506.703 10.597) 9.865 (18.467) (39.342 Year 4 (23.701 14.023 9.669.801) Year 1 (19.746.854.459.638 (11.665) Year 6 24.505.452.691 12.005.390 (17.354) Year 4 15.274) 6. Datamatic.590.326.754 8.841.454.564.095.219) (8.588.370) 6.020.046 13.028 Year 3 (28.684.044.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.223 10.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.583) Year 1 (11.484.575.560.595 12.386.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.809) 10.160 16.369.407) 4.934.208.107.298 Year 2 7. 2006) (Henry.821 Year 5 (18.448.112 15.306.179.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.886 16.752.735 Year 5 22.738.319.956.138) Year 3 10.128 23.674) (28.668) Year 1 (41.265.385.872) 15. 2006) (Luciano.110 11.669.213.921 (22.087 17.396.319.443 12.067. AAA Revenue.649.680.351.969) (11.724 12.746.752.663.381.444) (27.149.766.167 14.424.839 (4.148 17.558 Year 2 (33.818. (Gomez and Morera.293.399.696 Year 6 (14.198. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.824) Year 2 5.064 Year 3 12.907.610 Year 6 26. 2006) (Perez.623.023 94 .788) 7.970.582.029.037 9.412.

604.193.095 32.604.196.033 Year 10 52.510.313) Year 7 25.638 34.095 32.604.604.033 Year 10 52.060 17.196.604.510.941.095 32.332.355.033 Year 10 52.510.961 Year 7 27.405.510.638 34.095 32.638 34.033 Year 9 52.095 32.106 NPV 152.638 34.510.196.510.758.196.510.638 34.Year 7 28.095 32.079) NPV (35.196.196.027.885.701.881.604.790 15.856.940 (8.638 34.040.033 Year 9 52.181.604.510.033 Year 8 52.033 Year 9 52.095 32.922 Total (16.033 Year 8 52.703.959 NPV 162.196.124.095 32.604.255.858.518 16.693 NPV 145.510.510.095 32.196.095 32.805) NPV (34.623 17.817 95 .386 NPV 173.536) Total 238.604.604.643.033 Year 8 52.196.374 Year 8 52.033 Year 10 52.047 Year 7 13.600.767.638 34.638 34.095 32.638 34.814) (8.095 32.638 34.831 Total 259.471.638 34.492 18.647 NPV 182.510.196.292 17.422.552 NPV 170.196.728.604.604.510.638 34.033 Year 9 52.033 Total 274.196.361.

000.000.000 $40.000) ($20.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000 $20.000.000 $30.000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000.000) ($30.000 $50.000) ($50.000 $10.000 $0 ($10.000) ($40.000.000.000.000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .

000.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.000.00) ($200.000.00 $150.00 $100.00 $0.00) Years Figure 24 .000.000.000.00) ($150.000.000.000.000.00 ($100.000.00 $200.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.000.000.00 $250.000.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.000.

000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.00) ($150.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .00 $100.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00 $200.000.00) ($200.00 $50.000.00 $0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00) ($100.00 $150.000.000.00 $250.00 ($50.000.000.000.

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

personal communication. 6. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco.3 million clients and 1. government or independent. Water). the water rates increased by 68%. 2006. and in July of 2006.3 million water meters.200 km of water lines. personal communication.000 km of sewer lines. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. 1. (Andres Garcia.600 Pumping Stations. 1. (Andres Garcia. 100 . PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants. 1.000. 2/10/2006) In October 2005.000. 60 waste water treatment plants.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful