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

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

.................................................................. 27 4.............2...............................3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations ..............................1 Customer Survey......................................................1...................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology..........................................................................................................................................3 Plan Comparisons ......................2 Director Interviews .........................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................... 24 3...............................2.....1 Flow Meter Importance...........................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ...4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ..................... 15 2...................3.................................................................................. 31 4...........................1 Chapter 2: Background................................................................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................ ii Acknowledgments ............................1 Flow Meters ......................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans........................................................................ 7 2...............1 Interview with Administrators ......................... vii Executive Summary ............................................ 16 2.....................................................................Table of Contents Abstract. 34 4........................................1...........................................2 Evaluation of Current Information System ................. 27 4...........................................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan ....................2................................. 16 2................ iii Table of Contents .................................................1 Water Resources .....4 2.2 Island Considerations.........................................................................................................................................................1............. 20 3...........................................................................1 Customer Survey.................................................................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations ..........................................................................3... 23 3....1............................ 21 3.......................... 37 4..1..........2...........3......... 24 3...............................................................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan ...............1............................1..................................2 Evaluation of Information System ..... 24 3.............................................................. 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .......... 39 iv ...................................... 27 4......................1.................................................................... 23 3... 22 3.. 4 2......................................................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan .................................................................... 7 2..............3........3 Puerto Rico’s Water System ..............3 Water Meter Management ............................................................................................... 17 2................... 9 2................... iv Table of Figures...... 32 4.... 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ...............................................1.....2....................................... 20 3..............3.............................................. vi Table of Tables ..........................................................................................................1 Interview with System Administrators ............................................. 4 2..............................................................................................3 PRASA...............1........................................1 General Replacement Considerations ..........................................................................................................................................2 Other Meter Replacements ............ 5 2..................................................................................................................................... 20 3................................................................................................................... i Authorship ................................................3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan.....................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Flow Meter Importance Correctly billing the customer is the primary use for a flow meter (Allender. 1996. Detection). A flow meter provides reliable water usage measurement. Finally. Understanding the importance of a flow meter. the meter is needed for much more than that. Replacement strategies are also an important part of a meter replacement plan. 4 . This chapter will present this information as it relates to Puerto Rico. 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. It allows the water utility to properly measure how much water a specific house or business has used and charge them appropriately.Chapter 2: Background Creating a water meter replacement plan is not a task to be taken lightly. Block rate billing. Many aspects must be considered in order to create a successful plan. like PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) these bills are their only source of income. For some utilities. Water meters are a large part of a water meter replacement plan. 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. Puerto Rico is in a unique situation concerning the water authority. This enables the water authority to accurately bill customers so that the funds necessary to maintain the system are collected. as well as the technological issues that must be dealt with is necessary in choosing the right water meter. General replacement strategies as well as specific examples of other replacement plans will be discussed to demonstrate what other water authorities are doing to keep their water meters functioning. 2. 2.1 Flow Meters While it is the function of a flow meter to only record the volume of water that passes through it.1.

The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns.1). 1996. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. Optimum). They can report the water usage for a community. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender. Bhardwaj. Bhardwaj. p. 2.1. the result can be a cave in. In order for this kind of billing to be possible. 2002. If the water meter is accurate. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe.3). functioning flow meters are necessary. Moreover. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs. The display 5 . then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea. 2004.000 a year in water bills. Armed with this knowledge. Horsman & Hanson. revenue is lost. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. 2004. p. p. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. If a town pays for a certain amount of water from another town and then does not make all of that money back.which charges for the specific amount of water used.60). In some areas.

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

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

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

Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. Anatomy). can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems.age. The meters that served the 40. Testing the meters a while after replacement. 1993. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. 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.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. but could be adapted to work. personal communication. Fewer meters will fail at the same time.2. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. Additionally. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. This is the strategy used by a small town. 2/9/2006). 2.2 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. 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. A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. would not work with so many water meters. This. for example. 9 . Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. however.

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

The meters would have to be durable enough to withstand any weather situation in Puerto Rico. In order to address these and other issues. 2002. The financial and technological concerns this town had about their meters are the same that Puerto Rico has. many of the meters they used were over 30 years old and beginning to break down.600.safety of the people reading the meters was ensured. remote reading and no reading. low volume metered accounts. Toronto has three main account types: high volume accounts. customer reading. as they are exposed to more weather than meters located indoors. Background). Eighteen percent of their accounts did not have meters and were paying a flat rate for water. A significant percentage of accounts are read through manual reading. with 27% of them being over 30 years old and beginning to misread water flow. The low volume meters had similar problems. These three accounts provide a total of $408.000 to the water department. even relying on manual labor. This was determined to be an inefficient use of the employee’s time. Toronto. the purchase of $200 meters would pose a financial burden on the authority. Finally. With so many meters on the island. The rest of the meters were causing an estimated $15 million in losses for the company each year. Their meter reading methods were antiquated. Background). A study of the high volume meters in the Toronto area revealed that only 35% of these meters were operating within acceptable parameters (City of Toronto. and low volume non metered accounts (City of Toronto. 2002. 2002. Canada and the surrounding area had a number of water meter problems in 2002 (City of Toronto. several agencies within Toronto collaborated to solve these problems. The electrically based system reduced the need for repairs on the mechanical parts. Accounts are billed through a combination of manual reading. Meter Testing Results). 11 .

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

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

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

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

2. 2004. p. 16 . In the case of Anne Arundel County. In addition to this. they have a very complex water distribution system.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. p. old meters were costing up to $13.1). The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. Commercial. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson.3. Finally.3 MGD respectively. 1996. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. 1996.393). Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. In general. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. Optimum).2 and 183. being an island presents water concerns of its own. 2.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters. Despite being a small island.25 per meter per year.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. Maryland. their island concerns and the history of PRASA.

Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. Despite this. Their replacement 17 . Currently.3).3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island.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. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. 2/3/2006). 2000. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram. Golf courses and other large tourist attractions are also an issue because of the large amounts of water they use for chores like laundry and keeping the grounds green. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22. Even for the cities that have a similar population.3. p. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. Most islands.3).Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. 2. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. should and do monitor their water supply. Puerto Rico included.3. p. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. 2.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers. 2000. 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. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. Currently. personal communication. their people are concentrated in one area.

Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. (McPhaul. The first company. Aside from service problems. the EPA fined them $6. 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. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. 2005) By 2004.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. 11). Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. 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. 2004.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. 18 . When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002. 2/3/2006). On top of this. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. personal communication. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. During these times of drought. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. Vivendi. which rose to $695 million in 2001.11). government controlled land (Andres Garcia. p. 2002. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider.1). Ondeo and Vivendi. Ondeo (Blasor. p. 2002.

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

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. 3. To do this.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. 2006. 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.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. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. 3. Lastly. At the same time.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005. PRASA replaced 100. the organization planed to replace 200. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans.3 million meters. In other words. Additionally. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard. The questionnaire 20 . we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. 318).1.000. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system. In 2006.

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

specific questions about problems they were having with their replacement effort and their opinions on other matters. These responsibilities include meter replacement scheduling. staffing. From this. Additionally. in person. We traveled to director meetings in each region to deliver our questionnaires. each major plan specific was 22 . After this. We created specific questions that investigated these issues further to understand how each played a role in the department. and operating efficiency were all issues we felt were important to query on.1. we asked. we evaluated plans obtained from other agencies throughout the United States as discussed in Chapter 2.3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations Researching past efforts was an important step in determining how to proceed. This involved reviewing their processes and determining if each was feasible for Puerto Rico. the agencies overseeing these other replacement efforts were asked what problems they encountered and if there was anything they would change about their plans. we reviewed the responsibilities of the customer service department in PRASA. In addition to the ones on the questionnaire. In light of this. Information concerning progress of the current meter replacement was obtained and used to determine the state of the effort. This determination was influenced by the results of the director and customer surveys as well as conversations with our liaisons. By determining what the directors were having a problem with. we devised a small draft containing questions trying to elicit their thoughts on the efficiency of their current efforts. See Appendix B for a sample questionnaire. The plan specifics of other water authorities were analyzed and the major replacement specifics were extracted. the actual meter replacement and fielding customer requests. To create the survey questionnaire. costs. 3. Budget.about the replacement. we were able to concentrate our focus on those sections and leave the functioning sections alone.

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

The following sections detail the methods used to create the new plan. we determined the age and shape of the system. We asked what kinds of reading systems worked with the current system and how readings taken in the field were inserted into the database.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. This method involved taking aspects from other plans and tailoring them to work for Puerto Rico. During the interview. Additionally. Judgment was based on the size of the area the plan came from. the data within the system itself could not be guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate.1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans After the evaluation of current plans from other locations. Finally. Questions regarding ease of use. These surveys were to be filled out by employees that use the information system. 3.2.3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan Meter replacement plans currently in place are not as effective as they could be. The plan must be enhanced with new procedures that are more efficient.3.working efficiently. the accuracy of the data and what data should be accessible were used to obtain employee reactions to the system. applicable strategies were derived and combined with the suggestions from the staff and customers to create a final set of recommendations. Additionally. 3. how inclusive the plan 24 . we determined what steps the administrators were taking to improve the system. Plan specifics from each plan were investigated and their suitability for Puerto Rico was judged. 3. we sent out employee questionnaires along with the director questionnaires.

was for that area and how successful the plan was in meeting their needs. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors. 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. Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it.3. Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback. but came from a town with 20. 3.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. The same idea is applicable to any meter replacement strategy: anything used from these plans must be applicable in a situation 10 times larger than the one it came from. This method was chosen because it allowed the sponsors to give feedback on recommendations and enabled creation of the best plan possible for the authority. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 .000 meters. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better.

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

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. Pricing. Finally. In this chapter. but many people did not have the time to fill out a questionnaire. Service Reliability and Interruptions. The main points of the plan comparisons will be detailed and the results of the cost benefit analysis will be presented. 4. replacement plan evaluation and the cost-benefit analysis. This section will present our findings on the customer survey. director survey. people were willing to give us their opinions of PRASA. This chapter will focus on the analysis and presentation of our findings. The information collected from the questionnaires was separated into four different categories: Overall Rating of PRASA. Water Consumption Knowledge and 42% 22% 7% 24% Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA lastly. our observations on the information system will be explained. we describe the results of our customer and director surveys.1.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement The purpose of this evaluation was to gain an understanding of the current system as well as its major problems.1 Customer Survey In total. 27 . In general. we collected 84 Very Unsatisfied questionnaires from Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe in San 5% Unsatisfied In the Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Juan and Ponce. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Five different systems were analyzed. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems.% 65. but they can be adapted to work.3 Million $197. Some techniques. such as contracting with a private company.1.4% 915. over the course of 10 years.5 Million $187. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. will cost 34 . From internal Table 1 .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. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement.3% -0.1% 100% PRASA cost documents.1% 0% 623. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money.6 Million 1303% 214. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. This works for most areas.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered.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. This system.3 Million $438. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. could be adapted but would not be cost effective. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. including the current system. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. to determine the overall costs of each.

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

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

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

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

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

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

000 to 30. According to data received during the plan comparison. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year.000 meters. starting in 2006. 5. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology.164 meters per month. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology. meters should be replaced in groups. In order to do this.225 meters and in February they replaced 21. they replaced roughly 18. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been.000 meters a month. In March. the goal and the actual number should be compared.000 meters should be replaced each year. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly.1. Given this information. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip. In January they replaced 15. Meters close to 41 .2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed.269.000 meters of their goal. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17.1. they should continue. These numbers average 18. If not. Continuing their current trend. At the end of the year. In order to facilitate this replacement.5. an average of 200.967 meters by the end of this year.3 Meter Replacement Timeline PRASA would like to be able to replace every meter on the island within a timeframe of 6 to 7 years. they could replace 217. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. If PRASA is within 20.

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

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

the notification could be sent with the water bill in the form of an insert to catch the customers’ attention. will help improve meter management and customer satisfaction by better utilizing resources and information.2 Information System Recommendations While PRASA is using relatively old software and slightly newer hardware that should be replaced. 44 . To save postage. Based on the amount of progress the data center has already made and the level of competence we saw in the data center administrators. They hope to have the upgrade process completed within three years. during which their meter would be replaced. the PRASA data center is in the process of collecting and analyzing bids for a new system. Customers would be given a window of time. These recommendations. 5. coupled with the experience and talent employees at PRASA.replacement plan states that meters needing replacement in the near future are searched for in the database. Any possible concerns or conflicts could be dealt with prior to the work. The preferred method of notification as indicated by 64% of the customers was postal mail. 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.

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

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

2006.wvu. Satterfield. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure. 2006 from http://www. 24. U. Water (http://www. 21. (2006). Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. (2005). Worcester.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. MA. June). Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico.acueductospr. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria.. (2004. Smith. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance. 37. (2002).edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so. (2004).pnl.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile. (2002). 2006 from http://www. Retrieved Feb 20th. 59(12). 147(8). 23. Schlenger. WPI. (2000).nesc. & Hanson Eric. Anthony M. Puerto Rico.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes.pridco. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. (2006). Retrieved Jan 30th.html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). Zane. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. 2006.3opr_adv_infrastructure. Vipin. & Bhardwaj. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico. Unpublished IQP report. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. Water engineering & management. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Puscas. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22.polarisinstitute. 25. from http://www. Horsman. Department of Energy.. Retrieved Jan 30th.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. specifically the section on metering. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly. 26. Dale. Donald L. Puerto Rico.com/english/operational_advantages/4. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan. IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. 19.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Plant Engineering. Kendra. Retrieved on Jan 30th.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria.htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. 47 . Darren. Water Meters. It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed. Shea. 14-15.S. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities.

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

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

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

1) Por favor. Los contadores usados ahora están los mejores por usar con AMR.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 . por favor conteste las preguntas lo más completa y honradamente que pueda. 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. cuántos técnicos están en un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible. no-técnicos. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. AMR es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer. 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 técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad. 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 . ¿qué tipos de problemas pueden ocurrir durante de un reemplazo? (a) Tubos Viejos (c) Seguridad (b) Control de Acceso (d) Vegetación o Hierba Excesiva (e) Otro _____________________________________________ 3) ¿Qué se puede hacer para hacer este proceso más eficiente? Discrepo Debe haber más técnicos. no-técnicos. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. Debe haber menos técnicos. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores.

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

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 2.26 Table 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 2.7 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 2.8 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 2.9 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 1.9 11 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2.Plaza Las Americas 54 .7 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 4 2 2 7 4 4 1 2 5 5 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 5 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 5 5 3 2 3 2 5 1 2 1 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 8 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 5 4 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 2.Customer Survey Results .

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

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 .Ponce 56 .

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

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

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

Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 11 – Opinions on Current Meter Technology – East Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 12 .Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region 60 .

Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region Question Are the current meters the best? Is the technology used to read the meters is the best? AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR How many technicians go to a replacement residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? #1 3 1 3 3 3 #2 1 2 5 5 1 #3 5 3 5 5 3 #4 NA NA NA NA NA #5 3 3 3 3 3 #6 3 1 5 5 4 #7 5 3 5 5 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 yes yes a.Metro Region 61 .d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.d 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes ALL 1 5 2 5 3 3 225 275 1 5 4 5 5 4 NA 10 1 5 5 5 5 5 62 70 1 5 2 5 5 3 250 70 1 1 1 5 5 5 20 20 2 4 3 5 4 1 300 310 1 5 1 5 1 2 250 300 Table 5 .d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.Results from Director Interview .b.

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

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

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

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

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

5 3 2.Opinions on Current Reading Technology .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.Opinions on Current Meter Technology .5 1 0.West Region 67 .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .5 2 1.5 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 .

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

79 0 Commercial/Government 1.11 384.15 16 .65 4.03 910.35 > 35 > 10 0.95 38. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .88 1.162.584.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.77 277.49 131.61 2.84 94.44 1.67 11.65 2.Water Rates .41 Fase 2 1.18 26.70 0 Fase 2 10.6 1.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15. 2006.09 638.6 2.869.09 1.63 1.991.16 1.Current and Future (PRASA.85 213.86 77.15 16 .84 461.22 85.35 > 35 11 .97 786.64 171.13 1.23 36.9 1.71 19.87 123.135.51 22.456.72 107.93 1.43 31.13 294.45 0 Fase 2 21.73 53.1 1.58 50.37 569.33 61.13 1.607.45 0 69 .67 2.013.6 16.07 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 .28 Industrial 1.258.53 1.56 1.

03 Real C 49908 56.74 0.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.00 10 1.873.49 $1.90 5.00 0.00 Estimada B 9.922.394. B. C.42 0.96 0.38 0.00 0.11 0.47 $1.00 1.71 1783 1.31 $1.00 42.14 0.00 32.71 1430 137.00 58 249.00 694.00 46.00 4 65.00 18 274. 2006) 3 264. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.450.17 1939 120.00 20 5.90 0.07 1908 999.00 0. AAA Revenue.00 2 1.90 3.148.15 799 429.28 189.Consumption Figures – A.36 3098 209.28 439.70 0.00 Real A 125 39.45 0.39 655 558.367.58 $1.201.441.90 0.28 829.11 $1.00 0.Consumption Figures Table 9 .34 $1.00 2 4.562.339.28 3. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 Real B 9 37.00 3 1.494.793.28 299.00 32 95.95 0.081.16 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.04 0. F.90 0.85 0.851. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.636.90 0.00 45 2.65 $1.79 $1.61 $1.90 0. G (Luciano. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.843.61 70 .119.39 $1.219.466.20 $1.00 Estimada C 58.70 42 3.347.28 2.82 $1.00 372.00 1 13.792. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.77 0.36 2521 246.218.053.97 48 3.180.87 0.00 306.784.717. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.

775. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.480.25 0.45 66.28 593.00 12.49 $9.00 762.653.18 $1.00 123 6.410.98 $1. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.90 1.96 0.00 31.476.63 $1.32 119 7.615.89 0.36 $14.543.00 0.398.830.37 56.705.505.827. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.099.00 2 7.67 $1.00 132.17 0.565.00 3 5.292.809.111.84 71 .63 6 29.824.891.00 0.45 0.39 0.00 4 5.074.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.23 $1.631.28 223.00 312.49 15 30.90 761.00 0.00 0.996.28 1.99 0.00 195.00 0.90 0.55 5 25.00 245.00 862.02 $1.43 13 30.970.00 106.334.88 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 11.

90 $444.90 $4.43 41 16.00 Estimada G 5.00 115.126.184.07 0.95 3.91 $1.36 $470.77 80.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.178.082.52 4.523.635.60 1001 265.00 3.00 0.71 $1.710.090.90 98.236.32 247.851.43 0.919.295.02 0.14 $1.558.00 2.23 0.00 445.25 3.503.00 144.90 3.00 166.91 177 4.013.706.90 859.15 $7.745.067.55 105.062.00 1.00 23.31 2.90 $304.90 Real G 4004 112.99 $1.00 1.68 39.74 $1.062.23 1136 1.90 Estimada Total 64.668.00 481.157.513.90 $1.00 819.34 $6.45 550 461.14 659.87 $1.90 1.504.00 64.06 $1.33 Real Total 53.648.140.80 $1.00 0.99 0.811.610.355.094.912.92 56.031.00 84.95 0.44 $1.769.94 2.00 72 .90 $5.14 507 149.889.421.391.501.111.26 0.69 $2.091.180.60 1.443.00 590.83 $1.414.90 107.94 300.222.492.95 328 621.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.686.00 9.90 387.00 236.444.643.482.00 0.62 955.649.90 $2.15 $1.49 $1.94 $1.00 1.18 $1.17 1629 264.90 505.784.695.00 22.70 128 4.488.58 57 1.136.451.26 $1.253.072.818.90 $921.173.198.95 265 194.086.22 0.00 5.522.502.446.945.349.145.18 1735 1.727.26 26 13.00 256.68 $1.184.00 86.35 $1.00 0.34 983.833.466.87 $1.350.00 135.00 0.846.029.76 $1.67 1.00 Real F 1 8.08 38 1.95 $1.879.00 2.00 6.37 $414.

44 63.98 0.343.24 $1.00 110.781.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.30 $1.955.00 171.713.406.12 G= Gobierno A = Cuentas de la AAA R = Residencial Privado (cuentas regulares) C= Comercial Tipo de Cliente = Basicamente te resume los Service Class ejemplo Los service class R (residencial).90 11.825.11 $10.685.489.95 $0.621.00 451.28 $2.00 1.00 1.534.930.90 4 92.08 6.00 8.148.00 1.789.268.5 192.00 589.29 10.408.02 $22.22 $8.158.623.73 77.44 $19.00 59.286.60 $949.87 $0.00 9.63 9.633.662.888.28 704. C (comercial). I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .048.00 208.

Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.65 160 260.83 1.67 29.123.80 129 564.20 1.00 30.67 Estimada P 50.708.67 37 0.95 74 1.600.67 0.955.49 264.414.759. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.783.489.10 2.16 157.311.00 10 18.54 1.00 84.80 110 698.374.54 269 515.747.69 299.413.87 2.86 2.75 2.22 4079 74 .12 240 711.430. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.198.377.16 277.015.00 27 0.763. and Totals (Luciano.00 17 14.39 2.84 72.86 1 5.570.67 137.16 32.76 110 339. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.48 1.69 1.36 2.108. P.025. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.570.Table 10 .16 1.16 Real P 39673 32.85 2.00 30.16 69.67 451.66 795 902.58 18 7.49 140.600.I.67 1.01 4661 16. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.90 2.475.039.525.81 1082 118.01 2.802.07 2.28 85.34 18 7.444.085.16 123.94 368.11 71.52 55 224.97 12 566.92 1.67 390.16 Real R 967258 34.695.16 Estimada R 1.66 1.54 1249 97.800.759.50 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.16 0.54 1.34 1.67 62.35 2.16 227.66 1 3.45 146 390.798.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2. R.28 770 1. AAA Revenue.02 301.43 1.16 128.46 10 763.53 85.551.67 Real I 161 110.Consumption Figures .469.00 6 10. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.87 2.67 3.361.

87 2.380.57 4 1.638.896.316.67 0.67 1.16 1.25 12 28.29 2.646.20 1. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.27 15.03 1.404.092.206.243.720.00 94.858.00 32. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.67 0.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.50 1.292.591.770.313.606.27 876.708.526.425.00 1.71 1.66 20 2.312.48 12 27.010.08 2.16 1.04 5.67 209.24 0.88 1.85 101 9.488.66 543.27 73.00 972.77 75 .33 94.00 2.133.00 2.00 15.784.00 50.15 0.882.00 30.98 1.75 1.223. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.00 31.808.67 1.45 4 1.16 60.821.184.059.53 2.051.44 1.697.26 19 2.67 12.353.388.88 0.06 2.754.61 2.770.90 3.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.38 105 10.30 1.702.898.16 55.16 12.733.00 0.71 30 32.333.825.16 1.085.00 39.932.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.00 34.515.85 30 31.75 5.376.11 529.67 2.785.61 559.321. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.86 73.Consumo Prom.749.67 34.740.00 0.47 2.16 23.119.79 0.

53 4.00 125.009.376.026.00 2.06 1.757.80 1.00 118.707.37 243.00 4.72 4.89 Total 6 Months 2.00 59.018.16 90.94 1.00 4 30.72 120.04 367.752.26 574.708.419.392.712.00 4 40.931.520.21 90.30 125.133.17 163.Estimada Total 1.006.305.00 71.065.459.201.00 206.813.00 4.198.963.894.638.759.00 156.74 75.12 6.849.017.491.39 13.930.142.061.007.28 Real Total 1.48 28.442.70 16.167.27 34.84 7.00 105.00 48.028.49 242.00 4 902.00 752.594.00 612.443.884.81 1.982.00 404.87 7.00 573.00 4 76 .00 11.391.16 1.00 474.132.29 34.00 56.994.88 1.081.98 251.226.00 17.31 8.740.60 425.022.202.48 334.71 6.00 489.824.53 79.56 30.00 76.186.00 97.00 1.146.32 546.98 1.53 4.746.451.00 181.336.474.00 131.464.549.197.26 108.743.27 2.88 7.00 16.73 4.31 340.48 1.605.00 64.26 256.359.31 4.189.791.82 1.06 4.18 1.24 241.53 9.189.700.092.146.23 655.83 80.708.561.491.40 4.868.88 4.254.032.73 8.866.825.00 2.011.004.68 135.06 1.29 792.647.00 11.007.976.136.785.75 543.157.86 1.00 193.828.16 1.00 10.679.55 5.400.823.18 160.980.401.185.04 74.00 17.188.98 Real Grand Total 1.578.720.00 557.00 2.76 1.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.498.59 203.906.532.00 4 54.00 4 10.994.939.07 2.549.19 1.561.89 294.172.57 1.267.00 2.78 1.424.706.014.00 5.85 2.00 4.605.00 362.00 3.00 4 2.336.00 2.265.033.495.00 4.11 135.552.96 73.700.00 890.201.262.79 2.652.24 10.984.00 3.25 425.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.413.380.

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

439.720.797.797.720.720.732.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.63 621.369.600.160.056.63 621.63 Total 6.63 (11.74) 621.160.732.43 621.056.20) 0.99) (11.259.43 621.439.732.160.00 (11.20) (4.600.160.369.99) 621.64 Year 7 621.259.434.99) (11.259.439.056.00 (11.732.056.056.592.63 (11.20) (11.439.566.20) (4.439.439.259.473.056.323.259.63 621.074.20) 610.056.79) (15.63 (15.473.259.160.63 Year 10 621.160.43 6.63 621.070.070.600.702.63 Year 8 621.070.259.070.160.160.070.63 621.732.919.720.160.20) (4.056.63 621.070.20) 0.056.732.732.056.070.99) (11. 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 ` 621.74) (136.79) (15.439.056.63 621.439.732.566.20) 0.056.160.439.797.160.160.259.056.259.20) (4.99) (11.056.79) (15.323.160.732.64 621.29 (11.070.089.63 (15.473.20) (110.056.056.20) (4.369.216.211.323.842.056.20) 0.64 621.070.056.63 621.434.056.089.919.056.160.160.720.732.63 621.056.99) 605.323.056.056.43 621.63 (11.131.160.439.160.259.64 621.323.29 (136.259.79) (15.00 (11.259.99) 605.20) (4.20) (11.20) 610.369. AAA Revenue.29 6.056.070.99) (11.Net Cash Flow .20) (11. (Luciano.00 (11.63 (11.79) (15.63 621.259.070.160.79) (15.259.473.089.259.473.160.20) 610.056.070.056.63 (15.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.259.63 621.056.63 Year 9 621.369.20) 610.Current System Costs Table 12 .63 621.323.99) 605.070.439.259.160.63 (15.211.160.63 621.070.056.056.160.160.720.732.369.439.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .99) 605.160.00) (26.63 (15.160.160.566.64 621.681.63 (15.070.797.63 621.070.63 621.211.160.160.160.473.64 621.070.74) 6.070.99) 605.089.99) 605.160.056.732.259.

314.502.050.716.80) (9.00) (52.780.26) (22.823.970.828.592.02) (10.80) (48.592.23) (7.845.01) Year 7 37.852.26) (35.322.212.242.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.80) (8.908.40 Year 10 41.06 28.72 10.793.136.381.502.592.439.64 33.780. (Gomez and Morera.72 (21.440.442.536.793.381.47 24.23) (6.547.793.59) (51.23 37.59) (12.89 19.52 (9.217.054.179.322.502.716.72 10.050.470.47 24.Table 13 .254.010.845.72 10.40 41.502.217.217.120.502.502. AAA Revenue.592.39) (57.30 15.52 295.01) (5.72 10.524.47 Year 5 28.971.40 Total 295.050.40 41.592.72 10.72 10.823.01) (5.793.910.793.644.793.302.793.290.254.322.40 41.592.793.780.592.439.06 28.911.502.134.80) (47.502.823.377.690. Datamatic.322.780.716.592.377. 2006) (Henry.47 24.502.40 Year 9 41.716.23) (7.439.592.381.793.970.502.40 41.502.177.426. 2006) (Luciano.592.217.72 10.314.440.80) 10.80) (9.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.346.502.502.845.06 28.881.01) (5.845.050.780.716.30 Year 3 19.439.716.716.908.971.502.852.40 41.72 10.908.467.64 33.502.40 41.793.793.768.780.72 10.911.43) (312.716.96) (30.89 19.614.716.30 15.412.716.704.23 37.72 10.23 37.440.941.762.793.780.852. 2006) (Perez.72 10.780.52 295.377.417.136.060.793.823.718.72 10.936.01) (6.440.502.40 41.136.23) (7.06 Year 6 33.592.30 15.592.908.314.100.52 295.050.80) (48.716.793.314.970.793.136.64 33. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.845.377.40 41.89 Year 4 24.23 Year 8 41.381.971.80) (48.780.971.72 10.89 19.00) (6.80) (9.Incremental Cash Flow .780.40 41.443.016.72 10.716.80) (9.911.69) 81 .911.72 Year 2 15.793.80) (47.992.750.852. 2006) (Luciano.176.352.970.638.217.23) (6.

386.010.970.403.09 19.326.691.780.120.72 52.592.793.290.793.72 52.623.340.43 10.050.908.716.40 10.72 (30.426.502.12 19.828.050.40 10.510.592.095.80) 28.095.716. 2006) (Luciano.510.470.716.845.30 (7.628.095.314.136.510.64 37.346.845.12 41.96) (41.26) 238.39) (16.659. 2006) (Luciano.12 41.992.502.941.407.440.673.644.793.908.25 24.52 (312.060.80) 13.793.442.40 10.780.560.502.881.222.377.242.592.26) (19.506.23 (12.592.908.12 41.136.793.198.59) (13.417.381.381.911.845.502.67 24.502.36) 37.217.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.592.793.01) 7.510.439.970.823.716.716.40 10.72 52.054.00) (5.095.845.750.80) (23.89 (7.389.83 28.970.64 (6.217.780.377.100.50) 15.095.176.30 (9.716.911.484.790.510.597.716.536. Datamatic.059.502.510.80) (18.020.80) 27.095.804.69) 259.809.72 52.47 (48.84 33.467.858.80) (28.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.91) 19.852.23) 5.254.47 (5. 2006) (Perez.917.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .40 10.72 52.592.26 28.322.23) 15.510.970.66 19.935.322.23) 19.314.793.47 (7.095.793.795.405.52 (57.793.40 10.592.64 (5.412.684.016.596.510.254.23 (10.716.88 41.302.422.72 52.50 15.177.83 28.762.754.911.502.780.502.758.095.12 24.72 52.095.502.971.08 15.502.823.80) (33.064.23 (9.80) (14.716.780.217.72 52.385.793.23) 24.510.793.64 (47.59) 28.193.327.314.793.40 10.793.12 41.40 10.72 52.80) 9.439.46 295.217.852.29 41.72 (22.502.716.780.41 33.21 37.28) 10.208.971.851.502.136.72 52.788.663.690.502.377.149.547.89 (9.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .136.502.12 82 .01) 17.40 10. 2006) (Henry.510.89 (48.12 41.40 10.872.02) 25.440.941.614.643.704.823.52 (21.050.80) 18.971.54) 10.095.936.134.01) 26.322.09 295. (Gomez and Morera.443.12 41.355.352.716.592.87) 295.28) 15.05 33.01) 22.095.502.845. AAA Revenue.910.823.970.124.377.47 (9.179.440.510.06 (9.592.738.26 295.793.793.12 41.050.780.050.841.768.940.439.72 52.43) 274.780.592.23) 10.793.306.386.029.911.381.780.672.212.160.40 10.33) 24.971.127.448.510.64 (8.439.72 (52. 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 37.30 (48.095.958.52 (35.381.24) 10.217.74) 28.693.23 (51.592.638.72 (15.30 (6.80) 23.190.72 52.852.16) 33.00) (11.381.440.322.12 41.921.592.718.89 (6.06 (5.908.01) 12.852.12 41.06 (6.314.716.095.780.502.524.649.06 (47.40 10.

99 Year 4 $24.50) $17.327.381.910.80) ($23.33) $59.208.597.242.377.30 $19.01) $17.80) ($18.061.217.340.738.597.00) ($11.381.23) $19.47 ($7.379.911.01) $12.853.97) Year 4 $24.302.36 $48.780.663.386.644.28) ($14.381.050.439.852.41 83 .938.569. 2006) (Henry.23) $10.217.381.352.389.597.25 (145.421.322.80) Year 3 $19.908.46 $31.560.984.704.911.684.30 ($7.06 ($47.762.793.793.54) Year 1 $10.964.050.852.673.47 $28.936.872.217.908.596.752.385.027.127.448.47 ($9.198.502.054.326.377.971.89 ($7.593.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.841.412.67 $23.921.346.793.385.050.810.71) Year 5 $28.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.31 Year 3 $19.502.72 ($30. Datamatic. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .908. (Gomez and Morera.439.72 $15.322. 2006) (Luciano.788.976.66 (127.917.911.72 ($52.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.176.01) $22.72 ($22.28 Year 5 $28.47 ($48.971.80) ($5.029.74) ($41.89 $24.28) $9.50 $13.149.222.852.869.88 $11.652.911.214.018.190.638.83 ($19.403.28) Year 1 $10.23) $5.780.971.25 Year 5 $28.439.26) ($19.362.89 ($48.851.484.29 ($3.718.322.439.120.96) ($41.426.442.502.448. 2006) (Perez.407.46) Year 2 $15.01) $7.89 $25.858.060.23) $15.24) $3.010.502.80) ($33.24) Year 1 $10.45 Year 4 $24.28) ($3.809.780.252.050.80) ($28.495.541.100.198.322.89 ($9.06 ($6.80) ($5.649.810.261.788.780.22 Year 2 $15.780.327.757.822.780.09 $18.326.08 (103.780.908.691.828.05 ($11.381.066.179.54) ($74.407.992.06 ($9.176.160.649.74) Year 2 $15.971.80) ($6.217.30 ($9.65) Year 3 $19.754.91) $36.821.852.020.30 ($48.00) ($6.793.377. 2006) (Luciano.659.506.99) $8.780.290. AAA Revenue.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 ($5.663.377.673.

84 $88.72 $52.940.386.59) $28.59 Year 9 $41.510.970.673.510.780.72 $52.095.71 Year 10 $41.47 Year 8 $41.193.177.716.643.970.40 $10.64 $116.724.Year 6 $33.23 ($12.355.52 ($21.941.793.43 $102.592.09 Year 10 $41.72 $52.758.21 $80.23) $24.12 $185.016.592.895.795.095.502.502.136.64 ($8.592.72 $52.716.845.136.12 ($68.217.134.845.80) $27.83 84 .998.592.502.768.845.510.502.87) Year 10 $41.617.502.804.716.99) Year 9 $41.095.510.40 $10.703.314.095.693.12 $274.405.875.502.80) ($14.095.592.40 $10.716.470.12 $238.768.40 $10.40 $10.314.314.510.69 Year 6 $33.592.502.510.989.592.970.72 $52.411.510.43) $274.863.958.72 $52.97 Year 9 $41.793.510.095.095.716.598.845.195.845.02) $25.970.095.431.095.050.69) $259.100.72 $52.716.790.623.40 $10.080149.422.72 $52.09 Total $295.90 Year 7 $37.26) $238.804.12 $133.335.467.825.823.793.716.793.12 $259.614.823.85 Year 8 $41.716.83 Total $295.502.941.12 $121.970.716.254.440.39 ($16.72 $52.14 Year 9 $41.12 $154.440.592.254.592.095.050.12 ($16.823.73 Year 7 $37.064.503.80) $28.23 Year 7 $37.780.793.716.793.502.40 $10.40 $10.41 $55.63 $74.672.750.64 ($5.40 $10.592.12 $207.124.213.793.40 $10.12 $221.921.095.306.935.26 Total $295.958.440.87) Total $295.510.290.02 Year 8 $41.386.04 Year 7 $37.23 ($10.443.536.845.881.12 $169.26 Year 10 $41.059.52 ($57.941.793.592.793.510.090.355.524.693.117.041.11 Year 8 $41.417.72 $52.36) $173.72 $52.592.793.59) ($13.716.793.23 ($9.793.510.628.899.700.64 ($47.72 $52.502.40 $10.09 Year 6 $33.136.440.407.40 $10.095.16) $160.01) $26.193.095.716.823.547.64 ($6.502.52 ($35.87 Year 6 $33.502.510.385.23 ($51.314.52 $312.405.690.136.212.

404) Year 6 $33.767.971 ($48.377 ($9. AAA Revenue.050) $19.327.029.050) $10.326.050) $15.828.596 $28.426.674) 3.781) ($5.208.781) ($5.198.560.020. 2006) (Luciano.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.911.781) ($33.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.050) $5.160835902 $31.781) ($28.663.215) ($160.911.380 6.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.322.236658937 ($14.503 ($30.858 ($145.134.851.198.781) ($5.381.841.050) $24.027.302.821.306.793.976 $88.853.593 Years Year 2 $15.120.503 ($52.846 ($47.440 $24.322. Datamatic. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.363) 3.768.352.788) N/A Year 1 $10.908 ($9.810.644.503 $15.390 ($127.852.236658937 $11.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.377 $33.448.53199599 Year 3 $19.781) ($14.822 $55.381.809) $17.080.010.618 85 .191 $13.788) $3.992.381.060.385.385.412.440.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.176) ($19.597) 1.536. 2006) (Luciano.117.921 ($103.950470057 Year 4 $24. (Gomez and Morera.971 $19.793.386.793.291) ($41.252 1.Payback Period Table 16 .322.872) $59.908 ($48.718.495 6.066.242.128 $23.377 ($47.700.674) ($74. 2006) (Perez.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.179.341) $36.597) $9.327 Year 6 $33.984.752) Years ($3.440.911.53199599 Year 1 $10.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.971 ($9.448.440 ($48.908 $28.381.095.852.598) Years Year 2 $15.936.846 ($8.852.176.440 ($9.704.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.672.917.061.738.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.781) ($6.781) ($18.659 $18. 2006) (Henry.781) ($23.663.100) ($6.440.484.

941) ($16.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.386 Year 7 $37.970.592 $10.506.716.875.054.510.793.137 ($21.421 $74.503 $52.255) $28.405.970.592 $10.592 $10.793.443) 86 .137 ($57.691 Year 5 $28.971 ($7.750) $274.716.385.440 ($7.292628695 $25.470.503 $52.314 ($12.845.649.292628695 ($3.095 Year 9 $41.716.852.940) Year 8 $41.503 $52.846 ($6.592 $10.193.503 $52.793.970.762.217) $12.090) ($121.592 $10.137 ($312.910) ($11.793.989.541.793.095 Year 9 $41.503 $52.322.377 ($6.524) Year 8 $41.823.467.754 Year 3 $19.995) ($68.095 Total $295.793.503 ($22.716.793.018.510.327.442.823.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.407) Year 2 $15.643.869.716.417.503 $52.503 Total $295.649.050 Year 7 $37.440.684.095 Year 10 $41.060 Year 8 $41.970.653) Years $8.381.386 $116.314 ($9.911.196 $221.407) 2.793.213.160 Year 6 $33.217) $17.793.016.716.255) ($13.503 Year 9 $41.716.964.638.614.346.592 $10.908 ($7.217) $7.095 Total $295.223 Year 4 $24.510.570 2.805) Year 7 $37.895.823.291 $274.643443217 $48.193.101 $169.217) $26.592 $10.758.592 $10.716.805) ($173.405.510.510.314 ($51.212.900) ($16.503 Year 10 $41.592 $10.793.217) $22.510.149.261 6.095 Year 10 $41.716.703.724.

941.716.$25.716.693 Year 7 $37.790 $52.845.503 $52.178) $259.881.959 87 .592 $10.592 $10.970.510.355.693 $80.510.769 $207.314 ($10.921.864 $259.095 Total $295.503 $185.510.510.422.095 $238.503 $52.510.510.137 ($35.124.623 Year 8 $41.941.793.411.408 $133.503 $52.431.691) $27.592 $10.959 $102.598 $238.355.793.823.335.673 $154.095 Year 10 $41.547.716.095 Year 9 $41.793.095 $52.825.095 $52.

911.Return on Investment ."N/A") Simple ROI.793.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. 3 years: 62. 10 years: 1281.503 $15.793.852.100) ($6.592 $10.010.426.718.503 Year 9 $41."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Total $295.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).971 $19.823. 7 years: 217.970.134.781) ($5.440.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))). AAA Revenue.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.793.716.255) Year 8 $41.503 Year 10 $41.417.793. 2006) (Luciano.781) Simple ROI.381.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.137 ($21.314 ($9. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.716.212.992.592 $10."N/A") 88 . Datamatic.716. (Luciano."N/A") Year 7 $37.846 ($5.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).592 $10.781) ($5.781) Simple ROI.440 $24.781) ($6.322.908 $28.302.750) Year 6 $33. 5 years: 151.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .

941) Year 6 $33.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).781) ($47."N/A") Simple ROI.016.Badger/AMCO Table 18 . 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10. 5 years: -59."N/A") 89 .908 $28.828.852. (Gomez and Morera.120.793. 3 years: -69.Return on Investment .440 $24. AAA Revenue.503 $15.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).716.970.781) ($48.592 $10.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.440.781) Simple ROI.291) ($48.614.314 ($51.704.781) Simple ROI.793.. 2006) (Perez.793.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).716.793.503 Year 10 $41.503 Year 9 $41.412. 10 years: -5. 2006) (Luciano. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.536.846 ($47.503 Total $295.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.592 $10.971 $19.716.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.179.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).322.823. 7 years: -50.592 $10.781) ($48."N/A") Simple ROI.137 ($312.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.381.911.255) Year 8 $41.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0."N/A") Year 7 $37.

716.793.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.823."N/A") Simple ROI.050) ($9.503 Total $295.050) Simple ROI.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).908 $28.440."N/A") Simple ROI.314 ($12."N/A") Year 7 $37.852.060. 10 years: 585. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano. AAA Revenue.050) Simple ROI.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.716.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).050) ($9.644.050) ($9.592 $10.467.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))). 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10. 3 years: 105.793.Return on Investment .381. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.503 Year 10 $41.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0."N/A") 90 .137 ($57.970.524) Year 8 $41.503 $15.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.Badger/Badger Table 19 .503 Year 9 $41.793.846 ($8.793.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).352.592 $10.176) ($9.768.242.592 $10.443) Year 6 $33.440 $24.716.845. 7 years: 313.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0. 5 years: 160.911.971 $19.936.322.

10 years: 1077."N/A") 91 .Return on Investment .503 Year 10 $41.503 Year 9 $41.217) Simple ROI.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).592 $10.440 $24.054. 7 years: 475.716.217) ($6.970.638.911.793."N/A") Year 6 $33.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52)))."N/A") Simple ROI.846 ($6. 3 years: 170. (Luciano.217) ($7. 2006) (Henry.592 $10.910) ($7.793.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.440.691) Year 8 $41. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.442.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.592 $10.852.137 ($35. 5 years: 245.470.322.881.971 $19.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).716.217) ($7.762.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .178) Simple ROI.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.314 ($10.381.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.503 $15.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))). 2006) (Perez.823.908 $28.716.346.793.793.503 Total $295.547. AAA Revenue."N/A") Simple ROI.217) Year 7 $37.

629 Year 1 (11. 2006) (Henry. (Gomez and Morera.672.191 13.448.160 105.795 Year 1 (19. Datamatic.872) Year 5 (18.327.935) Year 1 (41.649.198.029.596 28. 2006) (Luciano. 2006) (Luciano.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.809) Year 3 (28. 2006) (Perez.684.381.7% #N/A Year 6 24.917.858 Year 5 19.663.921 Year 3 10.754 Year 3 12.851.149.560.659 18.095.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.9% #N/A Year 6 26.128 23. AAA Revenue.020.306.484.738.970.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .327 64.390 Year 4 15.3% 92 .597) 9.404) -1.691 Year 5 22.341) Year 4 (23.386.385.208.841.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.506.223 Year 4 17.

095 Year 9 52.095 Total 274.060 Year 8 52.355.095 Year 10 52.940 Year 8 52.Year 7 28.405.510.643.510.095 Year 9 52.623 Year 8 52.510.095 Year 10 52.510.386 Year 7 13.095 Year 9 52.095 Total (16.510.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 10 52.510.095 Total 259.510.941.693 Year 7 27.095 Total 238.510.959 93 .758.422.805) Year 7 25.193.510.124.790 Year 8 52.510.510.095 Year 10 52.510.

064 Year 3 12.612) 4.674) (28.223 10.610 Year 6 26.293. 2006) (Luciano.341) 13. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.467) (39.167 14.596 28.582.956.020.198.672.306.399.160 16.691 12.444) (27.412.342 Year 4 (23.558 Year 2 (33.917.560. AAA Revenue.668) Year 1 (41.575.046 13.433.724 12.213.354) Year 4 15.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .023 9.583) Year 1 (11.452.274) 6.754 8.407) 4.028 Year 3 (28.272) (21.448.087 17.701 14.818.191 13.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.669.457.319.854.327.505.005.703 10.659 18.506.680.649.807) (16.725.907.970.385.112 15.110 11.927.638 (11.590.921 (22.872) 15.886 16.969) (11.326.835.665) Year 6 24.265.327 (9.001 7.821 Year 5 (18.149.752.738.623.597) 9.037 9.824) Year 2 5.107.735 Year 5 22.396.029.747.543.404) 18.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.752.809) 10.865 (18.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.179.459.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.484. (Gomez and Morera.208. 2006) (Luciano.839 (4.044.766.684.588.998) 7.351.851.370) 6.663. 2006) (Perez.443 12. 2006) (Henry.319.746.369.095.661.714 10.454.298 Year 2 7.669.595 12.138) Year 3 10.564.801) Year 1 (19. Datamatic.381.858 (12.788) 7.023 94 .219) (8.647 Year 4 17.539) Year 5 19.934.424.386.128 23.746.841.696 Year 6 (14.148 17.390 (17.067.

814) (8.922 Total (16.492 18.510.767.623 17.805) NPV (34.728.604.604.604.095 32.405.374 Year 8 52.510.881.033 Year 8 52.095 32.961 Year 7 27.552 NPV 170.471.510.196.510.047 Year 7 13.033 Year 10 52.638 34.604.604.638 34.638 34.033 Year 8 52.856.033 Year 9 52.095 32.033 Year 9 52.196.510.033 Year 9 52.959 NPV 162.604.355.095 32.313) Year 7 25.885.638 34.858.790 15.196.196.181.095 32.604.255.079) NPV (35.518 16.941.940 (8.361.604.510.693 NPV 145.638 34.196.510.292 17.095 32.095 32.604.510.638 34.095 32.638 34.196.033 Year 9 52.095 32.600.638 34.647 NPV 182.604.095 32.040.510.536) Total 238.033 Year 10 52.638 34.510.638 34.124.196.196.196.060 17.193.033 Year 10 52.701.817 95 .196.033 Total 274.758.638 34.Year 7 28.831 Total 259.638 34.095 32.643.703.106 NPV 152.510.095 32.033 Year 8 52.510.604.196.422.027.386 NPV 173.033 Year 10 52.196.604.332.

000.000.000 $0 ($10.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000.000.000 $30.000 $50.000.000.000.000) ($20.000.000) ($30.000) ($50.000.000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000 $40.000) ($40.000.000 $10.000 $20.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .

000.000.000.00) ($150.00 $0.00) ($200.000.000.00 $100.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.00 $250.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.000.000.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.000.000.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.00 ($100.00 $150.000.00 $200.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $250.00 $200.00) ($200.00) ($100.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .00 ($50.000.00 $50.000.000.00 $0.000.000.000.00 $100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $150.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00) ($150.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.

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

PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants.600 Pumping Stations. the water rates increased by 68%. 6. 1. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco.000 km of sewer lines. government or independent. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. Water).000.3 million water meters. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. (Andres Garcia.000. 1. (Andres Garcia. and in July of 2006. personal communication.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. 60 waste water treatment plants.3 million clients and 1. 1. personal communication. 100 . 2006. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments.200 km of water lines.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful