Water Flow Meter Replacement San Juan, Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority May 3rd, 2006

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

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

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

i

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

ii

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

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

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

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

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

we performed comparisons on meter replacement efforts in Puerto Rico and in the United States. PRASA replaced 130. In 2005. implementing new meter technology and addressing some customer concerns. Their current replacement efforts are effective. meter management evaluation and the information system evaluation. and they hope to replace 200.000 in 2006. specifically. Although no one plan will work for every situation due to variations in such things as geographic population distribution and terrain. Many cities across the United States and the world are currently involved in. or have recently finished a replacement similar to PRASA’s such as Toronto. undetected leaks. The project was divided into two main sections. These failing meters and infrastructure problems. the methods used in these cities can offer helpful insights and may be adapted for use in Puerto Rico. These companies allowed miles of pipe to fall into disrepair causing customers to be without water for extended periods of time. and other system errors that result in increased maintenance expenses. Meter failures cause incorrect customer billing. During the preceding ten years.Executive Summary Failing water meters have been a problem for PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) since they took charge of the Puerto Rican water system in 2004. To satisfy the meter management section. Seattle. PRASA viii . Studying similar projects completed in other cities is helpful in effective planning.000 meters. This project provided suggestions that satisfied the water meter management needs of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico contracted the management of the water system to a succession of two different private companies. and Atlantic City. but could be improved. for improving PRASA’s current replacement efforts. along with a desire to improve efficiency are what prompted PRASA to request assistance.

PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. Currently. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. In light of this. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix .3 million meter replacements in 7 years.6 Million. 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. Finally. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. As PRASA continues to replace meters. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology.customers were surveyed concerning their opinions of their services and information was gathered from Customer Service directors about the state of their region and any concerns they had about the current replacement effort. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. The results of the cost-benefit analysis prompted the recommendation that PRASA keep their current meters and install the ITRON AMR technology at an initial investment of $187. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is. especially the range. PRASA uses manual reading on their 1.3 million meters. All aspects of the transmitter are reliant on battery life. This effort is being made easier by the fact that all of the meters are on public property. which is another added cost to consider. In the past.1 General Replacement Considerations There is no meter replacement plan that will work for every situation. 2. or reveal personal information. specifically using radio transmitters. There are many issues that need to be addressed before meters are bought and replacements are done. Puerto Rico’s water system is very complex compared to other water systems. Finally. Reviewing solutions from other locations is a good way to understand the ideas behind a good replacement plan. What worked well for one city could fail for another. people have expressed concerns about potential risks. As the battery wears down. This means that customer availability or customer concerns about the technology used do not factor in as greatly and they are free to pursue the technology that will work the best for them.2 Meter Replacement Considerations Replacing water meters is not an easy task. Currently. the range decreases until it ceases to broadcast. however. radio broadcasting requires a license. Nevertheless.communication. This section will discuss general meter replacement concerns. an effort to change over to automatic meter reading. 2. They feel that a radio broadcaster in their house could put their health at risk. 2/9/2006). management issues such as the economic life of a meter must be understood for any plan to be successful.2. a few guidelines have been compiled that experts in the 7 . encompassing much more land and containing thousands more miles of pipes than most systems. Also. review past meter replacement efforts and discuss a few management issues.

The final consideration to make is whether to do the replacement with local resources or hire an external company (Deming. The broken meters should be replaced first until there are no more. a small town in northern Massachusetts (Personal Communication. This is something unique to every town or city. 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). 2/9/2006). Jim Deming is the Head of the Town of Acton Massachusetts Water Department. choosing which meters to replace is a simple matter. personal communication. 2/9/2006). The water department must look at all of the available options before coming to a decision. The annual budget can be used to tabulate how many meters the city can afford to replace in a year. Hiring an external company could produce faster results but at a higher price. Choosing the technology to use is the most important part of planning a water meter replacement (Jim Deming. This is an issue because all of the meters will be roughly the same age (1-2 years to each other) which means that they will all fail roughly at the same time. For him.field and research on this project suggest. Once this decision has been made. This should continue until all meters in all sections have been replaced. so can the average total cost for replacement. Extending the contract to step out meter replacements would likely drive the overall cost higher by forcing the town to make payments over a longer period of time. and in turn. personal communication. personal communication. a section of town should be chosen at random and all of the meters in that section should be replaced. 2/9/2006). Doing the replacement with town resources can be cheaper but may take as much as 5 to 10 years longer depending on the size of the town and resources available (Deming. When this has been completed. regardless of the size of the system or replacement effort. Are the main points of a water replacement plan. This is an advantage because their meters are stepped out in terms of 8 . the average cost for a meter can be determined.

Testing the meters a while after replacement. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico.age. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. personal communication. 1993. but could be adapted to work. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. 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. 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. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. This is the strategy used by a small town.2. This.000 people living there were becoming 10 to 20 years older than they should have been and beginning to show signs of wear and tear. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. for example.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. however. would not work with so many water meters. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. Anatomy). The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. Additionally. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. 2. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. The meters that served the 40. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. 2/9/2006). 9 .

the project was 90% complete within 10 months. 1996. and the 10 . 1996. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. Their aging meters served about 20. Aging Meters). Meter replacements were rare. Benefits). To alleviate this problem. 1996. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand.000 different clients. Like Atlantic City. Research). The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. The meters needed to be technologically sound and equipped with radio frequency equipment but not so expensive that one meter would be too costly to replace if it were vandalized or another one needed to be added. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading. they decided to use radio frequency meters. they were purchasing water from another city. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. Michigan. causing customer complaints. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. Anatomy). 1996.05 billion to 3. Research). The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. There was also a problem with fenced in meters. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. only for new houses or completely broken meters. 1993. and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth. At the same time. Pontiac. 1996. Meter Replacement). a significant amount of water and revenue.65 billion gallons. average billable water readings jumped from 3. was in a similar situation (Jackson. In the end. so a boost in available personnel. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data.

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

it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto.000 over the next four years. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. including non metered accounts. Due to this. Conclusion). The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20. 3/1/2006). These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8. It was also recommended that all 8. 3/1/2006). 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years.In the end.000 the second. Additionally. 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. Currently. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico. Personal Communication. In the Toronto area. to radio meters.000 meters replaced in a year. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. Replacements in Tampa. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period. Beyond 1”. doing 5. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. The first was to upgrade all accounts. Like Toronto. some readings are estimated.000 to 63. Purpose). Meters that are 5/8". they continued to check for meters that 12 . After many meters were replaced due to size reasons. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology.000 the first year and 10. Personal Communication. If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up. the more frequently it is tested. This will result in a more satisfied customer base. 2002.500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. 2002. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. the larger diameter a meter has. the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years.

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

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

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

3. 2. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.393).3 MGD respectively. In the case of Anne Arundel County. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. Finally. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. In general. 1996.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. their island concerns and the history of PRASA.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. Maryland. they have a very complex water distribution system. Commercial. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. 1996.2 and 183. In addition to this. p. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. 2004. 2. Despite being a small island.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. old meters were costing up to $13. 16 . being an island presents water concerns of its own. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent.25 per meter per year.1). Optimum). Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430. p. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead.

2. Despite this. Currently. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. 2/3/2006). 2000. p. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers. their people are concentrated in one area.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22.2 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. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. Currently.3. should and do monitor their water supply. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. Most islands.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. It is easier for a city in the United States to buy water from other towns and cities than it is for an island to import water.3.3).3). personal communication. 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. p. 2000. 2. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. Their replacement 17 . Even for the cities that have a similar population. Puerto Rico included.

Ondeo and 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. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. 11). This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. which rose to $695 million in 2001.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. Aside from service problems. Vivendi. 2002. 18 . personal communication. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. the EPA fined them $6. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002.1). p. Ondeo (Blasor. During these times of drought. p. The first company. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work.11).2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. 2005) By 2004. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. 2002. (McPhaul.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. 2/3/2006). 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. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. On top of this. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The West region has a large number of buried meters or meters that can not be accounted for. with the west region experiencing it the most. Despite having problems. West Region officials are executing a 55 week plan to locate them all. Each region experiences this problem differently. all directors reported that. only that it was not the biggest influence. we have the results of four: Metro. East. There were some common themes among the regions. However. Firstly. Secondly. Some customers who followed the trend that pricing was a larger influence still rated reliability negatively. See Appendices C and D for survey data. they would hire more employees to help with their work. West and South. 4. 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 . In the East region. as the diameter of the meter goes up. so does the number of employees required to change it.remaining 3% were dissatisfied with both pricing and service reliability. South. For these customers. This is not to say the customers were totally satisfied with either factor. pricing was closer to their overall satisfaction rating and vice versa. East.1.2 Director Interviews PRASA divides Puerto Rico into 5 regions: North. Of those regions. West and Metro. Our interviews and questionnaires revealed that there is one major problem common among the regions: buried or inaccessible meters. This problem ranges from meters covered in trash to having the cover completely cemented over. all regions agree that. over 2000 meters were installed but not recorded into the information system.

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

The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. Additionally. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider.3 million. making testing every meter on the island impractical. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. Tampa only has around 120. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. This method. but do not always use. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. Currently. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. 33 . Currently. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. the beds are very expensive. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486.699 people.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their 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. PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. Additionally. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment.

The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. Five different systems were analyzed. This system. This works for most areas. Some techniques. including the current system.3 Million $438. over the course of 10 years.6 Million 1303% 214. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement.3 Million $197.5 Million $187. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. will cost 34 .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 $142.1.4% 915. 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. 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.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico.1% 100% PRASA cost documents. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money.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. such as contracting with a private company.3% -0. to determine the overall costs of each. From internal Table 1 .% 65. 4.1% 0% 623. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. but they can be adapted to work.

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

Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. with 10 mobile AMR systems. accurately. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. 36 . 330. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. Additionally. if this system is chosen. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. at the least. any meters installed after January 1st.7 Million. However. would cost about $197. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. However. Besides this issue. but time as well. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. Again. raising the total cost for this system by 7.5 Million. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system.training. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. This system is very similar to the other Badger system.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. using the same transmitters. If this system did not represent such a large investment. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. it would be a reliable choice. A 20-system kit would cost around $438.500. This means that. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. 2007. $7. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. This system. The system.5 Million dollars. 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.

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

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

Simply by switching to any AMR system. we formed conclusions and recommendations to help PRASA improve their meter management practices and information system. This section will detail our conclusions about each system. Additionally.1. PRASA will 39 . while using quality meters. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with.1 Metering Technology The results of the cost-benefit analysis were used to determine which system PRASA should implement in order to reduce overall costs and improve the efficiency and accuracy of the meter readings. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete. Based on this. 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. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. 5. processes relating to customer service were investigated. we performed an evaluation of their current practices.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. no longer uses efficient reading practices. The current system. specifically. To this end. 5. for around 10 years. an investigation of other water authorities.

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.500.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement. To use this system. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. Thus we recommend that PRASA move to a newer AMR system as soon as possible in order to save money and increase its revenue generation potential. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. Additionally. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system. While being the cheapest system. Based on these evaluations. 40 . The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system. using the ITRON AMR system with the currently installed AMCO V100 water meters is the most cost-effective solution as it will save PRASA the same amount each year and provide them with quality and flexible AMR technology from a company they have been doing business with for many years. This cost is a large one. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. Similarly. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. This represents at the very least a $7.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million. represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. Adding this to the already expensive $197. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. and certainly more difficult to recover from.

The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. they could replace 217.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.5. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. meters should be replaced in groups. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17.000 meters. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter.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.000 meters of their goal. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed. According to data received during the plan comparison. In March. In order to facilitate this replacement. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology. they should continue.164 meters per month.269. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip. Given this information. an average of 200. These numbers average 18. the goal and the actual number should be compared. 5. If not.1. starting in 2006.000 meters a month. In order to do this.000 to 30. Meters close to 41 .1.967 meters by the end of this year. If PRASA is within 20. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly.000 meters should be replaced each year. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. Continuing their current trend. At the end of the year. they replaced roughly 18. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. In January they replaced 15.

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

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

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

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

Pigram. Anatomy of a water meter replacement program. Document – AMCO Meter Price Sheet. WA. 21-22. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Pontiac.R (2004). 143(8). Integrated Water Resources Management in the Luquillo Mountains. PR. Unpublished internal document. 2006 from http://www. (2005). (2006). 12. (2000). Document – ITRON Meter Price Sheet. Ortiz-Zayas. Document – Datamatic Price Sheet. (2006). PRASA. (2006). PRASA. Retrieved February 10th from http://www. Retrieved Jan 30 from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Atlantic City. William P. Unpublished internal document. 140(1). 30. Retrieved on Jan 30th. Water Engineering & Management.au/cwpr/Papers/update. Unpublished internal document. Spokane. It is important to know all of the water issues concerning all areas of Puerto Rico to better understand how the meters would be placed. Miguel. Puerto Rico: An Evolving Process. . Isabella. faced strike. Luciano. Michigan. Water Resources Management in Island Environments: The Challenge of Tourism Development. PR. The Industrial Manufacturers Directory. This report contained data on internal PRASA costs and consumption figures. San Juan. John. Water management issues for an area of Puerto Rico. (1996).edu. AMCO. Will help us get an idea of what people have done in the past 15. (2006). Government took reins of water authority.htm This is article details PRASA’s previous experience with privatization 16.9. NJ.com/info/flow-meters/index. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 17. Luciano. Retrieved Jan. This report detailed meter system prices given to Miguel by Datamatic. 387-398.htm) Basic information on water meters as well as links to many other places on the internet dealing with water meters. 14. Will help us gain perspective on previous water replacement programs. Water Engineering & Management.pdf 46 . Perez. Alphonso. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning ITRON metering systems 10. McPhaul. PR. 2006 11. AMR installation: Make your own decision. San Juan.Flow Meters (http://www. Jackson. ITRON.iqsdirectory. Miguel. (2006). John J. (1993). 22-23. McLees. Mark.org/Water-Facts/puerto%20rico4. J. 13. Unpublished internal document. 20 (3). M. Document – AAA Revenue and Consumption Figures.waterindustry. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning AMCO metering systems 18. Henry.une.

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

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

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

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

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

¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) 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 . y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad. Debe haber menos técnicos. Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. ¿qué tipos de problemas pueden ocurrir durante de un reemplazo? (a) Tubos Viejos (c) Seguridad (b) Control de Acceso (d) Vegetación o Hierba Excesiva (e) Otro _____________________________________________ 3) ¿Qué se puede hacer para hacer este proceso más eficiente? Discrepo Debe haber más técnicos.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. no-técnicos. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos.

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

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 2.8 10 3 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2.Plaza Las Americas 54 .26 Table 2 .9 11 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2.7 9 4 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.9 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2.9 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 0 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 1.Customer Survey Results .Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas QUESTION ANSWERS: 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 3 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 Average: 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 2.

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

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

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

b.b.c.Metro Region 58 .d 5 1 4 4 3 2 52 66 1 2 2 4 1 2 42 50 1 2 1 2 1 2 39 47 1 5 5 5 5 1 70 NA 1 2 2 4 1 2 39 41 1 2 3 3 1 1 64 10+ 4 3 1 2 1 1 35 47 1 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Table 4 .b NA NA NA NA no yes a.Results from Director Interview .d #1 2 2 4 4 3 #2 3 1 3 3 3 #3 3 1 3 3 3 #4 3 3 NA NA NA #5 3 1 3 3 3 #6 3 1 3 3 3 #7 2 1 3 3 3 #8 5 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 yes yes obs yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 no yes a.b.b yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes yes a.c yes b/obs yes a.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.

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

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

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

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 Required for Meter Replacement – East Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Figure 14 .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region 62 .

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

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

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

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

West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .5 2 1.5 3 2.West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.West Region 67 .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .Opinions on Current Reading Technology .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .5 1 0.

5 1 0.Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.5 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 3 2.Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .

79 0 Commercial/Government 1.63 1.97 786.15 16 .49 131.58 50.456.77 277.07 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" 15.869.61 2.67 2.584.65 4.03 910.45 0 69 .73 53.13 294.11 384.35 > 35 > 10 0.Current and Future (PRASA.1 1.013.607.09 1.71 19.Water Rates .56 1.85 213.45 0 Fase 2 21.64 171.35 > 35 11 . 2006.93 1.72 107.51 22.33 61.37 569.16 1.13 1.84 461.15 16 .84 94.6 16.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.53 1.9 1.13 1.65 2.23 36.88 1.70 0 Fase 2 10.991.67 11.Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data Specific meter costs obtained from various meter manufacturers could not be made public and included in this report due to reasons of commercial confidentiality Water Rates Table 8 .18 26.258.09 638.22 85. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .28 Industrial 1.135.6 1.43 31.44 1.87 123.41 Fase 2 1.6 2.162.95 38.86 77.

G (Luciano.00 45 2.47 $1.34 $1.38 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 10 1.00 1 13.219. AAA Revenue.00 0.70 42 3.17 1939 120. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.20 $1.77 0.96 0.65 $1.00 32 95.119.04 0.70 0.00 32.562.Consumption Figures Table 9 .79 $1.90 0.00 1. 2006) 3 264.494.03 Real C 49908 56.15 799 429.00 0.90 0.784.053.00 Real B 9 37.00 4 65.85 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.71 1430 137.74 0.39 $1.873.00 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 372.201.00 2 1.394.00 0.180.00 306.00 42.97 48 3.58 $1.45 0.218.148.28 439.441.36 3098 209.95 0. B.00 18 274.71 1783 1.90 0.00 2 4.851.90 0.00 Estimada C 58. C.00 3 1.28 299.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.843.00 20 5.00 46.339.28 2.90 5.39 655 558.717.61 $1.28 3.90 3.28 189.450.28 829.49 $1.87 0. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.922.07 1908 999.00 Real A 125 39.367.00 694.466.00 0.00 58 249.16 0.31 $1.11 $1.42 0.36 2521 246.636.081. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.793.11 0.82 $1. F.90 0.347.792.14 0. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.Consumption Figures – A.00 Estimada B 9.61 70 .

45 66.45 0.398.39 0.543.18 $1.705.00 0.36 $14.111.00 106.00 11.98 $1. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.84 71 .00 123 6.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.074.63 $1.996.28 223.63 6 29.00 4 5.631.28 593.90 761.334.410.00 0.90 0.476.00 0.37 56.00 2 7.00 132.00 0.099.824.00 3 5. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.43 13 30.32 119 7.00 24.88 0.00 12.49 $9.23 $1.00 312.970.505.809.00 0.49 15 30.827.17 0.00 195.96 0.99 0.615.480.90 1.00 245.292.565.891.00 862.00 0.00 31.653.25 0.28 1.00 762.00 0.67 $1.55 5 25.830.775.89 0.02 $1.

503.391.446.945.00 64.00 0.784.68 $1.091.513.443.32 247.00 819.90 859.14 659.15 $7.610.695.00 1.492.013.62 955.70 128 4.67 1.912.08 38 1.140.504.222.136.90 3.95 328 621.02 0.178.846.00 0.635.17 1629 264.94 $1.99 0.00 86.00 1.43 0.173.83 $1.90 98.90 1.80 $1.00 Real F 1 8.648.811.00 9.145.350.00 22.00 23.43 41 16.00 115.33 Real Total 53.71 $1.00 0.198.086.062.031.95 0.91 $1.35 $1.52 4.668.18 $1.90 $921.90 $5.26 $1.111.91 177 4.643.44 $1.45 550 461.00 0.236.77 80.15 $1.482.126.37 $414.92 56.706.55 105.49 $1.355.488.22 0.00 256.501.69 $2.36 $470.74 $1.90 Estimada Total 64.062.00 0.00 1.00 590.414.90 $304.26 26 13.180.87 $1.00 481.90 $444.95 $1.649.60 1001 265.23 1136 1.06 $1.34 $6.90 505.851.00 6.745.522.184.00 135.451.879.727.157.00 0.18 1735 1.76 $1.00 84.466.99 $1.082.889.90 Real G 4004 112.95 265 194.00 144.253.00 Estimada G 5.523.00 3.444.31 2.94 300.94 2.558.00 0.90 $4.710.295.87 $1.502.00 2.421.68 39.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.90 $1.14 507 149.686.090.26 0.184.349.00 5.25 3.00 166.60 1.818.00 445.14 $1.90 $2.067.07 0.23 0.00 72 .029.95 3.00 1.833.90 107.90 387.34 983.072.00 236.094.58 57 1.769.87 0.00 2.919.

623.00 110.44 $19.343.44 63.713.63 9.11 $10.408.00 9.00 59.60 $949.00 451.28 704.00 1.825. C (comercial).268.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.90 11.90 4 92.28 $2.08 6.29 10.5 192.662.22 $8.30 $1.00 1.02 $22.98 0.406.286.00 171.158.489.148.00 8.955.12 G= Gobierno A = Cuentas de la AAA R = Residencial Privado (cuentas regulares) C= Comercial Tipo de Cliente = Basicamente te resume los Service Class ejemplo Los service class R (residencial). I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .621.24 $1.73 77.00 1.95 $0.685.00 589.888.930.534.048.781.00 208.789.87 $0.633.

Consumption Figures .551.16 157.12 240 711.374.67 37 0.86 1 5.67 451. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.49 264.00 84.84 72.43 1.955.16 227. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.66 795 902.67 62.58 18 7.54 1249 97.10 2.75 2.54 1.570.80 129 564.759.16 277.02 301.46 10 763.53 85.28 85.085.80 110 698.85 2.69 1.16 Estimada R 1. P.66 1 3.600.469.16 128.48 1.34 18 7.76 110 339.16 32.49 140.95 74 1. R.67 1.16 Real P 39673 32.22 4079 74 .66 1.798.00 6 10.20 1.97 12 566.00 30.50 2.800.025.108.07 2.45 146 390.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.00 27 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.747.444.67 Estimada P 50.00 10 18.81 1082 118. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.16 Real R 967258 34.83 1.67 390.015.489.123.67 0.52 55 224.28 770 1.311.69 299.86 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.198.01 4661 16.92 1.87 2.413.570.783.67 Real I 161 110.35 2.039.16 0.414.87 2.67 29. and Totals (Luciano.16 69.I.763.39 2.16 123.67 137. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.54 1.36 2.11 71.00 17 14.67 3.802.Table 10 . AAA Revenue.695.16 1. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.475.90 2.525.600.430.377.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.00 30.708.34 1.54 269 515.01 2.65 160 260.759.361.94 368.

770.243.749.44 1.29 2.00 50.808.03 1.591.66 20 2.61 559.425.00 32.898.051.00 30.697.88 1.092.00 0.08 2.010.98 1.882.06 2.27 876.33 94.353.206.27 73.57 4 1.45 4 1.00 2.88 0.75 1.784.932.515.26 19 2.38 105 10.27 15.25 12 28.223.184.388.313.30 1.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.61 2.67 2.67 1.380.821.77 75 .50 1.00 31.20 1.67 0.638.333.702.312.00 0.606.15 0.754.00 2.66 543.00 34.53 2.00 39.71 30 32.16 60.75 5.00 972.720.16 23.16 12.67 12.67 34.00 15.67 209.04 5.Consumo Prom.00 94.48 12 27.87 2.16 1.708.526.85 101 9. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.86 73.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.059.770.85 30 31.085.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.740.24 0.292.00 1.896.785. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.71 1.488. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.16 1.16 55.119.646.79 0.11 529.316.90 3. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.733.321.16 1.67 0.376.133.404.858.47 2.825.67 1.

70 16.00 4 40.18 160.561.065.84 7.336.254.24 241.00 156.31 4.04 74.167.679.29 792.700.202.23 655.638.198.17 163.48 1.73 4.26 108.336.197.00 3.708.00 11.00 64.00 4 30.00 10.00 4.459.226.16 1.006.00 1.86 1.00 3.007.00 2.605.53 4.976.74 75.994.017.00 2.813.262.88 4.00 4 76 .35 Estimada Grand Total 1.53 9.201.712.00 118.442.305.06 4.96 73.265.474.451.60 425.Estimada Total 1.189.56 30.491.980.906.28 Real Total 1.186.443.31 340.549.39 13.88 1.391.00 557.00 4 2.594.98 Real Grand Total 1.00 11.26 256.73 8.146.06 1.026.146.201.00 97.72 120.00 752.75 543.018.25 425.00 48.578.78 1.142.828.004.00 489.00 2.82 1.27 2.740.495.72 4.18 1.491.157.88 7.53 79.48 28.26 574.76 1.092.55 5.401.759.83 80.605.413.57 1.59 203.188.189.561.98 251.185.884.04 367.00 125.71 6.720.31 8.963.00 2.00 573.00 5.994.400.823.00 16.930.98 1.68 135.172.11 135.757.00 206.007.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.743.16 90.866.00 474.00 71.00 612.81 1.00 181.707.16 1.552.00 362.00 2.359.00 4 54.29 34.033.376.00 105.028.022.931.27 34.647.53 4.133.032.868.80 1.00 890.380.12 6.791.00 56.79 2.87 7.984.785.00 4 10.00 4.00 4.532.30 125.00 4.706.652.19 1.37 243.132.00 76.011.498.849.136.00 4 902.825.939.32 546.00 17.549.89 294.392.894.424.00 59.014.746.85 2.94 1.982.06 1.89 Total 6 Months 2.752.419.07 2.464.21 90.00 131.00 404.00 17.520.49 242.700.824.061.081.00 193.009.48 334.40 4.708.24 10.267.

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

797.089.681.070.20) (4.369.702.919.732.160. 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 ` 621.20) 0.259.070.439.732.056.160.20) 0.63 Year 8 621. AAA Revenue.056.056.160.434.720.089.20) 610.369.732.64 621.369.323.259.070.63 621.99) (11.99) 605.63 621.64 621.160.473.131.473.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.439.732.323.99) (11.439.056.070.63 (11.439.070.160.160.99) 605.056.473.160.259.070.056.160. (Luciano.259.566.74) 621.056.600.259.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.63 Total 6.259.20) 0.64 621.160.99) (11.160.070.732.056.63 621.63 621.160.720.20) (11.259.439.439.160.259.216.070.79) (15.160.056.20) (4.63 621.63 (15.00 (11.369.056.439.732.070.259.566.63 (11.63 621.056.43 6.99) (11.63 (15.00 (11.20) 610.842.211.732.070.160.732.056.797.74) (136.439.63 621.00) (26.259.160.089.070.99) 605.00 (11.63 (15.63 621.056.63 Year 9 621.63 621.259.63 Year 10 621.Net Cash Flow .20) (11.160.056.070.63 621.259.160.160.056.64 Year 7 621.160.259.369.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .439.160.20) (11.797.720.160.056.259.259.797.160.473.089.070.592.056.732.070.20) (4.20) (110.79) (15.Current System Costs Table 12 .160.63 (15.439.20) (4.20) 610.211.63 (15.056.160.056.720.00 (11.64 621.732.160.070.259.323.63 621.63 (15.056.056.63 621.323.29 6.79) (15.43 621.74) 6.63 (11.056.056.160.211.323.99) 605.919.566.79) (15.43 621.99) 605.29 (11.99) (11.160.64 621.259.439.323.43 621.20) (4.070.160.63 621.732.473.056.369.63 (11.79) (15.056.074.720.070.99) 605.056.720.79) (15.473.63 621.29 (136.434.056.259.056.99) 621.070.63 621.20) 0.056.20) (4.600.056.20) 610.732.600.160.160.439.

01) (5.377.502.242.96) (30. (Gomez and Morera.30 15.716.254.59) (51.592.060.72 (21.439.823.69) 81 .26) (35.47 24.050.881.06 Year 6 33.72 10.23 Year 8 41.322. Datamatic.536.971.716. 2006) (Luciano.47 Year 5 28.793.852.40 41.72 10.40 41.217.780.592. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.780.644.970. 2006) (Henry.716.40 41.59) (12.793.793.467.780.80) (9.217.908.971.502.322.718.780.793.780.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.793.40 41.010.793.793.47 24.050.89 19.592.793.502.314.502.381.780.592.72 10.302.06 28.52 295.381.212.502.40 Year 9 41.217.502.72 10.762.845.780.442.502.23) (6.72 10.40 41.911.502.01) (5.502.179.30 15.547.992.970.322.502.502.716.Table 13 .322. AAA Revenue.845.592.80) (9.908.793.80) 10.823.02) (10.40 41.80) (47.377.72 10.52 295.793.40 41.314.23 37.716.412.592.050.440.502.72 10.439.23) (7.750.89 Year 4 24.793.177.23) (6.852.176.911.136.054.439.01) (6.971.440.72 10.134.502.592.72 10.016.80) (48.768.050.592.39) (57.426.780.908.64 33.845.592.381.793.314.941.502.40 41.30 15.72 10.470.72 10.120.971.254.23) (7.852.80) (48.793.524.136.502.100.845.89 19.217.911. 2006) (Perez.64 33.780.780.23 37.970.64 33.050.936.52 (9.716.80) (9.40 41.Incremental Cash Flow .911.136.638.793.290.217.40 Year 10 41.00) (52.716.377.704.72 Year 2 15.690.908.80) (9.346.440.852.716.136.80) (47.716.716.72 10.823.440.72 10.614.716.43) (312.377.01) (5.910.72 10.80) (48.26) (22.793.30 Year 3 19.00) (6.592.06 28.23) (7.828.381.352.47 24.23 37.592.89 19.443. 2006) (Luciano.01) Year 7 37.793.06 28.502.40 Total 295.80) (8.52 295.823.314.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.592.439.845.970.417.716.

381.780.52 (57.970.958.12 41.72 52.649.72 (15.50 15.12 41.780.80) 28.663.326.780.793.72 (52.30 (9.050.47 (9.910.095.592.592.306.52 (21.64 (5.439.80) (33.971.718.064.502. AAA Revenue.217.970.911.385.01) 12.340.26) (19.597.88 41.40 10.30 (6.08 15.217.12 41. (Gomez and Morera.377.43 10.66 19.095.24) 10.54) 10.12 19.095.72 52.768.09 19.921.59) 28.992.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .67 24.592.050.381.502.510.502.524.87) 295.381.095.716.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .852.80) 13.971.059.96) (41.852.790.780.02) 25.758.322.26 295.592.510.322.30 (48.809.592.212.83 28.502.72 52.40 10.80) (18.016.40 10.12 41.26 28.793.72 52.16) 33.47 (7.780.327.502.502.314.40 10. Datamatic.095.941.242.74) 28.851.502.510.23 (10.060.33) 24.823.29 41.793.659.010.780.47 (48.84 33.26) 238.386.592.80) (23.50) 15.177.054.804.841.64 (8.217.23 (12.47 (5.510.72 52.510.793.23) 5.029.684.095.754.52 (312.443.793.40 10.407.09 295.510.440.793.41 33.510.911.23) 10.322.149.502.43) 274.484.25 24.100.738.970.417.911.12 82 .377.050. 2006) (Luciano.21 37.412.691.193.136.502.386.69) 259.547.881.502.908.852.12 41.448. 2006) (Perez.30 (7.40 10.254.793.502.020.643.793.793.39) (16.971.095.592.89 (6.095.502.592.623.80) 23.23) 15.302.716.72 52.095.381.80) 18.124.160.222.823.01) 22.72 52.80) (14.845.470.72 52.83 28.845.89 (9.389.506.198.971.793. 2006) D Incremental Cash Flow Summary Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow 37.440.716.64 (47.628.23 (9.254.439.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.845.095.381.190.40 10.908.510.91) 19.322.716.28) 10.64 37.467.845.80) (28.095.179.852.823.377.788.793.00) (5.673.690.72 52.560.935.716.845.01) 17.672.536.422.89 (7.403.936.716.426.793.40 10.050.050.828.12 41.911.716.72 (30.377.217.750.693.01) 26.704.858.89 (48.01) 7.40 10.917.442.06 (9.290.793.136.314.136.510.80) 9.23) 19.592.176.28) 15.716.64 (6.095.346.72 (22.134.780.502.72 52.095.614.793.440.872.510.502.510.793.59) (13.40 10.40 10.46 295.06 (5.780.439.06 (47.208.52 (35.716.592.440.780.780.12 41.127.36) 37.762.908.12 24.352.23) 24.716.644.80) 27.40 10.136.502.12 41.716.439.00) (11.120.12 41.23 (51.970.908.638.72 52.941.502.217.06 (6.823.05 33.592.795.716.314.940.72 52.596. 2006) (Luciano.510.405. 2006) (Henry.314.970.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.592.793.355.

971.426.381.448.673.31 Year 3 $19.448.72 $15.421. AAA Revenue.971.780.872.050.30 ($48.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.326.41 83 .908.908.908.30 ($7.252.23) $10.050.780.593.176.917.46 $31.971.340.752.780.506.89 $24.47 $28.061.018.66 (127.222.80) ($6.060.33) $59.788.780.911.502.822.71) Year 5 $28.80) ($5.495.89 $25.362.659.560.964.852.23) $15.992.841.99) $8.127.484.412.381.54) ($74.597.377. (Gomez and Morera.01) $12.322.597.80) ($23.502.88 $11.50) $17.389.326.738.302.72 ($22.120.28) $9.26 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 ($5.29 ($3.644.757.652.569.217.322.96) ($41.00) ($6.663.23) $5.242. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.649.029.691.754.80) ($28.217.780.179.793.984.379.381.010.442.541.72 ($30.74) ($41.911.793.673.65) Year 3 $19.704.407.01) $22.793.50 $13.28) ($3.24) Year 1 $10.020.97) Year 4 $24.502.377.788.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.198.322.06 ($6.597.911.89 ($7.290.921.066.377.89 ($9.780.149. 2006) (Henry.381.439.06 ($47. Datamatic.910. 2006) (Luciano.027.502.74) Year 2 $15.80) ($33.47 ($48.217.91) $36.47 ($9.911.684.67 $23.851.403.23) $19.25 Year 5 $28.385.36 $48.821.352.638.22 Year 2 $15.100.869.28) Year 1 $10.30 $19.54) Year 1 $10.852.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.198.381.828.83 ($19.976.208.780.06 ($9.439.780.793.385.08 (103.80) Year 3 $19.80) ($18.327.24) $3.346.050.05 ($11.46) Year 2 $15.938.99 Year 4 $24.00) ($11.89 ($48.45 Year 4 $24.936.439. 2006) (Luciano.217.407.439.810.908.858.01) $17.28 Year 5 $28.28) ($14.718.810.327.72 ($52.054.80) ($5.190.09 $18.809.25 (145.050.649.176.377.26) ($19.762.160.261.30 ($9.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .853.852.386.852.596.322.663.971.214. 2006) (Perez.01) $7.47 ($7.

385.793.823.614.23 ($10.643.845.72 $52.386.80) $27.14 Year 9 $41.958.193.592.793.592.716.768.40 $10.59) $28.716.40 $10.73 Year 7 $37.795.417.793.40 $10.970.958.23 Year 7 $37.970.845.314.016.899.12 $169.12 ($16.050.59 Year 9 $41.440.693.510.823.793.12 $221.716.592.12 $154.935.716.536.72 $52.592.716.Year 6 $33.095.405.02 Year 8 $41.136.43 $102.793.213.502.47 Year 8 $41.87) Year 10 $41.26 Year 10 $41.095.59) ($13.09 Total $295.80) $28.793.21 $80.84 $88.502.41 $55.411.90 Year 7 $37.470.12 $207.941.85 Year 8 $41.193.095.095.804.217.314.700.195.52 ($21.134.63 $74.01) $26.52 ($57.440.72 $52.510.823.26) $238.793.921.12 $274.970.592.716.790.467.83 Total $295.970.12 $259.52 ($35.064.02) $25.825.64 ($47.090.40 $10.440.40 $10.623.40 $10.72 $52.510.672.592.592.793.502.355.510.502.716.83 84 .768.314.502.335.693.04 Year 7 $37.97 Year 9 $41.12 ($68.863.617.52 $312.64 ($6.875.440.40 $10.716.059.100.40 $10.72 $52.23 ($12.758.510.12 $185.041.502.095.510.095.502.592.407.09 Year 6 $33.80) ($14.12 $238.998.23) $24.40 $10.510.12 $133.64 $116.881.690.095.095.23 ($51.724.43) $274.212.314.09 Year 10 $41.422.502.547.716.355.72 $52.080149.40 $10.845.136.16) $160.592.050.970.124.71 Year 10 $41.40 $10.117.845.510.823.940.703.592.254.095.12 $121.503.804.845.941.11 Year 8 $41.845.443.095.431.290.502.095.39 ($16.510.793.502.72 $52.386.87) Total $295.524.598.405.136.628.99) Year 9 $41.793.592.69) $259.87 Year 6 $33.306.750.780.502.716.72 $52.793.510.716.793.72 $52.72 $52.502.72 $52.716.36) $173.510.72 $52.895.40 $10.23 ($9.095.673.095.254.26 Total $295.510.64 ($8.989.941.69 Year 6 $33.780.592.136.64 ($5.177.

2006) (Luciano.752) Years ($3.198.363) 3.128 $23.050) $15.215) ($160.53199599 Year 3 $19.381.992.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.440 ($9.598) Years Year 2 $15.718.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.191 $13.381. 2006) (Henry.060.781) ($28.971 ($9.208.448.176) ($19.822 $55.597) $9.095.704. (Gomez and Morera.793.810.767.020.674) 3.644.390 ($127.380 6.061.503 $15.503 ($30.440 $24.322.672.872) $59.050) $19.291) ($41.984.448.050) $24.322.306.050) $5.160835902 $31. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.322.908 ($48.503 ($52. 2006) (Luciano.327.176.793.841.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.381.440.377 ($47.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.134.908 ($9.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.010.Payback Period Table 16 .536.852.663.821.852.440.377 ($9.674) ($74.593 Years Year 2 $15.793.560.976 $88.846 ($8.027.858 ($145.809) $17.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.781) ($33.659 $18.853.852.921 ($103.404) Year 6 $33.302.663.781) ($23.117.440. AAA Revenue.179.440 ($48.080.597) 1.596 $28.971 ($48.377 $33.911.495 6.911.120. Datamatic.050) $10.768.100) ($6.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.341) $36.788) $3.950470057 Year 4 $24.252 1.385.781) ($5.846 ($47.426.911.781) ($14.066.386.327 Year 6 $33.828.781) ($5.029.781) ($6.936.781) ($5.198.700.381.851.788) N/A Year 1 $10.326.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.236658937 $11.908 $28.484. 2006) (Perez.412.971 $19.242.352.236658937 ($14.738.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.385.917.781) ($18.618 85 .53199599 Year 1 $10.

060 Year 8 $41.910) ($11.503 $52.869.217) $12.823.638.292628695 ($3.443) 86 .292628695 $25.793.137 ($21.101 $169.050 Year 7 $37.217) $26.793.503 $52.217) $17.793.995) ($68.386 Year 7 $37.193.386 $116.970.750) $274.911.716.823.405.506.095 Year 10 $41.137 ($57.503 Year 10 $41.716.327.223 Year 4 $24.758.503 $52.217) $22.793.941) ($16.510.754 Year 3 $19.137 ($312.940) Year 8 $41.964.793.381.592 $10.503 $52.255) $28.510.653) Years $8.377 ($6.716.592 $10.160 Year 6 $33.314 ($51.255) ($13.691 Year 5 $28.503 $52.716.793.193.971 ($7.970.895.592 $10.592 $10.421 $74.908 ($7.314 ($9.212.989.846 ($6.440.970.196 $221.054.716.716.970.703.524) Year 8 $41.716.095 Year 10 $41.407) 2.510.510.541.570 2.762.793.793.090) ($121.346.793.805) ($173.095 Year 9 $41.845.724.467.643443217 $48.805) Year 7 $37.649.095 Year 9 $41.322.716.503 Total $295.417.149.716.503 Year 9 $41.018.793.852.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.261 6.095 Total $295.385.510.592 $10.291 $274.592 $10.592 $10.503 $52.440 ($7.503 ($22.875.442.823.900) ($16.016.470.510.407) Year 2 $15.405.614.643.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.095 Total $295.314 ($12.213.592 $10.217) $7.592 $10.649.684.

547.178) $259.623 Year 8 $41.592 $10.941.790 $52.881.793.959 $102.510.793.592 $10.314 ($10.095 $238.959 87 .503 $185.716.503 $52.095 Year 9 $41.335.095 $52.921.970.598 $238.503 $52.510.673 $154.422.716.691) $27.510.503 $52.825.793.411.592 $10.355.510.941.845.693 Year 7 $37.137 ($35.095 Total $295.124.408 $133.$25.510.769 $207.693 $80.355.095 $52.823.431.095 Year 10 $41.716.510.864 $259.

592 $10.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0. 3 years: 62.852. (Luciano.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.781) Simple ROI.592 $10.440 $24.255) Year 8 $41.212.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.793.971 $19.314 ($9.322. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.911.716. 7 years: 217.716.440.793.503 Total $295. 5 years: 151. 10 years: 1281.793.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).592 $10."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Year 9 $41.718.781) ($6."N/A") 88 .2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.750) Year 6 $33.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13)))."N/A") Year 7 $37.100) ($6.908 $28.846 ($5."N/A") Simple ROI.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.716.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).134.417.992.823.426.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).Return on Investment .781) ($5.010.503 $15.137 ($21.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 . Datamatic.781) Simple ROI.781) ($5.793.302. 2006) (Luciano.970.381. AAA Revenue.503 Year 10 $41.

"N/A") Simple ROI.536.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.592 $10.016.716.852.503 $15.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.781) ($47.793.Return on Investment .120. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc. 2006) (Luciano.793.179.823."N/A") Year 7 $37.971 $19.828.440.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .941) Year 6 $33. 10 years: -5. 3 years: -69. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data. (Gomez and Morera.314 ($51."N/A") Simple ROI.970.592 $10. 2006) (Perez.716.377 Total incremental outflows ($52.291) ($48.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).412.716.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.846 ($47.503 Year 9 $41.781) ($48.592 $10. 7 years: -50.440 $24.503 Year 10 $41. AAA Revenue.322.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).908 $28."N/A") 89 ..255) Year 8 $41.781) Simple ROI.137 ($312. 5 years: -59.614.381.911.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).793.704.503 Total $295.781) Simple ROI.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).793.781) ($48.

322.846 ($8.793.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.971 $19.503 $15.852. 10 years: 585.793.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.176) ($9. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.Return on Investment .503 Year 10 $41."N/A") Simple ROI.716.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.Badger/Badger Table 19 .060.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).793.845. 5 years: 160.050) ($9.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.908 $28."N/A") Simple ROI.970.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.503 Total $295.793.716.503 Year 9 $41.443) Year 6 $33.823. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.592 $10.592 $10.440 $24. AAA Revenue.716. 7 years: 313. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.050) ($9.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).314 ($12.381."N/A") Year 7 $37.936.768.(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))).352.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).050) Simple ROI.524) Year 8 $41.242.050) Simple ROI.440.592 $10.050) ($9.644."N/A") 90 .137 ($57.911.467. 3 years: 105.

470.178) Simple ROI."N/A") Year 6 $33.440.314 ($10.793."N/A") Simple ROI.217) ($6.592 $10.503 Year 10 $41.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).911.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.346.852.793.217) Simple ROI. 10 years: 1077. 7 years: 475.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .440 $24.716.691) Year 8 $41.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).793.442.716.970.762.881.592 $10.217) ($7. 2006) (Henry.592 $10.503 Year 9 $41. 2006) (Perez. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.Return on Investment .(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).846 ($6.217) Year 7 $37.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.137 ($35."N/A") 91 ."N/A") Simple ROI.823.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.908 $28.503 $15.716. AAA Revenue. (Luciano. 3 years: 170.054.322.381.638.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.793.503 Total $295.910) ($7.971 $19. 5 years: 245.217) ($7.547.

484.7% #N/A Year 6 24.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .935) Year 1 (41. Datamatic.448.9% #N/A Year 6 26.629 Year 1 (11.385.597) 9.149.809) Year 3 (28. 2006) (Luciano.381.917.208.663.649.3% 92 .858 Year 5 19.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7. AAA Revenue.970.754 Year 3 12.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.128 23.020. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.596 28. (Gomez and Morera.390 Year 4 15.841.223 Year 4 17.872) Year 5 (18.198.029.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.921 Year 3 10.306.095.851.684.659 18.341) Year 4 (23.404) -1.386.327 64.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.795 Year 1 (19. 2006) (Perez.738.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.191 13.506. 2006) (Luciano.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.691 Year 5 22.327.160 105. 2006) (Henry.672.560.

193.095 Total 274.095 Total 238.510.941.095 Year 9 52.124.095 Year 10 52.623 Year 8 52.510.095 Year 10 52.790 Year 8 52.095 Total (16.095 Year 10 52.959 93 .095 Year 9 52.095 Year 9 52.510.Year 7 28.095 Year 9 52.805) Year 7 25.386 Year 7 13.060 Year 8 52.405.095 Total 259.510.758.940 Year 8 52.510.422.510.510.510.510.510.095 Year 10 52.643.510.693 Year 7 27.355.510.

854.467) (39.505.386.351.543. Datamatic.107.327 (9.319.087 17.213.319.149.788) 7.208.265.865 (18.927.023 9.934.872) 15.917.443 12.969) (11.801) Year 1 (19. (Gomez and Morera.674) (28.907.223 10.385.433.665) Year 6 24.005.886 16. AAA Revenue.298 Year 2 7. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.754 8.824) Year 2 5.407) 4.560. 2006) (Luciano.506.691 12.028 Year 3 (28.725.369.448.020.649.037 9.998) 7.809) 10.001 7.841.596 28.858 (12.714 10.752.680.669.424.638 (11.198.696 Year 6 (14.610 Year 6 26.110 11.148 17.747.623.807) (16.582.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.064 Year 3 12.612) 4. 2006) (Perez.668) Year 1 (41.956. 2006) (Henry.738.701 14.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.370) 6.970.179.412.067.669.023 94 .484.029.444) (27.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .399.583) Year 1 (11.835.390 (17.459.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.191 13.306.128 23.851.404) 18.703 10.354) Year 4 15.327.326.839 (4.046 13.160 16.590.746.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.818.044.588.274) 6.454.219) (8. 2006) (Luciano.575.272) (21.735 Year 5 22.138) Year 3 10.661.341) 13.095.293.663.672.342 Year 4 (23.921 (22.457.647 Year 4 17.558 Year 2 (33.167 14.396.595 12.746.381.766.112 15.597) 9.539) Year 5 19.659 18.452.724 12.821 Year 5 (18.564.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.752.684.

604.604.386 NPV 173.196.033 Year 9 52.701.961 Year 7 27.758.033 Year 10 52.604.510.856.638 34.536) Total 238.095 32.196.604.033 Year 8 52.492 18.079) NPV (35.638 34.196.941.095 32.422.940 (8.638 34.471.959 NPV 162.095 32.095 32.767.124.510.600.604.790 15.604.643.510.638 34.405.181.638 34.518 16.638 34.060 17.196.604.647 NPV 182.604.638 34.604.623 17.510.552 NPV 170.858.196.510.040.510.095 32.033 Year 9 52.922 Total (16.604.095 32.638 34.510.196.033 Year 10 52.638 34.638 34.193.355.196.196.033 Year 9 52.510.106 NPV 152.196.313) Year 7 25.604.361.033 Year 9 52.638 34.814) (8.095 32.604.255.881.095 32.374 Year 8 52.817 95 .638 34.332.510.033 Year 8 52.033 Total 274.027.693 NPV 145.831 Total 259.196.292 17.047 Year 7 13.805) NPV (34.196.728.510.033 Year 10 52.095 32.095 32.510.510.885.033 Year 10 52.033 Year 8 52.095 32.703.095 32.196.Year 7 28.

000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000 $30.000 $0 ($10.000.000) ($30.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000 $10.000 $50.000.000.000.000 $40.000) ($50.000) ($40.000 $20.000.000.000) ($20.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.00 ($100.00 $100.000.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.000.00 $0.00) Years Figure 24 .000.00 $200.00) ($150.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.00 $250.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .000.000.00 $150.000.000.

00) ($150.000.00 $0.000.000.000.000.000.00) ($100.000.000.00) ($200.00 $250.000.00 $200.000.000.000.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00 $150.000.00 ($50.000.000.00 $100.000.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.00 $50.

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

000. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco.3 million water meters. 100 .000. personal communication. PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants.200 km of water lines. 1.600 Pumping Stations. (Andres Garcia. personal communication. 2006.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700. and in July of 2006. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. the water rates increased by 68%. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates. government or independent. 60 waste water treatment plants. 6. Water). 1.3 million clients and 1. (Andres Garcia.000 km of sewer lines. 1. 2/10/2006) In October 2005.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful