RFP Water Meter Review and Testing Phase IITHE CITY OF Dubuque
.
L.~UB E A~~~
1 -
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Water Meter Review and Testing Phase II
DATE: March 27, 2009
Water Department Manager Bob Green and Finance Director Ken TeKippe are
transmitting the Final Water Meter Review and Testing Phase II report completed in
March 2009 by HDR Engineering and M.E. Simpson Co. The report is a continuation of
the Water Meter Review and Testing Phase I completed in November 2008. This phase
of the study focused on reliability of water meters installed in the past five years. The
first phase focused on aged water meters.
The Phase I and II results support continuation of a water meter replacement program.
Water Department Manager Bob Green and Finance Director Ken TeKippe recommend
City Council approval to proceed with the next step of this program in soliciting a firm to
create the plans and specifications for a water meter change out program.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Bob Green, Water Department Manager
Ken TeKippe, Finance Director
THE CITY OF Dubuque
a
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Zoa~
TO: Mike Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Bob Green, Water Department Manager~~
Ken TeKippe, Finance Director ~~ /~~J~`~'~
SUBJECT: Water Meter Review and Testing Phase II
DATE: March 26, 2009
BACKGROUND
The enclosed report details information on the Water Meter Review and Testing
Phase II completed in March 2009 by HDR Engineering and M.E. Simpson Co. The
report is a continuation of the Water Meter Review and Testing Phase I completed in
November 2008. This phase of the study focused on reliability of water meters installed
in the past five years. The first phase focused on aged water meters. The project
included testing samples from all meter sizes in residential, commercial and industrial
use.
DISCUSSION
The Phase I and II results support continuation of a water meter replacement program.
The last major water meter change began in the late 70's and was completed in the
early 80's. The completion of additional Phase II testing of 152 meters determined a
realistic view of the condition of our complete inventory of meters.
Retrofitting of our current meters is not desirable. Replacement parts are becoming
increasingly difficult to obtain for existing meters. In addition, meter technology is
changing so rapidly that our existing meters are becoming obsolete.
The combined estimate of Phase I and Phase II test results project a range of annual
revenue loss of 5.4% ($530,000) to 6.9% ($676,000). The capital payback range using
net present value computation is 10-13 years. The payback changed from Phase I due
to the lower revenue loss and using higher 2009 estimated equipment replacement
costs: Based on overall age of meters, it is anticipated that the revenue loss is closer to
the higher range and thus the payback period closer to a 10 year estimate. The capital
payback is detailed in the enclosed executive summary (pages 2-3).
Operating costs will be positively impacted by the installation of a fixed radio network
meter system. The outsourced monthly meter reading will be phased out (currently
$142,000 annually). Accountability will be improved with the fixed radio system due to
meter reads in the office versus in the field, on demand meter reading and the option of
remote turn on/turn off. Repair costs should dramatically decrease compared to what
the City currently experiences.
In addition, providing citizens with accurate meter reading will encourage responsible
use of water resources.
RECOMMENDATION
The next phase of the project involves the City soliciting proposals from firms to assist in
developing plans and specifications for a water meter change out program. Appendix
7.3 of the report provides a detailed typical consultant draft procurement/implementation
project approach. The request to solicit proposals is time sensitive to expidite the
project should the City receive stimulus funds. The project funding is planned from the
State Revolving Fund Loan.
ACTION STEP
We are requesting your approval with authorization to proceed with the next step of this
program in soliciting a firm in creating the plans and specification with this program.
Funding for this program is part of FY'10 and FY'11 CIP budgets.
We are available to discuss the report and our recommendation at your convenience.
KT/jg
Enclosure
THE CITY OF
L~U~ E
Mnsterpieec oii the' is~is~iF~pi
Final Water Meter Review and Testing Phase Two
March 2009
Prepared by: '
HDR Engineering, Inc. ~
1.U Executive Summary
During July through October of 2007, HDR performed a Water Meter System Evaluation for the
City of Dubuque. Recommendations for future improvements and upgrades to the water meter
system were developed. A recommendation from the study was to perform testing and evaluation of
the existing water meters due to the large portion of the City's meter population nearing or past the
expected life span of approximately 15 to 20 years. As meters age, they become worn, which over
time reduces or slows the overall registration of the meter. This meter inaccuracy influences water
consumption measurement which in turn reduces collected revenue.
In order to determine the magnitude of potential meter inaccuracies within the City's meter
population, HDR was selected in cooperation with M.E. Simpson to conduct a Water Meter Review
and Testing program. The program tested a sampling of Dubuque's meters to identify typical meter
inaccuracies resulting from their age and application. Based on the meter testing conducted in
September through October of 2008, a significant number of small and large meters failed testing:
35.7% of the small meters (5/8-inch to 1-inch) and 40.3% ofthe large meters (1-1/2-inch to 8-inch)
failed, indicating that meter replacement is needed. The test results also indicated that some of the
failed meters were less than five years old.
To further evaluate the performance of meters less than five years old, a Phase Two meter testing
study was conducted in February through March 2009 that focused primarily on mid-sized and large
meters less than five years old. The Phase Two testing indicated that 15.4% of small meters (5/8-
inch to 1-inch) and 9.7% of large meters (1-1/2-inch to 6-inch) failed. As expected, the number of
meters that failed was less than in the Phase One testing, although some results were notable given
the low age of the meters. Considering the combined Phase One and Phase Two results, a
significant number of relatively new large compound type meters failed, indicating that a meter
testing and maintenance program would be beneficial once new meters are installed. It is not cost
effective to repair small meters, although testing a sample of the small meter population is useful to
determine meter accuracy, lost revenue, and the need for future meter replacement. Large meters
measure a much higher consumption volume with higher associated revenue than a small meter. For
example, a single turbine meter may measure 500 to 1,000 times more water than a residential meter.
Although the number of large meters in the system is small, a regular preventative maintenance and
repair program would provide significant benefits through extend meter life, proper accuracy and
associated maximized water revenue. The additional testing would require additional staff or
outsourcing to a contractor.
A revenue analysis was conducted based on the combined Phase One and Phase Two testing results,
meter size, and consumption information. The revenue analysis estimates that 138,000 cubic feet of
water or 5.4% of annual consumption is not recorded by the water meters. The volume of water not
recorded results in a projected loss of water and sewer revenue of approximately $530,000 for fiscal
year 2009. This value is likely lower than the actual value since the majority of the meters tested for
Phase Two were less than five years old and meter failure and inaccuracy increases with age. The
meters tested for Phase One represented a wider range of meter ages and based on the Phase One
results 6.9% of annual consumption is not recorded by the water meters, resulting in a projected loss
of $&76,000 in lost water and sewer revenues for fiscal year 2009. Over time, lost revenues will
increase as meter failure, inaccuracies and water rates increase.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 2
The high number of meters out of specification and the associated annual lost revenue support
implementing a meter change-out program. The 2007 Water Meter Plan and System Evaluation
recommended installing a fixed radio network meter system as the lowest cost alternative. A fixed
radio network allows remote reading of water meters, eliminating the need for labor intensive
manual meter reading. From the 2007 Water Meter System Evaluation cost model, the 20 year
present value cost of a fixed radio network water meter system will be approximately $6,850,000
(2009 dollars) and includes the cost of new water meters, radio equipment, computers and other
hardware.
Based on the combined Phase One and Phase Two curl•ent lost revenue and the estimated 2007 cost
updated to 2009 dollars for a new fixed network meter system, the payback period would be
approximately twelve years. Based on the Phase One meter testing results, the payback period
would be approximately nine years. Table 1-1 shows the preliminary payback period for the fixed
radio network meter replacement program. The lost revenue figure will be compounded over time as
existing meter accuracy decreases and water rates increase.
Table 1-1
Revenue Recovery for Fiscal Year 24Q9 Rates
The fixed radio system requires fewer employees for meter reading and results in lower operating
and total costs than the existing system contracting with Aquila to read the meters. The fixed radio
system alternative assumes City staff will be responsible for the radio network, billing and will
continue to perform routine meter maintenance and replacement as is currently done. There is not
expected to be any change in City staff levels from the current system to the fixed radio network
system. However, the cost of contracting with Aquila will be saved. Currently, the annual cost for
Aquila is about $142,000 and is expected to increase approximately 3% per year due to anticipated
inflation. A limited number of the City's newer meters in good working condition could be
retrofitted to work with a fixed radio meter system. Retrofit is not recommended for smaller meters
due to the low marginal cost of meter replacement compared to the cost of meter retrofit. In
addition, if all small meters are replaced, the system would be standardized around one type of meter
with similar age that reduces inventory, and improves scheduling of future replacement. Retrofit and
repair could be beneficial for some large meters, although further evaluation will be required to
determine if retrofitting is cost effective.
In addition to direct cost savings, there are many operational and non-direct financial benefits of
moving to a fixed radio network meter system compared to the existing meter system. Fixed radio
network meters improve customer service and staff efficiency by allowing real-time meter reading.
Water meter remote registers on the side of buildings will be removed and problems with meter
accessibility and the need to enter a home or business for meter reading will be eliminated. The
large amount of data that can be easily and remotely collected with a fixed radio network system will
allow City staff to efficiently develop water system hydraulic models, track water consumption
trends and plan for future water system requirements. Parts and repairs for some of the older
existing water meters are becoming more difficult and new meters will allow for easier meter repair
work.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing
The high number of meters out of specification, annual lost revenue, and other benefits support
implementing a meter change-out program. Based on a meter asset life of twenty years and a
payback period of approximately ten years, there is a positive payback period and a meter
replacement program is recommended.
2.D Meter Testing Program
2.1 Meter Testing Goals and Objectives
The water meter review and testing program was designed to locate inconsistencies in the metering
of water and to identify meter accuracy problems resulting from age of meters, and application. The
review helps the development of acost-effective replacement schedule for water meters and
provides recommendations for the correction of the identified problems. Phase One of the meter
testing program was completed in November 2008 and focused on a broad cross section of the meter
population based on meter size and age. The results of the Phase One meter testing indicated a
higher than expected failure rate among some newer meters. To further evaluate the performance of
newer meters, additional meter tests (Phase Two) were conducted that focused primarily on meters
less than five years old. Select information for various meter accounts was copied from the City's
database for review and evaluation. These data were used to put together a cross section of meters
based on their age, size, and type.
Based on patterns of consumption and meter record information, an application evaluation was
performed. This evaluation compared the historical meter use to American Water Works
Association (AWWA) standard specifications relating to proper meter size and application as well as
age and wear.
2.2 Description of Water Meter Technologies Tested
The following sections briefly describe three common types of water meters.
2.2.1 Positive Displacement Meters
Positive displacement meters are typically used in residential and commercial applications with low
flow rates and sizes of less than 2-inches. Displacement meters work by using water to "push" or
displace a piston or nutating disk connected to a measuring system. Displacement meters are
commonly used in applications with flow rates of less than 50 gallons per minute. High flow rates in
displacement meters can create high head losses that make their use impractical for large meters.
2.2.2 Compound Meters
Compound meters are used for applications that require measurement of a wide range of flow rates.
A compound meter consists of two separate meters and a check valve that controls flow to each
meter. The low flow meter is usually a positive displacement meter and the high flow meter is often
a turbine meter. As flow rates increase, a check valve opens to divert a portion or all of the water to
the high flow meter. The readings from each meter are added to determine the total water
consumption. Compound meters can experience inaccuracy during "change-over" when the check
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing
valve is partially open and flow is diverted to both meters. It is important to test compound meters
over a wide range of flow rates. Compound meters tend to require more maintenance than other
meter types. Inaccuracy at high flow rates caused by either a faulty check valve or faulty high flow
meter can result in potentially high losses in revenue.
2.2.3 Turbine Meters
Turbine meters work by using water to rotate a turbine connected to a registering device. Turbine
meters are designed for high flow applications and low head losses. Turbine meters are not very
accurate at low or highly variable flow rates and are commonly available in sizes 2-inches and
greater. The number of turbine meters used in most cities is typically small compared to other meter
types; however a single turbine meter may measure 500 to 1,000 times more water volume than a
residential meter per month, making them an important consideration.
2.3 Methodology
The meter test methodology used for Phase Two of the water meter testing was similar to the
methodology used for Phase One. Small meters up to 1-inch were tested in the City maintenance
shop following AWWA standards. The large meter testing program went beyond the stated AWWA
meter testing specifications. There are differences between meter testing conducted in the field
versus testing meters in a controlled laboratory environment or established meter testing shop using
volumetric tanks. Field conditions should be taken into consideration when testing meters in the
field. Also the AWWA M-6 meter testing manual has no set "standards" for field testing, only to try
to emulate as close as possible the suggested meter testing flow or to follow each meter
manufacturer's suggested flow rates.
Therefore, the Project Team found it imperative to adhere to a strict method of field testing while
taking into consideration the AWWA meter performance standards. This methodology was
designed to allow for a systematic diagnosis of the meter's performance based on several flow rates
across that specific meter's size and type beyond the AWWA's three tests (minimum, intermediate,
and maximum). Meters were tested across a range of flows in order to determine patterns of
mechanical wear at various flow rates. The flow rates used are a combination of AWWA
recommended flow rates (per M-6 manual of the AV4'WA) and meter manufacturer flow rates.
All compound meters were tested at six flows rates, concentrating on the change over rate which is
the most critical flow rate in a compound water meter. (AWWA states three tests, the change over
rate being one of them. Reference AWWA M5 Manual, 4~' edition -Chapter 5)
1-1/2-inch and larger meters were tested by comparative methods using a certified test meter to test
the water customer's meter within its normal operating range or by volumetric methods per AWWA
M-6 Manual. Our comparative test meters were Sensus (formerly Rockwell) models that record
total volume and current velocity for each of the 4 to 6 tests conducted. The test meters had
"Electronic Registers" that were automatically reset to zero after each test. These comparative test
meter units are themselves "Tested and Certified Accurate" at least once each year. Certificates of
Accuracy were available on the service trucks if questions existed about how the meters were to be
tested.
There was a minimum of a two person field crew working on the meter testing program at all times,
both in the field and during the shop testing of the smaller meters. All meters with a test port were
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing
tested in place. Meter installations where there were no test ports were documented. Each meter
was analyzed as to the meter setting (i. e. installed piping connection configuration and service
application) to determine if the meter could be tested in place without removal, and without undue
inconvenience to the water customer. The Project Team observed each setting for an inlet valve, an
outlet valve to be able to isolate the meter from use during testing, and a test port of correct size as
well as position to attain enough flow velocity to test the meter across the range of flow rates for that
specific meter. If a by-pass line was available, it was flushed prior to testing to insure no water
service interruption for a critical customer such as a hospital. During each test, proper meter
application and sizing were confirmed by visual inspection of the general area and observed meter
readings to ensure the correct meter was in place and the setting is correct for the application (the
meter setting is important because improper configurations can adversely affect meter accuracy).
Some of the 1-1/2-inch and 2-inch displacement meters were able to be tested in place by using
available test ports of existing backflow preventors. Here it was critical to achieve at least 14% or
more of the lower operating range of that particular meter to be able to qualify as a valid meter test
(per AWWA M-6 manual). Some of the 1-1/2-inch and 2-inch meters were tested at a sink using a
calibrated small meter. Again, the flow tests used were at or over the lower 10% of the operating
range of the meter. Shutdowns were limited when possible to minimize inconvenience for water
customers.
For Phase Two, testing of small meters (5/8-inch to 1-inch) included meters installed during or since
2442. Testing of large meters focused primarily on meters installed during or since 2442, although a
small number of older meters were tested to provide additional information. Meters were randomly
selected from this pool of candidates. A total of 152 meters were tested, ranging in size from 5/8-
inch to 6-inches as follows:
• 5/8-inch meters: 9 tested
• 3/d-inch meters: 14 tested
• 1-inch meters: 16 tested
• 1-1/2-inch meters: 28 tested
• 2-inch meters: 29 tested
• 3-inch meters: 3 turbine meters and 32 compound meters were tested
• 4-inch meters: 3 turbine meters and 15 compound meters were tested.
• 6-inch meters: 1 compound meter and 2 fire line (6"x2") meters were tested
The Project Team maintained an interactive role with the City Staff. The field staff met with
assigned City Staff as needed. The Project Team worked with the City and water customers for all
test scheduling and two (2) person teams were used to perform the work. Frequent communication
was maintained with City Staff so problem meters and/or issues with water customers could be
addressed in a timely manner. The Project Team conducted short interviews with staff about the
"particulars" of the selected meter locations such as changes in the occupancy of the buildings, age
of the meters, meter reading systems, etc. This provided a greater understanding of ho~~~ meters were
functioning, allowing priorities to be assigned to particular segments of the work. City personnel
were not required to assist field technicians except where there were issues with gaining entry due to
security or other concerns. In some cases, City personnel helped the field crews and their help was
genuinely appreciated.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing
3.0 Phase Two Meter Test Results
3.1 Phase Two Small Meter Test Results
A total of 39 small meters were selected for testing ranging from 518-inch to 1-inch. 9 518-inch
meters, l4 314-inch meters, and 161-inch meters were tested. Appendix 7.1 shows details of the test
results for the small meters.
The test results were subjected to two weighted averages, one was the 15%70%-15% as set by
AWWA and the other weighted average was set at 5%90%5%. The percentages refer to the
weighting given to the test results at low flow, intermediate flow and high flows. The highest
weighting is given to intermediate flows since small meters usually do not operate at lo~v or high
flows for extended lengths of time under normal usage.
AWWA recommends 15%70%-15% as a weighted average to help figure usage patterns for
residential meters. The 5%-90%-5%has been found to be more representative for some customers.
The results using both weighted averages have been included with the results in Appendix 7.1.
There was little variation between the two weighted averages, in both cases 15.4% of the meters
failed. 'Ihe overall accuracy of the small meters at the 15%-70%15% average was 98.17% and
98.64% at 5%-90%-5%. Without detailed monitoring of the actual usage of each meter, it is
impossible to know the actual weighted average of the meter. Given the similar results for both
weighted averages, the AWWA recommended 15%-70%15%weighted average will be used for the
purposes ofthis report and as was done for the Phase One report.
Figure 3-1 shows the small meter test results.
Figure 3-1
Phase Two Small Meter Test Results
50%
d
>.
40%
d
d
~ 30%
.~
LL
N 20% '
d
f
a.
10%
0% '
Meter Size 518-IN
Total Meters 20,478
Meters Tested g
Failed Testing 2
314-IN 1-IN
594 504
14 16
1 3
HDR Engireering, InC. DWugae WaterAleterReuiew ardTesting
As expected, the percentage of meter failures was lower than the 33 percent observed in Phase One
of the meter testing due to the lower age of the meters tested in Phase Ttvo. However, there were
still some failures that were notable given the age of the meters. Ivleters tend to fail with increased
age and are often covered by manufacturer warrantee for 5 years. With increasing age, meter
failures and inaccuracy will increase fiu~ther.
3.2 Phase Two Large Meter Test Results
Appendix 7.2 presents detailed summaries of the large meter testing results. Results of the
Commercial/Industrial testing indicate there is loss of revenue occurring due to meters not
performing to accepted standards. By the AWWWA standards, this is considered "Non-Revenue
Water". Since water meters are the "cash registers" for the water system, the City of Dubuque is
losing money with these meters as well. Figure 3-2 shows the large meter test results. Large meters
make up a smaller portion of the meter population than the small meters, but convey much higher
flow rates per meter and are potentially sources of significant revenue loss. A 4-inch meter will
typically produce revenues of greater than $10,000 per year. Failure of a single large meter is
equivalent in lost revenue to marry small meter failures.
The failure rate of the meters tested for Phase Ttvo was lower than the Phase One meter tests.
However, the failure rate was higher than expected given the low age of the meters. Of the 11 large
meters that failed, 9 were less than five years old and 2 were eight years old. Table 3-1 shows the
large meter tested accuracy by age.
Figure 3-2
Phase Two Large Meter Test Results
50%
..
d
40%
d
d
ai
~ 30%
~R
a+
yi 20%
H
i
d
err
~ 10% -
0% -
,
Meter Size 1-112-IN 2-IN 3-IN 4-IN 6-IN
Total Meters 192 238 63 35 10
Meters Tested 28 29 35 18 3
Failed Testing 4 1 3 3 0
HDR EDgiDeefiDg, Inc. Dubuque Water Meter ~~newand Testing
Table 3-1
Phase Two Larae Meter Tested Accu
Meter Number Number Number Number
Age, TestedlAverage TestedlAverage TestedlAverage TestedlAverage
Years
0-5 28 103.9%* 29 99.5% 20 96.3°!0 8 99.8% 1 100.2% ~
5-10 NIA NIA N/A NIA 12 99.1 % 7 91.1 % 2 99.7%
10-15 N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA 2 99.5% N/A NIA
15-20 NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA
20+ NIA N/A NIA NIA 3 99.1 % 1 92% N/A NIA
* Two meters failed a xtremely high outside the flow range, increasing the average acc aracy vale e
3.2.2 Displacement Meters Tested
Selected 1-1/2-inch and 2-inch displacement meters were tested by the Project Team. The test
results indicate that 14% of the 1-1/2-inch and 3.4% of the 2-inch meters failed testing. Relatively
few new meters failed testing and meter repair and/or retrofit if cost effective may be an option for
meters less than five years old instead of replacement.
3.2.3 Compound Meters Tested
Compound meters are designed to operate over a wide range of flow rates. Typical consumption
recorded by compounds should indicate 30-40% of usage on the low side, and 60-70% on the high
side. 32 3-inch, 15 4-inch and 1 6-inch compound meters were tested. Based on the evaluations
conducted by the Project Teain, the compound meters appear to be properly sized for the accounts
that were visited. 6% of 3-inch, 13% of 4-inch and 0% of the 6-inch compound meters failed testing.
Given the size and age of these meters, the failure rate is higher than expected among the 4-inch
meters.
3.2.4 Turbine Meters Tested
Three 3-inch, three 4-inch, and two 6-inch turbine meters were tested. These meters appear to be
large revenue generators for the City. Most are installed in settings where water usage is fairly
consistent. The Project Team tested for "start" flows of the turbine meters. This allowed the team to
observe wear patterns for each meter. If the "start" flow was close to the minimum flow and the
minimum flow was testing "slow", this indicated the probability of the meter registering "high" at
the high flow. This is due to the mechanics of the meter. Relatively fe~v new meters failed testing
and meter repair and/or retrofit if cost effective may be an option for meters less than five years old
instead of replacement.
4.0 Summary of Phase One and Phase Two Results
The results from the Phase One and Phase Two meter testing were combined to show a broader
indication of meter performance. The meters tested for Phase One represent a wide cross section of
meter sizes and ages, while the majority of the meters tested for Phase Two are less than five years
old. The combined Phase One and Two results are therefore more heavily weighted to~~vards ne~~ver
meters.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing
Table 4-1 shows the combined results ofthe small meter tests ranging from 518-inch to 1-inch. A
large number of 518-inch meters failed testing.
Table 4-1
Combined Phase One and Two Small Meter Results
50°'.
d
40% -
d
o.
ti
3 30% -
~R
N 20%
d
H
i
d 10% -
0%
Meter Size 518•IN 314•IN 1 •IN
Total Meters 20,478 594 504
Meters Tested 49 34 26
Failed Testing 22 4 5
Table 4-2 shows the combined results ofthe large meter tests ranging from 1-112-inch to 8-inch. A
single large meter conveys a much higher volume of water and associated revenue than many small
meters the acceptable failure rate is less than for small meters. Replacement is recommended for the
majority of the large meters. The 4-inch meters are of particular concern given the high failure rates
for both old and new meters and volume of water conveyed. Some ofthe large meters known to be
in acceptable condition would not necessarily need to be replaced, and could be retrofitted to work
with the fixed radio system.
HDR Engineering, Inc. Dubuque W ~erMeta ~uewzrd 7es4ng
Table 4-2
Combined Phase One and Two Large Meter Results
..
d
v 40°•
L ~,
d
d
= 30°'
50°'.
R
a+
y 20% -
i
d
a+
~ 10% -
0% -
Meter Size
Total Meters
Meters Tested
Failed Testing
5.0 Revenue Analysis
8-IN
3
1
0
A revenue analysis has been developed to estimate the revenue lost due to inaccurate water meters.
The analysis is based on meter size and consumption information provided by the City. Meter age
was not considered for the revenue analysis since consumption information was not available based
on meter age. Meter age can be considered in evaluating revenue in terms of availability of parts to
repair meters. As meters age, accuracy tends to decrease leading to higher lost revenue. Table 5-1
shows meter accuracy by age range.
Table 5-1
Combi ed p~~se One and Two Nleter Accuracy by Age
~t r Percent of
Age, City Meter Average Percent
Years Population Accura/.'~~
0-5 19.1 % 99.U°!o I
~ 5-10 15.4% 95.2% ~
10-15 14.0% 96.7% I
~ 15-20 8.0% 90.6% ~
20-25 1.8% 96.2% I
L 25+ ~'~ 41.7% 93.1 % ~
(1) Ma~orrty are ~ sidentral meters mstaded pnar to the mrd IYXUs
HDR Engineefing, Inc. Dubuque water Meter Reuewand Testing
1-1I2-IN 2-IN 3-IN 4-IN 6-IN
192 238 64 35 10
74 56 64 34 8
20 14 14 12 1
Figure 5-1 shows the tested meter accuracy, number oftotal meters and percent of total consumption
by meter size for the meters tested in Phases One and Two. The shaded area represents the range of
acceptable accuracy specified by AW WA. The range of acceptable accuracy varies by meter size
with values outside of the shaded area considered to fail testing.
Figure 3-1
Combined Phase One and Two Meter Percent Accuracy
105%
-~--~--f--~
F--•---F--;--~
~,
~ 100%
~~~
L F - - • - - -r ~
U
Q _
v 95% ~
d
a .
90%
85% .
Meter Size 518-IN 314-IN 1-IN 1-112-IN 2-IN 3-IPJ 4-IN 6-IN 8-IN
Number of Total 20,478 594 504 192 238 63 35 10 3
Meters
Percent of 49.8% 2.4% 4.6% 3.5% 11.8% 10.1% 8.2% 3.1% 6.5%
Consumption
+Tested Accuracy - F - - F AWWA Acceptable Accuracy Range
Total water and wastewater revenue for fiscal year 2008 was approximately $8,987,278. A 9%
increase is projected for fiscal year 2009 resulting in total revenue of $9,796,133. Analysis of the
Phase One and Two meter testing showed that approximately 5.4% of total water consumption was
not recorded due to meter inaccuracy, resulting in aprojected loss in revenue of approximately
$530,000 for fiscal year 2009. The Phase Two meter tests focused on meters less than 5 years old.
Given the large number of older meters in the City as shown in Table 5-1, it is likely that the lost
revenue figure is somewhat higher than 5.4%. Based on the Phase One meter testing that randomly
selected from a wider range of meter ages, approximately 6.9% or $676,000 in lost revenue was
projected. The lost revenue figure will be compounded over time as existing meter accuracy
worsens and water rates increase.
HDR Engineering, Inc. Dubuque Water Meter Review and Te9ing 12
Table 5-2
Combined Phase One and Two Estimate of Meter Inaccuracies
Total Consumption
Meter Consumption, Percent of Percent NOT Recorded,
5/8-IN 1,271,365 49.80% 7.50% 95,352
3/4-IN 60,963 2.39% 5.70% 3,475
1-IN 116,217 4.55% 2.00% 2,324
1-112-IN 88,309 3.46% 1.80% 1,590
2-IN 299,952 11.75% 3.40% 10,198
3-IN 258,782 10.14% 3.60% 9,316
4-IN 210,450 8.24% 6.40% 13,469
6-IN 79,776 3.13% 1.60% 1,276
8-IN 166,940 6.54% 0.60% 1,002
Total 2,552,754 100% 138,000
Total ( as % of total production) 5.4°I°
Projected Fiscal Year 2009 Water and Wastewater $9,796,000
Revenue
Projected Fiscal Year 2009 Revenue Lost to Meter $530,000
Inaccuracy
6.4 Recommendations
The 2007 Water Meter Plan and System Evaluation considered multiple options for a new meter
system. Based on the recommendations of the 2007 Meter Plan and System Evaluation and the
results of the recently completed Water Meter Review and Testing, the following recommendations
constitute the preferred strategic plan.
• 112eter Reading Technology: Fixed Radio. After preliminary consideration of many meter
technologies and detailed consideration of several potential meter options, the automatic
meter reading (AMR) alternative of a fixed radio network was identified as the best option
for implementation by the City. A fixed radio network allows remote reading of water
meters, eliminating the need for meter reading labor for monthly billing readings. It is
recommended that specific meter brands and options be re-evaluated once bids are solicited
and costs are updated.
• Meter Replacement, Repair or Upgrade.
o Small meters (5/8-inch to 1-inch). It is re...,~~~~~~.,~~.:ed that all meters 5/8-inch to f -
inch be replaced. Retrofit is not recommended for smaller meters due to the low
marginal cost of meter replacement c.,~~~Y~ ed to the cost of meter retrofit. In
addition, if all small meters are replaced, the system would be standardized around
one type of meter with similar age that reduces inventory, and i~~~~,~., ves scheduling of
future replacement.
o Large meters (1-1/2-inch to 8-inch). It is recommended that all meters over five years
old be replaced or repaired if cost effective and retrofitted to work with a fixed radio
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 13
system. It is recommended that meters less than five years old be evaluated for the
potential for retrofit to work a fixed radio system.
Deployment Time Period: Short (Contractor Installed). A short time period is
recommended for deployment of new meters and meter reading technology. With contractor
installation, City-wide meter replacement could occur within two years. The deployment
period would likely increase to approximately ten years if the City were to deploy new
equipment with existing City staff.
Deployment Strategy: Opportunistic and Geographical. The recommended meter
deployment approach is a combination of opportunistic and geographical strategies. Early
opportunistic deployment will allow the City to first replace large meters with known
accuracy problems and significant loss of revenue followed by geographical replacement
«~hich is most efficient when working with Aquila for the meter system replacement.
• Meter Maintenance/Management:
o Before Meter Replacement: Contractor-Managed Meter Testing: This report
details the results of the water meter review and testing program. The results of the
testing helps the development of a cost-efTective replacement schedule for water
meters and provides recommendations for the correction of the problems located.
During Meter Replacement: City-Managed: It is recommended that the City
establish a new meter testing protocol. A statistical sampling of one-half to one
percent of all new meters would establish base-line data and confirm accuracy. This
phase of meter management would be managed by the City, but the actual meter
testing would conducted by the contractor as part of the meter replacement program.
After Meter Replacement: City-Managed: The most important aspect of a water
meter plan is the long-term management of the meters to ensure reliability and
accuracy. It is recommended that the City develop a routine testing program to track
trends in accuracy and maintenance. It is likely that a meter testing program would
require some additional number of staff depending on the meter technology selected,
which will influence the number of required field staff to an extent. Testing and
maintenance is especially important for larger meters since relatively little labor can
save significant loss in revenue. Regular testing of compound and turbine meters 3-
inches and above and less frequent testing of smaller meters is recommended.
6.1 Implementation Considerations -Next Steps
The following are key steps that will aid in implementation of the recommendations outlined above.
These next steps will require considerable effort by the City and assistance by an experienced
consultant is advised. Based on successful meter replacement projects, a draft consultant
procurement/implementation project approach can be found in Appendix 7.3.
• Site Visits: Visit other utilities to observe their experiences with water meter replacement
programs and meter reading technology to better understand how these systems function,
what is involved in a successful deployment, how the utilities are coping with integrating the
new technology into day-to-day operations. Several regional utilities identified during the
Water Meter System Evaluation have recently implemented new meter systems.
• Meter System Procurement: Based on the Water Meter System Evaluation, Phase 1 & 2
Meter Testing and Review reports, site visits, current circumstances, operating environment,
and staffing and resources, the City should define procurement issues and strategies. Once
procurement requirements are defines, develop RFP/Bid specifications for water meter
replacement.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 14
• Solicit Responses from Qualified Vendors: Advertise RFP/Bid, along with conducting a
mandatory pre-proposal meeting summarizing the City's objectives and requirements.
• Vendor Evaluation and Selection: The procurement process involves making a defensible
selection among qualified proposals using weighted multiple criteria to select a short list.
• Re-evaluate Return on Investment: Once vendor RFP/Bids are received for water meter
replacement, the information should be evaluated using the tools such as the cost model to
evaluate the total life-cycle cost associated with each proposal to facilitate the City's final
selection.
• Contract Negotiation: Contracts for metering systems should be fair and equitable for all
parties involved. Most of the performance requirements have been defined in the RFP/Bid
specifications and the vendor's response. Contract negotiations usually focus on installation
protocols and performance requirements.
• Start-up Implementation and Administration: Proper project start-up is required for a timely
and orderly installation of meters and meter-reading equipment, including adoption of new
business processes to capture the benefits of any technology, and assure that the vendor and
equipment are performing as stipulated in the contract. Once start-up is completed and
accepted by the City, full implementation can begin.
The 2007 Water Meter Plan and System Evaluation recommended installing a fixed radio network
meter system as the lowest cost alternative. A fixed radio network allows remote reading of water
meters, eliminating the need for labor intensive manual meter reading. From the 2007 Water Meter
System Evaluation cost model, the 20 year present value (2009 dollars) capital cost of a fixed radio
network water meter system will be approximately $6,850,000 and includes the cost of new water
meters, radio equipment, computers and other hardware.
Based on the combined Phase One and Phase Two current lost revenue and the estimated 2007 cost
updated to 2009 dollars for a new fixed network meter system, the payback period would be
approximately twelve years. The meters tested for Phase One represent a wide cross section of
meter sizes and ages, while the majority of meters tested for Phase Two are less than five years old.
The combined Phase One and Phase Two results are more heavily weighted towards meters less than
five years old and may under-report the overall failure and accuracy rates since meter failures and
inaccuracy tends to increase with meter age. Based on the Phase One meter testing results, the
payback period would be approximately nine years. Table 6-1 shows the preliminary payback
period for the fixed radio network meter replacement program. The lost revenue figure will be
compounded over time as existing meter accuracy decreases and water rates increase.
Table 6-1
for Fiscal
The fixed radio system requires fewer employees for meter reading and results in lower operating
and total costs than the existing system contracting with Aquila to read the meters. The fixed radio
system alternative assumes City staff will be responsible for the radio network, billing and will
continue to perform routine meter maintenance and replacement as is currently done. There is not
expected to be any change in City staff levels from the current system to the fixed radio network
system. However, the cost of contracting with Aquila will be saved. Currently, the annual cost for
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 15
Aquila is about $142,000 and is expected to increase approximately 3% per year due to anticipated
inflation. A limited number of the City's newer meters in good working condition could be
retrofitted to work with a fixed radio meter system. Retrofit is not recommended for smaller meters
due to the low marginal cost of meter replacement compared to the cost of meter retrofit. In
addition, if all small meters are replaced, the system would be standardized around one type of meter
with similar age that reduces inventory, and improves scheduling of future replacement. Retrofit and
repair could be beneficial for some large meters, although further evaluation will be required to
determine if retrofitting is cost effective.
In addition to direct cost savings, there are many operational and non-direct financial benefits of
moving to a fixed radio network meter system compared to the existing meter system. Fixed radio
network meters improve customer service and staff efficiency by allowing real-time meter reading.
Water meter remote registers on the side of buildings will be removed and problems with meter
accessibility and the need to enter a home or business for meter reading will be eliminated. The
large amount of data that can be easily and remotely collected with a fixed radio network system will
allow City staff to efficiently develop water system hydraulic models, track water consumption
trends and plan for future water system requirements. Parts and repairs for some of the older
existing water meters are becoming more difficult and new meters will allow for easier meter repair
work.
The high number of meters out of specification, annual lost revenue, and other benefits support
implementing a meter change-out program. Based on a meter asset life of twenty years and a
payback period of approximately ten years, there is a positive payback period and a meter
replacement program is recommended.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 16
7.4 Appendices
7.1 Small Meter Test Results
Table 7-1
Phase Two Small Meter Test Summary
~ ~; ~
U -
- '~ ~' ~
N O
z
d U
U
d
~
U
Q
~
~
(~ L-
~ ~
N ~ ~
n~
/
V J ~ ~ L O
~ J ~ ~ ~
5/8" 37093958 .25 96.8 2 98.8 15 100.3 P 2006
5/8" 37834687 .25 98.3 2 101.4 15 100.6 P 2003
5/8" 46974712 .25 51 2 75 15 74.6 F 1993
5/8" 36821144 .25 98.9 2 101.3 15 100.5 P 2004
5/8" 69722017 .25 98.8 2 101.1 15 100.5 P 2008
5/8" 37026647 .25 87.8 2 97.7 15 98.4 F 2003
5/8" 37094429 .25 97.5 2 101 15 100.1 P 2003
5/8" 36967876 .25 95 2 100.2 15 100.7 P 2006
5/8" 40262726 .25 98.4 2 101.3 15 100.2 P 2006
3/4" 49219125 .5 95.1 3 100.1 25 99.7 P 2003
3/4" 33479035 .5 100.1 3 100.9 25 100.4 P N/A
3/4" 33297986 .5 96 3 98.5 25 97.5 F 2006
3/4" 33592089 .5 98.6 3 101 25 100.7 P 2003
3/4" 57973349 .5 95 3 100.1 25 100.6 P 2003
3/4" 38046842 .5 100.9 3 101 25 100.8 P 2003
3/4" 19317243 .5 100.5 3 101.1 25 99.7 P 2003
3/4" 38046669 .5 98 3 98.5 25 99.2 P 2002
3/4" 22841259 .5 98.2 3 101 25 100.6 P 2006
3/4" 52047419 .5 98.2 3 100.1 25 100.5 P 2004
3/4" 36406728 .5 96 3 101 25 99.8 P 2002
3/4" 26897051 .5 100.2 3 101.4 25 100.6 P 2005
3/4" 38046712 .5 97.9 3 101.5 25 101.2 P 2006
3/4" 45222880 .5 99.1 3 101 25 100.7 P 2003
1 " 52200644 .75 98.7 4 101.3 40 100.9 P 2005
1 " 38043765 .75 100.1 4 101.5 40 100.7 P 2005
1" 38428151 .75 74.4 4 82 40 85 F 2003
1 " 34888300 .75 98.8 4 100.1 40 100.6 P 2002
1" 57973366 .75 99 4 101 40 100.9 P 2002
1 " 36447719 .75 99.9 4 100.3 40 101.2 P 2002
1 " 29067693 .75 98.9 4 100.9 40 100.9 P 2006
1 " 54680790 .75 100.3 4 101.5 40 100.6 P N/A
1 " 24464016 .75 99.9 4 101.1 40 100.9 P 2006
1 " 30854671 .75 0 4 77.9 40 99.1 F 2006
1 " 26600861 .75 99.7 4 100.6 40 100.7 P , 2004
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 17
Table 7-2
Phase Two Small Meter Test Summary iContinuedl
~
j
~
CJ
~
U _ ~
d1 C7
~ ~
U ~ Q d Q t4 L
L ~ ~
N ~ ^Z ~ _
i
'Uj
U7
~
~
~
X
~
> ~ _
O (~
~ ~ °~ ~~
1 " 57468769 .75 99 4 100.9 40 100.9 P 2003
1 " 57973375 .75 99 4 101.5 40 100.1 P 2002
1 " 57468768 .75 93.1 4 97.9 40 100.6 F 2002
1" 38J~43656 .75 99.E 4 101.4 40 100.7 P 2002
1 " 44376500 .75 99.8 4 101.5 40 101.2 P 2003
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 18
Table 7-3
Phase Two Sm all Meter 15%-70% -15% Weighted Results
M-nimum F)~w Intermediate Flaw Maximum Flaw Overall Results
Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy
Limits Limits Limits Limits
[95%- (98.5%- (98.5%- (98.5%-
101 %) 101.5%} 101.5%) 101.5%)
A
'
°?
~
i
°~
°~ v
cc
~ ~
~
v a
v a a a c
" rn~ ~
d ~
~ c
~ ~ ~ ~~
,
~ ~ a ~ ,
~ ¢ ~
.N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ X X ~ ~ o
o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~
o
~
~
~ ~
~
' ' ~
o o
5/8" 37093958 .25 96.8 15 2 98.8 70 15 100.3 15 98.725 P 2006
518" 37834687 .25 98.3 15 2 101.4 70 15 100.6 15 100.815 P 2003
5/8" 46974712 .25 51 15 2 75 70 15 74.6 15 71.34 F 1993
5/8" 36821144 .25 98.9 15 2 101.3 70 15 100.5 15 100.82 P 2004
5/8" 69722017 .25 98.8 15 2 101.1 70 15 100.5 15 100.665 P 2008
518" 37026647 .25 87.8 15 2 97.7 70 15 98.4 15 96.32 F 2003
5/8" 37094429 .25 97.5 15 2 101 70 15 100.1 15 100.34 P 2003
5/8" 36967876 .25 95 15 2 100.2 70 15 100.7 15 99.495 P 2006
5/8" 40262726 .25 98.4 15 2 101.3 70 15 100.2 15 100.7 P 2006
314" 49219125 .5 95.1 15 3 100.1 70 25 99.7 15 99.29 P 2003
3I4" 33479035 .5 100.1 15 3 100.9 70 25 100.4 15 100.705 P NIA
3/4" 3:1297986 .5 96 15 3 98.5 70 25 97.5 15 97.975 F 2006
3/4" 33592089 .5 98.6 15 3 101 70 25 100.7 15 100.595 P 2003
3/4" 57973349 .5 95 15 3 100.1 70 25 100.6 15 99.41 P 2003
314" 38046842 .5 100.9 15 3 101 70 25 100.8 15 100.955 P 2003
3/4" 19317243 .5 100.5 15 3 101.1 70 25 99.7 15 100.8 P 2003
3/4" 38046669 .5 98 15 3 98.5 70 25 99.2 15 98.53 P 2002
3/4" 22841259 .5 98.2 15 3 101 70 25 100.6 15 100.52 P 2006
3/4" 52047419 .5 98.2 15 3 100.1 70 25 100.5 15 99.875 P 2004
314" 36406728 .5 96 15 3 101 70 25 99.8 15 100.07 P 2002
3/4" 26897051 .5 100.2 15 3 101.4 70 25 100.6 15 101.1 P 2005
3/4" 38046712 .5 97.9 15 3 101.5 70 25 101.2 15 100.915 P 2006
3/4" 45222880 .5 99.1 15 3 101 70 25 100.7 15 100.67 P 2003
1" 52200644 .75 98.7 15 4 101.3 70 40 100.9 15 100.85 P 2005
1" 38043765 .75 100.1 15 4 101.5 70 40 100.7 15 101.17 P 2005
1" 38428151 .75 74.4 15 4 82 70 40 85 15 81.31 F 2003
1" 34888300 .75 98.8 15 4 100.1 70 40 100.6 15 99.98 P 2002
1" 57973366 .75 99 15 4 101 70 40 100.9 15 100.685 P 2002
1" 36447719 .75 99.9 15 4 100.3 70 40 101.2 15 100.375 P 2002
1" 29067693 .75 98.9 15 4 100.9 70 40 100.9 15 100.6 P 2006
1" 54680790 .75 100.3 15 4 101.5 70 40 100.6 15 101.185 P N/A
1" 24464016 .75 99.9 15 4 101.1 70 40 100.9 15 100.89 P 2006
1" 30854671 .75 0 15. 4 .77.9 70 40 99.1 15 69.395 F 2006
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 19
Table 7~
Phase Two Small Meter 15%-70%-15% Weighted Results (Continued)
Minimum Flow Intermediate Flow Maximum Flow I Overall Results
Accuracy
Limits (95%-
101 %) (98.5%-
101.5%) (98.5%-
101.5%) (98.5%-
101.5%)
~
~ ~
o ~ ~
a U
Q ~
a~ ~
a U
ss ~
~ ~'
~ ~
~ ,i ,.- O
o ~ .
~
N _
z
a a ~
a, ~
~
~ ~
a
, ~ a t
o
r ~~
m~
dN
~a~
N ~ C7 C _
~
3 ~ y
c _
~
~ ~ ~ _
'~
~ 7 V
O Q J N
~ a U7 cC ~4
}
c ~ ~
1" 26600861 .75 99.7 15 4 100.6 70 40 100.7 15 100.48 P 2004
1" 57468769 .75 99 15 4 100.9 70 40 100.9 15 100.615 P 2003
1" 57973375 .75 99 15 4 101.5 70 40 100.1 15 100.915 P 2002
1" 57468768 .75 93.1 15 4 97.9 70 40 100.6 15 97.585 F 2002
1" 38043656 .75 99.3 15 4 101.4 70 40 100.7 15 100.98 P 2002
1" 44376500 .75 99.8 15 4 101.5 70 40 101.2 15 101.2 P 2003
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 20
Table 7-5
Phase Two Small Meter 3%-90%-5% Weighted Results
Accuracy
Limits
(95%-
101 % Accuracy
Limits
(98.5%-
101.5% Accuracy
Limits
(98.5%-
101.5% Accuracy
Limits
(98.5%-
101.5%
N N
t~
A
~
`'
~ ~ ii to
U
U (4 `
a V
~ s= N
~~, ~
t2 ~i
~ ~ 7 N
~ ~ O
~
~
N ? ~ a ~ ~ a .~ ~ c~ a ~ ~ -
N ~ ~
(~' C v
L d ~ > X ~
~ a
- a ~
~ ~
~ 'a~ ~
~ ~ ~ (
4
~ fC
~ a~ ~ ro ~ c
i i
~ ~ O }
O
u~ u~
5/8" 37093958 .25 96.8 5 2 98.8 90 15 100.3 5 98.775 P 2006
5/8" 37834687 .25 98.3 5 2 101.4 90 15 100.6 5 101.205 P 2003
5/8" 46974712 .25 51 5 2 75 90 15 74.6 5 73.78 F 1993
5/8" 36821144 .25 98.9 5 2 101.3 90 15 100.5 5 101.14 P 2004
5/8" 69722017 .25 98.8 5 2 101.1 90 15 100.5 5 100.955 P 2008
5/8" 37026647 .25 87.8 5 2 97.7 90 15 98.4 5 97.24 F 2003
5/8" 37094429 .25 97.5 5 2 101 90 15 100.1 5 100.78 P 2003
5/8" 36967876 .25 95 5 2 100.2 90 15 100.7 5 99.965 P 2006
5/8" 40262726 .25 98.4 5 2 101.3 90 15 100.2 5 101.1 P 2006
3/4" 49219125 .5 95.1 5 3 100.1 90 25 99.7 5 99.83 P 2003
3/4" 33479035 .5 100.1 5 3 100.9 90 25 100.4 5 100.835 P NIA
3/4" 33297986 .5 96 5 3 98.5 90 25 97.5 5 98.325 F 2006
3/4" 33592089 .5 98.6 5 3 101 90 25 100.7 5 100.865 P 2003
314" 57973349 .5 95 5 3 100.1 90 25 100.6 5 99.87 P 2003
3/4" 38046842 .5 100.9 5 3 101 90 25 100.8 5 100.985 P 2003
3/4" 19317243 .5 100.5 5 3 101.1 90 25 99.7 5 101 P 2003
3/4" 38046669 .5 98 5 3 98.5 90 25 99.2 5 98.51 P 2002
3/4" 22841259 .5 98.2 5 3 101 90 25 100.6 5 100.84 P 2006
3/4" 52047419 .5 98.2 5 3 100.1 90 25 100.5 5 100.025 P 2004
3/4" 36406728 .5 96 5 3 101 90 25 99.8 5 100.69 P 2002
3/4" 26897051 .5 100.2 5 3 101.4 90 25 100.6 5 101.3 P 2005
3/4" 38046712 .5 97.9 5 3 101.5 90 25 101.2 5 101.305 P 2006
3/4" 45222880 .5 99.1 5 3 101 90 25 100.7 5 100.89 P 2003
1" 52200644 .75 98.7 5 4 101.3 90 40 100.9 5 101.15 P 2005
1" 38043765 .75 100.1 5 4 101.5 90 40 100.7 5 101.39 P 2005
1" 38428151 .75 74.4 5 4 82 90 40 85 5 81.77 F 2003
1" 34888300 .75 98.8 5 4 100.1 90 40 100.6 5 100.06 P 2002
1" 57973366 .75 99 5 4 101 90 40 100.9 5 100.895 P 2002
1" 36447719 .75 99.9 5 4 100.3 90 40 101.2 5 100.325 P 2002
1" 29067693 .75 98.9 5 4 100.9 90 40 100.9 5 100.8 P 2006
1" 54680790 .75 100.3 5 4 101.5 90 40 100.6 5 101.395 P N(A
1" 24464016 .75 99.9 5 4 101.1 90 40 100.9 5 101.03 P 2006
1" 30854671 .75 0 5 4 77.9 90 40 99.1 5 75.065 F 2006
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 21
Table 7-6
Phase Two Small Meter 5°I°-9Q%-5% Weighted Results (Continues )
Accuracy I Accuracy I Accuracy I I Accuracy
Limits Limits Limits Limits
a~ a~
c~ c~
A
L
Q~ ~ L ti ~,
U a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a~ ~ ~ ~ ~
of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ - - ° ~
C
_
G _ ~ ~ ~ ~ L L
~~ ~ >~
~ }
O O O O
1" 26600861 .75 99.7 5 4 100.6 90 40 100.7 5 100.56 P 2004
1" 57468769 .75 99 5 4 100.9 90 40 ~ 100.9 5 100.805 P 2003
1" 57973375 .75 99 5 4 101.5 90 40 ~ 100.1 5 101.305 P 2002
1" 57468768 .75 93.1 5 4 97.9 90 40 ~ 100.6 5 97.795 F 2002
1" 38043656 .75 99.3 5 4 101.4 90 40 ~ 100.7 5 101.26 P 2002
1" 44376500 .75 99.8 5 4 101.5 90 40 ~ 101.2 5 101.4 P 2003
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 22
7.2 Large Meter Test Results
Table 7-7
Phase Two 1-112-inch Meter Test Summary
Accuracy Limits 95-101.5 98.5-101.5 98.5-101.5
Low Flow Inter. Flow Hi h Flow
Year
Size Mfg. Type : S!N GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Status Installed
1.5" Sensus Displacement 4338675 1.5 160 8 170 15 170 F 2005
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 55791771 1.5 99.5 8 100.5 15 101 P 2005
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 44502590 1.5 99 8 99.5 15 99 P 2003
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 30951632 1.5 99 8 101 15 99.9 P 2003
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 26021233 2.5 99.5 8 99.5 15 100.5 P 2005
1.5" Sensus Displacement 4338674 1.5 160 8 170 15 170 F 2005
1.5" Sensus Displacement 28671921 1.5 80 8 80 15 80 F 2003
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43254328 1.5 90 8 96 15 98.5 F 2004
1.5 Invensvs Displacement 42214633 1.5 100.5 8 98.7 15 99.3 P 2003
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43254348 1.5 100.5 8 99 15 101 P 2006
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43767751 1.5 99.5 8 101.2 15 101.1 P 2004
1.5" Sensus Displacement 55962401 1.5 98.7 8 101.1 20 100.4 P 2006
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 43767757 1.5 100.2 8 100.9 20 101 P 2005
1.5" Sensus Displacement 40350066 1.5 98.9 8 100.3 50 100.3 P 2006
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 43254344 1.5 100.2 8 101.3 15 101.1 P 2005
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 54810262 1.5 100.2 8 99.6 15 101.1 P 2004
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43254350 1.5 99 8 101 15 101 P 2003
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 61244509 1.5 100.5 8 100.2 15 100.8 P 2006
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43254349 1.5 96.5 8 99.5 15 99 P 2006
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 31069279 1.5 100.5 8 100.2 15 101 P 2006
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 43254367 1.5 98.5 8 98.8 20 99 P 2005
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 21183975 1.5 99.5 8 99.5 20 99.9 P 2004
1.5" Sensus Displacement 32591328 1.5 100.2 8 100.5 15 100.2 P 2004
1.5" Sensus Displacement 36620111 1.5 100.2 8 101.1 15 101.3 P 2006
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 23548946 1.5 99.5 8 99.8 15 100.8 P 2004
1.5" Sensus Displacement 43254341 1.5 99.2 8 100.8 15 101 P 2005
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 38287501 1.5 98 8 101.2 15 100.5 P 2003
1.5" Invensvs Displacement 38287502 1.5 100.5 8 99.7 15 100.6 P 2005
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 23
Table 7-8
Phase Two 2-inch Meter Test Summary
Accuracy Limits 95-101.5
Low Flow 98.5-101.5
Inter. Flow 98.5-101.5
High Flow
Year
Size Mfg. Type S/N GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Status Installed
2" Invensvs Displacement 61152283 2 98.8 15 99.6 20 99.9 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 33509383 2 47.4 15 94.5 20 93.5 F 2005
2" Sensus Displacement 47211933 2 98 8 101 15 101 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 19706905 2 96.8 15 100.2 20 100.4 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 41465505 2 100.5 15 101 20 101.5 P 2005
2" Sensus Displacement 43806187 2 100.5 15 100.5 20 101 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 48811271 2 98.9 15 100.5 20 101 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 52867081 2 100.5 15 100.9 20 101 P 2005
2" Invensvs Displacement 42269321 2 99 15 100.8 20 100.5 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 39016539 2 99 15 101 20 99.5 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 40163884 2 100.2 15 101.1 20 100.9 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 42397625 2 99 15 100.7 20 101 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 45656545 2 99 15 100 20 101 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 52867091 2 99.5 15 100.3 20 99.9 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 42290920 2 98.9 15 100.1 20 101.1 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 42511964 2 99.6 15 100.4 20 100.2 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 32410556 2 100.2 15 99.5 20 100.5 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 43806200 2 99.5 15 100.2 25 101.2 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 40182622 2 98.6 15 101.1 25 100.5 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 42929509 2 101 15 100.9 25 101 P 2003
2" Invensvs Displacement 40334192 2 99.2 15 99.9 20 100.2 P 2008
2" Sensus Displacement 45881443 2 100.2 15 101.3 20 100.5 P 2003
~ 2" Sensus Displacement 45881442 2 100.5 15 100.5 20 101.1 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 39016719 2 100.2 15 101.3 20 101.3 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 35720482 2 99.9 15 100.4 20 101.1 P 2006
~ 2" Invensvs Displacement 42371603 2 99 15 101.5 20 101.5 P 2004
2" Sensus Displacement 46127559 2 99 15 101 20 101 P 2006
2" Invensvs Displacement 38366821 2 100.1 15 101.1 20 101 P 2004
2" Invensvs Displacement 64222185 2 99 15 101 20 101 P 2005
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 24
Table 7-9
Phase Two 3-inch Turbine Meter Test Summary
Accuracy Limits
Start Flow 95-101.5
Low Flow 98.5-101.5
Inter. Flow 98.5-101.5
Hi h Flow
Size Mfg. Type S/N GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM AGC. GPM ACC. Status Installed
Year
3" Sensus Turbo 60828090 3 72.8 8 98.8 150 101.1 170 101.3 P 2007
3" Sensus Turbo 1473185 4 97.5 8 99.6 150 97.4 300 96.2 F 2000
3" Sensus Turbo 1447687 4 80 8 98.5 150 100.1 300 99.3 P N/A
Table 7-10
Phase Two 3-inch Compou ~d Meter Test Summary
not less
Accuracy Limits 97%- 103% 97%- 103% than 90% 97%- 103% 97% -103% 97%- 103%
Below Above
Low Flow Crossover Crossover Crossover Intermediate Hi h Flow
Year
Size Mfg. S!N Status GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Installed
3" Sensus 1626689 P 1 99.5 5 100.3 15 93.5 25 99.7 75 101.1 150 100.5 2002
3" Sensus 63137335 P 1 99 5 100.9 14 92.5 25 97.9 75 101.9 150 102.5 2005
3" Sensus 1639846 P 1 98 5 100.5 15 95 25 99.7 75 101.5 150 102.1 2004
3" Sensus 1626682 P 1 100.5 5 100.5 15 92 25 101.3 75 102.5 150 102 2003
3" Sensus 01590608 P 1 99 5 101 15 90.5 25 98.5 25 102 150 102.2 2000
3" Sensus 1597364 P 1 98 5 99.5 15 92.3 25 97.3 75 101.4 150 100.7 2001
3" Sensus 66016905 P 1 98 5 101.5 15 97 25 99.5 75 101.7 150 101.2 2006
3" Sensus 1195889 F 1 0 5 0 15 101 25 103.8 75 107 150 109.2 2005
3" Sensus 1438175 P 1 100.8 5 101 15 96.3 25 97.3 75 101.9 150 100.5 1998
3" Sensus 60941655 P 1 98 5 100.3 15 92.5 25 99.1 75 101.7 150 102.1 2005
3" Sensus 1293303 P 1 100.5 5 100.5 15 95 25 98.7 75 100.8 150 101.8 1971
3" Sensus 60362660 P 1 99 5 100.3 15 93.5 25 99.7 75 102.3 150 102 2003
3" Sensus 60941657 P 1 99.5 5 100 15 92.5 25 99.9 75 100.6 150 99.8 2003
3" Sensus 1626681 P 1 99.5 5 101 15 95.3 25 101.2 75 101.7 150 102.7 2002
3" Sensus 66923802 P 1 99.5 5 100.5 15 93.5 25 99.9 75 102.1 150 102.9 2007
3" Sensus 06776566 P 1 100.5 5 101 15 94.3 25 97.6 75 102.4 150 102.2 2007
3" Sensus 1571554 P 1 99 5 100.5 15 91.5 25 98.5 75 101.5 150 100.3 1999
3" Rockwell 1227683 P 1 98.5 5 99 15 94.9 25 98.7 75 102.1 150 102.7 1986
3" Rockwell 1294132 P 1 99 5 100.2 15 95 25 101 75 101.8 150 102.2 1971
3" Sensus 1290266 P 1 99.9 5 100.5 15 95 25 97.4 75 101.4 150 101.6 2004
3" Sensus 1145303 P 1 99.8 5 101.5 15 94.6 25 98.7 75 101.5 150 100.8 1998
3" Sensus 1626684 P 1 98.4 5 100.8 15 94.1 25 97.4 75 101.9 150 102.1 2002
3" Sensus 1228484 P 1 101 5 101 14 92.5 25 97.8 75 102.1 150 102.5 2007
3" Invensvs 64032894 P 1 100.4 5 100.5 15 95.2 25 98.4 75 101.9 150 101.1 2007
3" Sensus 1571770 P 1 100.4 5 101 15 93.5 25 98.7 75 101.8 150 102.1 2000
3" Sensus 67653879 P 1 98.7 5 99.8 15 97.6 25 97.6 75 101.2 150 101.5 2007
3" Sensus 67845773 P 1 98 5 99.5 14 97.4 25 99.9 75 101.8 150 101.2 2008
3" Invensvs 64032893 P 1 99.2 5 100.3 15 96 25 99.9 75 101.4 150 100.7 2006
3" Sensus 1201011 P 1 99 5 100.3 15 95 25 100.6 75 101.5 150 100.6 2006
3" Rockwell 1228746 P 1 100.5 5 101 16 97 25 97.7 75 99.1 150 99 1998
3" Sensus 62249169 F 1 0 5 0 15 92 25 98.7 75 102 150 101.8 2005
3" Sensus 1291098 P 1 99.4 5 100.8 14 97.5 25 100.6 75 101.7 150 101.2 2002
HDR E ngineering, Inc. Dubu que Water Meter Review and Test ing 25
Table 7-11
Phase Two 4-inch Turbine Meter Test Summary
Accuracy Limits ~ 95-101.5 ~ 98.5-101.5 ~ 98.5-101.
Table 7-12
Phase Two 4-inch Compound Meter Summary
Accuracv Limits
97%-103%
Low Flow
97%103%
Below
Crossover not less
than 90%
Crossover
97%-103%
Above
Crossover
97%-103%
Interim.
97%-103%
High Flow
Year
Size Mfg. S!N Status GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Installed
4" Sensus 124866 Not T2St".d 1998
4" Sensus 1245060 P 1 99.5 5 98 20 95 30 101.2 100 100.4 200 101.9 '1998
4" Sensus 1626266 P 1 99 5 100.5 20 94.3 30 100.5 100 101 200 101 2002
4" Sensus 1606867 P 1 98 5 101 20 95.3 30 98.5 100 100.4 200 99.6 2004
4" Sensus 1606866 P 1 99 5 100 20 94.8 30 98.9 100 100.6 200 99.6 2000
4" Sensus 01581700 F 1 0 5 0 20 0 30 75.8 100 101 200 99.8 2000
4" Sensus 1626265 P 1 99.5 5 100.5 21 97.3 30 101 100 102 200 101.1 2002
4" Sensus 1455441 P 1 100 5 100.8 20 96.3 30 101 100 99.6 200 99.8 1996
4" Sensus 63137288 P 1 100.8 5 100.5 20 97.3 30 101 100 100.4 200 101.8 2005
4" Sensus 1626268 P 1 100.2 5 100.7 20 97.3 30 98.9 100 101.9 200 101.5 2003
4" Sensus 61999821 P 1 99.9 5 100.5 19 96.3 30 98.8 100 100.6 200 99.6 2004
4" Sensus 1248665 P 1 97.5 5 100.3 15 95.3 30 101.2 100 102.1 200 100.3 1998
4" Sensus 62249174 P 1 98.5 5 100.5 21 97.8 30 101 100 101.9 200 102.1 2007
4" Sensus 60055168 P 1 100.4 5 101 22 97 30 101.2 100 100.4 200 100.8 2003
4" Sensus 1342728 F 1 99.5 5 99.6 19 96.8 30 101 100 101 200 102.7 2004
4" Rockwell 1247875 P 1 100.4 5 101 20 96.3 30 99.9 100 101.4 200 100.8 1998
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 26
4" Sensus Turbo 1411332 8 70 15 99 150 100.5 300 101 P 1971
4" Sensus Turbo 67785593 7 87.5 15 105 150 102.9 300 102.2 F 2007
4" Sensus Turbo 1241999 8 75 15 99.6 150 101 300 101 P 1998
Table 7-13
Phase Two 6-inch Compound Meter Test Summary
not less
Accuracy Limits 97%-103% 97%-103% than 90% 97%-103% 97%-103% 97%-103%
Below Above
Low Flow Crossover Crossover Crossover Interm. High Flow
Year
Size Mf . S!N Status GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Installed
6" Sensus 6249176 P 1.5 99.9 5 100.3 25 97 35 101.2 150 101.8 300 101.1 20Q8
6" Hersey 05193622 NOT TESTED 1972
Table 7-14
Phase Two 6-inch Fire Line Turbine Meter Test Summary
not less
Accuracy Limits 97%-103% 97%-103% than 90% 97°~~-103% 97%-103% 97%103%
Below ove
Low Flow Crossover Crossover Crossover Intermediate High Flow
Year
Size Mfg. SM Status GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. GPM ACC. Installed
6"x2" Sensus 2001796 4 101.5 25 101.9 65 90.2 100 101.8 200 102.1 300 100.7 NIA
6"x2" Sensus 16435550 4 100.2 25 102.5 65 92.6 100 98.9 200 102.7 300 101.4 2002
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 27
7.3 Typical Consultant Draft Procurementllmplementation Project Approach
Project Approach
Based on successful water meter replacement projects, the following proposed approach to assisting
the City with procurement and initial implementation of an AMR system consists of three project
phases: defining procurement requirements, performing procurement, and implementing of a start-up
phase of AMR deployment before frill implementation proceeds. Amore detailed description of
these tasks is provided below.
Task 1-Define Procurement Requirements
Objective:
Reaffirm current and future metering needs of the City, which will in turn inform a procurement
strategy that best meets the City's requirements.
From the residential metering plan and drawing on our significant experience, consultant will
identify current and anticipated future meter reading needs. Working with City staff, the consultant
will establish system requirements, including installation, support and training, warranties and
maintenance. New or modified business processes and operating procedures resulting from
implementing an AMR system will also be considered.
The consultant will develop a set of technical requirements that would be incorporated into a
Request for Proposals/Bid for a water meter system. These include system component
characteristics and performance requirements, meter interfaces, communication infrastructure,
system controller hardware and software, installation procedures, and interfaces to City's other
systems, along with the required demonstration process to be performed by the short-listed vendors.
The consultant will compile a list of system technical and operational requirements and desirable
features, as well as installation provisions, and review and revise these with the City's internal meter
system procurement team in a work session.
Task 2 -Procurement Process Management
Objective:
Provide an orderly procurement process that leads to the selection of the best AMR system for the
City, including execution of a fair and equitable contract with the most qualified vendor or vendors.
Approach:
The following subtasks will comprise Task 2:
• Task 2.1 Develop procurement document
• Task 2.2 Construction/Installation Management
• Task 2.3 Solicit responses from qualified vendors
• Task 2.4 Evaluate and select the most qualified vendor or vendors
• Task 2.5 Negotiate and execute a fair and equitable contract
The consultant will support the City throughout the procurement process, it is important to have the
City be actively involved with the entire evaluation and selection process. To assure this
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 28
involvement, the consultant will work with the City Management to establish a Selection
Committee. It is suggested that the Selection Committee be limited to no more than seven people,
including Account Services & Billing, Meter Maintenance, Meter Readers, and Customer Service
staff. During the evaluation and selection period the consultant will act as an advisor to the City,
coordinating and facilitating the selection process. The consultant will work with the Selection
Committee to expedite the selection process and to confirm that the process follows the City
procurement requirements.
Task 2.1 -Develop Procurement Document
The consultant, working with the Selection Committee, will prepare technical and bidding
specifications based on the requirements identified in Task 1. The bid specifications will ensure that
the City's goals and objectives are achieved while providing flexibility to vendors to present the
most advantageous technology. The bidding document will present meter and meter reading
requirements, as well as the procurement rules and guidelines. This will include procurement
instructions, project description, minimum qualifications, technical and business requirements of the
vendor (or vendors), evaluation criteria and selection methodology, proposal forms, and project
schedule. The consultant will also work with the City's Purchasing and Legal Departments in
preparing the proposal document so that it conforms to City requirements.
The consultant will provide the "technical" requirements of the bid package, namely the technical
specifications, suggested implementation timeline, and a draft contract. The City will be responsible
to compile this information into a bid package that will include all the standard forms and bid
requirements such as insurance requirements, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, etc.
Task 2.2 - ConstructionlInstallation Management
Determine what assistance is required by the City during start-up implementation and management
for full implementation. This scope of services should include at a minimum the following:
• Control and Monitoring
• Construction Schedules
• Quality Management
• Field Document Control
• Construction Cost Control
• Progress Payments
• Safety/Security Programs
• Training
• Presentations and Reports
• Monthly Invoices
• Close-Out and Acceptance Services
These services will be provided throughout the duration of the implementation process.
Task 2.3 -Solicit Responses from Qualified Vendors
The consultant will plan for and conduct aPre-proposal Conference. This will include preparing a
summary of the City's objectives and requirements, scheduling and logistics for the Conference, and
responding to any questions and data requests presented at the Conference. After the Conference,
the consultant will continue to support the City in responding to questions and data requests. It is
suggested that a master list of any requests be maintained in a database in order to ensure that all
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 29
responses are addressed and that all respondents have received the response. During the proposal
phase the consultant will respond in writing to questions from prospective bidders.
Task 2.4 -Evaluate and Select the Most Qualified Vendor(s)
The consultant will assist with initial proposal review, creating a matrix that can be used as a
checklist of submission requirements, and measurement of the respondent's ability to address meter
and meter reading requirements. This matrix will allow the Selection Committee to rank the
respondents in the major aspects of the proposal review, including submittal requirements, technical
capability, knowledge of metering and AMR, water utility business acumen, and price.
The consultant will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the features and benefits included
in the proposals, and recommend up to three firms that will be invited for vendor presentations. We
will assist with respondent interviews for up to three selected vendors, including scheduling
interviews, establishing interview guidelines, developing a presentation script, and moderating the
process.
The consultant will assist with reference checks of the highest ranked respondents. Reference
checks should be thorough and comprehensive as it is through this process that the truly outstanding
firms and systems are made apparent. The consultant will conduct due diligence on the selected
vendors' financials, experience and qualifications. A list of questions will be developed and we will
attempt to contact three current customers.
If required, the consultant will an•ange for site visits with selected references to continn a
respondent's capabilities through observation and open dialog with other companies and utilities
using vendors' equipment. We will schedule and attend up to three site visits with the City staff of
other utilities currently using the system.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the consultant will assist with vendor demonstrations. For up
to three short-listed vendors an AMR system demonstration will be performed in a selected area of
the City. The results of the demonstration will be evaluated and be part of the final selection
process. After the demonstrations, the consultant will prepare a technical memorandum to
summarize the evaluation and selection process. While this summary will be drafted by the
consultant, it is the Selection Committee that will rank the proposals and recommend a preferred
vendor.
Task 2.5 -Negotiate and Execute a Fair and Equitable Contract
The consultant will provide advice and guidance to the City during its negotiations with the lead
respondent. We will expedite negotiations in support of the implementation start date by developing
a negotiation schedule, assisting with developing a draft contract, and acting as a liaison between the
lead respondent and City. An important element of contract negotiation is fairness and equity. The
consultant will work to protect the interest of the City, but will advise Dubuque when certain
conditions and restrictions prove too onerous. A contract that fairly protects the interests of both
parties provides the best environment for a lasting and beneficial relationship.
The consultant will work with the parties to create a detailed statement of work (DSOW), which will
be attached to the contract and serve as the "manual of practice" for the parties during the project
deployment/implementation. The DSOW covers meters and meter reading system installation and
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 30
testing procedures, project control and invoicing, communications and documentation between the
vendor and the utility, etc.
Upon successful contract negotiation, the consultant will assist the City in a presentation to City
Council should one be required to gain final approval.
Task 3 -Start-up Implementation and Administration
Objective:
To provide project start-up support for a timely and orderly installation of meters and meter-reading
equipment, including adoption of new business processes to capture the benefits of AMR, and assure
that the vendor and equipment are performing as stipulated in the contract. Once start-up is
completed and accepted by the City full implementation can begin.
Approach:
The following subtasks will comprise Task 3:
• Task 3.1 Manage initial program implementation
• Task 3.2 Monitor vendor and equipment performance
Task 3.1 -Manage Initial Program Implementation
The consultant will evaluate the vendor's implementation schedule, monitor implementation progress,
and present regular reports to City management. Our overriding objective will be to support the City and
vendor so that the AMR operational start date will be achieved as planned.
Communication is very important during implementation. Both internal and external constituents need
to be apprised of the implementation plan, and potential problems that could occur during
implementation and startup. It is also important that the City have in place a response program in the
event that the implementation does not proceed according to plan. The consultant will provide reports
to the City Management on a regular basis identifying successes, as well as deficiencies. In its
operational startup support role, the consultant will work to promote the new AMR, and minimize any
negative impact that results from its implementation. Once start-up implementation has been accepted
by the City, full implementation will begin with the selected contract manager assuming full
implementation responsibilities.
Task 3.2 -Monitor Vendor and Equipment Performance
The consultant will provide project administration support to the City through the start-up
implementation project. This will include confirmation of the vendor's compliance to the contract, and
assessing performance of the AMR system to verify it meets specified requirements. The consultant
will also help develop auditing tools and reports that will allow the City to track the vendor and
equipment performance on an on-going basis. Also included are the necessary project supervision,
direction and coordination with the City's management and staff. We will review correspondence,
project activities, billings, conduct reviews, prepare status reports, and conduct discussions with the
City's staff as necessary.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 31
Task 4 - On-going Implementation Assistance
The consultant will be pleased to provide, as an optional supplemental service, any additional ongoing
assistance that maybe requested by the City. We have extensive experience with training, inspection of
vendor installations, and procurement of support components.
HDR Englneering, Int. Dubuque Water A%leter Review and Testing 32
7.4 Summary of 2007 Cost Model Results
Sunlnlar~ of Results
Updated: PJovenlber 5. 2007
Page 1 of 4
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Operating Budget (Does Not Inc lude Customer Service)
Touch Read Aquila 5321,683 545-,412 $469.883 5485,888 $502,445
Touch Read $345,563 5518.817 $537.448 5556,753 $576,757
Mobile Drive•by 5348,373 5360.836 $373.749 5387,128 $400.990
Fixed Radio 5301,999 5311.743 $322,874 5334,406 $346,354
Project Management and Procu nnent Services
Touch Read Aquila 5166,238 $166,238 $0 $0 $0
Touch Read $166,238 $166.238 $0 $0 $0
Mobile Drive•by $166,238 5166.238 $0 $0 $0
Fixed Radio 5166,238 5166,238 $0 $0 $0
Capital Outlay to be Borrowed
Touch Read Aquila $1,881.838 $2,424.137 $0 $0 $0
Touch Read $1,980.238 $2,460.517 $0 $0 $0
Mobile Drive•by $2,666.194 $3,124.600 $0 $0 $0
Fixed Radio $2,890,259 $3,290.000 $0 $0 $0
Capital Cost out of Pocket
Touch Read Aquila 50 $0 $49,392 551.120 552.905
Touch Read 50 $0 549,392 551.120 552.905
Mobile Drive•by 50 $0 563,512 $65.722 568.005
Fixed Radio SO $0 $66,572 568.886 571.277
Debt Service Payments
Touch Read Aquila 5296,160 $296.160 $296.160 5296,160 $296,160
Touch Read 5305,430 $305.430 $305,430 5305,430 $305,430
Mobile Drive•by 5398,284 539E8.284 $398,284 5398,284 $398,284
Fixed Radio 5425,071 5425.071 $425,071 $425,071 $425,071
Long-Tenn Budget (Proj. Management + Debt Se rvice + Out of Pocket Capital + Operating)
Touch Read Aquila 5784,081 $916.809 $815.435 5833,168 $851.510
Touch Read 5817,231 5990.485 $892.270 5913,303 $935.093
Mobile Drive•by $912,895 $925.358 $835.545 5851,134 $867.279
Fixed Radio $893,308 $903,052 $814.517 5828,364 $842,702
Rocnltc and Innnic NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV
Debt Service Out of Pocket Capital Total Capital Proi. Manp. Operating
Touch Read Aquila $3,754.210 5705.762 54,459,972 5309,982 $7,292939
Touch Read $3,871.719 5762.657 54,634,377 5309,982 $8,906.595
Mobile Drive•by $5,048.765 5930.634 55,979,399 5309,982 $5,954.076
Fixed Radio $5,388.325 5981.638 56,369,962 5309,982 $5,150.430
Real Dollar Real Dollar Real Dollar Real Dollar Real Dollar
Debt Service flat of Pnrkot fnnital Capital Proj. Mang. Operation
Touch Read Aquila $5,923.203 $1,228.254 57,151,457 5332,475 512.198.257
Touch Read $6,108.503 $1,324.658 57,433,261 5332,475 515.129.087
Mobile Drive•by $7,965.587 $1,612545 59,583,232 5332,475 $9,932863
Fixed Radio $8,501,426 $1,705.749 510,207.175 5332,475 $8,580.502
Cost per Read
Meter Readings
MererReaders 5119,691 5268,644 $271,332 5274,044 $276,780
Field Service $10.892 524447 524,691 524.938 525.187
Operating CosURead (Meter Readers + Field Serv ice + Customer Service)
Touch Read AqulL 52.46 51 55 $1.59 51.63 51.66
Touch Read 52.65 51 77 $1.82 51.86 51.91
Mobile Drive•by 52.67 5123 $126 51.29 51.33
Fixed Radio 52.31 51 06 $1.09 51.12 51.15
Op.+Cap. CosURead
Touch Read Aquil: 56.00 53.13 $275 52.79 5282
Touch Read 56.26 53.18 $3.01 53.05 53.10
Mobile Drive•by 56.99 - ' 6 ;282 52.85 5287
Fixed Radio 56.84 5 J8 ;275 52.77 5279
HDR Engineering, InC. Dubuque Wder Mete Review ald Testing 33
Summary of Results
Updated- Nooember 5, 2007
Page 2 of 4
2014 2015 2016 2017
Operating Budget (Does Not Include Cu stomer Service)
Touch Read Aquila 5519.572 5537,290 5555,620 $574.583
Touch Read 5597.487 5618,967 5641,225 $664.292
Mobile Drive•by 5415,352 5430,234 5445,654 $461.631
Fixed Radio 5358,733 5371,557 5384,845 $398.612
Project Management and Procunnent Services
Touch Read Aquila $0 50 $0 $0
Touch Read $0 50 SO $0
Mobile Drive•by $0 50 50 $0
Fixed Radio $0 50 50 $0
Capital Outlay to be Borr owed
Touch Read Aquila $0 50 50 $0
Touch Read $0 50 SO $0
Mobile Drive•by $0 50 $0 $0
Fixed Radio $0 50 SO $0
Capital Cost out of Pocket
Touch Read Aquila 556.317 $57,797 $58.843 561,108
Touch Read 565.821 $63.828 $58.843 561,108
Mobile Drive•by 585 462 $73.082 $75.604 578,507
Fixed Radio 592.706 $76.595 $79,235 582,277
Debt Service Payments
Touch Read Aquila 5296.160 5296,160 5296,160 $296.160
Touch Read 5305,430 5305,430 5305,430 $305430
Mobile Drive•by 5398,284 5398,284 $398,284 $398.284
Fixed Radio 5425.071 5425,071 5425,071 $425.071
Long-Tenn Budget (Prof. Management + Debt Service + Out o f Pocket Capital + Operating)
Touch Read Aquila 5872.049 589'1,248 5910,624 $931.852
Touch Read 5968.737 5988,225 $1.005.499 51,030,831
Mobile Drive•by 5899.099 5901,601 5919,542 $938423
Fixed Radio 5876.510 5873,224 5889,151 $905.960
Rocnltc and Innnic NPV Yrs to Imol.
Total
Touch Read Aquila $12.067,893.33 2
Touch Read $13.850,953.18 2
Mobile Drive•by $12.253,45679 2
Fixed Radio $ 11.830,374.39 2
Real Dollar
Total
Touch Read Aquila $19.682,188
Touch Read $22.894,824
Mobile Drive•by $19.853,570
Fixed Radio $19,120,153
Cost per Read
Meter Readings
2018
$594.202
$688.196
$478.186
$412.876
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
563.220
563.220
581.203
585.100
$296,160
$305.430
$398.284
$425.071
$953.581
$1,056.845
$957.674
$923.047
Reads/Dav
350
350
7,500
Meier Readers 279,552 282.348 285,168 288,024 290.904
Field Service 25.439 25.594 25.950 26,210 26472
Operating CosURead (Meter R eaders + Field Service + Custo mer Service)
Touch Read Aquit 51.70 51.74 $1.79 $1.83 51.87
Touch Read 51.96 52.01 $2.06 $2.11 52.17
Mobile Drive•by 51.36 51.40 $1.43 $1.47 $ 1.51
Fixed Radio 51.18 51.21 $1.24 $1.27 S 1.30
Op.+Cap. CosURead
Touch Read Aqui1 52.86 $2.89 $2.93 $2.97 53.00
Touch Read 53.18 $3.21 $3.23 $3.28 53.33
Mobile Drive•by $2.95 52.93 $2.96 $2.99 53.02
Fixed Radio $2.87 52.83 $2.86 $2.88 52.91
HDR Engineering, Inc. Dubuque Wder Meter I~view atd Testing 34
Summary of Results
Updated: November 5, 2007
Page 3 of 4
2019 2020 2021 202 2023
Operating Budget (Does Not Include Custo mer Service)
Touch Read Aquila 5614.498 $635.496 5657,221 5579.698 $702.953
Touch Read 5796.053 $824.714 5854.416 5885.197 $917.097
Mobile Drive-by 5495.341 $513.1 16 5531,535 5550.622 $570.400
Fixed Radio 5422655 $442.968 5458.835 5475.275 $492.310
Project Management and Proctrnnent Servi ces
Touch Read Aquila $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Touch Read $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Mobile Drive-by $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Fixed Radio $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Capital Outlay to be Borr owed
Touch Read Aquila $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Touch Read $0 $0 $0 SO $0
Mobile Drive-by $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Fixed Radio $0 $0 $0 50 $0
Capital Cost out of Pocket
Touch Read Aquila $66,936 558.947 $70,230 $72,897 575.391
Touch Read 5120.519 575.770 $70,230 $72,897 575.391
Mobile Drive-by 5100.756 582185 $90,161 $93,575 596.756
Fixed Radio 5109.136 591.364 $94,480 $98.055 $101,384
Debt Service Payments
Touch Read Aquila 5296.160 $295.160 5295.160 5296.160 $295.160
Touch Read 5305.430 $305.430 5305.430 5305 430 $305.430
Mobile Drive-by 5398.284 $398.284 5398,284 5398.284 $398.284
Fixed Radio 5425.071 $425.071 5425.071 5425.071 $425.071
Long-Term Budget (Prof. Management + Debt Service + Ou t of Pocket Capi tal + Operating)
Touch Read Aquila 5972595 $1.000.604 $1.023,611 $1,048,755 $1.074.505
Touch Read $1.222,002 $L205.914 $1.230,077 $1,263,524 $1.297.919
Mobile Drive-by 5994.381 $998.586 $1.019,981 $1,042,481 $1.065440
Fixed Radio 5961.862 $959.404 5978.386 5998401 $1.018.766
~o~,~r*~ ~~~+ ~~~~~*~ ~/isfts!Dav $rPad. Iv11U Startup-Infra. ao,~+ Fn i ifo
Touch Read Aquila 35 515.00 5
Touch Read 35 S 15.00 5
Mobile Drive-by 325 575.00 $42,000 10
Fixed Radio 588.00 5205.000 20
Cost per Read
Meter Readinys
Meter Readers 293.808 296.748 299,712
Field Service 25.737 27,004 27,274
Operating CosURead (Meter Readers + Field Service + Custo mer Service)
Touch Read Aqui $1.92 51.96 $2.01
Touch Read $2.48 52.55 $2.61
Mobile Drive•by $1.55 51.58 $1.63
Fixed Radio $133 51.37 $1?0
Op.+Cap. CosURead
Touch Read Aqui $3.05 53.09 $3.13
Touch Read $3.81 53.72 $3.76
Mobile Drive•by $3.10 53.08 $3.12
Fixed Radio $3.00 52.96 $2.99
302.712 305.736
27.547 27,822
$2.06 52.1 1
$2.68 52.75
$1.67 51.71
$11d 51.48
$3.18 53.22
$3.83 53.89
$3.16 53.19
$3.02 53.05
HDR Engiteerhg, hc. Dtbugae Wder Mder Rcroiew aril Testing 35
Summary of Results
Updated: November 5, 2007
Page 4 of 4
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Operating Budget (Does Not Include Customer Service)
TouclrReadAquila $727.014 5751,910 $777.668 $804.321 5831,899 512,198.257
Touch Read $950.157 5984,419 51,019,928 $1,056.729 $1.094.871 515,129.087
Mobile Drive-by $590.896 5612,134 $634.144 $656.952 568Q,589 $9,937,863
Fixed Radio $509.962 5528,252 $547.205 $566.844 $587,196 $8,580,502
Project Management and Procurtnent Servi ces
Touch Read Aquila $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $332,475
Touch Read $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $332,475
Mobile Drive-by $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $332,475
Fixed Radio $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $332,475
Capital Outlay to be Borr owed
Touch Read Aquila $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $4,305,975
Touch Read $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $4,440,755
Mobile Drive-by $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $5,790,794
Fixed Radio $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $6,180,259
Capital Cost out of Pocket
Touch Read Aquila $79.977 $82.094 583,946 $87.091 $90.043 $1,228,254
Touch Read $92.722 $89.813 583,946 $87.091 $90.043 $1,324,658
Mobile Drive-by $ 119,370 5103,797 $107.683 $ I 11.702 51 15,461 $1,617,545
Fixed Radio $129,096 5108,757 $112.826 $ 117.034 5120,969 $1,705,749
Debt Service Payments
Touch Read Aquila $296.160 $296,160 $296.160 $296,160 $296,160 $5,923,203
Touch Read $305.430 5305,430 $305.430 $305.430 5305,430 $6,108,603
Mobile Drive-by $398.284 5398,284 $398.284 $398,284 5398,284 $7,965,687
Fixed Radio $425.071 5425,071 $425.071 $425,071 $425,071 $8,501,426
Long-Term Budget (Prof. Management + Debt Service + Out of Pocket Cap ital + Operating)
Touch Read Aquila 51,103.151 $1.130,163 51,157,774 51,187.572 $1,218.101 519,682.188
Touch Read 51,348.309 $1.379,662 51,409,304 51,449.250 $1.490.343 522,894.824
Mobile Drive-by 51,108.550 $1.114,216 51,140,112 51,166.939 $1.194.335 519,853.570
Fixed Radio 51,064.129 $1.062,080 51,085,103 51,108.950 $1.133.235 519,120.153
Cost per Read
Meter Readings
Meter Readers 308,796 311,880 315.000
Field Service 28,100 28,381 28.665
Operating CosURead (Meter Readers + Field Service + Customer Service)
Toudr Read Aquil $2.16 $2.21 52.26
Toudr Read $282 $2.89 52.97
Mobile Drive-by $1.75 $1.80 51.85
Fixed Radio $1.51 $1.55 51.59
Op.+Cap. CosdRead
Touch Read Aquil $327 $3.32 53.37
Touch Read $4.00 $4.05 54.10
Mobile Drive-by $329 $3.27 53.32
Fixed Radio $3.16 $3.12 53.16
318.156 321,336
28.952 29,242
52.32 $2.37
$3.04 $3.12
$1.89 $1.94
$1.63 $1.67
$3A2 $3.47
$4.18 $4.25
$3.36 $3.41
$3.19 $3.23
HDR ErxUineerirg, Inc. Dubuque Water Meter Reviewand Testing 36