Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for
Planning a Capital Project
Iowa League of Cities Annual Conference
September 2015
Kelley Brown
City Administrator
Grimes, Iowa
Steve Troyer, P.E.
FOX Engineering
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis





What is LCCA?
What is involved in LCCA?
Why is it important?
How can it benefit me?
Grimes water system case study
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Engineering economic analysis to assess
total cost of ownership of a project
 Includes initial capital investment (design
& construction) plus on-going operation
& maintenance costs
 Based on expected life of project
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Involves engineering art and science
 Aids the decision making process
 Does NOT provide the final answer!
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Compares economic merits of
alternatives
 Considers all of the relevant costs
 Helps identify the true low cost option
 Does not account for differences in
benefits
Why Use LCCA?
 Helps overcome and unify varying
goals…
- Elected officials want the “cheapest” option
- Managers want to minimize annual costs
- Operators want the most reliable, easiest to
maintain, and highest quality
 Helps identify the true low cost option
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)








Identify Problem
Develop Alternatives
Determine appropriate life cycle
Estimate capital cost
Identify & estimate the annual costs
Estimate end-of-life costs/value
Determine present value / Life-Cycle Cost
Analyze results
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Identify problem
 Develop Alternatives
- Determine needs
- Established goals
- Identify alternatives that
 Solve problems
 Meet needs
 Accomplish goals
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Determine appropriate life-cycle
- What is the anticipated life of the
improvements?
- Will changing conditions affect evaluation
period?
- Will technology changes affect the life?
- Will regulatory changes affect the life?
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Estimate capital cost
-
Construction cost
Equipment purchase
Land
Design
Permitting
Administrative
Legal
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Identify and estimate annual costs
- Operating costs – staffing, management,
electricity, gas, water, chemicals, waste
disposal
- Maintenance costs – preventative,
corrective, rebuilds, periodic replacement
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Estimate end-of-life costs/value
-
Clean-up and disposal
Demolition or decommissioning
Value of structures
Value of equipment
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Compute Life-Cycle Cost
- Determine discount & inflation rate
- Calculate net present value (NPV) of annual
costs and one time costs
- Calculate NPV of end-of-life costs
- Calculate total NPV
- Determine equivalent annual cost
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 Analyze results
- Compare NPV or EAC for each alternative
- Conduct sensitivity analysis
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
 LCCA does not give the FINAL answer
 Many other things to consider
-
Risk
Reliability
Water Quality / Environmental Concerns
Political Concerns
Budgets
Grimes Water System
 Water Supply
- Initially had 3 shallow wells
- In 1966 constructed first Jordan – 2,650 Ft
- Blended Jordan and 1 Shallow well
 1986 first Water Feasibility Study
- DMWW connection through Urbandale
- Shallow wells north of town
Grimes Water System – 1986 study
 Initial costs
- DMWW - $994,000
- Shallow Wells - $825,000
 Long term life-cycle costs
- DMWW - $7.8M over 20 years
- Shallow wells - $4.8M over 20 years
 Water rates increased 30% to finance shallow wells
Grimes Water System – 1996-1997
 FOX is hired to update water facility plan
- Only progress made from 1986 as 30% water
rate increase
- Study projected population to be 10,800 in
2020 ( current population estimate is 11,000 )
 0.72 MGD Jordan well is city’s sole source
Grimes Water System – 1996-1997
 3 OPTIONS
- Lime softening of the Shallow wells
- Plant along Hwy 141
- Plant by Wastewater plant
- Removal of only Iron and Manganese
- Same hardness as the current Jordan well
- Connection with DMWW
- Buy purchase capacity to buy down rate
- No purchase capacity
Grimes Water System – 1996-1997
 Factors considered
- Operations and maintenance costs
- Energy, chemicals, labor, cost data from similar
facilities, quotes from chemical suppliers and
published data.
- Non-economic factors were considered
- Land requirements, Operational requirements,
Reliability, Flexibility, Monitoring requirements,
Finished water quality.
Grimes Water System
Capital
Cost
NPV
O&M
Costs
NPV
Salvage
NPV
Equip.
Replace
Total
NPV
DMWW
$3.126
$2.946
($0.422)
---
$5.650
Limes Softening
Plant
$4.821
$2.873
($0.351)
$0.088
$7.431
Iron & Manganese
Removal Plant
$3.806
$1.840
($0.294)
$0.096
$5.448
Costs are in millions of dollars
Grimes Water System – 1996-1997
 Political impacts
- 1993 DMWW flooded – Grimes one of few towns with
water
- Fastest growing towns with control over our water supply
- Quality of Jordan motivated interest in better water with
no odor or taste concerns
- Although Lime Softening was higher CC opted to drill new
shallow wells and build a plant on wastewater treatment
plant site.
Grimes Water System – 1996-1997
 Water rates
- Although being independent versus dependent on DMWW
was the biggest decision effecting the long term impact
on our community, the new water rates was the largest
political hurdle to overcome.
- Water went from $4.17/1000 and $2.01/1000 to
$7.23/1000
- Sewer went from $3.30/1000 and $2.24/1000 to
$5.76/1000
- Rates re-evaluated every few years
Grimes Water System – Xenia
 2007 Grimes approached by Xenia
- Xenia wanted to buy the water system and incorporate it
into their overall system
- Hired an independent CPA to evaluate the financial
impacts.
- Capital value of the City wasn’t taken into account
- Economic housing crisis - water revenue additional
source to subsidize tax revenue if needed
- Council opted to retain ownership of water system
Grimes Water System – 2011
 FOX updates water facility plan
- Population has grown faster than expected
- Debt from original water plant hasn’t been retired –
increase water rates sooner than desired
- Old Jordan well convert to ASR?
- Expand the current plant sooner than expected?
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Identify Problem
- Planning for additional capacity
 Develop Alternatives
- Expand plant
- Additional 2 MGD of treatment capacity
- Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) Well
- Increase peak day supply capacity by 1 MGD
- Delay plant expansion until 2019
- Note that alternatives are not equal
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Determine Life-Cycle
- 20 years
 Estimate Capital Cost
- Expand plant - $11.8 million
- Annualized cost - $793,000 per year
- ASR Well - $1.5 million
- Annualized cost - $101,000 per year
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Identify & Estimate Annual Cost
- Expanded Plant – labor, electrical power,
chemical, equipment maint./repair, etc.
- $97,000 per year
- ASR – treat, injection, recovery, chemicals,
labor, equipment maint./repair, etc.
- $97,000 + $54,000 = $151,000 per year
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Estimate End-of-Life Cost / Value
- Expand plant – Salvage Value = $3.54
million
- $132,000 per year
- ASR Well – Salvage Value = $0.3 million
- $11,000 per year
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Determine Life-Cycle Cost
- Equivalent Annual Cost = Capital Cost +
O&M cost – Salvage Value
- Expanded Plant
- EAC = $793,000 + $97,000 - $132,000
- EAC = $758,000
- ASR
- EAC = $101,000 + $151,000 - $11,000
- EAC = $241,000
Grimes Water System – Case Study 1
 Analyze Results
- EAC basis  ASR is about $517,000 per year
less
- BUT… alternatives are not equal
- Other considerations
- Risk
- Water quality
- Deferred cost
Grimes Water System - Challenges
 Population growth
- 1994 – population 3,000
- 2015 – population 11,000
- 2030 – projected population 27,000
 Increasing Water Demands
- 2010 – ADD = 0.79 MGD; PDD = 1.28 MGD
- 2012 – 2014: ADD = 1.0 MGD; PDD = 2.0 MGD
Grimes Water System – Drought
 2012 beginning of three year drought
- Level in three shallow wells decreasing with little recovery
- What is long term viability of the shallow wells?
- Water mitigation plan developed and put into place
- 2013 by late season contractors couldn’t place sod in
residential sites because of water shortage
- Council decides to drill new Jordan well.
Grimes Water System – Jordan
 Jordan well anticipated completion Nov
2013
- Drilling ahead of schedule until a 104’ section breaks
1,865 feet below ground.
- When a drill bit breaks they “fish” to get it back out.
-
Vibration used to break it loose
Super-crane with mega-force to lift it out
Chemicals to dissolve the “loose pack” around the bit
Explosives
Over $1M spent by contractor to free the bit
Started drilling a new well - one year later pumping water
Grimes Water System – Xenia
 Alternate water supplies
- City reinitiates discussions with Xenia about an
emergency water supply
- Establish an emergency connection on their 8” water
main
- Agree to supply 400 GPM or about 576,000 per day only
in emergency situations
Grimes Water System – Stressful
 Stressful times
-
Shallow well levels drop with little to no recovery
Drill Jordan well and drill bit breaks
Establish an emergency connection with Xenia
Convert old Jordan to ASR but what is the timing?
Drought continues to the extent new homes aren’t
allowed to place sod
- Long term future? Hire Hydrologist to evaluate the
Beaver Creek aquifer and viability of the shallow wells
Grimes Water System – Hard water
 Chemistry of the water changes
- Lime softening plant made “soft” water
- Over time the hardness of raw shallow well water
increased
- Jordan well constructed – also hard water
- Combination of the water supplies and the pH changed
enough that we can’t get all the calcium out so water
leaves white spots and residue
- New set of complaints…. What’s next?
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Identify Problem
- Finished water quality deteriorating
- Jordan well
- Deteriorating quality shallow wells
- Hardness: > 600 mg/L in raw; finished
water > 300 mg/L
- Sulfates: very high in Jordan > 600 mg/L;
shallow wells > 300 mg/L
- TDS & Ammonia
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Develop Alternatives
- Add Soda Ash to remove more hardness
- Add Caustic to remove more hardness
- Add RO treatment to remove more hardness
& other constituents
 Determine Life-Cycle
- 20 years
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Estimate Capital Cost
- Soda Ash - $1.350 million
- Annualized cost - $83,000 per year
- Caustic - $0.647 million
- Annualized cost - $40,000 per year
- RO - $3.100 million
- Annualized cost - $190,000 per year
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Identify & Estimate Annual Cost
- Soda Ash – labor, chemical, equipment maint./repair,
sludge disposal
- $436,000 per year
- Caustic – labor, chemical, equipment maint./repair,
sludge disposal
- $462,000 per year
- RO – labor, power, chemicals, membrane
replacement, equipment maint./repair
- $193,000 per year
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Estimate End-of-Life Cost
- Similar salvage value for all three
- Ignored salvage valve
 Determine Life-Cycle Cost
- Sum all annual costs
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
Capital Cost
Annualized
Capital Cost
Annual
O&M
Total
EAC
Soda Ash
$1.350
$0.083
$0.436
$0.519
Caustic
$0.647
$0.040
$0.462
$0.502
Reverse Osmosis
$3.100
$0.190
$0.193
$0.383
Costs are in millions of dollars
Grimes Water System – Case Study 2
 Analyze Results
- Although significantly higher capital cost, RO
has much lower operating cost
- Annual “savings” of $119,000
- Additional benefits
- Improved water quality
- Increased production
Grimes Water System – Today
- ASR – challenges with the pumps and motors
- Negotiating with Xenia for a more permanent agreement
for a consistent water use versus emergency connection
- RO trial
- Moved up construction of new water plant and reviewing
financial needs.
- Hydrologists are completing report on recommendations
of future water supply
- State is looking at long term viability of the Jordan
Grimes Water System – thank you
- Life cycle cost analysis should be a life-long analysis
“SUCCESS IS NOT FINAL,
FAILURE IS NOT FATAL; IT IS
THE COURAGE TO CONTINUE
THAT COUNTS.”
Winston Churchill
QUESTIONS?