Laserfiche WebLink
EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES WITHIN BERNAL SUBBASIN <br />APRIL 2026 / FINAL / CAROLLO <br />CITY OF PLEASANTON 25 <br />5.3.4 Annualized Cost Summary of Each Project Alternative <br />A summary of estimated capital costs, annual O&M costs, annual GPQ purchase costs and total <br />annualized costs for each alternative is provided in Table 13. Refer to Appendix G for a detailed <br />breakdown of annualized costs. <br />Capital costs were annualized using an Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) approach in which one- <br />time project capital costs are converted into an equivalent stream of constant annual payments over the <br />assumed facility life. The calculation applies a Capital Recovery Factor, which is based on a 50-year project <br />life and a 3 percent discount rate. The resulting annualized capital recovery values are then combined with <br />annual O&M costs (which include an EUAC approach for major facility rehabilitations) and annual GPQ <br />purchase costs (which include an EUAC approach for Alt 2 and 3 since purchases are for just an interim <br />period) to develop total annual project costs. <br />Table 13 Annualized Cost Summary of Each Project Alternative <br />Cost Category Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 <br />Annualized Capital Costs $477,657 $1,066,702 $1,361,847 <br />Annualized GPQ Costs $6,018,455 $895,551(1) $1,103,378(2) <br />Annualized O&M Costs $20,894 $1,522,738 $1,645,842 <br />Total Annual Costs $6,517,006 $3,484,992 $4,111,066 <br />Notes: <br />(1) This value represents annualized cost to purchase City GPQ from Zone 7 from 2026 to 2029 during construction of <br />improvements. <br />(2) This value represents annualized cost to purchase City GPQ from Zone 7 from 2026 to 2030 during construction of <br />improvements. <br />5.4 Cost to Benefit Evaluation <br />Figure 11 shows the relative weighted benefit score of each project alternative. The total score for each <br />alternative is the sum of scores for each evaluation criteria (as described in Section 5.1) divided by the <br />maximum achievable benefit score of 100. The maximum relative weighted benefit score each project <br />alternative can achieve is 1. Higher scores are more beneficial.