State government and local communities spend billions of dollars per year on new facilities for current and future generations of students. Unfortunately, the institutional separation of operational and construction budgets can create schools that are economically, environmentally, and educationally poor investments. Many high performance measures can be incorporated into a school design without increasing first-costs, but additional investments can increase the health and efficiency of the school even further. Under the standard methodology, design measures that clearly reduce the operating budget may not be included because the district may has no means to cover any additional incremental costs. Life-cycle costing is a means to calculate and compare different designs to identify which is the best investment.
Districts can use it assess the total cost of ownership for a facility over time.
The values are adjusted for the time-value of money to represent the true value of the investment. Predicted costs for alternative design approaches can then be compared until the approach which provides the lowest overall cost of ownership consistent with the quality level desired for the facility is selected. The true cost of a school is much more than the price to design and build it. The long term costs of operating and maintaining the facility must also be included. And only by looking at all three parameters simultaneously can the impacts of specific design approaches, especially those which result in better long term performance, be evaluated.