In the agricultural industry, small scale farms are at an economic disadvantage to large scale commercial farms and this barrier must be overcome in order for these operations to be successful. Large commercial farms provide a much cheaper product to consumers, due to their use of less labor intensive farming methods, and many have become accustomed these low prices (Reynolds, 2015, p. 10). Although the prices are higher for locally sourced sustainable grown produce, they provide an environmental benefit that some consumers have a hard time putting a dollar value on and are often unwilling to pay for. In order to combat this issue there are some programs that are compensating farmers for the environmental value they are adding by using sustainable farming practices (Reynolds, 2015, p. 10). Although it seems that small scale farms are not as economically viable as large commercial farms, the environmental benefit that they provide does in fact make them viable. LaFarm faces this same struggle of economic viability but because it is an educational farm that is backed by a collegiate institution it does not factor into its success.
LaFarm is a small operation that occupies roughly 3 acres of land whose primary goal is to promote the educational mission of its partner Lafayette College. Overall, the farm maintains a yearly budget of $11,000 (Sarah Edmonds, LaFarm Capstone, 2017). This budgeted capital comes from a combination of donations in addition to produce sales to Bon Appe’tit and several other parties outside Lafayette College. The economic capabilities of the farm are limited so financing both the root cellar along with the classroom isn’t a likely option without some form of outside support. This outside support will have to be sourced from external grants, donors, or funding from the College. With the absence of a predetermined budget from the College or outside donors, the economic feasibility of the project cannot be fully ascertained. However, through a basic cost estimate siting costs of labor and materials we have delivered a financial proposal outlining the funding necessary for the implementation of these designs. By doing so we have laid the economic groundwork for future students to move past the economic analysis and focus on the actual securing approval of the project in the years to come. A future class will be able to take what we have done and create a more detailed estimate in conjunction with the administration to determine if the project is doable or not. Following this we have outlined a more comprehensive analysis of cost estimates, operations and maintenance costs, and economic incentives for constructing both projects. In addition to this, a rough outline has been developed for a possible Senior Design Project in the near future.
Cost Analysis of Root Cellar/Classroom:
We analyzed the economic aspects of the aforementioned root cellar design with our proposed dimensions of 10’x8’x8’ room located 7’ below the surface. In order to determine the costs of such an excavation project, we used data from RSMeans. RSMeans is a series of universal construction standards that are used for cost estimation across the US, and even the globe. Although the actual costs will vary depending on where the project is located and who is doing the work, RSMeans provides a concrete base that can be used to decide whether the project is worth undertaking or not. The bare material, labor, equipment, and totals are all standards for the usage of a 1 cubic yard bucket for the excavation of basic soil that were taken from RSMeans. The total item cost utilizes all of these numbers along with the quantity of soil needed to be removed in order to calculate a total cost for the item. Based on the data, the bare excavation would cost roughly $1,189.50 and be able to be completed within a day. This cost estimate is derived from the amount of raw material, in this case soil, that can physically be excavated by a 1 cubic yard bucket. The cost of excavation includes the renting of the actual excavator and the labor costs necessary for the removal of material. These labor costs, as seen in Table 1 and Table 2 are based on an hourly operating wage for the individual operating the excavator. In order to properly determine the cost of this project, a multiplier must be used to accomodate for costs in the Lehigh Valley region, also provided by RSMeans. Cost multipliers are used in the construction industry to more accurately estimate the cost of projects throughout the U.S. These cost multipliers are geographically distinct due to the varying price of materials and transport of said materials in the respective area of construction. When the local cost multiplier, 1.047x, of the Lehigh Valley is applied the final item cost increases slightly to $1,245.41. In order to account for the overhead and profit (O&P) of the company that will be doing the job, a standard O&P of 20% is used in order to obtain an accurate estimate (Building Construction Costs with RSMeans, 2017). After O&P are taken into account, the cost of the excavation becomes $1494.49. The inclusion of the overhead and profit will provide the college with a more accurate estimation of how much the excavation will cost and be more helpful when determining if they will be undertaking the project or not. This cost might be subject to change depending on the contractor that will be performing the work but this is a good starting point .
Table 1: Excavation Data (RSMeans, 2017)
Table 2: Excavation Costs (RSMeans, 2017)
The basic labor costs, including an hourly and daily rate for each trade, as seen in Table 3, were taken directly from RSMeans for the standard trades that will be needed to perform the work for both the cellar as well as the classroom. All of the trades as well as the hourly and daily rates are listed in the table below. Although the labor costs do not provide a total cost for the project, it provides a basic idea of how much it would cost to run the project on a daily basis. These costs can vary depending on whether the laborers are union affiliated or private contractors or if they deem that more tradesmen are required to perform the work. With a project of this size, we do not foresee the project timeline exceeding more than a month or two, depending on any unforeseen delays or issues that have to be resolved before the project can be started or finished. A deeper analysis would be needed to determine exactly how long the timeline of the project would be and this would be somewhere the next class could pick up where we left off. This would also entail direct coordination with a contractor to outline and compare both timelines and budgets. However, if this project can be formatted into a larger interdisciplinary design project for a future class the timeline would shift to be more accommodating to the classes potential syllabus.
Table 3: Labor Costs (RSMeans, 2017)
Along with the labor costs that will be needed to perform the work, a basic outline of the costs of materials for both the root cellar and the classroom is necessary to understand the economic needs of the project. In the Table 4 and Table 5 below, a list of basic materials needed for both phases of the project are listed along with standard unit costs for those items. All of the prices have been taken from the Home Depot website to help build a basic understanding of the costs for the materials for the project. These costs may vary depending on where the contractor performing the work gets its materials from but we used Home Depot as a standard. A future capstone should look into actual quantities for these materials in order to formulate a total cost for the project, as well as any specialized items such as furnishings and technology needed for the classes that will be held there.
Table 4: Root Cellar Material Unit Costs
Table 5: Classroom Material Unit Costs
Along with the costs of labor, materials, and excavation, the cost of the ground penetrating radar survey must also be taken into account. According to the EPA, the GPR equipment can be rented for $1,000.00 dollars per week along with a mobilization charge of 300 dollars (CLU-IN Technologies – Ground Penetrating Radar, 2018). Alternatively, a technician can be hired to perform the survey along with all of the required reports at a cost of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 per day (CLU-IN Technologies – Ground Penetrating Radar, 2018). Although there are professors at Lafayette college, such as John Wilson, who could conduct the GPR survey, we wanted to provide the potential costs to have a professional perform the work in order to show an alternative to having it done by a member of the faculty. The best option for this project is to hire a technician to perform the work to ensure that the survey is conducted properly and the reports are interpreted in the most appropriate way. This professional GPR survey will be necessary to either support or contradict the survey that was conducted by our group and will provide Lafayette College with a better understanding of the feasibility of the root cellar and classroom at the proposed site.
After analyzing the cost estimates and further discussing some of the logistics with Lisa Miskelly, the group came to the conclusion that the actual construction of the root cellar could be a feasible senior design or capstone project in the future. In accordance with LaFarms educational practices, Lisa suggested keeping the majority of the project internal to Lafayette College’s Engineering and Science departments. Students would in no way be sufficiently qualified to operate heavy excavation equipment or install the subsequent support structures within the root cellar, however it could offer an exceptional learning experience. We believe the further design and construction of the root cellar could be supervised by a faculty member for an Engineering Senior Design Project that would encompass not only several engineering fields of study, but also other scientific fields being pursued by students here at Lafayette College. Those individuals seeking degrees in Engineering Studies, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Geology, Environmental Studies, or any field that could benefit from this design process could come together to participate in a truly interdisciplinary project. By framing this project as an educational process in which students come together and participate in a small scale construction operation, we believe there would be a stronger incentive for the college to aide in its funding. Clearly expanding the actual excavation and construction of the root cellar over the course of an entire semester would be very fiscally inefficient. However, further geotechnical analysis, planning, coordination, acquisition of supplies, and a further development in design could be assessed over the majority of the semester. This would leave the excavation and construction of the root cellar coming into fruition toward the latter portion of the semester, or whenever weather permits.
These economic capabilities won’t necessarily payoff the initial expenses of both the root cellar alongside the classroom. The reality, though, is that such improvement is not the primary purpose of either of these builds. The key benefits are not economic-centric, but rather focused on improving the environmental sustainability alongside the teaching capabilities of LaFarm. These benefits are not directly quantifiable, but more so subjective. As such, weighing costs and benefits of the root cellar and the classroom can’t be done in a spreadsheet. The expected educational and environmental benefits of the root cellar and the classroom must be projected based upon examples seen at other locations and use cases developed by asking faculty and students how much they could see these locations add to their interaction with LaFarm. We didn’t conduct such analysis, but see it as potentially relevant to the project. As such, a future EGRS project or capstone should be focused on conducting such research to improve the overall study of the cost-benefit analysis of the root cellar as well as the LaFarm classroom.
Funding:
With the small yearly budget of $11,000 for LaFarm there is a need for external funding to carry out the construction of the root cellar, the classroom, or both. The options for acquiring this funding include school funding, grants, and alumni funding. School funding is possible, since the school does have an environmental initiative that can be further promoted by the carbon neutrality and sustainable food loop the root cellar will add to LaFarm. External grants are also possible from organizations or funds that provide support for environmental initiatives. Of these three possibilities alumni funding is the most probable. An alumnus with an environmental/farming specific background would likely be interested in providing the capital to build these projects and further the development of the farm, ultimately enhancing an experience relevant to their career path. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for this project so that a future capstone can take what we have done and continue to build on it.
Next Page: