2020 apital udget Instructions PLANNING A APITAL UDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST 6 TYPES OF APITAL PROJETS 8...

2020 Capital Budget Instructions For Capital Budget Projects

Contact:

Greg Ewig, System Director, Capital Development

651-201-1775

[email protected]

Michelle Gerner, Facilities Senior Planner

651-201-1531

[email protected]

April 3, 2018

mailto:[email protected]


MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS

Contents SECTION PAGE TITLE

— 3 OVERVIEW

4 KEY MILESTONES AND DEADLINES

1 PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST

6 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS

8 HIRING A PREDESIGN CONSULTANT

9 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET GUIDELINES

10 IMPACTS OF THE 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST

11 OTHER STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUIREMENTS 12 FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

2 DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST

16 HEAPR: ELIGIBILITY, SUBMITTALS, &

CONSIDERATIONS

17 HEAPR: SCHEDULES AND THRESHOLDS

18 THE HEAPR NARRATIVE (.DOC FILE)

19 THE HEAPR WORKSHEET (.XLS FILE)

SECTION PAGE TITLE

3 DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO

BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST

21 CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDING THRESHOLDS

22 BEFORE YOU BEGIN THE PREDESIGN PROCESS

23 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST SUBMITTAL

REQUIREMENTS

24 PREDESIGN REQUIREMENTS & REVIEW

PROCESS

26 THE PROJECT NARRATIVE (.DOC FILE)

28 THE PROJECT WORKBOOK (.XLS FILE)

30 CAPITAL PROJECT SCORING

APPENDIX

A 33 REFERENCE LINKS

B 34 DETAILED SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL BUDGET AND

HEAPR PROCESSES

C 36 PRIVATE USE QUESTIONNAIRE

D 37 DEFINITIONS

E 41 DRAFT SCORING FORMS: STANDARD AND NEW

NET SQUARE FOOTAGE

3 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS

This document outlines the general requirements and deadlines required of

campuses to submit a 2020-2025 capital budget request. This process begins

with the Board of Trustees establishing capital budget guidelines, kicking off a

two year process that includes solicitation of projects from the campuses,

capital project scoring, and ultimately bringing an approved list to the Board

and through the legislative process.

The capital budget is approved by the Board of Trustees in June of each odd-

numbered year prior to a scheduled capital bonding session at the state

legislature. The 2020 Capital Budget request is expected to be considered by

the Board in June 2019.

A capital project is any non-recurring capital expenditure for the acquisition,

construction or improvement of a permanent facility, and includes:

Real property acquisitions

New construction (whole building, building additions and infrastructure)

Renovation of existing facilities to make program or code improvements

Repair and renewal of building systems in existing facilities

Major capital projects can span several biennia from start to finish. In the 2020

request, the system office will ask campuses to provide detailed project

information for 2020 and estimates for the 2022 and 2024 bonding years.

These instructions may be updated from time to time. Updates will be

published and circulated as supplements to the originally published

instructions.

OVERVIEW

Overview and capital budget schedule

2018 2019 2020

March June Sept Dec Jan March Sept Dec Jan March May

Guidelines approved by Board

Predesign work (campus/architect)

Project Scoring Event

Board approves 2020 Capital Request list

Legislative tours of campuses

Legislative Session

Legislative Session ends—Bonding Bill

3/21/2018

1/2-1/3/2019

3/22/2019

4 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW

Key milestones and deadlines: 2020 Capital Budget

The list below highlights the major milestones and deadlines for the 2020

capital budget process. The schedule for HEAPR projects is on page 17. The

complete Capital Budget schedule is in Appendix A.

Year Date Task/Event

2018 June-September Campus hires predesign architect

June 4 Campuses submit preliminary project title

and cost estimate to system office

August 1 50% submittal (predesign, narrative,

workbook) due to system office

September 21 95% submittal (predesign, narrative,


October Predesign presentations

November Scoring teams appointed

November 15 100% submittal (predesign, narrative,


December System office prepares scoring packages


2019 January 2-3 Scoring Event (MCTC)

January-May 2019 legislative session

February-April Review scoring results; create preliminary

Capital Budget list

May-June Board of Trustees review of Cap. Budget list

June Board approves 2020 Capital Budget Request

October System finalizes request to State of MN

2020 February 2020 legislative session begins

May 2020 legislative session ends

SECTION 1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST


Capital projects fall into two general categories: HEAPR projects, and capital

budget (GO bonding) projects.

HEAPR Projects

Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) is the system’s

number one priority in the 2020 capital budget request. The minimum project

cost for a HEAPR project is $50,000.

The goal of HEAPR funding is to provide a resource to campuses to continue to

keep system facilities safe, warm and dry. State statute outlines the types of

projects that qualify for HEAPR funding. They include:

Code compliance, including health and safety

Americans with Disabilities Act requirements

Hazardous material abatement

Access improvement, or air quality improvement

Building energy efficiency improvements using current best practices

Building or infrastructure repairs necessary to preserve the interior and

exterior of existing buildings

Renewal to support the existing programmatic mission of the campuses

Major Capital Projects

Major capital budget projects are requests for funding of design and/or

construction to improve permanent academic building space where the total

project cost is $2 million or more. Capital projects are financed, in whole or in

part, by general obligation bonds from the state; the Minnesota State system

as a whole pays 1/6 of the debt service on the bonds, and the college or

university requesting the project pays another 1/6 of the debt service. Capital

projects can be new or resubmitted from a previous capital bonding cycle.

The key points of emphasis for major capital projects include:

Addressing regional or statewide academic program needs, especially ones

that can addresses multiple campus needs (such as consolidated science

labs or clinical training space) in one project.

Taking care of what we have by integrating HEAPR-like work into major

capital projects, such as including the cost to replace a roof underneath an

area to be renovated or upgrading campus utilities as part of the major

capital project to ensure sufficient energy capacity in the future.

Integrating a reduction in total square footage. This may include

demolition with replacement of a smaller, more efficient building or

renovation of existing space that incorporates a demolition component.

Integrating flexible and adaptable space solutions, such as modular

furnishings, technology to enhance learning experiences, or rooms that can

be converted to other uses with minimal work.

1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST

Types of capital projects

Minnesota State’s 2020 Capital Budget Request target established by the Board of Trustees is $250 million: $130 million for HEAPR projects, and $120 million for

capital (GO bonding) projects.

$120M

GO Projects

$130M

HEAPR


Initiatives or projects less than $2 million

Initiative projects are smaller GO bonding projects of $2 million or less that

improve academic buildings. The goal of initiative projects is to target

smaller—but still high value—improvements that will enhance the learning

environment, renovate obsolete space, and integrate sustainable systems in

our facilities.

The submittal requirements for initiative projects are the same as major capital

projects: predesign, narrative, and cost workbook (see Section 3).

This year, the following categories are encouraged for initiatives:

Renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and transpired air

collectors)

Student support updates or upgrades (targeting improved space for

tutoring, advising, or other academic/student support functions)

STEM upgrades (laboratory renovations and updates and trade spaces)

Classroom upgrades (e.g., active learning classrooms)

Baccalaureate Access projects (supporting baccalaureate programming on

college campuses)


Types of capital projects


Hiring a consultant for a predesign

You must submit a current predesign for most HEAPR projects and all capital

budget (GO) projects (including projects that have been on the Board’s Capital

Budget list in a previous biennium). For GO bonding projects, updates to

existing predesigns are not acceptable due to changes in statutory, state or

Minnesota State requirements. Use the matrix below to determine whether

your project requires a predesign.

Please see the Predesign Guidelines for Full Predesign and Limited Scope

Predesign formatting requirements.

To hire a predesign consultant:

1. Prepare a predesign RFP. Predesign RFP templates are available here,

under the “Capital Budget Forms and Templates” dropdown:

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/capitalbudget/index.html

2. Consult the system’s Professional/Technical Master Contract list for

qualified architectural firms that offer predesign services (consult Section 4—

Designers & Consultants Selection and Contracts):

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/design-construction/

pm_emanual/index.html

3. Select at least 2-3 firms from the Predesign specialty list to receive an RFP.

Include at least one firm that is designated as a Targeted Group (TG) business.

More details on Targeted Group/Economically Disadvantaged Small Business:

http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/mn02001.htm

4. Be sure that you and your consultant use the Predesign Guidelines when

preparing the predesign:

https://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/planning-programming/

pdf/Predesign-Guidelines-Update-April-2018.pdf


Project type

(funding source)

Type of predesign (PD)

required Related documents

required Full PD

Limited

scope PD

Capital Budget Request

(CBR) - GO bonding All projects n/a

Narrative (.doc) and Workbook

(.xls)

HEAPR project Constr. Cost over

$750K

Constr. Cost

$50K-$750K HEAPR Budget Worksheet (.xls)

Revenue Fund All projects n/a Financial pro forma

All other funding sources Constr. Cost over

$750K

Constr. Cost

$100K-$750K Project Budget Worksheet (.xls)


http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/design-construction/pm_emanual/index.html



https://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/planning-programming/pdf/Predesign-Guidelines-Update-April-2018.pdf


9 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS 1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST

2020 Capital Budget Guidelines

In March 2018 the Board of Trustees approved the 2020–2025 capital budget

guidelines, which establish the general rules and priorities on how the system

will evaluate and prioritize capital projects. The guidelines are grounded in

three strategic principles, known as the Strategic Framework:

1. Ensuring access to an extraordinary education for all Minnesotans

2. Being the partner of choice to meet Minnesota’s workforce and

community needs

3. Delivering to students, employers, communities and taxpayers the

highest value/most affordable higher education option

The capital budget process involves the scoring of capital projects by an

appointed group of representatives from colleges, universities and system

office personnel. The scoring form uses the three Strategic Framework

principles for evaluating a capital project. Further informing the scoring and

prioritization of capital projects are five guidelines established by the Board for

the 2020 capital budget process:

1. Update Academic Spaces. The Board seeks strategic improvements and

modernization of existing campus spaces to support current and emerging

academic and student needs of a region and the state of Minnesota. The

system’s number one priority remains asset preservation to best support

long term facility stewardship and financial sustainability.

2. Ease Barriers to Student Success. Improve opportunities for student

success by updating support services, academic advising, and tutoring

spaces and prioritize space that improves transferability between our

colleges and universities and access to baccalaureate programming.

3. Prioritize Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Infrastructure. Build

for the future with flexible and adaptable spaces that prioritize energy

efficiency and integrate renewable energy sources as a long-term strategy

to enhance environmental and financial sustainability.

4. Limit New Square Footage. Preserve and maintain the space we have by

reinvesting in campus infrastructure and prioritizing renovation over

adding new square footage; additional square footage should be

considered only in unique situations where options for reutilization or

replacement of existing space have been exhausted.

5. $250 million request. The total FY2020 capital investment program target

should be $250 million with approximately $130 million prioritized to

address asset preservation needs and $120 million for major projects to

meet programmatic updates.


Impacts of the 2018 Capital Budget Request

What happens if a project is on the 2018 capital budget list and isn’t funded

Minnesota State requested $225 million for its 2018 capital bonding request,

which is in process at the time these instructions were published. As of this

writing, the legislature and governor have not yet settled on a 2018 bonding

bill.

2018 Capital Projects in 2020 Request

If Minnesota State’s full 2018 request is not funded, the system office expects

that any projects unfunded in 2018 may be submitted as part of a 2019

request, if a bonding bill is considered during the “off-bonding” year legislative

session.

Carry forward projects are those capital projects that were partially funded in

2018, such as for design, that had their next phase planned for 2020.

Projects with multi-biennium funding requests that received their first

phase of funding in 2018 (for design and/or design and partial construction

funding) must carefully review the appropriation language in the law that

authorized the project. A campus must work within the same scope of the

project that was authorized in 2018.

Projects submitted to the legislature on the Board’s 2018 capital budget list,

but not funded, must resubmit for 2020. Campuses must provide an updated

Capital Budget Request submittal, and highlight any adjustments or

modifications to their latest request. Unfunded projects from 2018 with

substantial scope changes will be considered “new” for purposes of the 2020

scoring process.

All resubmitted projects must make an updated Capital Budget Submittal,

including an updated predesign, narrative, and workbook.

Note: Having a project in the 2018 capital bonding request does not necessarily

guarantee a spot on the 2020 list.

Possible 2019 Capital Bonding Request

In the event the legislature and governor consider a supplemental capital

bonding bill in 2019, the system office will ask the Board to endorse a bonding

request based on previously approved and unfunded capital projects. Subject

to Board consideration and approval, system priorities for a 2019 request are:

1. HEAPR funding

2. Board-approved projects that were not funded in the 2018 Capital

Bonding bill

3. Projects partially funded in 2018

Campuses will be asked for additional information prior to the 2019 legislative

session if a bonding bill will be considered, which would include:

1. Current HEAPR project requirements

2. Current predesign or design documentation

3. Update on the cost of their project from the 2018 capital bonding

request

3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST

11 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS 1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST

Other State of Minnesota requirements

Accommodations for Hard of Hearing in State-Funded Capital Projects

During the 2017 legislative session, Minn. Stat. 16C.054 was implemented

which requires state agencies to include a permanent audio-amplification

system, with audio-induction loops to provide an electromagnetic signal for

hearing aids and cochlear implants, in any public gathering space (defined as

intended for gatherings of 15 or more people) where audible communications

are integral to the use of the space.

This provision is not mandated for our colleges and universities, but is

recommended in classroom or laboratory spaces where hearing impaired

students may be attendees. Colleges and universities may wish to include cost

estimates in their predesigns to provide these audio-induction loops.

Private Use of Facilities

Minnesota State capital appropriations traditionally are funded by tax exempt

general obligation bonds issued by the State of Minnesota. As a result, these

projects are subject to tax compliance policies and procedures regarding

private use established by the Internal Revenue Service.

To ensure compliance with IRS codes and to structure our capital budget

request appropriately, campuses must identify space that they expect to

include for non-governmental partners, including the federal government. Any

arrangements with a non-governmental partner using space in one of our

projects must be for a public purpose and must be necessary to accomplish a

governmental program. To determine whether your project has private use,

consult the Private Use Checklist in Appendix C.

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Systems

The State of Minnesota requires a number of renewable energy analyses in

predesigns for GO bonding projects; see the Predesign Guidelines (Section 4)

for more detail. Campuses are strongly encouraged to include sustainable

designs and renewable energy sources (such as solar, geothermal, and wind

energy) in capital projects whenever possible.

Links to relevant websites can be found in Appendix A.

Minnesota State strongly encourages the integration of renewable energy sources into capital project requests.


Financial and budgetary considerations

Sources and Uses of Funds

Capital budget requests must include a full description of the source(s) of

funding. The total project costs should be described, including any special

conditions or financing that is being used to accomplish the project.

Funding Sources

In preparing its capital budget request, the campus will be required to describe

the sources and uses of capital funding. The potential sources are:

1. General Obligation Bonds

2. Revenue Bonds

3. Agency Operating Funds

4. Federal Funds

5. Local Government Funds

6. Private Funds

Most major capital projects will use and request general obligation bonds. If

the project includes a private use component (see Appendix C), identify the

amount attributable to this private use as this allows us to recommend an

approach with MMB regarding the issuance of taxable general obligation

bonds. Taxable general obligation bonds may cost the campus more in total

costs because interest rates may be slightly higher. Taxable general obligation

bonds are a substantial exception to funding for college and university

improvements and this source of funding must be identified and fully vetted up

front. The campus is responsible for any additional costs incurred by the state

to undertake a separate taxable bond sale.

Multiple sources of funding

Campuses must identify multiple sources of funding in their capital budget

request. Where other sources of capital funding are used, campuses must

identify the:

1. Type

2. Amount

3. Conditions to receipt of funds

4. Schedule for delivery of funds

Campuses must have funds committed from non-state sources that, when

added with the amount of the bond request, add up to cover the full cost of

the project.

Inflation Assumptions

Inflation is an essential part of calculating accurate capital budgets. A cost

estimator will typically calculate the cost of a building project based on prices

available at the time the estimate is prepared. Based on forecasts of future

trends in building costs, the project cost estimate is multiplied by an

appropriate inflation factor to allow for future inflationary cost increases

during the project’s construction timeline.

How Are Costs Inflated?

The campus should first determine building project costs based on “today’s”

present value. Present value is an estimate of the project cost for July 31,

2018. Present value is then inflated to the midpoint of construction based on

the project schedule. The project workbook (Project Costs tab) will

automatically calculate inflation when the midpoint of construction is entered.




Midpoint of Construction

The state’s capital budget process defines “midpoint of construction” as the

date midway between the construction commencement date and the date of

substantial completion. The “date of commencement” is the start of the

construction period when construction forces arrive on the project site.

“Substantial completion” is when progress of the work is sufficiently complete

so the owner can occupy or utilize the work site for its intended purpose.

Midpoint of construction is used because it most accurately represents the

costs that contractors will use at the time of bid preparation. While it is true

that many material costs are committed early in construction (for example,

fabricated steel), other material and labor costs are not locked in and will

continue to increase until final completion. Some non-building items such as

furniture, fixtures, and equipment may not be procured until the very end of

the project.

Inflation For 2020 requests

To find the appropriate inflation cost for a project, the campus and architect

should identify the month and year closest to the midpoint of construction and

include that date in the Project Cost tab of the workbook. The tab is coded

with the latest inflation factors supplied by Minnesota Management & Budget.

The Building Project Inflation Schedule is expected to change during the course

of the review process, and the system office will update project inflation

factors to reflect the most current publication of inflation schedules.

Inflation for 2019 Bonding Bill

The system office will work with campuses to calculate inflation for projects in

the event of a 2019 bonding bill. MMB typically issues specific advice on

inflation schedules in advance of an odd-year bonding bill.

Qualified Capital Expenditures

General obligation bond proceeds may only be used for qualified capital

expenditures. Eligible costs include land acquisition, design, construction,

major remodeling (if it adds to the value or life of a building and is not of a

recurring nature), and other improvements or acquisitions of tangible fixed

assets of a capital nature.

General operating expenses, overhead, master planning, maintenance,

operating costs, software and personal property such as computers are not

qualified capital expenses. Equipment may be eligible if purchased and

installed upon initial acquisition and construction of a building, expansion or

major remodeling. Expenses that are not qualified capital expenses must be

paid from funds other than general obligation bond proceeds or from general

fund cash if not prohibited by law. The system may use bond proceeds only for

direct capital costs and not for depreciation, amortization, overhead, general

administration or similar costs.

Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) are considered a bondable cost for

new construction or major renovation projects. Office systems furniture is an

Although predesign fees are capital bonding eligible, the Minnesota State system requires campuses to fund predesign

costs out of their operating budgets. To calculate construction dates, assume funding will be available on

July 1, 2020 for an FY2020 request.




example of a bondable cost; information technology systems are another

example when they are part of a new building or major renovation.

Moving and Relocation Expenses

Minnesota Management & Budget (MMB) adopted a policy that bond

proceeds cannot be used for moving and relocation expenses. This took effect

after the 2012 capital bonding bill, and is retroactive to past bonding

appropriations. Costs expected to be incurred for moving and relocation of

equipment, furnishings and technology should be accounted for in the

college’s/university’s operating budget and be available when a project is

funded.

Cost Estimating

While cost estimating is crucial during any capital project, the variability of the

construction industry has made cost estimating at the predesign level even

more critical. When your consultants prepare cost estimates for predesign

work, be sure to:

Account for any necessary HVAC or building systems work (roofs, windows,

etc.)

Account for any costs for rooftop solar readiness (including roof condition

and obstruction assessment, structural and electrical assessment, and

warranty assessment)

Include an appropriate level of costs for furnishings, fixtures and

equipment (FF&E) and technology

Reserve 0.25% of the total construction cost to meet SB2030 Energy

Standard in Operations.

Include all expenses that might be incurred beside moving and relocation — such as lease or storage costs — when calculating the

total impact of the project.

Matching funds and partners: Describe any matching funds and co-location of partners that is anticipated in the capital project area.

Federal tax regulations require a careful analysis.


SECTION 2: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST


HEAPR Project Eligibility

The goal of HEAPR funding is to provide a resource to campuses to continue to

keep system facilities safe, warm and dry. State statute outlines the types of

projects that qualify for HEAPR funding. They include:

Code compliance, including health and safety

Americans with Disabilities Act requirements

Hazardous material abatement

Access improvement, or air quality improvement

Building energy efficiency improvements using current best practices

Building or infrastructure repairs necessary to preserve the interior and

exterior of existing buildings

Renewal to support the existing programmatic mission of the campuses

HEAPR Project Submittals

Each request for a HEAPR project must be accompanied by the following

submittals (see page 8 to determine whether a predesign is required):

Full scope of work, including specific impact on backlog and Facilities

Condition Index (FCI). Comprehensive cost estimate by building system –

HVAC; roof; exteriors; or health, safety, and welfare. Include any hazardous

material abatement estimates.

Operational savings or costs – ongoing operating expenditures, in

particular energy cost savings, and whether the campus has considered

utilizing the Guaranteed Energy Savings program.

Schedule

Options/alternatives that were evaluated.

Considerations for HEAPR projects

Generally, the system office will honor prioritized requests and distribute

HEAPR appropriations across a broad geographic area, targeting the highest

priority projects by institution. The system will consider the following five

factors when prioritizing overall system-wide HEAPR requests:

1. Safety and security. Immediate threat or harm to the safety of students,

faculty, and staff

2. Code, compliance or identified obligation. Imminent enforcement actions or

fines for failure to comply that can’t otherwise be covered by campus

operating funds

3. Imminent facility system failure. Where there is no suitable back up option

and failure will directly halt or severely impact space or operations

4. Integral part of state system need and leverages other funds. For example,

if the federal government issued grants in support of energy efficiency

projects

5. Part of a key partnership or collaboration effort.

When considering a HEAPR request, the system will also weigh the following:

1. A campus’s past spending and encumbrance patterns of prior HEAPR

projects

2. Adequacy of submittal documentation

3. Facilities Condition Index of the campus and building where work is

proposed

4. Past appropriations of HEAPR to a campus

5. Backlog per square foot


HEAPR: Eligibility, submittals, & considerations


HEAPR: Schedules and thresholds



2018 Late July Campuses review HEAPR list, identify projects for

FY2019, engage A/E consultants

September 21 NEW PROJECTS: 50% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,

Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due to system office

November 30 NEW PROJECTS: 100% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,


EXISTING PROJECTS: HEAPR updates (Predesign

update, Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due

December 1 System office publishes 2019 HEAPR list

HEAPR Schedule for 2020 Capital Budget


2019 May Campuses review HEAPR list, identify projects for

FY2020, engage A/E consultants

September 30 NEW PROJECTS: 50% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,


November 22 NEW PROJECTS: 100% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,


EXISTING PROJECTS: HEAPR updates (Predesign

update, Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due

December 18 System office publishes 2020 HEAPR list

HEAPR Schedule for 2019 Capital Budget HEAPR thresholds and submittals

$50,000 HEAPR project minimum

$50,000 – $749,999 HEAPR Narrative form and limited-scope predesign

describing scope of work and a verifiable cost

obtained, for example, through consultation with

contractor experienced in the work. The HEAPR

submittal must include:

Description of project

Rationale for why is project needed

FCI of building where work will occur and

estimated reduction

What will happen if project is not funded

$750,000 – $1.9M Predesign is required

Predesign should include prioritization of

multiple HEAPR project requests from an

institution

Complex project means multiple systems

impacted (such as Energy Management system,

major HVAC with roof impacts)

$2 million and up Same requirements as $750K+ projects

Tech advisory review (system office)

Utility master plan


HEAPR: Narrative template

New for 2019 and 2020. Each HEAPR request must include a completed HEAPR

Narrative form (.doc file). This one-page form contains basic information about

your HEAPR project: its anticipated scope, cost, schedule, and facilities impact.



HEAPR: Worksheet template

The HEAPR Budget Worksheet outlines all

costs associated with the project and their

funding sources. If the project will receive

funding in multiple biennia, make sure to list

the funding for those biennia separately in the

“Funding Sources” section.

This worksheet must be updated each time

the HEAPR project is submitted or resubmitted

to the system office.


SECTION 3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO

BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST


Capital budget (GO bonding) funding request thresholds

Funding Request Thresholds

Traditionally, design funding is sought in one biennium and construction is

requested in the following biennium for projects above a certain threshold.

This year:

Total project request of $5 million or less. May request design and

construction funding in one biennium, provided that the full project can be

completed within two years of receiving appropriations.

Requests between $5-$10 million. Design and construction phasing

options will be considered on a case by case basis.

Project request more than $10 million in total cost. Should request design

funding in 2020 and construction funding in a subsequent biennium.

Capital Project Delivery methods

Capital projects within the Minnesota State system typically use one of two

project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or Construction Manager at

Risk (CM@R). For more information on these delivery methods, please consult

the system’s Project Management eManual (http://www.minnstate.edu/

system/finance/facilities/design-construction/pm_emanual/doc/Forms%

20Archive/Old%20Forms/current%20eManual.pdf).


http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/design-construction/pm_emanual/doc/Forms%20Archive/Old%20Forms/current%20eManual.pdf


Before you begin the predesign process

This list below is a starting point for capital budget request projects. Your

predesign consultant will need the information below before they begin the

predesign.

1. Review your comprehensive facilities plan. Each project requested in the

capital budget process should have a connection to the campus’s

comprehensive facilities plan.

2. Assemble and review past project documentation:

Predesigns

Past capital project narratives or spreadsheets

Funding earlier phases of a project

3. Collect and assemble core facilities data:

2018 Building gross square footage

2018 Facilities Condition Index

2017 Backlog and 10 year renewal forecasts

Space utilization rates for classroom and lab spaces from past 2 years

Energy consumption and cost trends for the last 3 years

Institution’s repair and replacement spending in cost per square foot for

last 3 years

4. Collect and assemble other key data:

General Enrollment Data and Trends

FYE (FY15-17) (Credit)

Headcount (FY15-17) Credit and Non-Credit

Full time/Part Time Enrollment

Enrollment - % Students of Color

Average age of student

Financial Data and Trends

Current operating expenses – utilities, R&R spending, routine maintenance

and operations spending

If applicable: Financial Recovery Plan Status

Debt service FY15-17

Academic Data

Program descriptions for areas to be impacted by project

Program enrollments, including any future forecasts

Degree / award attainment overall institution and for the program FY15-17

Personnel

Number of faculty or staff impacted by project

Number of offices impacted by project

Student Support Data

Numbers who use student support services (advising, tutoring, business

services)



2020 Capital Budget Request submittal requirements

To be considered for inclusion in the 2020 capital budget process, campuses

must provide a complete submittal for each project, to include:

Predesign. Following Minnesota State predesign guidelines, a predesign

document describing the specific project request, including the scope,

schedule and cost.

Project Narrative. High level summary describing the project, its impact

on students, programs, square footage and reduction of backlog and

overall cost to the campus.

Cost Workbook. Describes the comprehensive cost estimate and funding

sources for the entire project and the expected impact on a campus’s

operating expenses.

(Optional) Digital photographs. Campuses may submit 2-3 high quality

digital photographs of the areas to be improved by the proposed capital

project. Photos should be at least 10 megapixels (3872 x 2592), 8-bit RGB

high quality/lightly compressed jpeg. The pictures should be publication

quality, as they may be used for the system’s capital bonding book,

scoring, and capital budget presentations.

Unless these materials are provided within established timelines, the project

will not be included in the 2020 capital budget request.

All project documents must be submitted by the campus to the Capital Budget

Request SharePoint site (restricted access):

https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/CBR/Shared%20Documents/Forms/

AllItems.aspx


https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/CBR/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx



Predesign requirements and submittal review process

Draft Submittal Review

After a consultant is selected by the campus and work begins, the system office

reviews project predesigns, narratives, and financial workbooks at various draft

stages. The system’s Predesign Guidelines provide the framework for

predesign organization.

Project Narrative and Cost Workbook

Campuses are required to submit a Project Narrative and Workbook along with

each predesign. These documents provide additional details required by the

State of Minnesota’s Capital Budget System and legislative staff and legislators

when making capital budget decisions.

The goal of the Project Narrative and Workbook is to summarize the major

components of the project. Think of this as your primary sales tool for your

project, as this description and information will be relied on when submitting

the project for formal consideration during scoring, for bonding book details,

and ultimately to the State of Minnesota.

System Office Review and Feedback

The campus and consultant must submit document drafts to the system office

for review when the predesign is approximately 50% and 95% complete. Refer

to the Capital Budget Schedule for draft submittal deadlines. Draft review

ensures consistency in predesign submittals and allows the system office to

offer recommendations on how to improve the project submittal.

1. Submittal of 50% drafts:

The 50% predesign should include core campus data, basic location of the

project and estimated costs.

Document is organized in a manner consistent with the Predesign

Guidelines

Basic summary of the project – scope, schedule and cost

Identification of where the project is found in the campus Comprehensive

Facilities Plan

Identification of academic programs impacted

Identification of partners involved (3rd party or other Minnesota State)

Campus and building maps identifying general project area

Data that the campus is using in support of the project

Depending on timing of the submittal for the predesigns, allow at least 2

weeks for review and feedback from the system office. Given the

substantial amount of submittals, if your campus misses the deadline, the

system office cannot guarantee review and feedback on a project.

2. Submittal of 95% drafts:

Predesign, narrative, and workbook should be nearly complete and

incorporate the feedback and recommendations from the system office’s

50% review.


Deadlines for Capital Budget Request submittals

June 4, 2018 Campuses submit preliminary project title and cost

estimate to system office

August 1, 2018 50% submittal (predesign, narrative, workbook) due to

system office

September 21, 2018 95% submittal (predesign, narrative, workbook) due to

system office

October 2018 Predesign presentations

November 15, 2018 100% submittal (predesign, narrative, workbook) due to

system office


Predesign requirements and submittal review process

3. Predesign Presentation:

Shortly after the system office has reviewed the 95% drafts, the system office

will schedule a short predesign presentation via web conference. The

purpose is to:

Close out the predesign process

Offer recommendations on improvements

Verify the project parameters

Solicit any additional information outstanding for the project

The participants include the system office capital development staff,

Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities and other staff members (for example,

academic affairs or ITS) as projects and needs dictate.

A PowerPoint template for the presentation, as well as presentation

instructions, can be found at the Facilities SharePoint site here (restricted

access):

https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/finance/SitePages/topic.aspx?

topicID=17&state=about

4. Final (100%) submittal

After the predesign presentation, the system office will send the campus a

letter approving the project to move forward to scoring, or requesting

changes before proceeding. The deadline for final CBR submittals is

November 15, 2018. This is a “hard” deadline — the system office cannot

guarantee that submittals received after this date will be included in the CBR

scoring process for 2020.


https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/finance/SitePages/topic.aspx?topicID=17&state=about

https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/finance/SitePages/topic.aspx?topicID=17&state=about


The Project Narrative (.doc file)

How to write a great narrative and predesign

Keep in mind “four C’s” when writing content for the narrative (and predesign):

1. Concise: Keep your descriptions sharp, colorful, and to the point. Include

necessary detail and explanation, but avoid repetition.

2. Clear: Make sure the reader can understand the scope, cost, and

schedule for the project. What will the project accomplish? Who will

benefit? What costs are included in the estimate?

3. Concrete: Use non-jargon words and include key facts and numbers; for

example, “the current program is limited to 50 FYE due to space

constraints…the new project allows the program to serve all 250 students

on the wait list…”

Avoid ambiguous or poorly-defined words and phrases like

“dynamic” “best-in-class” and “21st-Century learning.”

Avoid general statements like “this project will positively impact a

large number of students.” How many students are impacted? How

will the project impact them?

4. Complete: Make sure all sections of the narrative are complete; be sure

to fully answer the questions asked and address any unusual circumstances

for your project. Use complete sentences, not sentence fragments.

Why is good writing important?

The obvious answer to this question is that well written project narratives are

better understood by scoring teams, system leadership, and legislators, and are

thus more likely to get funding.



The Project Narrative (.doc file)

Why is good writing important? (continued)

The less obvious answer is that we use the narrative description in a number of

locations — for scoring, for legislative presentations, for the bonding book, and

for submitting the formal request to the state. Strong writing within the CBR

makes it easy to promote the project through these venues.

What do the Project Narrative sections mean?

1. Project Summary: This is the “headline” — something that would show up

in the bonding book and would be the main item that the Board and

legislators would see. 3-4 sentences max.

2. Project Description: Describe a bit more about the project and the scope

of work. Expand a bit on the project summary.

3. Project Rationale: Describe the rationale and justification for the project.

Get specific – use demographics, survey/feedback from students,

enrollment, academic plans.

Guidelines

When submitting drafts to the SharePoint site, always upload the .doc file

(not a .pdf copy).

Do not change the text formatting — all text should be 10 pt. Arial. Avoid

the use of bold or italics; this type of formatting does not translate well

when copied into the State’s Capital Budget System. Bullet points are

acceptable.



The Cost Workbook (.xls file)

Workbook tips

The Statutory Requirements tab (#6) is for reference only.

Be sure to fill out the header information (campus name and project name)

separately for each worksheet.

When submitting drafts to SharePoint, always upload the complete .xls file

(not a .pdf copy).

5 tabs you’ll need to fill out:

1. Prior Year Funding

Be sure to fill out the “Funding” and “Expenses” portions; Expenses should

equal Funding for each fiscal year

Use Other State Funds to show predesign fees paid by the campus

2. Funding Sources

This is the total amount of funding you are requesting (or receiving) for

each biennium.

The amounts shown on line 23 (Total Funding Sources Related to the

Request) should equal the Grand Total—Project Costs (Project Cost tab) for

each fiscal year

3. Project Cost

Cells with gray shading are auto-calculated

The inflation multiplier (line 8b) will auto-calculate based on the midpoint

of construction that you enter on line 8a

New for 2020: Additional Design and Project Management fees. With the

implementation of the latest version of B3 design guidelines, we expect

there may be additional costs as the new standards are incorporated and


compliance obtained. This year's project cost sheet calls out those

particular costs related to additional B3 requirements. Costs for design and

project management should contemplate adequate funds needed for the

necessary consultants.

Row 11 (Costs Less Funding—auto-calculated) should always equal zero

Cells in row 10 will autofill your total funding from the Funding Sources tab

1% for Art: up to 1% of construction cost for the acquisition of art for public

spaces or grounds

The Project Workbook contains 5 required tabs.


The Cost Workbook (.xls file)

Work with Metody Popov ([email protected]) in Financial

Reporting to obtain the estimated debt service for the project. The college

or university will be responsible for 1/6 share.

Occupancy costs (section 7): Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) are

items not normally considered permanently attached to the structure but

are considered a bondable cost in situations of new construction or major

renovation. Office systems furniture is an example. Equipment is not

eligible unless purchased and installed upon initial acquisition and

construction of a building, expansion or major remodeling and needed for

the program to be operated in the project.

Information technology systems: Computers and software are

generally not bondable costs, but they may be eligible in certain

circumstances.

Telecommunications (voice & data) are specialty equipment supplied

by a separate contact from those for construction or FF&E.

Security Equipment is usually supplied by a separate contract from

those for construction or FF&E.

IT Costs (row 12) are new information technology costs as a result of the

project that would be managed by MN.IT. These costs are not included in

the Grand Total - Project Costs.

4. Operating Costs

Calculate operating costs per biennium

Operating costs should not include personnel/labor costs

5. Construction Costs

Be sure to enter costs in full dollars (unlike other tabs, where costs are

entered in thousands)


The Project Cost tab.



Generally, a net increase in square footage by 5,000 sq. ft. or less for

purposes of accommodating egress, addressing access or ADA issues, or that

would be more cost effective than renovation will be excluded from

considerations of “no new net square footage”.

Capital Project Scoring

Major capital projects and initiatives are subject to a scoring process involving

president-appointed representatives from nearly all system universities and

colleges. These representatives come together for a scoring session that is

scheduled for early January 2019 at Minneapolis Community and Technical

College. Representatives are assigned to teams that discuss and score 6-8

capital project submittals each. Scoring teams are designed to have members

of diverse geography (rural/urban), type of institution (college/university), and

job disciplines (academic, student affairs, finance, facilities, IT). No

representative scores a project from their own institution.

Capital project scores are tabulated and rank ordered to help create a

recommended capital budget list for the Chancellor’s consideration. The

Chancellor reviews the list and may adjust the list to reflect a 2019 capital

bonding bill or other emerging issues that may have bearing on the project

priorities. After Chancellor review, the list is shared with the Leadership

Council, and then finalized to be presented as a recommendation for Board

approval.

Scoring criteria organized around the Strategic Framework integrate the

guiding principles from the Board’s capital budget guidelines. Scoring forms

can be found in Appendix E.

Prior to scoring, the system office will evaluate each project for three core

considerations. Projects will receive “bonus points” for each consideration that

is met (maximum 32 points total):

1. Project received funding for design and/or construction in 2018 or a prior

year.

2. Project predesign analysis includes an energy reduction over current

consumption.

3. Project will result in a net reduction in square footage when completed.

Minimizing Square Footage

One point of emphasis for 2020, like previous years, will be on creating

better—not necessarily bigger—space to serve students. Projects that shrink a

footprint while improving the quality of instructional or student support space

are preferred. Additional scoring criteria will be applied to projects that

propose additional square footage for a campus. The Board’s goal is to put

forth a 2020 capital budget request that reduces the overall net square

footage of the system, but does not prohibit projects that propose the addition

of new square footage where circumstances warrant.

Scoring Team 1

Scoring Team 2

Scoring Team 3

Average Score

Each capital project is scored separately by 3 teams. The project’s final score is the average of the 3 scores.



Capital Project Scoring

Scoring Feedback

Scoring teams are strongly encouraged to provide written feedback on how to

improve the project request.

After the scoring process, the system office prepares a Project Analysis that is

used by system leadership (including the Chancellor and Leadership Council).

Each college or university receives a copy of the analysis for their project(s).

The analysis form lists the total score from each scoring team as well as the

average of the 3 teams’ scores. It also contains all written feedback from the

scoring teams. Campuses do not receive copies of the teams’ scoring forms for

their projects.


APPENDIX

33 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW

Appendix A: Reference Links

The links on this page are also included within the various sections of this document.

Link Description

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/

capitalbudget/index.html

Main Facilities Capital Budget website for guidelines, forms, and

templates (including HEAPR forms).

https://mnscu.sharepoint.com/sites/CBR/Shared%

20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx

CBR SharePoint site for uploading CBR and HEAPR submittals

(restricted access)

https://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/planning-

programming/pdf/Predesign-Guidelines-Update-April-2018.pdf

Predesign Guidelines (including HEAPR requirements)

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/

capitalbudget/pdf/2020-Capital-Budget-

Guidelines_Excerpt_BOT_march-2018-packet.pdf

Capital Budget Guidelines approved by the Board of Trustees on

March 21, 2018

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/design-

construction/pm_emanual/index.html

Project eManual Documents (Design & Construction) for vendor

selection and contracting

http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/mn02001.htm Targeted Group/Economically Disadvantaged Small Business

information

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/chartingthefuture/

index.html

Charting the Future information







http://www.minnstate.edu/system/finance/facilities/capitalbudget/pdf/2020-Capital-Budget-Guidelines_Excerpt_BOT_march-2018-packet.pdf






http://www.minnstate.edu/system/chartingthefuture/index.html

http://www.minnstate.edu/system/chartingthefuture/index.html

34

M

INN

ESO

TA S

TA

TE 2

02

0 C

AP

ITA

L B

UD

GET

INST

RU

CTI

ON

S

Ap

pe

nd

ix B

: D

eta

iled

sch

ed

ule

of

20

20

Cap

ital

Bu

dge

t p

roce

ss

No

te: Th

is s

chedu

le is

subje

ct t

o c

han

ge. C

heck

un

der

the C

apit

al B

udget

Inst

ruct

ion

s h

eadin

g o

nlin

e f

or

the

late

st s

chedu

le. h

ttp:/

/ww

w.m

inn

state

.edu

/syst

em

/fin

an

ce/f

aci

liti

es/

capit

alb

udget/

index.

htm

l


35

M

INN

ESO

TA S

TA

TE 2

02

0 C

AP

ITA

L B

UD

GET

INST

RU

CTI

ON

S

Ap

pe

nd

ix B

: D

eta

iled

sch

ed

ule

s o

f 2

01

9/2

02

0

HEA

PR

pro

cess

No

te: Th

is s

chedu

le is

subje

ct t

o c

han

ge. C

heck

un

der

the C

apit

al B

udget

Inst

ruct

ion

s h

eadin

g o

nlin

e f

or

the

late

st s

chedu

le. h

ttp:/

/ww

w.m

inn

state

.edu

/syst

em

/fin

an

ce/f

aci

liti

es/

capit

alb

udget/

index.

htm

l


36

M

INN

ESO

TA S

TA

TE 2

02

0 C

AP

ITA

L B

UD

GET

INST

RU

CTI

ON

S

Ap

pe

nd

ix C

: P

riva

te U

se Q

ue

stio

nn

aire

Y

es

No

Will

a p

orti

on

of

this

pro

ject

fac

ility

be

leas

ed

to

an

yon

e?

Will

Pri

vate

par

tie

s m

anag

e o

r o

pe

rate

an

y o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

in t

he

fac

ility

?

Gift

sh

op

/Bo

oks

tore

Caf

ete

ria,

re

stau

ran

t o

r o

the

r fo

od

se

rvic

e

Co

nce

ssio

n s

tan

ds

Co

ffe

e c

art

or

oth

er

reta

il ki

osk

s

Par

kin

g

Are

na,

au

dit

ori

um

or

the

ate

r

An

y o

the

r p

orti

on

of

the

faci

lity?

Will

th

ere

be

any

arra

nge

me

nts

wit

h p

riva

te p

arti

es

for:

Use

of

ext

ra f

acili

ty s

pac

e

Use

of

po

rtio

ns

of

faci

lity

du

rin

g o

ff h

ou

rs

(in

clu

din

g m

ee

tin

g/b

anq

ue

t ro

om

s, a

ud

ito

riu

ms/

thea

ters

)

Ce

ll p

ho

ne

to

we

rs

Sola

r o

r w

ind

po

we

r e

qu

ipm

en

t

N

amin

g ri

ghts

Res

ear

ch

Will

a p

orti

on

of

the

pro

ject

be

use

d f

or

rese

arch

pu

rsu

ant

to a

co

op

era

tive

re

sear

ch a

gree

me

nt?

Will

an

yon

e o

ther

th

an t

he

req

ues

tor

hav

e a

pri

ori

ty r

igh

t to

ou

tpu

t fr

om

th

e

pro

ject

(e

.g.,

dam

s, t

urb

ine

s, p

ow

er

gen

era

tio

n)?

Will

pri

vate

par

ties

per

form

an

y se

rvic

es

for

thir

d p

arti

es

at t

he

fac

ility

(e

.g.,

ch

ild

care

cen

ter,

hea

lth

an

d w

elln

ess

cen

ter)

?

Will

an

y p

riva

te p

arti

es

hav

e p

rio

rity

rig

hts

to

th

e u

se o

f th

e fa

cilit

y o

r co

ntr

ol

ove

r an

y o

f it

s p

olic

ies

or

pro

ced

ure

s (i

ncl

ud

ing

pri

ces

and

det

ails

of

op

era

tio

n)?

If y

ou

an

swer

ed “

yes”

to

an

y o

f th

e q

ues

tio

ns

abo

ve, y

ou

r P

red

esig

n a

nd

Nar

rati

ve m

ust

exp

lain

th

e

pro

po

sed

use

r, t

erm

, an

d a

nti

cip

ate

d s

cop

e o

f u

se o

r se

rvic

e b

ein

g p

rovi

ded

.


Asset Preservation: the state’s capital budget guidelines describe it as

"committing necessary resources to preserving, repair, or adaptive re-use of

current assets." Renewal in this context is defined as "expenditures to keep

the physical plant in reliable operating condition for its present use, without

programmatic change." Higher Education systems are governed under Minn.

Stat. §135A.046, Asset Preservation and Replacement, which further defines

the categories of asset preservation and replacement. See HEAPR on the

following page.

B3: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond: B3 refers to two component items

designed to reduce energy consumption in public buildings: building

sustainability requirements and energy benchmarking. The B3 Sustainable

Building Guidelines are statutory requirements applicable to all new buildings

and major renovations of 10,000 sq. ft. or more that include replacement of

HVAC. Guidelines are available at http://www.msbg.umn.edu/. Energy

benchmarking is found here: https://mn.b3benchmarking.com/default.aspx

Commissioning (Cx) Plan: B3 projects must develop a Commissioning Plan

(Cx Plan) from the OPR with the assistance of the architect, engineer,

commissioning authority and owner. The Cx Plan should follow section 7

and Appendix E in ASHRAE 202-2013.

Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR): B3 projects must develop an

Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) document, beginning at the

predesign or equivalent phase. This document is developed in

coordination with the owner, commissioning authority, architect, engineer

and any other relevant stakeholders. A commissioning authority must be

established at the predesign phase to complete the early-phase goal

setting. The OPR includes:

1. A list of the authors who developed the document and assisted in early

team kickoff and goal setting meetings.

2. All sections listed in Section 6, Appendix D of ASHRAE 202-2013.

3. A preliminary SB 2030 Energy Standard, as created through the SB 2030

Energy Standard Tool.

4. Regular updates and developments as the owner’s requirements

change and project details become available.

5. The requirement that trend data is able to be saved for major

equipment for a minimum of two months if a building automation system

is requested in the OPR.

Capital project: A project for construction, renovation, major repair/

replacement, or land acquisition, such that the total cost is “capitalized” on

the books of the college or university under traditional accounting standards.

Capital projects are normally authorized and funded by the state legislature,

through the sale of tax exempt state general obligation bonds. Bonds are

backed by the “full faith and credit” of the state, with interest based on the

state’s current bond rating, and are repaid over 20 years. The state of

Minnesota carries 2/3 of the cost of the bonds for higher education capital

projects; the remaining 1/3 is split between the system as a whole and the

college or university benefiting from the project. A capital project includes all

costs associated with delivery of that project: design, construction,

demolition, testing, inspection, furniture and furnishings, equipment, land

acquisition, and project management.

Composite Financial Index (CFI): A measurement tool used to annually gauge

the financial health of a college or university based on generally accepted

accounting principles (GAAP). A higher CFI indicates stronger health, with a CFI

of 3 being a target benchmark. The Higher Learning Commission has noted

Appendix D: Definitions

http://www.msbg.umn.edu/

https://mn.b3benchmarking.com/default.aspx


that if a campus is below 1.0, it is a warning sign concerning an institution’s

financial health. For purposes of evaluating capital projects, the CFI will be

examined over a three year time period. The CFI consists of four ratios or

measures that are complex and aim for a more balanced look at financial

health. The two current operating measures, return on net assets and

operating margin, demonstrate the level of return on net assets and the

extent to which operating revenues do or do not cover operating expenses,

respectively. The primary reserve and viability ratios measure an

organization’s liquid net assets that are available directly, or through

additional borrowing, to cover emergency expenditures or invest in

innovation.

Capital Renewal (formerly FRRM): This program, implemented in 2005,

forecasts the life cycle of building components and systems to determine and

quantify campus conditions, both in terms of backlog of needs not addressed

(or deferred due to lack of funding) and the upcoming needs for renewal of

major systems and sub-systems. The model is updated by campus personnel

on a yearly basis, thus providing an ongoing forecast of campus conditions.

The model has 2005 as the base year and is updated by campus personnel

annually.

Debt service: Payments made by the state for principal, interest and issuance

costs for the 20-year general obligation bonds. Minnesota State’s colleges and

universities pay one-third of the debt service on their own projects, except

Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement funding (HEAPR).

Deferred Maintenance and Repair Backlog (“Backlog”): Necessary facilities

renewal work that has not been accomplished and has been deferred due to

lack of funding and forecast based on Capital Renewal (formerly FRRM). This is

often referred to as “deferred maintenance”, which can give the mistaken

impression that work has been deferred due to inattentiveness to

maintenance or repair. A better term is “deferred capital renewal.” Items in

the backlog might be in marginal condition, be obsolete where replacement

parts are no longer available, be in failing condition, or have already failed and

will require expensive repairs in the future.

For example, a boiler or roof that is past its useful life expectancy and is

marginally functioning would be in the backlog. A single pane window

system may be 50 years old, has failing material composition due to age and

is energy inefficient. Despite the fact it provides marginal view and weather

protection, the window system would be in the backlog. On the other hand,

a 40-year old boiler may be in top condition due to exceptional maintenance

and timely replacement of components. It would not be in the backlog.

For Capital Renewal purposes, backlog represents the existing (or

extrapolated) estimated costs associated with major maintenance, repair and

replacement requirements for buildings, grounds, fixed equipment and

infrastructure. The total equals the amount of funding that is needed for a

facility or entire campus to be “whole and at current value.” It does not

include work that is associated with program or academic improvements.

Note the word ‘deferred’ is used only in that lack of funding creates this

‘deferred’ condition and does not imply that the campus has willingly chosen

to not maintain the physical plant.

Facility Condition Index (FCI): A ratio to measure the physical condition of a

building, or entire campus, with the value of deferred maintenance and repair

divided by the replacement plant value. The Association of Higher Education

Facilities Officers (APPA) indicates an FCI less than 5% is considered “good;”



5% to 10% as “fair;” and over 10% as “poor.” Through the FRRM

documentation, the system has been tracking conditions since 2005. The 2010

extrapolation for all the campuses indicated a system wide average FCI of 0.11

or 11%. Campus FCI will be evaluated over a three year time period in

connection with review of projects.

Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E): The outfitting phase of the

project. State policy allows the purchase of FF&E using bond proceeds when

included in a capital project. Most FF&E is purchased by the college or

university using recommendations from the project architect, MinnCor (prison

industries), or local preferences and sources. Computers and other technology

equipment may also be procured this way as part of the project.

Guaranteed Energy Savings Program (GESP): A financing and construction

strategy using energy and operational savings achieved through 1) the

installation of energy efficient and renewable energy equipment and 2)

implementation of operational best practices to finance the cost of building

retrofit and renewal projects, with no net cost increase to the public entity.

Although GESP has been in existence for many years, the state has recently

prioritized the use of the GESP through the Department of Commerce

program.

Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) (“hee-purr”).

The HEAPR program, defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 135A.046,

focuses on facilities maintenance and repair needs that are capital in nature

and unable to be funded through the campus operating budget. HEAPR also

includes funding for compliance with life safety and building codes; Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; hazardous material abatement and

indoor air quality improvements; and facilities renewal in support of existing

programs. As a part of the capital budget, HEAPR is usually expressed as a

total, lump-sum requirement for appropriation purposes with a detailed

campus-by-campus project list provided as backup information. HEAPR, since

its inception in 1992, has been funded by general obligation bonds. The state

covers the entire debt service of HEAPR with no debt service obligation on

behalf of the Minnesota State system.

Operating Costs: In context with the capital budget, projects must consider

the impact on the campus operating budget. Operating costs include utilities,

custodial care, maintenance and repair and staff labor expenses. For purposes

of operating costs, debt service is included in this definition. The state does

not provide additional operating budget funding in support of new or

expanded facilities.

Space utilization: A measure of how efficiently space is used as expressed by

hours of classroom/class lab usage over a given time period. Measurements

are taken after 30 days have elapsed in a given term. The current baseline is

32 hours a week of any credit class and any timeframe (day or hourly) for

100% utilization.

Sustainability: There’s considerable variation in the definition of

sustainability. In the context of the capital budget process, sustainability is

focused primarily on financial and facilities sustainability. Components of

sustainability include recycling and minimizing solid waste, conserving water

and energy, purchasing appropriate goods and materials, low maintenance

cost construction and development, and appropriate grounds maintenance.

For further information consult the United States Green Building Commission

at www.usgbc.org or the local Minnesota B3 sustainable guidelines found at

http://www.b3mn.org/guidelines.


http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.b3mn.org/guidelines/

http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu/


Stages of a Project: Predesign – Design – Construction:

Predesign: An element of project planning required by statute to define

the project scope, cost and schedule. Minnesota State requires predesign

reports to be funded by the respective college or university from their

operating budgets; the average cost is about 0.5% of the total project

value. An architecture or engineering firm should prepare the predesign.

Design: The process that takes the project scope and budget as defined

in the predesign and creates the architectural and engineering

specifications and drawings on which a construction contractor will bid

and perform the work. The design process normally has three phases:

Schematic Design – the phase during which the project evolves as to

siting, size, functionality, materials, and program placement

Design Development – the phase during which the architectural and

engineering details emerge

Construction Documents – the final phase where specific drawings,

specifications, details and instructions are provided to define the

construction and provide the basis on which a contractor will bid. Cost

estimates are prepared, analyzed and adjusted during all phases.

Design of state buildings and other facilities must be accomplished by

architects and engineers licensed to practice in Minnesota.

Construction: The phase of the project where construction trades build

the new facility, and renovate or repair the existing facility. Construction is

normally accomplished through one contract with one general contractor,

thereby minimizing risk to the owner. However, two or more contracts

may be used to facilitate progress, e.g. an early contract for asbestos

removal, site work and utilities; or a later contract for a parking lot,

landscaping, or ancillary items able to be funded through cost savings over

the life of the project. The system also uses other forms of project delivery

such as design/build and construction manager. Construction normally

represents about 70% of the total project cost.

Reinvestment: The amount of funds that must be spent on an existing

facility each year to preserve its physical state of readiness and programmatic

value; the funds needed to return the capital asset to its full intended use,

whether through planned renewal or reduction of the backlog. In the FRRM

context, it is funding of Backlog plus Renewal. All building components have a

predicted life span and must be replaced and/or refreshed periodically. To not

reinvest is to “defer” and thus build a backlog of maintenance, repair and

renewal.

Renewal: The amount required to maintain facilities “at par” condition; the

current or anticipated replacement need of a subsystem. For example, a 40-

year old boiler that is scheduled to be replaced due to its age in 2020 would

be indicated in that year as a “renewal” need. The FRRM model predicts

future renewal requirements.

Repair and Replacement (R&R): The amount of investment from a campus

for items that assist in lengthening the life of the building which are typically

coded from Fund 830.


Appendix E: Draft Scoring Forms: Standard and New Net Square Footage

FY2020‐2024 Cap

ital Projects Review and Comments

Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

1

Sco

rin

g T

eam

Nam

e:

Inst

itu

tio

n a

nd

Cam

pu

s:

Pro

ject

Tit

le:

Inst

ruct

ion

s:

F

or e

ach

scor

ing

item

, circ

le y

our

team

’s c

hos

en s

core

.

For

som

e cr

iteria

, the

like

ly lo

catio

n of

the

info

rmat

ion

is n

oted

(e.

g. S

ee N

arra

tive

).

Y

ou m

ay

writ

e co

mm

ents

exp

lain

ing

your

sco

re, a

s w

ell

as s

ugg

estio

ns to

impr

ove

the

proj

ect,

with

in e

ach

sect

ion

and

at t

he e

nd o

f the

sc

orin

g fo

rm.

If

a pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s si

gnifi

cant

ne

w n

et s

quar

e fo

otag

e, y

ou w

ill r

ece

ive

a S

upp

lem

ent

al S

corin

g F

orm

to

fill o

ut in

add

ition

to th

is fo

rm.

Co

re c

om

mit

men

ts in

th

e S

trat

egic

Fra

mew

ork

fo

r ca

pit

al p

lan

nin

g in

FY

2020

-20

24:

S

F1:

Ens

ure

acc

ess

to a

n e

xtra

ordi

nary

edu

catio

n fo

r al

l Min

neso

tans

S

F2:

Be

the

part

ner

of c

hoic

e to

mee

t Min

neso

ta’s

wor

kfor

ce a

nd c

omm

unity

nee

ds

SF

3: D

eliv

er to

stu

dent

s, e

mpl

oye

rs, c

omm

uni

ties

and

taxp

aye

rs th

e hi

ghes

t val

ue/m

ost

affo

rdab

le h

igh

er e

duca

tion

opt

ion

T

he a

pplic

abl

e S

trat

egic

Fra

me

wor

k co

mm

itmen

t is

indi

cate

d af

ter

each

sco

ring

item

(e.

g. S

F1)

.

Bo

nu

s P

oin

ts (

app

lied

sep

arat

ely

by

the

syst

em o

ffic

e):

1.

Pri

or

year

fu

nd

ing

bo

nu

s:

The

sys

tem

offi

ce w

ill a

dd 1

0 po

ints

to a

pro

ject

’s to

tal s

core

if th

e pr

ojec

t re

ceiv

ed fu

ndi

ng

for

desi

gn

and/

or c

onst

ruct

ion

in 2

018

or a

pr

ior

year

. 2.

A

nn

ual

en

erg

y co

nsu

mp

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n b

on

us:

T

he s

yste

m o

ffice

will

add

the

follo

win

g po

ints

to th

e to

tal s

core

of a

ny

proj

ect t

hat

will

res

ult i

n an

ann

ual r

educ

tion

in e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n (o

ver

curr

ent

con

sum

ptio

n le

vel)

wh

en

com

ple

ted:

A

nn

ual

En

erg

y C

on

su

mp

tio

n R

edu

cti

on

B

on

us

2% –

4%

re

duct

ion

3

4.1%

– 6

% r

ed

uctio

n

5 M

ore

than

6.1

% r

educ

tion

7

3.

Net

Gro

ss S

qu

are

Fo

ota

ge

(GS

F)

red

uct

ion

bo

nu

s:

The

sys

tem

offi

ce w

ill a

dd th

e fo

llow

ing

poin

ts to

the

tota

l sco

re o

f any

pro

ject

that

will

res

ult i

n a

net r

ed

uctio

n in

squ

are

foot

age

whe

n co

mpl

eted

: N

et G

SF

Red

uct

ion

B

on

us

1 G

SF

– 2

% o

f cam

pus

tota

l GS

F

5 2.

1% –

5%

of c

ampu

s to

tal G

SF

10

M

ore

than

5.1

% o

f cam

pus

tota

l GS

F

15

1 In

teg

rate

d p

lan

nin

g

The

pro

ject

alig

ns c

am

pus

faci

litie

s, te

chno

logy

, and

aca

dem

ic p

lann

ing,

and

sh

ows

coo

rdin

ated

ca

mp

us p

riorit

ies.

Gu

idan

ce

on

L

ow

– A

vg –

Hig

h s

co

re

1.1

A

cade

mic

prio

ritie

s. T

arge

ts r

egio

nal a

nd

stat

e ac

adem

ic p

rior

ities

.

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Litt

le to

no

evid

ence

pro

vide

d b

y ca

mpu

s th

at p

roje

ct a

ligns

with

ac

adem

ic,

tech

nolo

gy

and

faci

litie

s pl

anni

ng; l

ittle

to

no e

vide

nce

that

pr

ojec

t mee

ts a

cade

mic

or

regi

onal

pr

iorit

ies

Avg

– p

roje

ct id

entif

ied

in

com

preh

ensi

ve f

acili

ties

plan

, bu

t lit

tle to

no

indi

catio

n of

coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith a

cade

mic

or

tech

nolo

gy

plan

s; p

roje

ct m

eets

som

e ac

adem

ic

and/

or r

egio

nal p

riorit

ies

1.2

Reg

ion

al p

rior

ities

. Mee

ts lo

ng

-ter

m s

pace

re

quire

me

nts

for

prog

ram

s on

a r

egio

nal a

nd

mul

ti-re

gio

nal b

asis

for

pro

gram

s (in

clu

ding

m

ultip

le c

amp

use

s of

a s

ingl

e in

stitu

tion)

.

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

2

1.3

P

roje

ct is

des

crib

ed

in th

e la

test

C

ompr

ehe

nsiv

e F

acili

ties

Pla

n (C

FP

)

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Hig

h -

des

crip

tion

of p

roje

ct m

ake

s cl

ear

that

sig

nific

ant e

ffort

has

be

en

mad

e to

coo

rdin

ate

proj

ect

with

fa

cilit

ies,

aca

dem

ic a

nd t

echn

olog

y pl

ans;

cam

pus

prov

ides

exa

mpl

es o

f pr

oces

s an

d ho

w t

his

proj

ect

was

de

term

ined

to b

e a

prio

rity;

pro

ject

st

rong

ly a

ddre

sses

aca

dem

ic a

nd/o

r re

gion

al p

riorit

ies

1.4

In

stitu

tion’

s C

FP

has

bee

n re

cent

ly u

pda

ted

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.) S

F1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

CF

P w

as u

pdat

ed 8

or

mor

e ye

ars

ago

A

vg –

CF

P u

pdat

ed 5

-7 y

ears

ago

H

igh

--

CF

P w

as

upda

ted

with

in t

he

past

4 y

ears

1.5

S

upp

orts

the

inst

itutio

n’s

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pla

n

SF

1 0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Cam

pus

does

not

hav

e a

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pla

n o

r T

ech.

Pla

n w

as

upda

ted

mo

re th

an 5

ye

ars

ago;

or

proj

ect d

oes

not i

nclu

de te

chno

logy

im

prov

emen

ts th

at a

lign

with

cur

rent

T

ech.

Pla

n A

vg –

Tec

h. P

lan

has

been

upd

ate

d w

ithin

pas

t 5 y

ears

and

pro

ject

in

clud

es n

ew te

chno

log

y th

at a

ligns

w

ith T

ech.

Pla

n g

oals

or

guid

elin

es

H

igh

– S

ame

fea

ture

s as

Avg

, but

in

clud

es fu

rthe

r d

escr

iptio

n on

how

th

e pr

ojec

t inc

orp

orat

es g

oals

/ gu

idel

ines

from

the

Tec

h. P

lan

1.6

Add

ress

es s

peci

fic c

omm

unity

, w

orkf

orce

, or

cam

pus

cultu

ral n

eeds

.

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

has

no

dire

ct

conn

ectio

n to

pro

gram

s th

at a

ddre

ss

cont

inui

ng o

r em

ergi

ng w

ork

forc

e or

co

mm

unity

nee

ds

A

vg –

Pro

ject

des

crib

es c

onne

ctio

ns

betw

een

spac

e a

nd p

rog

ram

s th

at

addr

ess

a w

orkf

orc

e or

com

mun

ity

need

; ide

ntifi

es h

ow t

he p

roje

ct

mee

ts th

ose

nee

ds, s

uch

as s

pace

fo

r cl

assr

oom

s th

at s

uppo

rt

wo

rkpl

ace

solu

tions

, ap

plie

d le

arni

ng s

pace

, clin

ics

and

othe

r sp

aces

that

hav

e a

dire

ct tr

aini

ng o

r le

arni

ng c

ompo

nen

t

Hig

h –

Pro

ject

has

man

y of

the

attr

ibut

es o

f Avg

. pro

ject

, but

in

clud

es a

dditi

onal

sta

tistic

s in

su

ppor

t of p

rogr

am

del

iver

y an

d h

ow

the

y w

ill a

ddre

ss w

ork

forc

e ne

eds

1.7

Incl

udes

spa

ce(s

) th

at w

ill b

e us

ed to

del

iver

pr

ogra

ms

that

add

ress

con

tinui

ng

or e

mer

gin

g hi

gh

dem

and

fiel

ds

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

has

no

dire

ct

conn

ectio

n to

pro

gram

s th

at a

ddre

ss

cont

inui

ng o

r em

ergi

ng h

igh-

dem

and

field

s, o

r pr

ojec

t do

es n

ot in

dica

te if

af

fect

ed p

rog

ram

s ar

e hi

gh-d

ema

nd

Avg

– P

roje

ct d

escr

ibes

con

nect

ions

be

twee

n sp

ace

and

pro

gra

ms

that

ad

dres

s a

high

-dem

and

field

; id

entif

ies

how

th

e pr

ojec

t m

eets

th

ose

need

s, s

uch

as s

pace

for

clas

sroo

ms

that

sup

port

wo

rkpl

ace

solu

tions

, ap

plie

d le

arni

ng s

pace

, cl

inic

s an

d ot

her

spac

e th

at h

ave

a di

rect

trai

ning

or

lear

ning

com

pon

ent

H

igh

–In

clud

es a

dditi

onal

sta

tistic

s in

sup

port

of p

rogr

am d

eliv

ery

an

d ho

w th

ey

will

add

ress

wo

rkfo

rce

need

s or

has

ma

tchi

ng fu

nds

or

othe

r co

ntrib

utio

ns (

equi

pmen

t) f

rom

no

n-st

ate

sour

ces

1.8

Sup

por

ts a

nd e

nha

nces

ST

EM

(sc

ienc

e,

tech

nolo

gy,

en

gin

eeri

ng a

nd m

ath)

pro

gram

s

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

doe

s no

t in

clud

e S

TE

M p

rog

ram

s or

spa

ce

Avg

– P

roje

ct p

ropo

ses

reno

vatio

n of

spa

ce in

sup

port

of S

TE

M

prog

ram

s; in

clud

es d

ata

poin

ts o

n

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

3

spac

e ut

iliza

tion

and

back

log

redu

ctio

n

Hig

h –

Incl

udes

furt

her

des

crip

tion

on h

ow

the

proj

ect

bui

lds

capa

city

, ad

dres

ses

spec

ific

need

(e.

g.

redu

cing

wai

t lis

ts)

and/

or ta

rget

s a

need

that

can

not

be m

et v

ia o

ther

m

eans

1.9

Sup

por

ts a

nd e

nha

nces

Min

neso

ta T

rans

fer

Cur

ricul

um /

gene

ral o

r lib

eral

edu

catio

n co

re

requ

irem

ent

s co

urse

s (h

uman

ities

, w

ritin

g/co

mm

unic

atio

ns, e

tc.)

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

doe

s no

t in

clud

e sp

ace

for

MN

Tra

nsf.

Cur

ric. o

r ge

nera

l/lib

eral

ed

ucat

ion

requ

irem

ents

co

urse

s

Avg

– P

roje

ct p

ropo

ses

reno

vatio

n of

spa

ce in

sup

port

of t

hese

co

urse

s; in

clud

es d

ata

poin

ts o

n sp

ace

utili

zatio

n an

d ba

cklo

g re

duct

ion

H

igh

– S

ame

fea

ture

s as

Avg

, but

in

clud

es fu

rthe

r d

escr

iptio

n on

how

th

e pr

ojec

t bu

ilds

capa

city

, ad

dres

ses

spec

ific

need

s (e

.g.

redu

cing

wai

t lis

ts)

and/

or ta

rget

s a

need

that

can

not

be m

et v

ia o

ther

m

eans

1.10

Pro

mot

es o

r in

crea

ses

rete

ntio

n an

d co

mpl

etio

n w

ithin

the

Min

nes

ota

Sta

te s

yste

m

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

is n

ot r

elev

ant t

ow

ard

in

crea

sing

ret

entio

n an

d co

mpl

etio

n or

no

docu

men

tatio

n to

sup

port

pr

ogra

m ta

rget

ing

rete

ntio

n o

r co

mpl

etio

n

Avg

– P

roje

ct a

dds

stud

ent s

uppo

rt

spac

e th

at is

spe

cific

ally

tar

get

ed

tow

ard

pro

gram

s th

at e

nhan

ce

rete

ntio

n an

d co

mpl

etio

n (c

ompu

ter

labs

, stu

dent

ser

vice

are

as fo

r in

trus

ive

advi

sing

, etc

.)

Hig

h –

Sam

e at

trib

utes

as

Avg

. pr

ojec

t, bu

t mor

e c

ompr

ehen

sive

ex

plan

atio

n an

d p

art o

f ove

rall

stra

teg

y fo

r in

cre

asin

g re

tent

ion

rate

s; c

ampu

s pr

ovid

es g

oals

and

da

ta in

sup

port

of r

eten

tion,

co

mpl

etio

n an

d su

cces

s

1.11

Im

prov

es b

acca

laur

eate

opp

ort

uniti

es

SF

1 0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

vide

s lit

tle t

o no

do

cum

enta

tion

indi

catin

g pr

ojec

t ta

rget

s th

ese

oppo

rtun

ities

A

vg –

Pro

ject

add

s ac

adem

ic s

pace

or

stu

dent

sup

port

spa

ce th

at is

sp

eci

fical

ly t

arg

ete

d t

ow

ard

ba

ccal

aure

ate

prog

ram

s

Hig

h –

Sam

e at

trib

utes

as

Avg

. pr

ojec

t, bu

t mor

e c

ompr

ehen

sive

ex

plan

atio

n an

d p

art o

f ove

rall

stra

teg

y fo

r in

cre

asin

g tr

ansf

erab

ility

; ca

mpu

s pr

ovid

es

goal

s an

d da

ta in

sup

port

of

bacc

alau

reat

e pr

ogra

m s

ucce

ss

1.12

Adv

ance

s co

ope

ratio

n am

ong

cam

puse

s to

re

duce

cos

ts a

nd e

nab

les

the

sha

ring

of

adm

inis

trat

ive

oper

atio

ns, a

cade

mic

pro

gra

ms,

an

d ac

adem

ic s

upp

ort

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

rec

reat

es s

ame

or s

imila

r sp

ace

with

in 1

0 m

iles

of e

xist

ing

cam

pus;

spa

ce c

ould

be

bette

r ac

com

mod

ated

usi

ng a

tech

nolo

gy

solu

tion

or le

ased

loca

tion

A

vg –

leve

rag

es c

ampu

s pr

oxim

ities

an

d te

chno

log

y to

con

solid

ate

spac

e ne

eds

amon

g 2

or m

ore

cam

pus

es

in a

dmin

istr

ativ

e, a

cade

mic

or

acad

emic

sup

port

pro

gra

ms;

pro

ject

in

clud

es c

ompo

nent

s th

at s

hare

s sp

ace

(stu

dent

sup

port

or

othe

r) w

ith

othe

r in

stitu

tions

, re

sulti

ng in

dire

ct

stud

ent b

enef

it a

nd lo

wer

ove

rall

cost

to th

e sy

stem

as

a w

hole

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

4

Hig

h –

Sim

ilar

to A

vg.

proj

ect,

but

w

ith a

ddi

tiona

l det

ail a

mon

g th

e ca

mpu

ses

to e

xpla

in t

he f

acili

ties

and

oper

atio

nal s

avin

gs to

be

gain

ed a

nd h

ow

it w

ill d

irect

ly

impr

ove

stud

ents

’ int

erac

tion

with

th

e ca

mpu

ses.

1.13

Inco

rpor

ates

mor

e th

an o

ne M

inn

esot

a S

tate

ca

mpu

s (i

nclu

din

g m

ulti

ple

cam

puse

s of

a

sing

le in

stitu

tion)

.

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

littl

e to

no

evid

ence

tha

t ca

mpu

s ev

alua

ted

proj

ect

with

oth

er

cam

puse

s to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

co

mbi

ning

/sha

ring

prog

ram

s an

d sp

ace

is f

easi

ble

Avg

– p

rovi

des

evid

ence

tha

t ca

mpu

s ev

alua

ted

proj

ect

with

oth

er

cam

puse

s to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

co

mbi

ning

pro

gram

s an

d sp

ace

is

feas

ible

H

igh

– c

amp

us in

corp

orat

ed

spa

ce

utili

zatio

n st

atis

tics

and

acad

emic

da

ta d

emon

stra

ting

how

pro

ject

will

be

sha

red

by

mo

re th

an o

ne

cam

pus;

pro

ject

ser

ves

mul

tiple

in

stitu

tions

.

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

, S

EC

TIO

N 1

:

(Max

: 79

poin

ts)

2

En

roll

men

t an

d d

emo

gra

ph

ics

The

pro

ject

incl

udes

sp

aces

that

take

into

acc

ount

stu

den

t dem

ogra

phic

s a

roun

d di

vers

ity, a

ge, l

ife e

xper

ienc

e, a

nd

exp

osur

e to

hi

ghe

r ed

ucat

ion.

Gu

idan

ce

on

L

ow

– A

vg –

Hig

h s

co

re

2.1

Im

prov

es a

rea

s fo

r st

uden

t ser

vice

s, a

cade

mic

ad

visi

ng, a

nd tu

torin

g

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

pro

ject

ma

y no

t be

dire

ctly

re

late

d to

impr

ove

acce

ss o

r su

cces

s of

und

erse

rved

stu

dent

s;

or, n

o m

entio

n m

ade

of h

ow

pro

ject

w

ill im

prov

e su

cces

s of

un

derr

epre

sent

ed

lear

ners

A

vg –

evi

denc

e pr

ovid

ed (

such

as

inst

itutio

nal r

esea

rch,

stu

dent

su

rve

ys, e

tc.)

on

how

this

pro

ject

im

prov

es u

nder

repr

esen

ted

stud

ents

’ acc

ess

or s

ucce

ss

Hig

h –

Man

y of

the

sam

e fe

atur

es

as A

vg,

but

proj

ect

hig

hlig

hts

feat

ures

that

sup

port

un

derr

epre

sent

ed

stud

ents

, suc

h as

sp

ace

for

addi

tiona

l tut

orin

g,

advi

sing

, com

pute

r la

bs, o

r ot

her

feat

ures

that

are

nec

essa

ry to

su

ppor

t pro

gram

s th

at w

ill e

nhan

ce

supp

ort

of t

radi

tiona

lly

unde

rrep

rese

nte

d st

uden

ts; p

roje

ct

focu

ses

on fe

atur

es to

impr

ove

acce

ss a

nd r

educ

e ba

rrie

rs to

st

uden

t lea

rnin

g or

inte

ract

ion

with

th

e ca

mpu

s

2.2

T

arge

ts in

divi

dua

lized

lear

nin

g

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

2.3

P

roje

ct is

inte

nded

to im

prov

e di

vers

ity o

f st

uden

t bod

y

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

2.4

U

ses

tech

nol

og

y to

mak

e co

urs

es a

nd s

ervi

ces

mor

e ac

cess

ible

to a

wid

e ra

nge

of s

tude

nts

S

F1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

2.5

Pro

ject

is in

ten

ded

to im

prov

e c

ampu

s en

rollm

ent

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

sho

ws

no e

vide

nce

of

ho

w it

will

imp

rove

en

rollm

en

t

Avg

- P

rovi

des

docu

men

tatio

n th

at

proj

ect i

s pa

rt o

f ca

mpu

s en

rollm

ent

stra

teg

y o

r w

ill h

ave

po

sitiv

e e

ffe

cts

on e

nrol

lmen

t H

igh

– s

ame

as

Avg

, an

d pr

ojec

t st

rong

ly s

uppo

rts

enro

llmen

t st

rate

gy.

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

, S

EC

TIO

N 2

:

(Max

: 21

poin

ts)

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

5

3 F

lexi

bili

ty, a

dap

tab

ility

The

pro

ject

sco

pe d

escr

ibes

feat

ures

that

pro

mot

e ad

apta

bili

ty o

f spa

ces

to fu

ture

pro

gra

m n

eed

s.

G

uid

anc

e o

n

Lo

w –

Avg

– H

igh

sc

ore

3.1

Incl

udes

feat

ures

that

yie

ld in

form

al le

arn

ing

spac

es a

nd h

elp

the

cam

pus

tran

sitio

n fr

om

trad

itio

nal c

lass

room

lear

ning

to c

olla

bora

tive,

gr

oup

lear

ning

met

hods

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

pro

ject

doe

s no

t in

clud

e th

is

type

of s

pace

or

prom

otes

tr

aditi

onal

, tie

red

clas

sroo

m o

r ha

s lim

ited

info

rmal

spa

ce

Avg

– in

corp

ora

tes

feat

ures

that

su

ppor

t inf

orm

al le

arni

ng o

r “d

rop

in”

spac

e; in

corp

orat

es fl

exib

le fu

rnitu

re

Hig

h –

sam

e fe

atu

res

as A

vg,

but

feat

ures

add

ress

futu

re te

achi

ng

met

hodo

logi

es,

such

as

activ

e le

arni

ng a

nd/o

r te

chno

log

y ric

h cl

assr

oom

s; in

clud

es m

odul

ar,

flexi

ble

furn

ishi

ngs;

ma

y be

a

blen

ded

proj

ect (

clas

sroo

m o

r la

bs)

that

add

s dr

op in

spa

ce o

r gr

oup

st

udy

spac

e.

3.2

E

stab

lishe

s th

e s

pace

as

a sh

ared

cam

pus

asse

t, no

t ow

ned

by

any

one

dep

artm

ent

SF

1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

proj

ect d

oes

not d

escr

ibe

any

plan

s fo

r es

tabl

ishi

ng s

hare

d sp

aces

A

vg –

est

ablis

hes

proj

ect

spac

es a

s sh

ared

; pro

vide

s so

me

do

cum

en

tatio

n o

f ho

w u

sers

will

be

trai

ned

to u

se th

e sp

ace

H

igh

– M

any

of t

he s

ame

feat

ure

s as

Avg

, bu

t pr

oje

ct h

ighl

ight

s ho

w

the

spac

es w

ill b

e sh

ared

by

mul

tiple

de

part

men

ts o

r u

ser

grou

ps;

deta

iled

plan

s fo

r ho

w f

acul

ty/u

sers

w

ill b

e tr

aine

d o

n u

sing

feat

ures

of

the

new

spa

ces.

3.3

Pro

ject

is e

xpe

cted

to im

prov

e ho

urly

spa

ce

utili

zatio

n.

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

req

uest

s ne

w s

qua

re

foot

age,

no

or

limite

d re

nova

tion;

do

es n

ot m

eet 7

5% u

tiliz

atio

n go

al

Avg

. –

reno

vatio

n an

d re

ne

wal

pr

ojec

t; u

ses

enro

llmen

t an

d sp

ace

utili

zatio

n da

ta to

sup

port

pro

ject

re

ques

t; m

eets

or

slig

htly

exc

eeds

75

% u

tiliz

atio

n go

al

Hig

h –

ren

ovat

ion

proj

ect

with

som

e de

mol

ition

em

bedd

ed in

wor

k;

targ

ets

clas

sroo

ms

or la

bs fo

r en

hanc

emen

ts t

hat

will

impr

ove

spac

e ut

iliza

tion,

eve

n if

capa

city

is

low

ere

d; s

igni

fican

tly e

xcee

ds 7

5%

ut

iliza

tion

goal

3.4

Pro

duce

s sp

ace

for

appl

ied

lear

ning

to o

ccur

on

cam

pus

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

pro

ject

has

sm

all a

pplie

d le

arni

ng c

ompo

nen

t, su

ch a

s a

sim

ulat

or

Avg

– p

roje

ct h

as

clin

ic o

r ot

her

spac

e th

at a

llow

s st

uden

ts t

o pa

rtic

ipat

e in

spe

cific

tra

inin

g on

ca

mpu

s so

lvin

g re

al w

orld

pro

ble

ms

H

igh

– s

ame

fea

ture

s as

Avg

., b

ut

proj

ect i

ncor

pora

tes

a th

ird p

arty

in

proj

ect;

third

par

ty c

ontr

ibut

es

capi

tal o

r ot

her

mat

chin

g fu

nds

to

the

proj

ect;

iden

tifie

s pr

ivat

e us

e co

mpo

nent

, if r

elev

ant

3.5

Cam

pus

follo

ws

a w

ritte

n ac

ade

mic

sch

edu

ling

polic

y an

d us

es it

to m

axim

ize

curr

ent s

pace

ut

iliza

tion.

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Cam

pus

does

not

hav

e a

writ

ten

acad

emic

sch

edul

ing

polic

y or

doe

s no

t use

the

pol

icy

to

optim

ize

utili

zatio

n A

vg.

– C

ampu

s ha

s a

writ

ten

sche

dulin

g po

licy

and

uses

it t

o m

axim

ize

spac

e ut

iliza

tion;

or

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

6

cam

pus

docu

men

ts h

ow it

is

curr

ently

cre

atin

g a

sch

edul

ing

po

licy

Hig

h –

sam

e a

s A

vg.,

but

des

crib

es

in d

etai

l how

ca

mpu

s ha

s us

ed

sche

dulin

g po

licy

to o

ptim

ize

spac

e u

se

3.6

Bui

lds

in fl

exi

ble

and

ada

ptab

le fe

atur

es,

incl

udi

ng r

oom

typ

es a

nd fu

rnis

hin

gs, t

hat a

llow

fo

r co

st e

ffect

ive

ada

ptab

ility

for

futu

re

prog

ram

s

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Spe

cial

pur

pose

spa

ce o

r tie

red

clas

sroo

m li

miti

ng th

e ab

ility

of

the

spac

e to

be

used

for

othe

r pu

rpos

es; s

pace

with

fixe

d fu

rnitu

re

is n

ot p

refe

rred

A

vg –

Allo

ws

for

adap

tabl

e fu

rnis

hing

s H

igh

--

Des

crib

es h

ow f

lexi

ble

furn

ishi

ngs

will

be

used

to

prov

ide

adap

tabl

e sp

ace

s

3.7

Use

s te

chn

olo

gy

to c

reat

e fle

xibl

e/ad

apt

able

sp

aces

or

to im

prov

e th

e ut

iliza

tion

of s

pac

e S

F3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Litt

le to

no

evid

ence

of

tech

nolo

gy

solu

tions

tha

t af

fect

pr

ojec

t sp

aces

A

vg –

Tec

hnol

ogy

is u

sed

to r

edu

ce

the

size

/num

ber

of n

eede

d sp

ace

s;

for

exam

ple,

tele

pres

ence

roo

ms

for

shar

ing

cour

ses

acro

ss c

ampu

ses

H

igh

– T

echn

olo

gy

solu

tions

si

gnifi

cant

ly r

edu

ce s

pace

nee

ds o

r pr

ovid

e fle

xibl

e sp

ace;

for

exa

mpl

e,

digi

tizin

g lib

rary

con

tent

so

less

sp

ace

is n

eede

d fo

r st

acks

and

m

ore

spac

e pr

ovid

ed fo

r st

udy

are

as

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

, S

EC

TIO

N 3

:

(Max

: 37

poin

ts)

4 In

fras

tru

ctu

re,

sust

ain

abili

ty, a

nd

en

erg

y ef

fici

ency

Pro

ject

red

uce

s en

ergy

co

nsu

mpt

ion,

reu

ses

or r

evam

ps e

xist

ing

infr

astr

uctu

re, a

nd p

rom

otes

sus

tain

abili

ty o

n ca

mp

us.

G

uid

anc

e o

n

Lo

w –

Avg

– H

igh

sc

ore

4.1

Pro

ject

red

uce

s de

ferr

ed m

ain

tena

nce

bac

klog

on

cam

pus

an

d im

prov

es c

am

pus

FC

I

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

doe

s no

t ad

dres

s de

ferr

ed

mai

nten

ance

leve

l

Avg

– R

enov

atio

n. A

ddre

sses

hi

ghes

t-F

CI b

uild

ing

or a

rea;

re

duce

s ba

cklo

g fo

r a

cam

pus

build

ing

at le

ast

10%

H

igh

– s

ame

as

Avg

; re

duce

s ba

cklo

g by

at

lea

st 2

0% o

n ca

mp

us-

wid

e b

asis

(i.e

. ro

of,

cam

pus-

wid

e H

VA

C o

r el

ectr

ical

, et

c.)

4.2

Pro

ject

pri

oriti

zes

reno

vatio

n an

d re

purp

ose

d sp

ace

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4 Avg

5

Hig

h 6

Hig

h 7

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

req

uest

s ne

w s

qua

re

foot

age,

no

or

limite

d re

nova

tion

A

vg.

– re

nova

tion

and

ren

ew

al

proj

ect;

use

s en

rollm

ent

and

spac

e ut

iliza

tion

tren

ds to

sup

port

pro

ject

re

ques

t H

igh

– r

enov

atio

n pr

ojec

t w

ith s

ome

dem

oliti

on e

mbe

dded

in w

ork;

ta

rget

s cl

assr

oom

s or

labs

for

enha

ncem

ents

th

at w

ill im

prov

e sp

ace

utili

zatio

n, e

ven

if ca

paci

ty is

lo

we

red

4.3

Pro

ject

ad

dres

ses

“adj

acen

t nee

ds”

in, o

r ne

ar

to, t

he p

roje

ct a

rea,

suc

h as

HE

AP

R-li

ke w

ork

(roo

fs, H

VA

C, A

DA

acc

essi

bilit

y im

prov

emen

ts,

etc.

) or

CO

PE

issu

e

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

litt

le t

o no

wo

rk a

ddre

ssin

g no

n-pr

ojec

t nee

ds

for

HE

AP

R o

r C

OP

E is

sues

A

vg -

pr

ojec

t in

clud

es s

ome

HE

AP

R-li

ke w

ork

or

addr

esse

s m

inor

CO

PE

or

AD

A is

sues

H

igh

– p

roje

ct in

clud

es s

igni

fican

t w

ork

add

ress

ing

HE

AP

R n

eeds

or

CO

PE

issu

es

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

7

4.4

Inco

rpor

ates

re

new

abl

e en

erg

y sy

stem

s in

pr

ojec

t for

eith

er a

cade

mic

or

prod

uctio

n pu

rpos

es

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.)

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

littl

e to

no

men

tion

in

docu

men

tatio

n of

ren

ew

able

ene

rgy

inco

rpor

ated

in p

roje

ct

Avg

-

proj

ect a

nal

yzes

ren

ew

able

en

erg

y po

ssib

ilitie

s, b

ut a

naly

sis

conc

lude

s th

at r

ene

wab

le e

nerg

y is

no

t co

st e

ffec

tive

Hig

h –

sam

e a

s A

vg,

but

proj

ect

incl

udes

ren

ewa

ble

ener

gy

in p

art o

f pr

ojec

t (ca

n be

for

pro

duc

tion

or f

or

acad

emic

pro

gra

m)

4.5

Is s

uppo

rted

by

the

cam

pus’

s ex

istin

g ca

mp

us

infr

astr

uctu

re,

utili

ties,

tech

nolo

gy a

nd

tran

spor

tatio

n

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.) S

F1

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Litt

le to

no

evid

ence

that

pr

ojec

t is

supp

orte

d b

y e

xist

ing

faci

litie

s/in

fras

truc

ture

A

vg –

p

roje

ct is

som

ewh

at

supp

orte

d b

y e

xist

ing

faci

litie

s/

infr

astr

uctu

re

Hig

h -

str

ong

evid

ence

of e

xist

ing

cam

pus

faci

litie

s/ in

fras

truc

ture

su

ppor

t

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

, S

EC

TIO

N 4

:

(Max

: 25

poin

ts)

5

Fin

anci

al im

pac

t

Pro

ject

use

s o

utsi

de fu

ndi

ng to

min

imiz

e th

e fin

anci

al im

pact

on

cam

pus;

pro

ject

is fi

nanc

ially

via

ble

for

the

cam

pus

; pro

ject

acc

ount

s fo

r an

d an

ticip

ates

all

proj

ect

cost

s.

G

uid

anc

e o

n

Lo

w –

Avg

– H

igh

sc

ore

5.1

Offe

rs o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

the

colle

ge o

r un

iver

sity

to

leve

rage

em

plo

yers

’ or

oth

er s

upp

orte

rs’

cont

ribut

ions

to b

uild

out

spa

ce

SF

2

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

not

incl

uded

or

no m

ent

ion

of

supp

ortin

g co

ntri

butio

ns to

the

proj

ect

Avg

– id

entif

ies

cont

ribut

ed fu

nds

or

equi

pmen

t, bu

t not

exp

ecte

d to

pr

ovid

e an

y m

ore

than

5%

- 1

5%

of

tota

l pro

ject

cos

t

Hig

h –

pro

ject

inco

rpor

ates

si

gnifi

cant

(m

ore

than

15%

of t

otal

pr

ojec

t cos

t) s

uppo

rtin

g fin

anci

al

and/

or e

qui

pmen

t con

trib

utio

ns.

5.2

Iden

tifie

s a

nd le

vera

ges

alte

rnat

ive

finan

cin

g,

such

as

the

sta

te’s

Gua

rant

ee

d E

nerg

y S

avin

gs

Pro

gram

, in

ad

dres

sing

bac

klog

an

d re

ne

wa

l ne

eds

in li

eu o

f se

ekin

g ca

pita

l bon

din

g

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.) S

F3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

not

incl

uded

or

no m

ent

ion

of

alte

rnat

ive

finan

cing

/mat

chin

g fu

nds

A

vg –

iden

tifie

s m

atch

ed f

unds

, b

ut

not e

xpec

ted

to p

rovi

de a

ny

mo

re

than

5%

- 1

5%

of

tota

l pro

ject

cos

t H

igh

– p

roje

ct in

corp

orat

es

alte

rnat

ive

finan

cing

5.3

Sup

por

t is

evid

ence

d b

y ca

mp

us lo

cal

inve

stm

ent i

n te

rms

of s

usta

ined

R&

R r

ates

(S

ee F

act

Sh

eet

s.)

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Cam

pus

inve

sted

less

than

$1

.00/

s.f.

for

last

2-3

yea

rs

Avg

– In

vest

men

t av

erag

ed

$1.0

0/s.

f. fo

r th

e pa

st 2

-3 y

ears

H

igh

– in

vest

me

nt a

bove

$1.

00/s

.f.

for

past

2-3

yea

rs

5.4

Iden

tifie

s a

nd m

inim

izes

tota

l ope

ratin

g co

sts

requ

ired

(incl

udin

g ne

w s

taff,

ant

icip

ated

util

ity

cost

s, a

nd a

ny

add

itio

nal

sp

ecia

lized

cos

ts

requ

ired

as a

res

ult o

f the

pro

ject

) (S

ee W

ork

bo

ok.

) S

F3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Low

3 Avg

4

Hig

h 5

Hig

h

Lo

w –

no

desc

riptio

n of

ne

w fa

culty

, st

aff a

dditi

ons;

ene

rgy

cost

s or

on

goin

g op

erat

iona

l cos

ts r

equi

red

for

proj

ect

A

vg –

des

crib

es a

nd o

utlin

es

proj

ecte

d op

erat

ing

cost

s (s

peci

fic

FT

E);

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

expe

ctat

ion

and

redu

ctio

ns

Hig

h –

No

new

ope

ratin

g co

sts

or

redu

ced

ope

ratin

g co

sts

expe

cted

ov

er th

e lo

ng te

rm

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

8

PROJECT POINT TO

TAL SU

MMARY

1. In

tegr

ated

Pla

nnin

g (7

9 po

ints

max

)

2. E

nrol

lmen

t and

Dem

ogra

phic

s (2

1 po

ints

max

)

3. F

lexi

bilit

y an

d A

dapt

abi

lity

(37

poin

ts m

ax)

4. In

fras

truc

ture

, Sus

tain

abili

ty, a

nd E

nerg

y E

ffici

ency

(2

5 po

ints

max

)

5. F

inan

cial

Impa

ct

(27

poin

ts m

ax)

Pro

ject

To

tal P

oin

ts:

(Max

: 189

poi

nts)

5.5

Pro

ject

cos

t do

es n

ot r

epre

sent

a s

igni

fican

t po

rtio

n of

exi

stin

g bu

ildin

g C

urre

nt

Rep

lace

men

t Val

ue

(CR

V)

(See

Na

rrat

ive

.) S

F3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

Pro

ject

req

uest

s ne

w s

qua

re

foot

age,

no

or

limite

d re

nova

tion;

or

tota

l pro

ject

cos

t is

mor

e th

an 5

0%

of

exi

stin

g bu

ildin

g C

RV

A

vg.

– T

otal

pro

ject

cos

t is

less

tha

n 50

%, b

ut m

ore

than

30%

, of

the

exis

ting

build

ing

CR

V

Hig

h –

Tot

al p

roje

ct c

ost

is le

ss t

han

30%

of e

xist

ing

build

ing

CR

V

5.6

A

nnu

al d

ebt s

erv

ice

for

the

proj

ect i

s su

ppo

rted

b

y ca

mpu

s re

venu

e

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

New

ann

ual

deb

t ser

vice

fr

om p

roje

ct w

ill b

ring

tota

l cam

pus

debt

ser

vice

to m

ore

than

3%

of t

ota

l re

venu

e

Avg

. –

Tot

al d

ebt

serv

ice

will

be

1.5%

-3%

of t

ota

l rev

enue

H

igh

– T

ota

l de

bt

serv

ice

will

be

le

ss th

an 1

.5%

of

tota

l rev

enue

5.7

P

roje

ct a

cco

unts

for

spec

ial e

xpen

ses

rela

ting

to o

pera

tions

of n

ew

equ

ipm

ent

or

tech

nolo

gy

SF

3

0 N/A

1

Low

2

Avg

3

Hig

h

Lo

w –

no

desc

riptio

n in

clud

ed

Avg

– d

escr

ibes

and

out

lines

pr

ojec

ted

spec

ial o

pera

ting

cost

s

Hig

h –

Ne

w e

quip

men

t not

exp

ecte

d to

cau

se n

ew

sp

ecia

l ope

ratin

g co

sts,

or

new

eq

uipm

ent

will

lead

to

redu

ced

ope

ratin

g co

sts

over

the

long

term

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

, S

EC

TIO

N 5

:

(Max

: 27

poin

ts)

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis

9

Ad

dit

ion

al S

ug

ges

tio

ns

to Im

pro

ve P

roje

ct:

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis ‐ Supplemental Scoring Fo

rm

1

SU

PP

LE

ME

NT

AL

SC

OR

ING

FO

RM

Fo

r p

roje

cts

add

ing

new

sq

uar

e fo

ota

ge

on

ly (

ove

r 5,

000

s.f.

of

net

new

sq

uar

e fo

ota

ge)

Scoring Te

am Nam

e:

Institution and Cam

pus:

Project Title:

Project Net New Sq. Ft.:

Co

re c

om

mit

men

ts in

th

e S

trat

egic

Fra

mew

ork

fo

r ca

pit

al p

lan

nin

g in

FY

2020

-20

24

are:

E

nsur

e ac

cess

to a

n ex

tra

ord

inar

y ed

ucat

ion

for

all M

inn

eso

tan

s

B

e th

e pa

rtn

er o

f cho

ice

to m

eet

Min

neso

ta’s

wo

rkfo

rce

and

com

mun

ity n

eeds

Del

iver

to s

tude

nts,

em

ploy

ers

, com

mun

ities

and

taxp

aye

rs th

e hi

ghes

t val

ue/m

ost a

fford

able

hig

her

ed

ucat

ion

optio

n

6

FO

R P

RO

JEC

TS

AD

DIN

G N

EW

SQ

UA

RE

FO

OT

AG

E O

NL

Y

Co

nsi

der

th

e fo

llow

ing

cri

teri

a w

hen

new

sp

ace

is p

rop

ose

d (

circ

le y

ou

r ch

oic

e):

Lo

w

Avg

H

igh

G

uid

anc

e o

n

Lo

w –

Avg

– H

igh

sc

ore

6.1

Ver

ifia

ble

evid

ence

of e

nrol

lmen

t dem

and

s an

d w

ork

forc

e ne

eds

that

sup

port

the

need

fo

r ne

w s

pace

0

1 2

3 4

5

Lo

w –

no

evid

ence

of e

nrol

lmen

t inc

reas

es;

or, e

vide

nce

of e

nrol

lmen

t de

crea

se in

ta

rget

ed s

ervi

ce a

rea;

low

spa

ce u

tiliz

atio

n;

Avg

– E

vide

nce

of e

nrol

lmen

t in

crea

ses

in th

e pr

ogra

m a

rea

that

wou

ld b

e e

nha

nce

d b

y ne

w

spac

e; c

ould

not

be

addr

esse

d w

ith le

ased

sp

ace;

wor

kfor

ce /

verif

iabl

e ev

iden

ce o

f gr

adua

te s

ucce

ss

Hig

h –

enr

ollm

ent d

ema

nds

coup

led

with

sp

ecia

lized

wo

rkfo

rce

skill

s, e

quip

men

t or

nee

ds th

at c

anno

t be

fulfi

lled

in e

xist

ing

spac

e;

outs

ide

part

ner

pro

vid

es e

qui

pm

ent o

r ot

her

mat

chin

g fu

nds;

doe

s no

t sig

nific

antly

incr

ease

ca

mpu

s sq

uare

foot

age

6.2

Con

side

ratio

n of

spa

ce n

eeds

that

can

be

satis

fied

thro

ugh

shor

t- o

r lo

ng-t

erm

m

etho

ds, s

uch

as le

asin

g of

f-ca

mpu

s sp

ace,

or

shar

ing

spac

e w

ith o

ther

col

leg

es

and

uni

vers

itie

s w

ithin

the

syst

em

0 1

2 3

4 5

Lo

w –

no

disc

ussi

on

of a

ltern

ativ

e sp

ace

solu

tions

; no

evi

denc

e of

long

-ter

m s

olut

ion

to

spac

e pr

oble

ms

A

vg –

dis

cuss

ion

of a

ltern

ativ

es to

sol

ving

sp

ace

by

reno

vatio

n of

on

cam

pus

spac

e;

evid

ence

that

cam

pus

leas

ed

spac

e fo

r th

is

purp

ose

and

hav

e en

rollm

ent

to b

ack

up n

eed

fo

r sp

ace

on c

ampu

s H

igh

– c

ampu

s ha

s pr

oof o

f con

cept

that

pr

ogra

m is

suc

cess

ful i

n of

f-ca

mpu

s or

oth

er

loca

tion;

eva

luat

ed s

pace

sha

ring

with

oth

er

Min

nes

ota

Sta

te in

stitu

tion

or o

pera

ted

with

ot

her

Min

neso

ta S

tate

inst

itutio

n pr

evio

usly

; lo

ng te

rm e

nrol

lmen

t tre

nds

and

enro

llmen

t ne

eds

sup

port

spa

ce o

n ca

mp

us

6.3

Evi

denc

e of

par

tner

con

trib

utio

ns th

at

supp

ort a

por

tion

of th

e co

nstr

uctio

n a

nd

oper

atin

g co

sts

of th

e pr

ojec

t 0

1 2

3 4

5

Lo

w –

no

mat

chin

g fu

nds

indi

cate

d

Avg

. – g

rant

opp

ortu

nitie

s or

oth

er n

on-

stat

e

fund

s av

aila

ble

, but

con

ting

ent o

n re

ceip

t of

stat

e fu

nds

FY2020‐2024 Cap


Scoring Te

am Project Analysis ‐ Supplemental Scoring Fo

rm

2

Hig

h –

non

-sta

te fu

nds

prov

ided

; end

ow

men

t or

oth

er fi

nanc

ial s

uppo

rt (

i.e. e

quip

me

nt)

offe

red

to c

over

at l

east

50%

or

mor

e of

initi

al

capi

tal c

ost

6.4

Spe

cial

ized

pro

gram

or

stud

ent

nee

ds th

at

requ

ire c

onst

ruct

ion

of n

ew

sq

uare

foot

age

0

1 2

3 4

5

Lo

w –

pro

gram

can

be

acco

mm

odat

ed

on

cam

pus

or in

ren

ovat

ed s

pac

e; n

o un

iqu

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s re

quire

ne

w s

pac

e

Avg

. – b

uild

ing

and

infr

astr

uctu

re

obso

lesc

enc

e m

ake

new

bui

ld m

ore

cost

ef

fect

ive

than

ren

ovat

ion;

spe

cial

ized

ene

rgy

H

igh

– s

imila

r to

Avg

. but

incl

udes

sp

ecia

l pr

ogra

m c

ond

ition

s (i.

e. fi

lteri

ng,

noi

se,

haza

rdou

s w

aste

, etc

) th

at w

ould

ben

efit

from

ne

w o

r st

and

alon

e sq

uare

foo

tage

6.5

Impa

ct o

n th

e vi

abili

ty o

f a c

olle

ge

or

univ

ersi

ty’s

lon

g-te

rm o

pera

ting

bud

get

0

1 2

3 4

5

Lo

w –

the

new

squ

are

foot

age

resu

lts in

su

bsta

ntia

l dep

reci

atio

n e

xpen

se a

nd

oper

atin

g e

xpe

nses

(ut

ility

co

sts,

mai

nten

ance

, cl

eani

ng)

that

wo

uld

not b

e of

fset

by

gain

s in

en

rollm

ent;

proj

ecte

d to

put

cam

pus

Com

pos

ite F

inan

cial

Inde

x (C

FI)

bel

ow

2.0

for

at le

ast t

hree

yea

rs a

fter

rece

ipt o

f fun

ds; d

ebt

serv

ice

with

ne

w p

roje

ct m

ay r

equi

re f

inan

cial

re

stru

ctur

ing

Avg

. – c

ampu

s w

ill m

aint

ain

CF

I; ca

n m

anag

e de

bt s

ervi

ce; e

vide

nce

that

CF

I w

ill r

emai

n st

able

or

gro

w e

ven

if en

rollm

ent d

eclin

e.

Hig

h –

cam

pus

abso

rbs

and

exp

ects

to g

row

C

FI

with

the

addi

tion

of th

e pr

ojec

t

6.6

Evi

denc

e th

at te

chno

logy

and

flex

ible

spa

ce

use

have

be

en fu

lly m

axi

miz

ed

befo

re

prop

osin

g th

e ne

ed

for

new

spa

ce

0 1

2 3

4 5

Lo

w –

no

evid

ence

of h

ybri

d or

onl

ine

cour

ses

inco

rpor

ate

d in

pro

gram

pri

or t

o re

ques

ting

new

sq

uare

foot

age

A

vg. –

hig

h sp

ace

utili

zatio

n in

pro

gram

ro

oms;

no

via

ble

spac

e o

n ca

mpu

s fo

r pr

ogra

ms;

cam

pus

succ

essf

ully

hel

d o

nlin

e an

d h

ybrid

cou

rses

to m

axim

ize

prog

ram

sp

ace

H

igh

– s

imila

r to

Avg

., bu

t cam

pus

also

ut

ilize

d so

me

non

-tra

diti

onal

mee

ting

times

(w

eek

ends

) a

nd

teac

hing

met

hod

olo

gies

to

max

imiz

e sp

ace

and

seat

util

izat

ion;

gro

wth

of

prog

ram

req

uir

es n

ew

sq

uare

foot

age

6.7

Cal

cula

tion

of th

e co

st to

stu

dent

s at

trib

utab

le to

est

imat

ed d

ebt

serv

ice

and

expe

cte

d in

cre

ase

in o

pera

ting

exp

ens

es

0 1

2 3

4 5

Lo

w –

pro

ject

deb

t ser

vice

wou

ld a

dd

mor

e th

an $

100

,000

/ y

ear

in in

stitu

tion

al d

ebt

se

rvic

e; c

ost t

o st

uden

ts o

n an

DS

/FY

E

$20/

cre

dit o

r m

ore

A

vg. –

Pro

ject

deb

t ser

vice

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an

$50,

000

or

less

a y

ear

and

no

mor

e th

an

$10/

cre

dit

Hig

h –

pro

ject

deb

t ser

vice

of $

25,0

00 o

r le

ss

a ye

ar a

nd

DS

/FY

E o

f $10

/cre

dit o

r le

ss

TO

TA

L P

OIN

TS

:

(Max

: 35

poi

nts)

2020 apital udget Instructions PLANNING A APITAL UDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST 6 TYPES OF APITAL PROJETS 8...

Documents

Transcript of 2020 apital udget Instructions PLANNING A APITAL UDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST 6 TYPES OF APITAL PROJETS 8...