2020 apital udget instructions planning a apital udget or heapr request 6 types of apital projets 8...
TRANSCRIPT
2020 Capital Budget Instructions For Capital Budget Projects
Contact:
Greg Ewig, System Director, Capital Development
651-201-1775
Michelle Gerner, Facilities Senior Planner
651-201-1531
April 3, 2018
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,
workbook) due to system office
October Predesign presentations
November Scoring teams appointed
November 15 100% submittal (predesign, narrative,
workbook) due to system office
December System office prepares scoring packages
Year Date Task/Event
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
6 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
7 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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)
1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST
Types of capital projects
8 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST
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)
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.
10 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
12 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST
13 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
Financial and budgetary considerations
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.
1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST
14 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
Financial and budgetary considerations
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.
1: PLANNING A CAPITAL BUDGET OR HEAPR REQUEST
16 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
SECTION 2: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST
HEAPR: Eligibility, submittals, & considerations
17 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
HEAPR: Schedules and thresholds
SECTION 2: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST
Year Date Task/Event
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,
Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due to system office
EXISTING PROJECTS: HEAPR updates (Predesign
update, Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due
December 1 System office publishes 2019 HEAPR list
HEAPR Schedule for 2020 Capital Budget
Year Date Task/Event
2019 May Campuses review HEAPR list, identify projects for
FY2020, engage A/E consultants
September 30 NEW PROJECTS: 50% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,
Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due to system office
November 22 NEW PROJECTS: 100% HEAPR submittals (Predesign,
Narrative, Budget Worksheet) due to system office
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
18 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
SECTION 2: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST
19 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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 2: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A HEAPR REQUEST
21 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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).
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
22 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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)
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
23 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
24 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
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
25 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
26 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
27 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
28 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
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.
29 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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)
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
The Project Cost tab.
30 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
31 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
3: DEVELOPING AND SUBMITTING A CAPITAL BUDGET (GO BONDING) PROJECT REQUEST
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
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
.
37 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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
38 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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;”
Appendix D: Definitions
39 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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.
Appendix D: Definitions
40 MINNESOTA STATE 2020 CAPITAL BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
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 D: Definitions
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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
ital Projects Review and Comments
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)