GUIDE FOR PREPARING
CAPITAL BUDGET BUILDING REQUESTS
2009-2015 PHYSICAL PLANNING PERIOD
Division of Facilities, Planning and Management
December 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
CAPITAL BUILDING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
1
II.
PHYSICAL PLANNING PROCESS
4
III.
DEFINITIONS, PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
A Capital Project
Fiscal Realities
Decision Making Process
8
IV.
2009-2015 PHYSICAL PLANNING SCHEDULE
15
V.
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Issue Statement
Project Request Document
Infrastructure and Minor Project Requests
20
VI.
APPENDIX
26
i
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
III.
Partnership
3
IV.
2009-2015 Capital Building Program Development Campus Process at a Glance
8
Decision Diagram to Determine Approval Process Required for
Facility/Building Projects
12
IV.
UW-Madison Review Criteria
14
V.
2009-2015 Capital Building Program Development Campus Process and Timeline at a Glance
16
2009-2015 Capital Building Program Development System and State Process and Timeline at a Glance
17
VII.
Activities and Outcomes Timetable - Major Projects
18
VII.
Activities and Outcomes Timetable - Minor & Infrastructure Projects
19
III.
VI.
i
SECTION I
CAPITAL BUILDING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Physical Planning Process establishes a six-year
projection of the University’s physical development needs, as required by ss. 13.48(6)
and 16.84(6), Wis. Stats.
These needs are articulated in the UW-Madison Six Year Capital Building Program, a
document consisting of capital projects over $100,000 envisioned for the next three
biennia. The Building Program is divided into two parts: a rank list of projects
recommended for approval in the state’s next biennial budget and an unranked list of
projects envisioned for each of the remaining two biennia.
The physical planning process involves a three-way partnership between the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, UW System and the State of Wisconsin.
The campus process begins with an assessment of current facilities. Facility issues and
potential solutions are identified. Further definition, analysis and prioritization of the
issues requires approximately 12 months. Once the process is completed the
University’s Six-Year Capital Building Program is forwarded to UW System
Administration (UWSA) for review before its submission to the State.
On campus, the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) is the faculty governance
committee charged with advising the Chancellor on policy issues affecting the physical
facilities of the University. The CPC is advisory to the Chancellor and is responsible for
developing the Capital Building Program. Staff from the Division of Facilities, Planning
and Management (FP&M) assist the CPC by directing the physical planning process and
coordinating the efforts of schools, colleges and divisions.
The UW System and State review processes require approximately six and 10 months,
respectively. At the System level, University projects are ranked and interleaved with
projects from other campuses within the University System
The UW-System Board of Regents is charged with enacting policies and rules governing
UW System, and planning for future needs. The Regents are responsible for combining
and prioritizing the proposed capital projects from each UW campus into the UW System
Capital Building Program. The Board is assisted by UW System staff who direct
development of System’s biennial capital budget.
At the State level, the UW System’s projects are combined with requests from agencies
throughout the State and evaluated within the context of statewide demand and
available resources.
The Wisconsin State Building Commission is responsible for recommending the State
Building Program first to the Committee on Joint Finance and then to the State
Legislature for inclusion in the biennial budget bill. Staff from the Department of
Administration’s Division of State Facilities (DSF) assist the SBC and direct the
development of the statewide capital building program.
Following passage of the budget bill, the SBC is responsible for implementing the
building program. This includes authority for the building design to proceed, granting
construction authority and approving budget increases. DSF, as staff to the SBC, is
responsible for selecting the professional design team, letting and receiving construction
bids, contract administration, and supervision of construction projects.
An illustration of this three-way partnership is seen on page 3.
The intent of this guidebook is to introduce those unfamiliar with the capital budgeting
process to the terminology, documentation, review criteria, policies and procedures
governing the creation of a capital project.
Section II of this Guide, the Physical Planning Process, details the University review
process required to establish the capital building program: the campus process, the UW
System process and the State process.
Section III, Definitions, Procedures and Criteria, defines a capital project, discusses the
fiscal realities for capital projects in an era of reduced state funding for campus projects
and describes the criteria used to evaluate requests at each level of the process.
Section IV, 2009-2015 Physical Planning Schedule, delineates the schedule of activities
for development of the campus’ 2009-2015 Capital Building Program.
Section V, Documentation Requirements, illustrates the information required in the
documents which are developed during proposed project review. For major projects, a
description of the Issue Statement and Project Request Document is provided in detail,
along with a brief summary of the Project Program Statement. A description of the
information required for minor and infrastructure projects closes out the section.
An appendix of commonly used terms and acronyms associated with the Capital
Budgeting Process concludes this manual.
2
Schools, Colleges and Divisions
Facilities, Planning
and Management
Chancellor
UW - Madison
Campus Planning
Committee
(14 Months)
UW-System Administration
UW-System
Board of Regents
(6 Months)
Division of State Facilities
State Building
Commission
Governor
State of
Wisconsin
(10+ Months)
State
Legislature
3
Committee on
Joint Finance
SECTION II
CAMPUS PHYSICAL PLANNING PROCESS
OVERVIEW
The UW-Madison Physical Planning Process is structured to coincide with the State of
Wisconsin’s biennial budget cycle. The process includes developing a six-year facilities
plan and preparing a prioritized list of proposed capital projects for inclusion in the
State’s next Capital Building Program.
The first step is a meeting between Facilities Planning and Management staff and each
of the schools/colleges during the months of January and February 2005. Individual
school/college planning profiles and outstanding issues are discussed. From these
meetings, schools and colleges begin to document their physical planning needs by
developing Issue Statements. Issue Statements are required for each major project
($500,000 or greater – exclusive of infrastructure projects) for potential inclusion in the
six-year planning cycle.
Issue Statements are reviewed by FP&M, who make recommendations to the Campus
Planning Committee regarding those documents that merit further analyses. At its May
2007 meeting, the CPC selects issues that they believe merit further analyses. These
documents are then developed by the schools/colleges and FP&M staff into Project
Request Documents (PRD) over the summer months. PRDs are presented to the CPC
during the fall semester. The CPC selects projects to be listed in each of the three
biennia and priority ranks those projects requesting state funding for the 2009-11
biennium. The committee then forwards its recommendations to the Chancellor.
Concurrent with the Major Projects process, FP&M staff develops a six-year list of
Infrastructure Projects (repair and replacement projects in excess of $100,000). Like
major projects, the infrastructure projects are submitted in two sections: a prioritized
project list for the upcoming biennium and a section identifying future physical planning
projects for the two subsequent biennia.
Major Projects ($500,000 or greater) New Construction/Renovation
This section identifies the seven phases of the physical planning process for major
projects involving new construction or major renovations. The activities and outcomes
critical to each phase are briefly described. There may be overlap between activities in
some time periods because documentation of issues, or projects, may progress at
different rates in different schools, colleges or divisions due to the nature of the issue or
project. Planning stages for particular colleges, schools or major administrative divisions
can begin or end earlier than indicated, but must be concluded in time for critical
decision dates by the CPC.
In its initial stages, the physical planning process involves participation by a broad crosssection of the campus. As each phase is concluded, the breath of participation narrows
as the process of developing the University’s physical planning issues becomes more
focused and specific.
4
1. Assessment Phase (Jan-Mar 2007)
The process begins with school, college and major administrative division meetings
to assess the adequacy of current facilities and determine what building
improvements would enhance its ability to fulfill its mission, address strategic plans,
and/or meet anticipated changes in program scope, technology and service delivery.
It is important for each school, college and division to conduct its review within the
context of its academic strategic plan. Those issues that are driven and directed by
this focus will have the most strategic importance at the campus level.
During this phase, FP&M staff meet with representatives of schools, colleges and
divisions to discuss the physical planning process. The meetings enable FP&M staff
to familiarize themselves with the University’s near and long term strategic program
goals.
2. Identification and Definition Phase (Mar-May 2007)
The second phase involves identifying and defining the problems or planning issues
pertinent to each program area. As problem and planning issues are defined,
schools and colleges are encouraged to work closely with FP&M staff to prepare
Issue Statements for CPC consideration.
Following development of its issues, each school, college and division is expected to
place the issues in relative importance to one another and present them in three
groups. These groupings enable the school, college or division to communicate a
level of relative priority and timing. The groupings should reflect the practical reality
that state resources are limited and all projects cannot be supported at the same
time.
Table 1 illustrates how the groupings might relate to the three biennia, and offers
summary explanations for placing given issues in a particular level:
Level
One
Biennium
First
Two
Second
Three
Third
Rationale(s)
Serious problem and critical need. Projects may involve
upgrading building systems, health and safety issues, space
deficiencies, program needs, building code deficiencies,
accreditation requirements, timing with other projects may
be critical, external funding (non-GFSB) may be available.
Not as critical as Level One, but serious deficiencies were
identified. The issue(s) should receive attention in the sixyear capital budget planning cycle. Issue(s) at this level
may lack sufficient definition or external funding.
Least critical level, but serious problems were identified in
an existing facility, which should receive attention before the
end of the six-year planning cycle. Other facility issues need
to be addressed first, external funding may be lacking, the
program is hampered but not impaired, more study is
warranted.
These self-assessments will enable the CPC to make informed decisions when it
meets in May 2007 to interleave all campus issue statements and determine which
5
to select for further study. Since CPC decisions must reflect campus-wide priorities,
CPC groupings may or may not confirm a school, college or division’s
recommendation.
3. Selection Phase (May 2007)
This phase determines the relative importance of resolving specific issues to the
University as a whole. At its May meeting, the CPC groups the planning issues. It
then determines which ones will have the greatest positive effect on the campus and
best promote fulfillment of the University’s mission. Issues selected by the CPC for
Level One ranking move on as potential projects for the first biennium of the six-year
planning cycle. Documentation and analysis of these issues continues through
development of Project Request Documents.
The remaining issues are developed to a lesser extent for potential placement in
subsequent biennia of the six-year planning cycle. The final category "Futures
Identified" lists those projects which are most likely to be beyond the six year cycle.
4. Analysis Phase (Summer 2007)
The prioritized issues receive in-depth analysis, including further definition of project
scope, justification, advancement of alternative solutions, development of preliminary
(construction and operating) budgets, and assembling additional materials and
information as needed. This information is developed into draft Project Request
Documents (PRD).
5. Evaluation Phase - Solution Presentations (Fall 2007)
Presentations based on the draft PRD are presented to the CPC during this phase,
including discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of each
alternative. FP&M staff continue to work closely with campus units and provide
procedural guidance and technical support as needed. Following each presentation,
the CPC may request revision and/or expansion of the draft PRD.
6. Prioritization Phase (Winter 2007)
In February, the CPC begins its deliberations to establish the university’s six-year
capital building program. It prioritizes the project requests into three tiers: projects
proposed for 2009-11, 2011-13, and 2013-15. Following this ranking process, the
program is sent to the Chancellor for review and approval. The official University
Capital Building Program is then forwarded to UW System in March 2008.
7. Approval Phase (Spring 2008)
FP&M staff, in conjunction with faculty/users, finalize PRD and respond to project
documentation requests from UWSA. Each PRD may be expanded and/or refined
as needed during this period. The PRD is the key document for justifying building
projects to the Regents and the SBC and becomes the basis for the architectural/
engineering firm contracted to design the facility.
6
Also during this period, UWSA develops a proposed system-wide priority list and
alerts campuses as to which projects it will support for enumeration in the next
biennium.
Infrastructure Projects (>$100,000)
A second effort runs almost concurrently with the Major Project development process.
This effort focuses on identifying and documenting Infrastructure, repair and
replacement projects ($100,000 or greater) for the campus. FP&M staff are primarily
responsible for this process.
1. Identification Phase (Summer 2007)
Early in this phase, the list of proposed minor projects and potential infrastructure
repair/replacement projects from prior years is reviewed and updated. An inventory
of facility problems identified (by FP&M staff and school/college and divisional
building occupants) during the current biennia are added to the historical list and
categorized.
2. Analysis Phase (Summer - Fall 2007)
All identified issues are documented for project scope, justifications and estimated
budgets during this period.
3. Prioritization Phase (Jan-Mar 2008)
FP&M senior staff review the list of projects in each category, prioritizing them by
need for one of the three biennia and ranking those projects in the first biennia within
each category.
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Once a biennial budget becomes law, planning, design, bidding and construction of
projects may proceed under the authority of the SBC and the direction of the DSF. The
implementation phase of capital building projects is not a part of this document.
.
7
SECTION III
DEFINITIONS, PROCEDURES & CRITERIA
A Capital Project
For the purposes of the State Building Program, a capital project is any construction
project or land acquisition in excess of $100,000. This can mean new construction, an
addition to an existing building, a building renovation or a modernization project. It also
includes infrastructure (repair and replacement) projects that extend the useful life of
buildings, utility distribution systems, and/or address accessibility, health, safety, and
environmental issues.
In broad terms, there are three factors that define a capital project and, in combination,
these factors direct the path a project must take in seeking approval.
1. Project Budget
Major Project: Any construction project having a total project budget exceeding
$500,000. The Total Project Budget is defined as the sum of construction and
related costs (design fees, management fees, equipment costs, infrastructure
improvements, land acquisition, contingency and percent for the arts).
Minor Project: Any construction project having a total project budget exceeding
$100,000 but less than $500,000.
2. Project Type
New Construction/Major Renovation: This includes construction of new facilities,
building additions, and any building renovations/remodelings that address
programmatic needs. Major new construction (projects greater than $500,000)
requires enumeration. Major renovations (projects greater than $500,000) may
require enumeration. Recent DOA practice has recommended enumeration of
all projects over $500,000 regardless of funding source.
Infrastructure (Repair/Replacement): This includes repair/replacement projects
that typically address aging building components and systems; central heating
plants and campus utility distribution systems needs; correct code violations;
address accessibility, health, safety & environmental issues, acquire land,
address energy conservation needs. Infrastructure - repair/ replacement projects
may be eligible for funding through the state’s All-Agency Program. The AllAgency Program is a general reserve fund administered by DSF and is available
to all state agencies. FP&M staff initiate and direct the development of
infrastructure projects requesting state funds.
8
3. Funding Source
Typical funding sources are as follows:
State Bonding:
•
General Fund Supported Borrowing (GFSB), state issued bonds repaid
with state tax general purpose revenue (GPR)
•
Program Revenue Bonding (PRB), self-amortizing bonds which are
available to auxiliary operations
Other Sources:
Gifts/Grants
•
Program Revenue Cash (PR), e.g. housing receipts, segregated fees,
etc.
•
The decision tree diagram on Page 13 shows how the three factors above combine to
direct the approval path of a capital project for the first biennium of the six-year planning
cycle. To the extent issues can be identified and defined into capital projects for the
second and third biennium, they should be included.
Fiscal Realities
Over the last five biennia, the University has witnessed an increased need to develop
and rely on non-state sources of funding for its major capital projects. Funding from
private sources, in the form of gifts and grants, federal grant programs and revenues
generated from auxiliary program activities have replaced, to a greater and greater
extent, the State’s Capital Program Budget as the University’s primary funding source.
The 2005-07 capital budget resulted in approximately $150 million in GFSB for major
projects across the UW-System and another $128 million of all-agency funds for
maintenance repair and renovations. As part of the capital budget process, DSF staff
presented the State Building Commission with a six year plan for GFSB-funded major
projects, which included specific enumerations for the 2005-07 biennium and some
advance enumerations for the 2007-09 and 2009-11 biennia.
Budget instructions for the 2007-09 budget, which is currently under review by DOA/DSF
staff, stated that given continuing state budget pressure, it was unlikely that projects not
already included in the six year plan presented in 2005-07 would be included in the
2007-09 budget.
Notwithstanding these cautions, it is incumbent upon the UW-Madison to continue to
document its facilities needs even in stringent financial times. In addition, the success
rate for moving any proposed capital project forward is dependent upon the number and
quality of arguments that can be developed in its support. In addition, the importance of
program funding, donor support, or other funding streams, in whole or in part, cannot be
overlooked. Projects with outside funding have a better chance of being approved than
those lacking any private support.
9
Decision Making Process
An understanding of the governing policies utilized by each board, commission or
committee is equally important as knowing the process itself. A knowledge of the criteria
used by each group provides a structure and context for understanding each respective
decision making process.
UW-Madison Criteria
The UW-Madison CPC evaluates potential projects based on two primary
considerations: strategic placement and building criteria. Strategic placement involves
review of the project relative to adopted academic plans, goals and initiatives, both at the
Campus or school/college level, with regard to its academic, research or outreach
mission.
Building criteria can be divided into six areas: conformance to adopted physical
development plans, compliance with applicable regulations, obsolescence, space
utilization, special considerations and timeliness of the proposal.
All projects must be compatible with the framework of the 2005 Campus Master Plan as
well as any adopted physical development plans at the school/college level. Each
project must comply with applicable health, safety and environmental regulations, state
building codes, local zoning ordinances, accessibility standards and applicable
accreditation standards.
In the areas of obsolescence and infrastructure, projects are evaluated on the extent to
which they replace or renovate obsolete or outdated facilities and respond to critical or
new infrastructure needs. In the area of space utilization, projects are judged by the
extent to which they improve facility use, conditions and quality of space, rectify existing
space deficiencies, and/or improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs or
delivery of services.
Special considerations include fulfilling prior commitments and/or funding authorizations;
the project’s relationship to other physical planning projects or proposals; special funding
opportunities; cost/savings factors; the project’s impact on distance education or
instructional technology; and previous actions by the campus, Regents and/or SBC.
In the area of timeliness, projects are evaluated based on availability of funding; project
scheduling and whether other projects depend on the completion of the project in
question, and programmatic support by students, faculty and staff.
An outline of campus criteria and a Review Criteria Diagram, as applied by the Campus
Planning Committee may be found on pages 14 and 15, respectively.
Board of Regents/ UW System Criteria
The Board of Regents looks favorably upon projects which preserve and enhance the
quality of the educational system and continue to improve the efficiency of the UW
System. Capital Budget recommendations over the last few biennia have emphasized
projects which extend the life and maximize utilization of existing facilities, and provide a
physical environment supportive of the University’s teaching, research and public service
mission.
10
As in prior biennia, the Regents are expected to endorse projects which support the
academic goals and objectives of a campus, as identified through various strategic
planning efforts, lateral reviews, quality reinvestments, enrollment projections, and
accountability measures.
Specifically, Regent criteria focus on projects that: (1) maximize the use and extend the
life of existing facilities; (2) address high priority academic needs; (3) contribute to
Regent and system-wide initiatives, such as collaboration: the New Wisconsin Economy,
and improved technology.
State Building Commission/Division of State Facilities Criteria
The SBC recommends the proposed State Building Program to the State Legislature for
adoption. The DSF, as staff to the SBC, directs the development of the state’s building
program. DSF may recommend that a capital project proposal be approved, deferred, or
denied, regardless of funding source.
The State continues to place a strong emphasis on long-range facilities planning and
effective management of existing space with a strong emphasis on long-range facilities
planning and effective management of existing space. This approach stresses: (1)
maximizing the use of existing facilities; (2) maintenance of the state’s investment of
over $9.5 billion in its buildings and supporting facilities; and (3) reduction of energy
consumed in state facilities.
11
Project Budget
Over
$500,000?
Project Type
Yes
New
construction
?
Yes
Enumeration
Required
No
No
Programmatic
improvement?
Yes
Enumeration
Required
No
Major
Infrastructure
project?
Yes
Project Funding
Yes
Over $100,000,
less than
$500,000?
12
Yes
Will bonding
be needed?
Inclusion in
Capital Building
Program Required
UW-Madison Criteria
I.
Strategic Placement
Conformance to adopted academic plans, goals and initiatives either at
campus or school/college level in one of the following three areas:
• Research Mission
• Instructional Mission
• Outreach Mission
II.
Criteria/Considerations
Conformance to adopted physical development plans:
• Campus Master Plan
• School/College Plan (if available)
• Other Campus/Unit Plans or Studies
Compliance
• Effects on health, safety issues, and environmental issues
• Building code
• Governmental regulations
• Accreditation standards
Obsolescence/Infrastructure
• Replaces/renovates obsolete, or outdated facility and/or infrastructure
• Responds to critical, new, infrastructure needs
Space Use/Utilization
• Improves facility utilization, conditions and quality of space
• Rectifies existing space deficiencies
• Improves efficiency and effectiveness of programs (delivery of services)
Special Considerations
• Fulfills prior commitments and/or funding authorizations
• Relationship to other capital proposals (coordination, consolidation)
• Special funding opportunity (gift/grants)
• Cost/Savings factors: Operating/Maintenance budgets, energy
consumption/conservation
• Distance Education/Instructional Technology Impact
• Previous Action (CPC, Regents, etc.)
Timeliness
• Funding (availability)
• Timing (other projects depend on this one being completed)
• Programmatic (students, faculty and staff)
Schedule (sufficiently defined proposal; best alternative)
13
UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
INSTRUCTION
OUTREACH
RESEARCH
SCHOOL, COLLEGE, DIVISION ACADEMIC/SERVICE MISSION
SIX-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
Physical Planning Issue
MASTER
PLAN
FRAMEWORK
CODE
COMPLIANCE
TIMELINESS
SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
OBSOLESCENCE
SPACE
UTILIZATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
ALTERNATIVES
Issue Deferred
CPC
Ranking
Further Study and
Development
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT PROPOSAL
14
SECTION IV
UW-MADISON
2009-2015 PHYSICAL PLANNING SCHEDULE
For all the activities and processes involved in the biennial Physical Planning Process
there are two key documentation deadlines which must be met. They are: April 1 2007,
when all Issue Statements must be complete, and September 1 2007, when the PRDs,
in draft form, must be ready.
The dates are important because they precede critical CPC decision dates.
The diagram on page 17 provides an overview of the UW-Madison campus’ major and
minor/infrastructure project activities, as described in Section II, the “Physical Planning
Process”, and highlights the CPC decision dates. The CPC’s decision dates have been
scheduled to insure UW-Madison documentation is forwarded to UWSA in a timely
manner.
The diagram on page 18 provides an overview of the UW System and State major and
minor/infrastructure project review processes, as described in Section II, the “Physical
Planning Process”, and highlights the BOR, SBC and Joint Finance Committee decision
dates.
The schedules on page 19 and 20 list the activities described in Section II and the
outcomes expected from each. The outline has been divided to mirror the process
described in Section II, by separating the Major Project process from the Minor/
Infrastructure Project process.
15
Feb-Mar
2008
May,
2007
Jan-Feb 2007
E
N
U
M
E
R
A
T
E
D
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
16
Spring 2007
M
A
J
O
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Summer 2007
Fall 2007
Jan-Feb 2008
Develop
Issue
Statements
Develop Project
Request
Documents
Define Physical
Planning Issues
Meet with All
Schools,
Colleges and
Divisions
CPC Recommends, Chancellor
Approves
Six-Year Capital Building
Program - Enumerated Projects
CPC Selects SixYear Issues for
Further Study
UW System Selects
2009-11 Capital
Projects for BOR
Consideration
CPC/Chancellor
Approve Six-Year
Capital Building
Program-Infrastructure
Projects
Identify Potential
Infrastructure Projects
Scope, Budgets and
Justifications for Infrastructure
Projects Developed
Aug-08
Board of Regent
Approval of
2009-11
CapitalBudget
Request
CPC Presentations
M
I
N
O
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Mar
2008
Infrastructure
Projects
Prioritized
Aug.
2008
Spring 2008
E
N
U
M
E
R
A
T
E
D
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
17
M
A
J
O
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Summer 2008
Mar.
2009
Fall 2008
Board of Regents
Adopts 2009-2011
UW Capital Building
Program
Regent
Briefings
UW System
Finalizes UW
Project Requests
Winter 2009
i:\capbudg\handbook\manual.doc
Spring 2009
Summer 2009
SBC Briefings
DSF Analyzes 20092011 Capital
Projects for SBC
Consideration
Fall 2009
Governor Signs
2009-2011 State
Budget
SBC Recommends State 20092011 Capital Building Program
to Joint Finance Committee
Legislature Adopts
2009-2011 State
Budget and sends to
Governor
Joint Finance Committee
recommends State 2009-2011
Capital Building Program to
State Legislature
M
I
N
O
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
April
2009
SBC Approves Prioritized
First Year Infrastructure
Projects for Design and
Construction after Budget
Adoption
DFD Interleaves and Prioritizes Infrastructure
Projects for First Year of Biennium
UW System Interleaves and
Prioritizes Infrastructure Projects
11/29/2006
UW - MADISON
2009 - 2015 Physical Planning
Process Schedule
Schedule
♦ Decision Date
Jan-Mar. 2007
Activities
Outcome
(Deadline =
)
FP&M meets with schools,
colleges and divisions (s/c&ds)
Initiate Six-Year Planning Process
Jan-Mar. 2007
FP&M and s/c&ds identify and
define Physical Planning Issues
Draft Issue Statements
(due April 1, 2007)
April 2007
♦
May 2007
June-Aug. 2007
FP&M reviews Issue Statements
and meets with UWF to consult
on gift funded projects
CPC Selects Issues for Six Year
Planning Cycle
Prepare Staff Analysis and
Recommendations to CPC
List of Six-Year Planning Issues to
be studied further for inclusion in
Six-Year Facilities Plan
FP&M and s/c&ds develop Project
Requests:
Draft Project Request Documents
(due September, 1, 2007)
♦
♦
♦
Sep -Dec 2007
S/c&ds present Project Requests
to CPC.
Jan - Feb 2008
CPC prioritizes and forwards
Project Requests to Chancellor for
review
Mar 2008
Mar - Aug 2008
Chancellors forwards to UW
System.
UW System selects 2009-11
Capital Projects for further review
Revise/Expand Project Request
Documents as Required
Proposed Capital Building Program –
2009-11 Enumerated Projects
2011-15 Proposed Projects
2009-15 UW-Madison Capital
Building Program
2009-2015 UW-System
Capital Building Program
18
i:\capbudg\handbook\manual.doc
11/29/2006
2009 - 2015 Physical Planning Process Schedule
Infrastructure Projects
Schedule
♦
Decision Date
Activities
FP&M identify UW-Madison
infrastructure needs/problems
Jan - Mar 2007
FP&M staff document project
scopes, justifications and budgets
for all issues (minor and
infrastructure)
Outcome
(Deadline =
)
List of potential Infrastructure Projects
for Six-Year Planning Period
(due April 1, 2007)
List of Infrastructure Project Requests
for prioritization and inclusion in SixYear Capital Building Program
(due January 1, 2008)
Dec 2007
FP&M senior management
reviews six-year project list
Recommendation for ranking Minor
and Infrastructure Projects for the
Six-Year planning cycle
Feb 2008
CPC/Chancellor approve
Infrastructure Project Request list
UW-Madison 2009-15 Capital
Building Program-Infrastructure
forwarded to UWSA
♦
Mar 2008
UW System prioritizes 2009-11
Infrastructure Projects
UW-System 2009-15 Capital
Building Program-Infrastructure
♦
19
Mar - Aug 2008
SECTION V
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Issue Statement
Deadline: April 1, 2007
The Issue Statement is each school, college or major division’s opportunity to begin documenting their physical
planning needs, and communicating those needs to FP&M staff and the CPC. Issue Statements are required
for each major project submitted for inclusion in the 2009-2015 physical planning cycle, regardless of
biennium.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Issue Statement
1.
Project: Name
Division/Department:
Preliminary Budget Range: (if known)
Biennium (Designate one)
_____ 2009-2011
_____ 2011-2013
_____ 2013-2015
Source of Funds: (mark all that are applicable)
State Bonding
____ GFSB
____ PR Bonding
Other
____ Gift/Grant
____ PR Cash
2.
Issue Identification: Concisely identifies the issue or problem and briefly describes its impact. For
example, it explains what additional space is needed, why existing space is no longer functional, whether
specific health and safety concerns or codes must be addressed. It includes information about the type
of project work (new construction, remodeling, or renovation), its size, and applicable issue components
(utility extensions, land acquisition, parking and circulation).
3.
Background Information: This section begins building a case for addressing the issue profiling both the
facility and the program.
It provides a building history, e.g., date of construction, use of facility, assignable and gross square feet
available to the program(s) (ASF/GSF), remodeling or maintenance projects over time, etc. It describes
current facility problems and deficiencies, describes changes in building use over time, obsolete facilities
or technologies, changes in student population needs, building code issues or deficiencies (if any), etc.
20
It also describes the program housed in the facility, e.g. when the program was instituted, a brief program
history, other historic locations of the program, whether the program is housed in several locations on
campus, growth of the program over time and what remodeling projects or building additions were
constructed to adjust for this growth, how technological advances are/have prompted programmatic
changes, whether the current facilities have hindered full implementation of new technologies, etc.
4.
Analysis of Need: This section expands on the background information to explain what effect the building
deficiencies and program issues are having on the program’s ability to achieve its mission and strategic
directions. Each issue is documented by providing background information to support and substantiate
the concerns.
It explains how the issue(s) identified in Section Two hamper planned program directions or interdisciplinary initiatives, hinder changes in programmatic needs or technologies, prevent conformance with
adopted academic plans, initiatives, and/or accreditation standards/requirements, and/or conformance to
the Campus Master Plan, applicable building codes, including accessibility, and/or health and safety
issues.
It explains how addressing these issues would be a benefit to the campus.
If new construction is anticipated, it explains not only how the proposed solution would better address the
problem, but what has been done to date to address such issues as crowded classrooms, unacceptable
laboratory facilities, inadequate storage, inadequate ventilation, plumbing and/or electrical systems, etc.
For renovation projects, it explains how the project would address the facility’s existing condition, remove
unsafe conditions, replace aging systems, or reduce maintenance and repair costs.
5.
Alternatives: This section documents consideration of known alternative solutions. For new construction
and remodeling projects, the statement includes a discussion of alternatives utilizing available space on
campus, discuss any viable alternatives considered; include cost estimates, pros and cons, to determine
and advance the most advantageous solution.
6.
Overall Campus Impact: This section explains how the project would address a range of needs and
concerns of building users and the surrounding campus community, including impacts on: 1) campus
childcare services, 2) personal safety and security, 3) transportation and parking, and 4) barrier-free
access and/or other support services (please specify).
7.
Previous Action: If project was previously submitted, in part or whole, this section lists actions taken by
the Division/Department, Campus Planning Committee, Regents, etc.
21
Project Request Document
Deadline: September 1, 2007
The purpose of a Project Request Document (PRD) is to explain and justify a project in greater detail to the
CPC, UW System staff, the Board of Regents and, ultimately, the State Building Commission. The PRD builds
on the information contained in the Issue Statement, providing more in-depth information to justify project
needs and analysis of alternative solutions. It also contains a more detailed cost estimate, a statement of the
impact on the operating budget and a CPC assigned priority ranking when compared to other requests by the
campus. Project Request Documents are required for CPC designated projects for inclusion in the first
biennium of the planning cycle (2007-2009). The format outlined below comes from the DSF’s Manual for the
Preparation of Capital Budget Requests. If projects are forwarded to the stage where a PRD is prepared,
FP&M staff will work with the schools and colleges on document development.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
2009-11
Project Request Document
1.
Project Name:
Estimated Cost:
$ (total project budget)
Funding Source(s):
(if multiple funding sources, list amount and source, e.g.:
$ x,xxx,xxx General Fund Supported Borrowing
$ x,xxx,xxx Program Revenue Bonding)
2.
Project Description: Identify the type of request (new construction, remodeling, repair, demolition or
acquisition). Define the extent of work proposed (area/space involved, number of buildings, etc.); the
various components involved (utility extensions, land acquisition, parking, site development, etc.); the
need for project phasing; and related work already accomplished. Special construction materials and
techniques should also be briefly described.
3.
Justification of the Request: This section of the project request is critical to the evaluation of the project
and will provide justification for it.
Clearly state the purpose of the project and explain in detail why the project is necessary. For example,
give specific reasons why additional space is needed, why the present space is no longer functional,
what specific health and safety codes or policies are causing remodeling work, and what detrimental
effects may result if the project is deferred.
Information relative to project timing may also be important in identifying the need for the project. If so,
fully describe project phasing, relationship with earlier and planned phases, and integration with other
projects at the institution or campus. Conformance of the project to the campus should also be
discussed.
4.
22
Alternatives: In justifying a project request, the consideration of alternative solutions must be discussed.
For new construction and remodeling projects, the request should include a discussion of alternatives
such as utilizing available space at campus, and an explanation for why these alternatives were rejected.
Indicate site location criteria, availability of other sites, local zoning limitations, or unusual site constraints
when requesting new construction or land acquisition. If alternative sites were considered but rejected,
state the reasons for rejection.
5.
Project Schedule: Project requests must include a proposed project schedule that includes the following
milestone dates: Project/Program Approval, AE Selection, Design Report Completion, Bid Opening,
Construction Start, Substantial Completion, Final Completion. The schedule will of necessity be an
estimate, but the proposed schedule should reflect agency expectations. Any special circumstances that
impact the desired schedule should be identified.
6.
Project Delivery: Under s. 13.48 (19), the Building Commission has the authority to waive the
requirements of 16.855 when the use of an innovative design and construction process is in the best
interests of the State. The specific circumstances (site constraints, program requirements, proposed
project schedule) that would justify a request for a waiver of s. 16.855 to use an alternative project
delivery method are generally known early in project development. Requests should indicate if it is
anticipated that an alternative project delivery method will be advantageous on a project. The request
should identify the alternative method (single prime, design build, direct payment to local unit of
government, construction manager and construction manager-at risk) that will be proposed and provide
an explanation of the benefits of using the alternative method. Requests to use an alternative project
delivery method should specify the alternative method and provide a justification that is consistent with
the requirements specified in the DSF’s January 20, 2006 memo on this topic.
7.
Budget Evaluation: A cost estimate is required as part of each Project Request Document and should
be broken out as follows:
%
Amount
Construction
Design/Fees
DSF Supervision
Contingency
Other Fees and Allowances
% for Art
Total Project Cost
The source of funding must be identified for each project. If a project is to be self-amortized, the ability
to finance the project must be substantiated. Program revenue or segregated revenue projects should
clearly indicate whether they will be funded from cash or borrowing, or a specific split of cash and
borrowing.
23
8.
Operating Budget Impact: It is essential to the analysis of the project to include a description of the
impact on the agency's operating budget. In addition to an estimate of the building’s energy usage,
provide an estimate of the Total Cost Occupancy of the space built or renovated in the project and
identify potential operating budget increases or decreases including:
o
o
o
o
Increases or decreases in staff – identify in terms of FTE (Full Time Equivalent) positions. Be
specific about the number of staff and the types of work to be done, such as faculty or academic
staff, student assistants, maintenance staff, administrative staff, etc.
Changes in energy and maintenance costs.
.Any other costs (such as vehicles, furnishings and telecommunications).
Total annual operating budget impact.
Address how these costs would be funded - internal reallocation (identify source) or operating budget
request. Identify the source of funds -- program revenue, general purpose revenue, additional grants, etc.
A general statement that operating costs will be addressed in a future biennium is not sufficient.
9.
CPC Ranking:
10.
Previous Action: If project was previously submitted, in part or whole, this section lists the actions taken
by UW System Administration, the Board of Regents, and the State Building Commission.
24
Infrastructure (Repair and Replacement) and Minor Project Requests
Infrastructure project requests (greater than $100,000) and minor projects (between $100,000-$500,000) are
required to be documented and prioritized at the campus, UW System and State levels prior to inclusion in the
biennial budget, but, they do not require the same detailed documentation as major capital projects. FP&M
staff normally develop infrastructure project requests. There are five main infrastructure project types: facilities
repair and renovation, utilities repair and renovation, health, safety and environment, land acquisition, and
energy conservation. UW-Madison projects proposed for funding in the first biennium are interleaved with
other UW System projects and all projects must complete for funding with all other state agency projects.
Minor remodeling project requests typically receive the lowest priority in competition for state funds.
Infrastructure (Repair and Replacement) Projects
($100,000 or greater)
Biennium:
Project Title:
Estimated Budget and Funding Source(s):
Scope: A brief description of the work to be accomplished by the project.
Justification: A brief explanation why the project is needed, contained in Campus Master Plan (if applicable),
compliance with building codes, health, safety and/or environmental concerns, replace major pieces of
obsolete equipment, relieve space and/or configuration inadequacies.
25
Commonly Used Terms and Acronyms
A/E
ADA
All Agency funding
ASF
Auxiliaries
Regents
BioStar
BTF
Building Efficiency
Construction Costs
CPC
Design/Bid/Build
Design Report (DR)
DSF
DOA
EPA
FED
FP&M
FTE
FY
G/G
GFSB
GPR
GSF
HC
HealthStar
HVAC
OSHA
PR
PRB
PRD
Project Costs
PS
SEG
SBC
26
Architect/Engineer
Americans with Disabilities Act
Capital repair/renovation funding available to all state agencies. All Agency funding is
segregated into specific categories – Facility Repair Renovation, Health and Safety
Assignable Square Feet
Entities that exist primarily to provide goods and services to students, faculty and staff
and that charge fees related to those services, i.e. the Division of University Housing,
Transportation Services, the Wisconsin Union and Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
Board of Regents (governing body of UW System)
Joint State/University multi-biennial program to construct research facilities in the
biological sciences
Building Trust Funds – operating cash under the control of the State Building
Commission that serves as a revolving design fund.
ASF divided by GSF expressed as a percent
Excludes movable equipment and soft project costs
Campus Planning Committee – UW faculty governance committee which is charged
with overseeing the physical development of the campus
The standard State of Wisconsin construction process
Document prepared by AE consultant upon reaching 35% design completion. The
Design Report contains a description of the proposed design, a budget and a
schedule. Before construction can proceed the State Building Commission must
approve the design report and grant authority to construct
Division of State Facilities (a part of DOA) – DSF serves as architectural/engineering
staff to the State Building Commission and oversees the implementation of the state
building program
Department of Administration (State of WI)
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Government
Facilities Planning and Management
Full Time Equivalent – a method of counting full and part time employees, based on a
standard of a 40 hour workweek. An employee who works a full 40 hour week
constitutes 1 FTE, while an employee working 20 hours a week constitutes a .50 FTE
Fiscal Year – in the state of Wisconsin, the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.
Gift/Grant Funds – a funding source comprised of monies from private donors, as well
as private and federal granting agencies
General Fund Supported Borrowing (long-term borrowing paid by GPR)
General Purpose Revenue (current tax revenues)
Gross Square Feet
Head Count
Joint State/University multi-biennial program to construct health science facilities
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Program Revenue (Cash)
Program Revenue Borrowing
Project Request Document – documents submitted for inclusion in the State capital
budget. PRDs include a detailed description of the project, a detailed budget,
schedule and any alternatives.
Construction costs, equipment, special allocations and soft costs
Program Statement
Segregated fund revenues
State Building Commission (State of WI)
Soft Costs
URP
UWF
UWHC
UWSA
Design, supervision and contingency costs
University Research Park - a research/technology park created to encourage
development and commercialization of new ideas. URP’s efforts help benefit research
and related educational programs at the UW-Madison. Located 3 miles west of the
UW-Madison campus, URP is the home of 100 companies employing over 4,000
people.
UW Foundation - A nonprofit, tax-exempt Wisconsin corporation which is the official
fund-raising and gift-receiving organization for UW-Madison
University Hospitals and Clinics - a 471-bed facility that is recognized as a national
leader in fields such as cancer treatment, pediatrics, ophthalmology, surgical
specialties and organ transplantation
UW System Administration - The UW System is made up of 13 four-year universities;
13 freshman-sophomore UW Colleges, and a statewide UW-Extension office.
The UW System Administration offices assist in carrying out the responsibilities of the UW
System Office of the President in areas of budget, HR, capital budget, planning, etc.
WAIVER
WARF
WISTAR
27
Usually refers to a waiver of s. 16.855 which specifies that DSF must accept single
and multiple prime contractor bids for projects. The Building Commission is granted
statutory authority to waive this requirement when they deem it in the best interest of
the state to construct a project under non-traditional methods (design/build, use of CM,
etc).
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation – WARF supports scientific research at the
UW-Madison by moving inventions arising from the university's laboratories to the
marketplace for the benefit of the university, the inventors and society; and managing
an endowment that WARF has grown since its inception. Nearly all of the income from
WARF's transfer of technology and investment management is returned each year to
the university to fund further scientific research
Wisconsin Initiative for State Technology & Applied Research – a joint State/University
multi-biennial program to construct facilities for science, technology and research