2016 Capital Budget Instructions
Published: June 6, 2014
1|Page
Table of Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
How do I Get Started?................................................................................................................................... 5
Highlighted Bonding Considerations for 2016 .............................................................................................. 6
Qualified Capital Expenditures .................................................................................................................. 6
Moving and Relocation Expenses .............................................................................................................. 6
Private Use of Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 6
Solar Energy Systems ................................................................................................................................. 6
Key Milestones and Deadlines ...................................................................................................................... 8
2016 Capital Budget Submittals .................................................................................................................... 9
Capital Budget Guidelines ........................................................................................................................... 10
Minimizing Square Footage ..................................................................................................................... 10
Charting the Future ................................................................................................................................. 10
2014 Capital Bonding List............................................................................................................................ 11
2014 Capital Projects in 2016 Request .................................................................................................... 11
Possible 2015 Capital Bonding Request ...................................................................................................... 12
Types of Capital Projects ............................................................................................................................. 13
Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) ........................................................... 13
Eligibility .............................................................................................................................................. 13
HEAPR Project Submittals ................................................................................................................... 13
Considerations for HEAPR projects ..................................................................................................... 14
HEAPR Thresholds ............................................................................................................................... 14
Major Capital Projects ............................................................................................................................. 15
Initiatives or Projects less than $2 million ............................................................................................... 15
Funding Request Threshold ........................................................................................................................ 16
Capital Project Scoring ................................................................................................................................ 17
Financial and Budgetary Considerations..................................................................................................... 18
Sources and Uses of Funds ...................................................................................................................... 18
2|Page
Funding Sources .................................................................................................................................. 18
Multiple sources of funding ................................................................................................................ 18
Inflation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 18
2016 Capital Budget Submittals .............................................................................................................. 20
Hiring a Consultant for a Predesign ......................................................................................................... 20
Predesign Review..................................................................................................................................... 20
System Office Review and Feedback .................................................................................................. 21
Project Narrative and Costs Summary ..................................................................................................... 21
Reference Links ........................................................................................................................................... 23
2016 Capital Budget Guidelines (Board of Trustees):.............................................................................. 23
Charting the Future: ................................................................................................................................ 23
Predesign RFPs, predesign guides and review forms ............................................................................. 23
Building Project Inflation Schedule.......................................................................................................... 23
Contacts ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Schedule of Capital Budget Process ................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: DRAFT Scoring Instrument with Annotations...................................................................... 28
Appendix C: .............................................................................................................................................. 37
2014 Capital Bonding List – Final Results ................................................................................................ 37
Appendix D: Statute Requirements For Projects Receiving State Funding ............................................. 38
Appendix E: .............................................................................................................................................. 39
What is the Composite Financial Index? ................................................................................................. 39
3|Page
Overview
This document outlines the general requirements and deadlines required of campuses to submit a 20162021 capital budget request. This process began 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 number year prior to a
scheduled capital bonding session at the state legislature. The 2016 Capital Budget request will be
considered by the Board in June 2015.
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
The capital planning process recognizes that major capital projects can span several biennia from start
to finish. In the 2016 request, project information will be requested for 2016, and campuses will be
asked for estimates for 2018 and 2020 bonding years.
A schedule (Appendix A), Scoring Form with Annotations (Appendix B), Statutory Requirements Matrix
(Appendix C), and Explanation of the Composite Financial Index (CFI) (Appendix D).
These instructions may be updated from time to time. Updates will be published and circulated as
supplements to the originally published instructions.
4|Page
How do I Get Started?




Review your master facilities plan
Assemble and review past project documentation
o Predesigns
o Past capital project narratives or spreadsheets
o Legislation funding earlier phases of a project
Collect and assemble core facilities data:
o 2014 Building gross square footage
o 2014 Facilities Condition Index
o 2014 Backlog and 5 year renewal amounts
o Space utilization rates from Spring and Fall 2014 in EMS Campus
o Energy consumption and cost trends for the last 3 years
o Institution’s repair and replacement spending in cost per square foot for last 3 years
Collect and assemble other key data:
o General Enrollment Data and Trends
 FYE (FY12-14) (Credit)
 Headcount (FY12-14) Credit and Non-Credit
 Full time / Part Time Enrollment
 Enrollment - % Students of Color
 Average age of student
o Financial Data and Trends
 Composite Financial Index for FY11-13
 If applicable: Financial Recovery Plan Status
 Debt service FY12-14
o Academic Data
 Program descriptions for areas to be impacted by project
 Program enrollments
 Degree / award attainment overall institution and for the program FY12-14
5|Page
Highlighted Bonding Considerations for 2016
Qualified Capital Expenditures
General obligation bond proceeds may only be used for qualified capital expenditures. Eligible costs
include land acquisition, predesign, 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
Although capital eligible, the system property such as computers are not qualified capital
requires campuses to fund predesign expenses. Equipment may be eligible if purchased and
costs out of their operating budgets. 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.
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 or universities operating budget and
be available when a project is funded.
Private Use of Facilities
MnSCU 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.
Solar Energy Systems
Minn. Stat. §16B.323, enacted in the 2012 omnibus bonding bill, Laws 2012, ch. 293, sec. 32, provides
that “a project for the construction or major renovation of a state building, after the completion of
a cost-benefit analysis, may include installation of ‘Made in Minnesota’ solar energy systems of 40
kilowatts capacity on, adjacent, or in proximity to the state building.” A “state building” is defined
as a building whose construction or renovation is paid wholly or in part by the state from the bond
proceeds fund, and thus does not mean only buildings owned by the state.
6|Page
Additional considerations for solar energy systems


The cost of the solar system must not exceed 5 percent of the appropriations from the bond
proceeds fund (i.e. Total Project Cost) for the construction or renovation of the state building.
Purchase and installation of a solar thermal system may account for no more than 25 percent of
the cost of a solar system installation.
7|Page
Key Milestones and Deadlines
The list below highlights the major milestones and deadlines for the 2016 capital budget process. The
complete schedule is contained in Appendix A.
2014
2015
2016
June – September
Campus provides preliminary project request
Campus hires predesign architect
Create / update predesigns
August 1
50% predesign submittal due to system
September 12
95% predesign submittal due to system\
October 10
Final narrative and spreadsheets due to system
October 13-24
Predesign presentations
November
Scoring teams appointed
December
Final predesigns/preparation for scoring
January 5-6
Capital project scoring (location TBA)
January – May
2015 legislative session
February – April
Review scoring and evaluate for Charting the Future
May – June
Board of Trustees meetings
June
Board approves 2016 capital budget request
July
System makes request to state of Minnesota
February
Legislative session begins
8|Page
2016 Capital Budget Submittals
To be considered for inclusion in the 2016 capital budget process, campuses must provide a complete
submittal, which includes:

Predesign. Following MnSCU 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 details. Describes the comprehensive cost estimate and funding sources for the entire
project and the expected impact on a campus’s operating expenses.

Digital photographs. New for this year, campuses should 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 and within established timelines, the project will not be included in
the 2016 capital budget request.
9|Page
Capital Budget Guidelines
The Board of Trustees approved the 2016 – 2021 capital budget guidelines in March 2014, which
establish the general rules and priorities on how capital projects will be evaluated and prioritized. 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 a scoring of capital projects by an appointed group of
representatives from colleges, universities and system office personnel. The scoring tool uses the three
Strategic Framework principles for evaluating a capital project in 2016. Further informing the scoring
and prioritization of capital projects are four guiding values established by the Board for 2016:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A strategic regional and statewide academic program focus
Taking care of what we have
Minimizing new square footage
Building for the future with flexible and adaptable space
Minimizing Square Footage
The emphasis for 2016 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 2016 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.
Charting the Future
The early stages of Charting the Future work will be occurring at the same time as the 2016 Capital
Budget is being developed and scored. The 2016 capital budget process is expected to incorporate –
where possible - outcomes of Charting the Future implementation.
Given the evolving nature of Charting the Future implementation, it is too early to tell what aspects of
Charting the Future will inform the capital budget process prior to project scoring. As a result, the
Capital Budget process will include time after project scoring for comparing the recommended list with
Charting the Future goals and implementation. Capital projects may be adjusted in priority after scoring
based on Charting the Future efforts and implementation.
10 | P a g e
2014 Capital Bonding List
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities requested $286.5 million for its 2014 capital bonding request.
Of that, the 2014 capital bonding bill approved by the legislature and signed by the governor totaled
$159.8 million, including $42.5 million worth of HEAPR and $117.3 million in capital projects.
2014 Capital Projects in 2016 Request
Carry forward projects are those capital projects that:
1. Partially Funded Projects. Were funded in the 2014 capital bonding bill and have their next
phase planned for 2016, or
2. Projects on the 2014 list, but unfunded. Were in the Board-approved 2014 capital budget
request, but were not funded in the final 2014 capital bonding bill
All carry forward projects must make an updated Capital Budget Submittal, including updated
predesigns. Having a carry forward project in the 2014 capital bonding request does not necessarily
guarantee a spot on the 2016 list.
Special Considerations
Partially funded projects in 2014. Projects with multi-biennium funding requests that received their
first phase of funding in 2014 (for design and/or design and partial construction funding) must carefully
review the appropriation language in the law the authorized the project. A campus must work within the
same scope of the project that was authorized in 2014.
Unfunded Projects in 2014. Projects submitted to the legislature on the Board’s 2014 capital budget list,
but not funded, must resubmit their projects for 2016. Campuses must provide an updated Capital
Budget Submittal, and highlight any adjustments or modifications to their latest request. Unfunded
projects from 2014 with substantial scope changes will be considered “new” for purposes of the 2016
scoring process.
11 | P a g e
Possible 2015 Capital Bonding Request
In the event the legislature and governor consider a supplemental capital bonding bill in 2015, the
system will develop a bonding request based on previously approved and unfunded capital projects.
Subject to Board of Trustees consideration and approval, system priorities for a 2015 request are:
1) HEAPR funding
2) Board approved projects that were not funded in the 2014 Capital Bonding bill, and possibly
3) Projects partially funded in 2014
Campuses will be asked for additional information prior to the 2015 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 2014 capital bonding request
12 | P a g e
Types of Capital Projects
Capital budget requests fall in three general categories:
1. Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) - Repair and replacement of
building systems, including roofs, heating, cooling, ventilation, building envelope, ADA and
security upgrades, and utility upgrades. Minimum project value: $50,000.
2. Major Capital Projects – new, renovated or renewed permanent building improvements to
serve an academic purpose. Project threshold: Value of more $2 million or more.
3. Initiatives or Small Capital Projects – new, renovated or renewed improvements to existing
buildings that serve an academic purpose with a total project cost valued between $500,000 $1.99 million. Campuses may submit individual initiatives, which may be grouped together by
region (i.e. metro, northeast, southwest) or subject matter (i.e. renewable energy, STEM, etc)
for purposes of the capital budget request.
Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR)
HEAPR will be the system’s number one request in the 2016 capital budget. Each institution will be
asked for their prioritized list of HEAPR priorities later this fall.
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, or
Renewal to support the existing programmatic mission of the campuses
HEAPR Project Submittals
Each request for a HEAPR project shall be accompanied by the following details:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Full scope of work, including specific impact on backlog and Facilities Condition Index (FCI).
Comprehensive cost estimate by building system – HVAC, roof, exteriors, 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
13 | P a g e
5.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A campus’s past spending and encumbrance patterns of prior HEAPR projects
Adequacy of submittal documentation
Facilities Condition Index of the campus and building where work is proposed
Past appropriations of HEAPR to a campus
Backlog per square foot
HEAPR Thresholds
The following list below describes the dollar thresholds and the required submittals to the system office
for HEAPR projects submitted for the upcoming cycle.
$50,000
$50,000 – $99,999
HEAPR project minimum (new this year)
HEAPR submittal form describing scope of work and a verifiable cost
obtained, for example, through consultation with contractor
experienced in the work. The HEAPR submittal shall 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
$100,000 - $999,999
Same as the above threshold, but adds:
 Engineering study and cost estimate from a reputable firm
 Evaluation of whether this project would be a candidate for the
guaranteed energy savings program
For multiple or complex projects
 Engineering predesign study is required
 Engineering predesign should include prioritization of multiple
HEAPR project requests from an institution
14 | P a g e

$1,000,000+
Complex project means multiple systems impacted (i.e. Energy
Management system, major HVAC with roof impacts)
Engineering predesign is required
Major Capital Projects
Major capital projects are requests for funding of design and/or construction to improve permanent
academic building space where the total project cost is at least $2 million or more. Capital projects can
be new or carry forward from the previous capital bonding cycle, and include the Capital Budget
Submittal materials as described above. 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.
Initiatives or Projects less than $2 million
Initiative projects are smaller projects of $2 million or less that improve academic buildings. The goal of
initiative projects are 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 requirements of initiative projects are the same as major capital projects: predesign, narrative, cost
summary and digital photographs.
This year, the following four categories are encouraged for initiatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Renewable Energy (solar, geothermal, biomass and wind)
STEM upgrades (laboratory renovations and updates and trade spaces)
Classroom upgrades (i.e. active learning classrooms)
Charting the Future Pilot Projects (TBD)
15 | P a g e
Funding Request Threshold
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.
Total projects request more than $5 million in total cost. Should request design funding in 2016
and construction funding request in a subsequent biennium.
16 | P a g e
Capital Project Scoring
Major capital projects and Initiatives are subject to a scoring process involving presidentially-appointed
representatives from nearly all universities and colleges. These representatives come together for a
scoring session that is scheduled for early January 2015. Representatives are assigned groups that
discuss and score 6-8 capital project submittals each.
Scoring groups are designed to have members of diverse
(rural/urban),
type
of
institution
HEAPR projects are not scored geography
(college/university), and job disciplines (academic, student
in the capital project scoring
affairs, finance, facilities, IT). No representative scores a
event 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 Charting the Future implementation goals, a 2015 capital bonding
bill, or other emerging issues that may have bearing on the project priorities.
After Chancellor review, the list is prepared for recommendation to the Board of Trustees for their
review and approval.
Scoring criteria organized around the Strategic Framework integrates the guiding principles from the
Board’s capital budget guidelines. A draft scoring sheet and criteria is found in Appendix B. This year,
three core considerations are included to begin the scoring criteria and campuses with project that
satisfy these will receive 10 points each:
1.
2.
3.
Project will result in a net reduction in square footage when completed
Project was funded on the 2014 Capital Budget list or on the 2014 list approved by the
Board of Trustees
Project will be utilized by two or more campuses when completed
17 | P a g e
Financial and Budgetary Considerations
Sources and Uses of Funds
Capital budget requests require a full description the source of funding. The total project costs should be
described in the source of funds, including any special conditions or financing that is being used to
accomplish the project.
Funding Sources
In preparing your capital budget request, the campus will be required to describe the sources and uses
of capital funding. The sources are:
1. General Obligation Bonds
2. Revenue Bonds
2. Agency Operating Funds
3. Federal Funds
4. Local Government Funds
5. Private Funds
Most projects will use and request general obligation bonds. If the project includes a private use
component, identify the amount attributable to this private use as this allows us to recommend an
approach with MMB regarding the issuance taxable general obligation bonds. Taxable general obligation
bonds may cost the campus more in total costs because interest rates may be slightly higher.
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.
2.
3.
4.
Type
Amount
Conditions to receipt of funds
Schedule for delivery of funds
Inflation Assumptions
Inflation is an essential part of calculating accurate capital budgets. A cost engineer will typically
calculate the cost of a building project based on prices available at the time the estimate is prepared.
Through the cost planning process, the project is then placed in the assumed future time frame of
project implementation. Based on forecasts of future trends in building costs, the project cost estimate
is multiplied by an appropriate inflation factor to allow for this time shift.
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, 2014. Present value is then inflated to the midpoint
of construction based on the project schedule.
18 | P a g e
The state’s capital budget process defines “midpoint of construction” as the date midway between the
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 (e.g., 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.
To find the appropriate inflation cost for a project, agencies should identify the month and year closest
to the midpoint of construction and include that date in the Project Cost form.
The Building Project Inflation Schedule current as of the publication of these instructions is April 2, 2013.
MMB is scheduled to update their Building Project Inflation Schedule in spring 2015, well after capital
project scoring occurs. Capital projects will be adjusted to reflect the updated inflation based on new
MMB numbers.
19 | P a g e
2016 Capital Budget Submittals
Hiring a Consultant for a Predesign
Every project must have a current predesign. For projects that were already funded for design, an
update to an existing predesign is required. Regardless of the scope of work, the following processes
should be followed:
1. Consult the system’s master contract list found on the following web page for qualified architectural
firms that offer predesign services (See #41 and #42)
MnSCU Professional/Technical Contract list:
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/facilities/design-construction/pm_emanual/index.html


Facilities P/T Consultants Master Contract List (NEW - Eff. 5/1/14)
Facilities P/T Master Contract Instruction and Overview (rev 5/1/13)
2. Prepare a predesign RFP. A predesign RFP template is available for your use here:
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/facilities/planning-programming/predesign/
3. Select at least 2-3 firms on the list to receive a proposal. 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
MnSCU Professional/Technical Contract list:
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/facilities/design-construction/pm_emanual/index.html (#41)
4. Enter into a professional/technical contract with the selected firm.
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/contracts-purchasing/contracts/forms/ (#5)
5. Use the Predesign Guide and Predesign Review Form for Academic Projects as a guide when
preparing the predesign.
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/facilities/planning-programming/predesign/
a. Predesign Review Form for Academic Projects (August 2012). A feedback form used when
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities evaluates predesign submittals for projects funded
with capital appropriations or campus funded.
b. Predesign Guide (July 2010). This provides campuses and consultants the Predesign Basics when
preparing a predesign document for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.
Predesign Review
20 | P a g e
After a consultant is selected by the campus and work begins, the system office reviews project
predesigns at various stages of completion of the predesign document. The system’s Predesign
Guidelines provide the framework for predesign organization.
System Office Review and Feedback
The campus and consultant shall submit versions of the predesign document when the document is
approximately 50% and 95% complete. This is intended to ensure consistency in predesign submittals
and to offer recommendations on how to improve the project submittal.
1. Submittal of 50% document. The 50% document 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 master facilities plan
Identification of academic programs impacted
Identification of partners involved (3rd party or other MnSCU)
Campus and building maps identifying general project area
Data that the campus is using in support of the project, such as:
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% document:
Predesign should be nearly complete and incorporate the feedback and recommendations from the
system office’s 50% review.
3. New for this Year – a Predesign Presentation
Shortly after predesigns documents are completed, the system office will schedule a short predesign
presentation via Webex. 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 (i.e. academic affairs or ITS) as projects and needs dictate.
Project Narrative and Costs Summary
Campuses are required to submit Project Narratives and Cost Summaries in a new Excel workbook
format. This change is being made to respond to updates to the State of Minnesota’s capital budget
request system and feedback on the details needed by the legislative staff and legislators when making
capital budget decisions.
21 | P a g e
The goal of the project narrative and cost summary 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 when the legislature and annotated narrative and cost
spreadsheets are contained in the Appendix.
22 | P a g e
Reference Links
2016 Capital Budget Guidelines (Board of Trustees):
http://www.mnscu.edu/board/materials/2014/march19/fin-03-guidelines.pdf
Charting the Future:
http://www.mnscu.edu/chartingthefuture/
Predesign RFPs, predesign guides and review forms
http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/facilities/planning-programming/predesign/



Predesign RFP Template. For use when seeking to hire a predesign architect or firm to assist the
campus with preparing a predesign and submitting a capital project request.
Predesign Guide (July 2010). This provides campuses and consultants the Predesign Basics when
preparing a predesign document for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.
Predesign Review Form for Academic Projects (August 2012). A feedback form used when
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities evaluates predesign submittals for projects funded
with capital appropriations or campus funded.
Building Project Inflation Schedule
http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/bud-cap/12/inflation.pdf.
23 | P a g e
Contacts
Gregory Ewig, Director, Capital Development
Gregory.ewig@so.mnscu.edu
651.201.1775
Lisa Jansen, Senior Planner, Capital Development
Lisa.jansen.@so.mnscu.edu
651.201.1788
24 | P a g e
Appendix A: Schedule of Capital Budget Process
Due Date
Description
Responsibility
June 6, 2014
Send email to Campuses notifying
FY2016 - 2021 Capital Budget Request
is starting and defining expectations.
(include Charting the Future, Strategic
Framework, and Guidelines)
System Office
June 9, 2014
Campuses start to prepare RFPs to hire
consultants to work on predesign
Campus
June 13, 2014
Send Project Narrative and Cost
Workbook to campuses
Additional
Information
System Office
In Excel format
July 3, 2014
Campuses submit FY2016, FY18 and
FY20 project titles and cost estimates
to system office
Campus
Consultant
required to work
on the Predesign
July 18, 2014
Campuses review backlog and renewal
data; begin studies for FY16 HEAPR
projects
Campus
Consultant may
assist.
50% Predesign Request Document Due
to System Office
Campus
Preliminary project narrative and cost
spreadsheets due (Draft) to System
Office
Campus
August 4, 2014 August 15, 2014
Review 50% submittal. Conference call
may be required
System Office
Email campuses
with date of
conference calls
August 15, 2014
Send 50% Predesign document and
Narrative comments to campuses
System Office
Fall semester starts
on August 25, 2014
September 3, 2014
HEAPR Submittal form sent to
Campuses
System Office
September 12, 2014
95% Predesign Request Document Due
to System Office
August 1, 2014
Campus
25 | P a g e
September 15, 2014 Review 95% Predesign document
September 26, 2014
System Office
Send 95% Predesign document
September 26, 2014 comments to campuses; preliminary
HEAPR requests due from campuses
System Office
100% predesign (final) document
Campus
Final Narrative and spreadsheets due
to system office
Campus
October 10, 2014
October 13, 2014 - Predesign Presentation to Capital
October 24, 2014 Development (System Office)
Email campuses
System Office, Campus with date of
conference calls
October 24, 2014
System office sends requests to
campus presidents to nominate scoring
team members
System Office
October 31, 2014
6-year capital plan developed - high
level - (FY16, FY18 & FY20)
System Office
Develop debt service / CFI impact with
November 3, 2014 new capital projects (include in
scoring)
System Office
Campuses receive updated feedback
November 7, 2014 on predesigns, narratives, and
spreadsheets
System Office
November 10, 2014 - Prepare Scoring Package and create
November 26, 2014 Project Teams
November 21, 2014
50% HEAPR documents due to System
Office
Scoring Package available to Scoring
Teams (Narrative and spreadsheets);
December 3, 2014
copy of predesigns to be made
available electronically
System Office
Campus
System Office
December 3, 2014 Campuses review scoring package
January 5, 2015
Campus
Prepare Project Analysis sheets for
December 8, 2014 FY2016 Capital Budget Request
December 22, 2015
projects
System Office
Upload to
SharePoint
26 | P a g e
January 5-6, 2015
January 2015
January 31, 2015
February 2015
March 2015
Scoring of FY2016 Capital Projects Location TBA
System Office
Campus
Tabulation and Analysis of Scoring
FY2016 Capital Projects
Consultation with Chancellor
System Office
100% HEAPR documents due to system
office
Campus
Leadership Council reviews preliminary
results
System Office
Evaluation of capital project list;
identification of projects that align
with Charting the Future
Capital Request FY16 to the Leadership
Council (includes FY18, FY20 prelim
projects)
Capital Bonding Request, First Reading
May 2015
June - July 2015
Capital Bonding Request, Second
Reading
First meeting on bonding book creation
Submit Board approved FY16 capital
bonding request to MMB - BPAS
system
System Office
System Office
System Office
System Office
System Office
July - August 2015 Bonding Book created and published
System Office
August-November Capital bonding tours, visits and
2015
presentations
System Office
Campus
October 2015
BPAS system locks capital budget
request
January 2016
Governor presents bonding
recommendation
February 2016
Legislative session begins
May 2016
State of Minnesota
Legislative session ends
27 | P a g e
Appendix B: DRAFT Scoring Instrument with Annotations
INSTITUTION and CAMPUS:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT TYPE:
Major Capital Project
Initiative
PROJECT SQ. FT:
NEW:
RENOVATE:
RENEW:
DEMOLISH:
Core commitments in the Strategic Framework for capital planning in FY2016-2021 are:
 Ensure access to an extraordinary education for all Minnesotans
 Be the partner of choice to meet Minnesota’s workforce and community needs
 Deliver to students, employers, communities and taxpayers the highest value/most affordable higher education option
0.5
Preliminary Considerations
Strategic Framework Elements
No
Yes
1
Project will result in a net
reduction in square footage
when completed
0
10
Insert expected net reduction in square footage
2
Project was funded on the
2014 Capital Budget list or on
the 2014 list approved by the
Board of Trustees
0
10
10 points if the legislature funded the project on the 2014
(or prior) list;
5 points if the project was on the list, but unfunded by the
Include the priority number from 2014 list
3
Project will be utilized by two
or more campuses when
completed
0
10
Identify the other campus(es) involved
TOTAL POINTS:
(Max: 30 points)
Subtotal
1.0
Ensure access to an extraordinary education for all Minnesotans:
Projects must reflect alignment in academic and facilities planning, support state and regional academic
programming and collaboration, target long term space requirements on a regional basis, enhance facilities
that support and improve access for traditionally underrepresented students with emphasis on how the
project enhances student success. Projects shall have evidence that they:
Strategic Framework Elements
1.1
Comments that justify your score
Aligns campus facilities,
technology and academic
planning and shows
coordinated campus priorities
n/a
Low
0
1
Ave
2
High
3
4
Guidance on Documentation needed for
Low – Ave – High score
Low – no evidence provided by
campus that project aligns
between academic, technology
and facilities planning; project is
not in facilities master plan or
5
master plan update
Ave – project identified in
facilities master plan, but no
indication of coordination with
28 | P a g e
Target regional and state
academic priorities, such as
STEM, transportation,
manufacturing, technology,
energy, healthcare, agriculture
and engineering
1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Meet long-term space
requirements for programs on
a regional and multi-regional
basis for programs including
single institution, multicampuses
1.3
academic or technology plans
High - description of project
makes clear that a coordinated
effort made in facilities, academic
and technology plans and project
priority is aligned; campus provides
examples of process and how this
project was determine to be a
priority
Low – project is campus specific
and does not apply to a regional or
statewide academic priority; little
to no description or evidence of
how project meets regional or
state academic program needs
Ave – targets statewide academic
priorities in STEM, transportation,
manufacturing, tech, energy,
healthcare, agriculture and
engineering; enrollment data and
long term job outlook provided to
support project
High – Same attributes as Ave, but
includes regional data supporting
project’s specific academic target
(enrollment, demographic trends
for the specific region;
employment prospects and
placements; added staff
requirements). Avoid use of
general state or national statistics
(i.e. “the need for nurses in the
state is expected to grow 35% over
the next decade…” Provide specific
details on how this will enhance
the ability to deliver programs.
Low – no mention of long term
viability of program or explanation
of anticipated changes in
employment needs; low
enrollment in programs or no
evidence of program and
demographic / enrollment
statistics to support project
Ave – campus provides current
statistics (enrollment trends,
predictive models), including
sources, and rationale to support
program space; evidence that
campus evaluated project with
other campuses to determine
whether combining programs and
space is feasible
High – Strong data or predictive
analytics on enrollment and
workforce need in support of long
term space; campus may have
evidence of lease that proved out
need for long term space; campus
incorporated space utilization
statistics and why project is
needed; preferred if project serves
multiple institutions
29 | P a g e
Encourage space that will
improve access and success to
traditionally underrepresented
students, such as space that
targets more individualized
learning and advising
0
1.4
1
2
3
4
5
Include features that yield
informal learning spaces and
blur the line between
traditional classroom learning
and supportive collaborative,
group learning methods
0
1.5
1
2
3
4
5
Be the partner of choice to meet Minnesota’s workforce and community needs:
Projects will reflect partnerships with current and emerging workforce and community as partnerships and
collaboration with the system. Projects shall have evidence that it will:
Strategic Framework Elements
2.1
Low – project does not include this
type of space or promotes
traditional, tiered classroom or
limited informal space
Ave – incorporates features that
support informal learning or “drop
in” space; incorporates flexible
furniture features
High – same features as Ave, but
features meet future teaching
methodologies, such as active
learning spaces and/or technology
rich classrooms, modular, flexible
furnishings; could be informal
space that represent latest
pedagogical thinking and learning;
may be a blended project
(classroom or labs) that adds drop
in space or group study space
TOTAL POINTS:
(Max: 25 points)
SUBTOTAL:
2.0
Charting the Future Dimension
Low – project may not be directly
related to improve access or
success of underserved students;
or, no mention made of how
project will improve success of
underrepresented learners
Ave – evidence provided (such as
institutional research, student
surveys, etc) on how this project
improves underrepresented
students access or success
High – Many of the same features
as average, but project highlights
features that support
underrepresented students, such
as space for additional tutoring,
advising, computer labs, or other
features that are necessary to
support programs that will
enhance support of traditionally
underrepresented students;
project focuses on features to
improve access and reduce
barriers to student learning or
interaction with the campus
Contribute to the delivery of
programs that address
continuing or emerging
workforce and/or community
needs
n/a
0
Low
1
Ave
2
3
High
4
5
Guidance on Documentation
needed for Low – Ave – High score
Low – Project has no direct
connection to programs that
address continuing or emerging
workforce or community needs
Ave – Project describes
connections between space and
programs that address a workforce
or community need; identifies how
the project meets those needs,
such as space for classrooms that
30 | P a g e
Support and enhance STEM
(science, technology,
engineering and math)
programs
2.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Promote or increase retention,
completion, and transfer
within the MnSCU system
2.3
Produce space for applied
learning to occur on campus
2.4
SUBTOTAL:
support workplace solutions,
applied learning space, clinics and
other space that have a direct
training or learning component
High – Project has many of the
attributes of Ave. project, but
includes additional statistics in
support of program delivery and
how they will address workforce
needs or has matching funds or
other contributions (equipment)
from non-state sources
Low – Project does not include
STEM programs or space
Ave – Project proposes renovation
of space in support of STEM
programs; includes data points on
space utilization and backlog
reduction
High – Same features as Ave, but
includes further description on
how the project builds capacity,
addresses specific program need
(i.e. reduce wait lists) and/or
targets a need that cannot be met
via other means
Charting the Future Dimension
Low – Project is not relevant
toward increasing retention and
completion or no documentation
to support program targeting
retention or completion
Ave – Project adds student support
space that is specifically targeted
toward programs that enhance
retention, completion and transfer
(computer labs, student service
areas for intrusive advising, etc.)
High – Same attributes as Ave.
project, but more comprehensive
explanation and part of overall
strategy for increase retention
rates; campus provided goals and
data in support of retention,
completion and success
Low – project has no applied
learning component
Ave – project has clinic or other
space that allows students to
participate in specific training on
campus solving real world
problems
High – same features as Ave., but
project explains process to
incorporate a third party in project;
third party contributes capital or
other matching funds to the
incorporates a third party;
identification of private use
component, if relevant
TOTAL POINTS:
(Max: 20 points)
31 | P a g e
3.0
Deliver to students, employers, communities and taxpayers the highest value/most affordable option:
Projects will represent value through academic multi-purposing of spaces and improved utilization, energy
efficiency, improved utilities or infrastructure, improved facility conditions/reduced deferred maintenance,
and institutional financial stability. Projects shall have evidence that it will:
Strategic Framework Elements
n/a
Low
Ave
High
Advance cooperation among
campuses to reduce costs and
enable the sharing of
administrative operations,
academic programs, and
academic support
3.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Project prioritizes renovation
and repurposed space to
improve space utilization
3.2
Represent a ‘major’ reduction
in deferred facility
maintenance backlog and a
positive impact on the FCI
3.3
3.4
Incorporates renewable energy
systems in project for either
academic or production
purposes to reduce overall
energy consumption
Guidance on Documentation
needed for Low – Ave – High score
Low – recreates same or similar
space within 10 miles of existing
campus; space could be better
accommodated using a technology
solution or leased location
Ave – leverages campus
proximities and technology to
consolidate space needs among 2
or more campuses in
administrative, academic or
academic support programs;
project includes components that
shares space (student support or
other) with other institutions,
resulting in direct student benefit
and lower overall cost to the
system as a whole
High – Similar to Ave. project, but
with additional detail among the
campuses to explain the facilities
and operational savings to be
gained and how it will directly
improve student’s interaction with
the campuses.
Low – Project requests new square
footage, no or limited renovation
Ave. – renovation and renewal
project; uses enrollment and space
utilization trends to support
project request; reduces backlog
for a campus building at least 10%
High – renovation project with
some demolition embedded in
work; reduces backlog; targets
classrooms or labs for
enhancements that will improve
space utilization, even if capacity is
lowered
Low – New square footage
proposed. See additional Criteria in
Section 4.
Ave - Renovation. Reduces
building or area with highest FCI
High – same as Ave and
substantially reduces highest
backlog items identified on campus
wide basis (i.e. roof, campus wide
HVAC or electrical, etc.)
Low – little to no mention in
documentation of renewable
energy incorporated in project
Ave - project identifies renewable
energy analysis, but does not meet
payback within 20 years
High – same as Ave, but project
includes renewable energy in part
of project (can be for production or
for academic program)
32 | P a g e
3.5
3.6
3.7
Identify and, leverages
alternative financing, such as
the state’s Guaranteed Energy
Savings Program in addressing
backlog and renewal needs in
lieu of seeking capital bonding
Build in flexible and adaptable
features, including room types,
equipment and furnishings,
that allow for cost effective
adaptability of future programs
Support evidenced by campus
local investment in terms of
sustained R&R rates
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Minimize the need to create
new or additional utility and
support infrastructure
3.8
3.9
3.10
Represent a financially viable
effort in terms of current and
future campus financial
position and Composite
Financial Index (CFI)
Identifies total operating costs
required (including new staff,
anticipated utility costs, and
any additional specialized costs
required as a result of the
project)
0
1
2
3
4
5
SUBTOTAL:
4.0
Low – no description of new
faculty, staff additions; energy
costs or ongoing operational costs
required for project
Ave – describes and outlines
projected operating costs (specific
FTE); energy consumption
expectation and reductions;
High – No new operating costs or
reduced operating costs expected
over the long term
TOTAL POINTS:
(Max: 50 points)
FOR PROJECTS ADDING NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY
Consider the following criteria when new space is proposed:
Strategic Framework Elements
4.1
Low – not included or no mention
of alternative financing / matching
funds
Ave – identifies matched funds,
but not expected to provide any
more than 5% - 15% of total
project cost
High – project incorporates
alternative financing
Low – Special purpose space or
tiered classroom limiting the ability
of the space to be used for other
purposes; space with fixed
furniture is not preferred
Ave – Allows for adaptable
furnishings; technology is standard
for the campus;
Low – Campus invested less than
$1.00 psf for last 2-3 years
Ave – Investment averaged $1.00
psf for the past 2-3 years
High – investment above $1.00 psf
for past 2-3 years
Low – new square footage
proposed; requires own HVAC
Ave – renovation with some
updates to improve energy
performance; reduces
consumption expectations; current
utility infrastructure can handle
project
High – may be a renewable energy
project; or is a project that
significantly decreases expected
energy consumption of campus
Low – Campus CFI is below 2.0
Ave – Campus CFI is between 2.0 –
3.0
High – Campus CFI is above 3
Verifiable evidence of
enrollment demands and
workforce needs that support
n/a
0
Low
1
Ave
2
3
High
4
Comments that justify your score
5
Low – no evidence of
enrollment increases; or,
evidence of enrollment
33 | P a g e
the need for new space
Consideration of space needs
that can be satisfied through
short- or long-term methods,
such as leasing off-campus
space, or sharing space with
other colleges and universities
within the system
4.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Evidence of partner
contributions that support a
portion of the construction and
operating costs of the project
4.3
4.4
Specialized program or student
needs that require
construction of new square
footage
decrease in targeted service
area; low space utilization;
Ave – Evidence of enrollment
increases in the program area
that would be enhanced by
new space; could not be
addressed with leased space;
workforce / verifiable evidence
of graduate success
High – enrollment demands
coupled with specialized
workforce skills, equipment or
needs that cannot be fulfilled
in existing space; outside
partner provides equipment or
other matching funds; does not
significantly increase campus
square footage
Low – no discussion of
alternative space solutions; no
evidence of long-term solution
to space problems
Ave – discussion of alternatives
to solving space by renovation
of on campus space; evidence
that campus leased space for
this purpose and have
enrollment to back up need for
space on campus
High – campus has proof of
concept that program is
successful in off-campus or
other location; evaluated space
sharing with other MnSCU
institution or operated with
other MnSCU institution
previously; long term
enrollment trends and
enrollment needs support
space on campus
Low – no matching funds
indicated
Ave. – grant opportunities or
other non-state funds
available, but contingent on
receipt of state funds
High – non-state funds
provided; endowment or other
financial support (i.e.
equipment) offered to cover at
least 50% or more of initial
capital cost
Low – program can be
accommodated on campus or
in renovated space; no unique
characteristics require new
space
Ave. – building and
34 | P a g e
Impact on the viability of a
college or university’s longterm operating budget
4.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Evidence that technology and
flexible space use have been
fully maximized before
proposing the need for new
space
4.6
4.7
Calculation of the cost to
students attributable to
estimated debt service and
expected increase in operating
expenses
infrastructure obsolescence
make new build more cost
effective than renovation;
specialized energy
High – similar to Ave. but
includes special program
conditions (i.e. filtering, noise,
hazardous waste, etc) that
would benefit from new or
stand alone square footage
Low – the new square footage
results in substantial
depreciation expense and
operating expenses (utility
costs, maintenance, cleaning)
that would not be offset by
gains in enrollment; projected
to put campus Composite
Financial Index (CFI) below 2.0
for at least three years after
receipt of funds; debt service
with new project may require
financial restructuring
Ave. – campus will maintain
CFI; can manage debt service;
evidence that CFI will remain
stable or grow even if
enrollment decline.
High – campus absorbs and
expects to grow CFI with the
addition of the project
Low – no evidence of hybrid or
online courses incorporated in
program prior to requesting
new square footage
Ave. – high space utilization in
program rooms; no viable
space on campus for programs;
campus successfully held
online and hybrid courses to
maximize program space
High – similar to Ave., but
campus also utilized some nontraditional meeting times
(weekends) and teaching
methodologies to maximize
space and seat utilization;
growth of program requires
new square footage
Low – project debt service
would add more than $100,000
/ year in institutional debt
service; cost to students on an
DS/FYE $20/credit or more
Ave. – Project debt service
would be less than $50,000 or
less a year and no more than
$10/credit
35 | P a g e
High – project debt service of
$25,000 or less a year and
DS/FYE of $10/credit or less
TOTAL POINTS:
(Max: 35 points)
SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL Scoring Points for the Project:
Total Points
0.5 Core Considerations
(30 points max)
1.0 Ensure Access to Extraordinary Education
(25 points max - 15 points Ave - 5 points minimum)
2.0 Partner of Choice
(20 points max - 12 points Ave - 4 points minimum)
3.0 Deliver to students, employers, communities and
taxpayers the highest value/most affordable option
(50 points max - 30 points Ave 10 points minimum)
4.0 NEW SPACE ONLY
(35 points max 21 point Ave 7 points minimum)
Project Total Points
How would this project support or enhance the recommendations contained in Charting the Future?
Additional Suggestions to Improve Project
36 | P a g e
Appendix C:
2014 Capital Bonding List – Final Results
Priority
Project Title
Request
1
Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR)
$110.000
1
Demolition (systemwide)
$20.601
2
$35.865
$35.865
3
Metropolitan State University science education center
Bemidji State University Memorial, Decker renovation, Sanford Hall demolition and Hagg
Sauer design
$13.790
$13.790
4
Lake Superior College allied health revitalization renovation
$5.266
$5.266
5
Minneapolis Community & Technical College workforce, phase 2 renovation
$3.600
$3.600
6
$1.500
$1.500
7
Saint Paul College culinary arts and computer numerical control/machine tool renovation
Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, Red Wing and Winona welding, science labs and
classrooms renovation
$1.700
$1.700
8
Central Lakes College, Staples campus rightsizing renovation
9
12
Minnesota State University, Mankato clinical science facility
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Moorhead transportation center addition
and renovation
Rochester Community & Technical College Art Hall renovation and post-demolition design of
Plaza and Memorial Halls
Minnesota West Community & Technical College, Jackson and Canby classroom, powerline
facility and Geothermal System renovation
13
Dakota County Technical College transportation and emerging technologies renovation
$7.586
14
$2.020
$2.020
$5.864
$5.864
16
Century College digital fab lab, kitchen space and solar panel system renovation
Northland Community & Technical College, Thief River Falls aviation maintenance facility
addition and demolition
Northeast Higher Education District; Itasca, Rainy River, Vermilion and Hibbing science labs,
classroom, biomass heating renovation and demolition
$3.344
$3.344
17
Winona State University Education Village, Phase I, renovation
$5.902
$5.902
18
Anoka Technical College manufacturing technology hub and auto tech lab
$1.500
19
Saint Paul College health and science alliance center addition
$14.482
20
Century College classroom and workforce alignment addition
$1.000
21
South Central College, North Mankato STEM and healthcare renovation
$7.467
22
$0.865
23
St. Cloud State University student health and academic renovation
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Fergus Falls and Wadena campus rightsizing
and Center for Student Success renovation
24
Northland Community and Technical College, East Grand Forks lab renovation
$0.749
25
Winona State University Phelps Hall Psychology Lab renovation
$0.592
Total
$286.5
$159.8
$52.0
$120.7
$234.5
$39.1
10
11
15
User Financing
General Obligation
Final Bill
$42.500
$4.581
$4.234
$25.818
$25.818
$6.544
$6.544
$1.000
$1.000
$3.487
$0.865
$1.385
37 | P a g e
Appendix D: Statute Requirements For Projects Receiving State Funding
STATUTE
1. §16B.241 Coordinated Facility Planning
2. §16B.32, Subd 1 Alternative Energy Sources if renovating 50
percent or more of an existing building or its energy systems
3. §16B.32, Subd 1a Renewable Energy Sources - 2% of energy use
Solar or Wind-predesign must include analysis
4. §16B.32, Subd 2 Energy Conservation Goals
May enter into an energy savings agreement with utility or energy
services provider
5. §16B.323 Solar Energy in State Buildings.
Up to 5% of appropriation to be used on Solar energy system
when doing substantial reconfiguration or replacement of energy
systems (Mad in MN systems)
6. §16B.325: Apply Sustainable Guidelines (B3-MSBG) (New Bldgs
& Major Renovations – See www.msbg.umn.edu
§216B.241 Sustainable Building 2030 requirements
7. §16B.326
Written plan w/predesign to consider providing Geothermal &
Solar Energy Heating & Cooling Systems on new or replacement
HVAC systems
8. §16B.327 Recycle 50% of Construction & Demolition Waste
RECIPIENT
State Agency
Higher Ed
Political Subdivisions
YES
(required by statute)
NO
(not required by statute)
NO
(not required by
statute)
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
must comply with MSBG
75%
YES
must comply with MSBG
75%
NO
But must comply with
MSBG 75%
9. §16B.33 State Designer Selection Board
YES
YES
NO
10. §16B.335, Subd 1,
Notification to House & Senate Committees
YES
YES
YES
11. §16B.335, Subd 3 Predesign Submittal
See Statute for exempted projects
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
See appropriation
See appropriation
See appropriation
12. §16B.335, Subd 4
Energy Conservation Standards
(Energy Code - MN Rules 1322/1323
http://www.doli.state.mn.us/CCLD/Codes.asp
13. §16B.335, Subd 5 & 6
Information Tech. Review & ltr by MN.IT
14. §16B.335, Subd. 3c
Consider the use of MINNCOR products
www.minncor.com
15. §16B.35 % for Art
When considered in original legislative request; & when constn is
$500K or greater
16. §16A.695 Use / Grant Agreement
17. §177.42-44 Prevailing Wage RatesContractor must pay prevailing wages
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=177
18. Appropriation Language
Regarding requirement for matching funds
38 | P a g e
Appendix E:
What is the Composite Financial Index?
The Composite Financial Index (CFI) offers insights regarding financial strengths and weaknesses. The
composite is calculated from 4 component measures: return on net assets, operating margin, primary reserve,
and viability. (See also the definitions of these components).
The calculation of CFI from these components involves certain "strength factors" and "weighting factors" applied t
o the 4 components.
Operating margin is one of 4 component measures in the Composite Financial Index. The ratio numerator is "Inco
me (Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, or Losses" from the Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Cha
nges in Net Assets". The denominator is 1) the total of all operating revenues plus
2) all nonoperating revenue from the Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets.
Primary reserve ratio is one of 4 components in the Composite Financial Index. The ratio numerator is
“Expendable Net Assets” "Expense Net Assets" computed from the Net Assets section of the Statement of Net
Assets as 1) "Total Net Assets" less 2) "Invested in capital assets, net of related debt." The denominator is
computed from data on the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets" and includes 1) total
operating expenses plus 2) interest expense.
Return on net assets is one of 4 component measures in the Composite Financial Index. The ratio numerator is
"Change in net assets" computed by taking the 'Change in net assets" from the Statements of Revenues, Expenses
and Changes in Net Assets. The denominator is "Total net assets;" use beginning net assets (i.e., prior year ending
net assets).
Viability ratio is one of 4 component measures in the Composite Financial Index. The ratio numerator is
"Expendable Net Assets," the exact same value used as the numerator for the Primary Reserve Ratio calculation.
The denominator is "Long term Debt" computed from the "Statements of Net Assets" by adding 1) the current and
2) the noncurrent portions of long term debt.
What is the relevance of the CFI?
System Procedure 7.3.16 provides financial health indicators, including a review of the Composite Financial Index
score at the end of each fiscal year. The CFI score is computed annually by each college and university as part of a
fiscal year-end analysis of financial trends and highlights.
A CFI score less than 1.5 (based on a two-year moving average) OR a CFI score under 0.5 for the most recent year
requires a Financial Recovery Plan (FRP) which includes the specific steps that will be taken and expectations as to
how these steps will improve the college's or the university's financial health above the trigger level. The FRP will
be submitted to the Finance Division in the system office. Periodic progress reporting will be required if it is
expected that corrective action will take more than one fiscal year. The FRP must include:



Fund-level detailed, measurable steps tied to the fiscal year and the projected impact of the steps;
Analysis of mid-year interim financial statements addressing FRP and the degree to which actual results
match expected results; and
Narrative linking the FRP to Higher Learning Commission criteria for accreditation; how are planned steps
expected to improve college/university ability to achieve specific criterion.
39 | P a g e