Michigan's Capital Outlay Process · submitted to DMB for review and approval. If DMB determines...

7

Michigan’s

Capital Outlay Process

Prepared by

Al Valenzio Associate Director

Mitchell E. Bean, Director

March 2007

HOUSE FISCAL AGENCY GOVERNING COMMITTEE

George Cushingberry, Jr. Daniel Acciavatti

Andy Dillon Craig DeRoche

Steve Tobocman Chris Ward

MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

George Cushingberry, Jr., Chair Alma Wheeler Smith

Matthew Gillard, Vice Chair Dudley Spade

Joan Bauer Aldo Vagnozzi

Doug Bennett Daniel Acciavatti, Minority Vice Chair

Pam Byrnes David Agema

Marsha Cheeks Fran Amos

John Espinoza Darwin Booher

Lee Gonzales Jack Brandenburg

Richard Hammel Bruce Caswell

Morris Hood III Bill Caul

Shanelle Jackson Goeff Hansen

Michael Lahti Chuck Moss

Richard LeBlanc Mike Nofs

Gary McDowell John Proos

Michael Sak Rick Shaffer

STATE OF MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE FISCAL AGENCY

MITCHELL E. BEAN, DIRECTOR

P.O. BOX 30014 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7514

PHONE: (517) 373-8080 FAX: (517) 373-5874 www.house.mi.gov/hfa

GOVERNING COMMITTEE

GEORGE CUSHINGBERRY, JR., CHAIR

ANDY DILLON STEVE TOBOCMAN

DANIEL ACCIAVATTI, VC CRAIG DEROCHE

CHRIS WARD

March 2007 TO: Members of the House of Representatives Michigan’s public universities and community colleges requesting state financial support for a building project must follow exacting procedures and standards. These procedures and standards are referred to as the Capital Outlay Process—the subject of this publication. The procedures and standards that must be followed for a successful project are explained in this report, as is the process used by the State Building Authority to finance capital outlay projects. The Appendix to this report provides a detailed listing of all major (over $1 million) projects authorized and appropriated for by the Legislature since FY 1992-93. Very little state building activity was accomplished prior to FY 1992-93 due to severe budgetary constraints. Hence, FY 1992-93 is considered the beginning of the state’s building boom. Al Valenzio, Associate Director, is the author of this report. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions or comments. Mitchell E. Bean Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 3 JCOS..................................................................................................................... 7 PROJECT FINANCING .............................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 13 Appendix Department of Corrections Projects................................................................ 17 Other State Agency Projects ......................................................................... 18 State University Projects .............................................................................. 19 Community College Projects.......................................................................... 22

FIGURES Figure 1 Michigan Capital Outlay Process ............................................................ 4 Figure 2 SBA Financing Process ....................................................................... 10 Figure 3 SBA Rent.......................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 SBA Bond Cap Ceiling ........................................................................ 11

THE CAPITAL OUTLAY PROCESS HOUSE FISCAL AGENCY: MARCH 2007 PAGE 1

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to define and summarize the Michigan capital outlay process, describe the responsibilities and functions of the (legislative) Joint Capital Outlay Subcommittee (JCOS), and explain how the State Building Authority (SBA) finances state building projects. The Michigan capital outlay process may be defined as:

The budgetary and administrative functions devoted to planning and financing for the acquisition, construction/renovation, and maintenance of facilities used by a state agency, public university, or community college.

The capital outlay process does not include highway and bridge construction projects; these are covered by other administrative and legislative procedures. General operational practices and procedures for capital outlay are stipulated in the following:

Management and Budget Act (1984 PA 431).

State Building Authority Act (1964 PA 183).

Annual Capital Outlay appropriations acts.

Formal policies of the JCOS. The Management and Budget Act establishes the administrative framework for all state government functions, including the capital outlay process, and establishes the specific oversight roles of the Department of Management and Budget (DMB) and JCOS. The capital outlay process has been in a continual state of refinement over the past 40 years—both administratively and statutorily. The most significant process changes since 1984 were implemented in early 1999 with adoption of 1999 PA 8, which amended the Management and Budget Act. These changes were intended to make the capital outlay process less cumbersome, less centralized, and more responsive without diminishing the general oversight roles of both the Legislature and DMB. The act also requires more comprehensive planning for building projects, which now must occur before final costs are set. Beginning with enactment of 1993 PA 19—with the notable exception of the years 2002 to 2004—the state has embarked on its most ambitious capital spending campaign in the history of the SBA. Since 1993, there have been 178 SBA-financed projects authorized by law: 66 for

THE CAPITAL OUTLAY PROCESS PAGE 2 HOUSE FISCAL AGENCY: MARCH 2007

community colleges, 64 for universities, and 48 for state agencies. Total cost authorizations have exceeded $4.1 billion with the SBA share exceeding $3.2 billion (See Appendix for details). The following terms and abbreviations are used throughout this publication:

DMB — Department of Management and Budget.

JCOS — Joint Capital Outlay Subcommittee.

SBA — State Building Authority.

Planning Authorization — Allows an agency/institution to develop initial project planning documents to determine project scope/costs. Also referred to as a “place holder,” it is accomplished by a $100 General Fund/General Purpose (GF/GP) appropriation in a budget bill.

Cost and Construction Authorizations — Final legislative action to allow a project to

move to final design and construction. The project’s total authorized cost and sources of financing are also established in this action.


PROCESS Practical application of the capital outlay process tends to be complex, highly technical, and somewhat cumbersome. However, the various reviews and approvals which are part of the process serve as effective screens for state policy makers, enabling them to better understand all aspects of a project (e.g., need, purpose, scope, and cost) before authorization is finalized. The capital outlay process was designed to protect the state budget in economic downturns or from other factors influencing state priorities, thus helping to ensure that public monies are being well spent on functional, necessary facilities. Figure 1 shows the steps, described below, that a successful capital outlay project must complete.

Master Plans State agencies, universities, and community colleges are required by 1999 PA 8 to annually submit rolling five-year capital outlay master plans to DMB and JCOS for review. Each plan must include prioritized state-funded project requests and special maintenance needs, and an inventory of current facilities with a professional assessment of their respective conditions. Review for Planning Authorization From the priority requests in the five-year plans, the Governor will determine whether any of the requested projects have sufficient merit to warrant planning authorization in the Executive Budget Recommendation. The JCOS and the entire Legislature will then review the Executive Budget and make any changes deemed necessary. An agency/institution granted a project planning authorization in a budget act has up to three years to develop a program statement and schematic planning documents for review and approval. Planning Costs Planning cost funds are used to hire architects and other professionals to develop the initial planning documents, which provide details of the purpose, scope, and size of the project with reliable cost estimates. Planning costs for successful state agency projects are provided through appropriations; higher educational institutions fund these costs as part of their project match requirement. The standard match rate for an SBA-financed project is 50% from community college funds and 25% from university funds.

It is important to note that a planning authorization does not guarantee that a project will be completed. After review of the initial planning documents, the project can be terminated if the Legislature deems the project too costly or without merit.


Figure 1

MICHIGAN CAPITAL OUTLAY PROCESS

MASTER PLANS

submitted annually by state agencies and universities and community collegesTO DMB AND JCOS

GOVERNOR REVIEWS

master plans for recommendationTO JCOS

JCOS REVIEWS

master plans for recommendationTO LEGISLATURE

LEGISLATURE REVIEWS

Executive and JCOS recommendations FOR PLANNING AUTHORIZATION

PLANNING COSTS

legislatively authorizedto develop

initial planning documents

only

STATE AGENCYPROJECT

planning fundedthrough appropriations

UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITYCOLLEGE PROJECT

planning funded as part ofproject match requirement

INITIAL PLANSAND

PROGRAM STATEMENT

developed byarchitectsand other

professionals

RENOVATION PROJECTS

produce program statementand preliminary plans

NEW PROJECTS

move topreliminary planning phase

REVIEW AND APPROVAL

of initial planning documentsand program statement

BY DMB FOR RECOMMENDATION TO JCOS

REVIEW AND APPROVAL


BY JCOS

AUTHORIZATION ENACTMENT

Legislatureprovidescost and

construction authorizationsto allow project

to moveto next phase

NEW PROJECTS


RENOVATION PROJECTS

move tofinal design

FINAL DESIGNplans developed to serve as

BID DOCUMENTSfor the project

PRELIMINARY PLANS

developed by architect

and submittedTO DMBfor review

PROJECT MANAGEMENTBY UNIVERSITIES ANDCOMMUNITY COLLEGES

for their projects

PROJECT MANAGEMENTBY DMB

for state agency projects

CHANGE ORDERS AND PROGRESS REPORTS

reviewed by DMB

AUDITS AND FIELD CHECKS

periodically performed by DMB

CONSTRUCTION

project financing provided through legislatively-approved cost authorization

MICHIGAN CAPITAL OUTLAY PROCESS

MASTER PLANS

submitted annually by state agencies and universities and community collegesTO DMB AND JCOS

GOVERNOR REVIEWS

master plans for recommendationTO JCOS

JCOS REVIEWS

master plans for recommendationTO LEGISLATURE

LEGISLATURE REVIEWS

Executive and JCOS recommendations FOR PLANNING AUTHORIZATION

PLANNING COSTS

legislatively authorizedto develop

initial planning documents

only

STATE AGENCYPROJECT

planning fundedthrough appropriations

UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITYCOLLEGE PROJECT

planning funded as part ofproject match requirement

INITIAL PLANSAND

PROGRAM STATEMENT

developed byarchitectsand other

professionals

RENOVATION PROJECTS

produce program statementand preliminary plans

NEW PROJECTS


REVIEW AND APPROVAL


BY DMB FOR RECOMMENDATION TO JCOS

REVIEW AND APPROVAL


BY JCOS

AUTHORIZATION ENACTMENT

Legislatureprovidescost and

construction authorizationsto allow project

to moveto next phase

NEW PROJECTS


RENOVATION PROJECTS

move tofinal design

FINAL DESIGNplans developed to serve as

BID DOCUMENTSfor the project

PRELIMINARY PLANS

developed by architect

and submittedTO DMBfor review

PROJECT MANAGEMENTBY UNIVERSITIES ANDCOMMUNITY COLLEGES

for their projects

PROJECT MANAGEMENTBY DMB

for state agency projects

CHANGE ORDERS AND PROGRESS REPORTS

reviewed by DMB

AUDITS AND FIELD CHECKS

periodically performed by DMB

CONSTRUCTION

project financing provided through legislatively-approved cost authorization


Review of Submitted Planning Documents When planning authorization documents are completed, they are submitted to DMB for review and analysis by in-house architects and other professionals. Adjustments (which may include scope reductions to bring project costs down or to fit administration priorities) recommended by DMB staff may occur at this point. After planning authorization documents are acceptable to DMB, they are submitted to JCOS for review and approval. If JCOS concurs that the project has merit, the documents will be approved and cost and construction authorizations will be included in a capital outlay budget act. Authorization Enactments Enactment of cost and construction authorizations allows the project to move to the next phase—new projects move to the preliminary planning phase and renovation projects move to final design. Final Design/Bids Architect-developed preliminary plans—which are more detailed than the schematic plans—are submitted to DMB for review and approval. If DMB determines that the project still complies with the legislatively-authorized purpose, scope, size, and cost, the project moves to final design. Final design plans, often referred to as bid documents, are used by construction contractors to submit bids on the project. Construction bids are managed by universities and community colleges for their respective projects, and by DMB for state agency projects. In all cases, bid results are submitted to both DMB and JCOS. Project Management Since 1999, universities and community colleges have been solely responsible for managing their projects; DMB continues to handle this function for state agency projects. If a university or community college does not have the internal capability to manage its own construction project, it may contract with a private vendor or with DMB. The Management and Budget Act requires that all contract change orders and monthly progress reports be submitted to DMB on any project not managed directly by the Department; DMB is also empowered to conduct periodic field checks and audits on these types of projects.

Up to the start of construction, all planning costs have been funded either through the planning appropriation or by the university or college managing the project. Once construction begins, project financing is provided through the legislatively-approved cost authorization.


JCOS Direct, ongoing legislative process participation and oversight are provided through the Joint Capital Outlay Subcommittee (JCOS) of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. JCOS is the only subcommittee that has specific duties and responsibilities defined by statute (1984 PA 431)—some of which have already been mentioned. Traditionally, sixteen members (eight from the Senate and eight from the House of Representatives), appointed by the chairperson of each respective appropriations committee, constitute the Joint Capital Outlay Subcommittee. JCOS is chaired by each house on a two-year rotational basis; the House of Representatives will provide the JCOS chairperson for the 2007-2008 legislative session. Although it is designated as a subcommittee, JCOS functions more like a regular standing committee due to the size of the committee and the nature of its business. A JCOS quorum consists of nine members; each house must be represented by at least four members. Approval of an agenda item requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the members serving (nine affirmative votes). A formal policy of the 2005-2006 subcommittee requires a ten-day notice of an agenda item from DMB to the subcommittee, the House Fiscal Agency, and the Senate Fiscal Agency. This rule can, however, be waived by the JCOS chairperson. JCOS has the following special duties and responsibilities:

Adopt formal subcommittee policies and procedures.

Prioritize future state agency, university, and community college building projects.

Provide planning authorization for a project through an appropriations act.

Approve/disapprove project program statements and schematic planning documents.

Establish project total authorized cost and financing sources through an appropriations act.

Approve/disapprove state agency leases of non-state-owned spaces that exceed certain minimums (i.e., at least 25,000 gross square feet and/or cost of over $500,000 per year).

Approve/disapprove self-funded projects (called Use and Finance Statements) above certain

minimums at higher educational institutions.

Approve/disapprove funding transfers between capital outlay budget accounts.


Initiate concurrent resolutions to convey property to the SBA and approve leases for bonded facilities among the SBA, the state, and user agencies.

Ensure that annual rent payments are appropriated to the SBA, which then uses the funds

to retire its debt obligations. JCOS discusses and acts on numerous policy issues regarding the capital outlay process and capital outlay projects. Some of these issues are the sole discretion of JCOS (e.g., subcommittee policies, program statement approvals); others are recommendations to the full appropriations committees and to the Legislature (e.g., budget bills, concurrent resolutions). Other major issues handled by JCOS include: definition of a capital outlay project, limits on use of operational funds for capital expenditures, criteria used for project prioritization, SBA bond cap level, Use and Finance Statement approvals, and establishing standard project match rates.


PROJECT FINANCING Michigan funds capital construction projects in three ways: pay-as-you-go, lease-purchase, and bonding.

Pay-As-You-Go Under the pay-as-you-go method, appropriations are made to either meet project costs as they come due or finance the entire project with a lump sum. The lump sum method of funding occurs for a number of smaller, restricted fund projects (e.g., special maintenance, Michigan Department of Transportation facilities, most Department of Natural Resources projects). Nearly all (major) state-owned facility renovations and new construction projects, however, are financed by the SBA from bond proceeds.

Lease-Purchase The state leases a vast number of facilities across the state; most of the leases for larger office buildings contain an option to purchase; this method was used by the state to acquire the Lottery Building, the Grand Tower, and Constitution Hall—all in Lansing. In another form of lease-purchase, the state enters into a long-term contractual arrangement with a developer and then receives the building at lease end for a nominal fee. This method is commonly referred to as the certificate of participation (COPS) program; the House Office Building is an example of this type of lease-purchase.

Bonding The SBA, created by 1964 PA 183, is governed by a five-member Board of Trustees who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. By statute, the SBA’s purpose is to construct, acquire, improve, enlarge, and lease facilities for use by the state, a university, or a community college. Unrelated acquisitions of furnishings and equipment for state agencies may also be financed by the SBA. Local school districts and Intermediate School Districts are specifically exempted from the use of SBA monies. The SBA can issue short- and long-term debt to finance a project once the Legislature has enacted a project cost authorization, a concurrent resolution to convey the subject property to the SBA, and approval of the lease among the SBA, state, and institution. Conveyance of the property is an important aspect of the ability of the SBA to finance a project. If the SBA cannot secure clear title to the property, it will be unable to sell bonds to finance construction; this would compel the Legislature and the user agency to secure another source of financing—if possible. Although rare, this has occurred. During the construction phase, short-term debt is issued to cover construction cash-flow requirements. Once the facility is complete, a long-term, tax-exempt revenue bond will be


issued. Several projects are usually bundled together into one single bond issue—which usually involves several hundred million dollars. Figure 2 depicts the financing process.

Figure 2 All SBA debt obligations are limited obligations of the SBA itself and are not considered general obligations of the state. In fact, the SBA has its own bond rating, which usually mirrors the state’s general obligation rating. Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard and Poors all currently rate SBA bonds one step below the state’s general obligation rating. These ratings are respectively, Aa3, AA-, and AA-. SBA debt obligations are not backed by the “full faith and credit of the state,” but by a specific revenue source—the annual SBA rent payment in a budget bill. When the Legislature adopts a concurrent resolution approving the SBA lease, it is contractually committing to pay the annual rent until SBA debt obligations are satisfied. Statute requires a rent amount be a ‘true market’ rate—established when construction is complete and the facility has been independently appraised. Depending on the appraisal and other market conditions, the lease will be in effect for approximately 15 to 17 years. The amount of the annual rent payment to the SBA is based on the value of the facility—not on debt service costs. Debt service costs determine the length of the lease. Once an obligation for a specific project is retired, the property is conveyed back to the state or institution, and rent payments terminate.

SBA FINANCING PROCESS

LEASE

agreed to by SBA and user

LEASE

approved by Legislature

LAND AND FACILITY

conveyed to SBAby legislative concurrent resolution

with record roll call vote

BIDS

awarded

SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTES

issued by SBA to fundconstruction cash flow needs

COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY

of facility imminent

LONG-TERM REVENUE BONDS

issued by SBA to fund projectJCOS

notified of sale

ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS

provided by Legislaturefor facility’s true market rent

to SBA to cover debt obligations

DEBT OBLIGATION

retired

LAND AND FACILITY

revert back to state or institution

SBA FINANCING PROCESS

LEASE


LEASE


LAND AND FACILITY



BIDS

awarded







notified of sale




DEBT OBLIGATION

retired

LAND AND FACILITY


LEASE


LEASE


LAND AND FACILITY



BIDS

awarded







notified of sale




DEBT OBLIGATION

retired

LAND AND FACILITY



SBA RentGF/GP Appropriations

$233

,870

,200

$225

,634

,200

$246

,116

,900

$250

,828

,100

$261

,936

,700

$287

,166

,700

$227

,002

,100

$243

,002

,100

$236

,902

,100

$232

,702

,100

FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07

SBA Bond Cap Ceiling

$400,000,000

$775,000,000

$1,350,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,700,000,000

1964 PA 183 1985 PA 206 1987 PA 119 1993 PA 35 1997 PA 127

Figure 3 Rent appropriations are anticipated to trend upward over the next several years before leveling off again. The actual trend will depend on how many new projects are authorized, whether the current bond cap remains the same, and conditions of the general construction and bond markets. Significant savings have been achieved since FY 2002-03 due to restructuring debt under more favorable interest rates. A history of GF/GP appropriations for SBA rent payments is shown in Figure 3. The SBA Act limits the maximum allowable amount of SBA debt obligations that can be outstanding at any point in time. This statutory limit is currently set at $2.7 billion—excluding issuing costs and refunding bonds. A history of statutory SBA bond cap ceilings since the SBA was created (see Figure 4) shows that the debt obligation limit almost doubled from 1993 to 1997—after just two adjustments since 1964. This increase is the result of the unprecedented number of SBA-financed projects authorized (178) from FY 1992-93 onward.

Figure 4


The available bonding capacity is a constantly fluctuating number—and an important one. Planning, construction, and financing schedules of each individual project affect the bond cap projection; timing of principal payments on SBA debt is also crucial. Policy makers must have reliable information on how debt obligations compare to the bond cap. Without this information, there is the potential for untimely, costly delays in completing projects. Debt obligation calculation cannot be considered an exact science because estimates must be made two to three years in advance of the time when an authorized project will come on line. At this time, the House Fiscal Agency estimates that about $550 million remains in bond cap authorization after all currently-authorized projects are factored in through FY 2008-09.


CONCLUSION From both management and finance perspectives, Michigan’s capital outlay process has continually responded to the needs of state agencies, public universities, and community colleges for their building projects. However, the annual requests for new buildings, major renovations to existing facilities, and special maintenance have greatly exceeded the state’s ability to finance and manage the projects over a short (one to two years) period of time. In addition to prioritizing individual project requests, policy makers must weigh proposed projects against the SBA bond cap and the state’s ability to appropriate general fund dollars for rent payments to the SBA in future years. Another influencing factor in the decision-making process is balancing the need for financing new projects against the need for funding regular and special maintenance for existing facilities. Current state general fund revenue projections for the current and coming fiscal years cannot be considered robust. As of this writing, there are 40 SBA-financed projects that are incomplete or not yet otherwise bonded; these SBA obligations exceed $430 million. Between the current year and FY 2008-09, when all of the projects come on line, debt service on the projects will add to an already-strained general fund budget. This will be somewhat mitigated by prior bond issues being either refunded or defeased. By FY 2008-09, the estimated net increase for SBA debt service will be about $20 million. All of the factors listed above will make policy makers’ decisions on future Capital Outlay budgets even more difficult in the upcoming legislative session.

APPENDIX

TH

E C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

PA

GE

17

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

D

epar

tmen

t of

Cor

rect

ions

New

berr

y H

ospi

tal C

onve

rsio

n 1995 P

A 1

6

$10,1

81.1

$10,0

96.1

$85.0

$0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Hou

sing

Uni

t -

Alg

er P

rison

1995 P

A 1

6

4,3

90.0

4,3

49.0

41.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Hou

sing

Uni

ts -

Bar

aga

Pris

on

1995 P

A 1

6

8,4

79.0

8,3

97.9

81.1

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Hou

sing

Uni

t -

IMA

X (

Riv

ersi

de)

1995 P

A 1

6

2,2

86.0

2,2

63.2

22.8

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Pol

e-Typ

e U

nit

- La

kela

nd P

rison

1995 P

A 1

6

7,5

30.0

7,4

29.0

101.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Hou

sing

Uni

ts -

Oak

s Pr

ison

1995 P

A 1

6

8,1

13.3

8,0

32.2

81.1

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Pol

e-Typ

e U

nit

- Pa

role

Cam

p 1995 P

A 1

6

9,2

63.4

9,1

40.0

123.4

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Add

Hou

sing

Uni

t -

Sta

ndis

h Pr

ison

1995 P

A 1

6

4,4

01.1

4,3

59.9

41.2

0.0

C

ompl

eted

SPS

M R

eorg

aniz

atio

n (C

onse

nt D

ecre

e)

1993 P

A 1

9

116,1

60.0

112,1

60.0

4,0

00.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

New

Max

imum

Sec

urity

Faci

lity,

St.

Lou

is

1996 P

A 3

21

75,0

00.0

74,2

50.0

750.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

New

Mul

ti-le

vel S

ecur

ity

Faci

lity,

Ion

ia

1998 P

A 2

73

80,5

00.0

58,5

79.9

0.1

21,9

20.0

C

ompl

eted

New

Lev

el I S

ecur

ity

Faci

lity,

St.

Lou

is

1998 P

A 2

73

25,0

00.0

24,7

00.0

300.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t, B

arag

a Pr

ison

1998 P

A 2

73

3,5

00.0

3,4

60.0

40.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

ts,

Coo

per

Str

eet

1998 P

A 2

73

8,2

00.0

5,0

00.0

120.0

3,0

80.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t 3,

Coo

per

Str

eet

2002 P

A 5

30

3,7

00.0

3,7

00.0

0.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t, C

rane

Wom

en's

2002 P

A 5

30

4,5

65.0

4,5

25.0

40.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

ts,

Cam

p O

jibw

ay

1998 P

A 2

73

19,9

00.0

19,7

44.0

156.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Min

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

ts,

Cam

p Pu

gsle

y 2002 P

A 5

30

20,6

00.0

20,3

20.0

280.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Max

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t, M

acom

b Pr

ison

1998 P

A 2

73

9,5

50.0

9,4

77.0

73.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Max

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t, S

agin

aw P

rison

1998 P

A 2

73

9,3

00.0

9,2

27.0

73.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Max

imum

Sec

urity

Hou

sing

Uni

t, T

hum

b Pr

ison

2002 P

A 5

30

8,0

50.0

7,9

72.0

78.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Parn

all H

ousi

ng U

nit

1999 P

A 2

65

4,9

60.0

4,9

60.0

0.0

0.0

C

ompl

eted

Riv

ersi

de P

ower

Pla

nt A

utom

atio

n 2005 P

A 2

97

4,5

00.0

4,4

99.9

0.1

0.0

C

onst

ruct

ion

New

Pow

er P

lant

, K

inro

ss

2003 P

A 1

93

6,0

00.0

5,9

99.9

0.1

0.0

C

onst

ruct

ion

Fire

Saf

ety

Impr

ovem

ents

, Eg

eler

Cor

rect

iona

l Fac

ility

2006 P

A 3

45

8,3

00.0

8,2

99.9

0.1

0.0

C

onst

ruct

ion

Hur

on V

alle

y C

ompl

ex,

Food

Ser

vice

Add

itio

n, e

tc.

2004 P

A 3

09

3,6

75.1

3,6

75.0

0.1

0.0

Fin

al D

esig

n

Sub

tota

l Dep

artm

ent

of C

orre

ctio

ns

$466,1

04.0

$434,6

16.9

$6,4

87.1

$25,0

00.0

T

HE

CA

PITA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

P AG

E 18

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

O

ther

Sta

te A

genc

ies

- Pr

ojec

t

Agr

icul

ture

- G

eagl

ey L

abor

ator

y 1996 P

A 4

80

$12,0

00.0

$11,9

00.0

$100.0

$0.0

Com

plet

ed

Agr

icul

ture

- A

nim

al H

ealth

Dia

gnos

tic

Labo

rato

ry

2000 P

A 2

91

58,0

00.0

57,9

99.9

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DC

H -

Yps

ilant

i For

ensi

c C

ente

r 1999 P

A 2

65

95,1

00.0

95,0

99.9

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DO

E -

Sch

ool f

or t

he D

eaf

and

Blin

d, H

ousi

ng F

acili

ties

1996 P

A 4

80

1,5

00.0

1,4

85.0

15.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

FIA

- C

amp

Nok

omis

ren

ovat

ion

1992 P

A 1

49

3,9

00.0

3,5

00.0

400.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

FIA

– U

.P.

Det

ention

Cen

ter

1992 P

A 1

49

4,0

00.0

3,6

00.0

400.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

FIA

- M

axey

Tra

inin

g C

ente

r re

nova

tion

1995 P

A 1

28

37,6

07.0

37,2

31.0

376.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DIT

- P

ublic

Saf

ety

Com

mun

icat

ions

Sys

tem

, C

ritic

al P

latf

orm

Upg

rade

s 2005 P

A 1

0

13,7

80.0

13,7

79.9

0.1

0.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Judi

ciar

y -

Hal

l of

Just

ice/

Und

ergr

ound

Par

king

Ram

p 1998 P

A 5

38

87,8

00.0

87,7

99.9

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Alle

gan

Str

eet

Park

ing

Ram

p 1993 P

A 1

9

21,0

00.0

20,7

90.0

210.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Pur

chas

e of

Gra

nd T

ower

Bui

ldin

g (L

ansi

ng)

2001 P

A 4

5

42,9

88.0

42,9

88.0

0.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Roo

seve

lt P

arki

ng F

acili

ty

2001 P

A 4

5

6,6

00.0

6,5

99.9

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Sec

onda

ry C

ompl

ex W

areh

ouse

1999 P

A 2

65

45,0

00.0

44,9

99.9

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Cap

itol

Com

plex

Ren

ovat

ions

2003 P

A 2

37

27,5

63.3

27,5

63.2

0.1

0.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

DM

B -

Pur

chas

e of

Con

stitut

ion

Hal

l (La

nsin

g)

2004 P

A 3

60

122,3

63.2

122,3

63.2

0.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

DM

B -

Sta

te F

acili

ty P

rese

rvat

ion

Proj

ects

, Ph

ase

I 2005 P

A 1

0

56,2

20.0

56,2

19.9

0.1

0.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

DM

B -

Sta

te F

acili

ty P

rese

rvat

ion

Proj

ects

, Ph

ase

II 2005 P

A 2

97

70,0

00.0

69,9

99.9

0.1

0.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

DN

R -

Sta

te F

ish

Hat

cher

ies

Ren

ovat

ions

1998 P

A 2

73

23,3

00.0

20,0

00.0

3,3

00.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Sta

te P

olic

e - Fo

rens

ic S

cien

ces

Labo

rato

ry

1996 P

A 4

80

23,5

00.0

23,3

25.0

175.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Sta

te P

olic

e/M

ilita

ry A

ffai

rs - H

eadq

uart

ers

Bui

ldin

g 1997 P

A 1

16

950.0

0.0

950.0

0.0

Pla

n Ex

pire

d

Sta

te P

olic

e - M

etro

Nor

th/S

outh

Pos

ts

1993 P

A 1

9

4,3

20.0

4,2

93.0

27.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Sta

te P

olic

e - Pu

blic

Saf

ety

Com

mun

icat

ions

Sys

tem

1995 P

A 1

28

234,1

57.2

212,7

26.0

21,4

31.2

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Sub

tota

l Oth

er S

tate

Age

ncie

s

$991,6

48.7

$964,2

63.6

$27,3

85.1

$0.0

Gra

nd T

otal

All

Sta

te A

genc

ies

$1,4

57,7

52.7

$1,3

98,8

80.5

$33,8

72.2

$25,0

00.0

TH

E C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

PA

GE

19

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– P

roje

ct

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– M

usic

Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

$20,9

95.0

$20,7

85.0

$210.0

$0.0

Com

plet

ed

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– P

ark

Libr

ary

Add

itio

n/Rem

odel

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

50,0

00.0

37,4

99.9

0.1

12,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– H

ealth

Prof

essi

ons

Bui

ldin

g 2000 P

A 2

91

50,0

00.0

37,4

99.8

0.2

12,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– E

duca

tion

Bui

ldin

g 2006 P

A 3

45

50,0

00.0

37,4

99.8

1.2

12,4

99.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

East

ern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– L

ibra

ry R

epla

cem

ent/

Ren

ovat

ion,

Off

ice

Rel

ocat

ion

1993 P

A 1

9

57,6

68.0

54,1

51.3

516.7

3,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

East

ern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– H

ealth

& H

uman

Ser

vice

s Bui

ldin

g 1996 P

A 4

80

20,4

17.0

15,3

12.6

0.1

5,1

04.3

Com

plet

ed

Ferr

is S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– A

rts

and

Sci

ence

s 1993 P

A 1

9

31,2

25.0

30,6

90.0

310.0

225.0

Com

plet

ed

Ferr

is S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– E

last

omer

Ins

titu

te

1996 P

A 3

21

6,6

50.0

4,6

49.9

0.1

2,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Ferr

is S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– L

ibra

ry A

dditio

n an

d Rem

odel

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

50,0

00.0

37,4

99.9

0.1

12,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Ferr

is S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– E

ngin

eerin

g &

Tec

hnic

al C

ente

r 2000 P

A 5

06

18,0

00.0

13,4

99.8

0.2

4,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Ferr

is S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– Ins

truc

tion

al R

esou

rce

Cen

ter

2005 P

A 2

97

8,5

00.0

5,6

24.8

0.2

2,8

75.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Gra

nd V

alle

y Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– L

ife

Sci

ence

s Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

40,7

90.4

39,5

01.0

399.0

890.4

Com

plet

ed

Gra

nd V

alle

y Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– S

choo

l of

Bus

ines

s &

Gra

duat

e Li

brar

y 1996 P

A 4

80

52,6

50.0

37,5

24.9

0.1

15,1

25.0

Com

plet

ed

Gra

nd V

alle

y Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– H

ealth

Prof

essi

ons

Bui

ldin

g 2000 P

A 2

91

53,0

00.0

37,0

99.8

0.2

15,9

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Gra

nd V

alle

y Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– P

adno

s C

olle

ge o

f En

gine

erin

g 2005 P

A 2

97

16,0

00.0

11,9

99.8

0.2

4,0

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Lake

Sup

erio

r Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– L

ibra

ry A

dditio

n 1993 P

A 1

9

10,9

00.0

10,8

10.0

90.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Sup

erio

r Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– C

raw

ford

Hal

l Add

itio

n/Rem

odel

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

23,0

00.0

17,2

49.9

0.1

5,7

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Sup

erio

r Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– A

rts

Cla

ssro

om B

uild

ing

2000 P

A 2

91

15,3

00.0

11,4

74.8

0.2

3,8

25.0

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Sup

erio

r Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– S

peci

al M

aint

enan

ce

2005 P

A 1

0

163.1

163.0

0.1

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– A

nim

al &

Agr

icul

tura

l Fac

ilities

1993 P

A 1

9

69,6

51.0

66,6

50.9

0.1

3,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– C

rop

and

Soi

l Sci

ence

s Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

3,1

00.0

3,0

69.0

31.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– S

cien

ce B

uild

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

93,0

00.0

69,7

49.9

0.1

23,2

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– C

hem

istr

y Bui

ldin

g/C

oolin

g Tow

ers

2005 P

A 2

97

28,3

44.5

19,9

99.8

0.2

8,3

44.5

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mic

higa

n Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

– E

nviro

nmen

tal S

cien

ces/

Engi

neer

ing

Cen

ter

1993 P

A 1

9

43,7

81.0

29,9

99.9

0.1

13,7

81.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

– C

ente

r fo

r Ec

osys

tem

Sci

ence

1996 P

A 4

80

10,0

00.0

7,4

99.9

0.1

2,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

– P

erfo

rmin

g A

rts

& E

duca

tion

Cen

ter

1996 P

A 4

80

20,0

00.0

4,9

99.9

0.1

15,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mic

higa

n Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

– Int

egra

ted

Lear

ning

/Inf

orm

atio

n Tec

h C

ente

r 2002 P

A 5

60

33,8

38.7

24,9

99.8

0.2

8,8

38.7

Com

plet

ed

T

HE

CA

PITA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

P AG

E 20

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

M

ichi

gan

Tec

hnol

ogic

al U

nive

rsity

– G

ener

al C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

2005 P

A 2

97

10,0

00.0

7,4

99.8

0.2

2,5

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Nor

ther

n M

ichi

gan

Uni

vers

ity

– P

ower

Pla

nt A

dditio

n 1993 P

A 1

9

19,5

30.0

19,3

34.7

195.3

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

ther

n M

ichi

gan

Uni

vers

ity

– W

est

Sci

ence

Bui

ldin

g Rem

odel

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

46,9

35.0

35,2

01.1

0.1

11,7

33.8

Com

plet

ed

Nor

ther

n M

ichi

gan

Uni

vers

ity

– F

ine

& P

ract

ical

Art

s Pr

ojec

t 2002 P

A 1

61

21,2

30.0

15,9

22.3

0.2

5,3

07.5

Com

plet

ed

Nor

ther

n M

ichi

gan

Uni

vers

ity

– S

tude

nt S

ervi

ces

Bui

ldin

g 2002 P

A 1

61

15,7

50.0

11,8

12.3

0.2

3,9

37.5

Com

plet

ed

Oak

land

Uni

vers

ity

– S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

39,0

12.0

38,6

21.8

390.2

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Oak

land

Uni

vers

ity

– C

lass

room

/Bus

ines

s Sch

ool B

uild

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

17,5

00.0

13,1

24.9

0.1

4,3

75.0

Com

plet

ed

Oak

land

Uni

vers

ity

– S

choo

l of

Educ

atio

n Bui

ldin

g 2000 P

A 5

06

31,5

00.0

23,6

24.8

0.2

7,8

75.0

Com

plet

ed

Sag

inaw

Val

ley

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– B

usin

ess

Prof

essi

onal

Dev

elop

men

t C

ente

r 1992 P

A 1

49

33,5

00.0

33,4

99.0

1.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Sag

inaw

Val

ley

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– C

lass

room

Fac

ility

1996 P

A 4

80

28,5

00.0

18,7

49.9

0.1

9,7

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Sag

inaw

Val

ley

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– Ins

truc

tion

al F

acili

ty #

4/L

ibra

ry R

enov

atio

ns

2001 P

A 4

5

40,0

00.0

29,9

99.8

0.2

10,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Sag

inaw

Val

ley

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

– P

ione

er H

all R

enov

atio

ns &

Add

itio

n 2005 P

A 2

97

16,0

00.0

11,9

99.8

0.2

4,0

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan

Ann

Arb

or –

Cen

tral

Cam

pus

Ren

ovat

ions

I

1993 P

A 1

9

32,5

00.0

32,1

75.0

325.0

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan

Ann

Arb

or –

Int

egra

ted

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

1993 P

A 1

9

58,3

50.0

56,4

30.0

570.0

1,3

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan

Ann

Arb

or –

Cen

tral

Cam

pus

Ren

ovat

ions

, Ph

ase

II -

1996 P

A 4

80

88,0

00.0

59,2

49.9

0.1

28,7

50.0

M

ason

& H

aven

Hal

ls,

$35,0

00,0

00

Com

plet

ed

Pe

rry

Bui

ldin

g, $

12,0

00,0

00

Com

plet

ed

W

est

Hal

l, $15,0

00,0

00

Com

plet

ed

Li

tera

ture

, Sci

ence

s &

Art

s Bui

ldin

g $26,0

00,0

00

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Ann

Arb

or –

Sch

ool o

f N

atur

al R

esou

rces

& E

nviro

nmen

t Bui

ldin

g Ren

ovat

ions

1998 P

A 5

38

17,7

00.0

11,2

49.9

0.1

6,4

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Ann

Arb

or –

Obs

erva

tory

Lod

ge R

enov

atio

ns,

Part

1 o

f 3

2005 P

A 2

97

11,5

00.0

7,8

19.8

0.2

3,6

80.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Ann

Arb

or –

Stu

dent

Act

ivitie

s Bui

ldin

g, P

art

2 o

f 3

2006 P

A 1

53

8,5

00.0

5,7

51.6

0.1

2,7

48.3

Con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Ann

Arb

or –

Pho

enix

Lab

orat

ory,

Par

t 3 o

f 3

2006 P

A 3

45

9,5

00.0

6,4

28.6

0.1

3,0

71.3

Con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Dea

rbor

n – C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

Pha

se II

1993 P

A 1

9

16,2

00.0

13,8

60.0

140.0

2,2

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Dea

rbor

n – H

ubba

rd D

rive

Bui

ldin

g A

cqui

sition

2002 P

A 5

30

32,8

00.0

24,5

99.8

0.2

8,2

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Dea

rbor

n – S

cien

ce B

uild

ing

Ren

ovat

ions

2002 P

A 5

30

9,6

00.0

7,2

00.0

0.0

2,4

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Dea

rbor

n – E

ngin

eerin

g Bui

ldin

g Ren

ovat

ions

2002 P

A 5

30

12,6

00.0

9,4

50.0

0.0

3,1

50.0

Com

plet

ed

TH

E C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

PA

GE

21

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

U

nive

rsity

of M

ichi

gan-

Dea

rbor

n – C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

Pha

se III

- 1996 P

A 4

80

46,9

00.0

35,1

74.9

0.1

11,7

25.0

C

ASL

Faci

lity,

$29,8

00,0

00

Com

plet

ed

En

viro

nmen

tal F

acili

ty,

$4,0

62,0

00

Com

plet

ed

U

nive

rsity

Mal

l, $10,9

38,0

00

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Flin

t – P

rofe

ssio

nal S

tudi

es &

Cla

ssro

om B

uild

ing

1996 P

A 4

80

35,6

23.0

25,9

42.1

110.1

9,5

70.8

Com

plet

ed

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan-

Flin

t – F

renc

h H

all R

enov

atio

ns

2006 P

A 3

45

9,3

50.0

6,9

99.8

0.2

2,3

50.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– O

ld M

ain

Ren

ovat

ion

1993 P

A 1

9

45,8

45.0

42,4

26.6

418.4

3,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– U

nder

grad

uate

Lib

rary

1993 P

A 1

9

32,0

00.0

25,9

99.9

0.1

6,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– P

harm

acy

Bui

ldin

g Rep

lace

men

t 1996 P

A 4

80

66,6

00.0

48,2

24.9

0.1

18,3

75.0

Com

plet

ed

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– W

elco

me

Cen

ter

2000 P

A 2

91

18,5

00.0

13,8

74.8

0.2

4,6

25.0

Com

plet

ed

Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

– E

ngin

eerin

g D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

ter

2006 P

A 3

45

27,3

50.0

14,9

99.8

0.2

12,3

50.0

Fin

al D

esig

n

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– P

ower

Pla

nt

1992 P

A 1

49

25,2

82.0

22,6

67.0

1.0

2,6

14.0

Com

plet

ed

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– S

cien

ce F

acili

ty

1993 P

A 1

9

42,4

00.0

37,6

20.0

380.0

4,4

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– C

olle

ge o

f En

gine

erin

g &

App

lied

Sci

ence

Bui

ldin

g 1996 P

A 4

80

72,5

00.0

37,4

99.9

0.1

35,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– H

ealth

& H

uman

Ser

vice

s Bui

ldin

g 2001 P

A 4

5

48,1

70.8

36,1

27.9

0.2

12,0

42.7

Con

stru

ctio

n

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity/

Lake

Mic

higa

n C

olle

ge –

Sou

thw

est

Reg

iona

l Cen

ter

2001 P

A 4

5

8,4

86.0

6,3

64.3

0.2

2,1

21.5

Com

plet

ed

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

– B

row

n H

all R

enov

atio

ns &

Add

itio

n 2005 P

A 2

97

14,8

00.0

9,4

99.8

0.2

5,3

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Sub

tota

l Sta

te U

nive

rsitie

s

$1,9

87,4

87.5

$1,5

44,5

31.8

$4,0

95.6

$438,8

60.1

T

HE

CA

PITA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

P AG

E 22

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- P

roje

ct

Alp

ena

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- S

tude

nt C

omm

unity

Bus

ines

s C

ente

r 1992 P

A 1

49

$8,2

00.0

$4,0

99.0

$1.0

$4,1

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Alp

ena

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- C

oncr

ete

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

1996 P

A 3

21

7,1

27.7

3,3

59.9

407.8

3,3

60.0

Com

plet

ed

Alp

ena

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- Ins

truc

tion

al A

dditio

n &

Ren

ovat

ions

2005 P

A 2

97

4,1

05.5

1,6

67.3

0.2

2,4

38.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Bay

de

Noc

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- B

usin

ess/

Adv

ance

d Tec

h. C

ente

r 1993 P

A 1

9

6,3

90.0

2,4

99.9

0.1

3,8

90.0

Com

plet

ed

Bay

de

Noc

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- G

ener

al C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

1997 P

A 1

16

3,7

15.0

1,8

57.4

0.1

1,8

57.5

Com

plet

ed

Bay

de

Noc

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- N

ew W

est

Cam

pus

Faci

lity

2005 P

A 2

97

12,0

48.0

5,8

74.1

0.2

6,1

73.7

Con

stru

ctio

n

C.S

. M

ott

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

1992 P

A 1

49

9,1

85.6

4,0

49.0

1.0

5,1

35.6

Com

plet

ed

C.S

. M

ott

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- R

egio

nal T

echn

olog

y C

ente

r Bui

ldin

g 1999 P

A 2

65

33,4

39.0

16,7

19.4

0.1

16,7

19.5

Com

plet

ed

Del

ta C

olle

ge - S

cien

ce a

nd L

earn

ing

Tec

h Fa

cilit

y 1993 P

A 1

9

26,0

00.0

12,4

99.9

0.1

13,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Del

ta C

olle

ge -

Cam

pus

Ren

ovat

ions

II

2001 P

A 8

1

18,0

00.0

17,8

19.8

0.2

180.0

Com

plet

ed

Gle

n O

aks

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- M

ain

Bui

ldin

g Rem

odel

ing

1992 P

A 1

49

4,6

03.0

2,3

00.5

1.0

2,3

01.5

Com

plet

ed

Gle

n O

aks

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- S

cien

ce B

uild

ing

Add

itio

n/A

llied

Hea

lth

2005 P

A 1

1

3,2

00.0

1,5

99.8

0.2

1,6

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Gog

ebic

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- G

ener

al C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

2000 P

A 2

91

1,4

00.0

699.8

700.2

0.0

Com

plet

ed

Gog

ebic

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- S

peci

al M

aint

enan

ce P

roje

cts

2005 P

A 1

0

1,0

00.0

999.9

0.1

0.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Gra

nd R

apid

s C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- S

cien

ce F

acili

ty

1993 P

A 1

9

30,0

80.8

15,0

40.3

0.1

15,0

40.4

Com

plet

ed

Gra

nd R

apid

s C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- M

ain

Bui

ldin

g Ren

ovat

ions

2000 P

A 5

06

6,0

00.0

2,9

99.8

0.2

3,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Hen

ry F

ord

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- L

earn

ing

Res

ourc

es C

ente

r, H

ealth

Car

eers

Ed

ucat

ion

Cen

ter

1993 P

A 1

9

25,1

44.8

10,4

48.3

0.1

14,6

96.4

Com

plet

ed

Hen

ry F

ord

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- P

atte

rson

Tec

h C

ente

r 1992 P

A 1

49

15,9

85.0

6,1

49.0

1.0

9,8

35.0

Com

plet

ed

Hen

ry F

ord

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- Ins

truc

tion

al/C

lass

room

Ren

ovat

ions

1999 P

A 2

65

9,8

56.0

4,9

27.8

0.2

4,9

28.0

Com

plet

ed

Jack

son

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- L

enaw

ee E

xten

sion

Cen

ter

1996 P

A 4

80

4,4

00.0

1,4

99.9

0.1

2,9

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Jack

son

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- H

ealth

Prog

ram

Exp

ansi

on

2005 P

A 2

97

17,3

00.0

7,4

99.8

0.2

9,8

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Kal

amaz

oo V

alle

y C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- T

ech

Cen

ter/

Dow

ntow

n C

ente

r 1992 P

A 1

49

14,3

50.0

6,4

99.0

1.0

7,8

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Kal

amaz

oo V

alle

y C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- A

rcad

ia C

ampu

s, P

hase

II

1996 P

A 4

80

22,4

00.0

11,1

99.9

0.1

11,2

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Kel

logg

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- C

ompu

ter

Tec

h an

d A

cade

mic

Cen

ter

1996 P

A 3

21

16,5

17.0

5,9

99.9

0.1

10,5

17.0

Com

plet

ed

Kel

logg

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- C

aree

r D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

ter/

Sci

ence

Bui

ldin

g 2002 P

A 5

30

3,7

50.0

1,8

74.8

0.2

1,8

75.0

Com

plet

ed

Kel

logg

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- R

oll B

uild

ing

Ren

ovat

ions

2003 P

A 2

37

5,0

00.0

1,6

24.8

0.2

3,3

75.0

Com

plet

ed

TH

E C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

PA

GE

23

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

K

irtla

nd C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- A

cade

mic

Bui

ldin

g, A

rt/M

aint

enan

ce, A

dmin

istr

atio

n 1995 P

A 1

28

7,2

34.0

3,6

16.9

0.1

3,6

17.0

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Mic

higa

n C

olle

ge -

S. C

ampu

s Fa

cilit

y/Stu

dent

Ser

vice

s C

ente

r 1993 P

A 1

9

4,7

61.2

2,3

80.5

0.1

2,3

80.6

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Mic

higa

n C

olle

ge -

Stu

dent

Ser

vice

s C

ente

r 1997 P

A 1

16

4,0

00.0

1,9

99.9

0.1

2,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Lake

Mic

higa

n C

olle

ge -

Van

Bur

en C

ente

r 2002 P

A 5

60

7,8

00.0

3,8

99.8

0.2

3,9

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Lans

ing

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- A

cade

mic

Ser

vice

Fac

ility

1993 P

A 1

9

25,5

70.0

12,7

84.9

0.1

12,7

85.0

Com

plet

ed

Lans

ing

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- U

nive

rsity

Cen

ter

2005 P

A 2

97

11,0

00.0

4,9

99.8

0.2

6,0

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mac

omb

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- G

ener

al C

lass

room

Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

8,9

00.0

4,4

49.9

0.1

4,4

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Mac

omb

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- U

nive

rsity

Cen

ter

at C

entr

al C

ampu

s 1996 P

A 4

80

13,0

00.0

6,4

99.9

0.1

6,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mac

omb

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- E

mer

genc

y Ser

vice

s Tra

inin

g Fa

cilit

y 2001 P

A 4

5

8,6

83.0

3,2

72.3

0.2

5,4

10.5

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mac

omb

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- H

ealth

Sci

ence

/Tec

hnol

ogy

Bui

ldin

g 2005 P

A 2

97

12,0

00.0

5,9

99.8

0.2

6,0

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mid

-Mic

higa

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- M

ount

Ple

asan

t C

ampu

s 1993 P

A 1

65

3,3

50.0

1,6

74.5

0.5

1,6

75.0

Com

plet

ed

Mid

-Mic

higa

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- S

tude

nt C

omm

unity

Cen

ter

1993 P

A 1

65

3,5

00.0

1,7

49.5

0.5

1,7

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Mid

-Mic

higa

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- S

tude

nt A

sses

smen

t C

ente

r 2001 P

A 8

1

3,1

65.0

1,5

82.3

0.2

1,5

82.5

Com

plet

ed

Mid

-Mic

higa

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- S

cien

ce &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

2005 P

A 2

97

16,4

75.0

8,2

37.3

0.2

8,2

37.5

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mon

roe

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- H

ealth

Educ

atio

n Bui

ldin

g 1993 P

A 1

9

6,9

00.0

3,4

49.9

0.1

3,4

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Mon

roe

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- B

usin

ess/

Tec

h C

ente

r, L

ibra

ry,

Wel

ding

/ Fa

sten

ing

Proj

ect

1998 P

A 5

38

2,5

00.0

1,2

49.9

0.1

1,2

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Mon

roe

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- Ins

truc

tion

al C

ente

r fo

r Bus

ines

s &

Pe

rfor

min

g A

rts

2002 P

A 5

30

12,0

00.0

5,9

99.8

0.2

6,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mon

tcal

m C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- V

ocat

iona

l Tec

hnol

ogy

Faci

lity

1995 P

A 1

28

11,4

00.0

5,6

99.9

0.1

5,7

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Mon

tcal

m C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- L

ife

Sci

ence

Tra

inin

g Fa

cilit

y 2005 P

A 2

97

7,5

00.0

2,9

99.8

0.2

4,5

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mus

kego

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

(C

onso

rtiu

m)

- H

ighe

r Ed

ucat

ion

Cen

ter

1992 P

A 1

49

11,0

33.0

9,6

53.0

1.0

1,3

79.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

th C

entr

al M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- M

ultipu

rpos

e Ed

ucat

iona

l Fac

ility

, et

c.

1996 P

A 3

21

11,4

74.5

3,9

67.4

0.1

7,5

07.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- U

nive

rsity

Cen

ter

1993 P

A 1

9

5,9

00.0

2,3

99.9

0.1

3,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- Int

egra

ted

Sci

ence

& T

echn

ical

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

r 1997 P

A 1

16

14,1

00.0

7,0

49.9

0.1

7,0

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- W

est

Bay

Cam

pus

Rec

onst

ruct

ion

2001 P

A 8

1

16,2

50.0

8,1

24.8

0.2

8,1

25.0

Com

plet

ed

Nor

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- O

leso

n C

ente

r Ren

ovat

ions

2005 P

A 2

97

1,3

00.0

649.8

0.2

650.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Oak

land

Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

- R

enov

atio

n of

Bui

ldin

g F

1993 P

A 1

9

10,5

00.0

5,2

49.9

0.1

5,2

50.0

Com

plet

ed

T

HE

CA

PITA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

CES

S

P AG

E 24

HO

USE

FISC

AL

AG

ENC

Y:

MA

RC

H 2

007

STA

TE

BU

ILD

ING

AU

TH

ORIT

Y-F

INA

NC

ED C

API

TA

L O

UTLA

Y P

RO

JEC

TS —

1993 T

O 2

007

(D

olla

rs In

Tho

usan

ds)

Sta

tuto

ry

Aut

horiz

atio

n A

utho

rized

Pr

ojec

t C

ost

SBA

Sha

re Sta

te S

hare

O

ther

Fun

ds Pro

ject

Sta

tus

St.

Cla

ir C

ount

y C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- G

ener

al C

ampu

s Ren

ovat

ions

2002 P

A 5

30

13,0

00.0

4,4

99.8

0.2

8,5

00.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Sch

oolc

raft

Col

lege

- S

tude

nt S

ervi

ces

Faci

lity

1992 P

A 1

49

7,8

46.0

3,9

22.0

1.0

3,9

23.0

Com

plet

ed

Sch

oolc

raft

Col

lege

- W

ater

man

Cam

pus,

etc

. 2000 P

A 5

06

27,9

16.5

13,3

68.8

0.2

14,5

47.5

Com

plet

ed

Sch

oolc

raft

Col

lege

- T

echn

ical

Ser

vice

s Fa

cilit

y 2006 P

A 1

53

12,7

00.0

5,0

19.7

0.2

7,6

80.1

Fin

al d

esig

n

Sou

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- B

usin

ess

Dev

elop

men

t & S

tude

nt S

uppo

rt C

ente

r 1993 P

A 1

9

5,0

00.0

2,4

99.9

0.1

2,5

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Sou

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- S

outh

Cou

nty

Exte

nsio

n C

ente

r 1996 P

A 4

80

3,1

00.0

1,3

69.9

0.1

1,7

30.0

Com

plet

ed

Sou

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- Ins

truc

tion

al R

esou

rces

Cen

ter

2002 P

A 1

61

2,5

00.0

1,2

49.8

0.2

1,2

50.0

Com

plet

ed

Sou

thw

este

rn M

ichi

gan

Col

lege

- Inf

orm

atio

n Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

Ren

ovat

ions

2005 P

A 2

97

5,0

47.7

2,2

49.8

0.2

2,7

97.7

Con

stru

ctio

n

Was

hten

aw C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- B

usin

ess

Educ

atio

n C

ente

r 1993 P

A 1

9

6,0

00.0

2,9

99.9

0.1

3,0

00.0

Com

plet

ed

Was

hten

aw C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- T

echn

olog

y an

d Ed

ucat

ion

Bui

ldin

g 1996 P

A 4

80

21,1

21.6

10,4

99.9

0.1

10,6

21.6

Com

plet

ed

Was

hten

aw C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- P

lum

bers

/Pip

e Fi

tter

s Fa

cilit

y 2002 P

A 5

30

4,7

41.0

1,9

99.8

0.2

2,7

41.0

Com

plet

ed

Was

hten

aw C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- T

echn

ical

Ind

ustr

ial B

uild

ing

Ren

ovat

ions

2005 P

A 2

97

10,6

85.0

2,9

99.8

0.2

7,6

85.0

Con

stru

ctio

n

Wes

t Sho

re C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- Ind

ustr

ial S

kills

Cen

ter

1992 P

A 1

49

3,9

86.0

1,0

67.0

1.0

2,9

18.0

Com

plet

ed

Wes

t Sho

re C

omm

unity

Col

lege

- N

ew S

tude

nt L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

2006 P

A 1

53

7,8

99.4

3,9

49.5

0.2

3,9

49.7

Con

stru

ctio

n

Sub

tota

l Com

mun

ity

Col

lege

s

$681,0

36.3

$329,1

45.9

$1,1

25.1

$350,7

65.3

GRA

ND

TO

TA

LS

$4,1

26,2

76.5

$3,2

72,5

58.2

$39,0

92.9

$814,6

25.4

Mitchell E. Bean, Director

Bill Fairgrieve, Deputy Director

517-373-8080 Agriculture..................................................................................William E. Hamilton, Senior Analyst Capital Outlay ...................................................................................Al Valenzio, Associate Director Community Colleges ............................................................................Viola Bay Wild, Fiscal Analyst Community Health Medicaid ........................................................................................... Steve Stauff, Senior Analyst Mental Health/Substance Abuse...................................................... Margaret Alston, Senior Analyst Public Health/Aging .............................................................................. Susan Frey, Senior Analyst Corrections .................................................................................... Marilyn Peterson, Senior Analyst Education (Department) ..............Mary Ann Cleary, Associate Director; Bethany Wicksall, Senior Analyst Environmental Quality ..........................................................................Kirk Lindquist, Senior Analyst General Government Attorney General/Civil Rights/Civil Service/Executive/Information Technology/ Legislature/Lottery/Auditor General/Management & Budget/State...............Robin Risko, Senior Analyst Treasury ...................................................... Mark Wolf, Fiscal Analyst; Robin Risko, Senior Analyst Higher Education ..................................................................................... Kyle I. Jen, Senior Analyst Human Services (Department) ................. Bob Schneider, Senior Analyst; Bill Fairgrieve, Deputy Director History, Arts, and Libraries .................................................................Al Valenzio, Associate Director Judiciary ............................................................................................Viola Bay Wild, Fiscal Analyst Labor & Economic Growth .................................................................... Richard Child, Senior Analyst Michigan Strategic Fund ....................................................................... Richard Child, Senior Analyst Military & Veterans Affairs ................................................................ Jan Wisniewski, Senior Analyst Natural Resources................................................................................Kirk Lindquist, Senior Analyst State Police ..................................................................................... Jan Wisniewski, Senior Analyst School Aid ................................Mary Ann Cleary, Associate Director; Bethany Wicksall, Senior Analyst Transportation.............................................................................William E. Hamilton, Senior Analyst

Economic/Revenue Forecast; Tax Analysis; Revenue Sharing ................Rebecca Ross, Senior Economist Jim Stansell, Economist

Legislative Analysis.......................................................................... Chris Couch, Associate Director Edith Best, Joan Hunault, Shannan Kane, Sue Stutzky, Legislative Analysts

Legislative Transfers ........................................................................ Margaret Alston, Senior Analyst Oversight & Investigations ............................................................William E. Hamilton, Senior Analyst Retirement ........................................................................................Al Valenzio, Associate Director Supplementals........................................... Al Valenzio, Associate Director; Kyle I. Jen, Senior Analyst

Office Manager ......................................................................Sharon Risko, Administrative Assistant Publications/Data......................................................................Jeanne Dee, Administrative Assistant Facilities Coordinator............................................................................ Ericah Caughey, Receptionist Unit Support Agriculture/Community Colleges/Education/Higher Education/School Aid/ Transportation/Transfers/HFA Internet/Bill Analysis.......................... Barbara Graves, Budget Assistant

Capital Outlay/Environmental Quality/General Government/History, Arts, & Libraries/ Labor & Economic Growth/Military & Veterans Affairs/Natural Resources/ Retirement/State Police/Supplementals............................................... Kim O’Berry, Budget Assistant

Community Health/Corrections/Human Services/Judiciary/HFA Library .....Tumai Burris, Budget Assistant

March 2007

P.O. Box 30014 Lansing, MI 48909-7514 (517) 373-8080 FAX (517) 373-5874

www.house.mi.gov/hfa

Michigan's Capital Outlay Process · submitted to DMB for review and approval. If DMB determines...

Documents

Transcript of Michigan's Capital Outlay Process · submitted to DMB for review and approval. If DMB determines...