PURPOSE: This rule establishes requirements and provides guidance for the assessment programs which are utilized for Capital Improvement and Maintenance funding.

1. (1) General. Each department/agency must examine the duties imposed by law and the programs or policies necessary to carry out those duties. This examination will enable the department/agency to establish operational goals that can be translated into programmatic objectives and functions assigned to specific sites, complexes or institutions. These goals are to be shared with the division on a yearly basis to determine the adequacy of existing assets for programmatic use. The division will then provide a listing of requirements for each department/agency site. A careful study of these programmatic objectives and functions shall be made to identify capital improvement requirements that are necessary for support of the assigned objectives and functions. The results of the departmental study are to be submitted to the division for consideration and will be utilized in creating the capital improvement budget request.

2. (2) Master Plans. The master plan for an existing site/complex is the comprehensive plan for effective utilization and development of the site/complex and assets as required to support assigned programmatic objectives and functions. The master plan shall include a drawing which shows the site/complex boundaries, location of all existing facilities, proposed changes, improvements or disposal of those assets, proposed areas for site expansion, disposal, and locations for known new asset requirements. Each asset (existing or proposed) shall be identified along with the principal function it serves. The master plan also requires a written discussion of the existing asset utilization (identifying the principal function) and existing asset requirements that prevent complete support for the assigned programmatic objectives and functions. The discussion shall identify work necessary to correct the identified requirements, including construction, acquisition of real property and disposal of unneeded real property. Discussion of proposed construction or acquisition will address all changes in utilization or reassignment of functions between assets. A master plan should be examined regularly and updated, when necessary, to reflect significant changes required to support assigned programmatic objectives and functions.

   1. (A) Feasibility Studies. Feasibility studies may be made to determine the most effective solution for any substantial construction or maintenance/repair requirement. For each identified requirement, where acquisition or construction estimated to cost in excess of ten

3. (10) million dollars is proposed, a feasibility study shall be made to determine the most effective solution. The study must examine forecast of needs, allocation of functions to various site/complexes and/or facilities and all practical alternatives. Funding, except for architect/engineer planning services shall not be requested for such acquisition or construction items until a feasibility study has been completed. Prior to establishing a contract for a feasibility study, the scope and requirements for a feasibility study will be coordinated with the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction. An economic analysis is to be provided as part of the feasibility study.

   1. 1. An economic analysis is a brief

resume of alternative methods of solving a problem. In this case, an economic analysis should determine the need to house a function, establish a feasible means of providing asset support, discuss the alternatives and recommend the most cost-effective solution. The analysis will include consideration of the total cost of ownership to determine the present value of owning and operating the asset or system over its economic life. The lending rate being provided by the State Treasurer’s Office on short-term state securities should be used.

1. 2. Particular attention must be given to

determine the most cost-effective alternative solution. Experience shows that frequently only two (2) alternatives are compared—the way things are being done now versus the way the department/agency would like to do them, however, such a simple comparison is not acceptable. An economic analysis must include comparisons of all practical alternatives in order to provide a convincing justification for the selected alternative.

1. 3. The extent of the analysis must be

commensurate with the scope and cost of the proposed item.

1. 4. The scope of the economic analysis

considered here is intended to support the planning/justification phase of a proposed asset or system. Studies for selection of specific equipment or materials to be incorporated into the work will be made during project design. The economic justification for selection of a specific option must take into consideration not only the initial design and construction cost, but operation (maintenance/repair, energy, labor and supply) costs throughout the projected life of the asset or system.

1. (B) Master Plan Submission. A master plan is required for each developed site with more than five (5) facilities or with facilities having total floor space of more than one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet and for undeveloped sites having an area of more than fifty (50) acres. For all sites, exempted from the requirement for a master plan, a site plan is required. The site plan shall show, as a minimum, boundaries (correlated to an easily identified reference), access, principal drives or trails, facilities, scale and north direction. Completed master plans and site plans for all sites shall be submitted to the director, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction, every six (6) years as a minimum. The master plan is to be updated annually, kept at the department and available for review upon request.

1. (3) Asset Planning Cycle. The asset planning cycle extends over a period of six (6) years. This includes the current biennium, the budget year (immediate program) and the next four (4) years. The long-range plan forecasts the asset requirements for this six (6)-year period. The immediate program is the proposed submission for the next budget year of the most urgent requirements indicated in the long-range plan.

2. (4) Long-Range Plan. The long-range plan, which covers the four (4)-year period beyond the immediate program, is the proposal for implementing the master plans for the individual site/complexes. The long-range plan will include all known requirements for construction and for maintenance/repair. The long-range plan must be supported with a current copy of the Asset Assessment Report on all existing facilities for which work is proposed in that plan. These reports provide the documentation for verifying requirements, integrating them into a statewide longrange plan and reporting to the general assembly in accordance with statutory requirements.

   1. (A) Categories. Construction items will not be combined with maintenance/repair items.
   2. (B) Priorities. The long-range plan will be prepared to show a priority order, within each of the six (6) years for the items included.
3. (5) The Commissioner of Administration or his/her designee shall establish the specific method of coordination for feasibility studies, Design and Construction

long-range plans and master plans with each department/agency.

1. (6) This rule will be used to supplement the annual budget instructions for the upcoming fiscal year.

AUTHORITY: sections 8.320, 8.330, 8.360, and 33.220, RSMo 2000.* Original rule filed July 9, 1981, effective Feb. 15, 1982. Emergency amendment filed June 14, 1985, effective July 1, 1985, expired Oct. 29, 1985. Amended: Filed June 14, 1985, effective Aug. 26, 1985. Rescinded and readopted: Filed Nov. 5, 2007, effective June 30, 2008. *Original authority: 8.320, RSMo 1958, amended 1965; 8.330, RSMo 1958, amended 1965; 8.360, RSMo 1958, amended 1965; and 33.220, RSMo 1939, amended 1945, 1971.