Project cost based on the following assumptions. 

 The estimated probable total project cost to update the University Long Range Campus Development Plan will vary depending on the scope of services requested of the design consultant and ancillary cost are as follows:

• A basic update to the existing LRCDP - $450,000 to $550,000.
• A detailed update & alignment - $650,000 to $750,000.
• A comprehensive detailed plan revision - $850,000 to $1.0M+. 

The consultant service/cost range is identified as follows:

• $350,000 to $450,000 for a basic update to the plan which would include review of demographics, goals, and objectives.  Update to existing concepts and improve alignment with campus strategic and academic plans.  Limited meetings with campus and local community.  Basic expansion of current plan details.  Final product is an update to current planning document.  (No-sub consultant assistance)
  
  
• $500,000 to $650,000 for a detailed update and re-alignment of the plan to current strategic and academic plans.  The services would include capacity and utilization studies based on demographics (FTE and Student enrollment projections) space inventory, planned growth, and facility condition reports.  Meeting with administration and academic representatives to assess goals and objectives.  Host campus community communication forums. Align plan to the strategic plan, academic plan, and campus visions and goals. Campus character assessment.  Develop capital outlay projections based on current cost. Final product is a comprehensive planning document. (Some sub consultant assistance)
  
  
• $750,000+ for a comprehensive multi faceted study and revised LRCDP.  Includes the above services as well as detailed assessment of sustainability and energy goals, traffic, parking, and circulation studies, environmental impact studies, life cycle costing analysis of campus facilities, utility infrastructure analysis and planning, comprehensive campus communication plan and presentations.  Final product is a detailed comprehensive planning document.  (Extensive sub consultant assistance)

Ancillary Costs of approximately $100,000:

• $50,000 for materials and supplies consist of printing, reproduction, and photographic services. 
  
  
• $30,000 for administrative costs (summary as follows):
      Designated Staff Cost - $15,000
      Administrative (marketing, mailings, surveys, advertising, Etc.)  - $8,000
      Conference Services, Catering, Public Forums - $5,000
  
  
• Misc Expenses - $2,000
  
  

Project contingency of approximately $20,000.

The primary purpose of the long range campus planning effort is to establish a shared vision for the physical development of the campus environment that is comprehensive, creative, useful, and most importantly, inspiring. Successful comprehensive planning recognizes attributes that create the area’s unique sense of place, incorporates the intentional character of the campus and transfers established guiding principles to the physical assets and accomplishes the expectations of the university’s mission.

The economic and political climate has significantly changed in the last five years.  As a result the University has experienced significant growth and many of the projections and objectives initially outlined in the LRCDP require realignment to remain germane with the current institutional goals. The proposal enables FPDC to update and/or revise MSU’s Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRCDP) incorporating lessons learned from the 2006-2008 process to ensure alignment in support of the university’s current strategic plan and mission statement.   The scope of the project would include funding to hire a campus planning consultant to work with the Facilities Planning Design and Construction department, University Facilities Planning Board, executive administration, ASMSU, and the campus community.  

The LRCDP included a commitment to planning and outlined philosophy to ensure relevance and currency through a proposed 5 year review and revision cycle.  This cyclical updating of the Plan is a critical activity to keep it applicable as a relevant and a viable tool in guiding decisions pertaining to the campus’ physical environment. The LRCDP proposes to update the Plan every five years following its original adoption in 2008. The process does not tie the hands of future administration, but rather provides future administrations with a flexible planning guide and development framework adaptable  to meet the university’s  current needs.

The process at a minimum would include comprehensive review of the current document for the purpose of updating both graphic and written descriptions to ensure that the LRCDP remains aligned with other campus planning efforts, both existing and planned.  More detailed planning exercises and services could be initiated based on funding availability.  These additional planning services could include but are not limited to; Academic planning and objective assessments, traffic, parking, and circulation studies, sustainability, energy, and environmental evaluations, life cycle costing analysis, new construction vs. renovation studies, cost estimating and projections, demographic studies, and utility infrastructure planning to name a few.   

The 2005-2008 long range campus development planning process was a collaborative effort between FPDC, the School of Architecture (SOA) faculty and students, and a consulting firm specializing in creating university master plans. It is envisioned that the LRCDP update would be a more comprehensive effort requiring greater participation from professional consulting firm.  The consulting firm would not only continue the campus wide cooperation established with the original LRCDP process, but it would help  to shorten the development schedule as well as provide additional expertise, resources, and depth of professional disciplines necessary to address current environmental, sustainability, MEPA, traffic analysis, and other planning issues pertinent to the 21^st century campus.

The 2005-2008 process was given a budget of $220,000.  The final cost was $195,000; approximately $125,000 of the costs was for contracted professional consultant services; and approximately $50,000 was expended on SOA resources (faculty and student compensation).  The balance of expenses was for FDPC-conducted community Charettes, research and printing and publishing costs. FPDC staff provided written dialogue, most of the photographs and conducted the needs analysis; and the SOA students provided most of the sketches and graphics.  It is envisioned that the consultant will provide the graphics, studies, photographs, and suggest development priorities and patterns for the future campus – a ‘next level of professional expertise’. It is estimated that these consultant services and deliverables could cost as high as $1.0M depending on the final scope of work.  MSU and FPDC will participate in managing the process and deliverables at an estimated contribution of approximately $100,000 to $150,000 depending on depth and duration of the planning efforts.

In recent years, a culture of planning emerged through the recognition that unintended consequences occur when land and facility assets are developed without the guidance of a long-range comprehensive plan. The purpose of a formal development plan is to reflect and nurture the diversity of the university environment.

The LRCDP evolved through a collegial participatory team approach of creating a document that supports the university’s mission far into the future. It envisioned an attractive and well-conceived campus of higher education that emphasizes its unique northern Rocky Mountain location and the extraordinary natural resources and community setting. As a first plan of its type for the university, it established an order for the interrelated parts of the campus, such as architecture, landscape, circulation, and continued concentration of development within the historic core of the campus.

As a result of the inclusive process and diverse stakeholder participation, the LRCDP is a living document that catalogued the existing conditions and provided guidelines to accommodate appropriate growth. The intent is for Facilities Planning, Design and Construction to periodically lead the effort to systematically refine the Plan to accommodate change, preserve the historic character and allow the university to evolve and grow.

The LRCDP established eight planning principles to help guide the University in management of its physical assets. These principles represent the university’s commitment to excellence in teaching, research and outreach. and represent a  commitment to thoughtfully planning the development of the campus. They are to:

1. Promote the commitment of Montana State University to the contemporary mission of a Land Grant institution through the physical integration of teaching, research and outreach.
2. Coordinate college and departmental goals and physical developments with the strategic vision of the university.
3. Recognize the critical relationship of the physical environment to excellence in teaching, learning, research, public relations, and the quality of life.
4. Develop the physical environment of the university through collaborative relationships with the larger community.
5. Build on our unique heritage, sense of place and strategic vision of the future as a model of planning and design excellence.
6. Develop a campus environment that enhances the personal experience of the university community through a spatial network that promotes human interaction.
7. Be exemplary stewards of our physical resources.
8. Continue a comprehensive approach to campus planning to guide future development of the university.

Upon approval of the funding of the proposal

• Obtain Board of Regents Authority for spending of funds on the project. (2 months)
• Coordinate consultant selection process (2 months)
• Contract negotiations and project start-up (1 month)
• Evaluation and analysis of current document (3 months)
• Public forums and departmental information gathering process (3 months)
• Development of updates and revisions (5 months)
• Review and recommendation to updates and revisions (2 month)
• Finalize updates and revisions (3 months)
• Final approval through UFPB and Presidential approval process (1 months)
• Printing and distribution of document.(2 months)

Total estimated project time frame 24 months.

• Evaluate current document in terms of alignment with strategic plan and academic plan.
• Identify areas for updating through public forums and charette meetings with campus colleges and departments.
• Confirm update requirements with UFPB and executive administration.
• Develop updates and modifications in accordance with recommendations.
• Review and finalize updates and modifications with UFPB and executive administration.
• Incorporate updates and modifications into documents.
• Print and distribute revised final document.

If the assessed objectives of the plan are not met within the timeframe the following options are available:

• Postpone project implementation to a later timeframe.  The initiation of the project is subject to BOR meeting schedule to obtain spending authority and A&E Division appointment schedules to select consultant per MCA requirements. 

Sunset the proposal would include closing out consultant contracts if applicable.