When was the most recent round of campus development agreement(s) completed?

• 
  FGCU: It is in the process of being completed now.
  
• 
  UCF: Funds were received by the county approximately Summer 2006.
  
• 
  UF: The CDA with City of Gainesville and Alachua County was executed on August 2, 2006. It was heard by the FBOG on January 25, 2007. The CDA with the Town of Davie is being scheduled for adoption in summer 2007.
  
• 
  FIU: May 2007, University Park. November 1996, Biscayne Bay Campus, (no development under way).
  
• 
  USF Tampa: 4/07
  
• 
  FSU: The most recent Campus Development Agreements for the Main Campus and the Panama City Campus were executed in June 2005.
  
• 
  FAU: Two or three of them are in process currently.
  
• 
  UNF: Two years ago.
  

• 
  FGCU: NA
  
• 
  UCF:N/A
  
• 
  UF: At the Town’s request, the University will have a CDA with the Town of Davie for 2005-2015. These negotiations have been completed with only the formal adoption to be scheduled in summer 2007. The Apopka REC site will not have a CDA since there is no significant development planned, and the history of communication and coordination with the Town of Apopka has been satisfactory.
  
• 
  FIU: Separate Agreements- different municipalities.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: Each campus has a separate development agreement with its host community signed by the USF BOT chair after approval at separate city public hearings on the agreement.
  
• 
  FSU: A separate Campus Development Agreement has been negotiated and subsequently re-negotiated with the City of Panama City. It stands separate of the agreement Florida State has with the City of Tallahassee.
  
• 
  FAU: no answer.
  
• 
  UNF: N/A
  

FGCU: 1 county

UCF:1 county

UF: 2 Cities; 1 County.

FIU: 1 County

USF: 1 City

FSU: 1 City

FAU: 1 City/ 3 counties

• 
  USF Tampa – the agreement is only with the host community (City of Tampa). However we review and coordinate the Master Plan with the nearby Hillsborough County and City of Temple Terrace.
  

• 
  FGCU: has a very good working relationship with Lee County.
  
• 
  UCF: It would greatly help the process if the host government understood the backup data that is required by the BOG staff.
  

• 
  UF. The first campus master plan under the state statute (for years 1995-2005) was difficult and resulted in a challenge petition. Since that time, the University has completed two five-year updates that have become progressively more collaborative and open processes with lessening conflict. The 2005-2015 plan update process included three designated committees with community representation, press releases, interactive online website, numerous public presentations and forums for public input. It was also preceded by a university visioning process that was conducted in 2003-2004. As a result of this open process, the public hearing adoption phase was uneventful and poorly attended despite good media coverage. The poor turnout at the public hearings is viewed by the University as a sign that our proactive public participation process was successful, and concerns were addressed well before the public hearing phase.
  
• 
  FIU: no issues
  
• 
  USF Tampa – none
  
• 
  FSU: In the past, there have been land use issues involving properties bordering the Main Campus and the failure of the host local government to recognize the University’s long-range planning goals. More recently, there have been transportation and parking issues. In most instances, the University was able to discuss these issues with the local government to reach some level of understanding.
  
• 
  FAU: none
  
• 
  UNF: none
  

• 
  FGCU: None
  
• 
  UCF: Having to repeatedly ask for detailed backup to support the requested amount (per BOG staffers)
  
• 
  UF: The University main campus is a very large employment center in a relatively small community. As a small community, state and federal appropriations for transportation infrastructure are minimal; the ability to raise local funds for transportation is difficult; and there are no revenue streams in the community from toll authorities, ports, airports or other major intermodal infrastructure. As a result, the University’s impacts to public transportation facilities and services are unavoidable with very little opportunity for relief other than the university concurrency trust fund. The University was able to negotiate satisfactory mitigations for public transportation facilities and services with its host local governments. However, the FDOT District staff was displeased with the university’s anticipated impacts to state roads, but they were not a party to the agreement and the FDOT Central Office made no comment on the University’s draft campus plan. Although the state agency should not be a party to the Agreement nor should there be any change to university responsibilities with regard to Ch. 163 FS, there must be some recognition of the magnitude of community infrastructure needs when a large university is located in a small community. The community infrastructure is vital to the continued growth and success of the university. Current FDOT funding criteria, with its emphasis on the state’s Strategic Intermodal System, local fund matching and rural development initiatives, ignores infrastructure requirements to support the educational, economic and public health benefits of a state university with an associated teaching hospital. This issue was not necessarily a conflict with the host local governments, but it was a conflict with one of the reviewing agencies and the lack of transportation infrastructure funding continues to be problematic for the university and its host local governments.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: The City had made pro-active infrastructure improvements to provide adequate service for growth. Because they did, our growth did not cause sufficient degradation of level of service and therefore did not fit criteria for payment from Concurrency Trust Fund.
  
• 
  FAU: There have been no significant conflicts with the host local government on the campus development agreement. There have been difficulties in the past in trying to agree on the parameters of transportation analyses or the interpretation of the results. However, through discussion and negotiation, an understanding was achieved.
  
• 
  UNF: N/A
  

• 
  FGCU: Insure that the Dev Agreement includes enough future development for the 5-year period so that a supplemental agreement has to be done.
  
• 
  UCF:N/A
  
• 
  UF: The University will certainly continue to conduct its campus planning in an open and inclusive process that reaches out to faculty, staff, students and the host communities. Future efforts will likely seek to increase involvement of the FDOT, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and its staff within the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. The most recent campus master plan was conducted during a period of changing administrations at the University, so future efforts will also seek to establish a stronger linkage with the academic strategic plan that has since been developed.
  
• 
  FIU: Earlier involvement of host local government representatives in the planning process.
  
• 
  USF: no response
  
• 
  FSU: no response
  
• 
  FAU: In terms of the development agreement, it’s beneficial to start as early as possible and to develop a clear understanding with the local government on which services should be studied and the exact parameters of the study. It has also been helpful to maintain an open line of communication with local government staff.
  
• 
  UNF: No response
  

• 
  FGCU: No
  
• 
  UCF:N/A
  
• 
  UF: No, because the university’s campus master plan process included a public involvement plan that exceeded these requirements even before the 2005 law was enacted.
  
• 
  FIU: not a yet.
  
• 
  USF: no
  
• 
  FSU: no
  
• 
  FAU: no
  
• 
  UNF: no
  

• 
  FGCU: The adjacent developer has some problems with us but our neighbors do not seem to have any.
  
• 
  UF: In addition to outreach conducted through the campus master plan process and the Office of the Vice President for Business Affairs, the University is also very proactive in community outreach through the Office of the Vice President for University Relations and the Dean of Students Office. The University engages community and neighborhood groups in many venues to address topics including, but not limited to, alcohol awareness, special events management, off-campus housing, public transportation, sustainability, volunteerism/service learning, community service fundraising, and economic development.
  

• 
  FGCU: Only problems seem to be with recreation and athletic field lighting and some minor traffic problems
  
• 
  UCF: Development of an on campus football stadium. Addressed though numerous community meetings, press releases, mediation, and administrative hearing process.
  
• 
  UF: At the initiation of the 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan, the university was aware that transportation and environmental issues were the “hot topics”. Three presidential-appointed committees were formed consisting of faculty, staff, students and the planning directors for both the host City and County. One committee was an overall master plan steering committee, while the other two were a Transportation Study Committee and Conservation Study Committee. The latter two committees focused exclusively on these “hot topics” and literally wrote those plan elements for the master plan. Committee membership intentionally included faculty and students with specialized expertise in these areas. Extensive data collection was conducted and analyzed in these topic areas, including some data collection that was performed by graduate students in the appropriate fields of study. These committees were very effective in addressing the issues and reaching consensus on difficult topics. Faculty members often had divergent opinions based upon their own particular research and teaching experience, so that committee meetings often took on the feel of an academic panel debate. Still, meetings were facilitated so that all participants were able to express opinions and reach consensus. Student committee members contributed greatly as they were often the most vocal and the most creative in their problem solving. These two committees were able to develop workable policies with regard to transportation and conservation such that implementation has been proceeding and these difficult topics will not need much attention or revision in the next five-year update.
  

Neighborhood concerns were also problematic in past campus master plan efforts. In order to avoid that end result, the campus master plan was presented and discussed in numerous public forums throughout its development phase. The three master plan committees also included members that could “wear multiple hats” as university employees, neighborhood residents, city advisory board members, and various other cross-pollination of overlapping stakeholder groups. So, for example, one master plan committee member may be a university lab manager, a member of a neighborhood association and chair of a city advisory board thereby spreading information about the campus master plan both formally and informally in these various venues.

• 
  FIU: Location of metro transit station.
  
• 
  USF: no response
  
• 
  FSU: Neighborhood associations expressed concerns about adjacent University recreation complex proposed for nearby development. The sharing of information, especially early meetings and presentations with the neighbors and local government reps resolved any significant issues before they were allowed to grow out of proportion. Frequent discussions with community groups has proven to be an effective tool in controlling rumors, separating fact from fiction, and promoting the University’s responsible development plans. Facilities Planning staff also participates actively on “town gown” committees.
  
• 
  FAU: no response.
  
• 
  UNF: N/A
  

OTHER?

• 
  Individual Meetings with Campus Stakeholders: 17 Deans, 6 VPs, 25 Directors, 5 Dept. Chairs/Faculty, 2 Direct Support Organizations (Shands Hospital and Univ. Athletic Assoc.)
  

• 
  Various Group Meetings and Workshops: Over 20 presentations to campus and community organizations including the Metropolitan Planning Organization and its committees, Community Redevelopment Agency, Black-on-Black Crime Task Force, Neighborhood Associations, City Manager and his directors, City Commission, Student Government, Faculty Senate and various FS committees, Inter-Residence Hall Association, Student Union Board, etc. etc.; 1 public workshop; 1 public exhibit and opening reception (exhibit open 90 days at the Florida Community Design Center in downtown Gainesville); 2 public hearings (also webcast with live fax and email Q/A opportunity)
  

• 
  Three Presidential-Appointed Committees- 52 committee meetings over 17 months (open and advertised) 87 members (44 faculty, 16 students, 25 admin/staff, 2 local govt); Conservation Study Committee; Transportation Study Committee; Master Plan Steering Committee