Have the recent (2005) amendments to the law changed your way of thinking about the challenges faced in the Campus Master Planning process?

• 
  FGCU: No
  
• 
  UCF:n/a
  
• 
  UF: No, because the university intends to continue improving its relationship with the community and conducting planning in an open and inclusive process that exceeds the requirements of the statute and avoids legal challenges.
  
• 
  FIU: Not as yet.
  
• 
  USF: No
  
• 
  FSU: No
  
• 
  FAU: No response
  
• 
  UNF: No
  

1. 
   During the most recent round of campus master planning did you utilize the administrative hearing process on any challenges or disputes? What was the outcome of that challenge?
   

• 
  FGCU: No
  
• 
  UCF: Yes. the ALJ found in favor of the university on all issues and recommended such to the DCA
  
• 
  UF: No
  
• 
  FIU: No
  
• 
  USF: No
  
• 
  FSU: FSU did not have any challenges or disputes that required the administrative hearing process.
  
• 
  FAU: No response
  
• 
  UNF: No
  

2. 
   During the most recent round of campus master planning did you utilize a mediator or facilitator to help parties come to agreement on any challenges or disputes? What was the outcome of that mediation or facilitation. Where did you turn to select a mediator or facilitator?
   

• 
  FGCU: No
  
• 
  UCF: Can't recall the mediator.
  
• 
  UF: No
  
• 
  FIU: No
  
• 
  USF: No
  
• 
  FSU: No
  
• 
  FAU: No response
  
• 
  UNF: No
  

• 
  FGCU: It is an overly complicated and somewhat long drawn out process dealing with a number of groups with very different agendas. The varying agendas can make it difficult to resolve conflicts.
  
• 
  UCF: After following FL Statutes and doing every possible outreach to the public, I find it frustrating that anyone can file an objection to the process, represent pro-se, have no substantial, applicable, or accurate case, delay the process for years, cost the state millions of dollars in construction delays and/or legal costs, and not have to pay damages (even after the new legislation) after not winning a single point of objection.
  
• 
  UF: The campus master plan process is challenging with its extensive outreach, data analysis, detailed documentation and adoption process; however these steps are necessary to the successful completion of the plan. Several steps in the adoption process have excessive timelines that cause undue delays, especially when compared to provisions for local government comprehensive planning. The standard adoption process should not take six months from Final Draft to Completed Plan, but it does.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: The length of time necessary from start to finish.
  
• 
  FSU: The amount of detailed information required by the original master planning guidelines is excessive and does not significantly contribute towards the final outcome. Understanding enrollments, for example, is important to the master planning process. A thorough dissection of enrollment by year, major or discipline as required by the guidelines however is overly detailed and has no meaningful impact on the resulting plan. Also, the public and agency review process requires an inordinate amount of time to complete. It is simply too drawn out.
  
• 
  FAU: No response
  
• 
  UNF: No response
  

• 
  FGCU: Remove the requirements to submit to multiple State agencies for comments, since these agencies rarely respond to the plan. This would certainly speed up the process between the first and second public hearings and final approval of the plan but the BOT.
  
• 
  UCF:n/a
  
• 
  UF:
  

1. 
   Chapter 163 provides a 30-day public and agency review period for local government comprehensive plans. Chapter 1013.30 (6) should be shortened from 90 to 30 days for a comparable time allowance.
   
2. 
   Chapter 163.3184 (10)(a), limits the time period for challenges to 21 days after notification, rather than the 30 days currently allowed in Chapter 1013.30 (7). This could be another opportunity to compress the campus master plan adoption timeline.
   
3. 
   The criteria defined in Chapter 1013.30 (9)(a)(b)(c) are difficult to operationalize and should be revisited and perhaps redefined. While I am not certain, I expect that each university applies these measures in a different way. Even if they are measured in the same way, these criteria have very different implications for universities on a large campus compared to universities on a small campus.
   
4. 
   Chapter 1013.30 (4) gives the authority to dictate optional elements to the Board of Governors. This authority seems more properly placed with the University Boards of Trustees. During the 2005-2015 CMP update cycle, the University deleted some previously existing optional elements and added other optional elements not previously included. This was done in an effort to streamline and reorganize the plan document. The decision was based on interpreting the statute that the FBOG could require optional elements, but that the universities also had discretion to include or exclude optional elements if not otherwise instructed by the FBOG.
   
5. 
   Chapter 1013.30 (3) does not list “transportation” as a required element, but further in the same paragraph it describes the information to be contained in the transportation element. This oversight should be corrected.
   
6. 
   Chapter 1013.30 (6) includes the sentence “The second public hearing shall be held in conjunction with the adoption of the draft master plan by the university board of trustees.” This instruction is somewhat vague and required clarification from the university General Counsel. Is it reasonable to expect a University BOT to preside over a public hearing in the same way that a City Council would, and is that even the intent of this statement?
   
7. 
   Restrictions on spending the University Concurrency Trust Fund monies found in Ch. 1013.63 (2) ignore the fact that some on-site improvements could significantly improve the capacity and function of off-site facilities. These restrictions prohibit spending UCTF dollars on projects such as new campus roads, entry points, service roads, etc. that would exist on university property. However, projects of this type can significantly improve off-site facilities when these improvements enhance the overall transportation system connectivity and allow users to get off of the public roadway system reaching their destinations by traveling on on-campus facilities. Similarly, certain utility projects could increase system capacities on-campus thereby reducing demand on public systems. Campus infrastructure is typically under-funded by the State, and the UCTF could provide much-needed on-campus improvements if this relationship to off-campus facilities and services was recognized.
   

• 
  USF Tampa: Streamline process and reduce agency review time from 90 days to 30.
  
• 
  FSU: The Board of Governors should take another look at the external review process to see where it can be streamlined. Additionally, there should be some accounting of the Concurrency Trust Funds paid to local governments to meet a university’s concurrency requirements.
  
• 
  FAU: No response
  
• 
  UNF: No response
  

• 
  UF: The campus master plan process was obviously designed to mimic the local government comprehensive plan process in many ways. However, the difficulty in translating that process to campus planning is that a campus does not have parcel boundaries and it does not have implementing development regulations and zoning codes. For these reasons, the master plan often becomes the vehicle for instituting detailed policy or guidelines that are better placed in the university construction standards, procedural guides or associated design guidelines. Our 2005-2015 campus master plan sought to streamline much of this policy language and move it into the appropriate document where it is more likely to be read by the construction design teams. Similarly, the plan’s Future Land Use map results in a product that is used more like a zoning map than a future land use map. To address this issue, our 2005-2015 carefully redefined campus land use designations and definitions – creating new categories and deleting previous ones. These definitions also attempted to address mixed-use structures that are difficult to place within discreet FLU designations. Still, the specificity of a dividing line between one land use and the next is not as easily drawn as it would be in a community that has parcel boundaries on which to divide the uses. As a result, many FLU map amendments simply move a line a few hundred feet to accommodate the final footprint design of a building without significantly changing the overall policy direction implied in the map. To address this issue, the University’s Operating Memorandum for campus master plans has designated procedures for “minor amendments” and “major amendments” that are consistent with the statutory requirements. Still, there is difficulty in explaining in a bond request or a master plan amendment that the proposed amendment does not substantively change the plan but is still a plan amendment.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: The 10% rule for amendments that require public hearings needs to be clarified. The procedure for conducting the joint 2^nd Public Hearing with the BOT also need to be clarified. The public information meeting prior to the 1^st public hearing is redundant to the public hearing.
  

Appendix #1

For the lessons learned assessment report, interviews and meetings were conducted with FAMU, FAU, FSU New College NCF and UCF general counsels, campus staff and local government staff highlighting and documenting the challenging points and innovative responses through examples and experiences at each of these campuses. The Advisory Group’s analysis of the results informed a set of findings and recommendations.

“ Overall, the study finds that the current campus master planning process which includes the 2005 changes, is producing successful campus master plans that are consistent with the host local government comprehensive plans. However there is room for improvement in the process and relationships among the campuses, host local governments and communities.”

Overall, the study finds that the current campus master planning process which includes the 2005 changes, is producing successful campus master plans that are consistent with the host local government comprehensive plans. However there is room for improvement in the process and relationships among the campuses, host local governments and communities. In addition, concurrency trust funding, overseen by the Board of Governors, has proven to be an essential ingredient for agreement and success between universities and their host local governments. It has also contributed to a more constructive and cooperative “town-gown” relationship by allowing the campus and host government to collectively address the scope of the impacts and provide payment for the campus’ share of these impacts. However, some SUS universities have expressed concern that host local governments have not always used concurrency trust funds for projects identified in the campus development agreement. Finally, the best university/host government relationships appears to be grounded on engaged leadership on both the part of the local government and university. Good communication and early exchange among the planners and staff and local government and community leaders has helped to build trust and led to mutually beneficial agreements. The quality, quantity, transparency and timeliness of University public outreach and communication on master plans and development agreements has contributed to better relationships between SUS campuses and their host local governments and communities.

”The quality, quantity, transparency and timeliness of University public outreach and communication on master plans and development agreements has contributed to better relationships between SUS campuses and their host local governments and communities.”
Based on the research, interviews and advisory group discussions, and a review of the findings, the report makes five recommendations related to legislative action, rule/regulation development, best leadership, planning and communication practices:

1. 
   The BOG and SUS Campuses the state universities should jointly press for the legislature to re-establish a recurring source of funding for the SUS concurrency trust fund as an essential predicate for healthy relationships and successful campus master plans and development agreements.
   
2. 
   The BOG and SUS the state universities and local government representatives should jointly request the legislature to amend the master plan statute to require that concurrency trust funds be used only for projects identified in the campus development agreement.
   

4. The SUS Campuses should work jointly with local government representatives to establish and share SUS benchmarks for best practices in the campus master planning and development agreement processes, leadership, communication and outreach practices. The Board of Governors should establish a recognition program and reward excellent performance and best practices of the SUS campuses in developing their master plans.

5. The BOG should establish a website for campus master planning that includes information on the steps in the process, guidance for both local governments, the public and campus staff in the implementation of the campus master plan and campus development agreement processes. In addition, all campuses should establish a relatively consistent web based format for providing information to the public and soliciting information from the public on their plans and development agreements.
This lessons-learned assessment report captures the experience with campus master planning at five SUS universities selected for their diversity, including Florida A & M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida State University, New College of Florida and University of Central Florida. The Advisory Group believes that this review has provided a good foundation for developing findings and implementing recommendations that should have widespread application and produce constructive results across the SUS campus system.


Appendix #2

"The purpose of the Consortium is to serve as a neutral resource to assist citizens and public and private interests in Florida to seek cost-effective solutions to public disputes and problems through the use of alternative dispute resolution and consensus building." --F.S. Public Postsecondary Education §1004.59
“Facilitating consensus, developing solutions, enabling action”
The Consortium, based at Florida State University in Tallahassee and the University of Central Florida in Orlando, provides collaboration resources, consensus building service, education, training and applied research to build a broader understanding of the value of collaborative approaches and create a cadre of citizens, leaders, professionals and students skilled in using collaborative consensus building processes.
It receives support for its work and mission from contracts with the SUS Board of Governors, state, regional and federal agencies, local government, non profits, corporations and foundations.
Consortium Website: http://consensus.fsu.edu

Robert M. Jones, Director, rmjones@fsu.edu

850-644-6320

407-8353443