Sus campus Master Plan Survey Results, May, 2008

From the above chart please note that of the three Universities that have had conflicts in the Campus Master Planning process (UF, FSU, UCF), only FSU has not extended community outreach to the point that they leave the initial (“1 - 5”) category in the chart above.

3. 
   In regards to issues that have created challenges or conflicts between the University and the local community, responses again varied:
   

• 
  3 Universities replied that construction of recreation and/or athletic fields/complexes were at the center of challenges or conflicts with the local community (FGCU, UCF, FSU)
  
• 
  2 Universities replied that transportation (congestion & parking) issues were at the center of challenges or conflicts with the local community (FGCU, UF)
  
• 
  1 University replied that location of a public transit facility was at the center of challenges or conflicts with the local community (FIU)
  
• 
  1 University replied that environmental concerns were at the center of challenges or conflicts with the local community (UF)
  
• 
  3 Universities did not answer the question (USF, FAU, UNF)
  

4. 
   In regards to the public involvement/outreach techniques utilized by Universities, responses were varied but tended to be most concentrated on the standard methodologies of meetings, workshops/charrettes, hearings and committees, all of which have the potential to force various segments of the public to go unrepresented and unheard. Far fewer were the (theoretically) random surveys of the local public, designed to be maximally inclusive of the community pulse.
   

	Written Comments	Mail Survey	Phone Survey	Newspaper Survey	Online or e-Survey	Community Meetings
FGCU				X
UCF	X	X	X	X	X	X
UF						X
FIU	X			X	X
USF (T)	X				X	X
FSU	X					X
FAU				X
UNF	X		X			X

	Public Hearings	Open Input Opportunity	Mass Media Strategy	Focus Groups	Workshops or Charrettes	Task Force or Committee
FGCU	X	X			X	X
UCF	X	X	X		X	X
UF				X	X	X
FIU	X			X
USF (T)	X			X	X	X
FSU	X				X	X
FAU	X				X
UNF	X		X	X	X

5. 
   In regards to the 2005 changes in the Campus Master Planning statute, no respondent indicated that the changes in the statute changed the way their University thought about the challenges faced in regards to community outreach.
   

1. 
   In regards to the most recent round of Campus Master Planning, only UCF utilized the statutorily provided administrative hearing process on a challenge or dispute. Although the response does not specify what the dispute centered on, the ALJ found in favor of the University on all issues.
   

2. 
   In regards to the most recent round of Campus Master planning, only UCF utilized a mediator, although the respondent was not able to recall specific information about the mediation process.
   

1. 
   In regards to frustrations encountered in developing, adopting and implementing the University’s Campus Master Plan, replies from respondents tended to vary but can be broken down generally into the following major themes:
   

• 
  The statutory process is overly complicated and calls for an excessive amount of data/information that truly does not make sense
  
• 
  The statutory process is overly time-consuming with excessively long filing/response times that often represent an increase over time generally seen in similar types of filing situations
  
• 
  The general process requires negotiation with multiple individuals and/or groups whose specific agendas often conflict; thus placing the University in the middle
  
• 
  There is no penalty on individuals, groups or governments who delay the process through methods generally regarded as “frivolous”
  
• 
  The CMP process seems designed to mimic the local government comprehensive plan process, but the University campus (with no fixed “parcels’) is not ideal for such an analogue
  

2. 
   Changes to the Campus Master Planning process that have been proposed by respondents are listed below:
   

• 
  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. (UF, USF)
  
• 
  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. (UF)
  
• 
  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. (UF)
  
• 
  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. (UF)
  
• 
  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. (UF)
  
• 
  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? (UF)
  
• 
  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. (UF)
  
• 
  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. (FGCU)
  
• 
  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. (FSU)
  
• 
  Clarify the 10% rule for amendments that require public hearings (USF)
  
• 
  Clarify the procedure for conducting the joint 2^nd public hearing with the BOT (USF)
  
• 
  Streamline the process by eliminating the redundant public information meeting held prior to the 1^st public hearing (USF)
  

• 
  FGCU- Dir of Facilities Planning - process starts with selection of consultant to do the bulk of the work in preparing the Master Plan. Most recent plan 2005/06 was completed over 12 months ago
  
• 
  UCF-Peter Newman/James Davis Office of Facilities Planning initiates process every 5 years. Last CMP approved by UCF BOT in November 2004. Will begin next update in Jan. 2009
  
• 
  UF: The Campus Master Plan process is housed within the University’s Facilities Planning and Construction Division which reports to the Vice President for Business Affairs. As assistant director in FPC charged with campus planning, I oversaw the last update of the campus master plan that was adopted in March 2006. The CDA has been completed with the City of Gainesville and Alachua County, and a CDA with the Town of Davie is being scheduled for adoption. UF anticipates starting the five-year update for the 2010-2020 campus master plan in late 2008.
  
• 
  FIU: Bob Griffith, Director of Planning, Real Estate Development & Planning Charles Scurr, Associate VP, Real Estate Development & Planning Process initiated by Real Estate Development & Planning 2000-2010 update adopted by the BOR in June 2004. 2005-2015 update, completed Inventory & Analysis and Evaluation and Appraisal Report- March 2007. Contract approved for consultants and process of completing the final plan is under way.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: The Asst. Director FPC for planning primarily guides the process through the various levels including Director, AVP’s VP’s, President, committees, workgroups, departments, public hearings, agencies, governments, etc. However, official communications are through the Director FPC. The process has been initiated with the release of concurrency trust funds for the planning consultant selection process. The most recent update (2005-2015) was adopted by the BOT 12/06 and the Development Agreement was completed on 4/07. In order to complete update for 2010-2020 we should be selecting the consultants by the end of 08.
  
• 
  FSU: The Facilities Planning Section of the Facilities Department is responsible for administering and maintaining the Campus Master Plan and initiating any updates. The current Campus Master Plan was completed and adopted in January 2005. The next update is scheduled for adoption by the University Board of Trustees in June 2008.
  
• 
  FAU: The Vice President for Facilities and the Assistant VP for Facilities. We start by 1) Advertise for a consultant. 2) Kick-off with all stakeholders. We have several Campuses. We are in the process of completing all of them at this time, some at CDA negotiation; Some at second hearing.
  
• 
  UNF: Collaboration between the AVP of Administration & Finance and the Director of Facilities Planning. The most recent Master Plan was completed 2 years ago. Too early to start the next round.
  

• 
  FGCU: FGCU does not get involved in the MP process until it is adopted by the BOT, then is closely involved in the Development Agreement process. After the initial campus MP committee, consultants and Facilities Planning have developed a Master Plan concept the President gets involved directly but his or her input has been obtained prior to the development of a plan. A detailed plan is presented to the BOT for input prior to being finalizes for public hearings and final BOT approval.
  
• 
  UCF General Counsel, President and BOT will receive copies after the first draft is completed.
  
• 
  UF- The General Counsel was consulted initially for guidance on optional elements and inclusion of properties beyond the main campus. Later, the GC was consulted when the final draft was nearing completion. The GC was consulted in terms of adoption schedule, notice requirements, public hearing court reporter and other procedural issues. The University President was consulted prior to kick-off of the campus master plan for approval of the process, timeline and faculty/public involvement plan. The President was provided with updates at critical junctures and was consulted for decision-making on critical issues in policy and capital planning. Similarly, the UFBOT was consulted on the master plan update process prior to its initiation, and was provided with status reports throughout the plan development phase.
  
• 
  FIU: General Counsel plays a supporting role in the CMP process. The President provides input on proposed alternative concepts at various points in the process. The BOT formally adopts the CMP after the 2nd public hearing and all revisions are finally incorporated into the plan.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: GC is kept informed throughout the process as potential issues arise. They are fully engaged in the public hearings and campus development agreement process. The BOT is given an information update at the end of the EAR and Data & Analysis after review by the Academic and Campus Environment workgroup (ACE) and the Campus Development Committee (CDC).
  
• 
  FSU: The General Counsel is consulted in the event that there are procedural issues to be resolved. Otherwise, the General Counsel becomes more involved in the public hearing process and the negotiation of the campus development agreement. The President is consulted at the outset of the planning process to determine new initiatives and to set a general direction for the update. The President is then consulted regularly during the process. The 95% draft is presented to the Board of Trustees prior to the public review process.
  
• 
  FAU: Usually, the president, legal and board's strategic committee are invited to review the final draft. Upon completion of second hearing the BOT is presented to for approval to adopt.
  
• 
  UNF: The GC gets involved about half-way into the process. The President is involved from the beginning. The BOT gets updates on the progress quarterly.
  

• 
  FGCU: We do not have any at this time, that we include in this process.
  
• 
  UCF: N/A
  
• 
  UF: The UF includes two of its Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Research and Education Centers in the campus master plan (i.e. Apopka and Davie/Ft. Lauderdale). These sites are included because they have critical coordination needs among multiple UF Colleges and/or other higher education institutions. UF also includes in its campus master plan 13 satellite properties that are located within the host County of the main campus, but are not contiguous to the main campus. These were included at the request of the County, but do not provide a Context Area for each location because they are not part of the main campus. Two of these properties are close enough to the main campus to be included in its Context Area. The determination that the satellite properties are not required to identify a Context Area was made as part of the stipulated settlement agreement related to the 1995-2005 campus master plan. Previous versions of the Campus Master Plan included a property in Levy County that was taken out of the CMP in 2005 following consultation with General Counsel, Levy County and the UF entities utilizing the site. The University also has other properties around the state that fall under the State Land Management Plan statutes, and these are addressed according to the requirements of Ch. 253.034 (5) rather than the Ch. 1013.30.
  
• 
  FIU: Branch campuses are included in each element of the plan with each having a separate map series and set of policies. The result is one comprehensive document covering all branches.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: The Sarasota/Manatee and St. Petersburg campuses each have Directors of FPC that run their process through their campus hierarchy and ultimately through CDC, ACE, BOT. Lakeland is currently a hybrid run by an AVP there with assistance from the Tampa FPC.
  
• 
  FSU: Florida State includes its one branch campus in Panama City in the master plan. For the first time, the University will include its Southwest Campus (Leon County) in the next update. The master plan acts as an umbrella document for all covered properties; GOP’s apply equally unless otherwise noted. The University has a “unique” master plan and development agreement with the City of Sarasota for its Ringling campus.
  
• 
  FAU: All separate master plans now. Same process for each.
  
• 
  UNF: N/A
  

• 
  FGCU The GC deals directly with the County Attorney to prepare the Dev Agreement with input from the VP for Administrative Services and Finance and Dir of Facilities Planning. GC develops agreement then it is approved by the President and BOT and County Commissioners in that order.
  
• 
  UCF:Facilities initiates with the host local government. Draft from UCF is given to General Counsel before given to host local government's attorney.
  
• 
  UF: The Vice President for Business Affairs initiates and leads the campus development agreement negotiation. He is supported in this effort by the Facilities Planning and Construction Division which prepares written materials, coordinates the flow of information, organizes meetings, etc. The General Counsel participates through meetings, consultation, and review of the agreement throughout its drafting and adoption. The President and Board of Trustees review the Agreement prior to BOT adoption of the document. The President delegates signing authority to the VP for Business Affairs.
  
• 
  FIU: Planning edits agreement and prepares draft update for General Counsel review prior to contacting host local governments. Counsel may participate in negotiations as needed. The President may attend local government commission meetings as needed. BOT executes the agreements after approved by host local governments.
  
• 
  USF Tampa: Same except agreement is reviewed and recommended by the Finance & Audit workgroup to the BOT instead of by ACE.
  
• 
  FSU: The Facilities Planning Section likewise administers the re-negotiation of the Campus Development Agreement. The General Counsel’s office is contacted at the outset. Facilities Planning works on the “technical” portions of the agreement, such as the concurrency analyses, while the General Counsel typically concentrates on the “legalese” of the document.
  
• 
  FAU: We generate the first draft and meet with the host. The host then must compile what it sees as monetary impact. We negotiate what we consider is our fair share of that impact.
  
• 
  UNF: No