Sus campus Master Plan Survey Results, May, 2008

Dir of Facilities Planning, Florida Gulf Coast University

Project Manager/Master Planner, University of Central Florida

Assistant Director, University Facilities Planning and Construction Division, University of Florida

Director of Planning, Florida International University

Director of Facilities Planning, Florida State University

Associate Director, Facilities Planning, FAU

Assistant Director USF Facilities Planning and Construction

Director, Facilities Planning & Construction, University of North Florida

Florida Collaborative Resources Consortium, FSU/UCF, http://consensus.fsu.edu

1. 
   In regards to what department of the University guides and/or drives the Campus Master Planning process:
   
   • 
     7 respondents replied that this responsibility resides solely in the Facilities Department of their University
     
   • 
     1 respondent (UNF) replied that this responsibility is shared between the Facilities Department and the (general) Administrative Departments of the University
     

2. 
   In regards to the actual preparation of the Campus Master Plan:
   
   • 
     4 respondents indicated that their University employs consultants to generate the Campus Master Plan (FGCU, FIU, USF, FAU)
     
   • 
     The remaining 4 respondents replies did not address the issue of consultants, so it is impossible to know whether they utilize consultants or not.
     

3. 
   In regards to when Senior Administration figures become involved in the Campus Master Planning process on a decision-making level, the answers to the survey questions varied in language and specificity. Below please find a chart which attempts to break down this temporal aspect of initiation of involvement.
   

From the chart above, a few trends become evident:

• 
  The only University which involves all three Senior figures from the start of the process is UF. It is currently unknown whether this was the original procedure from the initiation of Campus Master Planning, or whether this system evolved to counter the well-publicized problems which plagued UF as the first University to undergo the CMP process.
  
• 
  The timing of initiation of involvement of the University General Counsel has the most variation across the 8 respondents, while the initiation of involvement of the Board of Trustees seems the most standardized across the respondents (in terms of sheer numbers choosing one of the temporal choices).
  

4. 
   In regards to branch campuses and off-site facilities, there seems to be little standardization on how the Universities treat these off-main locations in the Campus Master Planning process:
   

• 
  1 University prepares one Campus Master Plan and includes all off-main locations in that plan (FIU)
  
• 
  2 Universities bundle some local and/or smaller off-main locations in with the main campus’ Campus Master Plan, while preparing separate Campus Master Plans for each remote and/or large off-main location (UF, FSU)
  
• 
  2 Universities seem to prepare a separate Campus Master Plan for each off-main location (USF, FAU)
  
• 
  Finally, 3 Universities either do not have branch campuses/remote locations, or did not provide an answer to this question (FGCU, UCF, UNF)
  

1. 
   In regards to who at the University is generally responsible for initiating and/or leading the Preparation of Campus Development Agreements, responses to the survey show a variety of responsible parties. Below please find a chart which attempts to break down these aspects of responsibility for the preparation of Development Agreements:
   

Where: GC = General Counsel

F = Facilities Department (including Facilities Planning)

VP = Vice President of the University’s Business or Financial Affairs

P = University President

And where “UNKNOWN” indicates that the survey response did not clearly address this issue.

2. 
   In regards to how the Universities deal with Development Agreements for branch campuses and off-main locations, responses are slightly more uniform:
   

• 
  3 Universities have not prepared Development Agreements for off-main locations (FCGU, UCF, UNF). The survey responses do not indicate whether this is due to the fact that no off-main locations have met the statutory requirements for a Development Agreement, or whether the Universities have simply chosen to not address this aspect of the process.
  
• 
  4 Universities prepare a separate Development Agreement with the appropriate local community when a Development Agreement is required under provisions of the statute (UF, USF, FIU, FSU).
  
• 
  1 respondent did not provide an answer to this question (FAU).
  

1. 
   In regards to how many local governments the Universities work with as part of the Campus Master Planning and Campus Development Agreement process, the replies received seem to indicate that most respondents were responding with only their main campus location in mind:
   

• 
  6 respondents claimed to work with only one city or county local government (FGCU, UCF, FIU*, USF**, FSU*, UNF)
  
• 
  2 respondents claimed to work with three city or county local governments (UF, FAU)
  

2. 
   In regards to the working relationship with host local governments, respondents generally indicated a positive working relationship (note that Universities cannot be matched up to these responses):
   

• 
  1 University rated the working relationship as “Excellent”
  
• 
  4 Universities rated the working relationship as “Good”
  
• 
  1 University rated the working relationship as “Fair”
  
• 
  0 Universities rated the working relationship as “Poor”
  
• 
  2 Universities did not reply to this question
  

3. 
   In regards to challenges or conflicts in working with host local governments on Campus Master Planning, the majority of respondents reported no challenges or conflicts:
   

• 
  5 Universities replied that there had been no conflicts or challenges (FGCU, FIU, USF, FAU, UNF)
  
• 
  3 Universities replied that there had been conflicts or challenges (UF, UCF, FSU)
  

4. 
   In regards to the three Universities that did report a challenge or conflict, reasons for the conflict and methods of resolution varied:
   

• 
  UF did not address what the reasons for the conflict were; noting only that to keep relations open between the University and the host local government, the University has adopted a progressively more collaborative and open process
  
• 
  UCF answered this question with a response that seems more appropriate under the similar question addressed towards Campus Development Agreements, but surprisingly did not mention the conflicts that arose out of the recent Campus Master Planning process for their Football Stadium. No resolution procedure was indicated
  
• 
  FSU noted that the conflicts with local government arose out of 3 primary areas: friction regarding conflicting uses for properties bordering main campus, no agreement between the University and the local government on long term goals/vision, and transportation/parking concerns. The survey response indicates discussions with local government as the resolution method utilized. Note that the lawsuit filed by FSU over Planning issues is not mentioned in the response to this question
  

5. 
   In regards to challenges or conflicts in working with host local governments on Campus Development Agreements, the responses were varied but tended to revolve around the statutory scheme whereby campuses must pay for negative impacts on levels of service:
   

• 
  2 Universities reported no conflicts or challenges (FGCU, UNF)
  
• 
  4 Universities reported challenges or conflicts over the statutory determination of “level of service impact”:
  

- 1 University reported that the principal conflict was in regard to the overall magnitude of University caused impacts, mainly in the area of transportation planning (UF)

- 1 University reported that the principal conflict was over a lack of documentation provided by the host local government in justifying the “level of service impact” calculations (UCF)

- 1 University reported that the principal conflict was due to the host local government not being able to prove a negative “level of service impact” in their (proactively overbuilt) system (USF)

• 
  2 Universities did not answer this question (FIU, FSU)
  

6. 
   In regards to “lessons learned” throughout the Campus Master Planning and Campus Development Agreement process, half of the respondents provided feedback generally regarding making the CMP process run smoother:
   

• 
  3 Universities recommend early and over-inclusive involvement of local government (UF, FIU, FAU)
  
• 
  1 University recommends over-including advisory reviewing agencies in the process (UF)
  
• 
  1 University recommends planning with enough capacity growth in mind so as not to require a supplemental Plan or Development Agreement (FGCU)
  
• 
  1 University recommends that Universities consider their academic strategic plan when conducting Campus Master Planning (UF)
  

7. 
   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 the Campus Master Planning process.
   

1. 
   In regards to the working relationship with host local governments, respondents generally indicated a positive working relationship (note that Universities cannot be matched up to these responses):
   

• 
  1 University rated the working relationship as “Excellent”
  
• 
  4 Universities rated the working relationship as “Good”
  
• 
  2 Universities rated the working relationship as “Fair”
  
• 
  0 Universities rated the working relationship as “Poor”
  
• 
  1 University did not reply to this question
  

2. 
   In regards to the number of NGO’s that each University has worked with as part of the Campus Master Planning process, the response tended to vary sharply across respondents: