:: New Campus Site
    Donation Plan RFP

:: LAC Members
:: Summary of Proposals
:: Site Visit Schedule
:: Site Visit Photos
:: Meeting Schedule
:: News Release

Meeting Minutes

August 18, 2003

Land Acquisition Committee meeting with, Reynolds, Smith & Hills (RS&H) conference call, 6:00 PM, August 18, 2003 – Sheraton, Four Points Hotel, Lakeland. Meeting was call to order at 6:25 PM.

A. Welcome

Dr. Murray began with a welcome and then announced there would a time for remarks from each of the donor sites limiting the discussion to 5 minutes at the end of the LAC discussion. Dr. Murray began with a review of criteria established at the last meeting by the LAC committee. The items were, aesthetics, identity, freedom or land use, location/convenience access, population growth, mission of the University, gifts to the University and its process, the economic impact, a voice on the surroundings, building capacity, legislative partnership and contiguous land development.

Dr. Murray addressed the questions presented regarding what each of the criteria meant, the committee then gave a brief definition of each item.

B. Discussion with Reynolds Smith and Hills (RS&H)

Call /Correspondence began with Mr. Chris Flagg, RS&H. Ms. Carmen Chronister, Mr. David Lutz, Mr. Tim Duerling, Julie Perricone, Mimi Vreeland, Rick Shefflier, Bill Sandifer.

Discussion regarding report submitted by RS&H, a general “walk thru” was requested – only dealing with the three sites that were listed as the “A” sites in the following order– Clear Springs, Crescent Cross, Williams. Listed below are discussion points from the RS&H conference call presentation. All materials covered are listed in the attached document. See Attached RS and H document, Responses Land Donor Enhancements, Additional Information Request Responses, Phase A: Draft Comparative Site Analysis Executive Summary, Evaluation Matrix and Evaluation Matrix definition.

• Points from Clear Springs Discussion
Ms. Carmen Chronister presented the population density projections/overview. Discussion of populations and age variance of county wide forecast ages 18-65.

Mr. Tim Duerling began discussion of the Item 2 and outlined Wetland, Listed Species, Delineated sites, Flood Pains and Impact on contiguous developable acreage on the list A sites.

Mr. David Love summarized item 3 - Flood plain issues referring to documentation
1.3.

• Points from Crescent Cross Discussion
Mr. Duerling continued, Ms. Barbara Donerly questioned regarding roadway construction- in the primary and secondary zones of the bald eagle nest, what are the differences? Mr. Duerling responded with the primary you are not to do anything, it is to stay natural. The secondary zone requires permits, no high rise structure. Ms. Donerly questioned the construction of a road? Mr. Duerling stated that the activity of the vehicles could spook the birds, discussion of Diagram S.A.

Mr. David Lutz continued with discussion of Flood plane – Zone A and Zone E – FEMA map – no change.

Mr. Chris Flagg – summary of the acreage acres for Crescent Cross, discussion of airport proximity path. Dr. Bernard Mackey questioned the non-developable acreage; 618 total of the donation although the portion that is the flight path is 252 acres leaving 131.7 as the total contiguous developable acreage. Dr. Art Karshmer questioned, without the waiver – what can we do in be done in the shadowed area of the flight path? Could there be an Education Facility? Discussion followed. If the University owns the land – it is an Education facility. Mr. Flagg stated that in his understanding, anything associated with the Educational facility could not be built in this area. The potential for the variance is there however, could not be answered at this time.

Mr. Flagg then asked if there were questions regarding premium costs from the “A” list – Rick Shefflier was then dismissed.

• Points from the Williams discussion
Mr. Deurling – began with discussion of 1A – Flood plains, Indicated that the flood plain as presently represented is inaccurate. Zone A floodplain does not exist – FEMA map revision needed. Wetlands can be permitted with mitigation.

Dr. Mackey – developable and contiguous land

Chris Flagg – 171 acres within this parcel requested for donation, 3/10 of an acre is non-developable. Almost the entire site is developable. Contiguous acreage is a lot more prominent.

Committee then took a 5 minute break –

• Additional Site Discussion
Repeated question to aviation easement question addressed to Mr. Bill Sandifer, understands this easement mainly holds to a classroom type facility – Dr. Mackey stated concern that there can be instructional facilities in residential life. What are the boundaries, how can a building built on this site be seen as anything other than educational? Mr. Sandifer agreed and committee discussion followed.

Mr. Flagg then referred to the changes on revised evaluation criteria matrix. Item 3. Ms. Mimi Vreeland author of the evaluation matrix, read directly from matrix. Original cash contribution listed.

Mr. Flagg then referred to Item 4. Ms. Chronister, encapsulated pg 11, 12.

Discussion of traffic signaling. Speed reduction. The signal placement would take place once the campus is placed and running. The applicants/developer would fund the signaling.

Mr. Flagg – Article 4 A and B covered by Ms. Chronister.

• Discussion of Item 5.

• Discussion of Item 6 Clarification for Radon Mitigation.

• Cost Premiums
Mr. Flagg referred to - Cost Premiums – Outlined in the original report – numbers still remain, ranges still remain.

Brief discussion of the Williams – entrance access is it covered under the DRI? What kinds of costs are covered, Ms. Chronister responded that the University should be repaid for it –
Mr. Gene Engle stated that - it is part of their development order but they do receive some impact credit, Ms. Chronister agreed.

C. Dismissal of RS&H

Dr. Murray dismissed all the attendees of RS&H thanking them for their presentation and commitment to this project.

D. Discussion of the Land Acquisition Committee

Dr. Murray then continued with completing the descriptions on criteria of the site. The items were, aesthetics, identity, freedom or land use, location/convenience access, population growth, mission of the University, gifts to the University and its process, the economic impact, a voice on the surroundings, building capacity, legislative partnership and contiguous land development.

Points of discussion:

• Dr. Karshmer – Access - it needs to be easily acceptable – time is of the essence for the students

• Dr. Sistrunk - Securing the gift – there are requirements in the negotiation stage.

• Mr. Engle – What location would help the economic impact of community?

• Dr. Sistrunk– Whatever land is selected has the availability to grow with the campus –

• Dr. Mackey – concern that we recognize our responsibility to select a site that can be developed at the least cost of the state of Florida –

• Cost premiums are important.

• Dr. Murray – one that came to mind was to remember that we are Research I and to partnership with other researchers

• Dr. Sistrunk – Learning Centered Environment – Enlightenment - Sanctuary – where all thought is respected and encouraged. We must talk about the student. The students need.

• Mr. Engle – Importance we are talking about student residence.

Dr. Murray then asked the committee for other thought and comments. Dr. Sistrunk made a suggestion to adjourn making the recommendation to the committee that it take extra time to consider the importance of what this committee is producing as a recommendation to the board on August 22.

The committee discussed the suggestion made by Dr. Sistrunk; a move to adjourn was submitted.

To move on or to adjourn – to move ahead :vote 5
To adjourn: vote 1

Dr. Murray shared her appreciation for pressing on agreeing that the committee must continue on and then ask for a general discussion of the sites.

E. Donors opportunity to speak (5 minutes)

Susan Spelios – President of Clear Springs
Reiterate commitment to the intent and spirit of the RFP. She then introduced, David Bunch – Lakeland broker 38 years. Thinking 100 years out – 25 – 50 – 100 years. Growth corridor is due south, the site that Clear Springs is in center – meets the need. High Tech corridor – with the parkway there it meets the need. Mr. Bunch then introduced Mayor of Bartow – Pat Huff – overwhelming support – out in full force to support the city in this effort.

Everett Huskey - Crescent Cross
There is more of what you don’t know than what you do know. Center of population 540 east and west – water sewer positive flow into Lake Hancock. Beautiful residential development around the sight.

Steve Miller representing Williams
Williams has invested in $3 1.2 million in this effort and on this site. The DRI is approved. City of Lakeland extended sewer and water line. Only proposer with a true village plan. There is no better partner than the City of Lakeland. Extensive entitlements.

Dr. Murray then gave thanks to everyone in attendance and their support of the individual sites. She then gave thanks all of the donors, and then to the committee stating that this has been an overwhelming job in making this decision.

F. Committee Ranking of the Sites

Dr. Murray ask that each committee member write down their rankings, submit to her as she posted the rankings on a white board.

1 – Williams 2311111
2 – Crescent Cross 1132222
3 – Clear Springs 3223333
4 – Old Florida 4554454
5 – Hacklake 5445545

The rankings were read aloud and posted.

G. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Dr. Murray at 10:45 PM. Next LAC meeting will be August 22 at the Lakeland Campus Board Meeting, 1:30 PM , Four Points Sheraton, Lakeland.

Minutes taken and transcribed by: Kristi Brown

Approved by:
Dr. Alice Murray