A 501(c)3 non-profit corporation
PO Box 1020, Lake Havasu City, AZ 86405
HFHE@Havasufoundation.com
Ph 453-2414 or 800-345-2414, Fax 453-1186
http://www.havasufoundation.com/
A BUSINESS PLAN WITH A BROADLY-BASED
RESEARCH COMPONENT
FOR THE PROPOSED UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
IN LAKE HAVASU CITY
Not for public distribution. The 3-22-09 draft is for review and critique only. To date, this project has
consumed 1,400 hours and would have cost $630,000 with an outside contractor. The Foundation
estimates over a year and a minimum of 1,000 hours to finish this business plan project. The market
demand surveys will require another 3,000 of work by Foundation members.
Table of Contents
A BUSINESS PLAN WITH A BROADLY-BASED
RESEARCH COMPONENT
FOR THE PROPOSED UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
IN LAKE HAVASU CITY
Executive Summary, Narrative, and Power Point presentation (also available as .jpg files)
PART A: Review and Critique of the Phase I Lipman-Hearne Study
A.1 Public university partner
A.2 Initial work with NAU
A.3 Positive results of Lipman-Hearne study
A.4 Complete experience campus
A.5 Cost of entry
A.6 Market demand survey
A.7 Realistic timeline
A.8 Lipman-Hearne survey instrument and study
A.9 The state of higher education in Mohave County or lack thereof
PART B: Business Plan and Related Research
B.1 Focus of the business plan and areas of research including surveys, case studies, etc.
B.2 Ethics of marketing and marketing research
B.3 Economic factors
B.4 The costs of attending California State University system campuses.
B.5 The significance of Arizona and California residents on the Lake Havasu City economy
B.6 Campus site and components
B.7 Small college models, case studies
B.8 Student living and dorms
B.9 Campus facilities
B.10 Campus revenue factors
B.11 Factors influencing college choice
B.12 University brand name influence on college choice
B.13 Arizona survey methodology and instrument
B.14 Mohave County and Parker student survey form
Appendix:
A. Tables
B. Graphics
C. Attachments
2
A Business Plan with a Broadly Based Research Component
for the Proposed University Campus in Lake Havasu City
Executive Summary
(A Power Point presentation and .jpg slides are also available.)
Insert text from revision file
3
PART A: Review and Critique of the Phase I NAU & Lipman-Hearne Marketing Study
A.1 Public university partner:
A. University Partnership Requirements
A primary requirement for the successful development of a four-year residential comprehensive
public university in Lake Havasu City is a partnership with an “ideal” existing Arizona public
university.
The parent university partner must provide the necessary intellectual capital (administrative,
operational, and academic) and an interdisciplinary studies curriculum for the new campus.
The parent university will also be involved as a full partner by Lake Havasu City in the planning
and development of the initial buildings and infrastructure on prime BLM land next to the lake,
presently being acquired by the City. Of particular importance, will be a plan of marketing,
student recruitment, and financial aid.
The new university is a part of a master plan of economic development by the City with several
significant elements all of which complement the university project.
The preferred university development model is that created from the partnership of the Arizona
State University and the City of Phoenix for their new ASU Downtown Campus. The essential
elements of this model include Inter-Governmental Agreements, land acquisition and
preparation, bonding and financing of facilities, and leasing agreements.
The University Business Plan being developed by the Lake Havasu Foundation for Higher
Education for the new Lake Havasu university campus includes extensive research and
documentation of the preferred model. Some characteristics utilizing the evolution of the U of ASouth and the NAU-Yuma campus models have also been incorporated into the Business Plan.
B. Administration
Typical administrative services may include, but are not limited to, activities and functions such
as Business and Finance, Human Resources, and Public Safety and Security.
Business and Finance usually provides leadership in the development, implementation,
and continuous improvement of the business and financial services essential for the new
university to pursue its mission of teaching, education, and outreach. Services would be
provided to students, faculty, staff, and various external constituencies. Specific services
within this function may include:
1. Procurement provides services in the procurement of materials, supplies, and services
necessary to support the new university Budget Services by contributing timely, relevant
4
and accurate budget information to the new university community in order for them to
assess needs, evaluate past performances, and identify problems and future opportunities.
2. Controller and Financial Reporting provides financial information useful for evaluating
the management of resources while attaining the new university’s mission of teaching,
education, and outreach. This financial information is usually disseminated to various
university constituencies such as administration, faculty, staff, student, state and federal
government agencies, and other external users.
3. Student Financial Services provides students, parents, and other constituencies with an
effective and efficient service with which to conduct their financial affairs with the
university and all relative departments that will ensure funds are deposited and recorded
properly and in a timely manner. These services include, but are not limited to, Tuition,
Financial Aid, Billing and Receivables, Cashiering, Collections and Delinquent
Accounts, and Student Loans.
4. Information Technology (IT) provides administrative computing support for the
university Financial, HR, Payroll, and Student ERP systems. Additional services may
include application development and support, system programming, network support for
College PCs and printers, and installation and support for commercial PC software
packages.
5. Payroll and Employee Benefits provides timeliness and correctness of university payroll
and the expertise to administer the employee benefit programs.
Human Resources usually provides services such as Compensation, Employee Relations,
Employment, HR Development, and Records:
1. Compensation provides services associated with maintaining listings and records for
descriptions, titles, pay grades and management coding for jobs, maintaining the
approved pay grade-salary range structure, and coordinating position reviews and
classifications.
2. Employee Relations supports programs and services that either improve or maintain the
quality of work life for the university employees. The programs typically comprise the
employee recognition program, employee assistance program, job relations counseling,
conflict resolution and avoidance, policy interpretation and grievance processing for staff
employees.
3. Employment provides efficient, effective, and timely employment services within the
university community that are responsive to the needs of internal and external customers.
These programs and activities are designed to provide services which enable hiring
supervisors to recruit and employ well-qualified individuals to further the goals and
objectives of the university.
5
4. HR Development provides programs which orient, train, and develop the employees of
the university by improving the skills, knowledge, abilities, and competencies necessary
for individual and organizational efficiency and productivity as well as personal career
growth.
5. Records provide efficient, effective, and timely records services within the university
community that are responsive to the needs of internal and external customers.
Auxiliary Enterprises usually is comprised of several distinct services, such as Housing
and Residence Life, Dining, Campus Mail, Bookstore, and ID.
1. Housing and Residence Life oversees on-campus housing for undergraduate and graduate
students. It will also be dedicated to the care and maintenance of the residential facilities
and grounds, such as general maintenance, HVAC, painting, health and safety
inspections, pest control, custodial services and necessary trades.
2. Dining operates food and dining venues across the campus, including cafeterias, kiosks,
and vending machines.
3. Campus Mail supports all incoming and outgoing mail services with the USPS, as well as
other delivery and mailing providers.
4. Bookstore provides students with used and new textbooks, custom published faculty
course materials, reference works, general reading books, computer software and
hardware, and school supplies. The Bookstore may also feature a full-service general
bookstore and collegiate-licensed apparel and novelties.
5. ID is responsible for producing the official student, staff, and faculty ID card that should
be integrated with Student Financial Services and Dining.
6. Parking provides services to facilitate safe and convenient access to the university while
encouraging alternative modes of transportation, implementation and enforcement of
parking rules and regulations, sale of parking decals, compilation and publishing of
parking regulations, collection of fines, and transmittal of fines to Student Financial
Services.
Public Safety and Security provides services to ensure the safety, security, and fair and
impartial treatment of all students, staff, and faculty through educational programming,
collaboration with various constituents, and enforcement of laws and regulations. These
include the development and distribution of the campus safety guide, tracking and
maintenance of campus crime statistics, and emergency management.
1. Emergency Management provides access to current emergency guidelines for various
hazards, emergency preparedness information, weather, and campus violence resources.
6
C. Facilities and Plant
University Facilities typically consists of a number of departments and shops which collaborate
to maintain a safe, clean, and accessible campus for faculty and students. These include, but are
not limited to, Capital Projects, Custodial Services, Landscape Services, Maintenance Services,
Planning and Design, Support Services, and Utility Services.
1. Capital Projects provides construction in planning, design, and construction of projects,
prepares design and construction agreements, project management, construction
observation and coordination, maintains standard terms and conditions of agreements
plus assistance in the bidding and permit processes.
2. Custodial Services provides services to enhance and maintain the entire campus and
provide clean, safe, and sanitary conditions
3. Landscape Services provides maintenance of the campus landscape, developing new
landscapes, managing and maintaining campus trees and shrubbery, irrigation installation
and oversight, preventative maintenance and repair of landscape equipment, solid waste
removal, and heavy equipment services and roadway repair
4. Maintenance Services typically includes the mixed trades groups which provide
preventive maintenance services, minor projects, planned work, minor construction and
renovations, and routine maintenance of central systems. Mixed trades are comprised of
electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, HVAC technicians, carpenters, and painters.
5. Planning and Design facilitates the development of the campus in a way that enriches the
resources, meets the needs of the community, and enhances the image, experience, and
culture of the university. Services typically include designing and administering the
Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the Campus, identifying, prioritizing, and
recommending site development proposals and selection of construction sites, research
enrollment, parking, and housing trends and survey user needs, landscape design, and
facility planning.
6. Support Services are the primary administrative functions of the Facilities department and
include functions such as Dispatch, Customer Service, Accounts Payable, Human
Resources, Purchasing, Stores, and Information Technology
7. Utility Services provides dependable utility services such as steam, chilled water,
electricity, gas, and potable water in support of the university’s mission, while striving to
reduce overall energy consumption through efficient and effective energy management
strategies.
7
D. Academics
The primary academic goal of the new Lake Havasu university will be to provide a four-year,
Interdisciplinary Studies (IS) program. This program will allow students the opportunity to
develop individualized cross-disciplinary majors utilizing coursed from the social sciences, the
humanities, and, possibly, the professional schools and colleges. The expectation of the IS
program is unique in the importance it will assign to the student in that they must actively plan
their own program and cultivate a working relationship with an assigned or chose faculty
advisor.
The University Partner must either have an established IS program, or have a clear methodology
of how they will plan to build a successful IS program at the Lake Havasu location with their
existing academic programs, faculty, and staff.
A.2 Initial work with NAU
For relevant background information on the University Project of the Foundation and the
partnership with Lake Havasu City please view the following websites:
http://www.Lake Havasufoundation.com/ and http://www.lhcaz.gov/
Included in the information on Northern Arizona University (NAU), http://home.nau.edu/
NAU retained the firm Lipman-Hearne to conduct Phase I of a marketing study of the proposed
Lake Havasu university campus, which can be viewed at http://www.lipmanhearne.com/ .
A news article regarding the study may also be viewed at
http://www.Lake Havasufoundation.com/news.htm#July10 .
The study was intended to answer:
1. Which geographic landscape would create the greatest student interest?
2. How much marketing funding would be needed to bring in the first wave of students?
3. How much funding would be needed to sustain a reasonable growth?
4. Which curricular offerings are most appealing to the university's demographic?
5. What is the university's demographic?
Lipman-Hearne emailed an executive summary (Attachment #1) of the NAU marketing study to
the city manager on April 8, 2008.
Neither NAU nor Lipman-Hearne provided the Foundation an opportunity to review and critique
the study methodology and survey instrument (see Attachment #2, survey instrument received 512-08) prior to the starting the study. Moreover, neither NAU nor Lipman-Hearne provided a
draft of the Executive Summary to the Foundation for review and critique prior to releasing the
results on 4-8-08.
8
The Foundation has determined that study objectives 1 and 4 were partially accomplished. Study
objectives 2, 3, and 5 were not accomplished. Therefore, the Foundation will complete the study
using staff and consultants of its choosing.
Previously in mid-2004, NAU retained the same Lipman-Hearne firm to conduct a
comprehensive marketing study of the NAU Flagstaff campus and its distance learning
programs. View, http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp
The intent was to conduct research among key constituent groups. The research was designed to
accomplish the following goals:
1. Determine NAU's current image and reputation.
2. Identify features and attributes associated with high-quality universities and high-quality
student-faculty interaction.
3. Assess NAU's performance on those features/attributes.
4. Inform strategies to influence opinions of and attitudes toward NAU.
The key constituent groups surveyed included prospective students, current students, alumni,
faculty, staff, local residents and business leaders, Arizona counselors and teachers, San Diego
counselor and teachers, etc. On questions of image, reputation, opinions, and attitudes,
comparisons were made to the other two state universities, ASU and UA.
For the Lake Havasu campus study, such questions were not asked of prospective students
similar to those administered to a broader population with the 2004 Flagstaff campus study. The
Foundation will therefore include some elements of the Flagstaff campus review in the research
component of the Lake Havasu university campus business plan project, but of prospective
students only.
The Foundation could not find in the Lipman-Hearne reports and slides, details on the numbers
of students and parents interviewed from Mohave County. In particular, The Foundation seeks
considerable data and information on high school college-bound students from Lake Havasu
High School, Kingman H.S., Bullhead City H.S., Mohave Valley H.S., and Parker H.S. The
Foundation will thoroughly research these areas in the business plan project.
The Foundation also could not find in the Lipman-Hearne reports and slides, details on the
numbers of students and parents interviewed from the Parker area of La Paz County and the
western portion of Maricopa County. The Foundation will thoroughly research this area in the
business plan project.
Additionally, The Foundation found details on the continuing education needs of public school
teachers and other professions to be absent (see Lipman-Hearne slide #17). The Foundation will
thoroughly research the continuing education needs within Mohave County, Parker, and in
particular, within Lake Havasu City, in the business plan development. Included will be the
professions of business, fine and performing arts, health technologies and nursing, social and
behavioral sciences, pre-law, journalism, and others.
9
The population of Mohave County is only 5,000 less than that of Yuma County. However, a
number of entire new communities are being planned and permitted in Mohave County, one of
the fastest growing counties in the entire nation. Moreover, two-thirds of Mohave County
population lives within five miles of the Colorado River (from Davis Dam to SARA Park).
The Foundation in a following section of Part A: A9. The state of higher education in Mohave
County or lack thereof, documents the contrasts of university level offerings in Mohave County
to Yuma County. Particularly of interest is the employment of 19 full-time NAU faculty in Yuma
County versus zero in Mohave County. Clearly, the contrasts of the needs of various professional
groups and educational offerings available (or what could and should be available) between the
two counties should be examined and documented. Further information can be viewed at
http://www.yumasun.com/news/yuma_39865___article.html/nau_campus.html .
The strategic goals for the NAU Yuma campus may provide some examples for the proposed
Lake Havasu campus. These goals can be viewed at
http://www.yuma.nau.edu/PDF/NAU-Yuma_mission_strategic_goals.pdf .
It is the Foundation’s position that those communities within the Lake Havasu City region which
will most impact the City’s economy and contribute the most tourists, boaters, lake visitors,
homebuyers, and buyers/owners of businesses in Lake Havasu City, should also be a part of the
business plan research for the proposed new university campus.
Accordingly, included will be specific communities within Southern California (CA) with high
population densities, particularly the counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los
Angeles and to a lesser extent San Diego County. Within these five counties, an attempt will be
made to identify those communities that have had the most impact on the economy of Lake
Havasu City, particularly those sending the majority of that region’s tourists, boaters, lake
visitors, homebuyers, and buyers/owners of businesses in Lake Havasu City.
This targeting of economic impact populations will help conserve resources in both the research
effort and the future marketing and student recruitment efforts for the proposed university
campus.
Lipman-Hearne in their marketing study apparently did not include students and parents from
San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties (based on the meeting with Lipman-Hearne via
video and NAU at Flagstaff on 4-10-08). Lipman-Hearne did interview students and parents only
from greater L.A. and San Diego, which may not be statistically appropriate demographic areas
to the Lake Havasu City university project at the exclusion of the other key counties.
Obviously, San Diego did have some significance for NAU in the 2004 Flagstaff campus study
as it was the only area in CA surveyed for that study. In contrast, the Foundation will research
and survey those communities more critical to the Lake Havasu economy.
10
During ASU’s Fall 2007 semester approximately 28% of all students and nearly 35% of firstyear students were non-residents. In fact, California was highest represented state in the
university with 2,579 students; thus, CA students were about 5% of the total enrollment and
about 25% of the nonresident enrollment (http://uoia.asu.edu/files/factbook/Students.pdf).
By contrast, of the 38,446 ASU students who were AZ residents during Fall 2007, only 167 were
from Mohave County. For the three Arizona public universities, if the proportions for NAU and
UA are close to those of ASU, one might estimate these universities enroll about 4,900 CA
students.
At the UA-South campus during Fall 2007, only 6 of 474 undergraduate students or 1.3% were
non-residents. At NAU-Yuma, only 15 of 387 undergraduate students or 3.9% were nonresidents (ABOR email). Why there are such contrasts to the ASU data is not clear at this time.
However, one factor may be the quality and lower tuition costs of the CA community college
system and the requirement at NAU-Yuma 2+2 campus that lower division students attend the
community college in Yuma.
Also relevant is that Arizona receives a number of direct benefits from its membership in the
Western Undergraduate Exchange. According to http://wue.wiche.edu/ ,“In 2006-07, Arizona
students and their families saved over $4.6 million in tuition by participating in the Western
Undergraduate Exchange, just one of WICHE’s three Student Exchange Programs.”
“Virtually all undergraduate fields are available to WUE students at participating colleges and
universities. Some institutions have opened their entire curriculum on a space-available or firstcome, first-serve basis” (http://wue.wiche.edu/WUE_constituent1.jsp ). For example, all of the
NAU programs on the NAU-Yuma campus are WUE. This is the model the Foundation has
selected for the Lake Havasu campus.
The Foundation is also aware that NAU’s Flagstaff campus draws about 97% of its student body
from outside of Coconino County, a large proportion being from Maricopa County. Thus, about
3% are local area students, both full and part-time.
During the initial years of Lake Havasu campus operations, the Foundation expects the
proportion of students from Mohave County to be considerably larger than 3% only because of
the smaller total initial campus enrollment of 500 students and a freshmen class of 156. The
Foundation also expects rapid future growth of Mohave County students on the Lake Havasu
campus as the county’s population expands.
Another appropriate comparison might be the UA-South campus in Sierra Vista. With offcampus sites, there were 320 FTE students in AY 07-08. The projections for AY09-09 is 354
FTE and for AY09-10, 487 FTE.
In Fall 2007, UA-South had a 525 headcount and 332 FTE students. NAU-Yuma had 631
headcount and 481 FTE students.
A model operating budget is presented in a following section of this business plan.
11
A.3 Positive results of Lipman-Hearne study:
Lipman-Hearne in their Executive Summary stated, “…demand and appeal of this campus in
the context of well-established competitors is very weak at this time.” However, city manager
Kaffenberger applied the Lipman-Hearne numbers to the large population of the area surveyed.
The results of Kaffenberger’s calculations statistically support the building of the four-year
institution in Lake Havasu City.
“Business campus registers 14% among students…” If the Lipman-Hearne statistical sample is
calculated within the normal margin of error, the 14% number is significant. The sample area is
one that geographically encompasses more than 10 million people. On the theoretical calculation
of only 5% of 10 million as potential students, Lake Havasu City has a base of 500,000 students
from which to recruit. Fourteen percent of a base of 1/2 million students is 70,000 students. A
student population of 70,000 students is far beyond the numbers necessary for the start-up
development of a Lake Havasu City campus. Statistically, Lipman-Hearne numbers provide the
data necessary to move forward in the development of the Lake Havasu City campus, according
to Kaffenberger.
In an article from Today’s News-Herald dated 4/9/08, mayor Mark Nexsen was quoted as saying,
“Having one out of five students saying, ‘Yes, I’d go to Lake Havasu City,’ I think that’s a good
thing,” he said. “I’m struggling to understand why that is bad.”
A.4 Complete experience campus:
Other positive results from the Lipman-Hearne study include those provided at the 4/10/08
meeting with NAU officials in Flagstaff. Such issues and questions need not be replicated in the
Foundation business plan research.
The following slides from the Lipman-Hearne Power-Point presentation included as one option
for student consideration on a “complete campus experience.”
“The new campus in Lake Havasu is focused on the complete college experience for its students.
Promoting close guidance and rigorous academic programs in a small university setting,
students can complement their multidisciplinary education with outdoor activities such as
boating, fishing, hiking, biking, and golfing.”
It was the complete experience campus with “multidisciplinary education” (interdisciplinary
studies in NAU and ASU terminology) on the greater Los Angeles sampled group, that drew the
59% extremely appealing/very appealing responses or 94% if one adds “somewhat appealing” to
the mix. This is 93% for the Lake Havasu area. (See slide #31 below and slides 30 & 32,
Attachment #1). As marketing research goes, that is a significant number of favorable responses
when considering the total population of potential students.
Interestingly, a review of current research shows a growth of such programs, which may explain
why ASU recently created a New College of Interdisciplinary Studies.
http://newcollege.asu.edu/about/
12
NAU also recently added a similar curriculum.
http://www.distance.nau.edu/programs/degreeug.aspx Thus, the Interdisciplinary Studies
programs of NAU and ASU offer tangible models for the Lake Havasu City campus concept.
Table.1
Lipman-Hearne Slide #18
13
Table.2
Lipman-Hearne Slide #17
“No specific area of study (top mentions) was mentioned by more than one in five students,
suggesting a campus in Lake Havasu would need to be comprehensive rather than specialized.”
16%
Business
Fine/Performing Arts
14%
Health Professions/Nursing
14%
13%
Natural Sciences
9%
Engineering/Material Science
7%
Social/Behavorial Science
Education
5%
Pre-law
5%
Journalism/Writing
5%
16%
Undecided
0%
10%
14
20%
30%
40%
50%
Table.3
L-H Slide #31
*The top portion was responses of students. The bottom portion was responses of parents.
15
Table.4
Lipman-Hearne Slide #32
Information from the following Lipman Hearne Slides 10,12,38,
A. Slide #10 Strong and growing employment market
• Growth in Mohave County has outpaced state and national averages
• Four major cities near LHC (Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles) projected
to add 1.5 million new jobs between 2004 and 2014
• Close to 400,000 jobs requiring at least a Bachelor’s degree
B.
•
•
•
•
Slide #12 Occupations with strong growth for four metro areas
Primary, secondary, and special education school teachers
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations
Computer specialists
Business operations specialists
C. Slide #38 Implications
• Growth in region around Lake Havasu could dovetail with a few key areas for Northern
Arizona University
• Teacher education
• Health professions
• Computer information systems
• Business administration
• Hotel and restaurant management
• Construction management
16
A.5 Cost of entry
Lipman-Hearne states the costs of entry to be $1/4 billion. There is no rationale provided by
Lipman-Hearne to document calculations used to arrive at this number. It is the Foundation’s
position that Lipman-Hearne’s campus budget model is one that might reflect an operation some
20 to 25 years into the future.
During the Foundation’s earliest meetings with NAU President Dr. John Haeger, it was agreed
by both the Foundation and NAU to focus on a conservative business plan and campus model.
During the interviews with Lipman-Hearne, the Foundation president Ralph Tapscott and the
Lipman-Hearne representative seemingly agreed that a modest building of 50,000 square feet at
about $200 PSF or about $10 million would be appropriate. Moreover, the Foundation is
confident of its capability to raise such funds.
The 4/9/08 Today’s News-Herald reported that Mayor Mark Nexsen shared Tapscott’s concern
with the estimated capital costs. “I don’t know why somebody would expect to spend $225
million on the size of campus we’re looking at,” he said. “There must be some
miscommunication about the size of the campus.”
Lipman-Hearne‘s Cost of Entry Budget is therefore not appropriate in planning for initial
campus facilities and operations. Thus, the Lipman-Hearne recommendations on both marketing
funding and funding to sustain reasonable growth are also not appropriate given the size of
campus being considered.
Thus, the Foundation will seek other ways to evolve a functional budget for initial campus
construction and operations using models common to small private liberal arts colleges that cap
total enrollments at 500 with freshman classes at 156. Once the Lake Havasu City campus
reaches that level of enrollment with a clear prospect for success and growth, a campus budget
model such as that Lipman-Hearne budgeted, may be considered. More information regarding
this topic can be viewed at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/24/libarts .
The campuses of UA-South and NAU-Yuma would be more appropriate models for both
enrollments and operating budgets and such a model is included in a following section.
A.6 Market Demand Survey
During the initial meetings in 2004, Dr. Haeger suggested a targeted market niche approach for
initial campus development.
Dr. Haeger also suggested consideration of accelerated year-around programs with 3-year
completion schedules given Lake Havasu’s attraction of summer boating and recreation-oriented
families and youth. Such students could enter the job market sooner, which would have
economic advantages for families. Such an approach would also contribute to savings in campus
overhead through more efficient use of facilities and personnel.
17
An interview with NAU President Haeger, published on 4/13/08 in the Today’s News-Herald,
stated, “Rather than building a full-fledged university from scratch, Haeger suggested the
project be done piecemeal. He said the 320-acre waterfront property identified by the city was
an excellent location, and that if the city constructed a small university building, then NAU
would likely be interested in a long-term lease of the facility ’I think it’s an excellent location,’
he said. ‘We’d be excited to partner with the community in doing this.’”
A.7 Realistic timeline
Lipman-Hearne recommended revisiting the possibility of a university campus in three to five
years “…to see if the market has changed.” However, that recommendation was based upon a
market survey for an expanded campus and did not reflect the appropriate parameters of a startup campus. In the opinion of City Manager Kaffenberger, the Lipman-Hearne Market Demand
Survey data did, however, provide sufficient documentation to support the development of a
small campus.
The progress associated with the development of the Contact Point Marina and the municipal
golf course that adjoins the proposed land for the new university creates urgency by the
Foundation and Lake Havasu City to revisit the study process in 2009 as a part of a larger
business plan project.
Infrastructure to build the marina will assist in the development of the university and greatly
reduce overall costs for university site preparation. The amenities associated with a full-service
marina, public golf course, and the adjoining private development, will also help provide
promotional/recruitment opportunities for the new university, especially in the Southern CA
market. The opening of a major new modern marina on Lake Havasu will be a major news event
in Southern CA.
The city manager on 4/8/08 also announced his recommendation, based on the Lipman-Hearne
data, “With City Council approval, we will begin a comprehensive economic and fiscal analysis
that we expect will lead to the first campus building on the site.” The Foundation intends to make
the business plan and research results available prior to or shortly after the completion of the
economic and fiscal analysis study.
The Foundation understands and is sensitive of the current state fiscal crisis, the budget cuts the
legislature has imposed on the universities, the NAU financial commitment to the Yuma campus,
the NAU focus on 2+2 programs, and the challenges NAU faces on its main Flagstaff campus
with faculty, department heads, and deans competing for limited and declining revenue. Thus,
the prospect of a Lake Havasu campus competing for students and resources has created some
negative repercussions in Flagstaff. Moreover, the Foundation is not willing to delay revisiting
its business plan development, related research, and campus planning for 3-5 years as
recommended by Lipman-Hearne.
18
A.8 Lipman-Hearne survey instrument and study:
Based on PowerPoint slides (Attachment #1) used by Lipman-Hearne in the 4/10/08 meeting at
NAU and the actual survey instrument (Attachment #2), Lipman-Hearne, as a part of the student
interview process, did not use this description of NAU, which Lipman-Hearne did include in its
presentation on 4/10/08 which states “Northern Arizona University is recognized as one of the
premier public universities. The Washington Monthly now ranks NAU among the top 100
colleges and universities in the United States for the things that really matter: helping our
students achieve upward mobility, fostering scientific and humanistic research, and promoting
an ethic of service to country and community.” The Foundation is not confident those students
and parents interviewed in the CA and Las Vegas regions in particular knew this information.
Moreover, there were no questions regarding student knowledge of NAU, its brand-name
recognition, or reputation for academic excellence. More importantly, what proportion of the
students interviewed even knew NAU exists?
The 2007 National Research Report, “Why Did They Enroll? The Factors Influencing College
Choice” explains that three factors consistently emerged as the most important to students:
1. The cost of attending the institution
2. Financial aid
3. Academic reputation
Such factors were not addressed by Lipman-Hearne in the Lake Havasu campus study.
Additionally, the Foundation prefers the university, the site, and the amenities, be properly and
accurately defined early in the survey interview process. To exclude such information would
surely negatively skew data. Why would any business spend limited resources on research of
buyer attitudes to its products and services, differently from what will actually to be offered?
Given the conclusions of Lipman-Hearne in their Executive Summary, the rate of positive
responses on NAU from students and parents was not adequate. Is it reasonable to conclude that
the brief description of NAU, a lack of student knowledge of NAU, and no description of the
Lake Havasu campus site were factors which skewed the responses. Given that possibility, the
Foundation in its business plan project and research, will develop more precise descriptions of
the campus, site, recreation, curriculum, and brand-name university in the design of any further
research and surveys.
The Lipman-Hearne survey instrument in item #8 (Attachment #2), used the following
description of the proposed Lake Havasu campus location, “Northern Arizona University is
considering establishing a 4-year new lakefront campus in Lake Havasu City. Lake Havasu is
located on the Colorado River in Arizona, near the Nevada and California borders. It is 150
miles from the Las Vegas airport, 300 miles from Los Angeles International Airport, 200 miles
from the Phoenix airport and 350 miles from the San Diego airport.”
19
The Foundation is puzzled by the emphasis on the three regional airports since possibly 98% of
the tourists, boaters, and visitors in general travel to Lake Havasu City by vehicle.
Accordingly, the Foundation in its business plan project will explore other more definitive
descriptions of the proposed campus and its location, particularly in the development of language
for the survey instruments.
As the Foundation moves forward with its business plan project and related research, it will
retain the services of a nationally recognized management consulting firm for universities.
Preferably, it will be a firm presently working with one of the three Arizona public universities.
Over two dozen such companies have been identified and contacted. A budget for such
consulting and support was developed and approved by the Foundation in August 2008.
The intent is to secure professional reviews of the entire the Foundation business plan, research
methodology, all survey instruments, data analyses, and research reports. At some point, the
Foundation management and research team with its consulting firm will present the business
plan and results of research at a work-session with the City Council.
To that end, the Foundation retained the services of Huron Consulting Group, Inc., a nationally
recognized firm specializing in financial, managerial, technical, legal, industrial, medical,
governance, and university services; http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/ Huron is assisting
with the review of the content and methodology of the business plan, as well as assisting with the
formulation of a major market demand study. A grant from the PED has made this support
possible.
A.9 The state of higher education in Mohave County or lack thereof:
Lipman-Hearne concluded its report with a recommendation, “NAU should reconfirm its
commitment to the 2 + 2 partnership with Mohave Community College and continue to develop
and offer robust curricular offerings to meet current and anticipated local demand.”
Likewise, the Foundation encourages NAU to continue to develop its 2+2 program with MCC.
MCC and NAU recently announced a 90/30 collaborative program that if properly implemented
by MCC, will greatly benefit our town as well as the entire county. The Foundation supports that
effort.
In the interim, as reported in the 4/9/08 article by the Today’s News-Herald;
“Mayor Mark Nexsen suggested that even were NAU leadership to agree to shelve the project,
the city may look elsewhere for partners on a university.”
“Community services director Stan Usinowicz agreed. ‘I would suggest that we as a city, and the
Lake Havasu Foundation for Higher Education, look at what other educational alternatives we
20
can find to put on this piece of ground,’ he said.”
The stated mission of the Foundation is to develop a comprehensive residential 4-year university
in Lake Havasu City. Following the release of the Lipman-Hearne study, the Foundation
reaffirmed its commitment to the stated mission.
As a part of the business plan development and research to be conducted by the Foundation, the
stated mission will again be appropriately explored with the full involvement of the three
Arizona public universities. Moreover, those conditions and actions leading to the headline,
“Lake Havasu flunks university survey” require an objective and comprehensive review of all
higher education within Mohave County and particularly, within Lake Havasu City.
At the outset, the Foundation chose not to pursue the concept of a 2+2 project such as that in
Yuma, where the freshman and sophomore level courses are offered by the local community
college, Arizona Western College (AWC). The reason being that the Foundation’s primary
objective leading to the mission statement was economic development for Lake Havasu City.
This refers to development that will benefit, in significant ways, positive and desirable growth
for the community with significant increases in tax revenues. A residential university campus has
that potential. Moreover, the Foundation has determined that a 2+2 model would not be
economically feasible for the proposed Lake Havasu university campus.
The Foundation is familiar with the legislature’s $6.5 million appropriation January 2008 for a
new building for NAU on the Yuma community college campus. We also understand that NAU
has 19 full-time faculty members in Yuma. In contrast, there is zero full-time NAU faculty in all
of Mohave County.
Yuma County with considerably more agricultural workers has only about 5,000 more
inhabitants than Mohave County. The NAU presence and collaboration with the local
community college is a reflection of the Arizona West College board and its vision for higher
education, its priorities for a truly comprehensive community college, and its policies within a
stable governance and administrative environment over the past twenty years. More information
can be viewed at http://www.azwestern.edu/Office_of_the_President/ .
The AWC district is also expanding facilities funded by a $74 million bond measure approved by
the Yuma County voters and $3 million from the college’s foundation. Included will be a
103,000-square foot College Community Center, which will centralize admissions, registration,
testing, financial aid, counseling and business services and include a bookstore, coffee and snack
food bar and 1,300 seat-capacity meeting room. Parker will have a 21,000-square-foot learning
center for general education and Quartzite will have a 5,000-square-foot learning center for
general education. San Luis and Wellton will also have identical 20,000-square-foot learning
centers.
Moreover, NAU has designated all of its Yuma programs as a WICHE (Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education) WUE or Western Undergraduate Exchange programs. This
enables a special tuition rate for out-of-state students at 150% of the in-state rate. View,
http://wue.wiche.edu/ This WUE strategy is a model of significance for the Foundation in
21
evolving a business plan of appropriate tuition fees balanced with scholarship funds for student
recruitment.
For Lake Havasu City residents, what is significant in this analysis is that Arizona Western
College has over the years, evolved a very productive relationship with NAU in the expansion of
higher education opportunities and options for the residents of Yuma and the county at large.
This was during a twenty-year period when MCC chose quite a different path for the residents of
Mohave County and in particular, for the Lake Havasu City campus.
The Arizona Western College model also offers opportunities for the recruitment of out-of-state
students. However, that segment of the Yuma student body population evidently has not
flourished. One might speculate that CA students with one of the most advanced community
systems in the world (with the nation’s lowest tuition), will not readily enroll in an Arizona
university campus where all lower division courses are taught by the local community college.
Another factor might be the desert city campus location and amenities that are quite a contrast to
the “Greenfield” site being planned for the Lake Havasu campus.
On November 4, 2008, Mohave County voters were asked to approve a $111.5 million bond
measure for MCC. It was rejected by 57% of the voters. About twenty years ago, a major MCC
bond measure was approved by Lake Havasu City voters but was defeated everywhere else in the
county. The Foundation supported the November 2008 bond vote.
As a local historical perspective in the review of higher education in Mohave County and in
particular, in Lake Havasu City, the previous MCC board and administration in 2004 terminated
all of the full-time faculty in a quality academic and college transfer program on the Lake
Havasu City campus resulting in considerable campus turmoil (according to extensive news
coverage) among faculty, staff, students, and collectively, their colleagues, families and friends.
The Lake Havasu campus dean who had emphasized the college transfer courses and program
was shortly thereafter transferred to Kingman. Moreover, the resources extracted from the
terminated offerings were reinvested by the Kingman-based administration in truck driving
courses and the like in Kingman and elsewhere within the MCC district. See news article,
http://www.lakeLake Havasucounty.com/education/newspaper/council_join_debate.htm
The below-state-average rate of college-bound students in the Kingman and Bullhead City areas
may in part account for the MCC intense focus on vocational courses and the re-allocation of
resources to support such offerings. By contrast, the Lake Havasu High School proportion of
college-bound students is above the state average, which was in part the motivation behind the
MCC Lake Havasu campus focus prior to 2004 on the college transfer courses and full-time
academic faculty.
Hopefully, the new 90/30 cooperative efforts of MCC and NAU will help address this situation
and the public perception created from the history of events and news articles relative to the
MCC commitment to higher education and 4-year degree transfer courses and programs.
Whether or not the former academic and college transfer focus for the Lake Havasu campus will
be restored is not clear.
22
There had been discussions by the previous MCC administration of a Yuma-type campus for the
county seat and MCC administrative center in Kingman. However, the events of 2004 effectively
terminated the work of the Lake Havasu campus dean and faculty to evolve a Yuma-type campus
and collaborative effort with NAU in Lake Havasu City. The 800 building on the Lake Havasu
campus was intended to be a part of that development process.
In this review of 2 + 2 programs and higher education, we are aware that the MCC Kingmanbased administration has provided Kingman with a campus exceeding 160 acres and Bullhead
City with 326 acres. In contrast, MCC provided approximately 17 acres for Lake Havasu City in
an industrial area with little room for expansion. These also are events of the past twenty years.
During the early to mid ‘70s, then MCC board president Floyd Hamilton and other community
leaders spearheaded the acquisition of a BLM patent for 238 acres of land (for $10 an acre) to be
used for a future MCC comprehensive college campus here in Lake Havasu City. This land,
located at the northern edge of the city, was part of a forward-moving and future-minded
building program that included new construction on all three county campuses. An architect was
hired to develop the plans.
The Lake Havasu 238-acre site adjoined the proposed H-95 bypass that has been in the planning
for years, which is now at the ADOT review stage. Once highway construction is started, that
property will be exceedingly valuable and would have been an excellent site for an MCC Lake
Havasu campus. It is near the airport, the new mall, and the new business park. It is also near
several new residential tracts in the fastest growing area of the city and the fast-growing
unincorporated tracts north of the city. MCC is presently giving away this land for noneducational uses.
Perhaps the new MCC board seated in January 2009 will address the MCC campus needs of
Lake Havasu City with the full participation of the residents of this community.
The conflicts over a history of open meeting law violations, board member travel, and use of
MCC Foundation funds appear to have been resolved through litigation.
In this review of Mohave County higher education, we are most appreciative of the fact that
there is no segment of American society that follows more rigorously, the principles of
Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity in their hiring practices, particularly at the top of the
administrative pay scale than universities and colleges.
Over the past twenty years, nearly all of the open MCC board seats were filled by appointment.
Four of the five of those board members were from the Kingman and Bullhead City areas.
However, three of the five board seats were filled by election in November 2008. Moreover, the
top three Kingman-based administrators have been recently replaced, all of which creates
opportunities for change. Beginning with January 2009, Lake Havasu City will have two area
representatives on the MCC board.
23
The larger political county scene also has relevance for residents of Lake Havasu City and can be
explained in part from a report commissioned by the City of Kingman and its local businesses.
The June 1998 R/UDAT document emphasized downtown renewal, economic development, and
job creation for Kingman residents by keeping and expanding county government in the historic
downtown district of Kingman. Included in that county-wide centralized government concept
was MCC. Information available at http://www.LakeHavasucounty.com/rudat/critique.htm
Recognizing that Mohave County is the fifth largest county geographically in the entire nation
with three major population centers: Lake Havasu City (the largest), Kingman, and Bullhead
City-- a large number of Lake Havasu residents advocated decentralization with an objective of
taking county government to the three key population areas of a very large county. That group
under the leadership of Robert Crabtree (subsequently elected to the city council for several
terms) actually organized a petition drive to move the county seat and had the number of
signatures on petitions to put the issue on the ballot. Further information available at the
following website: http://www.LakeHavasucounty.com/reports/voter_options.htm
Historically, Lake Havasu City has also had the higher property tax base from appraised values
of both residential and commercial properties and therefore has paid a proportionately higher
share of property taxes when compared to the other cities and areas of the county. Local citizens
are quite aware that MCC also divides the budget in ways that allocates to the three main
campuses which is approximately 30% shares of the operational monies split equally.
Given the history of the county political situation and the focus of Kingman in centralizing
government in Kingman, the MCC Lake Havasu campus land situation, the termination of the
MCC Lake Havasu campus college transfer offerings and faculty, the policy domination by the
Kingman-based MCC administration, and the major contrasts with the Mohave County-wide
NAU operations compared to that in Yuma, one might reasonably question whether or not the
best interests of Lake Havasu City have been effectively represented over the years by both
Kingman-based county government and the Kingman-based MCC administration.
Therefore, with such a history, one might therefore reasonably question why the Foundation
would ever consider a Yuma-type 2 + 2 program for the proposed Lake Havasu City campus.
Currently, it is the Foundation position that the best interest of its community in terms of
economic development and the advancement of higher education in our community will be best
served by a comprehensive residential university campus as currently planned for the BLM
Section 24 site. On March 4, 2009, the BLM in a letter to the Foundation, expressed its
commitment to processing the applications for the BLM as expeditiously as possible for the
planned roads, infrastructure, and city development of the 320-acre parcel of land.
It is also the opinion of the Foundation that a university project as proposed for Lake Havasu
City will be a boost for MCC. Statistically, the co-existence of two-year and four-year
institutions produces mutually dynamic, positive, and productive relationships.
Moreover, NAU has a billion dollar a year impact on the economy of Coconino County. While it
may take many years for the Lake Havasu campus to reach that level of contribution, it is the
24
hope of the Foundation that all of Mohave County will benefit in a most positive way, from the
Lake Havasu university project.
PART B: Business Plan and Related Research
B.1 Focus of the business plan and areas of research including various surveys, case
studies, Internet reviews, etc:
To reiterate from Part A: A2. Background, NAU retained the firm Lipman-Hearne to conduct
Phase I of a marketing study of the proposed Lake Havasu university campus. Please see
http://www.lipmanhearne.com/ and a news article regarding the study may be viewed at
http://www.Lake Havasufoundation.com/news.htm#July10
The study was intended to try to answer:
1. Which geographic landscape would create the greatest student interest?
2. How much marketing funding would be needed to bring in the first wave of students?
3. How much funding would be needed to sustain a reasonable growth?
4. Which curricular offerings are most appealing to the university's demographic? What is
the university's demographic?
Previously in mid-2004, NAU retained the same Lipman-Hearne firm to conduct a
comprehensive marketing study of the NAU Flagstaff campus and its distance learning
programs. Information available at http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp
The intent was to conduct research among key constituent groups. The research was designed to
accomplish the following goals:
1. Determine NAU's current image and reputation.
2. Identify features and attributes associated with high-quality universities and high-quality
student-faculty interaction.
3. Assess NAU's performance on those features/attributes.
4. Inform strategies to influence opinions of and attitudes toward NAU.
The key constituent groups surveyed for the NAU Flagstaff study included prospective students,
current students, alumni, faculty, staff, local residents and business leaders, Arizona counselors
and teachers, San Diego counselor and teachers, etc. On questions of image, reputation, opinions,
and attitudes, comparisons were made to the other two state universities, ASU and UA.
In the 2007 Lake Havasu campus study, such questions were not asked of prospective students
similar to those administered to a broader population with the 2004 Flagstaff campus study. The
Foundation will therefore include some elements of the Flagstaff campus review in the Lake
Havasu university campus business plan research, but of prospective students only.
25
The Foundation could not find in the Lipman-Hearne reports and slides, details on the numbers
of students and parents interviewed from Mohave County. In particular, the Foundation seeks
considerable data and information on high school college-bound students from Lake Havasu
High School, Kingman H.S., Bullhead City H.S., and Mohave Valley H.S. The Foundation will
thoroughly research these areas in the Phase II study.
The Foundation also could not find in the Lipman-Hearne reports and slides, details on the
numbers of students and parents interviewed from the Parker area of La Paz County and the
western portion of Maricopa County. The Foundation will thoroughly research this area in the
Phase II study.
The Foundation also could not find in the Lipman-Hearne reports and slides, details on the
continuing education needs of public school teachers and other professions (see Lipman-Hearne
slide #17). The Foundation will thoroughly research the continuing education needs within
Mohave County, Parker, and in particular, within Lake Havasu City, in the Phase II study.
Included will be the professions of business, fine and performing arts, health technologies and
nursing, social and behavioral sciences, pre-law, journalism, and others.
The contrasts of university level offerings in Mohave County to Yuma County are of particular
interest given the 19 full-time NAU faculty in Yuma County versus zero faculty members in
Mohave County. The contrasts of the needs of various professional groups and educational
offerings available (or what could and should be available) between the two counties will be
examined and documented.
Please see http://www.yumasun.com/news/yuma_39865___article.html/nau_campus.html
The strategic goals for the NAU Yuma campus may have some elements of value for the
proposed Lake Havasu campus and will be examined for applicability to Mohave County.
Please see http://www.yuma.nau.edu/PDF/NAU-Yuma_mission_strategic_goals.pdf
It is the Foundation’s position that those communities within the Lake Havasu City region that
most impact the City’s economy and contribute the most tourists, boaters, lake visitors,
homebuyers, and buyers/owners of businesses in Lake Havasu City, should also be a part of the
marketing research for the proposed new university campus. Accordingly, included will be
specific communities within Southern California (CA) with high population densities,
particularly in the counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles and to a
lesser extent San Diego County.
Lipman-Hearne in their marketing study apparently did not include students and parents from
San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties (based on the meeting with Lipman-Hearne via
video and NAU at Flagstaff on 4/10/08). Lipman-Hearne did interview students and parents only
from greater L.A. and San Diego, which may not be statistically appropriate demographic areas
to the Lake Havasu City university project at the exclusion of the other key counties.
(Apparently, for the 2004 Flagstaff campus study, San Diego had some significance for NAU as
it was the only area of CA surveyed.) Therefore, the Foundation will in the business plan project
marketing research, survey those areas more critical to the Lake Havasu economy.
26
The Foundation marketing research will be sensitive to the key factors that consistently emerge
as most important to students and parents in the selection of a college. Please see:
http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/Self-Study-Reports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf
1. The cost of attending the institution
2. Financial aid
3. Academic reputation
The first two primary factors are economic issues. Therefore, the Foundation will conduct indepth cost-to-attend case studies on NAU, NAU-Yuma, ASU, ASU-West, UA, and UA-South in
Sierra Vista. Cost-to-attend case studies will also be conducted on Cal State U system campuses.
Financial aid and scholarship programs will be included. Surveys will include scholarship need
questions.
Student housing at Prescott College and Yavapai College will be examined in depth for
construction and operational cost models.
Relative to academic reputation is branding, which is explained in the article “The Name’s the
Thing” from http://www.dehne.com/news_research/research_reinventing.html
“Gaining name recognition is one of the best ways to aid the student-recruitment effort. Name
recognition is critical for four reasons:
1. Direct Mail: Students will open and read the unsolicited materials colleges send only if
the college is in a location of interest or if the student immediately recognizes the name
of the college.
2. Self-initiated Inquirers: The most likely students to enroll are those who inquired about
college on their own. Students can initiate contact only if they know your college exists.
3. Connotation of Prestige: Students say only one thing distinguishes a high-quality
college from a high-prestige college. This characteristic is immediate name recognition.
Students believe prestige is automatically attached to a college that is "well-known in any
region of the country" or "known throughout the nation.
4. "Brand Name" Mind Set: Credential-conscious students are sensitive to an institution's
visibility. Because of the advantage of name recognition, it is far less risky for a student
to choose a large, well-known public university than an unknown college that will require
constant explanation. Name recognition makes a college a brand name.”
Other factors, while important, do not approach the same universal level of importance as the top
three. Personalized attention, campus appearance, and geographic setting received importance
marks from 50-60% of students (http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/Self-StudyReports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf). Therefore, given suitable attention to primary items 1,
2, and 3, the Foundation will evaluate the campus and site appearance and geographic setting as
a priority in attracting a student body.
Case studies will be done on San Diego Christian College, Prescott College, NAU-Yuma, and
other 4-year colleges with enrollments of 500 to 700 students with particular emphasis on
27
campus facilities, site, geographic setting, small college models, interdisciplinary study-type
offerings, student social and recreational activities, student communal and community dynamics,
etc.
In summary, given the key factors of students and parents in selecting a college and a model
“interdisciplinary studies” curriculum and campus, further business plan development and
related research will consider:
I.
Economic factors:
1. Total costs of attending the proposed Lake Havasu campus vs. Arizona universities and
CSU campuses.
2. Affordable and competitive costs relative to Arizona universities and the CSU system.
3. Level of scholarship needs relative to the drawing power of specific potential university
partners.
4. Level of scholarship needs relative to the drawing power of the site, adjoining projects,
and amenities.
1. Financial aid packages common to most public universities.
2. Cost of travel for the Mohave County, La Paz, and Maricopa County students to the three
state universities as well as the 92% of CSU students living off campus vs. occasional
travel to/from a Lake Havasu City campus.
II.
Academic reputation, connotation of prestige, brand-name:
1. Student preference on a university partner for the Lake Havasu campus.
2. Correlation of academic reputation (name-brand and prestige) of ASU, NAU, or UA as
the university partner to student responses on probability to attend.
3. Correlation of the name-brand university preferences relative to student scholarship needs
in terms of what the Foundation must fund to guarantee full enrollment.
4. Impact of proposed Interdisciplinary Studies BA and BS curricula and complete campus
concept on student responses.
5. Role of a high-tech campus and access to the university Arizona system, transfer options,
advanced degrees, etc. on student responses.
III.
Other important factors:
1. Continuing education needs including the professions of business, fine and performing
arts, health technologies and nursing, social and behavioral sciences, pre-law, journalism,
and others.
2. Impact of undergraduate enrollment from Mohave County, Lake Havasu City, Parker,
and the western portion of Maricopa County.
3. Impact of undergraduate enrollment of the adjoining regions of Southern CA and the
southern portion of Las Vegas metropolitan area.
4. Extended family experience and history with location (including friends and neighbors),
history of boating and visits to Lake Havasu, property rentals/ownership, business ties,
etc.
28
5. Contrasts of traffic, congestion, resort small-town size, pollution and clean air, low crime
and safety compared to most areas of metropolitan Phoenix and Southern CA.
6. The impact of student interest in the lake-side campus setting and the unique
recreational/extra-curricular opportunities, new marina, golf course, town center
shopping and eateries, arts center, convention center, resort hotel, Riviera Estates
development, etc.
7. Student demographics, campus atmosphere, and small college environment.
8. Student living, dormitories, cost of construction, and effect of zero-cost land.
9. Campus facilities in general.
To acquire such data and information, the Foundation will use a variety of research options;
Internet searches, case studies, and a series of surveys.
The priority areas for business plan development, research, and surveys include Mohave County
and Lake Havasu City in particular, La Paz County and Parker in particular, and the western 1/4th
of Maricopa County and the western portion of the rest of Arizona.
Because Lake Havasu City’s economy is so dependent on Southern California, those areas that
send the most tourists, visitors, boaters, homebuyers, business owners will be the fourth area of
targeted planning and research.
B.2 Ethics of marketing and marketing research:
The Foundation is not a member of CASRO. However, their ethics standards are commonly
followed by the research professions. The CASRO Code of Standards and Ethics for Survey
Research, Council of American Research Organizations can be viewed at the following website:
http://www.casro.org/codeofstandards.cfm
Only selected sections from are noted below:
“Respondents should be:
a. willing participants in survey research
b. appropriately informed about the survey’s intentions and how their personal information and
survey responses will be used and protected
c. sufficiently satisfied with their survey experience
d. willing to participate again in survey research
Survey Research Organizations may make reasonable efforts to obtain an interview including:
(1) explaining the purpose of the research project; (2) providing a gift or monetary incentive
adequate to elicit cooperation” (www.casro.org).
The Foundation will offer a $1,000 scholarship drawing with the objective of achieving the
highest possible response rate from students on questions the Foundation wishes to consider in
the preparation of a business plan for the new campus.
The Foundation in reporting to its members will follow these general CASRO guidelines:
29
“B. A Research Organization's report to a Client or the Public should contain, or the Research
Organization should be ready to supply to a Client or the Public on short notice, the following
information about the survey:
1. The name of the organization for which the study was conducted and the name of the
organization conducting it.
2. The purpose of the study, including the specific objectives.
3. The dates on or between which the data collection was done.
4. A definition of the universe that the survey is intended to represent and a description of the
population frame(s) that was actually sampled.
5. A description of the sample design, including the method of selecting sample elements,
method of interview, cluster size, number of callbacks, Respondent eligibility or screening
criteria, and other pertinent information.
6. A description of results of sample implementation including (a) a total number of sample
elements contacted, (b) the number not reached, (c) the number of refusals, (d) the number of
terminations, (e) the number of non-eligibles, (f) the number of completed interviews.
7. The basis for any specific "completion rate" percentages should be fully documented and
described.
8. The questionnaire or exact wording of the questions used, including Interviewer directions
and visual exhibits.
9. A description of any weighting or estimating procedures used.
10. A description of any special scoring, data adjustment or indexing procedures used. (Where
the Research Organization uses proprietary techniques, these should be described in general and
the Research Organization should be prepared to provide technical information on demand from
qualified and technically competent persons who have agreed to honor the confidentiality of such
information).
11. Estimates of the sampling error and of data should be shown when appropriate, but when
shown they should include reference to other possible sources of error so that a misleading
impression of accuracy or precision is not conveyed.
12. Statistical tables clearly labeled and identified as to questionnaire source, including the
number of raw cases forming the base for each cross-tabulation.
13. Copies of Interviewer instructions, validation results, code books, and other important
working papers.”
“C. As a minimum, any general public release of survey findings should include the following
information:
1. The sponsorship of the study.
2. A description of the purposes.
3. The sample description and size.
4. The dates of data collection.
5. The names of the research company conducting the study.
6. The exact wording of the questions.
7. Any other information that a lay person would need to make a reasonable assessment of the
reported findings.”
30
B.3 Economic Factors
A. The AZ and CA university systems and cost comparisons:
The University of California system includes Irvine, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Berkley,
Merced, Davis, and UCLA. All are schools with increasingly rigorous admission standards. The
estimated total costs for students are:
Table.5
ES T IMATE D C OS TS , 2007 –08
Average costs for an undergraduate California resident living in University
housing:
Fees*
$7,446
Books and Supplies
$1,475
Health Insurance Allowance/Fee
$892
Room and Board
$11,755
Personal/Transportation
$2,412
Total Average Estimated Costs
*Total costs for 2008–09 will be higher.
*$23,980
“The University administers a variety of financial support programs for students. In 2005–06, 64
percent of UC undergraduates received some form of financial assistance, including grants,
loans, work-study awards and scholarships. The average award was more than $13,000”
Source: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/payingforuc/costs.html).
Arizona universities have similar financial aid opportunities available.
Tips for reducing college costs can be viewed at http://www.arizona.edu/future/hs/reducecosts.php
By comparison, at NAU, a resident student in 2007-08 on the Flagstaff campus would have paid
$17,357 in similar estimated costs, which is $6,623 less than the average estimated cost for a U.
of CA system student. The NAU WUE or Western Undergraduate Exchange student (nonresident CA students attending a NAU WUE designated program on the Flagstaff campus)
would have paid $4,050 less than that the U of CA student as shown in the chart above.
From the preceding section, NAU has identified the programs it offers on the NAU Yuma
campus as WUE or WICHE Western Undergraduate Exchange, view http://wue.wiche.edu/
As such, non-resident students pay a special tuition rate of only 150% that of the Arizona
resident tuition rate as shown on the NAU Flagstaff campus chart below.
31
Table.6
Resident
Flagstaff on-campus 2008-09
Northern Arizona University
Tuition
*Fees – Term
Loan
Books/Supplies
Room
Board
Transportation
Personal
Total
UGRD
$5,145
304
40
890
3,878
3,208
1,492
2,400
$17,357
WUE
UGRD
$7,718
304
40
890
3,878
3,208
1,492
2,400
$19,930
Source: http://home.nau.edu/admissions/finaid/CollegeCosts.asp
The significance of this review is that the proposed Lake Havasu campus compared to the U of
CA system can be very competitive when all costs starting with tuition are comparatively
analyzed.
The comparable Arizona State University costs are as follows:
Table.7
Resident
Arizona State University 2008-09*
Tuition
*Fees – Term
Loan
Books/Supplies
Room
Board
Transportation
Personal
Total
32
UGRD
$6,789
302
48
2,100
5,836
2,518
1,444
3,236
$22,273
WUE
UGRD
$10,184
302
48
2,100
5,836
2,518
1,444
3,236
$25,668
Source: http://wpcarey.asu.edu/acc/graduate/tuition_fees.cfm
*Additional data added for purposes of this discussion include some costs on books/supplies,
room, board, transportation and personal expenses from 2007-08, as 2008-09 data was not yet
available.
Clearly, it is more expensive for Arizona resident students to attend the ASU Tempe campus
than that of NAU Flagstaff. However, given the large contrasts in enrollments (64,000 at ASU
vs. 12,000 at NAU) students do pay the higher fees for various reasons. The ASU West campus
is less expensive than the NAU Flagstaff campus.
The undergraduate student demographics of ASU are relevant to the Foundation project in that
28% or 11,316 of the 2007 student body were nonresidents. Included were 748 CA freshmen.
The total CA undergraduate enrollment of CA students was 2,579. Comparable data for NAU
and UA was not available. Of significance for the Lake Havasu university project is the number
of CA students enrolled at ASU Tempe who might consider the Lake Havasu campus as an
alternative. Also important to the Foundation is the academic reputation and brand name factors
that draw CA students to ASU (http://uoia.asu.edu/files/factbook/Students.pdf).
The resident tuition rate for ASU-West is $1,379 less than that for the main ASU campus in
Tempe. Moreover, the total costs of $16,804 for resident on-campus students at ASU-West are
$5,469 less than that on the ASU Tempe campus. For all branch campuses for NAU, ASU, and
UA, costs are lower than for the main campuses.
The UA Tucson campus tuition rate $1,247 lower than that of the ASU Tempe campus rate.
Moreover, the total cost for the Tucson campus is $3,983 lower than the ASU Tempe campus.
Table.8
Resident
Arizona State University 2008-09
West , On Campus
Tuition
*Fees – Term
Loan
Books/Supplies
Room
Board
Transportation
Personal
Total
UGRD
Source: http://students.asu.edu/cost-attendance)
33
WUE
UGRD
$5,410
250
$8,115
250
1,130
5,264
1,560
1,440
1,750
$16,804
1,130
5,264
1,560
1,440
1,750
$19,509
Table.9
Resident
University of Arizona 2008-09
Tucson
Tuition
*Fees – Term
Loan
Books/Supplies
Room
Board
Transportation
Personal
Total
UGRD
WUE
UGRD
$5,542
$8,313
1,000
6,252
1,560
1,568
2,368
$18,290
1,0030
6,250
1,560
1,568
2,368
$21,061
Source: https://financialaid.arizona.edu/money/estimated-cost.aspx
Table.10
NAU Yuma Campus Resident Undergraduate Fall 2008 Tuition and Fees
Hour(s)
Tuition
ASA
FA Trust
Wellness
Activity
Info Tech
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
$247.00
$494.00
$741.00
$988.00
$1,235.00
$1,482.00
$2,366.00
$2,366.00
$2,366.00
$2,366.00
$2,366.00
$2,366.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$24.00
$24.00
$24.00
$24.00
$24.00
$24.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
$6.00
$9.00
$12.00
$15.00
$18.00
$21.00
$24.00
$27.00
$30.00
$33.00
$36.00
$263.00
$513.00
$763.00
$1,013.00
$1,263.00
$1,513.00
$2,412.00
$2,415.00
$2,418.00
$2,421.00
$2,424.00
$2,427.00
Source: http://home.nau.edu/bursar/res_ugrad_fall_yuma.asp
34
The NAU Yuma branch campus tuition rate at $2,366 X 2 = $4,732 and is $413 less than that of
the NAU Flagstaff campus rate of $5,145 (see Yuma rate table above). Other costs below are
from fall 2007 as fall 2008 costs were not yet available. The room and meal plan is close in cost
to that of the main campus.
Table.11
NAU-Yuma
Tuition, fall 2008
Fees – Term
Loan
Books/Supplies
Room & board, fall 2007
Transportation
Personal, est.
Total
Resident
UGRD
$4,732
122
WUE
UGRD
$7,098
122
864
6,572
864
6,572
1,436
1,000
$14,726
1,436
1,000
$17,092
35
The tuition of the University of Arizona--South campus WUE student rate is appropriate for
discussion given the campus dean’s informal invitation to the Foundation to consider his campus
as the preferred university partner in the new Lake Havasu university campus project. The rate
table for WUE students follows:
Table.12
Tuition Rates, for fall term, University of Arizona South at Sierra Vista
Source: http://www.bursar.arizona.edu/students/fees/showrates.asp?term=084&feetype=uasouthSV&feerate=all)
Fall 2008
UA South: Undergraduate
Resident
Units
Tuition TECH SERVICE ASA
REC
BOND
AFAT KAMP
REC
PROG
TOTAL
1 unit
241.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
-----
$332.50
2 units
482.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
-----
$573.50
3 units
723.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
-----
$814.50
4 units
964.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
----- $1,055.50
5 units 1,205.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
----- $1,296.50
6 units 1,446.00
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
12.00
1.00
----- $1,537.50
7+ units 2,301.50
57.50
20.00 1.00
-----
23.00
1.00
----- $2,404.00
Thus, the yearly tuition rate is $2,302 x 2 = $4604. The WUE rate at 1.5% of the resident rate per
year = $6906.
The NAU-Yuma campus resident tuition and the UA-South campus tuition are similar. However,
the UA-South campus tuition rate $541 less than the resident rate on the main NAU Flagstaff
campus. Moreover, the resident tuition rate for UA-South campus is about $2,185 less than that
of ASU--Tempe.
These contrasts are significant for local students from the Lake Havasu area, particularly those
that can live at home. Using the charts and costs in this sections one may easily compute costs
and comparisons assuming tuition costs for the proposed Lake Havasu campus similar to those at
Yuma and Sierra Vista.
36
Table.13
Yavapai College costs
NAU
ASU
U of A
YC
Rent for academic year, double occupancy
$3,488 $3,744 $4,200 $2,100
Meal plans based on 19 meal option
$2,600 $2,700 $2,600 $2,680
Total
$6,088 $6,444 $6,800 $4,780
Estimated Cost and Breakdown of Attending YC
Tuition and other institutional costs are determined annually by the Board of Governors. Typical
budgets for the 2006-2007 academic year include:
Living On-Campus
Tuition & Fees
$1,080 *
Typical Room & Board
$4,290
Estimated Books & Supplies
$900
Personal Expenses
$1,500
Transportation
$1,000
Total Cost On-Campus
* Add $5,800 for non-resident fees, if applicable
$8,770
Source: http://www.prescott.edu/student_services/housing/DormatoryStyleLiving.html
The private Prescott College refers its students to the dorm and food service package of Yavapai
College as do several other small colleges in the area. Such room and meal costs are not
subsidized by either of the two Prescott colleges. Thus, the Foundation is confident of
37
comparable costs for the proposed Lake Havasu campus with structures built on land acquired
from the BLM for $10 per acre.
The cost of living in general in Prescott is somewhat more expensive that Lake Havasu City.
However, cost of land for residential construction in Lake Havasu City has dropped dramatically
over the past year with the current housing depression economic recession.
The comparisons of student on-campus housing and meals as well as personal and transportation
expenses in Prescott compared to the main campuses of NAU-Flagstaff, ASU-Tempe, and UATucson as well as comparisons to the Cal State U system campuses, is crucial for a proper and
accurate analysis and estimate of such costs for the proposed Lake Havasu campus.
Using the basic matrices above and the UA-South tuition* and fees* (which is about the same as
NAU-Yuma), the comparable cost schedule for a theoretical Lake Havasu campus model would
be as follows:
Table.14 Theoretical Lake Havasu model 2008-09
Tuition
Fees
Fees Loan Facilities
Books/Supplies
Room
Board
Transportation
Personal
Total
With
Parents
UGRD
$4,304
163
500
890
3,174
1,500
1,000
$11,530
Resident
UGRD
$4,604
163
500
890
2,110
2,680
1,500
1,000
$13,678
WUE
UGRD
$6,456
163
500
890
2,110
2,680
1,500
1,000
$15,830
Sources: http://www.yc.edu/content/residencelife/
http://www2.yc.edu/content/financialaid/yc-gen-info/estimated-cost.htm
NAU-Yuma tuition and fees are similar to those of UA-South at Sierra Vista. Room and board
costs for Prescott College and Yavapai College dorms will be similar to those for the Lake
Havasu proposed campus. The tuition and fees of Yavapai College are of no relevance to the
Lake Havasu university project.
38
The Foundation and the city are acquiring the university land from the BLM at no cost to the
university partner. Thus, the Foundation is confident of dorm structures and unsubsidized
operational costs at or less than those of the Prescott colleges.
The ASU-West costs for Board, Transportation, and Personal costs (Table #10) are similar to
those of the two Prescott colleges. The "With Parents" room, board, transportation, and personal
costs are the same as those used by NAU-Flagstaff.
Lake Havasu City and Arizona travel costs are significantly lower than that of Southern CA. For
example, as of 6/19/08, gas as an average state-wide, was $0.55 higher in CA than in Arizona.
Thus, using the Theoretical Lake Havasu campus model, a local Arizona student that eliminates
the ASU-Tempe $8,354 room and board costs could attend the Lake Havasu campus for total
costs of about $11,530 compared to over $22,273 at ASU-Tempe. That is a potential savings of
$10,743 per year or $42,972 for a four-year period.
A local Arizona student that eliminates the UA-Tucson $7,812 room and board costs could
attend the Lake Havasu campus for total costs of about $11,530 compared to over $18,290 at
UA-Tucson. That is a potential savings of $6,760 per year or $27,040 for a four-year period.
A local Arizona student that eliminates the NAU-Flagstaff $7,086 room and board costs could
attend the Lake Havasu campus for total costs of about $11,530 compared to over $17,357 at
NAU-Flagstaff. That is a potential savings of $5,827 per year or $23,308 for a four-year period.
During the Foundation Phase II survey, the cost variations and potential savings of a Lake
Havasu campus will be tested. In short, given a quality university campus in Lake Havasu City,
will such savings influence student and parent decisions and impact in any significant way,
enrollment of local students in the new Lake Havasu university campus?
B.4 The costs of attending California university system campuses:
The California State University system, also called “CSU” or “Cal State U” includes the
campuses in the third matrix below. Estimated costs include tuition, fees, books/supplies, room,
board, transportation, and personal expenses. Such data is provided by most universities in their
catalogs and websites.
Costs shown below include tuition/fees for 2008-09. However, books/supplies, room, board,
transportation, and personal costs are from 2007-08 as such data for 2008-09 is not yet available.
CSU fees are 10% higher in 2008-09. Transportation costs from gas price increases have not yet
been computed by CSU. All costs will be up-dated during the summer of 2009.
39
Table.15 San Francisco State University 2007-08
With Parents On-Campus Off-Campus
Fees
3,456
3,456
3,456
Books and Supplies
1,386
1,386
1,386
Food and Housing
3,474
11,500
11,500
Transportation
1,242
1,242
1,242
Misc, Personal
2,718
2,718
2,718
TOTAL
$12,276
$20,302
$20,302
Table.16 California State University, Fresno 2007-08
With Parents On-Campus Off-Campus
Fees
3,299
3,299
3,299
Books and Supplies
1,072
1,072
1,072
Food and Housing
3,474
8,162
7,410
Transportation
920
764
1,048
Misc. Personal
1,954
1,638
2,106
TOTAL
$10,719
$14,935
$14,935
Table.17 Table
The 2007-08 cost variances between San Francisco and Fresno were:
Fees
Books and Supplies
Food and Housing
Transportation
Misc. Personal
Total
$ 157
$ 314
$3,338
$ 478
$1,080
$5,383
Source: http://www.calstate.edu/SAS/fa_coa.shtml#sf
Channel Island, Northridge, San Marcos, San Bernardino, Fullerton, and Pomona are within the
target area for the Lake Havasu university project.
The 2008-09 columns below include adjustments for the 10% fee increases only. The other oncampus costs are from 2007-08. For further cost details of the specific campus sites click on the
blue links below to be redirected to those sites.
40
Table.18 California State University costs 2008-09
2007-08
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
Off
Off
Off
Havasu On
Havasu
Campus
Campus
Campus
(Under)
Target
Campuses
California Maritime Academy
Costs
19622
Difference
2386
Costs
22008
Over
6177
Area
Sonoma State University
19840
1106
20946
5115
CSU, Monterey Bay
19150
1684
20834
5003
San Francisco State University
20302
0
20302
4471
CSU, East Bay
18834
1314
20148
4317
CSU, Dominguez Hills
18233
1774
20007
4176
CSU, Sacramento
18990
840
19830
3999
CSU, Long Beach
17170
2052
19222
3391
San Jose State University
18550
355
18905
3074
CSU, Channel Islands
18762
0
18762
2931
**
CSPU, Pomona
17229
1509
18738
2907
**
18592
2761
CSU average off campus costs 08-09
CSU, Fullerton
17788
775
18563
2732
**
CSU, San Bernardino
17615
567
18182
2351
**
CSU, Bakersfield
16605
1485
18090
2259
CPSU, San Luis Obispo
17901
0
17901
2070
CSU, Los Angeles
17246
570
17816
1985
CSU, Northridge
17722
0
17722
1891
**
CSU, San Marcos
17540
0
17540
1709
**
San Diego State University
18140
-854
17286
1455
Humboldt State University
16856
0
16856
1025
CSU, Chico
16752
0
16752
921
CSU, Stanislaus
16272
0
16272
441
CSU, Fresno
14935
0
14935
-896
CSU average off campus costs 08-09
18592
Havasu campus model costs 08-09
15830
Difference
2762
Difference from highest rate
6178
Difference from San Bernardino
2351
Difference from Channel Islands
2931
Average for target area campuses
18,251
41
The cost variations among the various CSU campuses were explained in an email on 5/3/08 from
the CSU Director of Financial aid. The basic system fees are the same for all campuses.
However, there are differences on individual campus fee charges such as ID cards, health center,
student activities, etc. This accounts for the variances in fees on the individual campus
summaries as shown above for San Francisco and Fresno.
The other cost estimates on books/supplies, room, board, transportation, and personal expenses
vary among the cities. For example, it is more expensive to live in San Francisco or San Diego
than Fresno.
The CSU campuses are those the Lake Havasu project will likely face as the key competitors for
college-bound students in the five Southern CA counties. Given a significant cost advantage for
the proposed Lake Havasu campus and a brand-name university partner, student attitudes on
Lake Havasu City, its lake, and in particular the site and amenities of the proposed Lake Havasu
university campus, will likely tip the scales one way or the other on student preferences and
selection of both university and campus location. The Foundation Phase II marketing study will
attempt to measure, in part, those attitudes.
For 2008-09, among the campuses in the Cal State U system, the off-campus costs vary by
$5,367 from a low of $14,935 at Fresno to a high of $20,302 at San Francisco. The CSU average
total annual estimated cost is $18,592.
A theoretical Lake Havasu campus cost model (Table #14) is estimated at $15,830 annually for a
non-resident WUE student. This is $2,762 below the CSU system average for estimated total
costs for on-campus models.
Moreover, the annual cost savings to a Southern CA student attending the Lake Havasu campus
would be about $6,178 lower than the highest rate within the CSU system.
The CSU San Bernardino campus, the closest to Lake Havasu, is $2,351 higher than the Lake
Havasu campus model. Channel Islands, another key target area CSU campus, is $2,931 higher
than the Lake Havasu campus model.
Using CSU data, a student living at home with parents spends about $472 more in transportation
(which will go up significantly with the gas price increases) and personal expenditures that a
student living on campus. Moreover, CSU estimates the costs for parents to have a college-aged
young adult at home is $6,813. This is compared to NAU’s estimate of $6,056, a difference of
$757. That could be attributed in part to higher costs in CA for housing, wages, taxes, utilities,
gas, etc.
Given such cost comparisons, one may conclude the Lake Havasu City proposed university
campus, is exceedingly competitive with the CSU system. That cost advantage will be tested
during the Phase II research and survey.
42
Some of the lower rate CSU campuses are in the lower income metropolitan areas that are less
likely to send students to a campus in Lake Havasu City. Thus, the average and higher tuition
rate CSU campuses are appropriate benchmarks for comparisons in costs to attend CSU
campuses relative to that of the proposed Lake Havasu campus.
It is not clear if such cost variables within the CSU system have a significant impact on CA
students in the selection of a preferred campus when a campus some distance from the student’s
home is selected. CSU likely has such data but it was not easily found through Internet searches.
It is known that cost, easy access and distance are important factors in the student selection
process.
Given the $2,762 cost advantage of the proposed Lake Havasu campus compared to the CSU
average off-campus costs, if the Foundation were to offer scholarships of about $200 to $1,000
targeted to students that might otherwise attend the CSU campuses, would it have an impact on
student and parent decisions?
If the Foundation offers no scholarships to students living in the areas served by the higher cost
CSU campuses, would it adversely affect student recruitment for the new Lake Havasu campus?
The start-up costs in scholarships needed to insure full enrollment on the proposed Lake Havasu
campus deserves considerable attention and will be investigation as a part of the Phase II
marketing study.
Given the population of Southern CA families that visit Lake Havasu City and its lake, boat, buy
and rent homes in the City, buy and invest in businesses in the City, and also considering the
Lake Havasu campus model illustrated in the cost analysis above, the question: Will the cost
advantage be a key factor in a decision to attend the Lake Havasu university campus given the
site, the qualities of Lake Havasu City, and the amenities as described in Attachment #6? This
inquiry will also be addressed in the Foundation Phase II marketing study.
The Channel Islands, Northridge, San Marcos, San Bernardino, Fullerton, and Pomona campuses
are those closest to Lake Havasu City (about four hours) and are within the zip code areas to be
surveyed in the Foundation Phase II marketing study.
The campuses that are more a part of the L.A. metro core city area include L.A., Dominguez
Hills, Long Beach, and Fullerton. The San Diego campus is within its core city. Given the low
income populations of these areas, few students from those areas are likely to travel to Lake
Havasu City.
The preceding two sections of this business plan provide published information on academic
year resident undergraduate cost-to-attend data of Arizona universities and comparable
institutions in CA. Because of the higher living costs in Southern CA, the Foundation analysis
demonstrates the overall impact of such costs for CA residents. Within the year, the Foundation
will be re-examining such cost-to-attend data because of recent federal legislation.
A wide-ranging higher education bill designed to protect college students from aggressive
lenders and rein in soaring tuitions won congressional approval July 31, 2008.
43
“The passage marks the first time in a decade that Congress has reauthorized the main federal
law overseeing higher education and the third time in less than a year that it passed legislation to
make college more affordable” (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-07-31college_N.htm).
Included were new requirements on cost-to-attend disclosures for parents and students. Once the
universities post data conforming to the new requirements, Sections B9 and B10 of this business
plan will be updated during the summer of 2009.
B.5 The significance of AZ and CA students
The NAU Flagstaff main campus of some 14,000 students fall 2007 draws about 3% of its total
enrollment from Coconino county, which is about 420 students. Thus, 97% of the Flagstaff
campus enrollment is from other parts of Arizona and other states. The Foundation expects
similar proportions for the new Lake Havasu campus. Fall 2007 enrollment NAU campuses and
extended learning centers, 17,098 were resident and 4,254 or about 20% were non-resident, total
21,352 (http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/AZ/Northern_Arizona_University.html).
At ASU, 28% of the 64,394 fall 2007 students were non-residents and nearly 35% of freshmen
were nonresidents. California was the state with the highest representation: 2,579. Thus, CA
students were about 5% of the total enrollment and about 25% of the nonresident enrollment
(http://uoia.asu.edu/files/factbook/Students.pdf).
Initially with new campus start-up, the Foundation will need to draw a modest number of nonresident California students. With the rapid growth of entire new communities within Mohave
County, the proposed Lake Havasu university campus will surely move toward a mix of resident
and nonresident study bodies similar to that of ASU.
The Arizona population estimate for 2006 was 6,166,318. The population estimate for Coconino
County was 124,953 while the population for Mohave County was 193,035. Thus, Mohave is
approximately 68,082 or about 35% larger in population when compared to Coconino County.
Moreover, Mohave County is the 5th largest in geographic area and one of the fastest growing
counties in the entire nation (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html).
Flagstaff has a population of 55,893. If the approximately 14,000 students were deducted, the
city population would be about 41,893. By contrast, Lake Havasu City has a population of
49,124 or about 15% larger than Flagstaff.
Moreover, Lake Havasu City has over 19,000 acres of Arizona State Lands Department property
in and adjoining the City. Beyond that, there are thousands of acres of BLM lands. While
Flagstaff is somewhat “land-locked” by federal lands, Lake Havasu City has nearly unlimited
growth potential. Hopefully, such contrasts will contribute to the partnership with NAU on the
Lake Havasu campus in ways that benefit both cities.
44
If the NAU estimate of 3% of its student population as Coconino County residents is accurate,
there are about 420 local residents attending NAU classes on the Flagstaff campus. Included are
various age groups, full and part-time students. That would equate to about 0.34% (about than
1/3rd of 1%) of the Coconino County population. That percentage applied to the Mohave County
population would equal 649 students with a similar mix of students. However, NAU in Flagstaff
has been in operation for about 100 years may not be an appropriate start-up model for planning
the initial Lake Havasu campus operation with respect to Mohave County potential student
enrollments.
Moreover, it has been the assumption of NAU and Lipman-Hearne that Mohave County does not
now nor will have in the near future, the population base to support a full comprehensive
residential university campus in Lake Havasu City. However, NAU has 19 full-time faculty on
the Yuma campus. Yuma County has only about 5,000 more population than Mohave County.
Much of that difference might be agricultural workers and families in Yuma County. Clearly,
that assumption on adequate population needs to be tested as a part of the Phase II the
Foundation marketing research project given the potential in theory of 649 students.
Therefore, complicating the planning process for the proposed Lake Havasu campus is exactly
what might be expected of a potential 649 Mohave County students (of a similar mix to that of
the Flagstaff campus) should a quality comprehensive university campus be built on the BLM
Section 24 site with the amenities described in Attachment #7.
Given the number of students in the Lake Havasu City High School 2007 senior class who have
expressed intent via an annual survey form of attending, attracting 649 potential Mohave County
students of all ages and backgrounds for the resident student portion of the new Lake Havasu
university campus, may not be easily done. The data from Attachment #9 on the LHC High
School survey is included in the following table:
45
Table.19 Lake Havasu High School annual senior survey
Percentage of 2007 at specific college
2007
31
18
30
0
90
1
1
18
11
14%
8%
13%
0%
40%
0%
0%
8%
5%
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY
MOHAVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
YAVAPAI
EMERY RIDDLE
IN-STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
OUT-OF-STATE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
26
12% OUT-OF-STATE UNIVERSITY
226
TOTAL:
66%
PERCENTAGE:
23
VOC-TECH
7%
PERCENTAGE:
2
MILITARY ACADEMY
0
ROTC
6
AIR FORCE
4
NAVY
5
ARMY
4
MARINES
0
COAST GUARD
0
NATIONAL GUARD
21
TOTAL:
6%
PERCENTAGE:
21
WORK
6%
ERCENTAGE:
46
NON-GRADUATION
13%
PERCENTAGE:
3
STCS
1%
ERCENTAGE:
3
FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS
1%
PERCENTAGE:
344 early grad
TOTAL
It is not possible to verify what in fact the 2007 seniors did relative to what they recorded as
intent on the senior survey form. Comparable data may not exist for the high schools in
Kingman, Bullhead City, and Mohave Valley.
What is important in the data is that only 105 Lake Havasu seniors or 46% of the 226 seniors in
this group, had intentions of attending a university in-state or out-of-state. In any case, the
Foundation will attempt to determine the number and proportion of that group that would attend
46
the proposed Lake Havasu university campus as presented in the survey instrument in
Attachment #7. In this regard, an attempt will be made to survey the seniors at Kingman,
Bullhead City, Mohave Valley, and Parker.
Of the 90 students that indicated MCC as their intended destination, it is not known what
proportion would be going into vocational, technical, short-term training, and other offerings
other that 4-year college transfer programs. The Foundation will attempt to get that data
including the number of those seniors that actually did enroll at MCC as indicated on the senior
survey form.
Also complicating the projections of where Mohave County university-bound students will go is
the MCC situation resulting from the 2004 faculty and program terminations (academic and
college transfer courses and programs) and the resulting media coverage and conflicts since then.
In any case, the potential 649 students based on the NAU Flagstaff experience, is likely not
achievable. Thus as a part of the business plan development and research, the Foundation will
attempt to search out a reliable estimate as it is crucial to new campus planning.
Hopefully, the proposed Attachment #7 survey questionnaire will help clarify the intentions of
students currently enrolled in Lake Havasu High School as well as those of neighboring cities.
Should the Foundation proceed with an initial start-up business plan modeled on those small
liberal arts colleges that cap enrollments at 500 students with entering freshmen class of 156
students, the potential draw from a theoretical base of 649 Mohave County students (given the
NAU Flagstaff campus enrollment patterns) could have major implications for the new
university project planning and budgeting.
The proposed survey of Lake Havasu High School college-bound students was scheduled for
early March 2009. The Foundation will also seek cooperation for a similar survey of the high
schools in neighboring Parker, Mohave Valley, Bullhead City, and Kingman during April 2009.
Some insights to the Mohave County higher education situation can be found in the findings of
Educating Arizona, a community foundation for education.
Only 68 percent of Arizona students graduate high school in four years. Of the seven in ten who
graduate, only four will enter college and only two will complete a four-year degree within six
years.
The public high school graduation rate in Arizona is less than 60 percent. Only 42 percent of
Arizona high school graduates are enrolled in college.
The number of students graduating from Arizona's high schools either dropped dramatically over
three years or the state is now doing a better job of calculating the number of graduates.
47
“No one disputes what state numbers report: the percentage of high school seniors graduating
after four years slipped from 77 percent in 2004 to 70 percent in 2006”
(http://www.educatingarizona.org/). That is near the national average and where most
nationwide studies have placed Arizona over the last several years.
One might question what will be the reaction of the faculty, staff, department heads and deans of
the NAU Flagstaff campus to a potential small loss of students to the new Lake Havasu campus.
Moreover, in spite of the size of ASU in Tempe and the U of A in Tucson, how will those
universities respond to a small leakage of enrollments to a new university campus in Lake
Havasu?
The Foundation business plan is predicated on the assumption that the Lake Havasu campus will
in fact, result in an increase of transfer students to the Flagstaff, Tempe, and Tucson campuses
once the Interdisciplinary Studies curriculum is in place and properly managed.
B.6 Campus site and components:
A. Partners group:
The key partner of the Foundation in this project is Lake Havasu City and its government.
The City Council has established “Partners” group that includes: Northern Arizona University,
Mohave Community College, Lake Havasu Unified School District, Partnership for Economic
Development, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Allied Arts Council, private developers Ken and
Jim Komick, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, and the non-profit Lake Havasu Foundation for Higher
Education. Ex official members include Arizona State Parks and the Bureau of Land
Management. The Partners group meets periodically on schedules and topics determined by the
City Manager.
B. Campus site map:
The most recent June 2008 master planning map follows. The application process to BLM for the
roads and land has been initiated by the City. The required studies under the R&PP Act are either
done or nearing completion. Approvals by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are either done or
nearing completion.
The City’s Master Planning changes including the required four public hearing have been
completed and unanimously approved by the City Council. Various funding request of ADOT,
SLIF grants, and legislative approvals are either submitted or in process.
48
49
C. BLM land disposal process:
The BLM website, http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/Lake Havasu/news.htm , includes a number of
news releases on the process that led up to the availability of the university site. Area newspapers
carried most of the news releases.
The 320-acre BLM Section 24 land is being disposed under the Federal R&PP Act, the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act (http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2005/BLMLandOwnership.htm).
In addition to the public meetings, citizens were encouraged to submit comments in writing
anytime to the BLM, or call a toll-free number, or visit the BLM regional office at 2610
Sweetwater Avenue here in Lake Havasu City. During the entire 2001 to 2006 period of review,
public notices were posted on the public bulletin board at the BLM Sweetwater facility.
BLM Section 19 is the parcel adjoining the termination of Acoma Boulevard and is the land that
is immediately west of and adjoining part of the Regency Drive neighborhood. This BLM
section is not now up for disposal. The BLM Section 24 often referred to as the “university”
land, is farther to the north.
Section 24 is valued at approximately $128 million or about $400,000 per acre. Under the R&PP
Act, such land may be acquired for $10 per acre by qualified governmental entities. It is the
intent of the Foundation that the 100 acres valued at over $40 million will be available to the
university partner for no cost as the Foundation is committed to paying those fees.
Financing of the entire project is being examined by the City. “What we’ve been told is to
explore financing options and that is what we’re doing,” City Manager Richard Kaffenberger
said. “For example, we’re looking at naming rights as one avenue. And there are other things
we’ve asked CIAC (Citizens Investment Advisory Committee) to look at.”
D. Marina component:
The key component for the development of the entire area is the proposed new mainland marina
at Contact Point State Park, which adjoins the proposed university property.
In a 7/12/07 letter by the legislative Joint Committee on Capital Review, Committee staff
recommended favorable review of the portion of the Parks Board request on $942,100 in
improvements at Lake Havasu State Park. Staff also requested more information on the
$1,500,000 for planning the new proposed Contact Point facility. The funds would be SLIF
dollars (State Lake Improvement Fund).
Lake Havasu boaters are a major source of SLIF income. The purposes of the Fund are detailed
in A.R.S. §5-382. The Parks Board expects to use SLIF dollars in the future to fund part of the
construction estimated to total $19,380,000. The various projects include:
50
1. $2,200,000 for roads from ADOT (exceedingly important for the university project).
2. $1,500,000 for site prep.
3. $5,420,000 for a marina, fueling station, and boardwalk. A private concession company
would operate the marina, similar to the arrangement at Kartchner Caverns.
4. $1,750,000 parking lot.
5. $1,000,000 beach area.
6. $2,500,000 day use area.
7. $2,500,000 potable and wastewater services.
8. $2,500,000 boat launch area.
The city is also an applicant for SLIF money. According to a recent 8/16/07 news article, in the
News Herald, “Previously, the city received $400,000 in SLIF money to participate in the
proposed new mainland marina at Contact Point. The city asked for another $700,000 to install
buried infrastructure to a new state park facility, which also will assist the effort to place a fouryear university on land adjacent to the park.”
In testimony before the Joint Committee, State Parks Board again cited the need to relieve
congestion on the lake and around existing boat launch ramps. The Board also cited a 2005 BLM
report that Lake Havasu had the highest utilization of any lake in Arizona. Also, 75% of all
boating activity was located within 33-53% of the lake.
On holidays, Windsor State Park typically closes the gates at 9:30 A.M. On a typical summer
weekend, the park closes the gates around 12 P.M. The closings result in a loss of revenue to the
Parks Board. Moreover, traffic backs up to H-95 resulting in more accidents.
Not addressed in the State Parks Board testimony before the Joint Committee was the potential
large positive impact of the proposed new Contact Point Marina on tourism and the economy of
Lake Havasu City.
Also not addressed was the potential positive impact on the growing marine industry in Lake
Havasu City. In a report published by the PED in 2006, the annual economic output of the local
marine industry of Lake Havasu City alone equaled $191 million. The annual payroll of the
marine industry was $29,646,808.
As reported in the Today’s News-Herald April 12, 2008, State Parks board chair Bill Porter said
the Parks board invited the City to recommend funding options including public-private
partnerships. Such options were discussed at length at a recent June 9, 2008 meeting of the City’s
Partners group.
51
E. Convention Center, Performing Arts, and Sports Complex:
Detailed descriptions, specifications, and funding options are under development for this
component. The location is shown on the current June 2008 draft map. The property marked as a
city maintenance yard is approximately 9 acres. Once the other main components within the 320acre site are under development, these 9 acres will become exceeding valuable. Thus, it is not
likely to remain in the current maintenance yard status.
F. Golf course
The approximate 160 acres tentatively earmarked for the municipal golf course was initially
intended as a future high school campus site. However, the topography being exceedingly rough,
would have presented problems of cost in site preparation. The proposed use as a Parker, AZ
Emerald Canyon type golf course would not require significant developmental costs. This
municipal plan also meets a long standing goal of the city parks department for both recreational
purposes and expanded tourism support.
Municipal golf courses can also be a significant revenue generator for cities. For example, the
Salt Lake City municipal golf course system generates enough revenue to fund the entire budget
of that city’s parks department.
Moreover, golf courses are often a key element of efforts to expand tourism, particularly in states
like Arizona, as a fundamental part of economic development strategies.
G. Rivera Estates development
For many years, the #1 and #2 priorities set by the City Council for the PED were a 5-star resort
hotel and convention center. It was a difficult charge and the PED has yet to meet such goals.
The adjoining 250-acre private development of the Komick group includes plans for a resort
hotel, town center (small shopping center), and up-scale homes, all of which will top $1 billion
of investment at build-out.
The town center and other amenities are considered by the Foundation to be key elements to
attracting a student body for the proposed university campus. The marina, beaches, golf course,
and related recreational opportunities are also crucial to the student recruitment efforts of the
Foundation.
B.7 Small college models:
Lipman-Hearne identified a number of colleges in CA and AZ that might be appropriate for
analysis. The Foundation has examined three; DeVry University, Prescott College, and San
Diego Christian College.
52
Table.20 Small colleges under 1,000 enrollment within CA and AZ
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
DeVry University (Phoenix)
Prescott College
San Diego Christian College
Southwestern College
Northcentral University
1,006
758
502
308
202
University of Advancing Technologies: http://www.uat.edu/
DeVry University, Phoenix: http://www.phx.devry.edu/
Prescott College: http://www.prescott.edu/
Yavapai College: http://www2.yc.edu/
San Diego Christian College: http://www.sdcc.edu/
Southwestern College: www.swccd.edu
Wakefield, KS: http://www.sckans.edu/
Chula Vista: http://www.swccd.edu/
Phoenix (Baptist): http://www.intentionallychristian.com/
North Central University, Prescott Valley Christian College: http://www.ncbc.edu/
One appropriate model might be the UA-South campus in Sierra Vista. With off-campus sites,
there were 320 FTE students in AY 07-08. Projected for AY09-09 is 354 FTE and for AY09-10,
487 FTE.
In the fall 2007, UA-South had 525 headcount and 332 FTE students. NAU-Yuma had 631
headcount and 481 FTE students. Thus, this campus would also be an appropriate model.
The Foundation has collected considerable information on these schools via Internet. Prescott
College and San Diego Christian College were selected for site visits. UA-South and the NAUYuma campuses have been visited by the Foundation teams.
Yavapai College in Prescott was visited because of its campus design and several student
dormitories, all of which are available to students of other area colleges. The unsubsidized room
and board costs of the Yavapai College dorm plan presents a workable model for the Foundation
project.
The San Diego College was particularly useful for the Foundation planning in that the SDCC
curriculum is similar to the interdisciplinary studies programs of NAU and ASU. With an overall
student population of about 500, the entering freshmen classes are about 156. Of the 500 studentbody, about 300 or 60% lived on-campus. Thus, approximately 200 or 40% were commuters
from the greater San Diego area.
Should a similar model be applied by the Foundation for the initial start-up campus in Lake
Havasu City, it is estimated that 60% of the entering freshmen would be living on-campus, given
the smaller proportion of local commuter students.
53
Typically, for residential campuses, a high proportion of entering freshmen live on-campus,
primarily because of parental influence. Thus, plans will be developed for approximately 300
resident students for the proposed Lake Havasu campus.
Small college campuses including those branch campuses of major public universities emphasize
small classes and personalized attention. The sense of “community”, communal, and social
interaction along with small group recreational activity are points of emphasis. With “live”
instructors leading most classes, the emerging role of Internet resources and computers give
small colleges some distinct advantages over their larger metropolitan competitors. For those
students seeking out the smaller campuses, on-line courses are a tolerable but small and only
occasional part of the total learning experience.
The small college library is increasingly computer and Internet based with fewer hard-copy
materials other than current literature. The costs comparisons of branch campuses of the three
major Arizona universities also demonstrate the advantages of the smaller institutions in
overhead, tuition, fees, room and board, transportation, and personal costs of attending college.
Such cost contrasts are significant given the fact that the cost of education is the first and most
important factor for students and parents in the selection of a campus and institution. Financial
aid and scholarships is second. The third is the element of brand name or prestige as the indicator
of academic excellence. Thus, for the Foundation, molding such variables into an overall plan for
a small-town, small-size campus will be one of the keys of success in the business plan and
recruitment process.
In the article, “Size matters” Amherst College unveiled a plan to increase the size of each
entering class, currently 410-425 students, by another 15-25 students
(http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/24/libarts).
Other colleges have resisted expansion. For example, the president of Haverford College set off
an intense discussion on the campus last year with his suggestion that the institution consider
expansion. Plans circulated to add several hundred students. With many students and professors
opposed to the idea, Haverford is staying at 1,150.
George Dehne, who leads a company that advises colleges on enrollment issues, states, “There is
no magic size, it’s about ethos. It’s ultimately about attitude and not numbers — it’s about what
the school values.”
Additional articles related to school size are listed below:
1. “Why a small liberal arts college may be best for your kid”
http://www.wabash.edu/news/displaystory.cfm?news_ID=1254
2. “Top Small Colleges”
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranklibartc
o_brief.php
3. “Liberal arts enrollments up 50% at Georgia Tech”
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=608
54
As a part of Phase II research, the Foundation will add additional information on appropriate
small college models suitable for consideration in the planning of the Lake Havasu campus.
B.8 Student living and dorms:
A. Residential college revival:
View, http://collegiateway.org/news/2008-bowles-hall as posted by R. J. O’Hara for the
Collegiate Way.
This article noted the trend about the country to revisit the British model of higher education as
the “collegiate” model.
“The British model of higher education is the “collegiate” model, tracing its roots to Oxford and
Cambridge Universities in Great Britain. Oxford and Cambridge are federal institutions:
collections of small, independent, residential colleges, each made up of a few hundred members
from all academic divisions and departments. The university awards degrees while the colleges
function as “great households” that support the life and well-being of the students.”
“But tides have a way of turning, and in the last decade or so, across the United States and
around the world, the residential college model of university organization has been undergoing a
second revival. On campuses public and private, large and small, the virtues of what Cotton
Mather called the “collegiate way of living” are once again being discovered, and my own
website, “The Collegiate Way” (collegiateway.org), has become the international clearinghouse
for this movement. From Murray State in Kentucky to Truman State in Missouri, from Baylor in
Texas to Vanderbilt in Tennessee, from Ole Miss down south to Cornell up north, students,
faculty, alumni, and staff are again coming to see, as the founders of Bowles Hall did, that “the
advantages of the small group may be retained without sacrificing the even greater advantages
of membership in a large university.” Even Princeton University, which rejected Woodrow
Wilson’s collegiate plan a century ago, is now moving forward with a comprehensive residential
college system for all its undergraduates.”
To reiterate, the Foundation will seek ways to evolve a proper budget for initial campus
construction and operations using models common to small liberal arts colleges that cap total
enrollments at 500 with freshman classes at 156. View,
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/24/libarts
55
B. Yavapai College model:
The Yavapai College dorm costs for room and board are those preferred for the Lake Havasu
campus business plan model.
Yavapai College’s dorms are 2-story, wood/stick built, stucco exterior, with asphalt shingle
roofs. This is similar to the Motel 6 prototype and that of other motel developers that have done
various dorm and group living structures. Moreover, Lake Havasu City construction costs are
lower than that of Prescott.
With such prototypes, modified to a college dorm floor plan, it appears that cost-to-construct
would be modest. This would easily put the Lake Havasu campus near the $2,030 per year range
of Yavapai’s room rate. That room rate with food/board rates also similar to Yavapai’s, gives the
Lake Havasu campus an impressive competitive cost-to-attend advantage over the Cal State U
system and the AZ university metro campus cost-to-attend models.
All Yavapai College Residence Hall rooms include:

A bed, desk, closet and dresser for each resident

Private bathrooms

Basic Cable TV (residents must provide their own television; premium channels
available at additional cost through Cable One)

High speed Internet hook up

Voicemail
Residence Halls include

Free laundry facilities. Marapai and Supai have two laundry rooms each; Kachina has
one. Residents must supply their own detergent, fabric softener, etc.

Full kitchen with refrigerator, stove, microwave, and sink

Computer labs

24-hour study lounges

Pool tables, ping pong tables and board games

Vending machine

Vacuums available for use

An on-call Hall Director 24/7
56
In compliance with ADA requirements, Yavapai College's Kachina Hall provides access for
mobility and hearing impaired persons, including rooms with walk-in showers and/or lights
notifying fire alarm.
http://www.yc.edu/content/residencelife/default.htm
http://www.yc.edu/content/residencelife/rooms.htm
Take an inside panoramic look at one of many double occupancy rooms with private bath.
This is in QuickTime format (.mov).
2008 - 2009 Double Occupancy Rates
Residence Hall
Double Occupancy Rates
Marapai Hall
$1015
Supai Hall (Suites)
$1015
Kachina Hall
$1082
Meal Plan Rates for 2008-2009
Semester cost = Meals per week + RoughRider dollars per semester
P1: $1,450 = 19 meals + 100 Roughrider dollars
P2: $1,250= 15 meals + 75 Roughrider dollars
P3: $1,165 = 10 meals + 125 Roughrider dollars
P4: $1,165 Block Meal Plan = 100 meals per semester + 175 Roughrider
dollars
57
A Meal Includes

one entrée

a choice of three sides, may consist of a small salad (4 oz bowl), soup (12 oz bowl),
a veggie or starch and a dessert

Sides in a 12 oz bowl (except soup) will be charges as a double side

No package products

Pizza and Corn/Hot dogs are not considered sides; they are main entrees
any size drink
Meals can only be spent on the food that is made on the premises. The meals are counted Friday
through Thursday. In other words, if you run out of meals before Thursday, you will get a new
set of meals to use beginning on Friday morning.
C. California State University dorm research:
Dorms for possibly 50% of the student body; mostly 4-single bedroom suite style, 100 to 110 sq
ft, 2 baths, 4 sinks, small entry and some 2-double bedroom suite style. Floor plans #54 and #53
below. See Cal State San Marcos Student Housing Marketing Study, 11/14/06.
www.csusm.edu/wasc/resources/CSUSM%20Presentation%2006.ppt
58
59
D. Motel prototypes:
The New Motel 6 Prototype, "The Motel Of The Future"
http://www.accor-na.com/franchising_info/prototype.asp
E. Model dorm statement of revenue and expenditures next page:
60
Residence Hall Model Statem ent of Revenue and Expenditures
3/15/2009
Lake Havasu University Campus FY 2008 Estimates
"Other
Operating Revenues:
College"
Housing Fees (occ rate 90%)
$
671,591
Adjustments
$
671,591
$
$2,030 per year per student FY 08 = 330.84 FTE residents (Note 1)
2,030
330.84
Operating Expenditures:
Salaries and Benefits
221,686
66,506
Professional Services
15,472
15,472
General S upplies
25,048
25,048
Travel
503
200
Cable TV
21,381
21,381
Internet
52,020
Miscell aneous
20,734
Schol arships
58,087
Equipment
5,703
Student Activities ($20,557 * 20% ) (Note 1)
4,111
Residence Hall Association
0
20,734
0
5,703
0
975
975
K Hall
1,963
1,963
S Hall
M Hall
1,999
2,078
1,999
2,078
2,878
2,878
All Hall Activity
Student Heath Services - net of revenues ($45,298 * 40% ) (Note 1)
18,119
0
K Hall
44,861
0
S Hall
25,350
0
M Hall
57,031
0
Annual Depreciation (40 year straight-line)
Allocation Expenses (based on square footages):
Facilities Support:
District Administration ($468,935 * 21% *52%)
51,208
District Safety ($61,007 * 21% * 52%)
District Utilities ($1,806,805 * 21% * 52% )
District Telep hone ($346,803 * 21% * 52%)
51,208
6,662
6,662
197,303
197,303
37,871
37,871
133,291
133,291
Gen eral Grounds ($227,571 * 24% * 52%)
28,401
28,401
Gen eral Custodial ($800,559 * 24% * 52% )
40,348
40,348
Campus Safety ($639,604 * 21% * 52%)
69,845
69,845
Administration - Student Services (flat rate)
12,000
12,000
1,156,928
741,866
Gen eral Maintenance ($1,068,039 * 24% * 52%)
Total Operating Expenditures
Operating Loss
(485,337)
(70,275)
Nonoperating revenues/(expenses)
Food Service Commission - net of expenses ($113,778 * 80%) (Note 2)
Princi pal and Interest on Revenue Bonds
Net E ffect of Operations
$
91,022
91,022
(227,260)
(227,260)
(621,575)
$
(206,513) $
Basis for Lake Havasu Campus adjusted rate dorm fee $
Note 1: Estimate
-687
(624)
2,654
Note 2: A ctual data
College revenue bond principal/interest per student per year $
331 students
3.3% 30-year bonds per million = $4,379 per million per month x 12 months = per year per million $
$227,260 bond payments per year / $52,548 = $
$4.325 m illion in bonds for 3 dorms or about $1.44 million per dorm $
110 students per dorm or for 2-students per room, 55 rooms per dorm, cost per room $
$174 psf building cost est = sq ft per room allocation on the a verage with baths, halls, utility areas, etc.
687
331
52,548
4.325 million
1.44 million
26,211 Est.
151 sq ft
COMMENTS:
61
Salaries and Benefits: Students in the X-College dorms are freshmen and sophomores. A university campus
COMMENTS:
Salaries and Benefits: Students in the X-College dorms are freshmen and sophomores. A
university campus however, will have a mix of lower division, upper division, and graduate level
students. While adult employees are needed for dorm supervision at X-College, the university
campuses usually employ upper division or graduate students on federally reimbursable workstudy to supervise such dorms. Therefore, salaries and a minimal level of benefits for direct dorm
supervision are reduced accordingly for the Lake Havasu campus model.
Facilities Support: Note that recovery costs are budgeted under "Facilities Support" for
Administration, Safety, Maintenance, Grounds, and Custodial. Note also the depreciation
charges that become a part of the basis for student fees for dorm living.
Internet: The Lake Havasu campus will require all students to have a laptop or notebook
computer Wi-Fi working. This requirement will eliminate the need for traditional costly
computer labs and dramatically change the traditional library holdings and literature research
process. The entire campus will be Wi-Fi connected. Thus, a special charge need not be levied
against dorm students as Internet costs will be applied campus-wide.
Scholarships: Scholarships for the Lake Havasu campus will be a campus-wide function and not
charged to dorm residents. A commuter community college with a large proportion of part-time
students and part-time faculty and with some dorm lower division dorm students will operate a
bit differently from residential 4-year college campuses with a high proportion of full-time
students and full-time faculty.
Student Activities: Student activities on a university campus with predominately full-time
students will be a campus-wide function and charged accordingly.
Student Health Services: For most university campuses, student health services is a campuswide function and charged accordingly.
Annual depreciation: As a basic accounting principle, measuring the loss in value of an asset is
known as depreciation. Depreciation is considered an expense and is listed in an income
statement under expenses. Straight-line depreciation the most common method of depreciating
assets. In the X-College dorm budget, current students are being charged for their share of
depreciation even though they are also paying a share of the municipal revenue bond
principal/interest. With the Lake Havasu university campus model, dorm residents will pay a full
share per student of the annual bond principal/interest, which covers the total cost of the initial
construction of the structure. At the end of the 40-year depreciation period, while a dorm may
have lost much of its value, the initial cost of that asset would have been paid for in full with
the30-year revenue bonds fully funded by student dorm fees. When a new dorm is built, the
dorm occupants will likewise pay a full share of the bond principal/interest for that specific
dorm.
62
F. Sports and recreation:
Cal State U San Bernardino offers the following NCAA Div. II sports. Included are men’s
baseball, basketball, golf, and soccer. Women’s sports include basketball, cross-country, soccer,
softball, tennis, volleyball, and water polo.
Facilities include basketball courts; handball/ racquetball courts; swimming pools; tennis courts;
stadium and all-weather track; soccer and multipurpose fields; baseball stadium, softball
diamond; putting greens and sand traps; weight training room; climbing wall; dance studios; and
athletic training rooms. These clubs include under-water hockey, wrestling, fencing, and
badminton.
There are several student sport leagues including flag football, spring and fall basketball, spring
and fall volleyball, indoor and outdoor soccer, arena football, tennis, softball, and ultimate
frisbee. Sport Clubs are student-organized sports teams including men's lacrosse, women's
lacrosse, men's rugby, women's rugby, inline hockey, men's volleyball, women's volleyball,
men's ultimate frisbee, women's ultimate frisbee, field hockey, men's water polo, women’s water
polo (http://www.studentsreview.com/CA/CSUSB_comments.html?type=negative).
G. Lake Havasu campus proposed sports and recreation:
Initially, the Foundation has no plans for NCAA level sports programs. However, such
opportunities are expected to emerge with growth.
The campus will be near the center of town and next to a new marina. The City’s Aquatic Center
is only a mile away and Sara Park about two miles. Within a few yards of the campus are
beaches, camp-sites, and hiking trails on 460 miles of coastline. Also next to the campus will be
a championship quality Emerald Canyon type golf course, fine arts facility, a resort hotel, and a
small shopping area with a mix of stores and eateries.
There are presently rentals for jet-skis, boats & water skis, pontoons, parasailing, ATV’s, bikes,
and the like.
Recreational opportunities already available include swimming, boating, kayaking, fishing,
softball, baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, rodeos, and other sports in both informal and
competitive formats.
The City’s Parks Department along with the university partner will give considerable attentions
to expanding the sports and recreational opportunities as a key component of a marketing and
student recruitment program.
In the national study, “Why Did They Enroll,” the opportunity to play sports ranked last on a list
of nine factors. Still, sports, recreation, and social or “community” environment are all important
63
elements of an attractive campus that draws students
(http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/Self-Study-Reports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf).
B.9 Campus facilities:
A. Small college campus designs and buildings:
The Foundation is examining models such as small liberal arts (interdisciplinary studies)
residential campuses with 500 FTE students, mostly 90% full-time, and entering freshmen
classes of 156 FTE.
Building and room footprints by clusters with square footage are being developed for:
A. Student Activities:
1. Student center, inside and outside lounges, recreational area inside and outside.
2. Court yards and social gathering areas.
3. Exercise room.
4. Cafeteria and small café.
5. Student Development offices/units: registrar, recruitment/admissions, financial aid,
Health Center, counseling, Career Center, athletics/recreation/social.
B. Student Living:
1. Dorms for 300 or 60% of the student body; mostly 4-single bedroom suite style, 100
to 110 sq ft, 2 baths, 4 sinks, small entry and some 2-double bedroom suite style. See
Cal State San Marcos Student Housing Marketing Study, 11/14/06.
www.csusm.edu/wasc/resources/CSUSM%20Presentation%2006.ppt
C. Student Education:
1. Classrooms and labs, small group and large group, no interior halls, LHC HS style.
2. Library (modern Internet focus, fewer hard copy items).
3. Bookstore.
4. Faculty offices.
D. Administration and Campus:
1. Administration: CEO, business/finance office, academic office, public relations,
advancement/foundation, facilities/maintenance.
2. Shaded parking for faculty/staff and some visitors. General parking.
The first student activities cluster will be nearest the lake, beaches and marina, which is in the
south-west corner of the university property (see attached map)
The high-rise dorms will be east of the first cluster, giving students easy access to the student
activities, social, and recreational areas and lake. Then the education complex will be to the east
with administration east of that.
64
Given the limited 100-acre BLM site, surface space is at a premium. Thus, some facilities will be
multi-story which will take advantage of the awesome lake/mountain views to the west, northwest, and south-west.
Architectural renderings were on display in City Hall January 2009. PowerPoint slides are on the
Foundation website.
This will be a conceptual model with appropriate designs for the lake-front site, lake views, indoors/out-doors living and recreation, easy access to the beaches and marina, easy access to the
proposed town center (small shopping area), golf course, etc.
With such data, the Foundation will develop cost estimates for campus development and
construction. Within this process, the BLM land for the university partner will be free.
Infrastructure and main roads will be developed as a part of the marina project. General site
preparation will be done by others or by donated funds.
The City and the Foundation are working on facility funding options. The student dorms as
revenue producing structures may or may not be considered for public-private financing. The
assumption at this point of planning is that the university partner will not be allowed by ABOR
to finance land costs, site preparation, and facilities. Leasing options based on the ASU-Phoenix
Downtown Campus model have been and continue to be explored.
B. Campus map for San Diego Christian College:
A. In the graphic below, most of the buildings are religious and not educational. The
buildings that are a key part of the 500-student college campus include:
1 Administration Building (which also houses church administration at 50%+-). Included
is admissions, advancement, business office, financial aid, registrar, VP academic office, APS,
conference room, education office, president, VP finance, faculty offices.
2. Student Development Building. Included is Career Center, dean’s office, health
center, recruitment, spiritual life director, VP of student life.
4 Bookstore
5 Center Dorm
6 Two small classroom buildings with no external hallways (500 student enrollment)
7 Dining Hall
8 East Dorm (the two dorms house about 300 students)
9 Library
12 Main Lounge
13 Pavilion (shared with church)
20 Solid Rock Café
22 Weight Room
Considerable emphasis is given to a social, recreational, and “community” environment with ease
of movement from inside to outside.
65
Athletic fields and gym are shared with a small Christian high school, the church, and a seminary
that is located across the street on a one-block campus.
The #20 Café and #13 Pavilion structures have a permanent tent-type ceiling (similar to some
area casinos) with roll-up walls for ease of inside-outside activities in moderate weather.
Included in the structures are ceiling and floor fans and evaporative coolers. The advantages
include large floor areas at greatly reduced building costs.
All in all, this is a relatively small campus. The offices are small and the classroom buildings are
modest. What is unique is the amount of space devoted to social, recreational, communal and
“community” activities, which is clearly a contrast to commuter campus designs.
Classrooms include big-screen TV’s and tables with power strips for laptop computers.
The Foundation will attempt to analyze such campus features, square footage, and construction
costs in the development of an appropriate model for the unique lake-front site for the Lake
Havasu campus.
Source: http://sdcc.edu/uploadedFiles/SDCCCampusMap.pdf
66
B.10
Campus revenue factors:
A. ABOR policies strategic issues:
From the ABOR 5-year strategic plan 2008-12: “Arizona is ranked 43rd in percentage of highschool graduates going to college and 39th in younger population with a college degree. These
statistics send a less than-rosy message to business leaders looking to locate here and hire a
quality workforce.” To meet that deficiency, ABOR has proposed a significant expansion of the
Arizona higher education system. Lake Havasu City hopes to play a small role in that expansion.
“From 1980 to 2006, enrollments have grown 49 percent (over 39,553 students). Projections
from 2000 to 2010 are for a 41 percent increase (or over 39,500 enrollments).”
http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/planning/ABOR-Approved-Five-YearStrategic-Plan.pdf There were 105,842 head count students fall 2000.
http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/fb_files/enroll-table.html Thus, the
projection for 2010 is 145,342 head count students.
The entering freshmen class for the proposed Lake Havasu campus is projected at 156 FTE
students. Thus, the Lake Havasu proportion of total statewide enrollment would be about 0.0012
(one thousandth) or about 1/10th of 1 percent.
In the ABOR publication, The Next Stage for Changing Directions in Arizona Higher Education,
“…the university system must grow from the 115,000 students it serves today to 185,000 by
2020.” http://www.abor.asu.edu/special_editions/redesign/draft%20redesign%20proposal228%20_2_.pdf Thus, at full enrollment of 500 FTE students at the proposed Lake Havasu
campus, would be a miniscule 0.003 (three thousandth) or 3/10th of 1 percent of total system
enrollment and a corresponding miniscule proportion of the system general fund allocation.
While that impact on state enrollment and funding would be exceedingly small, the Lake Havasu
campus as planned would be a major accomplishment, social advancement, and economic boost
for Lake Havasu City. The fiscal and economic impact of the proposed university campus will be
addressed in a study to be commissioned by the city.
B.
ABOR policies on tuition, fees, and FTE calculations for funding:
The operating budgets and revenue sources for ASU, UA, and NAU are organized in two
categories. For example, about 64% of ASU’s state expenditure authority comes from the state’s
general fund while about 36% is derived from tuition and fee revenue and other miscellaneous
revenues common to all major universities. In contrast, the proposed Lake Havasu campus
should generate over 43% of its revenue budget from tuition, fees, and other typical
miscellaneous sources. For the community college system, the ratio is about 21%, using
Coconino CC as an example for FY08.
The illustrations below are excerpts from ABOR policies on tuition and fees. Included is the FY
2008 state expenditure authority. Also included in an excerpt from ABOR on funding enrollment
67
changes or the 22 to 1 formula, which explains in part, how the general fund revenues of ABOR
are apportioned among ASU, UA, and NAU based on FTE enrollment.
Of significance to the Lake Havasu campus project is that as enrollment increases for any one of
the state universities, so does its share of general fund revenues. Moreover, the universities keep
their tuition, fee, and miscellaneous revenues, defined as “collections.” That includes out of state
tuition (without penalties), which is significantly higher than in-state resident tuition. Thus, the
proposed Lake Havasu campus could be potentially, a significant contributor to its university
partner on the revenue side of the operating budget given non-resident enrollments similar to that
of ASU.
To our knowledge, there is no provision for not reporting enrollments for university sponsored
credit courses.
Clearly, the universities balance that non-resident student revenue advantage with the political
need to prioritize service to Arizona residents. In short, the universities exercise responsible
management and judgment in the mix of resident and non-resident enrollments.
C. WICHE WUE or Western Undergraduate Exchange:
For a description of WICHE and WUE, click on; http://wiche.edu/sep/ and http://wue.wiche.edu/
Through WICHE and the WUE or Western Undergraduate Exchange, Arizona residents benefit
greatly by gaining access to specialized programs in other western states. Moreover, through
WICHE, while providing significant advantages to Arizona residents for expanded educational
services, ASU, UA, and NAU are able to recruit out-of-state students in ways that enhances the
national stature of Arizona universities while creating significant economic benefits for the state,
counties, and communities in which those non-resident students reside. Even the breadth of basic
interactions of resident students with the non-resident students creates a host of significant
economic, social, and political advantages for Arizona and our region in general.
For the main campuses, it is the out-of-state enrollments that help the universities reach the
critical mass of students for basic operations while expanding the options and choices for
Arizona residents. In short, it is the appropriate mix of in-state and non-resident students that
help the state universities meet their basic mission of service to Arizona.
From the ABOR website, Arizona receives a number of direct benefits from its membership in
the Western Undergraduate Exchange (see, http://wue.wiche.edu/ ). “In 2006-07, Arizona
students and their families saved over $4.6 million in tuition by participating in the Western
Undergraduate Exchange, just one of WICHE’s three Student Exchange Programs (see,
http://wiche.edu/sep/ ).
“Virtually all undergraduate fields are available to WUE students at participating colleges and
universities. Some institutions have opened their entire curriculum on a space-available or firstcome, first-serve basis” (view, http://wue.wiche.edu/WUE_constituent1.jsp ).
68
D. A proper balance of resident and non-resident students:
At ASU, about 28% of the 64,394 fall 2007 students were nonresidents. Some 35% of entering
freshmen were nonresidents. CA was the #1 state with 2,579 enrollees. Comparable data was not
available for NAU and UA. Source, http://uoia.asu.edu/files/factbook/Students.pdf
Table B10-1:
ASU Graduate
ASU Undergraduate
ASU Totals
% of Total
Entering freshman profile
Residents
7,771
38,446
46,217
72%
Non-residents
5,312
12,866
18,178
28%
Total
13,083
51,311
64,394
6,031
65%
3,243
35%
9,274
On 1-22-09, ABOR increased the non-resident cap from 30% to 40%.
For the three Arizona public universities, if the proportions for NAU and UA are close to those
of ASU, one might estimate these universities enroll about 4,900 CA students.
The Foundation is also aware that NAU’s Flagstaff campus draws about 97% of its student body
from outside of Coconino County, a large proportion of which is from Maricopa County. Thus,
about 3% are local county students, full and part-time.
From the table below, at UA-South campus fall 2007, only 146 of 525 headcount students or
2.7% were non-residents. At NAU-Yuma, only 21 of 631 headcount students or 3.3% were nonresidents. (Source, ABOR email.) What is most noticeable are the contrasts to the ASU
enrollment pattern for residents and non-residents. The Foundation assumption is that not many
non-residents, particularly from CA, will enroll in a 2 + 2 program given the total lack of
university-run freshman and sophomore level courses.
Moreover, a university branch campus without the freshman and sophomore level courses is
saddled with the higher-cost upper division courses. Lower division courses are lower in cost and
typically have slightly larger class sizes than the upper division courses. Thus, it is the
Foundation’s intent to develop an economically sound business plan based on a full complement
of lower and upper division courses. Accordingly, the Foundation has fundamentally rejected the
concept of a 2 + 2 campus. For a more detailed explanation, see Part A, A9. The state of higher
education in Mohave County or lack thereof.
To increase the mix of non-resident to resident students on the Yuma campus, NAU has
designated all of its Yuma campus programs as WICHE WUE. This is the WUE program model
The Foundation expects for the Lake Havasu campus with the exception of the 2 + 2 Yuma
campus arrangement.
69
The initiative of NAU in designating all Yuma campus programs WUE was done in part to
reverse a recent history of enrollment declines on the Yuma campus:
Table B10-2: NAU-Yuma FTE data used for the 3-year rolling FTE average
Fall/Year
2005
2006
2007
FTE
529
519
481
Source; NAU email 8/25/08
NAU-Yuma’s 9% decline was offset in part by the growth in Flagstaff and statewide/online
course enrollments.
During the initial years of Lake Havasu campus operations, the Foundation expects the
proportion of students from Mohave County to be considerably larger than 3% (versus NAU’s
Coconino County enrollment) only because of the smaller total initial campus enrollment of
possibly 156 FTE freshmen students. The Foundation also expects rapid future growth of
Mohave County students on the Lake Havasu campus as the county population expands.
The Foundation also expects the proportion of non-resident enrollments to be comparable to that
of ASU.
E. Sources of students and system displacement:
Using the proportions from the LHC High School senior survey, the Foundation has estimated
the source of students as illustrated in the table below. The exception would be students that
might be drawn from those headed for MCC.
Because of the very low tuition rates of MCC, we expect few of those students will change to the
higher-tuition of a local 4-year university. Moreover, when universities experience drop-outs, the
majority enroll in a local community college. Thus, MCC might see an overall gain of
enrollments from a local university campus.
70
Table B10-3: Sources of students
Total FTE
500
Bound for out-of-state university
60
12%
Bound for out-of-state com college
25
5%
ASU bound
25
5%
NAU bound
50
10%
UA bound
40
8%
MCC bound
10
2%
Private school bound
25
5%
Adults from LHC and county
40
8%
Non-residents at ASU rate
200
40%
New commitments
25
5%
Total FTE 500
ASU, NAU, UA
115
23%
While 23% of the new Lake Havasu campus enrollment might be students that would otherwise
enroll in ASU, NAU, or UA, the numbers are so small as to be insignificant to the overall
enrollment of each of those institutions. Note that 500 FTE students are only 3/10th of 1 percent
of the total system enrollment. Thus, the displaced 175 FTE students are less than 1/10th of 1
percent of the total ASU/NAU/UA enrollment.
These projections will be tested in part during surveys to be conducted as a part of the marketing
research.
Another market demand survey task will be that of assessing for the entire Mohave Community
College system, the numbers of transfer students that might be expected specifically from among
those who cannot afford to attend the metro main campuses of the three universities.
The major beneficiaries of the new proposed university campus in Lake Havasu City will be the
Mohave County students and their parents in terms of cost-to-attend factors.
71
In terms of the budget impact of the proposed campus, because of the modest level of
redistribution of students within the system, the budget impact from student enrollment growth
created by the new branch campus will be minimal.
However, we can expect some expansion of the Arizona university system FTE’s by retaining a
number of local and county resident students that might otherwise go to out-of-state universities
and community colleges and private colleges. That number might be as high as 110 FTE students
or 22% of the campus enrollment, which is still a miniscule number relative to the total state
university system enrollment. However, it is a significant figure for those local and county
residents given the huge savings compared to the alternative of out-of-state and private college
costs for higher education services.
Equally important within this discussion will be the significant social and economic impact to
Lake Havasu City and Mohave County from changes in enrollment patterns and growth of the
university system.
F. ABOR policies on tuition, general fund distribution, and the 22 to 1
formula:
Source; http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/policymanual/chap4/chapter_iv.htm#4-103
4-104 Procedure for Setting and Distributing Tuition and Fees (PDF), Procedure for Setting
Tuition and Fees: The Board's decision to establish base tuition and fees shall be based upon a
review of the following: A report on the average state expenditure authority per full-time
equivalent student (SEAPS). The SEAPS shall be computed as follows: The state operating
expenditure authority for a given year divided by full-time equivalent students.
4-103 Collection of Fees (PDF) The universities shall collect at the time of registration, the
payment or promise of payment of only those fees which are required for the proper operation of
the universities and which are subject to the control of and disbursement by the universities.
Each university shall establish procedures to collect outstanding obligations owed by students
and former students. Each university shall maintain a system to record all delinquent financial
obligations owed to that university by students and former students.
72
Table B10-4:
FY 2008 STATE EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY (Dollars in Thousands)
State General Fund
Tuition and Fee
Revenue and Other
Miscellaneous Revenue
remitted to the State
(known as "State
Collections")
State
Expenditure
Authority
$416,764.8
$233,624.0
$650,388.8
25,915.9
23,338.4
49,254.3
53,604.4
24,657.4
78,261.8
NAU
160,868.8
47,823.2
208,692.0
UA
362,389.2
128,539.7
490,928.9
UA-AHSC
80,954.2
14,158.7
95,112.9
CENTRAL OFFICE
20,598.0
0.0
20,598.0
2,404.1
0.0
2,404.1
18,193.9
0.0
18,193.9
Major Budget Units
ASU-Tempe
ASU-Polytechnic
(1)
ASU-West (2)
CO Administration
CO Student Assistance
Programs
AUS - STATE EXPENDITURE
AUTHORITY
$1,121,095.3
$472,141.4 $1,593,236.7
(1) State Collections and Other Miscellaneous Revenue include $2.0 million from TRIF for leasepurchase.
(2) State Collections and Other Miscellaneous Revenue includes $1.6 million from TRIF for leasepurchase payments.
(3) $416,764.8 = $416,764,800
Source,
http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/financial/exp_aut
hority.html
Table B10-5:
The FY2008 General Fund summary for ASU, NAU and UA, from the table
above;
$ 496,285,100
160,868,800
443,343,400
$1,100,497,300
ASU
NAU
UA
Subtotal universities only, central office excluded
73
FUNDING ENROLLMENT CHANGES OR THE 22 TO 1 FORMULA
Source; http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/financial/4_fundform.html
What is the "22 to 1" Formula?
ASU Main Campus, NAU, and UA Main Campus use an enrollment growth formula called "22
to 1" in the development of their annual legislative budget requests. The formula calculates the
additional faculty and staff positions needed to meet enrollment growth and related funding for:
(1) personal services (e.g., salaries);
(2) employee-related expenses (e.g., benefits); and
(3) operations dollars (e.g., travel, recruiting expenses, equipment, etc.).
Arizona's universities began using the 22 to 1 formula in 1958. The formula provides one more
(or less) full time equivalent (FTE) faculty position for every increase (or decrease) of 22 FTE
students.*
How does the "22 to 1" formula work?
The 22 to 1 funding mechanism relies on a series of calculations to determine:
(1) the total number of FTE students, determined by a three year weighted rolling average. This
is calculated by using 25 percent of the past year's actual fall enrollment, 50 percent of the
present year's fall enrollment and 25 percent of the projected next fall enrollment; and
(2) an increase or decrease in FTE student enrollment by subtracting the present year's "funded
enrollment" as determined by Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff.
The resulting figure then determines the requested addition or subtraction of faculty (1 FTE
faculty for every 22 FTE students) and staff (.75 FTE staff position for each FTE faculty
position). The formula also determines funding increase or decrease requests for personal
services, employee related expenses and other operating expenditures (e.g. recruiting expenses,
travel, etc.).
*FTE students are generated by calculating one FTE for each 15 semester credit hours (SCH)
attempted in undergraduate lower division courses, one FTE for each 12 SCH attempted in
undergraduate upper division courses, and one FTE for each 10 SCH attempted in graduate
courses in the fall semester.
74
G. Main campus and branch campus enrollments:
Table B10-6:
ENROLLMENTS FOR FALL SEMESTER
HEADCOUNT AND FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT
Arizona University System
(see also Graduate/Undergraduate Enrollment breakdown)
ASU
ASU
Tempe
ASU
ASU
ASU
West Polytechnic Downtown
HC
F.T.E.
HC
F.T.E.
HC
F.T.E.
2007-08 64,394 e 51,481
60,543 46,156
8,664
6,965
HC
F.T.E.
8,752
4,309
HC
F.T.E.
6,595
3,113
NAU
NAUYuma
UA
HC
F.T.E.
HC
F.T.E.
HC
F.T.E.
21,120 c 631 d
18,281 481 d
ARIZONA
UA
UNIVERSITY
South SYSTEM TOTAL
HC
F.T.E.
37,217 c 525 d
34,268 332 d
http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/fb_files/enroll-table.html
Table B10-7: The unduplicated enrollment summary from the table above;
ASU 60,543
NAU 18,281
UA
34,268
Total 113,092
Table B10-8: Enrollment profiles for UA-South and NAU-Yuma
Fall 2007 Headcount Enrollment
UA-South
Resident
Under-grad
Graduate
Totals
468
43
511
Nonres
6
8
14
NAU-Yuma
Under-grad
Graduate
Totals
336
244
580
15
6
21
75
Total
474
51
525
% Nonres
1.3%
15.7%
2.7%
381
250
631
3.9%
2.4%
3.3%
HC
F.T.E.
122,731 e
113,092
Fall 2007 FTE Enrollment
UA-South
FTE
Under-grad
296
Graduate
36
Totals
332
NAU-Yuma
Under-grad
Graduate
Totals
TableB10-9:
School
331
150
481
FY 2008 General Fund and fall 2007 FTE
General Fund
% of
FTE
% of
Gen Fund
Diff from
$ Available
Main
Per FTE
Campus
Subtotal
Fall 07
FTE
ASU-Tempe + Downtown
$
496,285,100
42%
49,269
44%
$
10,073
ASU-Polytechnic
$
25,915,900
2%
4,309
4%
$
6,014
$
4,059
ASU-West
$
53,604,400
5%
6,965
6%
$
7,696
$
2,377
NAU
160,868,800
14%
18,281
16%
$
8,800
UA + UA-AHSC
443,343,400
38%
34,268
30%
$
12,938
$ 1,180,017,600
100%
113,092
100%
$
10,434
Subtotal universities
UA-South
$
3,873,700
62%
332
41%
$
11,668
$
1,270
NAU-Yuma
$
2,383,900
38%
481
59%
$
4,956
$
3,844
$
6,257,600
100%
813
100%
Subtotal
UA-South, see UA FY 08-09 State operating Budget Request, Schedule 3, pg 224
NAU-Yuma, see NAU FY 08-09 State operating Budget Request, Schedule 3, pg 118
While the FTE count drops in the spring semester, the fall enrollment figures are widely used for
comparisons and projections. Thus, one might estimate the state-wide average general fund
revenue available per FTE at $10,434. The higher rate at $12,938 for UA appears to be the
results of more costly medical and engineering programs as determined prior to the
implementation of the 22 to 1 formula and policy.
Note that the 22 to 1 formula includes operations dollars (e.g., travel, recruiting expenses,
equipment, etc.) which is a component of operational overhead. Moreover, the general fund
revenues include institutional overhead/indirect costs such as campus and physical plant
operations, administration, etc. New buildings are usually funded by special appropriations such
as the new Yuma facility approved by the legislature last January 2008 at $6.5 million.
76
The main campuses are more costly to operate and charges to students are slightly higher for
tuition, fees, room, and board than that of the branch campuses.
Note the differences of $1,582 in general fund revenues allocated per FTE between ASUPolytechnic and ASU-West and the differences between those branch campuses and the main
Tempe campus at $10,073.
Note also, the differences of $6,712 in general fund revenues ($11,668 vs. $4,956) allocated per
FTE for UA-South and NAU-Yuma. In addition, the UA-South campus is only $1,270 lower in
general fund support budgeting ($12,938 vs. $11,668) relative to the main UA-Tucson campus.
The NAU-Yuma campus is $3,844 lower than the main Flagstaff campus ($8,800 vs. $4,956) in
general fund allocations.
These differences reflect budget decisions by the individual institutional administrations. None
of the branch campuses receive an allocation of general fund revenues at the rate of the main
campus. The differential is thus available to the universities for purposes determined by the
individual university administration.
In an email to ABOR Financial Office, the following questions were presented relative to the
variations of general fund allocations at depicted in the table above:
 There are proportional differences in the General Fund allocation levels of ASU, NAU,
and UA.
 The ASU main campus General Fund allocation differs from those of ASU-Polytechnic
and ASU-West.
 UA-South is slightly different from the main UA campus.
 The NAU-Yuma campus is considerably different from the Flag campus.
 There are differences in General Fund allocations of ASU-Polytechnic, ASU-West, UASouth, and NAU-Yuma campuses.
 Is there a policy or formula that defines those differences? An ABOR website link? Or, an
emailable attachment?
The response from ABOR by email was: “The current enrollment growth formula does not
distinguish between FTE’s at the campuses.” In short, the distribution of general fund monies to
main and branch campuses are administrative decisions of the individual institutions.
Enrollment growth and FTE increases contributed by the branch campus do not have an
immediate positive impact on the parent institution because of the 22 to 1 formula with a threeyear rolling FTE average. Moreover, the advantage of institutional enrollment increases from the
main campuses as well as from branch campuses and off-site courses (such as distance learning)
is realized only in years of expanding general fund revenues as allocated by the state legislature.
At the same time, declining enrollments at for example, NAU-Yuma, create an element of fiscal
stress for the institution.
77
It is also significant that enrollment growth at a branch campus provides the same positive
impact to the institution as dose enrollment growth on the main campus in terms of a share of
general fund revenues. These concepts are exceedingly important in this business plan
development process for the proposed Lake Havasu campus, particularly for the revenue budget
tables and discussion in the following pages.
The Foundation is particularly interested in the UA-South budgeting in that the South campus
general fund allocation is only $1,270 per FTE below that of the main Tucson campus. However,
we used the more conservative model of ASU-West that is $2,377 per FTE below the rate of the
main campus in Tempe.
H. Administrative overhead:
Based on the ABOR 22 to 1 formula, each university collects general fund revenue for each FTE
student within its system. For branch campuses, a portion of such general fund revenue generated
by a branch campus enrollment, is retained by the administration as a part of administrative and
institutional overhead in additional to the institution overhead inherent in the base funding.
It is not known at this time during the early years of campus start-up for ASU-Polytechnic, ASUWest, NAU-Yuma, and UA-South if a full share of general fund revenues per FTE were
allocated at the branch campus levels for marketing and re-investment.
Should the proposed Lake Havasu campus enroll non-resident WUE students at a rate
comparable to that of ASU, considerable surplus tuition revenue (approximately $742,440) will
be generated in contrast to the UA-South and NAU-Yuma campuses. In the Foundation
business plan for the initial few years of operations, that surplus will also be re-invested in the
new campus marketing and campus development plan, which would be typical of most private
business financial plans for new operations.
However, at some point, all new business ventures must pay their fair share of corporate
overhead. It is the Foundation’s intention that the proposed new university campus will be a solid
contributor to the economy of Lake Havasu City, Mohave County, the state, and in particular, the
university parent and partner.
I. Model revenue budget:
Please refer to the attached Excel spreadsheets in landscape format. This data is central to
the business plan presentation at this point.
78
J.
Comments of Excel spreadsheet data:
Referring to Table B10-12, within the current business plan revenue budget, this plan allows the
parent university partner to “retain” or “withhold” of general fund revenues earned by the Lake
Havasu campus at a rate similar to that of ASU-West.
The Lake Havasu campus revenue/expenditure model also includes considerable funds for
campus administration that might well include tasks and services that could better be provided by
and from the main university campus. Those are details to be sorted out later.
At this time, it is not know what portion of such revenues normally allocated for institutional
general overhead that might be allocated to marketing and student recruitment during the initial
campus start-up years of a new campus. Typically, most major corporations re-invest most if not
all of a new business venture profits into solidifying the base of the business and expanding
revenues to insure a successful start-up and long-term survival. Obviously, such factors will be
topics of discussion and negotiation with a prospective university partner.
K. Sources of funds for campus facilities:
Given a 500 FTE campus with 200 FTE WICHE/WUE non-residents, tuition for 200 FTE’s vs.
UA-South and NAU-Yuma will provide an additional $$430,400 of campus revenue (up and
above the 2-3% non-residents at UA-South and NAU-Yuma).
A student fee for facilities per year for 500 FTE’s (all enrollees) is set at 500 FTE’s x $500 =
$250,000. This is presently a part of the business plan revenue budget.
For a 500 FTE campus with 80,000 sq ft of facilities, only $169,260 of $4,095,370 must be
allocated from the parent university’s general fund revenues (funds created by the Lake Havasu
campus FTE’s). Such monies are simply a part of the parent university’s share of allocated
general fund revenues based on the FTE distribution among the three state public universities.
The Lake Havasu campus share of total Arizona university system will be less than 1/10th of one
percent of total system enrollment. The alternative would be to levy an additional $339 per year
per student in new facilities fees. Thus, the total facilities fees would be $838 per year per
student. Such a fee would have only a minor impact on the cost-to-attend model. For example,
this increase would drop the difference in the Lake Havasu campus cost-to-attend comparison to
the Cal State U system average to $2,967.
What is so critical to the Lake Havasu campus business plan revenue budget model is that
tuition and fee income generated by a small proportion of non-resident students, covers the
majority of the annual principal/interest payments on the bonds for the facilities.
Thus, with this business model, no tax dollars will be required for campus facilities construction
and no funds will be requested from the state legislature. This model generally follows that of the
ASU-Phoenix Downtown Campus, whereby land was acquired by the city, buildings bonded and
constructed by the city, and leases pre-negotiated with ASU based on revenue projections for
that campus.
79
Sources of data and information in general on municipal revenue bonds include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_bond
http://www.municipalbonds.com/
http://arizona.municipalbonds.com/
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fitch+Rates+Lake+Havasu+City%2c+Arizona%27s+%2449MM
+2006+GOs+%27A%27-a0151343405
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html 3.5% as of 2-12-09.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenuebond.asp on revenue bonds.
L.
Facility cost calculations:
According to Lucas Still of LS Appraisals:
“I pulled all the applicable pages from Marshall. There are a few refinements that can be
calculated if you want to get specific, but I believe the ranges indicated are probably a good
general indication. The total cost of the middle school I saw relatively recent bids for was
around $160, including site work; but I would expect a college to be 15% to 25% higher based
upon what I see in Marshall when comparing middle school base costs to college base costs.”
“The current cost multipliers for the base numbers in those charts is as follows:
Current Cost: 1.05
Local: 1.02
The floor area perimeter ratio adjustment will be less than 1 if there is 50,000 square feet. It
depends upon design and number of floors, but I’m guessing a multiplier around .96 is realistic.
I would also add $6/SF for heating, cooling and insulation due to the extreme heat here in
Havasu.
As an example; if you just look at the “Colleges” cost sheet, the base for a “good” quality Class
C College is $166.88/SF. Presuming the multipliers above, the cost estimate would be.
$166.88 + $6 = $172.88 x .96 x 1.05 x 1.02 for a total cost of $177.74. Of course if this is built
with federal funds and requires prevailing wages that are different than market wages, you might
be looking at a 25% to 40% increase. This does not including financing costs, site work or
profit.”
80
References:
Academic College Libraries
College Classrooms
College Refinement Calculations
College Refinement Calculations 2
Colleges
Laboratory Classrooms
Lecture Classrooms and Shop Buildings
DeVry Technical Institute in Phoenix has 116,488 sq ft for about 1,000 FTE commuter students.
This building includes administrative offices, a small library, several career specific labs, a few
classrooms, small lounges for faculty and students, comfort areas, vending room, hallways,
entry, etc.
The Foundation has estimated a need for about half that space for a university liberal arts-type
campus, which calculates at 58,244 sq ft. With additional facilities for student activities, etc. our
sq ft estimates for the Lake Havasu campus is 80,000 sq ft for an initial student body of 500
FTE’s. Excluded are dorms at this stage of analysis. The Foundation’s estimate for a 1,000 FTE
campus is 160,000 sq ft.
81
M. Specific revenue calculations for facilities:
Table B10-19
Facility calculations for 500 and 1,000 FTE campuses @ $177.74 psf
Notes: Add $3 million for parking lots, landscaping, sidewalks, some modest recreational areas, etc.
Municipal 30-year bonds @ 3.5% amortized per year per million = $53,880
500 FTE campus estimated at 80,000 sq ft with 3% non-residents
Annual
Facilities
Amenities
Total
$14,219,200
$3,000,000
$17,219,200
Bond Pmt
$
927,770
Surplus revenues from 3% WUE enrollments
$
32,280
Student facility fee for 500 FTE @ $500 per
$
250,000
Portion of general fund revenues for bond pmts
$
645,490
500 FTE campus estimated at 80,000 sq ft with 40% non-residents
Annual
Facilities
Amenities
Total
$14,219,200
$3,000,000
$17,219,200
Bond Pmt
$
927,770
Surplus revenues from 40% WUE enrollments
$
430,400
Student facility fee for 500 FTE @ $500 per
$
250,000
Portion of general fund revenues for bond pmts
$
247,370
500 FTE campus estimated at 80,000 sq ft with 60% non-residents
Annual
Facilities
Amenities
Total
$14,219,200
$3,000,000
$17,219,200
Bond Pmt
$
927,770
Surplus revenues from 60% WUE enrollments
$
645,600
Student facility fee for 500 FTE @ $500 per
$
250,000
Portion of general fund revenues for bond pmts
$
32,170
1,000 FTE campus estimated at 160,000 sq ft with 60% non-residents
Annual
Facilities
Amenities
Total
$28,438,400
$4,790,000
$33,228,400
Bond Pmt
$
1,790,346
Surplus revenues from 60% WUE enrollments
$
1,291,200
Student facility fee for 1,000 FTE @ $500 per
$
500,000
Portion of general fund revenues for bond pmts
$
(854)
Note significant increase in sq ft facilities
Note large increase in WUE revenues and impact on Table B10-12
Student facility fee doubles with increase to 1,000 FTE
Note small reduction to General Fund support in Table B10-12
82
High school market demand surveys are scheduled for the western 1/3rd or 1/4th portion of
Maricopa County and other schools between there and Lake Havasu. The Foundation will
determine if that region can produce 125 entering freshmen students each year for the Lake
Havasu Campus 1,000 student model.
The Foundation will also determine if the 5.1 million population base of the targeted zip code
areas of Lake Havasu's draw area of Southern CA can produce 187 entering non-resident WUE
freshmen students each year for the 1,000 student model. The market demand studies will help
answer those questions.
The Foundation is not advocating a 60-40 split of non-residents to residents as illustrated in the
matrix above. However, should Arizona residents not apply at the 60% rate expected, this nonresident option on a short-term and temporary basis, could keep the campus profitable and
prevent operational losses. In such an event, this business strategy of survival economics would
provide the time needed to do a better and more aggressive job of filling seats with Arizona
residents.
The Foundation clearly recognizes the long-standing ABOR policy of striking the proper balance
of resident and non-resident student enrollments as a critical element of the mission of providing
quality higher education services to the citizens of Arizona.
N.
Growth factors impacting facilities:
Table.21 Growth factors impacting facilities chart
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fresh
156
172
189
208
228
251
276
304
334
368
405
445
490
539
592
652
717
788
867
954
Soph
Jr
Sr
125
137
151
166
183
201
221
243
268
294
324
356
392
431
474
521
573
631
694
112
124
136
149
164
181
199
219
241
265
291
320
353
388
427
469
516
568
108
119
130
144
158
174
191
210
231
254
280
308
338
372
409
450
495
Total
FTE
157
298
441
594
654
720
792
872
959
1055
1161
1277
1404
1544
1698
1868
2054
2259
2484
2731
83
Table.22 Projected Student Enrollment
Projected Student Enrollment
3000
Total FTE
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Year
Given the current national economic crisis, an on-going discussion of opening strategy of 500
FTE students or 1,000 FTE students must be a part of the business plan process.
Presently, the preference is for the more conservative 500 FTE initial four-year plan. However,
there are significant economic advantages to the 1,000 FTE campus strategies. Such options
might be best addressed by the parent university partner.
Positioning the Lake Havasu university project for the upswing of the national economy is a
priority for the City and the Foundation. Moreover, the federal economic stimulus funds require
projects well along in planning and “shovel ready.”
B.11
Factors influencing college choice
A published study, “Out-of-state tuition rates and enrollment patterns” by Rousu, Matt C. in the
South Dakota Business Review dated Monday, June 1 1998 states,“From 1994 to 1997, out-ofstate tuition rates at USD were increased by 59 percent. During this same period, enrollment
from Iowa fell by more that 50 percent and enrollment from Nebraska fell by more than 36
percent. This paper examined the relationship between out-of-state enrollment at USD and outof-state tuition rates. Using data for the states of Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming for the years
1988-1997 a graphical and statistical analysis was undertaken to determine the enrollment-tuition
relationship The results were clear: Enrollment at USD from the states of Iowa, Nebraska and
Wyoming are very sensitive to the out-of-state tuition rate” (http://www.allbusiness.com/northamerica/united-states-south-dakota/691196-1.html).
Most but not all studies show sensitivity to cost increase. For example, most higher-priced
schools show little to no correlation between enrollment and cost increase. Source:
84
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB9-44W2PT02&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version
=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=838ef39e9884133037de72cfd9090bf8
From the National Postsecondary Study, cost was shown to be more important to parents than to
students, but it was important to students as well. From such studies, it is difficult to disentangle
cost and location information since they are strongly related.
Not surprising, traditional-aged students first looked for institutions that offered the
major/program of study in which they were interested, followed by location and cost, and toward
the end of the search, student demographics/campus setting.
Table.23 National Postsecondary Study* –
Erdmann (1983)1
Paulsen (1990)2
Galotti and Mark
(1994)3
• Availability of
• Programs of study • Type of school
specific programs
offered
(public or private)
• Reputation
• College quality
• Programs offered
• Location
• Cost of attending
• Cost
• Size
• Geographical
• Size
location
• Geographical
location
• Campus
atmosphere
• Extracurricular
programs
Ingels, Planty, and
Bozick (2005)4
• Has degree in
chosen field
•
Courses/curriculum
• Job placement
record
• Academic
reputation
• Availability of
financial aid
• Graduate school
placement
• Low expenses/low
crime (tie)
*Findings based on a survey of high school seniors.
*Findings based on a review of the literature.
*Findings based on a study tracking high school juniors in suburban/rural southeastern
Minnesota for 1 year.
*Nationally representative sample of college-bound seniors who made selections from a
predetermined set of criteria.
Erdmann, D.G. (1983). An Examination of Factors Influencing Student Choice in the College
Selection Process. Journal of College Admissions, 100: 3–6.
Paulsen, M.B. (1990). College Choice: Understanding Student Enrollment Behavior.
Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University.
Galotti, K.M., and Mark, M.C. (1994). How Do High School Students Structure an Important
Life
85
Decision? A Short-Term Longitudinal Study of the College Decision-Making Process.
Research in Higher Education, 35(5): 589–607.
Ingels, S.J., Planty, M., and Bozick, R. (2005). A Profile of the American High School Senior in
2004: A First Look (NCES 2006–348). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006348.pdf
A similar study by the Oregon University System based on surveys of the 2005 high school
graduates resulted in very similar finding
Source: http://www.ous.edu/factreport/student/files/WHOGG_05_Final.pdf
As in earlier studies, the major reasons for choosing a college are related to academic reputation,
availability of a desired major, affordable cost (including scholarships and financial aid), and
proximity to (or distance from) home. Consistent with the 2003 study, campus social
environment and size were also important to graduates’ college choice—areas considered
significantly less important in surveys prior to 2003.
Academic reputation continues to be the most frequently cited factor affecting the choice of
students attending four-year colleges.
Affordable cost was almost as important to students attending OUS institutions, and was the
factor considered most important to those attending an Oregon community college.
Receipt of a scholarship or good financial aid package was cited more often by respondents
attending out-of-state four-year universities or Oregon independent colleges than by students
enrolled in public institutions in Oregon.
The 2007 National Research Report, “Why Did They Enroll? The Factors Influencing College
Choice,” three factors consistently emerged as the most important to students:
1. The cost of attending the institution.
2. Financial aid.
3. Academic reputation.
“Interestingly, location, size, and setting, while not unimportant, do not rank as high as these
other factors.”
Accordingly, the Foundation needs to thoroughly test the draw of the unique site and setting in
its survey of Southern CA prospective students. ( http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/SelfStudy-Reports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf)
On the most important factor #1 “cost of attending the institution”, the Foundation now has
extensive cost comparisons that show a significant advantage of $3,395 for the Lake Havasu
86
campus when compared to Cal State University campuses. Interestingly, that would be equal to a
sizeable scholarship grant to each and every student.
By comparison, note the financial aid matrix below for a recent 2008 report on NAU;
Table.24 NAU Student Financial Aid Details (copyright 2008)
How many students use Financial Aid, and how much do they use?
Average
Users
% of Attendees
Federal Grant Aid
$2,943
534
23%
State & Local Grant Aid
$1,950
2
0%
Institutional Grant Aid
$3,490
1,463
64%
Student Loan Aid
$3,265
1,032
45%
80%Northern Arizona
University ranks 3049th for the
average student loan
Source: http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/AZ/Northern_Arizona_University.html
Any financial aid type
1,825
Note that Institutional Grant Aid of $3,490 as an average was available to only 64% of the
attendees. By contrast, 100% of the CA attendees on the Lake Havasu campus will save $3,385
simply by enrolling. Beyond such savings, the Foundation will examine the level of institutional
grant aid for 64% of the CA students that will be necessary beyond the $3,385 in savings, to
recruit students for the Lake Havasu campus.
With increasing energy and gas prices, for the 92% of CSU students living off-campus, the cost
of commuting to CSU campuses will go up significantly in 2009-10. Should such students enroll
in the Lake Havasu City campus with only occasional trips home, there will be cost savings in
travel. This will be analyzed by the Foundation as a part of business plan development and
research.
For those families that travel to Lake Havasu for other family, boating, recreational, and business
purposes, having a student enrolled in a university in Lake Havasu City may well present no
significant travel cost impact. The Foundation will also document such options and advantages
as a part of overall cost estimates for prospective students.
The key question is how much more in actual scholarship grants will the Foundation need to
make available and to what proportion of the entering student body to insure full enrollment?
Given the cost data and comparisons, the amount might be considerably lower than what was
estimated in the past. As a part of Phase II research, the Foundation will work on that analysis.
87
Annually, local service clubs, fraternal organizations, and other groups in Lake Havasu City raise
between one and 1.5 million dollars for student scholarships. Many of the leaders of those
organizations are among the 1,900 members of the Foundation and are confident that a fair
amount of that money during the initial years of campus start-up will be earmarked for students
attending the new Lake Havasu university campus.
Moreover, the Foundation is confident of raising a similar or larger amount for a period of
several years for scholarships given the likelihood of the availability of other monies for the
initial campus buildings. During a 2008 spring annual scholarship award ceremony at the local
high school, nearly $2.4 million in scholarship funds were awarded, which included funds
directly from colleges and universities, military grants, etc.
Given the competitive costs and a significant level of local and the Foundation scholarships, and
given students and families armed with the facts of the Lake Havasu campus, the variables of
student/parent attitudes in making a decision on the Lake Havasu campus may well hinge on the
draw of pristine lake with its 400 miles of shoreline.
Moreover, the Lake Havasu area has other attractions. For example, Lake Havasu City was
ranked by CNN as having the cleanest air of any city in the entire nation. Lake Havasu City is
also a small and safe resort town without the traffic, congestion, crime, and pollution of the
Southern CA metro areas. All are factors typically considered by families in making decisions on
the selection of a university and campus.
In part, the Foundation business plan and related research will begin to measure such variables
and student/parent attitudes, particularly those students within the targeted zip code areas of the
five Southern CA counties. Also of interest is whether or not such factors have had any
influence on the fee cost variations among the CSU campuses. In short, are those CSU campuses
in lower income areas with more problems of traffic, congestion, crime, and pollution, priced
lower in fees than the campuses in the more desirable areas?
B.12
The factors of brand name mind-set and the connotation of prestige
It has been the assumption of Lipman-Hearne that Mohave County does not yet have the
population base to support a comprehensive residential university campus. Given the historic
economic ties of Lake Havasu City to Southern CA, those areas of CA that typically send
tourists, visitors, homebuyers, business owners and others that impact the Lake Havasu
economy, are likely the primary areas for student recruitment for the new campus.
Accordingly, the key factors affecting student selection of a college campus including the cost of
attending the institution, Financial aid, and Academic reputation must be given considerable
attention in the Phase II marketing research effort. The academic reputation of an institution is
tied to the factors of brand name mind set and the connotation of prestige.
"All I hear in higher education is, 'Brand, brand, brand,' " said Tim Westerbeck, who specializes
in branding and is managing director of Lipman Hearne, a marketing firm based in Chicago that
88
works with universities and other nonprofit organizations”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/education/11names.html).
From the article, “Reinventing Student Recruitment” by George C. Dehne some significant
observations were made.
Relative to academic reputation:
In the article, “The Name's the Thing”, gaining name recognition is cited as one of the best ways
to aid the student-recruitment effort. Name recognition is critical for four reasons:
1. Direct Mail; Students will open and read the unsolicited materials colleges send only if
the college is in a location of interest or if the student immediately recognizes the name
of the college.
2. Self-initiated Inquirers; The most likely students to enroll are those who inquired about
a college on their own. Students can initiate contact only if they know your college exists.
3. Connotation of Prestige; Students say only one thing distinguishes a high- quality
college from a high-presage college. This characteristic is immediate name recognition.
Students believe prestige is automatically attached to a college that is "well known in any
region of the country" or "known throughout the nation.
4. "Brand Name" Mind Set; Credential-conscious students are sensitive to an institution's
visibility. Because of the advantage of name recognition, it is far less risky for a student
to choose a large, well-known public university than an unknown college that will require
constant explanation. Name recognition makes a college a "brand name."
(http://www.dehne.com/news_research/research_reinventing.html)
Other factors, while important, do not approach the same universal level of importance as the top
three. Personalized attention, campus appearance, and geographic setting received importance
marks from 50-60% of students.
(http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/Self-Study-Reports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf)
Therefore, given suitable attention to primary items 1, 2, and 3, the Foundation will evaluate the
campus and “Greenfield” site appearance and geographic setting as a priority in attracting a
student body.
“Applying to a college generally is a rational decision, while choosing a single college often is
an emotional one. Students choose one college over another because the tour guide was cuter or
because it was sunny in Seattle and rainy in Miami. For many students, the campus simply must
‘feel right.’"
“Because converting applicants to enrollees involves an emotional commitment from the student,
this is a difficult process to manipulate. Consequently, generating more applications and
becoming the college of choice for these applicants is the best way to hedge against a decrease
in class size” (http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSA2008/Self-StudyReports/WhyDidTheyEnroll-2007.pdf).
89
For the Foundation and its initial planning process, working toward a site, facilities, and
amenities concept along with a brand-name institution that has the recruiting mentality of a small
high-cost liberal arts college such as San Diego Christian College, will be a challenge.
NAU recently published an internal marketing plan done by Lipman-Hearne,
http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp Lipman-Hearne and NAU asked some
tough questions of prospective students, on-campus students, alumni, faculty/staff, ABOR,
Valley Advisory Board, and local citizens. Brand name and university reputation ranked high on
the list of concerns or weaknesses as was the perception of employers and others on the value of
a NAU degree. The attitudes of alumni and others may adversely affected contributions.
Many prospective students gave “no opinion” responses to various questions “…suggesting they
did not know the University well enough to rate it. When asked about the reputation of Arizona
State University and the University of Arizona, however, considerably more prospective students
were able to reply.”
With most of the populations surveyed, “As with the faculty/staff and prospective student
segments, NAU's performance was weakest on these characteristics deemed most important.
NAU's performance was strongest on the characteristics deemed of least importance (typically
non-academic in nature). On each of these characteristics, the current students' actual
experience was that NAU underperformed significantly on all but one of these characteristics.
The underperformance factor for small class sizes was not significant. Current student ratings
generally were lower than prospective student ratings.”
“The fact that such a large proportion of prospective students surveyed in this study was unable
to respond with opinions to questions related to NAU's image and reputation is extremely
telling” (http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp ).
Clearly, the Foundation needs to do similar research with its survey of Southern CA students. To
that end, the attached revised survey instrument includes questions similar to those used on the
Flagstaff campus study. Inasmuch as ABOR, ASU, UA, and all of NAU have allowed such
marketing research and questions for the NAU study, the Foundation assumes it can
appropriately use similar methodology and survey questions for the related research of the
business plan project for the Lake Havasu campus.
The undergraduate student demographics of ASU are relevant to the Foundation project in that
28% of the 2007 student body were nonresidents. Included were 748 CA freshmen. The total CA
undergraduate enrollment of CA students was 2,579. Comparable data on CA students for NAU
and UA was not available.
Of significance for the Lake Havasu university project is the number of CA students enrolled at
ASU Tempe might consider the Lake Havasu campus as an alternative. Also important to the
Foundation is the academic reputation and brand name factors that draw CA students to ASU
(http://uoia.asu.edu/files/factbook/Students.pdf).
90
All of which inescapably leads to the issue of how much would it cost in scholarship grants to
recruit students and insure full enrollments for a NAU partner compared to an ASU or UA
partner given the student focus on brand names.
The challenge of the Foundation Phase II marketing study will be to test the relevance of such
brand-name factors (including the positive competitive cost data between the Lake Havasu
model and the CSU system) on the level on the probability of students and parents in selecting
the Lake Havasu campus.
The Foundation has identified a vendor of student lists of college bound high school students
with a data base of over 3,000,000 names. The data base includes names selectable by class year,
age, head of household, zip code, county, state, gender, telephone, income, ethnicity, computer
owner, etc. The data base is available electronically. The minimum charge is $200. Presorting is
$100. Various additional charges range from zero to $30/M.
What is significant with this vendor and source of names is the affordability factor for the
Foundation given its limited resources. With the $2,000 the Foundation has appropriated for this
Phase II and III project, studies such as proposed in this document can be easily and
economically expanded and supplemented with additional research. To that end, suggestions
would be appreciated.
The Foundation need not replicate the Lake Havasu campus research of Lipman-Hearne in the
business plan project and surveys. Moreover, there is a large body of research available on the
Internet on nearly every conceivable aspect of college bound students including marketing and
recruiting. The Foundation will replicate some elements of the 2004 Lipman-Hearne marketing
study for the NAU Flagstaff campus, which was designed to accomplish the following goals:
1. Determine NAU's current image and reputation
2. Identify features and attributes associated with high-quality universities and high-quality
student-faculty interaction
3. Assess NAU's performance on those features/attributes
4. Inform strategies to influence opinions of and attitudes toward NAU
Source: http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp
One might criticize the Foundation methodology and instrument (Attachment #6) as being
oriented more at marketing and sales and designed to promote a product or concept and create
interest. This is different from a pure data gathering survey that asks quantitative questions to
develop data without leading the respondent to any particular conclusion.
It is the Foundation’s position that much of the quantitative questions one might ask of
prospective students and structured data is already available on the Internet or available to
universities through private firms such as Lipman-Hearne that do marketing research for colleges
and universities, including NAU.
91
The Foundation has had the opportunity to review the Lipman-Hearne study for the proposed
Lake Havasu campus and in the drafting of that document, has critiqued the methodology,
results, and findings. While NAU had a Memorandum of Understanding with the City on the
study, NAU funded the project and apparently dictated the methodology and work with little or
no input from the Foundation and other relevant organizations within the City that were willing
and prepared to assist.
It is therefore clear that the questions the Foundation wants addressed will need to be funded and
done by the Foundation. The following section on the survey instruments includes each such
survey question, a discussion of why answers are needed, and the purposes those answers will
serve. For example, what auto manufacturer would not in such a survey, present its products (or
services) exactly as intended, how it will perform, what you can do with it, and how it will work?
The survey questions in Attachment #6 and discussed in the following section are designed for a
similar level of information and data gathering. If the draft instrument as designed and presented
in this document will not produce the desired information and data, it must be modified. Thus,
suggestions are being solicited with this review copy of the rationale and methodology for the
business plan research component.
Moreover, with such a targeted research design, primarily for economic reasons, the Foundation
has no intention of surveying regions of the country or zip code areas of Southern CA that have a
low level of probability of sending students to a university campus on Lake Havasu. Quite the
contrary, the Foundation has selected 149 high-probability zip code areas with a population base
of over 5,000,000, which is nearly as large as all of Arizona in population. For the most part,
these are not the zip code areas surveyed by Lipman-Hearne.
B.13
Arizona survey instrument
The survey instrument and flyer were developed with the assistance of the Huron Consulting
Group http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/ These materials are included as Attachment #6.
The Foundation will use the local Lake Havasu City High School 11th and 12th grade English
classes (mostly college-bound students) for the initial field test. Depending on the results of the
initial field test, adjustments may be made to both the process and instrument.
While Lipman-Hearne/NAU used telephone interview techniques with randomly sampled
groups, the Foundation will use Huron research techniques with an Internet secure website
instrument. The flyer in attachment #6 will be used to direct students to the website for the
survey form. With this method, every college-bound student within a given high school will have
the opportunity to participate in the survey.
Past experience suggests a reward such as the $1,000 scholarship in a drawing (as described in
the above section B2 Ethics of marketing and marketing research) along with the web-based
survey method will produce a high rate of responses. Of particular value will be the large number
of student email addresses gained from this method, which will allow limited follow-up research.
92
The Foundation will also attempt to assess the impact if any, of the market demand survey
research on increased admission applications on the university partner’s main campus for the
2009 fall semester.
For example, if the City and the Foundation are successful in developing a basic Memorandum
of Understanding with one of the three Arizona public universities at some point during the
survey project, will the inclusion of that university on the flyer and survey instrument have any
residual impact on actual admission applications to that university partner’s main campus for the
fall 2009 term?
Based on 2000 census data, there are over 20 million people in the five Southern CA counties. In
the targeted zip code areas for the Lake Havasu university campus marketing area, there are over
5.1 million people, which is about the same as all of Arizona. This is about 25% of the fivecounty Southern CA total. Moreover, within the five counties, there are nearly 960,000 high
school students.
Assuming that about 40% are 11th and 12th grade students, there are about 96,000 11th and 12th
grade students in the targeted zip code areas (960,000x40%x25%). Again, with this large
population in the Lake Havasu non-resident targeted marketing area, will the inclusion of that
university on the flyer and survey instrument have any residual impact on actual admission
applications to that university partner’s main campus fall 2009?
Once the Lake Havasu campus is initially operational, given an aggressive marketing campaign
in these targeted zip code areas of the five Southern CA counties, what will be the impact on
actual admission applications to that university partner’s main campus in the fall of the opening
year?
Because of the use of student residence zip codes on the survey instrument, such cross-checks
with the university’s admissions application data base can be easily done.
The initial focus of the Foundation Phase II marketing study will be on students. Once this study
is completed and evaluated, a Phase III study will be centered on the parents of the same students
interviewed in Phase II. This will allow more meaningful comparisons and correlations of
responses.
The survey instruments developed for the field test is included as Attachment #6. Following is a
discussion of each question, 1 through 24. Text from the actual instrument is in red italics.
Student Survey for a New University at Lake Havasu City
Please answer honestly and openly. This information will remain completely
anonymous and generalized- Responses will not identify an individual.
Your comments, suggestions, and questions would be very helpful Simply use
the comment boxes included throughout the survey.
-
93
However, you may finish the survey without filling in any of the comment boxes.
The Foundation is working in partnership with Lake Havasu City to establish a 4-year
comprehensive university in our town.
Next >>
I. Are you a college bound student or a parent of a college bound student?
Student
Parent
The primary focus of the market demand surveys is on students. However, an effort will
be made to survey the parents of the responding students for those student
respondents that provide an email address in Q24.
2. Are you a California resident (CA) or an Arizona resident (AZ)?
CA
AZ
3. What is the zip code of your residence?
<< Back Next >>
4. Have you, your relatives, or your friends ever visited the Colorado River area such
as Parker, Bullhead City, Laughlin, Lake Havasu, or the London Bridge?
Yes
No
5. If yes, please describe your experience.
One objective with this question is to correlate the response to question #4-5 to #23, on the
likelihood of attending the Lake Havasu campus. This method will also give the Foundation
some insight to targeted marketing with a focus on families who frequent the Lake and Lake
Havasu City.
6. Have you heard about the new university campus being planned on the shores of
Lake Havasu?
Yes
No
7. If yes, please describe what you have heard:
<< Back Next >>
94
The site initially considered was a 640-acre section of flat desert land near Lake Havasu Heights,
about fifteen miles north of the city. NAU president Dr. John Haeger and city officials agreed
such a site would not draw many students. Everyone agreed to search for a lake-front property
near the center of town and near the focus of tourist and lake recreational activity.
Possibly 98% of the visitors, tourists, boaters, etc. travel to Lake Havasu City by vehicle,
particularly, those from Southern CA. Those Southern CA families, their relatives, and friends
that travel to Lake Havasu City, know exactly the location of Lake Havasu City, travel routes,
miles, and time to and from the Lake.
We must question whether or not those student that do not know about Lake Havasu City, the
island, beaches, London Bridge, and channel, will be those most likely to mark Q23 as
“Definitely would not attend”, irrespective of the university option as in Q19-22.
At this point in the survey process, there is no mention of the university. Our objective at the
start if the survey is to focus on Lake Havasu City and not the identity of the university, which
will be addressed in Q19-22. This survey strategy might also help the Foundation determine the
extent to which the specific university affects the responses to questions dealing with the city, the
site, the Lake, and the amenities.
(jpg map of Contact Point university site inserted here as a graphic, see attached
survey instrument)
Lake Havasu City is one of the safest small resort towns in the southwest and ranked by
CNN as having the cleanest air of any city in the entire nation.
8. Would factors such as traffic, congestion pollution, crime, and safety cause you
or your parents to seriously consider the Lake Havasu campus?
Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Un-likely - Very Un-likely
9. If not, please what factors may influence you:
<< Back Next >>
One common assumption among residents and advocates of the Lake Havasu City university
campus is that Southern CA residents visit Lake Havasu City and the Lake in part because both
are safe and clean. That assumption may be tested in part with this question. This question will
also be correlated to the responses to other questions and in particular, #24, on the likelihood of
attending the Lake Havasu campus.
We believe the following description, the Contact Point site map above, and the conceptual
design graphics to be accurate descriptions and depictions of the campus to be developed, the
adjoining areas, the amenities, etc. The rate of positive or negative responses on a factual site
95
description is a valid and critical issue at this stage of marketing research and needs to be tested
in the survey research.
The campus will be near the center of town and next to a new marina. There are
beaches, camp-sites, and hiking trails on 400 miles of coastline. Also next to the
campus will be a golf course, fine & performing arts facility, a resort hotel, and a small
shopping area with a mix of stores and eateries. There will also be affordable student
housing with lake and mountain views within a short walk of the beaches, marina, and
golf course, gym, and shops. There are rentals for jet-skis, boats & water skis,
pontoons, parasailing, ATV’s, bikes, and the like. Recreational opportunities include
swimming, boating, kayaking, fishing, softball, baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, rodeos,
and other sports in both informal and competitive formats. The initial freshman class
may be capped at 150 students. This will ensure small classes and quality personalized
instruction in ultra-modern facilities. This will be a complete experience campus with an
emphasis on interdisciplinary studies with close guidance and rigorous academic
programs similar to what most major universities and small liberal arts colleges now
offer.
(graphics of campus)
10. Is this the type of university town, campus site, small size, and academic format
that would be of high interest to you?
Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Un-likely - Very Un-likely
11. If not, please describe what factors would make ii more appealing:
<< Back Next >>
Among the Foundation objectives with the Phase II survey is to test the attractiveness of the site
and the amenities (factually described) as well as the curriculum relative to the site.
Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science interdisciplinary degree tracks offer flexibility
In course and program selection while maintaining structure, These degrees are suited
to individuals who:
o
o
o
o
Desire to develop their own specialized area of study:
Wish to enter an occupation requiring a broad general education:
Want intellectual enrichment: or
Are considering a pre-professional program such as law, engineering,
medicine,
dentistry, veterinary, or other professions.
96
Also offered are internship programs that move beyond the classroom into an
experienced-based workplace.
12. Is this the type of university program focus that would be of high interest to you?
Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Un-likely Very Un-likely
13. If not, please describe the factors that would make it more appealing:
<< Back Next >>
The Lipman-Hearne study registered a 94% positive response among students to the LipmanHearne description of “Complete campus” that included, “An institution focused on the complete
experience, promoting close guidance and rigorous academic programs where students can
complement their multidisciplinary education with outdoor activities such as boating, fishing,
hiking, and biking.” ASU uses the terminology, “interdisciplinary studies.”
The Foundation and city officials saw the positive response rate as quite high particularly since
Lipman-Hearne surveyed the greater Los Angeles and San Diego areas that also include most of
the low income neighborhoods for Southern CA. It is those areas and San Diego in general, that
are least likely to send tourists, boaters, homebuyers, etc. to Lake Havasu City. Thus, Q12 needs
to be tested in the Foundation Phase II marketing study using terminology from ASU. In
approaching the initial campus implementation, the Interdisciplinary Studies program may well
be the most economical approach to initial programming while offering to students, the broadest
possible selection of courses and career options.
The cost to attend the Lake Havasu campus would be about $9,346 less per year than
the metro area campuses in Arizona. Most of the savings is in room, board, and
personal expenses. The over costs to attend the Lake Havasu campus would be similar
to that of the UA-South and NAU-Yuma branch campuses.
14. Would such cost savings of $9,346 compared to Metro area campuses, be
appealing to you?
Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Un-likely - Very Un-likely
15. If not, please what factors would make it more appealing:
<< Back Next >>
97
In any business, competitive costs are crucial to survival and the Foundation must test this issue.
The Lake Havasu campus cost model puts it well below the average cost of a Metro area campus
in Arizona. Does it make a difference? Research suggests total costs to be the number one factor
in student and parent decisions on campus selection.
Given Q14-15, the Foundation will test the level of scholarship funding against the brand name
ranking and university preference of prospective students. A university partner not well known to
Southern CA students and parents or not ranked high in academic quality, brand name, and
prestige would likely require a high level of scholarship support per student to draw and keep a
student body. The Foundation will attempt to quantify such factors.
16. Given the $9,346 in lower costs of the proposed Havasu university and financial aid typical
of most universities available, would you need additional scholarship funds if you were to attend
the Havasu campus?
Yes
No
<< Back Next >>
17. Exactly how much in scholarship money at a bare minimum, will you need the first year?
$250
$500
$750
$1,000
18. If more than $1,000 would be necessary, how much would be required and why?
<< Back Next >>
19. What is your perception of the level of academic quality or prestige of each of the
three state universities in Arizona?
Extremely
Appealing
Somewhat
Appealing
Arizona State University (ASU)
level of prestige
Northern Arizona University (NAU)
level of prestige
University of Arizona (UA)
level of prestige
98
Somewhat
Appealing
Very
Un-Appealing
20. Arizona State University (ASU), Northern Arizona (NAU), and the University of
Arizona (UA) are nationally ranked for quality of academics. If you were given a choice
of university affiliation, which would be your preference?
ASU NAU UA
No Preference
Do not use any of three
Please elaborate on your response, if applicable:
<< Back Next >>
Lipman-Hearne in its 2004 marketing study of the NAU Flagstaff campus, presented similar
questions and issues to prospective students, enrolled students, faculty and staff, alumni, ABOR,
local citizens and others, which was designed to accomplish the following goals:
 Determine NAU's current image and reputation
 Identify features and attributes associated with high-quality universities and high-quality
student-faculty interaction
 Assess NAU's performance on those features/attributes
 Inform strategies to influence opinions of and attitudes toward NAU
Source, http://www4.nau.edu/marketing/marketingplan.asp
The Foundation’s goals will be more limited and directed primarily to the issues of recruiting
from Mohave County and Southern CA. The costs of scholarships to insure adequate enrollments
are a major concern. Inasmuch as ABOR, NAU, ASU, and UA endorsed and allowed such
marketing research for the Flagstaff campus, the Foundation is confident of being able to
conduct a more limited and more narrowly focused study for the proposed Lake Havasu campus
relative to potential student perceptions on the quality of academics and brand-name recognition.
Given the conclusions of Lipman-Hearne in their Executive Summary for the study on the Lake
Havasu campus, the rate of positive responses was not adequate from Southern CA students and
parents on various survey questions that included a description of NAU. Accordingly, the
Foundation in its business plan research component, particularly in Q19-22, will explore other
options. Thus, questions must be offered in terms of matching the site and its amenities to the
student preference for a specific university. This is among the more intriguing facets to be
explored in the Foundation’s business plan research. The Foundation needs to test the strength of
the potential of university partners to be fiscally responsible given the potential impact on
scholarship funding and student body recruitment.
The three major universities in Arizona do have collaborative projects in other regions of the
state. Such an option has not yet been considered or discussed for the proposed Lake Havasu
City campus. Student responses to Q19-22 may give the Foundation some guidance on such
options.
99
23. If this campus was available now with lower costs, scholarships, financial aid, and a
brand-name university, would you apply to attend upon high school graduation?
Definitely Would Attend
Very Likely To Attend
Somewhat Likely To Attend
Somewhat Un-likely To Attend
Definitely Would Not Attend
24. If you wish to be informed of progress on this new campus and be in the drawing
for the $1,000 scholarship, simply print your email address in the box below:
<< Back Next >>
Given lower costs, financial aid, scholarships, a name brand university, Lake Havasu City’s
draw, and very attractive site amenities, the number of “Definitely would attend” responses must
be adequate when projected to the total potential student body for Mohave County and the
Southern CA region of targeted zip code areas (with a population base of over 5.1 million), to
insure an opening class of about 156 freshmen (93 Arizona students and 63 non-residents) while
taking into account, leakage and no-shows at a normal rate for small university campuses. The
Foundation will assess and report on such factors.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have questions
about the Lake Havasu City university project, many of the answers may be found on:
www.havasufoundation.com
<< Back Finish
The survey instrument is included as Attachment #6 will be field tested with 11th and 12th grade
college-bound students in English classes at Lake Havasu High School. Changes and
adjustments will be made accordingly.
B.14
Southern CA high school survey form, see attachment
100
A. Tables
1. Chamber of Commerce relocation packet mailings.
2. CVB visitor center data.
3. Southern CA counties, zip codes, survey sample N.
4. Southern CA counties by miles and time to Lake Havasu City.
5. Southern CA high schools by county by school population
6. Lake Havasu High School survey
7. University of CA costs
8. NAU costs
9. ASU costs
10. ASU West campus costs
11. NAU—Yuma costs
12. U of A—South costs
13. Prescott College and Yavapai College costs
14. Theoretical Lake Havasu model costs with CSU—Fresno data
15. CSU—San Francisco costs
16. CSU—Fresno costs
17. Cost variances within CSU
18. CSU campus cost comparisons
19. CSU comparisons with other universities
20. 2007-08 Fees
21. Growth Factors Impacting Facilities
22. Projected Student Enrollment
23. National post-secondary study
24. NAU student financial aid
25. 2007 Incoming freshmen CSU
26. 2007 Incoming freshmen UC
27. Number of 2007 graduating seniors
28. CSU San Bernardino feeder high schools
29. Poverty guidelines
30. Southern CA counties by family income
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Graphics
Slide #11 Parents, Lipman-Hearne
Slide #10 Program preferences, Lipman-Hearne
Slide #21 Appeal to students, Lipman-Hearne
Slide #22 Complete experience campus, Lipman-Hearne
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Attachments
Lipman-Hearne Executive Summary
Lipman-Hearne survey instrument
Arizona State Parks research survey methodology and instrument
Rating scale instrument for panel of six experts
Excel spreadsheets 1 through 8 on data matrix
The survey instrument for the initial field test, Arizona zip codes
The survey instrument for the initial CA field test
101
8. Southern CA maps
9. Lake Havasu City High School senior survey
102