COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Lake Havasu City
2330 McCulloch
Blvd. N.,
Room 155
Lake Havasu City, AZ
www.lhcaz.gov
THURSDAY, APRIL 24,
2008
7:00 P.M.
DRAFT MINUTES
(Official minutes
have to be approved at next meeting)
1.
Call to Order
Chairman Ron
Verstraeten called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2.
Roll Call
Present: Members Bergen, Landers, Landry, Lemke, Verstraeten,
Works
Absent: Members Conroy, Johnson, Kortkamp, Ottosen,
Parrott, Thornton,
Schilling
3.
Minutes
The draft minutes
of the 2/21/08 meeting were unanimously approved.
4.
Review of NAU
marketing study, Havasu 320
Stan Usinowicz
presented the Havasu 320 study. He noted that it included a statement from the
City Manager, Richard Kaffenberger,
and NAU president, Dr. John Haeger. Stan pointed out in Haeger’s statement that
Havasu should start small then build from there. Stan suggested that the CIAC
members could look into different aspect:
·
What
the market is; i.e., students
·
What
will bring them here
·
What
would attract them
·
Programs
that could be offered; i.e., UTI (Universal Technical Institute)
Stan thought a
survey would be good for Mohave and LaPaz counties. This could possibly reach
700–800 students in these areas. He said we have the land. A first building of
50,000 sq. ft. could possibly be $10-$15 million. He asked the CIAC members to keep the University
in mind and to look at possible ways to get funding.
Mark
Clark
asked how MCC would be part of the process. He suggested that the CIAC members
could also work on how to incorporate MCC to help build up a university. Stan
said MCC was in support and suggested possibly having a NAU/MCC campus.
Mark added that we
could possible draw in 300,000 people from the surrounding area and maybe
capture 10 -15% going to NAU.
Ron Verstraeten said
if it would be possible to waive the out-of-state fees for the surrounding
areas, he thought that this would be a strong selling point for prospective
students/parents.
Gayle
Whittle
thought that Arizona
would grant border waivers.
Ron Landers asked
if any other universities have made commitments since we have the land.
Stan mentioned ASU
and U of A; but, the Havasu Foundation for Higher Education (HFHE) would like
to keep NAU as “partners of choice” because they started this process with
them.
Bill
Mulcahy
agreed that maybe the CIAC members could investigate the 2+2 program working
with MCC. Ron Verstraeten expressed a problem with MCC and credits not being transferable.
Mark
Clark
thought maybe MCC would handle the non accredited courses, and then NAU/MCC
would handle the fully accredited course.
Ron Landers asked
about cost and size of building to start.
Gayle
Whittle
thought a less expensive way would be to start up with a few modular buildings
while raising funds for the rest. This would make it affordable at the
beginning.
The consensus was
agreed that starting small would be the first step.
Stan Usinowicz
added that LaPaz County would love to have a school
closer to home, and there was some behind the scenes support he had access to.
Pat Landry asked if
the college should be put on hold until the marina comes.
Bill
Mulcahy
stated that the marina is an issue because State Parks was waiting on a
feasibility study to be completed. They wanted to see the effects Sand Point,
Contact Point, and Windsor
might have on each other. He stated that there are $270,000 SLIF funds on hold
in the bank, but we are waiting for State Parks.
Stan Usinowicz agreed
that steps had to be taken before a school came in; i.e., roads.
Mark
Clark
agreed that roads would be first, and thought that maybe something like a
community center would develop before another university would take interest to
build a college.
Don Bergen added that
economic changes would have to occur before private development.
5.
Discussion of
future tasks for committee
Gayle
Whittle
presented the CIAC members with a list of items that had been generated by
various departments within the City that they would like to see the CIAC
members work on. She stated that there
was a lot of desire from various people for citizen input on the budget process.
She suggested that the CIAC members could find out the needs and wants of the
community and what community wants the City to provide in order to enhance the
quality of the town.
Mark
Clark
suggested that the CIAC members could prioritize future CIP (Community
Investment Program) projects as a whole, by getting a list of 15 or so project
from a subcommittee in each department.
The CIAC members could gather all the information and prioritize them as
a bystander instead of the departments.
Bill
Mulcahy
thought the CIAC members could get more public involvement in this process.
Ron Verstraeten suggested
sending out a questionnaire which would use less City staff time than the last
survey and that wouldn’t cost very much.
Gayle
Whittle
thought maybe the City’s website could have a link for people to log onto for
this purpose.
Gayle
Whittle
mentioned that Item #5 on the list (Funding alternatives to purchase land for
Transit facility) dealt with building a Transit facility. She stated that the
land in front of the Public Works facility on 900 London Bridge Road was a choice spot
where Transit would like to put a facility. She stated that we have grant funds
for the building and improvements but not for the purchase of the land which
could cost approx. $2.5 million. She asked the CIAC members to think of
possible ways that this could be funded.
Bill
Mulcahy
talked about Item #6 (Look at the school agreement and ways to reduce water
costs, alternatives to use of school facilities), and stated that it costs the City
$850,000 for water to use the school facilities. He asked the CIAC members to
look for alternatives to reduce this expense from the Parks and Recreation’s
Department budget, and the monies could be put in other needed projects.
Gayle
Whittle
welcomed any other ideas CIAC members would like to work on.
6.
Open Discussion
Ron Verstraeten thought
the CIAC members could prioritize the list for the next meeting to decide what
to start working on.
Don Bergen thought
that Item #2 (Evaluate and Prioritize CIP Projects—assist staff in developing
future CIP for all departments…) needed to be prioritized separately.
Bill
Mulcahy
thought maybe this process could generate other items not on the list that the
CIAC members could stir up more interest in.
A consensus was
that maybe the university/golf course/marina could be put on the “back burner”
until more information could be presented.
Ron Verstraeten suggested
that CIAC members could send an email of their list prioritization to Gayle Whittle. Then Gayle would put together a
ranking sheet of items to be discussed at the next meeting.
The consensus was
after the list was prioritized they could be discuss at the next meeting then
presented to the City Council in June.
Ron Verstraeten noted
that the next CIAC meeting was schedule on graduation night, and thought the
meeting should be changed to a different night.
Ron Lemke made a
motion to change the meeting to May 29th. Richard Works seconded the
motion. All agreed.
7.
Call to the Public
None
8.
Items for Future
Agenda
Discuss list after
Gayle has ranked items in order of importance as received from the CIAC members
and decide which ones to bring to Council
9.
Future Meeting
May 29, 2008
10.
Adjournment
Ron Verstraeten
moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30pm
________________________
Kere Mosley, Finance Department