Legacy Academy Blog

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 brooksy // Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  In between the future planning committee meeting and the school board meeting last night, I had a chance to ask a high school student in the library about some of the things spoken about in the meeting. In particular, I asked him how he handles the position I heard a couple months back that basically says, “Legacy Academy should focus on being an excellent K-8 school, focus on doing that really well, and pull back from doing things which, for whatever reason, are not currently done at an excellent level like running a high school.”
  I don’t have enough facts to decide the merits of this position, however, most people at the FPC meeting seemed past the point of considering this an open question. This was evident in the various ways many spoke about the need to cure the rift over the high school, and no one offered what those opposed to the high school would consider the obvious solution, cease high school efforts. Those who object to continuing the high school either did not attend the meeting, or did not speak up. So, even though one side may consider the issue resolved, the two sides still need to come to terms.
  I agree with the parent who said that the FPC process needs to start with specific goals and I hope the FPC can find those tangible goals right away. It seems that before that can be done, however, the basic debate over the mere existence of the high school needs to come to a conclusion satisfactory to all parties. It would be a mistake for the FPC to go down a major path without the support of a substantial part of the school.
  Comments at the FPC meeting indicated to me that this debate is well advanced at an undercurrent level. I’d like to see a public discourse on the question with reasonable arguments for and against brought out, irrational positions thrown out, realistic accommodations made to opposed positions to every extent possible, and the issue resolved so that all parties understand and support a set of common goals for the FPC process. Then I’d like to see the FPC take those goals and strategically solve them.
  For my part, if the above issue resolves in favor of the high school, I’d like to abandon the incremental growth approach and instead, form a plan to build out the finished school, quantify the costs, reallocate the budget to pay for it, and do it. I’d like the school to move through and beyond major transitional states, and take the bold steps necessary to accomplish the goals that are in the best interest of the school.

• 2 brooksy // Feb 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm

  From: John Bleich
  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:35 PM
  To: ‘B.I.’; ‘LegacyAcademy’
  Cc: ‘Betsy Craley’; ‘Charla Hannigan’; jamilyna@msn.com; ‘Jay Campbell’; ‘Kurt Malerich’; ‘Scott Walter’
  Subject: RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  Brooks, while I too would like to just build the addition and get it over with, we also have to be realistic. The reality is that we are in the red…there is not anyplace to reallocate money from to build an addition at this time. The only way there will be is if we can get the student enrollment up high enough to either pay for the addition or at the very least, feel comfortable that we will not go bankrupt if we restructure our bond and take an extra 1.5 million to complete it. Yes, 1.5 Million dollars is what the bid was for building the addition. You have seen the financials of Legacy Academy, you know as well as I do that it is not a feasible undertaking in their current state.

  On the other hand, closing down the high school will not make everything rosy either financially. If you will remember right, the 6th – 7th and 8th grades were nowhere near full before the high school was opened. So I would have to assume that we would lose more students than just the high school students if we closed the High School down. In addition, we would leave ourselves with no good alternatives after making that rash a decision. We need to be financially prudent when making decisions in the coming months and years. I for one do not want to be known as one of the people that made enough bad decisions to close the school completely.

  It was my hope that we would have had some of the parents attend the Future Planning Committee meeting who are so adamant about getting rid of the high school for exactly the reasons you stated. I have not heard the reasons they want to close the doors, just that they do want to close them. We cannot hope to address those concerns if we do not know what they are. On the other hand, anyone who just complains yet is unwilling to stand up and fight for what they believe should not expect that it will change. I absolutely know you are familiar with this concept as you have beat your head against the wall on more than one occasion. If these parents/teacher/staff or whomever are not happy with the high school, they need to provide input to the committee to get those concerns addressed or as far as I am concerned (and I apologize, this will sound cold) they have nothing to be complaining about because they are unwilling to do something about it. I ran for the board for that exact reason, I decided I did not have the right to complain about how things were being run if I was not willing to stand up and attempt to change it.

  So I am still hoping we hear from those who want the high school closed via the committee meetings and not just through the rumor mill so sound decisions based on data and feedback from all the parents and staff rather than on the “Rumor Mill” can be made.

  Thanks Brooks,
  John

• 3 brooksy // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  John,

  For the sake of discussion, let’s assume a mortgage on $1,500,000 at 6% for 30 years. That yields a monthly payment of $8,948.52, and a yearly payment of $107,382.18. At $6,400/student PPOR, this translates to 17 students.

  In other words, if the total enrollment of the school increases by 17 between this year and next year, and those students can be served by the existing teaching staff, support staff, and classroom infrastructure, then we can afford the payment on the addition.

  Looking at it another way, if enrollment remains the same, we can finance the new school with 3.7% of the existing budget. ($107,382 / $2,875,335), based on total revenue from 2007 audit report.

  While a fully operational school addition would cost more than just the note on the building, the school could ramp up operation of the additional capacity over time as student population grew.

  I don’t see the addition of 17 students, or finding 3.7% of fat in the existing budget, or raising funds of $107,382 per year, as significant hurdles or reasons to not finish the school now. If you consider that the payments could be drawn from a combination of these sources, the case to build out the school, from a finance perspective, seems compelling.

  Sincerely,
  Brooks

• 4 brooksy // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:03 am

  From: John Bleich
  Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:44 AM
  To: ‘B.I.’
  Cc: ‘Betsy Craley’; ‘Charla Hannigan’; ‘Jay Campbell’; ‘Kurt Malerich’; ‘Scott Walter’; ‘Anthony, Jamie and Mike’
  Subject: RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  Dear Brooks, while I concede that for the most part that is true if we actually had a lot of fat. We already went through a session of “fat cutting” out of the budget as a result of the shortfall in Student count this last year. We cut out over $60,000.00 of “Fat” and still came up $40,000.00 in the red. So I still fail to see where cutting 3.7% of the “Extra Fat” will give us the money to pay for the extra payments when we are already $40,000.00 in the red for the current year even AFTER cutting the $60,000.00 in fat. In addition to that, assuming the bond would remain a similar % to what we are already paying on the 6.5 mil we already have, the payment on 1.5 million would be $10,615.38/month in addition to the $46,000.00/month payment per month we already have not $8,948.52. So the extra yearly payments would be $127,384.56. It may come out to be less than that but not significantly less I would think. We could get the bond % lower with a AAA rating, but that will not happen if the numbers of students is not high enough to make us look like a really good risk. In addition to not likely getting that AAA rating with our current student count, it would cost us around $14,000.00 just to go through the rating process.

  We have also been told by experts that our debt to income ratio is already on the high side for a charter school, especially for one of our small size. So while I fantasize about being able to afford building the addition now in the hopes that it will become our field of dreams and they will come to fill it, I have to bow to the conservative realist in me and disagree with your evaluation of the situation based on the facts at hand rather than on an overly optimistic view of what might happen if it were built. I personally am not willing to jeopardize the future viability of the school on the possibility that having 8 more classrooms and a couple of bathrooms will attract enough students to pay for the increase in bond payments we would incur + the deficit we already are running under. Feel free to bring this idea up at the next FPC meeting, but I would be willing to bet that the rest of the committee will look at the facts and agree with my more conservative evaluation rather than take the risk and bankrupting the school should the student count not increase as we would be hoping.

  I realize you are trying to think out of the box and find a way to build the addition sooner rather than later and I applaud you for it. However, I also know our financial situation and even though I like the idea of thinking out of the box, we have to do so in a fiscally responsible fashion. If we do not then we will go bankrupt and have to close and the C1 School district will end up with a very nice facility that they can move into for pennies on the dollar and Legacy academy will be but a fleeting memory and that would be a travesty. I do not wish to be responsible for that and I am sure you do not either.

  Sincerely,
  John Bleich

  ————————————————
  Hi John,

  If I may, let’s break this down further. I don’t think we should rule anything out yet since there are assumptions herein that need to be reconsidered. It is healthy to keep evaluating past conclusions in the light of a new day.

  The potential for further budget cuts needs to be explored and proven. With next year’s budget on the table right now, this is the appropriate time for that analysis.

  Last year’s student count shortfall history is not dispositive on what to expect next year. We have a new year and a new set of circumstances that need to be evaluated in themselves. Moreover, if budgeted student counts are too unpredictable, perhaps something can be done to make those commitments more firm.

  Financing terms of 7.5% from two years ago do not apply today. Today rates are lower.

  While a public entity such as a school is an attractive vehicle for tax free bonds, I don’t know that tax free bonds are the only financing vehicle available to the school. We need to consider all sources of financing. Since the school has broken through the glass ceiling of financial term in excess of district charter contract duration, the mortgage market may well be available.

  While the costs of acquisition and financing short term modular buildings is less than the cost of a full build-out, this money increases our overall debt for facilities without doing anything to lower the cost of the final facility. Meanwhile, the large cost of the final facility keeps escalating due to inflation. So, the longer we wait, the more expensive the build out becomes, and the increased short term spending for temporary facilities detracts from our ability to afford the more expensive future build out.

  Adding short term modular capacity creates a logistical problem for the future build out. If FTE’s max out total capacity including modulars, we will have no place to put students when the modulars have to be inevitably removed to make way for the build out.

  Since 17 to 20 FTE’s will pay for the high school build out now, and since the existing campus can absorb 17 to 20 FTE’s with marginal impact to the status quo, and since there are multiple sources for funding (budget cuts, add FTE’s, raise funds), I think this issue needs a lot more fact-finding to determine feasibility.

  I appreciate your conservatism and intent to protect the school and I would not advise any other path, but there are too many unanswered components in this analysis for one to even say what the conservative path might be. I didn’t see anything in your analysis of a confidential nature. Since I don’t know anything confidential and this is an important issue for the FPC and the school at large, I continue to copy the groups. I hope we get more input on this discussion.

  Sincerely,
  Brooks

• 5 brooksy // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:33 pm

  From: Brian Taylor [mailto:Brian.Taylor@LegacyK12.org]
  Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:38 PM
  To: B.I.; John Bleich; LegacyAcademy
  Cc: Betsy Craley; Charla Hannigan; Jay Campbell; Kurt Malerich; Scott Walter; Anthony, Jamie and Mike
  Subject: RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  To All Concerned,

  I appreciate the frank discussion here. I truly love working with the students at Legacy and I hope to stay here. Obviously, any talk of removing the high school would either remove me from my position or limit my position here. My stance, then, will obviously be supportive of improving the high school standards and culture. With that said, I would like to add some points to think about for this discussion of the building expansion.
  I am all for a larger facility, but obviously we must be able to afford it. I do not believe a larger facility would completely solve the problems that have been mentioned. I don’t aim to kill the current conversation about the building expansion. I would like to look at the issue from a different perspective.
  It seems the aim of an expanded facility is to decrease hallway congestion and chaos. If you have been in our East Wing lately, you may have noticed that the congestion has decreased. The chaos part still needs work.
  When we were in the portables, our “hallways” were outdoors. It didn’t really seem to matter so much if kids were screaming and running in between classes. There was plenty of room for that outdoors. We also did not have proper lockers for students to use. Because of this, the students did not learn locker management or hallway etiquette. We must train them about how to use the hallways and organize a locker.
  The staff has already put new rules into place to help the students learn to use the lockers properly. We began by teaching each student individually how to organize their lockers according to their individual needs, including the requirement that backpacks stay in the lockers during the day. Students should not have to lug backpacks from class to class anymore. The backpacks, which were completely full to the brim in almost all cases, caused every student to take up twice as much hallway space. Now that backpacks are no longer on the back of every student, the hallways seem twice as large. I believe we should continue to think along these lines for solutions to the hallway issues.
  We still have problems with the behavior in the hallways. I believe this is because students have not yet been properly educated about hallway etiquette. They are still used to being rowdy and undisciplined in between classes as if they were outdoors. Now that we have moved into a proper facility, we need to educate the students about what is expected of them in the new facility. We can’t just assume they’ll know what is expected of them and why it is expected of them.
  A new facility would be great and I am in no way opposed to it if it is within reach. Larger facilities will help to further ease congestion. However, no amount of extra space will make the students act appropriately. We must teach them what is expected of them. The students, and some parents, are still adjusting to the new backpack/locker rules, but it makes sense and it is working. I agree that further progress needs to be made. I also understand that this type of progress will require extra planning and effort from staff. I do, however, worry about focusing on the expansion of the facility issue as the sole solution.

  Brian Taylor
  Legacy Academy Drama Department
  303-646-2636 x138
  brian.taylor@legacyk12.org

• 6 brooksy // Feb 16, 2008 at 10:39 am

  From: John Bleich [mailto:john_bleich@mho.com]
  Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:50 AM
  To: ‘Brian Taylor’; ‘B.I.’; ‘LegacyAcademy’
  Cc: ‘Betsy Craley’; ‘Charla Hannigan’; ‘Jay Campbell’; ‘Kurt Malerich’; ‘Scott Walter’; ‘Anthony, Jamie and Mike’
  Subject: RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  Thank you very much Brian, this is why we need everyone involved to contribute. This is a perspective that many would not think of without someone from a teacher’s perspective to open our eyes. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to help the committee in understanding the situation better. I am very proud that everyone is discussing this in such a professional and open manner. It seems everyone involved is exhibiting the character that we want our students to learn. This is exactly what we need, all perspectives brought to the table, all ideas explored and given a chance. The more information the committee has available, the better recommendations it will come up with.

  John

• 7 brooksy // Feb 17, 2008 at 10:42 am

  From: John Bleich [mailto:john_bleich@mho.com]
  Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:38 AM
  To: ‘B.I.’; ‘LegacyAcademy’
  Cc: ‘Betsy Craley’; ‘Charla Hannigan’; ‘Jay Campbell’; ‘Kurt Malerich’; ‘Scott Walter’; ‘Anthony, Jamie and Mike’
  Subject: RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  Brooks, you bring up some good points.

  The admin staff and the board looked at the budget for places to cut just 4 months ago, this was not last school year. Revisiting is one thing, but doing so in such a short period of time when few or none of the variables has changed is another. In my business, I have my own definition for insanity (and no I am not calling you insane, it is just a saying I use to get a smile out of users). My definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results when nothing has changed.

  You are correct in that last years shortfall in student count is not indicative of next year. However, it does prove that no matter how bright the future looks, we cannot bet everything that the future will not dim. Last year at this time, we were looking at being in the black by around $180,000.00. We went from that to looking like we would be in the red by 100,000.00. Based on the budget adopted in June, that is a $300,000.00 shift. That is why we called the special work session to find fat in the budget. As I stated earlier, we did find over $60,000.00 in fat and did cut that. So, while you are correct in that past history does not necessarily indicate what the future holds, it should give us an indication that we need to be careful about making assumptions based on numbers that have not been confirmed.

  You are correct that rates are lower today. At the same time, criteria for qualifying for a good rate or any loan at all for that matter are much more stringent than they were 2 years ago today (And it was this time last year that we looked at restructuring our bond to complete the building…not 2 years ago). I would guess that obtaining a loan when we have a $40,000.00 deficit in our budget for the current year would be challenging at best.

  I look forward to seeing research on the other options and their viability that you mention as alternatives to tax free bonds. I did not know the school had broken through the glass ceiling as far as Charter school contract term. Our contract is for 5 years with the school district. That is the most we have been able to get them to accept to date.

  You are absolutely right about the modular buildings and I cannot argue in any way. I also realize that the price of the addition is growing and will more than likely continue to grow. I also concede that over the long term we will pay more. I even concede that now would be the best time to build. You are correct on all accounts, these are the exact reasons the board of directors looked so closely last year at restructuring the bond to do just that. We took everything into consideration that we could and in the end, determined that we did not yet have the student population to make it a feasible undertaking without jeopardizing the schools long term viability.

  You are also correct about the logistical problem involved with the modular’s. I believe we need to brainstorm on that one some more. We need to have a plan in place for that before going much further should it be determined that we cannot undertake the addition without having at least 1 modular. This was one of the biggest factors in our looking at the possibility of restructuring and completing the addition last year.

  The bottom line to me is, I would need to see those 17 – 20 (Preferably more) FTE’s next year in their seats October 1st preferably with a wait list to support it. But until that actually happens, I would be very concerned about undertaking the addition. Of course on the other hand, if we truly do end up with a significant increase in our FTE count, I would be the first to say we need to finish the addition for the next year.

  In the mean time, let’s focus on making sure the high school program is the best it can be so that when the addition is built, we will have plenty of students knocking down the door to get in it. That is the place we should focus our committees resources because in the end, that is what will give us the best chance of succeeding and of paying for the addition to the building. Focusing on trying to build the addition at the expense of building our high school program to attract students to fill it will bring about the ultimate failure of both. Let’s focus for now on something we have a greater amount of control over that, if successful, will ultimately solve the majority of the perceived issues with the high school and at the same time give us the financial stability to complete the addition.

  Sincerely,
  John

• 8 brooksy // Feb 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  From: LegacyAcademy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LegacyAcademy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of B.I.
  Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:31 PM
  To: ‘John Bleich’; ‘LegacyAcademy’
  Cc: ‘Betsy Craley’; ‘Charla Hannigan’; ‘Jay Campbell’; ‘Kurt Malerich’; ‘Scott Walter’; ‘Anthony, Jamie and Mike’
  Subject: [LegacyAcademy] RE: FPC Meeting of 2/12/08

  Hi John, thank you for the explanations.

  To clarify one point I made, by glass ceiling I was referring to the 30 year bond financing the school currently has that exceeds the current charter contract term of 5 years. I recall several years back where the charter contract term limited our ability to get long term financing. Since that is no longer the case, we need to find out what other finance doors might be open.

  One thing we can do to improve 3rd party financial assessments of the school would be to weed out every excess dollar from the budget and run as lean as possible. For instance, are we doing a zero-based budget process that builds up budget dollars from quantity and volume multipliers, or are we basing next year’s budget dollars on prior-year spending? Most public entities don’t do zero-based budgeting because they’re more concerned about spending all available revenues than they are about limiting spending. They know revenues will come in and they make sure to spend all of it because they know that prior year spending drives next year’s revenue allocation. I would expect most public schools approach budgeting in much the same way as other public entities.

  Are we budgeting up to our PPOR or are we budgeting independently derived expense justifications and discovering profit or loss like a private entity does? If we are not doing zero-based budgeting I suggest we start.

  In considering everything discussed on this thread, it seems we need more analysis on a) additional financing options, b) budget evaluation, c) intractable logistics and finance problems raised by bringing in more modulars, and d) qualitative education offerings to distinguish Legacy Academy in attracting and retaining students, to name a few. If we are resolved to a “go HS” condition, then all the motivators and factors in this process become more critical each day. Feasibility of the high school build out could turn on one or more subordinate dynamic conditions, and the only way to know when one breaks in our favor is by keeping them all under continual scrutiny.

  Sincerely,
  Brooks