As to borrowing funds, there is no doubt they will need seed money. But, I think once they receive the Charter they will be eligible for some pretty cool grants that float around out there just for Charters.

G gets the “Understatement of the Year Award” for noting that “the codes are very complicated”. I don’t really know anyone who claims to understand CA ed funding completely. All of the legalities, dedicated funds, arcane accounting, waivers, exceptions, and general obfuscation leave the public at a big disadvantage.

Regarding the budget, Marshall Mayotte, CFP, CPA from Excellent Education Development, shared a preliminary budget with CVHS teachers that showed the school could receive about $13 million in revenues and spend a little more than $12 million, keeping between $400,000 and $800,000 in reserves (depending on final funding).

He cautioned that the numbers could change based on the state budget and possible deferrals, which could force the school to borrow money.

Here are his assumptions:

“2012-13 staffing costs will be equal to district provided estimated salary and benefit costs for 2011-12, plus $761K. The $761K cushion is being created to fund the following:
o Normal step-and-column increases
o A fall orientation program for freshmen
o A summer school program
A 10% increase in the current health insurance costs.
Funding will drop at least by $350 by 2012-13 from today.
A reasonable estimate of other expenditures.
No furlough days.
No reduction in benefits.”

He said the numbers could change in a “good way,” if

“The staff decides to reduce class sizes further.
The school builds new labs.
The school adds programs to enrich the academic environment.
Co-pays might be reduced to increase morale.
Additional funds might be set aside for retirement benefits.
The school may decide to increase class sizes due to increased overall enrollment.”

Mayotte said that he would likely revise the numbers several times before finalizing them.

If the governor’s proposed tax extensions pass, funding would probably not drop by $350 per student and the state would likely disconinue deferrals.

Look at how the District back-handed its so called “offer” to Flex. Fear of losing funding for the hundred or so students it might lose, it spoke of nothing in the way of cooperation in a way of educating local students, but rather said, in effect: We will charge you up-the-ass for every breath you take and every step you make on “our” property, and we will not give you a final figure for how much that will be until after you plop down about $20Grand as a down payment and you sign the open line contract.

Now let’s look for some “Sunshine” in how it handled Flex:

Did the Board hold the requisite “OPEN MEETING” to advise the Public that Flex was asking for space, and that it was considering making an initial offer to Flex, and who/what was being negotiated? Not that I am aware of!

Did the Board then have a subsequent OPEN MEETING to advise the Public, and allow comments from the Public regarding a proposed Final Offer? Not that I am aware of.

Brown Act – Open Meeting Laws; Negotiations real property:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.

However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.

For purposes of this section, negotiators may be members of the legislative body of the local agency.

For purposes of this section, “lease” includes renewal or renegotiation of a lease.

(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 260, Sec. 3.)