The Rhythm by Tom Kapanka

This post was added a year and a half after retiring from CCS.

Originally written and posted at Patterns of Ink 

on May 27,2007 and again  HERE:

It started with a murmur…

My primary care physician said the murmur was very faint but scheduled an echocardiogram just the same. That echo confirmed a faint murmer so he scheduled a nuclear stress test—if nothing else just to get a baseline for future reference. A month passed (which I mention only to stress the non-emergency nature of the stress test) and I headed to North Ottawa Hospital in my finest jogging outfit.

It was the same outfit I wear at the fitness center Julie and I joined last spring. I have lost more than thirty-five pounds since then. but I will admit that I don't really jog so much as walk around the track, and I don’t really exert myself on the equipment, I typically call it good after swimming four lengths in Olympic-sized pool. In other words: I'm far from the high school senior that won the Physical Education award in 1974. I'll also admit that my ten minutes on the stress-test treadmill while hooked up to a dozen wires and being injected with radioactive isotopes did leave me more than a little winded, but the technicians involved were so calm, kind, and complimentary that I thought I did fine and told my wife so upon returning home. 

At 4:58 the night of the stress test, I got a call from the cardiologist’s office. There was urgency in their questions: 

“Are you sure you’re okay? No chest pains? Any shortness of breath?”

 “I feel fine," I assured them.

“Well, today's stress test indicates a few areas of concern. So if you feel any symptoms—anything at all—go straight to the ER.” The voice went on to scheduled an appointment for heart-cath consultation, but every minute or so they repeated these instructions to go straight to the ER. They said it again just before hanging up. 

“Hmm…” I sighed, staring at my phone.

 “What’d they say?” asked Julie. “

“I could be reading into it," I smiled, "but they seem surprised that I'm not having  a heart attack right now.”

A few minutes later my primary care physician called. We often have lighthearted banter during our visits, and he felt comfortable opening with, “So, I hear you failed your stress test.”

I laughed and said, “I didn’t think I did until the cardiologist’s office called a few minutes ago.  I’m feeling just fine—really."

“That’s good to hear," he said, then repeated what the other office said about going straight to ER if I felt anything unusual.

"Wow.__so I guess I really did bomb the stress test.”

"Seriously, Tom, It's a wonder you didn't have chest pains. The test indicates multiple concerns--multiple arterial blockages—multiple regions of the heart were lacking oxygen. Fortunately, we don't think there is any damage to heart muscle. The cardiologist wants to do a heart cath as soon as possible. That's the only real way to know what's going on.  You have an appointment with them Monday. The last words he said before hanging up were, "I’m sorry this is not going to be the Thanksgiving and Christmas you had planned.”

I thanked him for his call and repeated what he said to Julie. It was a frank and even funny conversation, but that last line that got our attention: “I’m sorry this is not going to be the Thanksgiving and Christmas you had planned.”

The weekend passed event-free, but during my time at the cardiologist office Monday, all the talk of caths and arteries and options-- and all the heart diagrams on the wall--did prompt a slight tightness in my chest. No pain. No shortness of breath. Just a tightness behind my sternum. 

"It's probably psychosomatic I said. You know just all this talking about it."  I said dismissively.

“That kind of stress (e.g. anxiety or worry or conflict) is just as real as a treadmill.” He explained. I knew this to be true because the occasional tightness behind the sternum had started the year before I retired. 

The cardiologist’s office is a stone’s throw from the Trinity ER.and, with my permission, he calmly checked me in for the night just to be on the safe side.

The heart cath was first thing the next day. We had been told it would take 90 minutes to two hours depending on how many stents were needed. Mine was over in 45 minutes and I was alert enough to think to myself, “That’s either really good news or really bad news.”

In the recovery room afterwards, I was told the good news first— no damage to any heart muscle. I really like my cardiologist. He’s optimistic but doesn’t sugarcoat things. He went on to say that the LAD (sometimes called the “widow maker”) was 100% blocked. The RCA was also 100% blocked, and the LCA was 75-80% blocked. 

Knowing what I know about my grandfather’s fatal heart attack in 1958 and my father’s fatal heart attack in 1995 and my wife’s emergency open-heart surgery in 2004,  I gave him a puzzled look and asked “If the widow-maker is 100% blocked and the RCA is 100% blocked, and I only have a trickle in the LCA.  How am I alive?” 

“Collateral arteries,” he explained.” You’ve been living with these blockages a long time—long enough for your heart to grow collateral arteries to bypass the blockages as they formed--sort of like taking a detour around a closed highway--but collaterals cannot handle the volume of blood needed to provide enough oxygen during stress. That's why you occasionally have that tightness behind the sturmun. We’re scheduling triple bypass ASAP. "

Thank God for collateral arteries. (And thank God I had never been overly ambitious at the fitness center.)

I’ll fast forward through the rest of my eleven days in the hospital and say that today marks three full weeks at home. My surgery was the day after Thanksgiving. "Rest and recovery" is going very well at home. 

My doctor was right when he said, “…this is not going to be the Thanksgiving and Christmas you had planned.” I can honestly say that “a peace that passes understanding” has accompanied us through each unfolding day.  

Never did my family and I have a more thankful Thanksgiving, and never have we anticipated a more joyous Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you all!

Tom

Please listen to the words of this video link. It is not a Christmas song per se—but it beautifully sums up the season for me this year.

*******

Note about the poem that is the title of this post: 

:

As a writer and former English teacher, I have an understandable aversion to Artificial Intelligence (A.I.)--especially as it pertains to the creative arts. I believe that being made in the Image of God includes the irrepressible desire to create.  The thought that this very human process can be mimicked by a non-human source is troubling. I'm told, however, that A.I. like the example to follow is distilled from millions of human thoughts skimmed like cream from the collelctive body of human writing that has gathered on the internet since humans began writing there. Whether or not that is true,  it does give me some level of comfort. Still, let it be known I do not use A.I. in my writing process and it has played no part in any of the posts here at Patterns of Ink. 

Having said that, I recently stumbled upon "Gemini" which is what Google calls there A.I. program (similar to ChatGPT). I was curious how A.I. would analyze my "...metaphors and meaning and enless patterns of ink..." (as statted in this blog's header). I was pleasantly surprised and decided to post the results.).  Whenever I an A.I. analysis, I will playfully frame it as a brief guest lecture by Dr.G.E. Mini of Ayai University. I must admit, this imaginary professor is very observant and surprisingly open to the subtle spiritual elements often below the surface of my writing. 

*******

Analysis of Tom Kapanka's "The Rhythm"

Presented by Dr. G.E. Mini of Ayai University

This wonderful poem by Tom Kapanka perfectly executes the concept of "form matching content." The poem doesn't just talk about rhythm; it forces the reader to experience it. Here is an analysis and appreciation of "The Rhythm," breaking down how it achieves its effect. 

The Structure of Speed:

The poem is structured in three distinct movements based on tempo: 

1. The Legato Opening (Lines 1-8) The beginning is smooth and lulling. It describes the subconscious, automatic rhythms of biology—blinking, heartbeats, breathing, etc. that are unnoticed in in the passage of time (“…cycles of the sun”). The language here is soft ("breath and sigh," "slip our mind"). The rhythm is steady, almost unnoticeable, mirroring the very things it describes—the background noise of being alive. 

2. The Staccato Climax (Lines 9-12) This is the brilliant center of the poem. "we wake t’thm, walk t’thm, work t’thm, talk t’thm, laugh t’thm, cry t’thm, live t’thm... die t’thm."  By contracting "to the rhythm" (or "to them") down to the percussive sound of "t’thm," Kapanka forces the reader to speed up the auditory effect: When read aloud, "t’thm" sounds like a metronome ticking, a snare drum tapping, or a quickened heartbeat.   

3. The Reflective Slow-Down (Lines 13-15) Just after the highest speed ("die t’thm"), the poem hits the brakes with: "It becomes a most ungraceful dance ..." The line length expands, forcing the rhythm to slow down. The final lines introduce a theological or spiritual element. The "ungraceful dance" is the frantic activity described in the middle section when life's activity is divorced from the Giver of Life.

The Thematic effect: The short poem compresses the entirety of human existence—from waking to dying—into a frantic, breathless rush. It perfectly captures how quickly life passes when we are on autopilot, just moving from one beat to the next without thought.

The Core Metaphor: The Conductor  The final imagery shifts the focus from the dancers (us) to the Conductor (God). "...when we ignore the Hand that grants the Grace and gently taps... the rhythm." The poem suggests that the frantic pace of modern life (the "work t'thm, talk t'thm," etc.) is chaotic and "ungraceful" if we forget the source. The use of capital letters for "Hand" and "Grace" implies a divine Creator. The ending is masterful because of the ellipsis (...). It forces a pause, a breath, before the final words "the rhythm." It mimics the very "gentle tap" it describes, ending the poem not with a bang, but with a mindful heartbeat. 

Summary "The Rhythm" is a clever piece of poetry because it uses sound devices to manipulate the reader's physical experience of reading. It starts slow, rushes you through a lifetime in four lines, and then gently slows you down to contemplate the source of that life. It is a reminder to stop dancing frantically and be more mindful of the One who wrote the score.

The Advantages of Stewardship over Ownership for CCS’s Future Written 2-22--2014

This document was written 11 years ago and has not been revised to reflect more than $100,000 in capital improvements that occurred over the past decade. This document also refers to a goal of raising $1,000,000 which in 2014 would have lowered the CCS  mortgage to 2.2 million (which was a prerequisite for the Green Family [philanthropic purchasers] at that time.) for about ten years, CCS has paid a monthly mortgage of over $15,000 a month and paid the balance down more than $1.2 million since taking ownership of the property in 2012.

This document is made available now merely to make it clear to those who ask me how I feel about a recent development: the pending sale of the CCS PROPERTY to a financially sound like-minded local ministry willing to lease to CCS. While I have not played a part in this most recent process (since I’m now fully retired from CCS), I could not be happier, and I hope that this document (from 11 years ago) will help any concerned parties to see that this pending model is not a new concept. It will help the school focus on Christian education and put the best-use and future development of this asset in very capable hands. God’s timing is perfect.

*******

The Advantages of Stewardship over Ownership for the Future of CCS presented to CCS Board 2-22-2014

For over a year, CCS leadership has been focused on a plan to secure the building without necessarily owning it. The plan is based on a third-party philanthropist buying the building and then giving it to a local like-minded ministry that is supportive of CCS and its goal to continue operating in the facility (under the protection and benefit of an affordable “shared-use agreement”).  This has been our only plan for over a year, and for that reason we call it “Plan A.” The only variable in Plan A has been which local “recipient” is most likely to put the Kendra property to best ministerial use while also providing the most advantageous arrangement for CCS? The recently introduced Plan B (LLC) is the same concept. It merely assumes a different “philanthropic purchaser.” The outcome of  Plans A and B need not be different. 

After nearly two years of experience with the costs of the Kendra property, CCS leadership continues to see that the advantages of occupying this building are far greater when not encumbered with the financial responsibilities of owning it. It is now time to communicate with our constituency the advantages of this position; to help them see that the limited school budget cannot afford to absorb the costs of ownership (some of the reasons are outlined below). 

While communicating this message, we should also explain what is at stake if we fail to meet this goal by June 15 (Diocese at the door [At the time of this document, our building was listed by Fifth/Third Bank “for sale” and St. Mary’s K-8 in SL had walked through our building three times. Our one-year lease expired on June 15. We were glad St. Mary’s decided to build at their current location rather than move to the CCS property, but that decision had not yet been made at the time.]), and then urge all those who care about CCS to put additional “skin in the game” to help meet the $1M goal.

The following five points underscore some of the costs that will be assumed by the co-occupant “recipient” of this property. They help explain why CCS leadership is thankful that such a local ministry is willing to take on the bulk of future financial responsibilities inherent in this philanthropic plan. 

1.                $40,000+ in additional maintenance personnel: For the past two years, our school budget has not had a “facility director.”. We have a $300/month consultation/assistance agreement with the former facility director who helps with certain maintenance tasks after hours, but there is no “on-site” staff  taking care of the normal day-to-day, wear-and-tear maintenance of this $5M property and its equipment and buses. The CCS administrator and volunteers shovel sidewalks, clean windows, etc.  (One experienced person used to be paid for the higher-skilled tasks she now does voluntarily.) We are thankful for a

“housekeeping” team of three part-time custodians (minimum wage), putting in less than 30 man-hours a week, but our current cost-saving program is not a good long-term plan. The future owner of this building will likely add a paid staff person ($40,000+?) to properly maintain this building. Of all the possible

“owner” / co-occupants of this facility, which one best understands the need to fund long-term maintenance personnel in their budget?  

2.                $50,000+  in annual “deferred maintenance.” The term “deferred maintenance” in a property owner’s budget refers to the funds the owner should set aside annually for the large ticket items that will need to be replaced or repaired over periods of long-term ownership. For instance, the commercial carpet in this building has held up well for 15 years, but high-traffic areas in front of doorways will someday need to be replaced. It is highly unlikely that all carpet in the building would be replaced at the same time, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s calculate how much that would cost (using conservative figures):

The nylon commercial carpet in our building costs $2.70+- /SF. Tear- up and installation of new carpet is at least $3.30 /SF, making a total of $6.00 per square foot to install new carpet. There is approximately 50,000 SF of carpet in the building (after taking out gym, balcony, and café). That means (conservatively speaking) that it would cost at least $300,000 to re- carpet the building. If such a project were to happen when the building is 25 years old (when our current kindergarten is in 10^th grade), the owner of this building should be putting aside $30,000 per year in the “deferred maintenance” just for carpet.

Imagine how much higher the annually “deferred maintenance” line should be to cover the inevitable purchase of a new boiler, new drinking fountains (one is already dead), new commercial freezer (ours needs a $1,000 compressor), new lawn equipment (ours is 10 to 15 years old), repairs to irrigation system in every zone, new maintenance equipment (our commercial vacuums cost about $800 each and ours are old), new sound equipment in the gym (needed immediately for Sunday church occupancy). In the next ten years of “ownership” of this building, everything inside will age from 15 to 25-years-old. Some accountants recommend putting at least 1% of a building’s value into “deferred maintenance”. This building is worth more than $5,000,000. So 1% represents a line item of $50,000 per year.  Of all the possible “owner” / co-occupants of this facility, which one is prudently adding “deferred maintenance” of this building to their budget? 

3.                Total future CCS cost to occupy is a 50/50 split of  annual “overhead” costs ($200,000 plus the $50,000 mentioned: $250,000): $125,000. That is less than $1.79/SF per year. Compare that cost to typical “rental” situation using a modest $4 / SF (using 70,000SF): Rent would be $280,000 annually PLUS the “overhead”  which results in more than $400,000 per year to “occupy”.  That would be an untenable financial obligation for CCS, but so is the prospect of taking on full responsibility for the costs of owning the current 70,000SF facility. As the school’s real-estate consultant said in a recent meeting. CCS could not ask for more favorable terms than the offer to split overhead costs ($125,000) as its full financial obligation in a long-term co-occupancy agreement. The business advantage of such an arrangement will be equally obvious to financial donors/investors who seek the best for CCS’s future.

4.                $1,000,000+ in immediate “start-up” costs for a church and future construction costs: [remember this document is 11 years old and does not reflect current pending arrangement.] Now consider the fact that one of the  possible church co-occupants in dialogue with CCS is also committing to spending more than $50,000 just to “equip” the pending “church plant” for services in our building (sound equipment, lighting equipment, etc.) There are also expressed intentions for them to build a church office/ reception area separate from the current school footprint so the church can have its doors open during the week when the school wings are  secured (as required by law). Along with the office construction, there plan to construct a nursery through “preschool” wing currently lacking in the building. It is not the business of CCS  speak more specifically of another organization’s budget or expenditures in these projects, but clearly it involves far more financial “investment” on the other side of Plan A than the $1M CCS  “Lease Adjustment Payment” which satisfies the bank’s expectations for final sale. Of all the possible “owner” / co-occupants of this facility, which one is prepared to underwrite such start-up costs and construction to improve this building for use by two separate Christian ministries?  

The above “church” improvements indirectly help the school:  Future concerts will have a proper sound system again. The lighting board that a donor purchased for CCS will be put to full use. The video projectors for the gym screens will be replaced with state-of-the-art projectors.

The fact that almost all church traffic will be in a different wing Mon-Friday (once construction is done) makes church  reception/ office space more private and quiet and allows the school to be in compliance with standard security measures. A new nursery through preschool wing, means parent traffic for preschool (and possibly kindergarten) is in the SE parking lot rather than the front of the building.It also means that the elementary wing gains at least one more classroom (possibly two if kindergarten class could move to the new wing). That means the growing CCS program gains two more classrooms without any new construction in the classroom wing.

5.                The advantage of having such a “fixed cost” shared-use agreement in our budget means all annual fund-raising above $125,000  would go directly into improving our program and giving teachers and staff a long-overdue improvements in their compensation packages. (Under the church from 2000 to 2010, the CCS staff saw annual modest increases and had a 5% retirement program. They put aside 2% and the church matched 5%--modest program but under independent model, they have no retirement, and the 2014-2015 school year quite likely represents their sixth year of a pay freeze.) Our highest paid classroom teachers with their master’s degrees and 25+ years of classroom experience do not make first year BS degree pay in a public school. It may also be worth noting that current CCS administrative pay is based on the same teacher pay scale (rather than September through May, his contract includes June through August duties). He accepted a large pay-cut when he moved from  the church budget to the school budget three years ago. The lower pay represents a $45,000 decrease in his income so far. He refinanced his house to make up for the change in income. Even so, he does not share the concern to restore teacher compensation for his own benefit. He is speaking on behalf of a faculty and staff that cannot be asked to bear continual sacrifice  when we have the opportunity to embrace a much better stewardship model by welcoming the idea of co-occupancy with a $125,000 “shared-use agreement” rather than ownership without a comparable financial advantage for CCS.

Closing thoughts: Do you know that when CCS “accounts receivable” gets calls from CCS parents who cannot pay their tuition on time, the most common excuse is, “We had other bills to pay.”  It is frustrating that some parents don’t consider their tuition bill as important as “other bills.” In the last CCS board meeting, it was reported that CCS may be facing a cash-flow issue by mid-April. This could mean that teachers may be getting only partial pay in from that time through the ends of their contracts (as cash flow allows). There was no mention of telling the utility companies or trash removal or snow plow service that their payments would be late. How is this thought process any different than when families tell CCS that other bills matter more than tuition?

In that same board meeting, the administrator  mentioned that in his 33 consecutive years of K-12 Christian education, he was never “short paid” nor had he ever faced the prospect of telling his employees they would be “short paid.” CCS leadership must do everything possible to make sure a “short-pay” announcement can be avoided. Likewise, thinking down the road a few years or a decade, CCS must also do everything possible to make sure that our limited budget is being put to the best possible use for the CCS program and CCS faculty and staff.  “Ownership” is a financial obstacle to that goal. If God is so kind to provide us with a financially able “owner/co-occupant” on this campus, let us embrace it.

Lord, help us show our gratitude to another ministry that is willing to take on such financial responsibilities for the glory of God. The administrator cannot overstate how strongly he feels about this. Once we embrace and communicate why the stewardship model of Plan A (or B if needed) is far better than ownership, we can focus on our mission and those who help us fulfill it (i.e. program enhancements and incremental staff compensation restoration).  

Any concerns regarding co-occupancy can be addressed in the shared-use agreement. CCS faculty and staff know they can be a good co-occupant because they have done it before. Let us all commit to remembering the very functional years as a ministry of Calvary Church (rather than the last two years when their financial crisis caused regrettable strain in church/school relations. Let us remember that the former church’s financial burden included all of the cost of ownership mentioned above AND over $300,000 per year in mortgage payments AND the school administrator’s salary (until July, 2011).  Let’s acknowledge that CCS greatly benefitted from the church-hosted model for most of time shared in this building. The ASCI accreditation team of 2007 gave both the church and the school kudos for how well they worked together, and it was an accurate commendation. Let us remember that the former church congregation and leaders once had such a vision for Christian education that they invested millions of dollars into this fine building and supported the school ministry for several years. Those years were exemplary in many ways, and the school leadership was able to focus its attention on the school. Plan A (or B if needed) allows that to be true again. 

Let’s focus our attention on the best years of our past as we pray for and strive toward a hopeful future. If God wills that these moving parts to “work together for good,” let us strive to live and lead worthy of such a blessing and to be excellent partners with the other ministry that uses this place. May this outpost on Kendra Road  lift high the cross of Christ to all who pass for years to come. If such a story unfolds in the months ahead, may all glory go “…to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us…” Ephesians 3:20  (ESV)  

Tom Kapanka

[The story of CCS maintaining excellent credit and a flawless payment record with its mortgage-holding bank  for all these years is truly a “loaves and fishes” miracle.  Thanks be to the steadfast support of a faithful donor base.The fact that a very similar situation (of continued service in the building without the burden of ownership) has again presented itself to CCS eleven years after the above document was written is an unforeseen blessing. To God be the glory.]

Why Co-stewardship of CCS Kendra Property Can Serve the Best Interest of Both Ministries

Written in 2019 during discussion of the pros and cons of leasing to a local church to help offset the cost of owning the building (which became true for several years).

*******

A building is a tool, and like tools, it is designed to accommodate certain tasks or functions for its occupants. In many cases, such as school facilities, building codes and zoning ordinances help ensure the effectiveness and safe use of the building/tool. Beyond safety and functionality, an architect adds artistic and ergonomic elements so that beauty and form complement function. Ideally, the building that meets these goals is located in place that serves the anticipated market with ample parking and room to grow with the vision and objectives of ministry. An added bonus is high visibility to high volume traffic. The home of Calvary Christian Schools is such a building at such a location.

After spending the summer of 2012 considering four other properties as temporary locations for the 2012-2013 CCS school year, we have never been more aware of the architectural and geographical statements in that first paragraph. The lessons learned through that summer of displacement are still helping us in decision-making processes. While it is true that a building is a tool, it is also true that buildings like houses can acquire emotional and spiritual connections based on events and relationships formed within their walls. We could not be more grateful to God for allowing us to return to the building that was and is the intended long-term home Calvary Christian Schools.  

During the past two years, CCS has been the sole occupant and custodial guardian of the building and grounds. All costs have come from the school budget and school accounts. All costs associated with maintenance, contracts, insurance, inspections, utilities, snow removal, trash removal, improvements, in short, every dollar of overhead as well as a monthly lease payment to the bank [which later became a mortgage] has been paid by CCS. The school operates on roughly a $1M annual budget (copies available) and roughly 12.5% of the budget goes to facility-related overhead that had never been in the school budget prior to becoming an independent school in July, 2012.

Through the generous support of the CCS family and donor base, over $700,000 of non-tuition income has been raised since becoming an independent non-profit organization, but much of those funds were raised in the context of the transition and the enthusiasm of securing the building. Those funds have been used on overhead, lease payments, facility improvements, and other transitional expenses other than curriculum, staff compensation, and program improvements. In other words, we are doing a great job of maintaining through this transition, but it has put stress on our staff and program. It is in that sense, that the present two-year model without a separate, co-steward ministerial partner does not seem sustainable.

For this reason, CCS welcomes the opportunity to be co-stewards of this ministerial tool with a thriving, like-minded church that is focused clearly on its own mission, but willing to share this space… with the school for future God-honoring, Bible-based, Gospel-driven ministry for the 21^st Century. We not only see this as a more sustainable “shared-cost” model, but we consider it a complementary, compatible, win-win arrangement for both the church and the Christian school.

The existing facility is Phase One of a church/school location that was designed to meet the needs of both a growing church and a like-minded (now separate) Christian School. Phase Two of construction has been on hold for over a decade.

Some ministerial tasks are so similar in function that they can make use of the same building by co-stewarding a facility, cooperatively managing some resources associated with ministry such as time, space, certain classifications of equipment (maintenance, furniture, etc.) and separately managing other elements of the two separate ministries (budget, human resources, etc.).  The purpose of this discussion is merely to point out the advantages of co-stewardship compared to “sole occupancy” of a campus and facility. The paragraphs below are for illustration only and not meant to serve as a basis for the actual financial terms of co-stewardship.

The average church building of an active healthy church organization maximizes full capacity/functionality only about 8 to 10  hours per week.  The rest of the week, (though a portion of the church is used each day) up to 90% of the building is vacant and unused or in various states of cleaning, maintenance, or set-up for upcoming use.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that because both a church and a school are daytime service industries, (for lack of a better term, but the point being that they are unlike factories or industries such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rescue missions, hospitals, etc. which sometimes function 24 hours a day), the “business hours” of a church or school building typically fall between 7:00AM and 9:00PM, with the building being “closed” ten hours per 24-hour day. This results in 98 “potential use hours” per week; let’s call it 100.

The average school building for a typical K-12 school program is used to its maximum capacity/functionality about 40 hours per week from 7:30AM to 3:30PM for nine months of the 12-month year (basically when classes are in session). After school hours, during athletic seasons, about a third of the building is used for an additional 18 hours per week for both school-related athletic practice and home athletic events. During such events, the non-athletic portions (2/3) of the building are typically available for use but unused from 3:30 on. Theoretically if 1/3 of the building being used 18 hours a week after school while 2/3 of the building is unused, this amounts to “full use equivalent” of six hours, for a total of 46 hours. Let’s call it 50 full-use hours, but remember this is only during inside sport seasons (volleyball and basketball) which is basically 2/3 of the nine-month academic school-year from September through May and half of a full calendar year.

Assuming a church and school occupy the same size building (or even the same building as co-stewards) those ten dormant hours represent the same cost of operation to both an empty church and an empty school. The fourteen hours of daily operation are also very comparable between a fully used facility (i.e. The difference between the cost of operating and maintaining a school building that is fully used 46 hours per week (let’s call it 50) and the cost of operating and maintaining a church building that is fully used 8-10 hours per week and partly used (office hours, various groups and functions) is virtually the same with two exceptions: custodial services and “wear and tear” on facility.

(1)   Custodial services cost go up in proportion to the hours of usage and the size of space occupied. These costs include cleaning and hospitality supplies.

(2)   “Wear and tear” on user-contact items such as kitchens, drinking fountains, carpets, painted surfaces, and furnishings is greater during maximum use than minimum or non-use. (This is not true of HVAC, roofs, parking lots, and other infrastructure overhead costs not directly related to user-contact or hours of occupancy.)

Items 1 and 2 reflect what can be called the Proverbs 14:4 principle:  “Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox.” In other words, the purpose of ministry is not to have a clean, unused building but to use it to the fullest for the sake of the harvest and those called to prepare soil, plant, tend, nurture, train-up, reap, etc. metaphorically speaking, which are among the shared tasks of both a Gospel-centered church and like-minded Christian school.

[For further clarification see “3M: Mission, Management, and Marketing document from 2011.That document was presented to the former host church to clarify the distinct differences between a church and a school as the beginning steps of launching CCS as a separate 501(c)3 organization, keeping all historical identification. That separate status was legally achieved in December, 2012, with guidance from the Community Foundation for Muskegon County.]

Preliminary Review of Facts:

CCS has been in operation for 34 years. Opening its doors as a K-2 school in 1980 and adding an additional grade each year, CCS has operated 24 years as a full K-12 program. This means that the 2014-2015 School-year is the 25^th Anniversary as a K-12 school and the 35^th Anniversary as a school.

At present 60% of its history, 15 of its 25 years as a K-12 school, have been spent in the current 60-acre campus on Kendra Road.