Loading...
05/12/2005 Work SessionKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH WORK SESSION MEETING F Work Session Meeting of: �: /,1 1 2-I UL Please print your name 1. /94/9/t/ 2. ( & L C . 4 . 1 (�� 3 aM a. c ciwel� + e � Moc i I r 5. ' ar /e'1a1 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 111b1 4111,gr i k tibi i„ 1 *tors map map ...: - • .4, .. -`.:(.. . . '.N. 1, • s- ' '''' - • ' •.- 4 . ....N., ',.. ' •i. ''..4" •st.: ... • 16. SO •1* . t '. oN ... 46't‘V,:a. ...." "." e..•- kA SI'',.:‘, 1 • ... ".. •,,,C .•:,:k, . •' ...,':'-‘,... •• 1 • .:- •:•:‘ -:‘ . , .: t.......; vrti..‘ :. - , ' •• - i ‘- - .. ..,,.. ,•:...,-. ,,,,., t , 6, :,... . . .., ''..,„,...1.4 map map USGS Quadran•le Afo. nak A -4 EIN 1 a b ,EIN 24 I.' State Native Native owned with Public Access UGF &Ws Katmai Natl Park Other Federal 09 - :ES Military Municipal I I - KODIAK PUBLIC ACCESS ATLAS LEGEND - Mental Health PIM University Private ;/ Private Tideland Municipal Tideland rn Alaska State Park I I I I Critical Habitat Area s'■ Small Parcel- tole' ' indicates ownership • Highway • Roads Trails Wnter Trails Atlas Boundary • USGS Quad A Campsite h Wheel Strip Public Cabin pe Beach Strip El Boat Launch X Floatplane D Dock * Visitor Center f: Picnic Site State Determined Navigable Water Federal Determined Navigable Water ALASKA MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFCjGE DRY SPRUCE j� ISLAND State Native Native, public access by permit only USF &WS Katmai Nall Park Other Federal ?;1 Military AO Municipal I - KODIAK PUBLIC ACCESS ATLAS LEGEND - USGS Quadrangle Kodiak D -4 Mental Health University Private Private Tideland ® Municipal Tideland _ Alaska State Park L_i Critical Habitat Area Small Parcel- color indicates ownershia Highway A Campsite Vvheel Strip i � Roads di Public Cabin ^ Beach Strip Trails BE Boat Launch Floatplane Winter Trails KJ Dock Atlas Boundary * Visitor Center State Determined Navigable Water USGS Quad A picnic Site r� Federal Determined Navigable Water March, 1997 1-335 , .... t. r. I OLD o. 225746 1 State Native Native, public access by permit only F-1 USF &WS Katmai Nall Park 1 I Other Federal 1 1 Alaska State Park Military 1 J Critical Habitat Area Municipal 0 Small Parcel- color indicates ownership USGS Quadrangle Kodiak B -3 :� — — �b - KODIAK PUBLIC ACCESS ATLAS LEGEND - Mental Health ® University 1 Private 'i Private Tideland M Municipal Tideland Highway ..••••%• Roads Trails Wnter Trails Atlas Boundary -w.••• USGS Quad A campsite Wheel Strip Ilk Public Cabin ) Beach Strip U Boat Launch ▪ Floatplane O Dock * Visitor Center State Determined Navigable Water A Picnic Site Federal Determined Navigable Water March, 1997 CT \ to E )0(4 { \\ § map KIB Property Assessment Study Review Brief Conducted by: Wayne Haerer, Jr. ACAA Assessment Consulting Services, Inc. The following synopsis, is a representation of significant factors resultant of the study of the Kodiak Island Borough Assessment Study that was commissioned contractually ( "Professional Services Agreement" C -2005- 06). This brief is intended to simply illustrate relevant and pertinent aspects of the study in recognition of the time sensitivity of decision making and in order to facilitate the prospective effort towards corrective action. A full narrative report is in the process of completion. The data illustrated, is a representation of the scrutiny and analysis of 5,642 real property parcels, implicating over 169,260 different data sets related to the real property parcels. Most classes of property were examined, but the principal categories can be grouped into residential and commercial. The examination of the status of the assessed values initially began with a 15 year window. It was subsequently determined that a ten year period was more manageable and that, relatively sufficient data was available. This did not apply to Kodiak City sales tax receipts, wherein 5 years of quarterly reports were made available. The process was frustrated by varying changes to parcels over the study period that required numerous tasks of filtering and resorting. Examples of these variables are: remodels, additions, new construction, lot/parcels size adjustments, exemptions and BOE appeal adjustments. In addition to the referenced parcels changes, when attempting to run assessment to sales ratio studies to determine assessment performance and evaluation of accuracy and uniformity, it was discovered that an apparent exercise of assessed value to sales matching had been administered over the years. This practice alters the relationship of the representation of the overall assessed values and renders the ratio inapplicable to the correlation of the assessment levels of the majority of properties that have not sold. The ten year average for reported sales (sales made available to the assessor's office) was approximately 200 + / -. This represents .036% of the parcel population. To expand the study in an effort to verify the relationship of the market to assessed values for the study period, alternate means of probable market dynamics were explored. Findings > Market Data • 1990 average SFR (improved) sales price $106,873 • 2004 average SFR (improved) sales price $151,171 • Total 10 year market Appreciation average percent change + 41% > Assessed Value Change • 10 year % change (avg.) (1994 thru 2004) (all classes of property) + (including new construction & all other changes to land and buildings) +4% > Sales Tax Data • 5 year (1999 thru 2004) % change + 4% > Building Cost Index • 10 year (1994 thru 2004) Marshal & Swift Cost Estimator, construction and building cost index % change + 30% ( +) Discussion Generally accepted measures of statistical analysis were employed in the review of assessment performance, but due to the reassessment of those properties that sold, therein created a lack of confidence in the results and therefore it was determined that an examination of the overall real property market and economy changes must be examined and that these results should bear assurance for the decision making process. Except for changes to property assessments as discussed above, it is apparent that property assessments have not been adequately and accurately adjusted for a significant amount of time. Commercial property values, despite varying market and economic fluctuations within the study period, have experienced revenue growth (albeit small but steady). Steadily rising building costs have not stagnated nor even slowed construction costs, as evidenced (as an example) by development and expansion along Mill Bay road and beyond. Commercial sales data is nominal and varied, but the sign of slow and progressive appreciation in value was observed. The study concentrated on a ten year window, but in some cases the fifteen year data also revealed minimal change, particularly in the commercial class of property. The vast majority of commercial property observed in the examination, revealed no assessed value change Not withstanding accelerated physical deterioration and or a particular obsolescence, commercial property values may be deficient by as much as 15 to 20 percent. Inconsistent valuation treatment of new construction has also posed a formidable assumption of inequities in even the new or reappraised residential properties. Uniformity of assessment is tantamount to the fulfillment of fair taxation. Alaska Statute, AS 29.45.110. Full and True Value, states that: (a) The assessor shall assess property at its full and true value as of January 1 of the assessment year, except as provided in this section, AS 29.45.060 , and 29.45.230. The full and true value is the estimated price that the property would bring in an open market and under the then prevailing market conditions in a sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer both conversant with the property and with prevailing general price levels. Alaska Statute AS 29.45.150. Reevaluation, states that: A systematic reevaluation of taxable real and personal property undertaken by the assessor, whether of specific areas in which real property is located or of specific classes of real or personal property to be assessed, shall be made only in accordance with a resolution or other act of the municipality directing a systematic reevaluation of all taxable property in the municipality over the shortest period of time practicable, as fixed in the resolution or act. It appears that neither of these two significant statutory provisions has been adhered to and is not only an apparent contravention of law, but represents a failure to meet acceptable standards of assessment level and uniformity. An established/published reappraisal cycle of all property in the Kodiak Island Borough could not be located in the generally established venues of Borough code or regulation. A three (3) year cycle for appraisal of new construction and personal property audit is embodied in the Borough's "Annual Operating Budget Document ". This begs the question of satisfying statutory requisite. Recommendations 1. Reappraisal Conduct a reappraisal of all real property in the Kodiak Island Borough. This measure may be addressed in one of the methods as denoted in the following recommendation alternatives: Alternative A Subsequent to the filling of the assessor position, with a qualified assessment professional, it is strongly recommended to establish an additional appraiser position within the Assessing Department This position could be no more than an entry level or appraiser trainee. A reappraisal plan should be created and put into action within the 2005 calendar year. The plan should cause for a systematic physical inspection and reappraisal of all property over a minimum of three (3) years. First priority should be given to commercial and industrial property reappraisal in the project period. The GIS system, in place at the MB, is an invaluable tool that should be utilized extensively in this process to establish orderly planning, progress status verification and a multitude of other processes. It is presumed, that this plan would be the most economical method of reappraisal, for at least in the immediate and near future. It would provide knowledgeable staff that will be needed to represent the reappraisal results for subsequent appeal periods and BOE. Alternative B Contract with an independent appraisal firm with reputable knowledge and experience in mass appraisal techniques, assessment standards and the resources to conduct a reappraisal within a one calendar year's time frame. This undertaking would be planned and provided administrative oversight by the assessor. An immediate "Request for Proposals" should be crafted and afforded appropriate exposure. A preliminary estimate based upon reappraisal projects that have occurred in the past and in other jurisdictions, presents a range of $170,000 2. Training to $225,000. It would be prudent to project the upper limits of cost, when factoring in a one year time frame for completion. Alternative C Contract with an independent appraisal firm with reputable knowledge and experience in mass appraisal techniques, assessment standards and the resources to conduct a reappraisal of all commercial, industrial and multi- family properties. The remainder of properties could then be reappraised over a two (2) year period, in house. This alternative may require the hiring of a temporary real property enumerator (entry level appraiser equivalent) for this period of time. Estimates for the independent contractor, may cost upwards to $85,000. Special Emphasis In Addition to the above Scenerios: In any of the above scenarios and in any case, effort should be directed towards training of appropriate staff (not simply the assessor) in fully utilizing the current computer assisted assessment program (CAMA). This will provide the means for accurate and uniform valuations and it will speed the re- appraisal process up significantly. Also, the assessing department must become a partner in the utilization of the Borough's GIS structure. Expanded staff knowledge and utilization will greatly enhance such critical functions such as; mapping sales data locations, sales ratios, reappraisal cycle monitoring/tracking, land valuation audits and parcel features' enumeration, regression analysis modeling by property characteristics and more. A documented and budgeted "Mass Appraisal" training program for the new assessor and staff should be established immediately. The assessor and appraisal staff should become certified appropriately and accordingly. These programs are offered through the International Association of Assessing Officers and the Alaska Association of Assessing Officers and would provide assurance of accurate appraisals and a sound ability to defend the property assessment roll. 3. Reevaluation Cycle The standard set by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) and endorsed by the Alaska State Assessor, is six years, maximum, between re- inspection cycles. Section 4.7 of the IAAO Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property (2002), states in part, "Although assessment trending can be effective for short periods, properties should be physically reviewed and individually reappraised at least every four to six years." (Emphasis added.) This time frame would allow ample opportunity for the MB to review the property characteristics within its boundaries in a timely manner in order to maintain the maximum achievable degree of equity in the tax system. Unfortunately, as time between these cycles extends, the residents will experience a diminution of that equity. It is strongly recommended that a systematic reappraisal cycle, not to exceed 4 years, be crafted and embodied in the appropriate section of Borough ordinance. Prepared by: Don Carney TA #: 05 -5 -2941 Date: January 10 -12, 2005 Weather Conditions: Clear and Warm School District/Site: Kodiak Island Borough School District Persons Involved in Trip: Don Carney Name of Facility: Kodiak High School Kodiak Middle School Kodiak Elementary School East Elementary School Main Elementary School Peterson Elementary School North Star Elementary School Port Lions School Chiniak School Type of Facility: Secondary School 10 -12 Middle school 7 -9 Elementary K -6 Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School K -12 School K -12 School Department of Education & Early Development VIOIT A DUO] Facilities Trip Report Persons Contacted: Betty Walters, Superintendent, Dave Jones, Director of Finance, Jack Walsh, Personnel Director, Robert Tucker, Director of Maintenance and Operations, Gregg Hacker, Operations Supervisor, Tuan Tran, Custodial Supervisor, Sandy Daws, Maintenance Accountant/Work Order Entry, Bill Woitel, Work Order Management, and various support staff, principals, teachers and students Photo Sequence: Photos are available in the text of this report. They clearly demonstrate the results of a successful facility plan. Purpose of Visit: Assessment of Preventive Maintenance as it compares to 4 AAC 31.013, (Preventive Maintenance and Facility Management) and staff assistance. Active Projects /Status: Project # /'., CIP ont - 03 Debt Kodiak Island East Elementary Heating and Ventilation Upgrades $520,000 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Floor Covering Replacement - 4 Schools $728,708 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak High School Asbestos Floor Removal $304,704 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak High School Exterior Insulation and Window Replacement $596,020 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak High School Heating and Ventilation Upgrades $250,000 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak High School Pool Space Reclamation $650,788 2004 Pending 03 Debt Kodiak High School Vocational Center Renovation & Pool Reclamation $4,839,444 2004 Pending 03 Debt Kodiak HS /MS Complex Roof Upgrade $523,504 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak Learning Center Renovation $1,182,336 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Kodiak Middle School Concrete Repair $237,918 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt Larsen Bay School Floor Repair $339,883 2004 Approved/Not Signed 03 Debt New Kodiak MS /HS Pool $6,210,152 2004 Pending 03 Debt Old Harbor GymNoc -Ed Renovation $2,251,315 2004 Pending 03 Debt Ouzinkie Gym Renovation $1,858,255 2004 Pending Trip Summary: The trip started at 7:40am with an uneventful Monday morning flight from Juneau to Anchorage on Alaska Air followed by a long layover in Anchorage and a very bumpy ride to Kodiak aboard ERA Aviation. I arrived in Kodiak at 3:OOpm. Robert Tucker, Director of Maintenance and Operations, met me at the airport and supplied me with transportation to the hotel and the maintenance offices. We spent the rest of the afternoon meeting his support team and going over the program structure the district has used to meet and exceed the requirements of 4 AAC 31.013, (Preventive Maintenance and Facility Management). Weather was marginal on the south end of the Island, so we scheduled travel and school visits to the southeast and northern schools on Tuesday and Wednesday. We met with Superintendent, Betty Walters and her team on Wednesday afternoon. After the meeting, I flew back to Juneau on Alaska Air, arriving at 9:45pm. Observations and Comments: The average age of school facilities in this district is 37 years with main school facilities as old as 52 years still in service. All Kodiak Island schools visited were in better condition than many of the 10 to 15 year old schools I have visited. This includes the 52- year -old facility and the three school facilities over 40 years old. The schools were well built in the first place and very 2 well taken care of by the users, custodians and the maintenance crew. At one school, we were even asked to remove our street shoes at the door as the entire student body had done. We are accustomed to seeing walk off mats at entry doors, but this district had them in front of shop doors, in fan rooms, boiler rooms and even storerooms. The facilities plan in this district is well supported by the borough, district management, borough voters and the school board. Over $20 million in voter - approved dollars are scheduled for major maintenance projects. Continued district maintenance efforts, combined with the completion of these pending upgrades and work currently underway, will keep Kodiak Island School District from needing new schools for years to come. This demonstrates the results of a facility plan that clearly works. The Department of Education & Early Development's assessment of the Kodiak Island School District maintenance department was successful and encouraging. The maintenance program is centrally managed, except for a site managed day person at each school. This was the only part of the maintenance program where management was inconsistent from one site to another. The maintenance crew is well managed, well trained and motivated. The level of care was clearly consistent from one school to another, including the village schools except for some small inconsistencies in the results achieved by the site - managed personnel. This program unmistakably shows how satisfactorily a well - managed facilities program can work and demonstrates that the amount of dedicated effort required to sustain a viable program is feasible. The following program descriptions provide a more in -depth picture of the district's program as it relates to the five items of regulation 4 AAC 31.013, (Preventive Maintenance and Facility Management). Maintenance Management: All maintenance is done on a general work order basis. The work orders are created from work requests that flow through the principals, custodial staff and maintenance staff. A few key points are listed below: A new CMMS (Datastream) comprehensive work order based work assignment and tracking system is in place that provides for tracking of labor and material cost for all maintenance work, both scheduled and unscheduled, as well as all other tasks performed by maintenance staff (e.g., vehicles, school support etc). 3 A schedule of preventive maintenance work orders completed versus uncompleted is readily available. The CMMS system can and does generate reports that show time, labor cost, and material cost on planned and or completed work by building system. The CMMS system allows for procedures (i.e., coding) to track maintenance on all buildings and assets separately. The district is adding more detail to their asset list by further breaking down assets into components and adding them to the asset tracking system. They have also purchased an inventory- tracking program and were busy populating that database during my visit. Energy Management: The district has been collecting energy use data and implementing energy conservation measures for some time. All this information is being added to Excel spread sheets. This allows all the information to be seen in reports that show any use changes. Fuel is delivered in bulk at random times making calculations of fuel consumption difficult. The district makes calculations for each site by sticking tanks monthly and using degree -days against gallons consumed. The district uses the data collected to monitor their energy program. This information is available to maintenance management and when necessary to staff as a tool to monitor energy use and conservation efforts. Custodial Program: The custodial program is well developed in this school district and is supported by a well- written document that clearly states the standards expected, and they are high. The current plan includes a detailed schedule for each item/surface and uses color to define areas to be cleaned by each custodian. A level of effort associated with each item/surface has been established and can be adjusted or added to as required. Specific guidelines for the new gymnasium and other new floors have been added to assure proper care for those new surfaces in the future. Maintenance Training: The district has an on -going formal and informal training program that includes training by vendors, supervisors, contract instructors and 4 online programs. A train up program is in effect and advancements and or promotions are done from within when possible. Training records are kept in personnel files and a master training file is being developed. It was mentioned that as part of maintenance management, a training work order is used to track and account for training time and costs. The district allows full credit for educational efforts, undertaken by staff, independent of district training. Renewal and Replacement: Currently, the district develops a capital project list for summer maintenance as well as applications for state CIP grants. The projects are identified by both the six -year renewal and replacement schedule and a list developed ad -hoc based on needs observed by building occupants (i.e., teachers /principals) and facilities staff. The department's Excel tool is used to develop a schedule that, for each building, identifies the construction cost of the major building systems, life expectancy for those systems and compares life expectancy to age and condition to forecast renewal and or replacement year and cost. This information is used to develop a report for the district board of education to use in district planning. This program clearly demonstrates what a district can achieve with a well - trained, well - managed maintenance staff that has the support of the borough, school board, the voters, teachers and the students. While there are several outstanding individual efforts, the real strength of this program lies in the total team effort 5 wi 5} alp MS MI Ui it 3 • _m i s. 1.) North Star Elementary School and all other schools in the district are repainted at least every five years by the borough. ' - • i 2.) North Star Elementary School boiler room. Notice how clean and well kept. dd PAC ° A - , MEW ifittA SEW H. ,NCR COMPANY 3.) East School is having the entry re- painted by the student body. 4.) The boilers at East were installed in 1965 and are still working well. 6 5.) Port Lions School clearly demonstrates that the high level of care extends to the outlying schools as well. 6.) Clean is the standard used through out the district. 7.)These drinking fountains at East are sixteen years old. Look how new the tile wall appears. 8.) Not just clean, but polished and drip free. Another example of how high expectations can extend the useful life of enuinment. Action Items: Keep up the good work! 7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Kodiak High School e 1 KIBSD General Fund Revenue Per Student History KIBSD General Fund Per Student Revenue History Mg Nags Per War - Iwo* Ream Po SAM F4nl Ronw Per SIAM Historical Cost of Living Information 2 KIBSD Historical Revenue Source Comparison 0 ]855% 1990 KIBSD Revenue Sources 0 o 3e %0 4.45% 1563% eerel Revenue Borough Revenue O State Revenue Other o r ece Revenue 2005 KIBSD Budgeted Revenue Sources O 135% i 850% 150% O SeBO% • Fennl Revenue e Borough Revenue CI Stan Revenue o Cent Local Revenue 3 0 KIBSD FY 06 Revenue Sources • Federal • State • Local FY 06 Federal Revenue Sources • Impact Aid $2,035,000 • Universal Service FundB -Rate $ 240,000 • Indirect Cost Factor — Grants $ 180,000 • Total Federal Revenue $2,455,000 4 KIBSD Historic Enrollments 5 FY 06 Projected State Revenue • Foundation Formula $16,841,005 • State Military Contract $879,582 • Quality Schools $69,725 • Miscellaneous Contracts $45,500 Total State Revenue $17,835,812 FY 06 Local Revenue Sources • Appropriation $7,869,654 • In -Kind Services $ 994,000 • Other Local $ 98,000 • Fund Balance $ 0 • Total Local $8,961,654 6 0004 ®40© KIBSD FY 06 Total Revenue • Federal $2,455,000 • State $17,835,812 • Local $8,961,654 • Total $29,252,466 7 FY 06 Expenditures FY 05 Budgeted Expenditures = $27,162,469 The cost to provide the same services and programs in FY 06 = $29,141,730 An increase of $1,979,261 Major Sources /Cause of Increase Retirement System Mandated Increases $813,358 • Salary & Benefit Increases Related To Negotiated Agreements $503,322 • Health Insurance $153,702 • Fuel $180,140 • Curriculum $98,550 8 KIBSD FY 06 Budget Expenditure/Revenue Comparison • Total Needed Expenditures $29,141,730 • Revenue Available With Borough at Current Cap &HBI BSAV @ $4,919 $29,252,466 • Resulting Surplus $ 110,736 9 KIBSD FY 06 Budget Intended Use of Surplus English Language Learner Specialist (1.0) FTE $75,000 Special Education Autism Specialist (.50 FTE) $35,736 KIBSD FY 06 Budget Value of $531,214 In Additional Borough Support • Avg Teacher Sal & Ben = $81,932 = 6.48 Teachers • Avg 9 Month 6.5 Hour Aide = $32,176 = 16.5 Aides • Avg Support Staff = $52,992 = 10.02 Support Staff • Avg Maint. Staff = $59,142 = 8.98 Maint. Staff • Avg 9 Month Custodial = $46,956 = 11.31 Custodial 1 0 il il „ il, KIBSD FY 06 Budget What Else Is Out There? • Final Legislative Action? • Funding for Retirement System Increases? • New Money? • Borough Support • Will Additional State Funding Increase The Borough Cap? • If So, Will Borough Increase Support Accordingly? Requested Borough Funding Under Current Legislation — FIB 1 • Appropriation $7,869,654 • In -Kind $ 994,000 • Total $8,863,654 At Cap 11 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 06 Budget Loss of State Revenue Related to $100,000 Less in Borough Support FY 06 State Revenue - Borough Funding at Cap $ 16,841,005 FY 06 State Revenue - Borough Funding $100,00 Less Than Cap $ 16,833,705 Net Decrease In State Support $ 7,300 SCHOOL KIBSD FY 06 FOUNDATION FORMULA ESTIMATE 3/10/2005 Estimate With Proposed BSAV at $4,919 (HB 1) Based On Estimate From October 04 Twenty Day Count Enrollment Figures ADJUSTED Estimated 20 Day Enrollment FORMULA ADM Akhiok 17 39.6 39.60 Chiniak 11 39.6 39.60 Danger Bay 0 39.6 0.00 Karluk 0 39.6 0.00 Larsen Bay 19 39.6 39.60 Old Harbor 59 55.80 + (1.49 *(59 -30)) 99.01 Ouizinkie 51 55.80 + (1.49 *(51 -30)) 87.09 Port Lions 43 55.80 +(1.49•(43 -30)) 75.17 East 317 326.1 +(.97 "(317.15 -250)) 391.09 Main 297 326.10 + (.97 -250)) 371.69 North Star 313 326.10 + (.97"(313 -250)) 387.21 Peterson 289 326.10 + (.97 "(289 -250)) 363.93 KMS 349 326.1 + (.97 1349 -250)) 422.13 KHS /Learning Center 843 793.6 + (.84 "(843 -750)) 871.72 2,608.00 3,187.84 District Cost Factor 1.093 Total After Adjustment for District Cost Factor 3,484.31 Special Needs Factor 1.2 Total After Adjustment for Special Education Factor 4,181.17 Special Education Intensive Factor (5 " 25) 125 Adjusted Students + Special Education 4,306.17 Correspondence (60`.80) 48 Total District Adjusted ADM 4,354.17 Base Student Allocation Value $4,919 Basic Need $21,418,167 Required Local Effort (.004 (1,032,002,600 - 47,633,750) $3,937,475 (1,032,002,600 - 936,735,100 = 95,267,500 * .5 = 47,633,750) Estimated Impact Aid Received $1,600,000 Impact Aid Percentage ($3,937,475/$8,863,654) 44.42% Deductible Impact Aid (($1,6000,000 " .90)* .4404) $639,687 Regular State Aid FY 06 $16,841,005 SCHOOL KIBSD FY O6 FOUNDATION FORMULA ESTIMATE 5/12/2005 Estimate With Proposed BSAV at $4,919 (HB 1) Borough In -Kind Support $100,000 Less Than Requested Based On Estimate From October 04 Twenty Day Count Enrollment Figures ADJUSTED Estimated 20 Day Enrollment FORMULA ADM Akhiok 17 39.6 39.60 Chiniak 11 39.6 39.60 Danger Bay 0 39.6 0.00 Karluk 0 39.6 0.00 Larsen Bay 19 39.6 39.60 Old Harbor 59 55.80 + (1.49 *(59 -30)) 99.01 Ouizinkie 51 55.80 + (1.49*(51-30)) 87.09 Port Lions 43 55.80 + (1.49 *(43 -30)) 75.17 East 317 326 1 +(.97 *(317.15 -250)) 391.09 Main 297 326.10 + (.97*(297-250)) 371.69 North Star 313 326.10 + (.97*(313-250)) 387.21 Peterson 289 326 10 + (.97 *(289 -250)) 363.93 KMS 349 326.1 +(.97 *(349 -250)) 422.13 KHS /Leaming Center 843 793.6 + (.841843 -750)) 871.72 2,608.00 3,187.84 District Cost Factor - 1.093 Total After Adjustment for District Cost Factor 3,484.31 Special Needs Factor 1.2 Total After Adjustment for Special Education Factor 4,181.17 Special Education Intensive Factor (5 * 25) 125 Adjusted Students + Special Education 4,306.17 Correspondence (60 *.80) 48 Total District Adjusted ADM 4,354.17 Base Student Allocation Value $4,919 Basic Need $21,418,167 Required Local Effort (.004 * 984,368,850) (1,032,002,600 - 47,633,750) $3,937,475 (1,032,002,600 - 936,735,100 = 95,267,500 * .5 = 47,633,750) Estimated Impact Aid Received $1,600,000 Impact Aid Percentage ($3,937,475/$8,763,654) 44.93% Deductible Impact Aid (($1,6000,000 * .90) * .4493) $646,986 Regular State Aid FY 06 $16,833,705 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Borough Revenue Cap Estimate FY 2006 Required and Maximum Contribution Estimates Required FY 06 Contribution Options (The Lesser of the Following Two) A. 2004 Full Tax Value x 4 Mills = B. FY 05 Basic Need x .45% = $20,066,172.00 x .45% = $9,029,777 Additional Allowable Local FY 06 Contribution Options ( The Greater of the Following Two) A. 23% of FY 06 Basic Need = B..002 of 2004 Tax Base = ESTIMATE Using BSAV of $4,919 (HB 1) 3/10/2005 $984,368,850.00 x .004 = $3,937,475 $21,418,167.00 x .23 = $4,926,178 $984,368,850.00 x .002 = $1,968,738 Maximum Local Contribution Allowable FY 06 ( The Sum of the Following Two) Required Local Contribution = $ 3,937,475 Additional Allowable Local = $ 4,926,178 Total Maximum Allowable Contribution = $8,863,654 FY 06 KIBSD Requested Borough Support Borough Appropriations $7,869,654 Borough In -Kind $994,000 Total FY 06 Possible Local Borough Contribution $8,863,654 103,156 800,789 325,102 9,941,768 991,609 76,267 12,238,691 243,959 884,879 1,371,224 72,413 392,931 778,864 49,040 21,335 215,235 4,029,880 1,948,352 20,960 115,999 455,721 1,344,207 342,706 70 53,777 17,464 25,565 28,683 4,353,504 6,045 88,876 34,893 381,345 126,650 18,334 6,595 17,859 367,808 156,053 28,629 320,030 781,457 299,305 78,539 61,645 284,680 291,069 993 822,682 122,080 44,341 660 6,704 12,000 76,698 154,236 204,661 56,242 (700) 4,852,429 25,474,504 110,593 683,408 357,042 9,743,291 885,671 106,945 11,886,950 187,773 12,000 825,733 1,443,212 3,767 397,210 718,867 40,908 17,765 190,009 3,837,244 2,283,171 64,333 161,780 435,937 1,421,482 167,028 975 53,195 16,570 24,137 28,189 4,656,797 5,518 103,701 62,425 381,350 126,650 41,346 123 333,501 176,260 38,015 216,466 738,777 390,857 78,943 78,556 367,996 315,421 1,085 663.637 123,966 5,198 22,406 7.792 91,236 22,816 259,324 191,554 (3,094) 4,841,825 25,222,816 99,500 712,729 320,976 10,079,645 931,639 89,580 12.234,069 169,420 12,000 959,330 1,400,360 1,296 408,927 710,745 42,093 20,981 179,051 3,904,203 161,376 3,151,841 38,919 107,403 445,410 1,955,907 361,206 1,600 72,900 20,900 24,600 23,150 6,365,212 6,350 120,328 37,000 381,350 126,650 32,000 50,000 367,000 175,775 28,455 154,087 883,041 385,910 79,330 61,823 387,592 239,252 772 648,338 95,000 43,000 6,800 76,660 1,500 183,472 87,500 4,658,985 27,162,469 99,500 733,063 327,520 10,234,929 957,894 95,212 12,448,118 169,420 12,000 1,043,735 1,475,956 1,296 405,517 725,318 42,717 21,948 210,963 4,108,870 165,570 3,305,543 40,971 120.084 465,239 2,611,583 568,932 1,600 72,900 20,900 24,600 23,150 7,421,072 6,350 142,928 37,000 381,350 126,650 32,000 50,000 367,000 193,800 28,465 174,471 890,583 566,050 79,045 78,712 383,304 336,049 772 774,447 110,000 43,000 9,300 75,860 16,500 162,534 97,500 5,163,670 29,141,730 DESCRIPTION Superintendent Principal- Asst. /Head Tchr Managers/Directors-Cert. Teachers Specialists -Cert. Extraduty Pay -Cert. Sub - total Certificated Salaries Managers /Directors - Class. Board Stipends Aides Support Staff S peciali sts/TEA's -C las s Maintenance Staff Custodial Staff Extraduty Pay - Class. Overtime Substitutes/Temporary Sub - total Classified Salaries Salary/Benefit Contingency Insurance - Health & Life Unemployment Insurance Worker's Compensation Fica /Medicare Contribution TRS PERS Hepatitis Vaccine Housing Allowance Transportation Allowance Moving Allowance Other Employee Benefits Sub - total Fringe Benefits Life Guard Services Profl/fechnical Services Inkind -Audit Inkind - Mental Health Inkind -Data Processing lnkind-Grounds Maintenance lnkind-Crossing Guards Inkind - remodeling Inkind - Liability Insurance Staff Travel /Perdiem Student/Chaperone Travel Extra Curricular Travel Electricity Fuel- Heating & Cooking Water & Sewer Garbage Communications /Postage Other Purchased Services Student Catastrophic Liability Insu Supplies/Media/Materials Maintenance Supplies Janitorial Supplies Warehouse Inventory Adj. Gas & Oil (Vehicles) Stipends Other Expense Building Improvements Equipment Transfers to Other Funds Reimbursable Expenses Sub - total Non - Personnel Costs Total General Fund FY2006 BUDGET PREPARATION SUMMARY BY OBJECT FY03 ACTUAL FY04 ACTUAL Beginning FY2005 BUDGET PROPOSED FY2006 BUDGET 8 OF CHANGE OVER FY05 20,334 6,544 155,284 26.255 5.632 214.049 84.405 75,596 • (3,410) 14,573 624 967 31,912 204,657 4,194 153.702 2.052 12.681 19,829 655,676 207,726 1,055,860 22,600 18,025 10 20,384 7,542 180,140 (285) 16.889 (4,268) 96.797 126,109 15,000 2,500 (800) 15.000 (20,938) 10,000 504,685 1,979,261 15 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Detail of Major Expenditure Increases To FY 06 Expenditures 1 Salary Increases Per Negotiated Agreements 3. Mandated State of Alaska Retirement Benefit Increases 4. Health Insurance Increase Estimate 5. Non Personnel Increases Fuel 10/13/2003 = $1.0745 Fuel 11/01/2004 = $1.8354 Certified $ 214,049 Classified $ 172,755 Substitutes $ 31,912 2. Benefit Increases Related To Negotiated Agreement Salary Increases Unemployment $ 2,052 Worker's Comp $ 12,681 Fica /Medicare $ 19,829 TRS $ 33,871 PERS $ 16,173 TRS 16% to 21% PERS 9.85% to 14.85% $ 621,805 $ 191,553 $ 153,702 Technology $ 58,912 Curriculum /Staff Development $ 98,550 Correspondence $ 56,485 Electricity $ 7,542 Fuel $ 180,140 Garbage $ 16,889 Travel $ 4,650 TOTAL Major Increases $ 1,893,550 FY 06 Proposed Budget FY 05 Beginning Budget $ 29,141,730 $ 27,162,469 Total Budget Increase $ 1,979,261 16- 68 c O E o` 69 69 69 N 0 0 CO O 0 n 0 0 N V O m0) cl 63 69 69 V UI N 0 69 69 63 N ' I O O ri CO M V O O n n O 1. 0 O CO v- 0 O n r 69 69 69 V 0 0 O 0 0 (O O O of a m CO 0) CO CO 0) co 5 69 69 N O p .o o co = N CO CO Q Y a E M E M O o r O O CO CO O C¢ (0 N 0) M LL 0 m w n 636969 O N 0 O h O N r o h N r n N N CC m om; 6969 69 636569 N 0 O r 0 (O CO 0 0 CO N CO N m � N 6) 69 69 U O 10 CO 0 c r r r O Q 0) N N m m N N 63 69 64 6Y 69 69 N r) ' co co O U O 0 c n V 0 O h N CO , v r 5 69696T 6.6364 CO r 0 C O 0) r N 0 O 6 O CD - LO CO O CO N O O N c N 63 69 63 69 co o of O O) O O) 0) O 'Cr 0 0 V N 0 CO C p V O O V O O ar co m V N O N O O N "O CO O) CO n 0 0 ( N O Eo } E co 0 co O CO CD LL m h CO O N n N 63 69 69 69 69 69 69 c O To O U a a J J (0 0 Z o _c _ W aY r . O ' 0 O N ra a W ¢ �O H I-- CC O N N N N 63 65 CO 0) N O CO 63 CO N O O N- 0 0 0 CO r M 0v c 0 O h O 63 65 61 (0 CO N 0 0 (0 CO V 0I 0 CO n h co N 0 O O M r p N L0 N O •V vr O) (n n IfJ D) N N O 63 63 63 69 69 ti 0) co O co n O co o in O O co No O O> O O0 O O N O) 0(0 h (O co I O V co 0 ' N co O co CO CO (0 O O V 1 -0 O O M '- 0 > m n O) CO CO N 0 O V' r r 0 mi- Ur ONN 0) O h (0 O) 69 69 69 63 65 69 1» N 6) 63 69 63 63 CO N 0 0 O n n co co O 0) O O n O O r CO r N ID O N r r O n mn 0) N 69 69 69 63 63 11) c c 0 N N 0 ° -tea _ N c 0 N CO m Z F Assessing Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone (907) 486 -9353 Fax (907) 486 -9395 E -mail: rscholze @kib.co.kodiak.ak.us Inventory of Potential KIB Disposal Land Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Galstad, Borough Manager From: Bob Scholze, Appraiser /Acting Assessor Date: May 12, 2005 Re: Inventory of KIB Property INTRODUCTION SURPLUS DETERMINATION COMPLETED Page 1 of 4 May 12, 2005 ©EIYEft MAY 10 2005 1 KIB MANAGER This report is intended to identify Borough properties and update the Assembly on the status of KIB land previously discussed for disposal. It is not an exhaustive inventory of all Borough land, focusing instead on property already declared surplus, previously examined in that context, or discussed as possible candidates for land sale. Tax foreclosed properties are not addressed. Borough land generally undergoes a three -step process of public hearings leading to a land sale. First is a determination by the Borough Assembly that a property is surplus to a public need. Following this determination, steps two and three entail a replat and rezone, if appropriate and necessary. Decisions about rezone, replat, and land sale are made on an individual parcel basis. In 2000, seven KIB properties were determined by the Commission and Assembly to be surplus to the public's need and available for disposal at fair market value (P &Z Resolution No. 2000 - 01-R and Assembly Resolution No. 2001 -02). One was withdrawn. One was subsequently subdivided into five residential lots and sold at Borough land sale. Today those properties contain four new homes. The third has a longer history of consideration for disposal: Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 3465 (at the terminus of Scout Circle) Generally wedged between Island and Dark Lakes on the west, Borough ball fields at the old Smokey's site on the south, and Shahafka Acres Subdivision on the east, this property, totaling approximately 6.4 acres, was determined along with neighboring public land in 1968 to be surplus to public need. It was proposed for development in a "Development Plan" approved by the Commission and Assembly in 1982, but not further implemented. Portions have variously been discussed to be retained for youth activities, for greenbelt, and for access easements. Zoned PL- Public Use Land ( #8) SURPLUS DETERMINATION NOT COMPLETED The following properties have previously been discussed in the context of disposal, but they have not formally been determined to be surplus to a public need by resolution. Some Borough tracts along the road system that have been identified in preliminary discussions for potential rural residential development can achieve efficiency by utilizing existing infrastructure: Two are in Bells Flats at the perimeter of the Natural Use Area. One is along Womens Bay Drive opposite the gravel sites and is best postponed until gravel leases expire to avoid potential use conflicts. ( #9) The other is public land adjacent to upper Sargent Creek Road, which is maintained within the Womens Bay Road Service District. Low density rural residential (RR2 zoning - -2 acre minimum) could be designed here in a way that would compromise neither the integrity of the 5,000 acre Natural Use Area nor its intent to protect the Jack/Lee Lakes system and its aquifer. As part of the project, a 100 -150 foot wide greenbelt buffer could be created along Sargent Creek to further protect the watershed. Both zoned NU- Natural Use Land ( #10) Three others are at the terminus of roads and would require further investigation as to the feasibility of extending and/or improving existing roads. The first is in Monashka Bay at the upper end of Lakeview Drive, which, if extended 700 -800 feet along a natural bench, might allow for 6 -8 more rural residential lots, 3 -4 on each side, similar in size and design to neighboring lots along existing Lakeview Drive. ( #11) The second is at the upper (westerly) end of Noch Drive, which might be extended into adjacent unsurveyed Borough land to allow for creation of additional rural residential lots. ( #12) The third is on the south side of Panamaroff Creek Drive near its intersection with West Rezanof Drive in Bells Flats. ( #13) All three are presently zoned C- Conservation and presumably would be rezoned to RR1 consistent with adjacent lots. Two KIB park properties in Monashka Bay were formerly examined for the potential of creating a rural residential lot while at the same time leaving a remainder lot for park/open space. Lot 7, Inventory of Potential KIB Disposal Land Page 3 of 4 May 12, 2005