Loading...
CC Minutes 9-8-08City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not I’ll go ahead and open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address before addressing the council. Seeing no one I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing without objection and bring it back to council for discussion. Any issues or thoughts or comments on this? Fairly straight forward. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I think it’s fairly straight forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald: No comments. Everything seems fine to me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation? Councilman Litsey: Make a motion that the City Council approve the easement vacation for Lot rd 27, Block 1, Liberty on Bluff Creek subject to the filing Liberty on Bluff Creek 3 Addition plat and development contract. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2008- 46: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the easement vacation for Lot 27, Block 1, Liberty on Bluff Creek rd subject to the filing Liberty on Bluff Creek 3 Addition plat and development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, PARK PLACE: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $7,550,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). C.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). D.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and City Council members. We’ll start with item 4(a) but before we get to that I just kind of want to give a little time line on the process that we have in regards to the public works building. City Council has directed staff to look into funding for a 6 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 public works building. As part of that process, and as discussion with City Council, we recommended issuing what are called G.O. Capital Improvement Program Bonds. With that in mind we’ve begun the process of putting together the data for the public hearings and eventual issuance of the bonds. Item 4(a) is the first step in that process for issuing the debt for the public works facility. Upon finishing my staff report we’ll open the public hearing for discussion on the actual capital improvement program. The capital improvement program is slightly different than the CIP which you approve later this year. This particular capital improvement program deals specifically with capital improvements to public buildings that we plan on issuing general obligation debt for within the next 5 years. It does not have all of our CIP items in it. The passing of that capital improvement program then therefore allows us to eventually issue what are called G.O. CIP Bonds in the future for any of the facilities that are listed in that program. Passing the actual CIP program does not limit you in the future from adding or deleting items from that CIP program. It’s just setting that CIP program up as of today with the items that staff and council’s anticipating issuing general obligation debt for in the future. After the public hearing is closed and we pass the resolution approving the creation of the CIP plan, along within that resolution is also approval of the, preliminary approval of the issuance of the actual G.O. CIP bonds not to exceed $8.5 million. The second step in the process is to actually, as item 4(b) which would be to have the City Council adopt a resolution providing for the sale of the actual debt itself. That needs to be a separate resolution after the first resolution is passed. The other items on the agenda tonight Paul Oehme will be discussing, are not within the realm of the actual financing of the facility itself. Questions at this point? Mayor Furlong: If I, anybody else? If I may. Mr. Sticha, the item 1(a) which is the capital improvement plan, that’s a 5 year plan that includes all items that we believe we’ll be bonding for over the next 5 years. This year inclusive. Greg Sticha: Issuing general obligation bonds for public facilities, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe you’re going to get into this but that’s two items and it’s for a total of about $8.5-$8.6 million. Greg Sticha: It’s two items. One item is the actual public works facility itself. We have listed the total of the two items correct is $8.5. $7.5 for the public works facility and around $995,000 for the fire station. Third fire station. Mayor Furlong: And if I’m jumping ahead just tell me, but then item (b), which is after we adopt the plan, that authorizes providing for the sale of the bonds only related to the public works facility. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification on what we’re… 7 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, go ahead. Greg Sticha: Sticking with item 4(a), there’s a couple changes that I want to note to council. We found two items within the CIP program itself that we are going to be deleting. On page 5, in the first paragraph, starting in the middle of that paragraph approximately. After the comment, and is not centrally located within the city for the most efficient operations. That sentence will be deleted from the CIP program. And then on page 6 of that, of the same document, item number 2 under operating costs of the proposed improvements. That will be stricken from the CIP program as well. Those are not relevant to our situation. In addition, we provided you with a copy of the actual resolution. After our city attorney had a chance to review the resolution late last week, there was one small modification to the resolution. Mr. Knutson recommended adding a sentence at the very bottom of the resolution, and I’ve handed out a copy of the resolution and highlighted the change that he has recommended. The capital improvements have no relationship to the city’s comprehensive plan is the sentence that has been added to that resolution. For comment on that I would let Roger answer any questions you may have on that particular item. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: Mayor. The statute provides that you either have to send this to the Planning Commission for their review, and you should do that if you find it has a relationship with the comprehensive plan. That’s the language of the statute. So I understand that to mean is that if it’s in conflict with your comprehensive plan, then you’d better send it over to Planning Commission to have them iron that out. But if you find it’s not necessary or appropriate to send it to your Planning Commission before you’re acting, then you should insert that sentence because that’s what the statute says you should do. Mayor Furlong: And something that might relate to the comprehensive plan might be a change in land use or. Roger Knutson: Well you know it could be many things. Like if you’re going to do a waste water treatment plant a long way from the end of the sewer pipe, someone would say wait a minute. If you’re putting that way out there, that’s going to have real implications for how the community develops. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Greg Sticha: Okay. I’ll proceed with the rest of the process in regards to financing the facility. After the public hearing is closed and resolution in item 4(a) and 4(b) assumingly are passed, there would be then a 30 day window for our residents to circulate a petition in regards to the bonding for the facility. If that petition would generate more than 522 signatures and come back to council within 30 days, a reverse referendum has essentially taken place and the issuance of the CIP bonds would no longer be an option and we would have to put it out there for a general 8 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 referendum election and issue just plain G.O. debt in regards to bonding for the facility. After that 30 day window has closed and if a petition has not been signed, then we can proceed with the actual sale of the bonds. The current calendar has us reviewing our financial information with our rating agencies in the middle of October. Then coming back for actual award of bid on th the bonds on the October 27 council meeting. At that point we would then receive the funds for the bonding of the facility sometime in late November. That’s kind of the whole map of the process in funding for the facility. At this point I certainly welcome any questions or if there are none I’ll go ahead and open the public hearing in regards to item 4(a). Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff on any items 1, or 4(a) through (d) at this point. No? Okay. If that’s the case then we’ll proceed and open the public hearing with regard to consideration and approval of the proposed capital improvement plan for public facilities and preliminary approval of issuance for capital improvement program general obligation bonds. I would invite any interested party to come forward and address the council on this matter. Seeing nobody, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Move to close the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The public hearing to consider approval of a proposed Capital Improvement Program for Public Facilities and preliminary approval for issuance of Capital Improvement Program General Obligation Bonds was closed. Mayor Furlong: With that, let’s bring it back then to council. Anything else Mr. Sticha or do you want to talk anymore about (b)? Greg Sticha: Ah no. We need to pass the resolution in 4(a) before we can talk about 4(b). Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so you want, before we do that let’s make sure we’ve addressed items (c) and (d) as well, just so we get all the questions out on the table. So Mr. Oehme, if that falls onto your shoulders. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Item 4(c) is recommendation to approve an architectural contract with Oertel Architects. About 2 months ago staff solicited proposals to architectural engineering firms for services for the new public works facility. On nd August 22 of this year architectural proposals were received to the city and the city did receive 3 proposals. One from Architectural Alliance, Oertel Architects and TKDA. A selection committee here at city hall reviewed the proposals and rated each firm according to a selection criteria that was established in the proposal of request, and Oertel Architects had the lost cost 9 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 proposal and was rated the highest by the selection committee in terms of their background knowledge in the preparation of the proposal. Staff has called the references for Oertel Architects as well and the firm has been rated highly by others who have worked with them on nd similar public works facility projects… And then again last Monday, September 2 Oertel Architects was interviewed by staff for this project as well. Oertel Architects has designed and built several public works facilities in the last 8 years in all. They’ve worked on over 24 facilities here in the last 8 years. And staff does recommend, if this project moves forward, using Oertel Architects on this project. The recommendations, if council wants to move forward with this project is to direct staff to enter into a contract with Oertel Architects in the amount of $429,485 for these services, and that includes design, construction and designing and construction administration services and close out documents for the project, so that includes everything from schematic design all the way through final completion, as-builts and what have you so. Anytime along the way you know this contract will be written that we can get out of the contract. If for whatever reason we don’t want to move forward with the contract anymore, and it is a time and materials contract that we are proposing so staff would be receiving monthly, by- monthly requests from the architect. We will be reviewing their requests. Hours. Those type of things and checking for accuracy and recommending denial or approval at that time so. At this time I stand for any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Litsey: I just had one quick observation more than anything. Why the big difference between Oertel Architects and the other two were considerably higher. Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s a great question and that’s one of the questions that we asked Oertel Architects when we interviewed them on Monday, and their come back was that we’ve designed you know several, you know over 2 dozen public works buildings here in the last 8 years. We’ve got the background. The expertise for this. We don’t have to go in books and call up vendors and ask them questions and spend time researching different ideas and new techniques. They already have the background and knowledge to move forward on this project so. Councilman Litsey: That’s great. I just, it seemed like a big difference. Paul Oehme: Yeah, it is. Councilman Litsey: It makes sense. Paul Oehme: It’s over 2,000 hours worth of time that we think we can save by using Oertel. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Oertel is also familiar with this. They helped us with some of the preliminary legwork as we were going through the justification for the public works. I think that also helps them. I think they also understand the scope of the work. That they’re going to get a prepped site ready for footings the day the contractor would come on site. So you know that’s a very cost saving measure when it comes to an architect also because they have to take into account soil borings and soil correction that might be related to this project, and having that site prepped prior to is also a cost savings measure. Oertel, like Paul has mentioned, this is their 10 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 area of expertise is public works buildings and they’ve done a lot of them and they know what is involved with designing and administering construction of a public works facility. I’m excited to have staff, to have the opportunity to recommend them to you and they understand the whole scope. From cranes to the systems for maintaining the thickness of concrete. They’ve got a tight spec and a good spec to bid out this project so, as Paul stated we recommend Oertel and the price that is one that is not to exceed the dollar amount that they’re proposing so there is some flex of about $40,000 in there that they would have to justify that additional $40,000 for that to occur. Mayor Furlong: So I guess to clarify that, because that was one of my questions. Mr. Oehme you mentioned that it’s time and materials but it’s also not to exceed. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. You were able to check references for this one as well? Paul Oehme: Yes. I’ve checked several cities, communities that they’ve worked with in the past and most recently the one, the public works building that they designed and helped construct in Waconia and the city manager highly recommends them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this item at this time? Okay. Why don’t we go ahead and talk about item 4(d) as well. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. This item is an interim use permit application request to work the site. Removing poor soils from the site and bringing in potentially new structural fill in the amount of approximately 15,000 cubic yards to prep the site for a future public works facility. nd The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 2 to review the IUP and the Planning Commission had no issues or concerns with the proposed project. The drawing here, I’ll briefly show you is the proposed site on the public works facility. It’s off of Park Place which is north of Park Road and south of Trunk Highway 5. Audubon Road is right here. So it’s approximately 10 acres of land that potentially will be needed for the future public works facility, but about only 2/3 of the property right now is recommended to be included in the IUP for grading at this time. We discovered that there are some additional wetlands that weren’t originally on our drawings or on our city maps so we need to address those before we can potentially redevelop the site at this time. So staff and Planning Commission recommended adoption and the recommendations are on page 7 and 8 of your package so. The drawing that was included in your packet has been updated with all of the recommended contingencies or the recommendations that were discussed at the Planning Commission have been updated on this drawing so we are in full compliance and concur with the recommendations that are included in the package. Mayor Furlong: This item did go through the Planning Commission, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And Planning Commission had approval, recommended approval? 11 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. As we’re going through all these four items it occurs to me now, perhaps taking a step back, while the City Council and staff have been working on our options relating to public works facilities, those watching at home or in the audience maybe haven’t had a chance of how we’ve gotten here. It’s been an item that we’ve been talking about for a number of months. We’ve evaluated a number of alternatives. I know you don’t have any presentation prepared Mr. Oehme, but maybe you could just give a quick executive summary on what brought us to today with all these different four items and bonding and correcting soils and architects and such like that. Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely. This discussion actually at a staff level has been going on since 2006, and actually prior to that in 1990 a small addition to the public works, existing public works building was proposed at that time but we never, was never built upon. Staff had drafted in 2007 a feasibility study, a needs study for the public works, and that includes a park and maintenance departments as well. Utilities is included and streets and fleet maintenance. And the recommendation that came out of that report was to, well actually there’s four options that were looked at. One was to expand upon the existing site. The existing site is only about 5 acres of property and the existing building structures are only about 24,000 square feet of space. Currently the facility is over capacity. Thus the need for the new public works facility. It’s kind of a mess out there. There’s, we have to park vehicles outside right now which, especially in the wintertime is very problematic. Our lifts are very old. Our roof leaks. They’re over capacity. The building originally was built in 1980 and had one addition to it since then, but the feasibility study that we looked at justified that with the current fleet size and the amount of growth that we are expecting here in the city up until 2030, we couldn’t recommend adding onto that facility knowing that you know, if we built an addition onto the existing facility. One, we wouldn’t have room to begin with for current needs. And then two, we just don’t have the space available to plan for future growth as well. So that was one option that we looked at. Another couple options we looked at, was it 3 or 4 existing facilities in the city. Warehouse type facilities and trying to retrofit a warehouse facility to a public works application, and what we found was it’s very difficult and costly to make those type of transitions from one type of use to a facility that would need vehicles to run in and out with exhaust and everything. HVAC is a problem. You know typically where we’re running bigger trucks, bigger loaders and the warehouse type facilities are just not set up for those type of applications so cost wise if we were to have to buy a facility and make the improvements necessary for a public works facility, it just didn’t pan out for us. The facilities that we looked at. So we do have this site that’s available that the city currently owns. It’s about, I think it was 24 acres, but only about 10 of it is developable. The site currently is used for, we call it a bone yard to stockpile material with brush, tree limbs, dirt piles, sealcoat aggregate we stock there on occasion. And when we looked at this site, looked at what our needs, where currently and into the future, this site came out as our best option for a new facility and going through the process in 2007 and this year with the council, that’s how we came to this recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Appreciate the summary. Any questions then with regard to the interim use permit for the grading. At this point. Okay. Alright. At this point then we’ve 12 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 discussed or received staff’s reports on each of the items. 4(a) through (d) for a variety of purposes. Let’s take these as individual motions rather than a single motion, even though based on the staff report a simple majority is required for each item to approve. So are there any other questions at this point? Otherwise is there a motion for item 4(a)? Councilman McDonald: Yes Your Honor. I’ll make a motion for item 4(a). I would make the following motion. The City Council adopts a resolution approving the creation of a CIP plan and adoption of a resolution giving preliminary approval of issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, not to exceed $8.5 million from 2008 to 2012. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2008-46A: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the creation of a CIP plan and adoption of a resolution giving preliminary approval of issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, not to exceed $8.5 million from 2008 to 2012. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Let’s move on now then to item 4(b). Are there any questions on this item? If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion on this one also Your Honor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: I make the following motion. The City Council adopts a resolution providing for the sale of $7,550,000 of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any, is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? Resolution #2008-47: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution providing for the sale of $7,550,000 of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Move now to item 4(c). 13 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just on those first two items. The suggested changes that staff proposed prior to were included in those motions? Mayor Furlong: That’s my understanding. Does anybody not have that understanding? Councilman Litsey: That’s my understanding. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 4(c) then. Is there any questions on this? If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Okay, I’ll make the motion for 4(c) also Your Honor. I would make the following motion. The City Council is recommended to direct staff to enter into an architectural contract with Oertel Architects, Ltd. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council direct staff to enter into an architectural contract with Oertel Architects, Ltd. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 4-0. And the last item, item 4(d). Councilman Litsey: Sure I’ll do it. Mayor Furlong: Might as well get in the minutes. Councilman Litsey: You were on a roll but, don’t want to interrupt the flow here but Chanhassen City Council approves an Interim Use Permit to permit up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill, plans prepared by the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department dated August 4, 2008, subject to conditions 1 through 18 and adopting of the attached Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any discussion on this item? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves an Interim Use Permit to permit up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill, plans prepared by the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department dated August 4, 2008 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact, subject to the following conditions: 14 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 1.A demolition permit is required for the removal of any structure(s). 2.If future construction in this area is anticipated, these soils must be engineered for the intended structural loads and their placement must be properly compacted and tested as required by such soil engineering. A report, verifying placement, compaction and soil suitability, from the testing agency will be required before building permits will be issued. 3.Install tree protection fencing at grading limits on north, where applicable, and west sides prior to grading. 4.Clearing limits shall be inspected by the Environmental Resources Specialist prior to any tree removal. 5.Wetland boundary, as field identified, needs to be shown on the drawing. 6.Grading limits need to be modified to avoid impacts to the revised wetland boundary. 7.Category 2 erosion control blanket needs to be shown on the slope in the northeast corner of the property. 8.All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within seven (7) days after the construction activity in that portion has temporarily or permanently ceased. 9.All disturbed areas shall be seeded with Mn/DOT Mixture 150 at 40 lbs/acre and mulched with Type 2 mulch disc-anchored at 2 tons/acre upon completion of grading for the interim use permit. 10.The grading plan should be adjusted so that the drainage areas will not be altered, otherwise drainage calculations are required. 11.The existing sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer and drainage and utility easements must be shown on the plan. 12.The grading limits in the northeast corner of Lot 6 must be shifted in order to maintain minimum 7.5 feet of cover over the watermain. 13.Provide additional information to the Metropolitan Council in order to determine the maximum extent of grading allowed over the sanitary sewer. 14.Abide by the Metropolitan Council’s conditions of approval, if any. 15.Permitted hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or legal holidays. 15 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 16.The interim use permit will expire one year from the date of City Council approval. The permit may be renewed on an annual basis subject to City Council approval. Request for an extension must be submitted 45 days prior to the expiration date. 17.All permits must be acquired prior to grading, including but not limited to a watershed district permit, and a Minnesota Pollution Control NPDES stormwater permit. A stormwater pollution prevention plan must be submitted to the City for review by Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 18.The grading plan must be signed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for everyone involved. There’s a lot of work ahead of us but this is something that we’re going to need to pursue to support our growth and provide quality city services so thank you for everyone involved. 2009 BUDGET: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2009 PRELIMINARY LEVY. th Greg Sticha: Thanks again Mayor. At our August 28 work session staff reviewed the general fund budget and preliminary levy with City Council, and discussions were made about the setting of preliminary levy this evening. One of the requests that the City Council had made at that meeting was shifting the market value homestead credit out of the general fund and into the revolving assessment construction fund and we have done so with these documents. That revenue has now been shifted to the revolving assessment construction fund as per your request. A couple other items I just want to kind of note on and review, getting people caught up from our last work session meeting. Just a reminder that for 2009 the State legislature has put levy limits into place. In the staff memo I have listed the maximum increase in levy that we would be allowed by state law, and the amount that the proposed preliminary levy presented to you tonight. We are increasing by, a difference is about $36,000 between that and the maximum allowed by the legislature. It should be noted that even if we do not levy up to the maximum amount allowed by the legislature this year, we can capture that amount in future years. I confirmed that with the Department of Revenue. We are allowed to capture that difference in future years if we wish to do so. That’s currently in the state law. As with anything in the legislature, they could certainly change that law and take that provision away from us but currently within the law it does provide for us to capture the difference between what we do levy this year and what the levy limit is. I would also like to just take a quick opportunity to kind of review some of the budget numbers that have been presented to you in the previous work session meetings but kind of get people caught up at home as to what the budget includes for 2009. The preliminary budget for the general fund shows an increase of approximately $640,000 in expenditures. Of that increase, nearly $600,000 of the increase is for increased wages and benefits for employees in the general fund, an increase in the police services contract, and about $170,000 for increased, anticipated increase in utility and fuel costs to the city that we are planning for 2009. The budget does include 1.25 FTE police officers for next year, and all other services to remain the same based on the preliminary budget that is presented before you this 16