 Okay, let's go ahead and get started here today. Thank you for joining us in the chamber. We have one individual here today and we appreciate the participation. We likely will have more people joining on Zoom. We are recording this so we can use it for future reference. Today the topic of conversation is our development services fee study. And the fees that we're actually looking at today are service or user fees. They're really two different fee categories when you look at development services. They're user fees or what are commonly referred to as impact fees. Impact fees are one-time fees that really go to the impact that a project has on public infrastructure and they're used to program the mitigation of that impact long-term. A lot of conversations at the state level about impact fees and the timing of those fees. This study is not addressing those. This study gets into user fees or fees that we provide for a very specific purpose. So I need to pause here while we work out the PowerPoint. Bear with us here. Okay, it looks like we're running again. So as I mentioned, the service fees are fees that go into the service that city staff provide to an applicant. And the most common service you see are plan review fees, inspection fees. These have a very private benefit and they're usually directly to an applicant to support private development. So they're really under a different fee category and that's the topic of conversation for today. And when we look at those fees, because we're putting staff hours to a specific process, we always look at the level of cost recovery that we attempt to achieve with that fee. So where we are in the process now is we are really starting our first pass at determining what the actual 100% cost would be for providing a service. So our analysis always starts at 100% and as it goes through the adoption process that can change. There's a variety of different reasons as to why a fee can be subsidized and we'll talk about that a little bit later in the presentation. We, back in 2004, the council approved financial strategies to start with 100% cost recovery. Prior to 2004, development services were, it was heavily subsidized based on the general fund and then there was a bit of a shift in 2004 where it moved more towards analysis that tried to achieve 100% cost recovery. And then just a little background on our fees. Our most recent user development fee was completed in 2013. That was adopted by city council in 2014. We did a minor adjustment to some of the fees in 2017. That actually didn't include a lot of the key areas that are core building engineering and planning services. And then just to point out the funding and the budget for this is based on 2022, 2023 budget numbers. So that'll hold as you look at some specific dollars as we move forward. When we look at the user fees once again, these are really the core services in the department. So it goes into our planning team actually doing planning review for private development applications. There's permit processing that goes into that. Plan review and inspection are the most important. As I mentioned before, 100% cost recovery is the target level. When we look at less than 100% cost recovery, that is usually when you have some level of a public benefit that's put into the process. An example I can provide now is when someone replaces a public sidewalk that offers the benefit outside of just the property owner's benefit. Also, when we look at landmark alterations where you're maintaining the historic characteristic of the city, that provides a public benefit as well. Now, when we look at planning and economic development, it becomes a fairly straightforward calculation on how our department is funded. We get revenue from fees and we have total expenditures and any dollar amounts that don't come in through fees are generally supported by the general fund. There are certain elements that can be supported by grants or other one-time projects, but for the most part, it's general fund assistance. So the chart here actually shows our permit total and that's looking from 2015 to 2023. And we can see that the blue is building, which is really the vast majority of our permit totals. The yellow or engineering specific permit and the green is planning. And generally what you see over almost a 10-year cycle is there's a slight curve where it grows, peaks, and then slows down a little bit. And that's generally what we see with development applications. What we saw in this is 2018 and 19, we had a bit of a dip that was mainly COVID. There was a lot of reduced activity during that timeframe. But what we've seen over time is really the expenditures grow and we'll discuss why that occurs. And if the fees are not adjusted, the revenue has a tendency to say flat. So what it does is it grows the difference between the revenue line and the expenditure line and that's where the general fund participation comes into play. So it actually increases our general fund burden over time. When we look at specifically the building division, I'm gonna have our chief building official, Jesse Oswald, talk through this. This gets to be very specific to building and you can talk about some of the unique factors that result in the chart. All right, thank you, Gabe. So as you can see, the graph here is similar to the previous graph for the overall department needs, but it has some significant more sharp peaks and valleys in it. And over the period of time, again, following the same trend for the entire department planning and economic development, the representation of the revenue versus volume versus expenditures, there are points in time where everything followed fairly regularly, but then you can see that expenditures at some points maybe exceeded revenue or the opposite way can happen as well. And many times if we're obtaining more revenue and not expending that revenue that comes into that high volume, and honestly speaking, that's because we're not able to perform to that volume. So we have this money waiting for us to spend it on doing the plan reviews and inspections and the resource wasn't available. So staffing maybe not be available for us to go higher or utilize some of that revenue for outside services to come and help us with, say, plan review inspection or even processing. So that's part of the trends that you'll see in some of those mismatched lines where revenue and expenditures don't match. Okay, thank you, Jesse. And then when we look at the engineering division, which really focuses on the review and approval of public infrastructure, we see some different trends. What we see here is the permitting activity spikes a bit in 2021, and I do wanna point out that this is excluding any fire rebuild, revenue or permit totals. This is really regular business in the department. The engineering team processes encroachment permits and we saw significant spikes in PG&E's activity level, which really drove up those permits. It also drove up the revenue along with that. But with the engineering side, we see on the expenditures, which that's mainly when the expenditures go down, it's professional services. So we sort of see spikes in the expenditures based on the current activity levels. And we see a pretty big separation between the revenue and the expenditure line. And I think that when we look at public improvements, there are a lot of divisions within the city that support that, and that cost is not necessarily captured in those fees. So the analysis we're looking at moving forward is a true 100% cost calculation that focuses on all the teams that support the review and approval of public improvement plans. And that will assist those lines closing in the future. Okay, so this next slide here is for the planning division just for anybody watching. And in chambers, my name is Jessica Jones. I'm the deputy director for planning. So I think one of the things to really focus on for this particular one is the drop in applications received. Obviously, it's a lot of that had to do with COVID and where we see a real dip in revenue. It follows that pretty well, but the other thing to keep in mind with this one, with our revenues was this was also around the time that the planning division was looking at really trying to streamline and expedite our processes and help development get through our process in an easier way. And through that, we developed the reduced review authority process. So a lot of permits that otherwise would have had a much higher cost and gone to, say our planning commission or design review board were now being looked at in through minor use permits and minor design review going to our zoning administrator. So we really did see a drop in revenue for that. But it was for a good purpose to help these processes through. So I think that's kind of the key thing for this particular slide. Thank you, Jessica. And just really quickly, as we go through this, our project objectives, anytime we modify our fee structure, one of the key elements is to ensure that the fee structure is easy for people to understand. And in many situations, people interpret that as less fees is better than more. And that isn't necessarily always the case. In this particular case, we're adding more fees to the schedule, but we also can program those through a calculator where we're calling out individual fees that more align with the specific requests people want to do. So for example, if someone is replacing a section of sidewalk, we have a line item cost for that. Prior to that, the fee structure focuses on a valuation concept where a property owner needs to know the cost of those improvements to be able to calculate the fee. So that's an example of actually making the fee schedule simpler. We also need to define what the cost is to the city to perform the fees. And that's really the analysis that we've published now. It looks at 100% cost recovery for the variety of different fees that we provide. We also need to determine whether there are any services where a fee should be collected. So in many situations, it could be due to additional state requirements. We end up quite a bit with unfunded mandates that come to the city to enforce on the development side. It could be through the state. It could be through the county. And over time, that throws additional work into the process that doesn't have a fee and a cost recovery to that. So as part of this analysis, we look at all the services we're provided to ensure that there is a fee associated with that service. We also have to identify service areas where the city might adjust fees based on full cost of service or other economic or policy considerations. We'll talk a little bit about this in one of the last slides, but this is really the first step in community engagement. We will be doing a council study session on the 30th. And that discussion will discuss whether we really should be settling at 100% cost recovery on some of these fees. We always recommend that, but we allow the community to provide feedback where that does not work well or they see a different avenue for that or they can justify that there is a reasonable and a big public benefit for that subsidy. So that's the feedback that we're trying to encourage as part of this process. So the project methodology, the analysis to determine the cost of providing fee for service activities is comprised of two basic elements. We do look at the fully burden hourly rate of staff providing the service, and it's time spent, so it's really multiplied. There isn't a lot of overhead. There aren't materials that go into that. Really most of these services are simply staff time involved in a process. The product of the hourly rate calculation multiplied by the time spent yields the average of cost providing the service. When we look at the hours involved in a process, I think it's important to note that that average hour calculation is based on how the process should be done efficiently. We work together as a group to determine how we can efficiently deploy staff, and we generate an average hour calculation for that, and then that is multiplied by the rate. There has to be a clear nexus to the service being provided and the fee being charged. So in this particular case, as we review a development application, that is providing a direct benefit to that private applicant, and that's what the nexus study identifies. Of course, the fee adjustments recommended by MGT who is our consultant, I apologize, I forgot to mention that up front, that has processed the initial fee study, and will be helping us with any formal fee calculations and schedules that move forward as part of this process. But none of the fees that are included in the study are considered a tax under Proposition 26, which is an important piece to this element. So when we look at the results, the fee study is fairly large. The document is posted on the city's website. We do have a website section spun up, and we'll provide that information on the back end. There's quite a few elements in there. Overall, the fees, when we said 100% cost recovery will increase, and there's a few different reasons for that. We have not amended the fees in quite some time, so we just have a general increase in operational costs. It's more expensive to provide the same level of service now than it was 10 years ago. We also have additional cross support hours that are brought into the equation. As processes evolve with time, and as we're expected to do more at the state or county level on specific development processes, it brings more hours into the equation, and those hours come from different departments. So if transportation and public works is assisting us with a development review application or the fire department is partnering with that review, then we're including those cross support hours into it. Historically, those cross support hours have not been included in quite a few of the applications that are included in the study. We also have additional state and federal requirements for increasing staff hours. Much of the effort that is put into stormwater compliance at the state level over the years, that really has not had a cost recovery element into it, and we've been working an efficient process over the last five to six years on how to enforce that, and those are now being reviewed as part of the study. As we look at some of the housing legislation, SB9, SB35, that changes how we review housing applications. We have tested that out over the last few years. We now have good data to understand how long it takes to have to review those, and we're bringing additional fees into the mix. New fees will be added for that reason. So when you look at transportation and public works, because of those, those aren't really cross support hours that they put into an application. They're just additional services that they have to do from an operational standpoint to support development. So as we put streetlights into flash to support different development in that area, or we act, excuse me, traffic signals in flash, if we activate streetlights, that's all an operational cost on transportation and public works, and in this particular case, they have triggered additional fees. As I mentioned before, there's been state legislation, that's now being captured. We also have situations where a single fee would have grabbed multiple categories, and an example I can give is we had one encroachment permit fee that would cover all work that one would do in front of their property, and that has been broken off to individual fees based on the specific improvement that someone is attempting to do. So for example, there's a line item cost for a driveway approach or a sidewalk. That's really done from a clarity standpoint, so that was done to make it easier to calculate and easier for the public to understand. And I think it's important to note that we also, although we do see increases, we're also seeing decreases, and those decreases are often due to process improvements. So we find more efficient ways to analyze and review a process. We've shifted staffing resources over time to coordinate efforts and to consolidate efforts, and now as part of the study, we're seeing that result in some situations on a fairly significant fee reduction. So the next few slides, and I will have Jesse present these, these provide a few different project examples in a few different categories. We have single family projects and a few commercial projects, and they really run through what the project would look like under our current fee and what it would look like under our new fee and show the difference. So I'll let Jesse describe these slides. All right, thank you, Gabe. So we do have all three of our divisions represented here, and you see the percentages of changes. And of course, there are increases, say for large residential subdivisions, so we're talking primarily subdivision of 100 units, single family dwellings, and what those fees currently look like for the building division and then the proposed fee, and you'll see the difference. And that was analyzed through looking at historical data really actually, again, much like Gabe spoke to is what does it actually take to do the work? And a deep dive into some of the permit types, single family dwellings, how much were we getting paid for? How many inspections were we doing? How much time did it take to review? And the analysis brought forth some of the increases because of just an evolution of the construction industry and maybe needing more, not maybe actually needing more inspections, whereas previous years, say 15 years ago or more, inspections weren't needed as often due to less regulation and both at the state and local regional level and also the pool of builders and their abilities to be able to manage and construct projects in a way that now seems to take more inspections. Planning, the changes in planning are a very, very low percentage of change overall for this type of project and then engineering, much to what Gabe was speaking about, the specific changes to the engineering fees and going to a more refined change in how those fees are looked at and charged based on actual hours in review and inspection. Here we have a large multifamily project, apartments generally speaking, 100 units and we had numerous over the past three to five years examples to be able to go back and review, look at the effort exerted on reviewing and inspecting and or approving the projects versus what we were actually getting paid for and you'll see some significant increases from building perspective on the building permit fees, meaning plan review and inspection primarily and that was a result of really looking again at the number of hours needed and utilized to review these projects, again, significantly increased due to the very robust increase in regulation over the past several years and the additional number of inspections and or review needed to verify those new regulations. Planning entitlements and so forth through the entitlement process, again, like Jessica referred to earlier, so many of the projects that we've seen over the past several years really read the benefit of that reduced review authority but there was no back end to making up the cost for doing those reviews and getting them to approval where most of these projects still take the same amount of effort that the previous higher fee took, we just didn't recover that cost, so this is a representation of the actual time cost it's gonna take to get these through again at full cost recovery. Engineering very similar, not a huge change there, more refinement in the projects themselves in how we actually execute what we're doing as far as reviews and depending on the project type, this is a pretty significant evolution over the last five or so years and engineering involvement and development has shifted fairly dramatically from the multiple, multiple subdivisions with a lot of public improvements versus these large single lot subdivisions where we're most many times looking at frontage improvements only. So these fees from the engineering perspective are gonna reflect that effort time again needed. And here we have another example which is one of the hotter items across the state has been for several years, accessory dwelling units. Here you'll see from the building perspective there's an overall taking an average of a 700 square foot unit, $400 or 9% reduction in fees again based on the effort we've seen with not having many of these to refer to in the past. We now know looking at the effort needed to do these is reducing a small amount from the building perspective. Planning essentially has the same process across the board for single family dwellings. ADUs are very specific to planning that there's no entitlement allowed or required generally speaking in ADUs. And then engineering we found there's a change in the needed potential public improvements frontage-wise that engineering has to undertake and reflected here in what that effort is gonna be. And we move on to another popular cornerstone as far as comparing to other agencies and these are tenant improvements. We've made some significant changes in tenant improvements on how they're gonna be feed. The previous fee schedule tried to fit all tenant improvements into a one size fits all. And that was very difficult for not only applicants but staff to try to manage on what a tenant improvement really is and there's a pretty wide range of what a tenant improvement could be from somebody literally coming in and freshening up an existing retail space to putting new fixtures, what we call them gondolas or clothes hang type things and very minor changes physically to the building versus a tenant improvement where somebody takes a previous business office and turns it into a restaurant. So we were categorizing these to be less of a one size fits all and for those to make more sense, applicant-wise, fee structure-wise and for the city itself to be able to manage those. Planning again, these increases are due to the actual time spent and again, there's not a huge percentage sometimes but when planning has to be involved in these, the effort that goes into tenant improvements can be significant and looking at the actual time it takes again reflects here in the potential change in the fee structure and then engineering very similar to planning what it actually takes time-wise plus the cross support sometimes really, really has to look at the effort needed city-wide cross all departments that have input into it. Thank you, Jesse. And as part of this process, we also do anytime we change rate structure or fees, we look at where we fall with some of our neighboring jurisdictions. So we always do a peer analysis and it really allows us to get a sense of where the local market is sitting with fees and many jurisdictions will change fees on a five to 10 year cycle. So we often end in a situation where we're changing fees at the same time as other jurisdictions. So this can shift through the process and the comparison study really is only an estimate where we're doing our best to compare line item to line item, but there can be some complexities in the calculation that can make it a little challenging. The peer jurisdictions we use in this particular case are the city of Petaluma, the city of San Rafael, the city of Vacaville, the city of Roaner Park, the city of Napa and Sonoma County. One of the big pieces is on our comparison survey and I'll hand this over to Jessica is what we refer to as an advanced planning fee which goes into cost recovery for some of the long range policy work we do. And I think this is an important one to talk about because it really does add a percentage or a surcharge onto the fees, but it's a really critical element on how we'll move long range planning forward in the future. So Jessica, do you wanna describe this slide? Yeah, thank you, Gabe. So as Gabe mentioned, advanced planning fee is really looking at how we can address the policy work that we do moving forward and the policy work affects all of our development in the city. Generally speaking, it is looking long term out into the future and how the city is gonna develop, but it affects how we develop all of our areas, residential, commercial, industrial, all of it. And the advanced planning fee helps fund necessary updates to our large policy documents, including our general plan. It's kind of the general plan and the housing element are really the key pieces that we, this fee funds at this point in time. The housing element is required to be updated every eight years and the general plan, generally speaking, is updated about every 10 years. And it takes a significant amount of not only staff time, but consultant time in preparing those documents and this fee helps support that effort. What we're looking at right now, so the current fee is a flat fee that is on certain building division permits that move forward. What we're looking at doing is a percentage based on, again, building permit fees, but we're also looking at attaching it to planning fees as well. And then looking at the other jurisdictions, most jurisdictions, it's a percentage of a building permit fee of some sort. It's not necessarily an apples to apples comparison right now, but generally speaking, it is a percentage of building permit, either the valuation or the permit itself for the other jurisdictions that we've looked at. And really what we're trying to do with the proposed fee moving forward in addition to moving it to a percentage base and then looking at it for both building and planning fees or permits, we're looking to increase it to help fund some of the other really integral things that we do and policy work that is integral to everything that the city does. And so in addition to the general plan and the housing element, that would be our zoning code. And that's incredibly important because every property in the city has to be reviewed against the zoning code and our zoning code was last updated in 2004 and that's really just an incredibly long time for us to be not updating our code. So we're hoping to generate these fees to help keep our zoning code updated, which ultimately will leave to efficiencies as we get the code more in line with state regulations and just a more modern zoning code. Absolutely, not every. So basically the study actually excludes certain building permit types. So from a nexus study standpoint and the building permits that are often excluded are your trade permits, health, life, safety, hot water heater, it would be associated with on an average volume the number of permits that benefit from the long range planning work. Now, and I think the important point is that what this is doing is it's essentially saying for supporting a general plan on a regular cycle for performing the zoning code, it looks at basically the permit volume, the total cost of providing those services and it's setting the fee at that. So the answer is yes, if that's the direction that the fee ultimately goes. So the study at this point is essentially saying that's where it needs to be to get 100% cost recovery if you want to fund these programs within this cycle. All right, it's all making sense then. Okay, so the other comparison that we do, this is the most common that you'll see in comparison studies, it really looks at housing. Obviously there's been a big push in the county overall to develop new housing units. So what we have here is we have our current fee, we have what we've determined to be our full cost and then where do we compare with the agencies that are involved in our study? And I think what we've seen, and this really is due to efficiencies, if we've seen single family costs actually drop, so we're seeing a reduction there of a few hundred dollars but that actually puts us lower than the median and the average and that is 100% cost recovery. So that's a good sign, it's showing that the efficiencies are actually resulting in good work for the applicant, they're turning permits around quickly and they're doing it at a lower cost. Multi-family is historically where we've had really low fees. So as you saw on the slide, Jesse presented, that fee is jumping up fairly dramatically. So you see we went from 29 to 54 for that type of project but you can see we're actually fairly low still. We're around the median and we're lower than the average. The multi-family projects take a significant amount of staff time throughout the city to process and I think that's what you're seeing reflect in many of these fees. I think it's important to note what some of the other jurisdictions move forward with which we are not proposing is generally a full 100% cost recovery with the fee. So as an applicant you pay a deposit once that deposit is exhausted you pay more and you're essentially paying whatever the actual rate is for the application review. We are not proposing that, that provides some challenges with transparency and process and the applicant understanding the predictability of the fee and it adds another layer of administration. So really we are sticking with an average cost but what we're seeing is many jurisdictions especially with public improvements are starting to move forward to that full cost recovery model. Absolutely. Yeah and I can actually answer that and I think that when we get into the council presentation there'll be more of a discussion about subsidies and the subsidies that we're seeing now are taking a variety of different shapes and forms. Obviously a very large push to support housing. Quite a bit of conversation at the state level now as I mentioned earlier about waiving impact fees. Service fees are not included in that conversation but I think the important thing to note about fees is there's legal parameters around those. So for example, one rate payer cannot subsidize another. So if you elected to subsidize encroachment permit fees we cannot take building permit revenue and offset that cost. There has to be another funding source and that funding source is the general fund and I think as more subsidies come in then it increases the general fund burden and then the discussion is what does that impact look like long-term to the general fund and where are those dollars coming from and how are they impacting other services throughout the city. So the subsidy conversation does get very challenging. We have seen it over the years, touch on a variety of different things. The current fees that we have in place were subsidized to support development. Those subsidies came into the form of anything from 75 to 90%, there's a variety of different subsidies baked into our current fee schedule. That is one of the reasons why you really see the jump. But that is a discussion that will happen on the 30th. We'll talk more about that and really what we're trying to do is obtain feedback from the council to better understand where they would like to see the subsidies. And that really leads me into the next steps in this process. So as I mentioned, we do have a study session on January 30th. That study session really is going to provide is hopefully as much input as possible from the community and the city council regarding this study and where should the fees fall? Because the next step in the process is as we move forward, we're presenting an adoption for a new fee schedule based on this study. And that in between the council meeting on the 30th and then our target date for an adoption hearing in March, we will be taking whatever feedback we receive, working that into a fee schedule that meets that and then moving it forward for adoption. So that's really our timeline. Once we adopt new fees, and if hopefully that happens in March from March to April, we'll really be looking at quite a bit more outreach to applicants that are actively going through the process so they can understand how this impacts their projects in particular, just the development community in general that has future projects. And then really to have people adjust to a new fee schedule, we delay the adoption and we will be proposing an adoption where the fees become in effect on July 1st of this year. So that will provide a little time for the development community to adjust to the new fee schedule. So that brings us to our final slide. And I'm happy at this point to take any questions or feedback. I know we have a small participation in the chamber today, but we're prepared to help people out with any specific project questions. If there's any questions between now and the 30th, we're more than happy to be available. You can email to me directly with those questions. And if there's a specific question about how it affects a project in the mix, we're more than happy to address those. So with that, any additional questions? No, I think it absolutely does. And I think that when we've seen some of the items break at the state level for ADUs, we actually saw a pretty significant jump across the city in the production of ADUs. We have a high number of ADUs that are produced on a daily basis. We have those numbers accessible. I don't have them in front of me, but we can provide them. I think when you look at incentivizer encouragement, one of the pieces, and I think you can look at this from a subsidy standpoint too, this is one of the reasons why fees were subsidized because oftentimes people either have a misconception about the barriers or the barriers are real when it comes to those financial constraints. So in this particular case, if we're to encourage ADUs, we've done some creative approaches with streamlining them for a period of time. We've created some efficiencies on that review. So there's been a lot of work to actually encourage the development of ADUs. I think the question is more specific to a certain area and when you have those lots, especially when it comes into the city and people don't necessarily understand the development potential or the benefits, it's often one of the challenges we have as a department that you really just get scared off by the process in general. So one of the items that we've really been trying to focus on over the last few months is really bolstering up our customer service in general, encouraging people to come in and talk about proposals. How can we do one sheets and additional resources where it makes it clear for them to understand that? So misconception is not the reason why you elected not to do it. So I think it's a great idea. It's really just, I think it's falling back on how we can just better serve the public from a customer service standpoint, specifically when it comes to housing development, especially the housing development that we see is providing units with the existing space. It is probably the most common path people are using to allow their children to stay in Santa Rosa. The ADUs have a really distinct benefit. And with SB9 coming through, where you can actually subdivide and build a smaller units, there is a lot of options that are sort of the tools in the toolbox now with those larger lots that weren't necessarily in place. And some of those we're still wrapping our head around. But I think that really there is a focus on that. I think as a jurisdiction, we can do better from a customer service standpoint to bolster that up a little bit. So I really appreciate that comment. And I don't know if the team has anything else they would like to add to that. Yeah, I'll just add a couple of things. So I think it kind of comes down to customer services, Gabe said. We do actually have a tremendous amount of information on our website about ADUs, process map on how to go through the process, the application checklist, there's an ADU calculator to calculate out how much that would cost to do an ADU. And we also have pre-reviewed plans that are up on the website that people can download and use to help through that process. In addition to just the reduced fees and for the smaller units reduced to no impact fees. So there's really a tremendous amount of information that is available on our website. But I think to Gabe's point, we could do a better job of, for our customer service of getting that information out. So it is more readily available for folks that live in various other parts of the city that may not be aware of that. That's often a tricky question if you're looking for the total costs for doing the work. And there's a few different reasons for that. So SB9 is one of the new legislations that came down from the state. We have had some experience over the last year working with SB9 projects, understanding the staff impacts associated with that. And that's one of the new fees that's coming in. And I see Jessica looking it up right now as to what the proposed cost is. One of the challenging things for an applicant or a resident is that there's fees to the city, but then also they're hiring licensed professionals to and surveyors to prepare the map. So most of the costs they incur are actually on the development and the plan preparation side. And that's the piece that's very difficult for us to estimate because whatever the market is doing as far as labor on the private side controls that. So I haven't heard really total package costs to do the lot. What's happening with SB9 is we're seeing a variety of different things. We're seeing just a simple lot carved off for future development or we're seeing a lot carved off with a smaller unit or we're seeing the lot carved off with the full allowance of the full density allowed under SB9. And so there's a few different options there. But Jessica, do you have the proposed fee for the SB9 application? Yeah, so the current fee that we charge for SB9 for the lot split is about $6,500. And then the proposed at full cost recovery if we were to go to that would be about $8,800. So not a huge difference there. And I think that there's difference in the frontage requirements. I could be remembering that. Yeah, and then what happens is you have to go through really the eligibility finding for SB9. And then most of the lots that we're seeing, if you're on an unimproved street, subdivisions are actually required to do frontage improvements. But what we often see is when the lot is created in the back of a longer, deep lot, they actually get out of frontage improvements because the lot is configured to where it really doesn't have a frontage because it's what we refer to as a flagpole configuration where the vast majority of the lot is in the back and there's a small strip that accesses. So they're really just doing a driveway. We do have a map review fee associated with that one. I don't recall what that is off the top of my head, but I can look in the engineering fee schedule to see what that would look like. But yeah, that's really your complete package. You have the eligibility and then you have the actual review of the formal engineering design and construction drawings. Yeah, absolutely. Any additional questions? Well, typically, and I'll let Jess talk about the advanced planning side, but I think that what you're shifting to is more of the impact fee analysis. So when we look at impact fees, you referenced the Southwest, when that program was removed, the capital facilities fee, which is more of the city-wide impact fee, stepped in and addressed everything in the city. And then you have a park impact fee that addresses the park component of it. We also have a housing impact fee and then we have sewer and water demand fees, which we refer to as impact fees. So typically the next study for the fee is that when you go into developing the fee, you have to determine the need. And the need is typically generated by a project list or the general plan or a specific plan. And then it determines the proportionate share of that need and then it creates the connection to that need from the development. So for example, as you're increasing population, they need parks. So that's the nexus fee analysis. I think one of the challenges we are running into is there is a lot of pressure under those fee programs more statewide and how do departments and jurisdictions then develop those improvements in the absence of that revenue stream and what sort of percentage of the overall project cost is that revenue stream. But I think you need to get the list first. So the advanced planning fee, I think definitely helps because it's looking at doing those governing documents on a more regular basis where they go through the community participation. They're able to bake in those requirements. So I think that that's a really important point of understanding what the distribution of parks looks like and without the planning capacity to do that and having that fee there really for that very heavy consultant cost that's associated with those, it becomes problematic to do that in a cycle that stays ahead of an impact fee analysis which in a perfect world would be the sequence of events. But Jessica, did I miss anything in that? Is there anything else you'd like to add? No, I think Gabe, you covered it really well. So I think the advanced planning policy work is really at a very high level and is really gonna be working with the community to determine how much park acreage is needed. Generally speaking, where is it needed? And then that will then help speak to where we're gonna utilize the impact fees when they come in for the different projects. Oh, you're very welcome. And thank you for joining and asking good questions and keeping the conversation going. And always great. And like I said, just as a reminder, the 30th is the next meeting date that will continue the conversation. So that's at the council. Yes, so that's a, it will be three minutes. All right, well, thank you everybody. That concludes the meeting and really appreciate the participation. And on the slide is my contact information. So feel free to reach out if there's any questions between now and the council meeting on the 30th. Thank you.