16:11:25	 From Blage Zelalich : Our colleagues in PBCE have also participated in the internal working group.
16:21:31	 From Kelly Snider : City should cut the Police budget. Find the money by cutting police expenses. It’s over 45% of our city budget. If you cut it by 4% or 6%, how much money is that for Parks and Affordable housing?
16:22:21	 From Kelly Snider : Also, now that Apple Computer is not going to build its EV facility at North First x. Charcot - can we get some of their $2.5Billion “commitment” money for affordable housing and parks?
16:24:29	 From Kelly Snider : Ebay and City of SJ agreed to a “sales tax sharing agreement” that generates about $500M in payments to City. Is any of that money being spent on parks and affordable housing?
16:28:21	 From Kelly Snider : Can the city partner with a certified banking/lending organization (like Housing Trust) to set up a low-interest LOAN fund for SB9 and ADU construction? Then we’d get lots of new NOAH and many of those projects would be paying NEW parks fees and planning fees, etc. If we encourage more gentle density then we grow the pie; raise revenues; provide new NOAH homes and all those new residents would also be paying sales taxes, attending our Viva Parks events, become stakeholders in their community, etc.
16:32:17	 From shilohballard : I like what Kelly is saying.
16:32:24	 From Helen Chapman : Reacted to "I like what Kelly is..." with 👍🏻
16:32:58	 From Blage Zelalich : we're going to make sure to capture the comments in the chat. thank you
16:33:02	 From shilohballard : Also, generally, can you all comment on the impacts some of these options have on department budgets?
16:34:23	 From Rudy Flores : It is good to remember the status of Parks since theirs are under discount consideration here:  #1  Maintenance backlog is $ 464,373,,000 at my last update.  #2 2008-2009 layoffs have never been backfilled since the Great Depression.  # 3 There are moral concerns throughout the Parks department, showing many high-level departures
16:35:19	 From shilohballard : Here’s the description of the briefing session on the poll recently done by Change Research. The session is tomorrow at 9am. Webinar FRIDAY: Navigating Economic Perceptions
We are hosting a webinar that promises to shed light on the complexities of the current economic landscape. The session is titled "Distinguishing Bad Vibes from Bad Trends: A Deep Dive into Economic Perceptions & Messaging for 2024." It is scheduled for March 1st at NOON ET / 9 AM PT. Our esteemed Change Research pollsters, Lauren Goldstein, Stephen Clermont, and Ben Sullivan, will lead the discussion, focusing on:
The discrepancy between macroeconomic indicators and public sentiment.
The influence of partisanship and views on immigration on economic perceptions.
Practical strategies for framing economic issues to highlight solutions over disputes.
This webinar is not only a chance to deepen your understanding but also an opportunity to engage with other experts on framing and addressing economic issues effectively.
16:36:05	 From shilohballard : here’s the link to sign on. If you register, you can then get the recording. https://changeresearch.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_xPd7j4DnRxi-xIrBI6C8pg#/registration
16:38:19	 From Kelly Snider : The economic specialist (the man who was a broker, and used spicy language) at the Cost of Development study session said, very clearly, that no amount of fee adjustments would have an effect on construction viability. The expert said twiddling with these fees is not going to matter - the real issue is cost of borrowing and cost of labor.
16:38:20	 From Helen Chapman : Is the City pursuing any polling on a possible ballot measure to seek revenue?
16:40:09	 From Jean Dresden : Yes,  Kelly. That is what I recall also. What the Fed does with interest rates in mid March will have more impact than anything with fees and they adjust their program quarterly.
16:40:13	 From Jess Zenk, SJDOT (she/her) : Reacted to "Here’s the descripti..." with 👍
16:40:23	 From Kelly Snider : Reacted to "Yes,  Kelly. That is..." with 👍🏼
16:41:22	 From Jeannette Marsala Estate Planning Attorney : Ideally, we need to think beyond relying on developers to pay the park fee to build/improve new parks. It limits our ability to make improvements and is not equitable, where all the money goes to new neighborhoods while our older existing neighborhoods are ignored.
16:42:43	 From Jess Zenk, SJDOT (she/her) : Joe Sordi - Shiloh had a question in the chat above. After Joe Salvato and Jean D., perhaps we could take that one.
16:45:28	 From Kelly Snider : Replying to "Ideally, we need to ..."

Good point. Why arent’ the new logistics centers and other employers paying into parks and affordable housing funds? Asking housing builders to pay for all the parks on new construction (but not going to existing residents, many of whom are land-rich) is inequitable. Every new vape shop that opens up - are they paying into affordalbe housing funds?
16:47:23	 From Kelly Snider : If the San Jose Swim and Raquet Club development were approved and went forward - how much parks and affordable housing fees would that provide to the City of San JOse? (It’s in my neighborhood, fyi).
16:48:09	 From Jeannette Marsala Estate Planning Attorney : Love Jean’s points here
16:49:52	 From Kelly Snider : Ditto for all the Builders Remedy applications - when the City is obligated to approved them (which it will be), they will pay the typical in-lieu fees for parks and housing, right? Can you count up those units (the ones the City has already received) and tell us how much money they would generate? Obviously those applicants can absorb these fees because those properyt owners are ASKING TO PROCEED ASAP. How much money would they provide if they were all approved this calendar year? (including construction taxes, planning fees, etc.)
16:51:21	 From Kelly Snider : + Jean Dresden.
16:51:33	 From Kelly Snider : +1 Jean Dresden.
16:53:26	 From Jeannette Marsala Estate Planning Attorney : Reacted to "+1 Jean Dresden." with 👍
16:55:43	 From Bob Levy : Reacted to "+1 Jean Dresden." with 👍
16:56:13	 From Helen Chapman : Would also like to know how much money we have left on the table by not adjusting the park fees since 2017.
16:56:59	 From Kelly Snider : Reacted to "Would also like to k..." with 👍🏼
16:57:58	 From Jean Dresden : Park development fees pay for PRNS staff and management.
16:59:57	 From Kelly Snider : Thank you  very much.
17:00:06	 From Jean Dresden : If you don’t charge planning fees, you will have to lay-off difficult to recruit planners
17:00:48	 From Jess Zenk, SJDOT (she/her) : Thank you very much, all, for joining us.
17:02:34	 From Kelly Snider : Perhaps City could approach each of the Builders Remedy applicants and tell them if the pre-pay their Parks  fees and other applicable fees at conclusion of entitlements, then in exchange city will streamline their approval within a 6-month period. If the Bumbs took a deal, perhaps some of the other 25 applicants would take a deal, too? And then we’d get fees paid in advance, and they’d get their project approvals.
17:03:56	 From Jean Dresden : I have heard that San Jose is considered a risky market, so financial companies look for a higher return here compared to other areas. To what extent is that true or a factor?
17:04:52	 From Jean Dresden : Please tell us more about the program Ray described similar to Mello Roos..
17:05:17	 From Rebekah Ross : THANK YOU ALL!!!
17:05:24	 From Bob Levy : Numerous speakers had stated that these incentives have little impact on a developers decision to build. Kelly has identified a number possible strategies. Is the City simply pursuing the easiest solution. A solution that does not provide long term benefits. The City should be looking toward providing services and sustainably maintaining those services.
17:05:24	 From Jeannette Marsala Estate Planning Attorney : Reacted to "THANK YOU ALL!!!" with ❤️
17:05:26	 From Blage Zelalich : Thank you everyone
17:05:34	 From Jeannette Marsala Estate Planning Attorney : Reacted to "Numerous speakers ha…" with 👍
17:05:41	 From Andre Morrow : Thanks everyone
17:05:42	 From Helen Chapman : Thank you