in addition, as mepgsed, the c.f.d.'s only make sense for large projects or pools of smaller projects. therefore, our expectation is that there will be more flexible funds from other projects that can be used for implementation and child care and other costs and ensuring that all our needs can be met. and the report also identifies two points that are not modifications and issues with the c.f.d.'s for your consideration. first, as michael yarney mentioned, those shift from land owner to resident. experts do not agree on which party the landowner, developer, or homeowner, absorbses the cost of the development impact fees that we have put into place. from a policy perspective, the landowners could absorb the costs and land values have risen significantly over 20 years. if developerses and homeowners have those added costs, new development may be stalled or delayed. by amortizing the payment, it is possible that the citywide c.f.d. could shift the impact away from landowners and towards homeowners, but as described, when vi