Be all modes that the enforcement needs to be all modes. But there is obviously for both enforcement and education that the drivers are the ones that can really do the greatest amount of damage. So we do have some focus there, but not exclusive by any means. Okay. Thats great to hear. I completely agree about increasing driver education. But i think i have expressed before as well as someone who does rise muni contrary to supervisor wiener i probably drive the most with my little kids, but people drive crazy around now, but bikes are running a muck now and people are driving with their heads down. I think it needs to be in all modes of transportation. I think we need to have that perspective. I agree with you that given the weight that cars have the ability to do the most damage, if we dont include you that in parts of our discussions, when people look at these things, thats the comment, its kind of a continued discussion just about the drivers when it needs to be about everybody in ou
Kind of tripping hazard. Here is another blocked by the trash can. This must be accessible. They have very nicely put up a little rail along the path of entry travel from the sidewalk. May not be required, but its nice that they did it. Thats a great example of making a readily achievable barrier removal. Couldnt have cost more than a couple hundred bucks to put that railing. Thats a good example. The architect and the builder might have understood the concept but the operator doesnt. Thats why the trash can is there. Somebody is just not thinking. In some cases this change of level from outdoor to indoor can be achieved inside the building. Here is an example inside the gnc nutrition store. People dont usually like to do this because you have to give up interior floor space which you are leasing, but in this case it works very well. They have their level landings and it looks like they more or less provide what they need in there. Thats great. But they have had to give up all that flo
Calming. But its all as i said before oriented towards pedestrian safety. We have half of the 10year funding we need in the first five 5 years which is more or less on track and again because we are focusing on the highest injury corridors sections first we are getting early on in the walk of the implementation. Even though its half of the funding, we get more than half of the benefit because we are focusing that money where the collisions are the greatest. These are some of the elements that it is a lot of what we are talking about is engineering, the design changes in the street. But we are working with the ta and others on education components and continuing to support the Police Department in their efforts with regard to enforcement. In terms of the bike strategy, we have a whole presentation to talk about the bike strategy. There is a highlight what we estimated was a 6year need of 190 million for the strategic goals. What we anticipate is 160 million over the course of the 5 year
Thank you very much for this item from the Controllers Office. We have [speaker not understood]. Thank you, members of the committee. Neil levinson, [speaker not understood] from the Controllers Office. Ill be very brief and happy to answer questions. This resolution before you is required by the california constitution and government code. Each year the city needs to confirm its appropriations limit under the gan provisions. In this calculation we have done, it reflects through calculations allowed by the state code that we have a 3. 77 local Income Growth and an 0. 4 0. 47 population growth and this allows for combined growth in the gam limit from the amount that you established last year of 2. 53 billion to a new level of 2. 63 billion for fiscal year 1213. Under the allowable calculations, we have shown that the budget for appropriations that are covered by this is at currently 2. 47 billion, so this reflects a level still 168 million below the gam limit. If the city were to collec
0. 47 population growth and this allows for combined growth in the gam limit from the amount that you established last year of 2. 53 billion to a new level of 2. 63 billion for fiscal year 1213. Under the allowable calculations, we have shown that the budget for appropriations that are covered by this is at currently 2. 47 billion, so this reflects a level still 168 million below the gam limit. If the city were to collect so much revenue that it was above the gam limit, the law would require us to either change the rates to return or some other way return that excess revenue to tax payers or go to voters to ask voters to approve an increase in the limit, but we have not reached that point yet. A couple of other points you might be interested in, we did look back at fiscal year 1112 with the initial budget we expected to be well over 200 million below the gam limit, but 1112 was a year of very Strong Revenue growth above our budget. But still, we still den end the year well within the l