>> welcome to the budget and finance committee. when supervisor campos arrives, we will have a special meeting of the board. -- when supervisor kim arrives. just a quick announcement, we have an overflow room that has been said up.

that overflow room is in 263. you will be able to follow up on the public comments. we just want to make sure that people want -- to know that we have an overflow room. do we have any announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you present any documents, please provide a document to the clerk for the file. >> would you call item number 1 and 2. >> number one, ordinance amending the part code article 12 by amending 12.46 to extend

admission fees to the botanical garden for non san francisco residents be on june 30th, 2011, eliminate the provision canceling this admission fee for the recreation and park department receives revenue for a new tax that can be used for botanical garden operating and maintenance costs. number 2, ordinance appropriating $195,000 of the general fund from a new property transfer tax and reducing the botanical garden ft reviews, which will be rescinded as of march 17th, 2011. >> these were called at the same time because this would extend the fee. the second item is a supplemental that would move money from the same general fund over to the department in order to reduce the fee revenue. those two items are linked. we have the sponsor of the legislation here, supervisor

avalos. we will likely go with the comments from supervisor avalos and other members of the board that would like to speak to this. following that, we did go to the recreation and parks department and then the budget report. >> thank you. i would like to thank members of the committee. this is a very tough issue for me but i feel that where i am bringing forth today was a solution and i had anticipated in previous years, this is the first time that the botanical garden entrance fee has come before the board of supervisors. i was really concerned about

what the impact would be. the intended participation of the residence of san francisco of the botanical garden. i was really concerned that we see less participation in the garden and there will be barriers to people participating in their enjoyment of the site. last year, we had the same debate all over again with the arboretum. the same feat was brought forward. it was a difficult decision on whether or not i would approve or reject the fee. i ended up approved in the feed at that time.

the fee would only last a year. in that time, we would collect information from the rec and park department of the to the attendance and revenues generated and that his feet was worthwhile to have. -- and that the feefee was worthwhile. this is hard to administer. attendance is down. perhaps this is not worth the trouble. the other amendment that was made was that if the city was to win revenue on the ballot, we had a couple of measures at the time that were going forward. one was a temporary increase in the hotel tax. the other measure was to increase the real estate transfer tax.

the real estate transfer tax past. there was a measure that passed, we would use a very tiny portion of the proceeds from the revenue to be able to replace the nonresident feet. that was the only way that i would be able to support the fee which was to replace that feed with revenue that we got at the ballot. my reason for looking at the revenue solution was because i really believed that as a city, we need to find a way, the recreation and parks department is not the atm that it has been used as. they have to find ways to find revenue in ways that the public

often is very very uncomfortable with. we can avoid that by finding better revenue sources for the rec and park's department. my interest in bringing a small part of the tax was to help with that problem which is often rated at during our budget deficit. that is what it would be today with him with -- working with the recommendations and others concerned how we can find a cost and revenue stream which will protect the rec and park department in the years to come. in my district, i don't have the richness of services that a lot of other districts half. i see the botanical garden as something that has that meeting for people in my district --

that means for people in my district. the real estate transfer tax is at $35 million. that is the estimate that it will bring in every year. this is an annual increase that we can expect to have every year. i realize that we have a budget deficit, the revenue increase. at the same time we are looking at sources of revenue for the rec and park department. it makes sense that we can use a little bit of the revenue to be able to make the enjoyment of our facilities at much greater. i believe in something that is really meaningful to people all across san francisco. we will use a small portion of the proceeds of the transfer tax that can go to rec and park or the administration of the botanical garden. people would like to have a free

entrance to the botanical garden. lastly, my first time coming to san francisco, i went to the botanical garden. my first time coming to san francisco was a magical experience. to come here at the age of sit -- at the age of 20 and to see the beautiful city that we have. this was really something that was part of my experience. my first impression was that -- was something i would never forget. i visited the huntington library gardens in pasadena. this is something that is much more intimate of and experience. that had a major impact on why i feel people are drawn to this city and really enjoy what we have for the rack and parks facilities. i know that we have had many

people who will be talking about the fee. i and a stand why everyone is here and wanting to protect the services that are here. i do believe that we have a solution. we can use a portion of the proceeds from the real estate transfer tax. we can move forward without the fee in years to come. there were many people who work on this transfer tax. many people who are proponents of getting rid of the sea, proponents of the free botanical garden have to recognize their work. -- many people who are proponents of getting rid of the feed -- the fee. there was a lot of work to make sure that we could pass these measures. there was a lot of belief that we would be able to get rid of the non resident fee. that is a big reason why i

supported it. we would be able to win the money to prevent the fee from being enacted in future years. i expect we will have a very robust discussion about this but in the and i hope that we can agree that the fee is not the best way to go for the enjoyment of our facilities and the botanical garden. i would like to thank supervisor ross mirkarimi for his opposition last year. we were on different sides of the issue then. i feel that i made a wrong choice. given the difficulty of this year out perhaps eliminating the fee, i feel that i have made the wrong choice. your advocacy and your particular -- because it exists in the district, member constituents are the ones who

use the facility often day after day. >> thank you supervisor avalos. >> i want to take a quick minute to acknowledge our former president of the board. i wanted to acknowledge his presence. [applause] with that, let us go to our department presentation. >> can we display the overhead? thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. the recreation and park department is requesting that you support the legislation that

would extend it mission to the botanical garden for non san francisco residence beyond june, 2011. this is a policy choice that gives us no joy. when faced with daunting budget cuts that severely impact our mission to keep our parks clean and safe and our recreation centers open and inviting for families, this is a policy choice which is necessary. all around city hall, people are here because they are concerned about the city's ongoing general fund deficit and its impact on the life of its residents. we are asking you not to cut from rec and park a budget solution in which a non san franciscans, 15 million of home visit the city each year as tourists will help subsidize the cost of basic services for the

people who live here. the budget challenges that they san francisco are not unique to the city nor is the devastating impact on the urban park systems. in houston, budget cuts will force the city to close half of its recreation centers. the los angeles park department expects hundreds of layoffs. seattle has curtailed ball field maintenance, and restroom maintenance. baltimore shut half of its recreation centers. the city of detroit closed 77 of its parks. every urban parks system around the country is scrambling to offset service cuts and inadequately -- and inadequate city funding with revenue. denver is increasing its mission

in its parks. seattle has nonprofits operating in its recreation centers.