the capacity to do so. hamilton had just opened up last summer, and it was a big relief for us to have children have an opportunity to participate in that program. again, as i said this year, we will not have summer school. we will have summer school? ok, because i was told we would not. thank you, supervisor kim. basically -- well, that is good news, but not necessarily good news for my budget when with the hayes valley club house, i have to take funds away from the resources i have in a letter to help with expenses. otherwise, we would not even be able to open it. i know we are saying that the botanical gardens is a different in your different situation, but to me, it is all the same. the department's begin to look at sustainable revenue is, and i did not think that residents of san francisco should be charged for any of these services.

when we look at a resolution, we should be looking at a resolution to cut the fees and make sure they do not get charged to san francisco residents in this case here as far as non-san francisco residents are concerned, at this time and in this budget crisis, unfortunately, i am really not concerned. i am more concerned about maintaining the current services, about making sure that the kids we send in the summer to the botanical gardens have the access free at all times. more importantly, this may seem like a small amount of revenue, but at this time in this crisis with close to $400 million in proposed cuts to the city budget, everyone is going to have to pay their fair share. thank you. supervisor chu: 90 of each -- thank you. i know there are a lot of people who might be here for the department of children, youth, and their families item. the department head is in room

348 at the moment and is willing to speak with folks off line first before the hearing because i know that the public comment for this item will take a while. again, if you are interested, you can take a look at that. >> i am the executive director of apri in san francisco, and we are in support of keeping the fee. we actually support park and let workers -- park and rec workers. we understand it was intended to protect the workers, so if it is not working as intended, or if there are other funds such as the transfer tax proceeds, as supervisor avalos was mentioning earlier, that is a conversation we would like to have today to cover the fees, but at the end of the day, what we would like

to walk out of here with is a solution that guarantees the workers continued to work. thank you. >> hello, board of supervisors. thanks for taking the time to consider this issue today. i am a professional landscape garden and our rarest -- and arborist. i have a personal relationship with the botanical garden. when i first arrived in san francisco, knowing few individuals and being low on funds, i would walk around the botanical gardens wondering what to do with my future. that will be something i would not be able to do now for free. later when i decided to make quarter culture my profession, i spent two years working as an intern in the garden, expanding both my knowledge and skills. as one of my fondest experiences, and i'm proud to say i have been a member of the

botanical garden society and volunteer ever since. that is until this year because i do not believe i can go on in good faith to continue to support the society, nor the garden, with my time and money while any fee is in effect. i would like to address the arguments often made by the other side. one, that the fee is ok as long as it only applies to out-of- towners'. i believe a trait of all great people is how they treat their guests, and increasingly, we treat our guests in san francisco as little more than cash machines. two, that the fee is all right because of the botanical gardens charge a fee. i believe it is contrary to an ideal that most of us hold, the concept of san francisco exceptional some, that we do what is right, not what others deem acceptable. and 3, that this is the cost of having a world class institution. but i ask -- what cost? that these institutions are to be enjoyed by a chosen few?

unfortunately, our public places are becoming more like private space than the playground of a healthy citizenry. rachel carson wrote to warn about the dangers of pesticides. now, our public -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the hunters point family. we are a nonprofit organization in bayview/hunters point, and i am in support of continuing nonresident fees for the botanical gardens, primarily because i think any revenue generating effort that is done at this time is preferable to the cuts we have seen, specifically in our community, and i know throughout the city, where the most vulnerable among us -- our club houses have been

closed. there has been less staff for state recreation and in richmond for families and young people -- and in the richmond for families and young people. while i know it is not ideal, at this time, i believe is important to have sustainable funding. i know what it is like to try to balance the budget, so i think a one-time grant for my organization, while that would be something that i would appreciate, i also know that if i had a way in which i knew that i was going to have sustainable funding, that would be more ideal, so i understand how the department is looking at that. the budget will have to be balanced, so i would not want to come from cuts from workers or effective recreation side as well. thank you. >> greetings, supervisors. i am speaking on behalf of park 94124.

i am actually agreeing with keeping the fun. maybe if you want to look at lowering the cost or the fee, but i am definitely for generating revenue, and the same thing with the park and ride -- rec dept.'s concern. you just do not see the same caliber. also, the concern about the -- i have the same concern when we have those three wins this. however, it is policy, so the next summit come, i will bring the idea, but i have the same concerns about the clipper card. it is all something that we need to go back to the lab and reading, but generating revenues is generating revenues. we are in a deficit, we're not saying you're charging $25 or $30. $5. maybe decrease it or -- maybe

decrease it, but continued. when you're talking about common folks who need jobs. they had a boy, he needs to run, needs space. that is the perfect time for him to go do it. he only attends with school, but it is still open for him, and if we need to go, i will just remember to bring my i.t.. [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask people to keep their applause down. [reading names] m hello. my name is warren robinson. i am speaking on behalf of seiu. basically, i have sat here for at least the last three hours, heard all you great supervisors and phil ginsburg hash out forecasting the budget and all

that stuff, but bottom line, with these fees and what he is trying to do with recon park is make it self sustaining so that the workers -- what he is trying to do with rec and park is make it self sustaining so that the workers are more accountable for their jobs. i know it is a bitter pill for the rest of the public to go through what he is proposing, and i do not think $7 is too much to ask for just to come visit a beautiful place at the botanical gardens. i have not been there myself. i have seen it from the outside. it is lovely. i am not putting a knock against it. but i do not think it is very much to ask for. and also, every coin that the department makes is saving somebody's job. and every coin that is taken

away from us, you have taken away i do not know how many people. that is all i have to say about that. >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the tennis programs coordinator for the recreation and park department, but i do not come in my official capacity. i am here as a native san franciscan, born and raised in the city. my two children are born and raised here. they are eight and nine years old. i have been to the botanical gardens many times. although it is no longer there, there used to be fly shocker pool. i have been to every place that the city has to offer. my father used to work in the post office, which is no longer the post office. it is now a condominium high- rises. i have seen it come and go.

i am in favor of it largely because i think that would deficits and budget crisis as far as the eye can see, to plagiarize a phrase, that we need some kind of funding. if it were up to me, i would return to 1963. i would repeal proposition 13 and make everything free again -- junior colleges, low-cost tuition at universities, put jfk back in the white house, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. as the tennis programs coordinator, we work very hard, and i am very mindful of the cost. being a father myself, a single father to be with children, i know how expensive it is to live here. we have put together, just so you can see what we do -- here is a summer camp that we ran last year.

[bell rings] in any event, thank you very much for your time. >> i have worked for 12 years as a child welfare worker for the city and county of san francisco, was elected to the executive board of union 535, and have volunteered for lots of organizations over my years. this is just an indication some

what of my position. it is a question of corporate privatization versus the commons. money is one of the major issues, but we are addressing something maybe a little bit more significant. just a point to be brought up, that one of the decisions being made here, and i think the rec and board pointed out very nicely. they already give us a rank of these we're going to see as all the other cities and towns have done it. this is the direction -- this is what is going to happen. i do not know how many people out there believe in five years it will be freed. i do not believe it. i have a pocketful of cards for museums. when i came here, one card for all the art museums.

now, i have five or six. this will be the direction. let's see if there is a way of working together. additional revenue -- we have heard so many people whose programs are being cut, programs that i cared and fought for and saw the children that need these programs being torn out. unfortunately now, some of these foster kids coming into the city will have to have their papers shown. more importantly, it is going to be their friends and family that come into the city that wander over to go with their friends, and they will see -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. >> it is a pleasure to testify before the new supervisors, wiener and kim. i think this is my first testimony since you have been on the board. in my tenure on the board of

supervisors, there were very few taxes or fees that i did not support. some -- and i would propose that this is one of them -- do not make sense. this does not make sense because you already have data that indicates to you that a visitor and non-visitor visitation is going down. as a matter of fact, because this is such a gem, when do i go there? one out of town guests come. that is why you are seeing a resident and nonresident visitation go down. for $55,000, i submit to the general manager, over the number of hearings we have had, we have spent more than $55,000 of city time talking about this, that we could have actually been spending on these programs. it just, frankly, does not make sense to me. it is an issue of priorities. i know what it is like to be in tough budget cycles where you have to cut, but, you know what? we can find money to attract

visitors from all over the world to come to the america's cup, but we cannot find money to allow the arboretum to be open for residents and non-residents alike? it just does not make sense to me. it has economic benefit. it has clear economic benefit for the district that is right next door, which happens to be represented today by ross mirkarimi because when all of those folks come to the arboretum, they go to each in anderson said, and those are demonstrable benefits that come with tax benefits for the city, so it really does not make sense to me. and i say to my friends at local 261, with whom i think i have a good relationship, that as visitation goes down, does it mean less and less need for gardeners in that facility? because very few people are continuing to visit it. please rescind the fee. supervisor chu: thank you.

>> and the -- end the fee. i'm a resident of oakland, but i lead a giant walking group here it is on the internet and in the real world. has over 3000 members, and about half of them -- 1500 -- are san francisco residents. we mainly what in san francisco. for the past four years and one month, i have read over 170 walks. as many as 70 people have followed me on a single wall. on august 7, i was leading by a group on a very popular walk. when we approached the picnic area that we always use as our lunch break spot, we discovered to our shop that there was a kiosks set up to collect fees to into the park. once it becomes that was the first day of the fee collecting, and the person collecting fees let us in for free. i took a poll to find out how many of my group there were not sf residents.

i was surprised that it was as many as 2/3. would have cost us over $140 just to eat our sack lunches, used a restroom, and walked out the northgate, which altogether takes 45 minutes or less. that walk starts and ends at the west portal starbucks, go 6 miles, and takes five hours. removing that one spot seriously diminishes that carefully prepared walking round. the executive director of the botanical garden's society is on youtube saying that botanical gardens is a museum. the lack of money issue is a complete ruse. it is not about money. it is about turning a neighborhood garden park into a museum so we for the benefit of the botanical garden society, plant experts, and their wealthy donors. it is about pushing up the public and giving a public part to this private group here all the members now have unlimited access to all the parks all year

long without paying any -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am in support of the non resident fee. i'm in support because i look at it like this -- i do not know for sure if the money that is not generated or will be generated will directly affect a kid in san francisco not being able to throw a ball or go to their local clubhouse or recreation center, but the possibility that it may happen in a year or two friends me because where else is that kid going to go? where else are they going to be able to feel safe and play and learn and grow? and where do we go from there if we do not have those kids who are unable to participate in local programs? where is our future going to be? we may not even have a gun in a

couple of years because who is going to know how to be a gardener? who will know how to run the facility if they do not learn now? -- we may not even had a garden in a couple of years. that is what i'm afraid of. i do not know yea or nay, but the possibility should scare all of us in this room, that our kids may not even have a garden to go to. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. [leading names] -- [reading names] >> i'm a retired seiu 1021 member. this could be a good day for san francisco. you on the board on the budget committee have the good fortune to be able to correct a serious mistake that damages our city,

by voting to end the arboretum fees. the fees and ideas are antagonistic to a vital part of the garden's purpose -- the fees and 80 -- fees and id's. it is not just a museum. specifically that it is to offer a place of reflection, enjoyment, and relaxation for the public. it is a place to be, not just a place to see. you heard about the drop in attendance. people are not going. you heard about the fees being a failure financially. there is a prediction that that will get better over time.

i have to say, as far as the japanese tea garden, one of the reasons they got better is because they started charging residents. they started by charging non- residents, just the way iraq and parts as they will start charging non-residents for the arboretum -- just the way iraq and parks says -- just the way back in part -- just the way rec and park says they will start charging non-residents. their predictions were optimistic, and i say they belong rather with alice in wonderland the leading 10 impossible things before breakfast -- be leaving -- believing 10 impossible things before breakfast. [laughter] >> in the chapter president of the recreation and park department 1021 -- i am the

chapter president. i have been up here so many times in the last few years, begging and pleading for ways to get my numbers off of this merry go round of a budget. i am in favor of keeping the feast at this point in time, not so much because in the chapter president and looking to protect jobs -- not so much because i'm in the chapter president and looking to protect jobs. not because i'm looking to protect the department, but because i am a youth advocate, and right now, we have gyms that are closed on sunday and monday. we have clubhouses that are closed seven days a week. waiting to be utilize. and we are spending this time talking about this money. we found money that we can use. let's take care of san francisco residents, san francisco

children first. we can revisit it at a later time on a later date. thank you for your time. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am with seiu 1021 as a field representative. one of the reasons i'm here is to support the fee on non- residents. our union has worked hard to scratch revenue from different areas. millions of dollars have been given by our members to help the city on hard times. the city is facing another hard time this year, and it just makes sense to continue with a fee for non-residents. therefore, we are asking you to

consider and support the extension of the fee. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. catherine howard, golden gate park preservation alliance. i love the arboretum. i was a member, and as a landscape architecture student, i in turn there, but i oppose the fee. it is part of a short-sighted policy of monetizing our parks. because of this, the people of san francisco are losing golden gate park. first, the teagarden was closed. then the conservatory of flowers. if the sfpuc has their way, we will lose 40 acres to a water treatment factory with 30-foot tall buildings. in addition, there are plans to pave over meadows in golden gate park with artificial turf. the beach challis soccer complex will also expand the concrete paving asphalt and install 10

banks of city lights in this wild area of the park right next to ocean beach. imagine going down to the beach to see the sunset, and the lights go on. it will be like the mother ship landing. what will be left of golden gate park in the future? will future generations be able to enjoy nature and park land, or will golden gate park's be turned into a series of gaited tourist and revenue-generating attractions? with a few trees sprinkled here and there to remind us that this was once a part -- park. the arboretum fees are a step down this slippery slope. you have the funding. there is no one that is going to be laid off. you are not going to lose any services. please vote to rescind the fees and keep the arboretum free. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a mom raising two children

in san francisco public schools and a park user. i'm here today as executive director of san francisco p.a.l. we partnered with rec and park using fields and facilities to serve -- charlie, we are serving 5000 kids every year through the support -- currently, we are serving 5000 kids every year through the support of mentor's. we received no funding from the city of san francisco, and all of our revenues come from our own fund-raising efforts, event, and registration fees. organizations serving youths in san francisco are in crisis. whether the nonprofits, the city, for schools, the need for services to help youth is soaring, while resources for kids is being cut. i'm here today to urge you to extend the nonresident admission fee in the botanical garden. we need sustainable funding in

the long term for our parks and kids. i have seen firsthand and harvard very closely with rec and park and know they have been working feverishly to serve more of our kids despite drastic budget cuts. like all of us in these times, they are exploring and identify new ways to generate sustainable money for kids' programming. rec and park was forced to close gyms on monday. last year, we did our part to help gy pay help gms -- gyms open on mondays in locations where we play. this was not in our budget, but we were able to serve kids and keep the gym open on mondays to the general public. i cannot begin to list all the ways that as a nonprofit we're struggling to serve more kids. when you cut revenue sources like this, you are choosing to pass the cost along to other non

profits that are doing a great deal to help our kids. in closing, i would just say that we, too, would like to provide our services for free. as it is, we find a way to charge some so we can find a way to serve those that need it most. our city and kids need this additional revenue. please support it. i would like to remind you that all 5000 of the kids we serve will still continue to get access to the botanical gardens for free, even with the additional revenue. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 35-year resident, and i'm here in opposition to a continuation of the fee at the arboretum. the requirement has accomplished one thing effectively -- it is keeping people out. nonresident and resident visitation is dramatically down from below pre-fee estimates. judging