society's willingness to spend $10,000 a month for a fee lobbyist and $104,000 to subsidize an underperforming fee but not to commit that same money for maintaining the garden, one can only conclude that keeping some people out and making the arboretum exclusive is actually their goal. as representatives of the people of san francisco, you should not be party to keeping people out. this would be true whether the fee was a success for a failure, but it is a failure. the city needs revenue. we agreed. that is why we work hard to pass revenue measures that would generate meaningful ongoing money for the city without imposing a barrier to public use of public space. the ordinance adopted by this body last year to authorize the nonresident fee was amended without objection under president chiu's gavel. to have the new fee expire is a task for voters. was further amended without

objection to have the non resident fee son said june 30, 2011. these were promises to the people. the share of revenue needed to fill the budget gap is less than 1% of the new tax revenue. how can we be expected to support and get out the vote for future much-needed revenue measures if we cannot rely on the legislative promises made to the people? fear tactics are being used to divide us. not all revenue is good revenue. we need to find good ways to raise revenue. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> i n a san francisco resident and a member and volunteer for the society of the botanical garden. i do not want to bore you to death, but san francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and that is true.

we do have world-class museums, world class academy of science, world-class opera and symphony and ballet. why should we not be able to sustain a world-class botanical garden? thanks to the society and the rec and park department, we do have one already. why would we want to kill the one proposal -- the one possible source of funding that only had about -- what? nine or 10 months on trial to prove itself? i think it is a terrible idea, so i definitely support extending the fee. supervisor chu: thank you. >> walter. i have graphics for about 20 seconds. ♪ say nighty-night to those fees and to go see the botanical

garden trees but in your dreams, what every baby dream a little dream of no fees next thing, you will let your panning for gold and next thing, i will be sold and then you know, no one will visit their and i am asking you to be fair sweet dreams they make it better and we are going to visit all there, but i in your dream what ever they beat dream a little dream of no botanical garden fees birds singing in the sycamore tree in the botanical gardens and dream a little dream of no

fees ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> that is going to be a tough act to follow. good afternoon, supervisors. good afternoon, -- if you could end discrimination today, how would you vote? i'm here to express strong opposition to the entrance fees to the our rhythm and to encourage you to support proposed ordinance 110, 113, which would end the discriminatory fees currently charged to non-residents of the arboretum -- and here to express strong opposition to the entrance fees to the arboretum. ordinance 110225 mandates without sunset the continued ongoing and uninterrupted discrimination against non resident visitors of san francisco. i strongly urge you to oppose

ordinance 110225. for the past three years, this issue has come up before the board and the budget and finance committee hearing during the past three years, how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on response abilities for hours worked on this issue by the mayor, the board of supervisors, legislative aides, budget analysts, park directors, staff, and other city staff? over the past three years, if you add up all of the hours spent on the issue by city employees, multiplied by their expected hourly rates of salaries, this expense alone would far exceed the small discrimination dollars collected at the arboretum checkpoints. stop the discrimination. stop spending taxpayer dollars on fiscally and productive -- on this fiscally unproductive issue. opposed the ordinance, and support for the nets 110113. thank you for your consideration.

-- support ordinance 110113. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon. i wanted to address some of the numbers that were mentioned earlier. the director mentioned $250,000 net revenue from this fee. it is important to remember that only about $60,000 has been mustered by this fee so far after eight months. the bulk of the rest is a for tax that will be missed over the next three months because in order to read the forecast, we have to read in come four times the monthly rate it has been going so far. secondly, the rest of that is subsidy from the botanical society. we only have $60,000. you are not making money from it. you are not saving jobs on it. people from labor are being manipulated by being told that this fee will save jobs. it is not happening. very important to remember. secondly, the attendance

figures that supervisor chu mentioned, those are directly coming from the sun shine attendance numbers reported by the botanical garden, and compares to the actual estimate that they used to sell you the fee. they give you a bunch of forecast. the steady behind the forecast is used as the pre-fee estimate and the post-fee estimates, and we are taking the numbers they reported so far and comparing it to the forecast in the coming years. attendance is down 70% a month non-residents. it is not a small number in a short time. it is very dramatic, and i'm happy to go over the with you, if you would like me to, supervisor wiener. the last point i would like to make is that the 52% ran for next year, if you look at the numbers, there is no way you could turn the ship around to get to that number by next year.

the budget analyst knows what he is talking about, and i know that because i went through the numbers myself. there is no way to get to 52%, especially if you have no marketing dollars associated with -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. [reading names] >> supervisors, good afternoon. in a lifetime member of the botanic garden society -- i am a lifetime member of the botanic garden society board. i urge you to vote no on the proposal to end the nonresident admission fee at the botanic garden. the proposed one time provision of general funds to the department of rhett and park to save the staff in anticipation of budget staffs -- to the

department of rec and park to save the staff in anticipation of budget cuts seems short- sighted. a longer-term solution is required. we all recognize that the city's budget deficit situation, and in that, the department of rec and park will have to cut its proposed budgets. we have heard a lot of that today. the garden will face a certain decrease in support of personnel, particularly gardeners. in the situation, it seems not only reasonable but crucial to seek new streams of income to adequately support and maintain the garden. last year, the board of supervisors voted to establish a nonresident fee to avoid the anticipated inevitable deterioration of the garden in the face of anticipated budget cuts. in my opinion, the decision

established good public policy that has begun to preserve the commons. again, i urge you to vote to continue the newly established, modest source of financial support for the san francisco botanical garden. the nonresident admission fee that was implemented only after significant delay, preservation of public comments, is crucial to the vibrant life of our community. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here to speak to you about the importance of keeping the arboretum free. there are many reasons why this beautiful treasure should be free to everyone. i only have time to discuss two. first, as you have heard, thus far, charging the fee is ineffective and inefficient. the moneys generated by fees this past year fell far below expectations, and visitor

attendance significantly decrease. charging a fee has simply not been good for business. i think we should all admit this has been a failed experiment and move on. supervisor avalos' proposed legislation is a great solution to the shortfall predicted. please support that and keep the arboretum free. additionally, charging the fee will effectively bar many of us from enjoying the arboretum in the future. it will continue the troubling trend we are seeing in this country if you have and a growing number of have-nots, a trend in not believe many of your support. i have heard recreation and park director phil ginsburg and others encourage public-private partnerships, such as those suchrp -- those between rpd and a botanical garden society to maximize resources. i want to remind you that those

of us here opposing the fee are part of that public, and we want you to listen to us. over 5000 san franciscans signed a petition opposing the fee. five supervisors oppose it, and many people in this room oppose it. please listen to what much of the public is saying. much of the public and representatives are saying and support our efforts to keep the arboretum free. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. [reading names] >> hello. i'm a resident of district 5, which is a border to the arboretum. so much has been said that is so effective. people talk about attendance being down, and if you have not been into the arboretum on a beautiful day this year, i am also a member of the arboretum

society. i thought when my neighbors were speaking up against the fee, i was actually pulled because i do think that the arboretum has a point that they need more gardeners. i unfortunately did not come out in support of it before the experiment was put in place, but now that the experiment has been put in place and i have gone through the checkpoints on a beautiful day, holliday, weekend -- if you thought you could not kill a place, you should see what this fee has done. it has absolutely killed the spirit of the arboretum. i used to walk in, and the gardens would be filled with people milling around. you walk in there now, it is like a ghost town. seriously. do not vote today if you have not been to the arboretum under this state. the spirit of that has definitely been killed.

i feel for park and rec with their budgets being cut. i have two children who were raised running around the arboretum. all revenue, as she said, is not good revenue. this is penny wise and pound foolish. i could not take my in-laws with my kids. you have to ask if it is an attraction that you want to drag people to apologize that they have to fork over the money to get in? that is cutting back -- that is helpful which for the arboretum society because they are missing people strolling through and thinking that they want to donate to the place and want to become a member, so it is bad policy, and it kills the spirit of it. that is my point. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. i echo the comments of the previous speaker. i am against the fee. has created a ghost town, and i

think that is not good in the end for the garden, and people think about that, they will get it. but for the truth about how rec and park and phil ginsburg operates, you should click on the link that phil ginsburg prefer that you not read, and that is the link to the north side investigative article that was written by susan reynolds. phil ginsburg is bleeding our hearts drive with his poorly negotiated leases, his back room deals, and with at least four major lawsuits. no one is talking about that. if we are talking about fiscal responsibility, i hope you are looking at the costs of the legal action generated by phil ginsburg's moves. supervisor chu: if i could ask members of the public to direct your comments generally toward the board. >> his attitude toward the lawsuit is to let the city attorneys handle it. that is fiscally irresponsible. unless we are paying mr. ginsberg to keep the jobs of the city attorney's office

safe, we need to stop his endless lawsuits that he is embroiling us in. phil ginsburg must go. this fee must go. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. again, if i could ask members of the public to address your comments, on this item in particular, to the board, that would be great. >> i live in district 8. first, i would like to address two myths that have been perpetrated upon the theory the first is that residents do not pay taxes few businessmen, workers in restaurants, offices, shops, parents, children from all over who come to be treated, veterans in wheelchairs' from daly city and oakland and our families -- they are non- residents. also, visitors and tourists from around the world -- they all pay taxes. sales tax, hotel tax, car rental tax among them. business people pay payroll tax. various license and permit fees.

and their own rail property, also the property tax. second, all major botanical gardens charge except chicago, and that requires parking fees. false. public botanical gardens are almost all free. we have a list of them. the free chicago garden is accessible by rail, bus, bicycle, or on foot. chicago is world famous lincoln park zoo in a city park is free. what we have here is a bad management model. do you really want to keep the fec can collect that it did it? do you want to kill the park for the? we had the alternative -- proposition n. we worked hard for it because you told us it would in the fee. if you did not deliver as we expected to now, we will tell people, and they will not be

happy. for the next revenue projection, they will not vote for it here and my grandson who is 6 years old says it is not fair if he gets in free but all this family except his parents, he, and i have to pay. he said to tell you we have to share. [laughter] supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. thank you to the budget and finance committee and the board of supervisors for this opportunity to speak in support of admissions to the san francisco botanical garden. in a society member, a board member, and in a blur of golden gate park's. i am in the garden a lot. let me tell you that on beautiful, sunny days, that darden is full of happy people. supervisor chu: again, to the members of the public, other people also deserve respect when

they speak, so please refrain. >> the point today is to help rec and park pay for the sentence. the society needs to properly maintain a world-class botanical garden, admired the world over, as evidenced from the number of visitors from every corner of the world who come to the garden anticipating payment of an entrance fee. once the revenue stream gets rolling, it ongoing monies collected will help defer expenses at other facilities, as so many of the representatives have so beautifully spoken today. give us a chance to fully implement admissions over the course of a full year. last year's late start and subsequent shortened collection period and this year's heavy rains did not give the true measure of what can be accomplished for all involved. please dismiss supervisor avalos' plan as shortsighted and

not best for all of of. please implement a permanent visitor fee as truly visionary and beneficial to the city of san francisco. thank you for your time and attention. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a resident of district 1, and i have lived there for many years. my family has been in san francisco for 150 years. i have also been a small business owner in san rinses go, and i think as a resident and business owner, we have paid a lot of taxes. those taxes have helped this city become what it is and will help continue to make it what it is, but there are certain types of things that require extra money, and when you have a source of money that is available, it is almost irresponsible to turn that off. because we need in particular in these times to get all the

resources we can. i spent a lot of time at the gate, so i talked to all sorts of people that come to the botanical garden, and a lot of them have just a little bit of time and wander in. this is what it is all about. it is a great place, wonderful place to visit, and frequently, they will turn away, but they only have 10 or 15 minutes, so they do not want to just come in and come out. yes, there are people that do not come in, those casual quick entry, but overall, you talked a lot of the visitors. they are used to paying. i think for the other people that live in the area, i think it is appropriate that they join. if you are really an active

supporter, you can join the botanical society and become a permanent member and have free access all the time. that is paying part of your news. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is karen anderson, and i work for the children's program at the san francisco botanical garden at striving arboretum, a name we should never forget. besides the two seasons of classes that we have taken, we have enrichment classes. recently, at our class in the presidio, the educated at the class, which had about 25 doses -- what is going on at the botanical gardens? why have you agreed to have a fee to enter this public garden? and i said that not all of us agreed to this fee and this id

check. our educated and said he used to come to the guarded two or three times a week, and now, it is a and b, and it seems like the soul has been sucked out of the place, and he does not go to the botanical garden anymore. i have heard similar stories from my family, friends, and neighbors, and their family and friends who come in from out of town. they do not go. i even know someone who quit because she said the spirit of the garden is lost. and she does not feel about coming here -- good about coming there any more when she sees the toll booths, and when she is asked for her id. we all know that collecting the fee does not pay for itself. on top of that, there is that figure that we have heard today, which i thought was $10,000 a month, for now i have heard it

is $7,500 a month to pay your lobbyist. perhaps harvey rose could help analyze all these numbers again and we could find a way to make it work for everyone. there is enough money without collecting fees. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. [reading names] >> i am speaking today to urge you to remove the fee for the botanical gardens. i am a little nervous. and to pass ordinance 11011. first, if we are successful in removing the fee, i want to apologize to all the people i have shown my sf id to who may lose their jobs, and i want to

thank john avalos for putting the ordinance forward. i love the arboretum. often, when i see a copy for the rhododendron in bloom, my heart opens. i would like all to have that opportunity. there are many who may not be able to see the new maple leaves and the cherry blossoms in bloom at the moon garden because they did not bring their id or they are 16 years old and do not have one or cannot afford $7 or do not want to spend $7. i walk in the garden almost every day. there used to be many people sitting on the front lawns or strolling through the garden. now, there are only a few people. it seems to me that the garden is now just for special people. those with money for an id -- or

an id. i recently heard someone say the problem is the exclusion. the solution is inclusion. when i came to san francisco years ago, one of the appeals was that san francisco welcome everyone. i feel sad when i see people excluded from san francisco's public spaces. please remove the fee and support a free public garden. supervisor chu: thank you. >> afternoon, supervisors. i oppose the fee for the arboretum. i believe a number of the people who have spoken in favor of the fee have been misled. i have read the ordinance.

there is nothing in the ordinance that says that any revenue, net income, if there is any, is going to be used for there is nothing that says that it will save any jobs. this leads to busting public employee unions. i looked at this chart for the tea garden revenue. if you look carefully, the first five years show a drop in income.

please rescind the fee. thank you. >> madame chair, my name is -- the fee has more from the sandstones botched the sand dunes now to a site specific revenue generator. these are all excuses to taking it as a comments. the garden will turn into sand dunes. when they cannot get a fee for all, -- told the rec and park

commission that we will start by charging non-residents. this was the starting point, not the ending point. remember the japanese tea garden that used to be free? now, less than 5% of all visitation is by residents. fees to access the comments are part of the privatization strategy under the cover of economic collapse caused by the corporations and the banks. the nonresident feed has excluded the