i think that what the supervisor has proposed makes sense and i look forward, i hope, too good answers and solutions in the coming weeks. supervisor chu: i know that supervisor mirkarimi is looking to make a point, but one thing that i would ask to be specific, given that all of us do not intend to force the departments to cut contracts, a month other things -- the ph, where will they go with contract cuts? think about who they contract with. can we be specific about what it is we want the department to deliver so that we can be more specific? supervisor mirkarimi: i gave you the soft pitch. i have done this every year. representatives, my concern is

that what i thought was an easy to do item that has become so convoluted, it is creating doubt in liability towards consolidation altogether. within six weeks i want to hear, specifically, not only about this work order process back to department, but if there is commissioned interested business or advisory task force business that realizes the legislation passed so that you can do streaming audio to the general public of these departments. the fact that there has been no leadership on this and the bill of originally brought back to us was for $58,000, yet we are talking about tens of millions of dollars in savings that cannot begin to be realized is beginning to fester out in a way that makes me wonder in which direction you guys are going.

i believe that there are efficiencies and greater efforts to seize that are being achieved on this process on the inside. i do not know what the public is feeling on the outside. to me, this is a soft, soft pitch. try to accomplish this in six weeks. do not talk about which departments wish to that -- wish to participate. they are legislated to participate. dp is now facilitated over the administration of this. your savings, now and in the future, for $58,000, could have been realized to pick up the slack, and it never did. meanwhile, the general public is divorced from getting the streaming audio the legislated would happen. that is one example.

on the bigger ticket items, the question relates to what the supervisor was talking about. how are you going to achieve these consolidations and savings in a way where we will be able to conceive -- perceive the tangibles. whether they in kind or direct dollars savings. that is the way i would answer it. supervisor chu: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i will articulate quickly. the mayor has asked for top -- 20% cut proposals from every department. i would like to know what the 20% cost savings we are expecting to see from a $200 million i.t. budget for 2012. supervisor chu: in actually, if,

being on the committee, i am confused as to what it is we are asking. let's be very clear. the reserve was originally placed on a pending update. now we want to see something else. now we want to see how the savings will be realized from the budget submission? supervisor chiu: the whole point of i.t. reserve was to figure out if there would be savings in the city. from my perspective, we have not done a good job in that. we have figured out a plan over the course of the year to figure out data consolidation, but we are not seeing savings. where are we going to find savings? we have been talking about this for years. we are still looking grantors. the problem is that if we do not come up with answers, here on the board we are forced to make budget cuts.

hundreds of us will be making cuts to the parks department. if we could find consolidation in the budget, i would prefer to spend that money providing services back-to-back and park. for several years we have been asking for this work to be -- services- two -- services back to rec and park. for several years we have been asking for this work to be done. supervisor chu: we are looking for information from the apartments, probably bardee i.t. departments. we want them to share with us as a part of their budget commission de i.t. reductions? supervisor chiu: i want to know the specific cost savings, within departments, but did i.t. budgets. but certainly i am open to understanding alternative ways

to do this -- >> certainly i am open to understand and alternative ways to do this. within the department and myself , ofdt and president chui, as you know the budget is still in development. we could take a look at the ideas on the table. it would be worthwhile to have a discussion on this so that we could get into some concrete proposals. i think that that is going to be the trick, understanding in a much more substantial level what types of savings initiatives we are talking about. supervisor chu: we are in agreement about what is required for the release of reserves? information pending from coyt

and a list of where departments had issued cuts? is that clear? we have that motion. can we take will call on that item? supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor chu: no. >> the motion passes. supervisor chu: that item is dispensed with. do we have many other items before us? >> there are no other items on the subcommittee agenda. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned. we will be reconvening as a full budget and finance committee at 1:00. we will be back in chambers at 1:00. thank you.

>> 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.

staffed with just three gardner's. for the last 56 years we have been aided by the support of the san francisco botanical garden society, a nonprofit member- supported organization. the san francisco botanical society only exists to support garden operations and activities. since 1995 the organization has supported the city with $9 million in direct gardening expenditures. $6.8 million in educational

programs connected to its library, youth program, and volunteer program. on average, the botanical garden society has supported this city, the parks department, and our botanical garden with approximately $1.6 million in services. those services include a program whereby 10,000 school children from all over the city participate in educational programs at the garden each year. overall it will look 30,000 school-age kids visit the botanical garden. taking part in two hours, story time walks, and treasure hunt. students learn lifelong lessons on sustainability, conservation, and ecology. in lieu of cuts last