thousand paying visitors by the end of the year. visitors include all san francisco residents, groups, and kids under four, likely exceeding $125,000 this year. next year we are projecting nearly 77,000 paid visitors to the garden. of course i have read the report. i have to thank him and his staff, who were very professional and thorough in their work on this item. i just want to address three key points that the report raises. first, the department agrees with the recommendation that we have a written agreement with the botanical society to govern all aspects of the admission program. while we do have a grant agreement with the society, it is meant only as a temporary

measure. the goal, should the board not eliminate the feed, is to negotiate a revised review that eliminates all aspects of the admission program. secondly, the department does not agree with the budget analysts finding that the admissions fee is particularly expensive to collect. costs are in line with of the conservatory of flowers and similar to what we spend on the japanese tea garden. . the department strongly believes that revenue projections are not unrealistic and are well grounded. projections rely upon a strong marketing plan for the garden and a complete year of admissions, including the month of july, the peak month for visitors to golden gate park. it is our experience that visitors ship to attractions

with fees rose significantly over time, as demonstrated by the slide. i think that it is important to note that if the board moves to eliminate the feed in the current fiscal year, the budget will be protected this year by the supplemental appropriation. however, next year we will face a $250,000 deficit in our budget. supplemental, while appreciated, is it one time source of revenue to support an ongoing revenue budget. we implemented the botanical garden program last year in the face of a 20% reduction to our general funding support. as a finance officer, frankly as a san franciscan native that

loves this city very much, it is my job to minimize service cuts while balancing my budget. as you know, the department is on an ongoing quest to find sustainable sources of revenue to minimize cuts and stabilize our operating budget. i truly believe that this feed, charged to non-san francisco residents, meets that goal. we are now happy to answer questions. supervisor chu: thank you very much for the presentation. let's go to the budget analyst for the report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, on the bottom of page 9 of our report, we state that the department projects

non-san francisco resident visitor fees will generate $542,000 in revenue in 1112. these additional revenues would be offset by budget administrative costs of $2,846, with an estimated that revenue in fiscal year 2011 in the fire department would be $337,219. revenues accrued to the r p d general fund budget. on that point, supervisors, in their submission to the mayor for the budget for 1112, they did not use that 337. they used an amount of $250,000, which is $87,000.200 $19 less

than what they are -- $87,219 less than what they are projecting. when you look at the net and you see what the department has advised us that they submitted to the mayor, it is in fact less than what they projected. on page 10 of our report, regarding file 11013, is that ordinance is approved, the estimated collection date for non-resident visitor fees is may 19, 2011. we estimate that under that file, 11013, it would result in revenue earned totaling $116,000.863, offset by not having to reimburse the san

francisco botanical garden society, for the balance of the fiscal year, resulting in a total net estimate of $143,000.445. therefore the subject requested the general fund reserve appropriation exceed the estimated amount needed by $51,731. on the bottom of page 10, we state that has shown in table 5 and page 8, the san francisco botanical garden society projects non-resident visitor fee revenue, a projection by the botanical society, it will total 355,000 by 92. budget administrative costs of

21058. in other words, as shown in table 7 on page 11 of the report. in fiscal year 2011 in both cost 59 cents in administrative expenditures, $1 for non-san francisco residents. they state that if you compare that to the conservatory of flowers and the japanese tea garden, it is in line. which is irrelevant. we are making a flat statement. supervisors asked us to look at the conservatory of flowers. no matter how you slice it in our professional judgment, 59 cents collection to administer $1 is high.

if the board of supervisors approves the file and extends the non-san francisco resident visitors feed, this ratio of administrative cost revenues is expected to decrease, resulting in reduced costs, earning each $1 in revenue. that is, however, based on revenue projection that we consider to be optimistic. i will get to that in a minute. right now i do think that it is our judgment that that $542,355 is highly optimistic. that projection was made in a

combination with the society and our pp, working collaborative lee, as we were told. it would be an increase over the collaborative projection. that is the revised and reduced revenue projection. as you know 35592 is reduced downward two or three times. up somewhat from 355 to 387 if i understand what i heard in the testimony. it is a valid point, if non-san francisco resident visitor fees are extended, it would be in place for an entire 12 months as

opposed to the approximately 11 months of this fiscal year. and the botanical garden society would engage in a campaign with local health that -- local hotels and visitor programming to increase attendance. rpd and the society are administering based on the agreements, concurring with the recommendation. instead of right now, where there is a situation where they have agreed to reimburse the society as shown on table two, page 5 of our report. also, to subsidize the cost of administering the bed -- visitor fees in 2010-2011. these kinds of items should be

codified. the department does concur with our recommendation. our recommendation on page 13, the first is for the board of supervisors to approve ordinance 110255. we recommend steps there is a request for the botanical society costs to be reimbursed under all future entered -- entities. putting that in writing and discontinuing the practice for any future grant agreements. we consider approval of the ordinance file to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. given the cost of the revenue increase, as well as the high

cost of administration, we recommend that if you approve the other proposed ordinance, file 110103, we recommend that it be amended to replace the date of march 17, 2011, with the effective date of the ordinance. we also recommend that in the ordinance to reduce the requested appropriation. as i stated, it is the estimated amount needed to keep the budget in balance. of course, we consider the approval of the growth ordnances to be a policy decision for the board. in this particular case because it would use general fund monies to be allocated to the department and replacing that

with the existing feed. i would be happy to respond to any questions. >> supervisors? let's thank you, madame chair. -- supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madame chair. thank you to everyone on all sides of this issue. this is not an unfamiliar story, struggling departments and chronic deficits for years in sentences go. department staff is tasked with doing the best they possibly can with a limited amount of dollars. this plays itself out in the kinds of budget discussions we have from year to year. sometimes it comes down to where our concerns lie, not just in the present, but the future. i had been consistently opposed

to this feet. to say that we are not strong advocates for the rec and park desire to reach to dollars as spent, dollars that they should be able to generate for the programs near and dear to the hearts of our constituents. sometimes because some of these strategies are creeping, and they are not comfortable with the front door or the back door, or any kind of warm and fuzzy presentation that happens to suggest that this is just no other road to take and an inevitability. but a city like san francisco must take it because other cities have fallen prey to that kind of rationale. i am not saying they're wrong in that. in saying that we are changing a

dynamic force that affects a certain apartment, unlike any other department in the city, except maybe for public safety, that whether you are rich or poor, many people forget that we have our pockets of poverty. people finding it difficult to live because of how cost prohibited it can be here. at least we allow all populations to enjoy our assets and that is what is indigenous to san francisco, the natural environment around it, passing by to help certainly manage that. i think that they do a good job. i hate to see the shrinkage of programs or any kind of on doing to the protection of our environment. that equitable access by people that have a hard time gaining access, because of how sensitive

it is to live in san francisco, to have another barrier erected. miss patricshionhi, if she could come up. you might want to use that microphone. we have gone through four in the last couple of years, but now we do have a pilot in itself. i heard the response from the back and park department. something that i asked the controller way back when, it was not clear to me

>> the society is reimbursing the department for nonmember entry into the gardens. >> walk me through that. i need to understand that a little bit better. >> well, i believe that president society members would be allowed for free and into the garden. non resident society members are allowed for free and the society it reimburses the department for that cost. >> the ordinance that had called for the creation of this pilot, there is no mentioning. i'm trying to understand and i asked the comptroller for some understanding on how that was adjusted in that relationship with the botanical society to be able to call back to the city the fee for the non-residents.

can you explain how that is done? >> i think this is an issue that was raised during the initial hearing a year ago. typically, the membership benefits helped to fund the programs and services. they are actually happening in the garden. there was nothing explicit in the legislation last year or in the grant agreement that allowed nonresident members free access to the garden, the society has been reimbursing us for the cost.

>> the data has been crunched. what constitutes people who are actually gaining access into the gardens and we have no per figurehead as to what that equates to. >> i think under the current arrangement there is no distinction between being a non resident member of the botanical society or not. they are using their dues each time someone comes into the garden. what is that number so i can keep it clear on what this is. >> the estimate through the fiscal year and is $5,138.

>> ok. hugh calculated then, 100 visitors. -- you calculated then, 100 visitors? ok, that is fine. what do we know is in their

coffers to give them an idea. they are not a blind partner or a quiet partner. they are very much part of this. this is approximately $2 million. they have their own staff and overhead costs and they are giving back into direct programs and services by running the library, the docent program. they do all of our tier rating. what makes the guard in a unique is that we carefully track every single plant that is in the garden. it is a requirement that we do this. they do all of our museums your rating. they provide services and

functions which frankly we can no longer provide. >> supervisors, how may i help you understand the budget? >> feel free to give you the budget.

>> this is 2500 now presently? >> this has grown slightly. >> would that be a potential source of income that is generated based on retail. the membership numbers increase because the most visible increase is free entry into the garden.

we work very hard to maintain memberships. we're working very hard to maintain them. >> the membership drive is not targeted to locals. >> it is. it is just that it is more difficult to gain membership when there is no incentive for free entry. >> the staff costs, these are

people that run the program. the aspect before the programs that we provide to the program. >> is this 2 million. >> the proposed budget is 2 million. >> is there a roll over? >> there is some.

but we are able to use that to cover some of our deficit. that covers the deficit and that helps us cover next year's proposed budget. >> it would be great if you could give us the bottom line, how much that is. >> is there an ordinance that addresses the non-residents members gaining access?

>> there is a recommendation that we agree with. we actually have an existing mou with the botanical garden society. because we were in a pilot year, we have been operating in this one-year grant agreement and we agree that it needs to be more structured. we would come back to you with amendments to them. this is to be discussed and debated. what is the way to do that there are trade-offs. without being able to offer a something for that membership, here people are going to join. this is something that we need to sit down and discuss and we

would certainly welcome the board's guidance or your thoughts. many nonprofit partners discuss membership benefits when they are contributing $1.6 million in services. they try to offer their members some benefits because it helps them bring revenue. >> i am trying to understand how the society works in that partnership with recreation and parks department. that is not spelled out in the budget analyst report. it seems to be an evolving partnership. >> i think that it is a 56-year- old partnership with a memorandum of understanding between the parties. again, it needs to reflect the fee administration should the fee administration continue. this is a very long standing partnership and i want to make

the point because i think there are perhaps some perceptions. we might not have a botanical garden without a botanical garden society. several years ago, the parks and recreation department used to do that your rating of the exhibits. -- used to do the curating of the exhibits. we can no longer afford to do that. we used to do the garden. the garden supports a lot of maintenance activities. what they do is actually a net loss for the city. it should not be viewed mysteriously were suspiciously -- or suspiciously. >> it is not. despite the relationship you have had, this particular contract is relatively new which is why we are here. >> that is a very valid point. we accept the budget analyst recommendation that we would recommendation that we would come back to this board with an