details. >> is there anything else that you pay -- that you give money to the botanical society for? other funds? >> no. the one-year grant approve meant, had we not had controversy, the grant agreement included an opportunity for us to support the use programming. if we had exceeded our revenue projections, the botanical gardens were not doing that. the answer is no. >> no other funds are given to

the botanical society? >> no. >> when the society reimburses parks and recreation, how did they do so? >> we actually reimbursed the society. we don't reimburse parks and recreation. >> this is a check? how is the fee collection actually administered so that those funds are rerouted? >> we receive a check weekly with all of the back up attendance data for that amount. >> this is a check that you receive it? >> yes. >> this is not cash? >> yes, in suitcases.

>> we have other concessions around our properties and our procedures and policies are very similar. we don't treat the botanical garden society different than we would treat any party or vendor. >> i would like to thank the budget analyst and the society members, and members of the public for being here today. i look forward to the public comment. this is an issue i have had a lot of conversations with folks on both sides about. i was not a fan of the feet when it went into effect. i have concerns relating to revenue for parks and

recreation. as we discussed this, it is very important to distinguish between two things. one is the philosophical debate about closing off the botanical garden and charging a fee for entry into public space. that debate is what it is. people have very strong views and different opinions and i respect those perspectives. the other issue which is largely a separate issue which is whether the fee is effective and whether it has or will generate the money that we are anticipating and whether the administrative costs are corporate. on one concern i have had from the outset on that issue is that we have about 8 months' worth of data. it is stored up. i know there is a chart here about the tea garden, coin

tower -- coit tower. you meet with one side, you meet with the other side and you come away thinking, what is going on? it makes sense because you only had 8 months and i really wish we had several years worth of data said that we could actually make an intelligent policy decision about how effective the fee is. they are thinking that those are pessimistic, optimistic. that is not the ideal way to make policy decisions. members of the public will be addressing this issue. if you are so inclined to talk about what this means. this is something that has been

frustrating for me. i am curious to know what people's perspective is. >> i think it is a very valid point. we have had almost nine months of data. even if we were to complete this fiscal year. this would have been a first year of our fiscal program in which we would have had approximately 10 months of data. with any new initiatives, there will be startup challenges. i do think that the slide, if we can put it up regarding the japanese tea gardens, this is quite revealing. in 1995, i think we first began charging fees at the tea garden. you can see what has happened. as the fee has continued over time and the department has been able to market the fee and we have had more deserters and

there is more awareness, that feed at the tea garden generated about $1.1 million in revenue and it now generates about 2.1. you can see a pretty dramatic increase. that is important revenue for us. it speaks to the point about projections. we always try to budget conservatively so we don't have to come back here asking for a supplemental. our guard and projections for this year is that we budgeted $2.1 million in revenue from the japanese tea garden this year and this year, it will be slightly more than that. this is not money that is sitting around doing nothing, that is helping us to balance the $6.8 million target and will minimize, we will use that funding over budget to minimize

service impacts in fiscal year 11-12. i think our approach is conservative but it helps us to balance from year to year. >> i would like to hear from the budget analyst on that. how confident are you in this debate? the fact that we are warning about one rainy month. normally, you don't want to have that come into play while you are analyzing. >> members of the committee, supervisor avalos, supervisor wiener, supervisor mirkarimi, i concur, and the projection could be wrong. we are simply stating that based on what their own projections are, there are 10 or 11

projections. this is a 50 + increase that we have said for this year. could we be wrong, absolutely? >> would you agree that in terms -- this had been around for 10 years and then all of a sudden they projected a 50% increase. that might raise a larger eyebrow then going from the first nine months into the next year. >> absolutely. the projection is based on a full year. we use their 11 month projection and this is 52% above the estimated 11 months of revenue. that raises the larger question if it was around for 10 years. i don't know what the history of the japanese people is, i don't know if that increases the fees or not. we have not made an order of

that. if that does, that would be a part of that increase. >> i think that is a fair point. i think we have had one recent fee increase. we had the decrease. >> the overall point, i totally agree. and my confidence in the projections, and i am not confident in any projection. we label this as a projection. in our professional judgment, this does look to be high going from now to the next year. given what the department is stating about the marketing efforts and the fact that there will be a full year is possible. it is possible that they could make their protection. >> all projections are speculative. would you agree that given how

new this is, there are some additional uncertainties underlying all analysis by all sides? >> i totally agree. i totally agree with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. first of all, i would like to thank all members of the public for your interest and passion about this issue. this has been a difficult question for many of us given that we would like to have our parks be free. that is what we strive towards. given a huge budget -- budget deficit, i understand. i understand the desire for my constituents about having full services from recreation and parks and other facilities. i have documents from the

appellant about how this fee has drastically lowered attendance. this suggests that the non resident visits are down 70% from initial estimates. i did not see anything in the budget analyst presentation or in the rec and park's presentation about historic presence. >> that speaks to the point about the need for more time and more data. this is the first time that we're actually tracking attendance in the garden. i want to note that the numbers are actually strong. we have a total of 132,000

people that have passed through the gates. that includes 37,680 non- residents. at 522 nonresident members of the society to which we have been reimbursed. you had asked about the number of nonresident members at the san francisco botanical society. in about nine months, we have had about 37,688 residents and yesterday we projected this was between 45,000 and 50,000 non resident admissions. we have to date, we are at about

100, 110,000 free admissions. we expect we will and the year at about 145. >> is anything you can say about whether attendance has dropped? it is to any metric that gives us a sense about what that looks like. >> may be it has. there has been a lot of controversy. we are not tracking it. it might be logical. if you look at the experience of the tea garden, attendance has climbed back up over time. i think this is one where we need to see where we are. we have a lot of people that are visiting our garden. we have a total of 150, 200,000 people. >> on the issue of 59 cents to

the dollar, do you have comparable figures of what other facilities like this that charge other fees? >> keep in mind that the costs are fixed but revenues will grow over time. if you look at the slide that we have where they outlined the staffing, we are not overstaffing this function. we have two dates. we have a very modestly -- ticket takers. we have a supervisor and we have an accounting function. the garden right now is open seven days a week. this is open seven hours a day during the winter. we are staffing on average 8 hours a day, seven days a week. i and a stand the budget analysts point but i think that if we had had a full 12 months, that ratio would have slid.

the data shows based on next year's projections, the cost of operating the garden would be 37% of the total gross. that leaves us netting 63% of the revenue that comes in and that is not insignificant. i think it is worth noting that given some of the challenges we have had come on the san francisco recreation and parks department will that $250,000. >> as the budget analyst report points out, this was probably lacking in a number of areas that we want to see button to down. do you agree with the budget analyst recommendations of what the future contract would entail? >> yes, we do. >> could we get a copy of the prior agreement? >> there are two documents. there is a grant agreement to manage the relationship this year during this one-year pilot

as it were. then we have an existing memorandum of understanding with the botanical garden. this addresses all of the other components. >> we're having a discussion on whether to and the fee now all for keeping it indefinitely until the end of time. we are going through a recession. is there a time that might make sense for us to consider revisiting this? >> someone said, 10 years or 25 years or something like that.

we need problematic stability. -- programatic stability. we spend seven or 8 months of our year engage in very difficult conversations with very passionate park users. we understand the concern. in a sense, even though we are on different sides of the issue, we are all very passionate about our parks. i think we are looking for is sustainable funding. the advantage for this particular fee does not impact san franciscans. this is sustainable the more data we have, the sharper our projections will be. this is not going to ed and flow

mostly every general fund budget cycle. we will be able to count on it, program it, and we will know what we have. for us, that stability is very very important for the way our department operates. we have certain minimum staffing needs in our parks. we are looking for long-term sustainable funding. >> about the feet, if you could reduce it, would that reduce people coming to the park. get a sense of what you have about that. >> the data that you have is based on our pricing structure which is $7 for adults and then

less for seniors and youth. this is different with our other paid attractions. this includes the conservatory of flowers and the tea gardens. we have only been in operation for 10 months. two years ago, this board approved a minor fee increase for the tea garden and at the conservatory. when did it go from $5 to $7? >> all of our attractions, the same fee structure. the nonresident is $7 for adults, the resident is $5. that $5 resident rate has been in place for probably three or

four years now. we created the non resident fee structure, raising that to seven in the summer of 2009. >> again, we point to some success at the tea garden. as we increased the rate, we have seen revenues grow. >> thank you. >> i also had a couple of questions. the skis me if some of it seems repetitive. there is so much information in front of us. currently, the revenue feet, what are we able to fund? >> well, $250,000 in net revenue supports slightly more than the cost of three gardners. >> in terms of next year if this fee does not continue, what does

that mean for you? you keep talking about recreation centers and all of that. what will that look like for you? >> really, we are talking about recreation centers, gardners, parks. >> we will have a structural whole of at least at a quarter of a million dollars. we will have to figure out a corresponding cut. >> just to follow up on the question, but do you know what the general ratio per dollar for some of these other facilities are? just a gauge of the cost of the commissions. -- the cost of admissions. the rise in the teagarden and attendance, was that a rise in

the cost of admission or a rise in people? >> both. >> we increased the nonresident rate from $5 to $7. again, we -- in 2010-11 alone, we will probably benefit from to -- we will benefit from $200,000. >> do you have the power to set rates and raise them? >> no, since the 1996 charter, the board of supervisors through the park code sets all of our rates and fees. every time you want to change a fee or rate, it requires approval and we have to go to the board of supervisors. >> one of the issues that i read from some of those that our

opponents of the admission fee is what we do about folks that don't have id or who are undocumented. how do we address that? >> with respect to answer the undocumented, we don't require any specific form of identification. we don't require a driver's license, proof of citizenship. and the san francisco address will do. for people who did not bring any identification to the garden, the policy has been to bring identification to the garden. this is one where common sense and customer service judgment of the ticket taker has to come into play and it has been my opinion that we should be absolutely be giving people the benefit of the doubt. i am sure that you will hear because there has been examples of people who have come to the garden who have not had ied and

have not been admitted into the garden. -- who have not had id. this has happened and this is a tricky one for the staff. there is a policy which is that residents are free with any proof of residence. we have had this conversation with the botanical society a couple of times and we have encouraged the ticket staff to give people the benefit of the doubt. >> many of our young people don't have any form of identification and often may not even have a bill that is sent to their address. what do we do for people that do not have id? now you take something like a school id? >> yes.

>> i am looking at the staff, i don't administer that part of the policy. >> we have heard really strong opinions and also different sets of facts in terms of what is going on. one of the concerns is that the hours are more limited. how was this done before? >> i think that the garden has always had these operating hours. >> so, i think in the past, the garden is in a fenced in area. the garden has operating hours.

the hours are getting reduced, there is less access. do you have a response to that? >> i think that has to be a valid point. the garden operates 8 hours. this is open 8 hours. nine hours a day during the summer, seven days a week. i think that there has been -- 10-4, i'm sorry, six hours during the winter. >> all of the revenue from the city comes from rec and park? >> after expenses. in order to increase revenue --

>> in order to increase revenue, i am wondering what the budget would be? >> we have the golden gate park collaborative which includes the academy of sciences which includes the san francisco travel association, and we are riding on their coattails and starting to feature the botanical in their overall marketing and promotional materials. as you know, the city will be hosting a travel trade conference where there will be 5000 travel industry professionals. this is a great opportunity for us to market the garden. the san francisco travel association just issued a study last week which you may have seen which noted that golden gate park is the third most

visited attraction by any tourist coming to the city behind the golden gate bridge and pier 39. we think there is great opportunity to take advantage of that. part of this is having a little stability to communicate what we are doing and working with various travel professionals and tore companies. >> is this through the golden gate cooperative? >> at the botanical society -- with a fee or without a fee, the botanical society just markets when it does. for example, when they have new programs. tonight at the conservatory of flowers, this is the opening of the new wicket plants. -- new "wicked," plants. we are marketing the show.

the san francisco botanical gardens was named the top five of california. these are always to highlight how special the garden is and to encourage more and more people to visit. >> do we pay the golden gate park and collaborative? >> no, this is a working group of entities interested in promoting golden gate park. >> thank you. >> so there is no lingering concern, there are no funds being spent for marketing purposes. >> the general manager, -- my experience