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 by the botanical 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,