at this point. those are the only two choices. this is the better of the two choices. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i wanted to thank you all for your work, especially the supervisors working with the people of san francisco to really craft a solution that even if it is now one time, it can be since considered as a first time because this is the way to go to open up new streams of revenue. i would like to apologize to the workers who are brought in here by upper management who are being used against us and we are being divided. there are a lot of images of people who are against this fee. we are all san franciscans.

people have come from other areas underserved to talk about the rec centers and all of these other issues you have found a way to fund this institution and without making it a private and discriminatory institution. we hope that you will look at what has transpired. if they can use this to bailout the situation, perhaps other things can be utilized. this is discriminating against san franciscans. if you work and you did at of work at 4:00 or 5:00 and you come down to the arboretum, you

cannot get in. the fine print is that we close an hour before closing time. i've spent some time, we have been publicizing this issue. if you can look at those faces and see how people get to the gate and they cannot get in, both -- this is affecting working people getting off and have been the place to play. >> thank you. >> i am coming to the conclusion that the lack of money is the root of all people. this has been going on for two years now. i think we have discovered a source of money. we have never tapped into the money for visiting people, tourists. i think it is important that we have to look at this if you know

anything about statistics. you have to be very careful about the sampling that you do. we started to sample how many people came in after the height of the tourist season during one of the coldest summers we have ever had. this went on for 8 months. i don't think that that is a really good sampling. if you have to think about the future, not just how much you will pay or how much you will make this year but down the line. we have -- that cannot be stored like a painting or a sculpture. we have to continuously take care of them. a few observations that i have made is that when i was doing chores of the japanese tea garden, even today during the height of the cherry blossom season, i could stand at the

entrance of the japanese tea garden and i see a lot of people walking away because they don't want to pay the money. this past sunday, before my scheduled morning tor, 80 people were walking out of the arboretum and they had finished looking at it. they went over to the donation box and put a donation in. obviously, they did not speak english. the zoo, they're charging the residence. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to say that i do feel the pain of some of the testimony

i've heard today. i grew up with the free japanese tea garden and conservatory and the botanical garden. when you watch this arboretum of golf in two and a botanical garden with a lot of complicated collections of plants and realize the upkeep and what it really takes, i believe our existence is threatened. we have limited resources even on the board and in this nonprofit world. there are the demands that are set on parks and recreation is and the cuts made there. it would be impossible to maintain the collection as is. you have a program here that seeks revenue from non-residents

that not normally be normal taxes or support the garden. this just makes sense. this is needed, if we don't get it, we will lose the maintenance gardner's. i want to speak one -- to one thing that was mentioned i feel that we have less than a year's worth of data. if you don't remember, we had a very cold august and september. san francisco, you know that those are great months. the visitation is really climate-driven. we had a couple of great weeks of really good weather in february. we need a little bit more time on that. >> thank you. >> a final announcement for those who might be in the overflow room. we are ending public comment

fairly soon. please make your way to the board chambers and line up in the center aisle? >> good evening, supervisors. i am representing the san francisco green party. i want to bring in a big picture of why this is important. whenever there are great recessions like the one we are in. people want to exploit that. budgets get cut and then up the corporate entities go to you and

say, we have to have a fee. well, we have to cut labor wages and benefits. ology labor folks that have been speaking in favor of this feet are not getting the lesson of wisconsin. this is the same as what is going on in wisconsin. -- all of you labor folks that have been speaking in favor of this fee. people are trying to privatize every single aspect of our lives and make us pay fees or show our ied to get into public spaces paid for by public funds. check out "the shot dr. income" written by naomi claim -- check out "tjhhe shock

doctrine," by naomi klien. i saw a sign that said, no trespassing. on the other side, it did not say anything. that sign was made for you and me. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i just want to say that i am uncomfortable every time i go to the arboretum now and see those kiosks, the checkpoints, which is what they feel like more to me. i think it it is more important to speak a little bit more about the quality of the arboretum because to me, this is very different from other parts of the park.

this has a definite spirit and this is a place where you feel -- from doing the research, and just feeling the essence of the place, this is a place that was designed to draw u.n. and to welcome you. that is what a garden is. i know that this is what this one was designed for and it breaks my heart and it makes me angry at the same time, every time now that i see those checkpoints. i can attest to the fact that before the checkpoints, it was a lot more crowded and now it really does seem much less crowded. that is very sad to me. i know that i would not be able to afford $7 to just walk into a place. that is a lot of what this place offers. i would like to read some quotes

from the historic record that i took the trouble to find. i expect that the necessary funds for the maintenance and botanical gardens will be furnished by the city and county of san francisco from the master plan. the basic considerations, there must be careful attention paid to circulation so as to interfere with visitors as little as possible. you get the picture. change the tax code so the wealthy pay their fair share. >> thank you. >> this will be the last two speakers. >> i am a resident of the sun sets district -- the sunset district. >> the place is beautiful. if by eliminating the fee it we will eliminate the gardners and those plans will not be able to

be taken care of, i am for keeping the fee. i am for doubling the fee if we can keep the arboretum more special. if they end up going up and we make more money, maybe they can open my local club house that is closed and my kids cannot go there. i am for doubling the fee. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. when this fee went into effect last year, we work very hard to >> amendments. this would also provide for a way and a solution. we brought that. we brought that forward. there are many people here who worked hundreds of hours to bring a solution. we have actually satisfied what

the demand was for the initial fee which was to provide gardners and maintenance and operational funding. we have brought that. that is in place. that is a solution. we are not here to solve the whole budget crisis. we have had a very focused attention to providing a solution. i see all of these promises, all of these speculations ahead. this is something that has been in place for 8 months and has data there. we have a solution there and that is that we can bring a sustainable funding source that supplies maintenance, supplies the gardeners, it provides a solution. i would ask you to support the ordinance and take away the fee. thank you.

>> are there any other members of the public that wish to comment? anyone in the overflow room? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i know there are probably questions and comments from the committee. >> thank you. i would like to thank everyone for coming out and speaking. there are many different perspectives. what it means to workers come up visitors, the thriving arboretum folks. this is a very difficult and painful process that we are involved with as the decision makers. i will not be able to vote today. this is something that we struggle with in our deficit and there is no easy decision.

the mistake that we made in drafting the amendment about revenues coming in and replacing the feet, we had to do and two- step process. i was hoping that we could do it automatically. the general fund increases, we can use the money to replace the fee. i was told that we had to do -- i did not expect that was the case when we made the amendment to talk about the revenue replacement. here we are with the supplemental appropriation. this is not the process we expected would happen. we expected it would be automatic. i do hope that the panel here can understand that that is what the intent was the amendments that it would happen automatically, that there was a lot of work that has already

been done by many people in this room and we are still here. hundreds of people who work on these revenue measures who managed to get the real estate tax increase to pass. that was a monumental effort. i think that this is something that should be recognized. this is a positive vote for replacing the fee. this has been characterized as a onetime solution. it is not. this is the potential to be much more. the increased revenue from the real estate transfer taxes, this will be here year after year. we made decisions about priorities. we fund the entire city and county budget. this includes a wide array of services. of all of those services that we

found, $250,000 is about what we would use every year or potentially $500,000 every year. this is what we want to use to replace the fee. i don't think that this is asking a lot. i hope that colleagues, you can join me in your vote on that. >> thank you. >> i want to thank all the stakeholders that have been so patiently part of today's discussion both for and against this feet and thank you to the rec and park department for bearing with us as we try to understand all of the rationale. first, i will recommend a

procedural solution. i will make a motion that we advance both ordinances' forward with that recommendation to the full board mindful of the budget analyst amendments in the ordinance. so, that is the motion i will make said that we can way in which will be critical. second, i would like to suggest -- asked the society and rec and park to provide us with the data on the financials. i feel we have been dancing around this a little bit. it is frustrating that analysts

and us are without the data. i am looking for budget information this year and last year. that will help us are arrive at some of the understanding that they are not -- and as having a more thorough discussion. third, i have to tell you that i was one of the very strong proponents of proposition -- and i was delighted to see such a strong turnout thinking in advance that the revenue generated from that, would it be assigned for this express purpose? it does feel like false advertising. i think that that needs to be corrected. all parties involved who are part of that process who are now

against the idea of the fee being reversed should really think it through a little bit because what that does is it undermines the integrity of what that process was about and i think that people are betting on the fact that short-term memory will certainly become a casualty and no one will remember. i do not want to inflict the possibility that my imagination thinks otherwise without data, if you spend $7,500 on a consultant that is advocating for these kind of strategies, that equates to approximately $90,000 a year. this debate has been really ruminating for almost three years. you could have taken the money that is being applied for consultants and uplight it

almost at three-quarters of the cost by not needing a consultant and help in this society transfer that to what is needed and expected. this is helping us cover what is to be desired. i mean member of the botanical society. this area is for the adjacent to my district. i rarely go there but when i do, it is amazing. in the intermittent times that i have gone, this is a lot less -- this is more empty. i see a lot less people there. i don't know if this is coincidental or if there is some true relationships that is causing their to be less people. it could just be bad timing on my part.

this is an anecdotal impression that has lasted on me. i am worried about some of the forecasts that have been shared here today. i think that this is an incomplete discussion. this will be more complete with data that will help us arrive at a sound decision. we can advance both without full recommendation to the full board. >> in terms of the appropriation, for 195,000, does that cover the net profit that they would have made or is this all the revenue that they would have made? >> this is supposed to cover the revenue projection. this is actually less.

this is for the remainder part of the year. >> would that include the employees that are currently hired? would they be there through june? >> they should not be laid off. the idea is to cover the cost that would be in the fee. parks and recreation is under contract to provide 10 gardeners' for the botanical garden. >> the ticket staff. >> that, i don't know. >> with the botanical society care to comment on this? -- would the botanical society care to comment on this? >> if the fee is eliminated, then the entire and mission program would end. everyone associated with the program would be laid off.

>> i agree with fording both -- forwarding both ordinance's forward. i would love more information on the budget for the botanical gardens since they are a partner in terms of revenue and expenses. thank you for that request. >> thank you. are there any other comments? what i'm understanding is that there a motion to except several of the budget analyst recommendations, and the together the item with regards to amending the effective date of the ordinance and chlorine the general fund allocation -- lowering the general funds obligation. those other three recommendations that i believe that everyone is in agreement

with. i think that that is a motion. on the issue of revenue, i understand where folks are coming from with regard to their working on the tax and hoping to pass that. having been at the board when that item was before us, my understanding was that if the city was able to find dedicated revenue that was going, the reversal of her. -- would occur. this was not specifically designated to parks and recreation. that is where some of the perception issues are in different. i want folks to understand why there is a different interpretation. >> i explicitly say that any revenue tax that the rec and

park's receive is not dedicated. i was not working on dedicated taxes so i would not mention this. this was about a general fund tax. that was their interpretation because they are not looking to have a solution to the non resident fee. >> there is a difference of opinion from the supervisors on this issue. i want to make sure the public is aware that that exists. we do have a recommendation to except a few of the budget analyst recommendations and i think we can do that without objection. thank you.

>> i know that there is another item that is before us. and call item no. 3. >> item 3. the hearing for an update in the 2011-2012 from the children youth and families. >> can i just have a show of hands from individuals who might be here on that item, item number 3? right. thank you. i will wait for the room to clear a bit before we begin.

on this item, it is a department hearing before the children youth and their families. the attention is to bring certain committees before the budget and finance committee. that is to understand what they have proposed to the manager and get a handle on what contingency costs may be. my understanding is that there a -- there are a number of people who have come out to speak on this item. because of the length of the previous item, many people have had to leave. we have heard a request from folks to continue the item. if that is fine with the committee, i would like to do that. i would like to give people who have remained the opportunity to speak. if there are any members of the public who would wish to comment

on item number 3, please come forward and speak. we will continue this item next week. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 3. seeing none, public comment is closed. we can entertain a motion to continue this item for a week. we can do that without objection. do we have many other items before us? we are turned. -- adjourned.