Board splits on Botanical Garden nonresident fee; appropriation to replace fee fails, fee extended on first reading

The Board of Supervisors debated the future of a nonresident admission fee at the San Francisco Botanical Garden during its April 12 meeting, with members sharply divided over access and park funding.

Supervisor John Avalos led a push to replace the fee using a portion of new property transfer tax revenue (Proposition N), arguing the charge had reduced attendance and created access obstacles for residents and visitors. Avalos offered a supplemental appropriation proposal to move $143,000 of general‑fund proceeds from the increased transfer tax to Rec and Park and rescind the nonresident fee. He described residents and tourists who avoided the garden because of ID requirements and cited staff analysis showing revenue and attendance below original projections.

The board voted on the appropriation (item 6) first; the motion failed on a 4–7 vote. After additional amendments and debate, the board voted on the ordinance extending the nonresident fee (item 5, as amended). President Chu offered an amendment to sunset the fee after two years and include a statement that the board opposes any resident fee. That amendment passed. The resulting ordinance to continue the nonresident fee passed its first reading on a 6–5 roll call vote; later budget deliberations were identified as the appropriate vehicle to consider additional Rec and Park funding.

Positions and evidence: Supporters of rescinding the fee argued the charge had discouraged San Franciscans and tourists from visiting the garden, citing personal observations and the department’s attendance records. Opponents, including some supervisors and Recreation and Park officials, said the city faces structural deficits and the fee provides needed local revenue for park maintenance; they supported a short trial extension to gather more data on attendance and revenue.

Votes and next steps: The supplemental appropriation to replace the fee failed (4 ayes, 7 noes). The amended ordinance to extend the fee passed first reading (6 ayes, 5 noes) with a two‑year sunset and a board statement opposing any resident fee. The ordinance will return for second reading; the board’s June budget process was repeatedly cited as the place to consider additional funding for Rec and Park.

Why it matters: The debate pits park access concerns and equity arguments against near‑term budget needs for Recreation and Park maintenance. Supervisors said more data is needed to evaluate the fee’s effects, while opponents called for immediate relief for residents and visitors.