Budget committee forwards botanical garden fee extension and $195,176 appropriation to full board after hours of testimony

The Budget and Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 5 advanced two linked ordinances to the full Board after hours of presentations, questions and more than two hours of public comment.

Chair Carmen Chu opened the hearing on an ordinance to extend admission fees at the San Francisco Botanical Garden for non‑San Francisco residents and a separate ordinance to appropriate $195,176 from the general fund to offset the reduction in Botanical Garden fee revenue. After testimony from department officials, the budget analyst and dozens of residents and stakeholders, the committee agreed to send both items to the full Board without recommendation and with selected budget‑analyst amendments.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on a trade‑off between generating steady revenue to support recreation and park services and concerns that the admission checkpoint and fee exclude residents and reduce visitation at a public garden. Recreation and Park Department officials argue the fee helps subsidize gardeners, maintenance and recreation programming; opponents say the fee has already depressed attendance and that Proposition N real‑estate transfer tax proceeds should replace the charge.

Rec & Park’s case: Phil Ginsberg, general manager of the Recreation and Park Department, said the department supports Mayor Lee’s ordinance to extend fees for non‑San Francisco residents because citywide budget cuts have forced program reductions. “San Franciscans would continue to access the San Francisco Botanical Garden for free and we would only charge non‑San Francisco residents,” Ginsberg said, stressing the department spends about $1.7 million a year operating the 55‑acre garden and that the Botanical Garden Society provides roughly $1.6 million in services annually.

Fiscal details and disagreement: Katie Petruccione, RPD’s finance director, summarized the pilot admissions program and reported that through March the program had generated about $231,000 with expenses just over $166,000; RPD projects it could net roughly $250,000 in the current fiscal year. The budget analyst (Mister Rose) challenged those projections and highlighted administrative costs: in FY2010‑11 RPD’s analysis showed administrative expenditures equal to 59¢ to collect each $1 of fee revenue, a ratio the analyst called "high" and said made the overall projection optimistic.

Public testimony and themes: More than 70 members of the public spoke. Labor and many community groups urged continuation of the fee as a revenue stream to preserve Rec & Park jobs and youth programming. “Every coin that the department makes is saving somebody’s job,” said a union representative. Opponents—neighbors, docents and community activists—said the fee has turned the garden into a “ghost town,” citing attendance declines (witnesses and some analyses cited resident visits down around 40% and nonresident visits down as much as 70%) and renewed concerns about access for low‑income residents, visitors without ID and youth.

Committee action and requests: Supervisor (Ross) Mercarini moved to advance both ordinances to the full Board without recommendation, incorporating budget‑analyst recommendations to amend the ordinance effective date and to reduce the requested appropriation. The motion also asked RPD and the Botanical Garden Society to provide detailed financial statements and a clarified memorandum of understanding that documents the society’s role and the reimbursement terms. Chair Chu noted the committee would forward the items "without objection."

Next steps: Both ordinances will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda; the committee requested that RPD and the Botanical Garden Society provide the additional financial documentation and a revised MOU for the Board’s review before the full hearing. If the fee is eliminated before the fiscal year ends, RPD said the admissions program would end and ticket‑taking staff associated with the program would be laid off; the supplemental appropriation was intended to cover the remainder of the current fiscal year if the fee sunsets.

The meeting adjourned after the committee confirmed its direction to move both items forward and asked staff to return with the requested documents.