specialized vocabulary that may be needed in any particular industry. >> my last question -- supervisor kim: my last question in terms of placement, do you have projects in the pipeline, commitments from labor unions, companies to take on our current trainees? >> it is a continual process. we set out these academies to set up the labor demands, local and regional employers. we convened meetings of those employers on a quarterly basis to update us and our cdo partners in media mean -- in near-term and immediate options, how we can make sure that we are training to meet the needs. supervisor kim: so if we are training 700 applicants, we are treating them looking at the

market, with an optimistic view that we can get them higher? >> absolutely. we demand -- defined as as a demand-driven system. we are training to meet the needs of job-seekers and local employers. we do not want to train folks for job opportunities that do not exist. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> i have here before me a news flash from the office of economic development and workforce. in the first paragraph it says there are these one-stop career

centers. it mentions a figure of 130,000 visits. i have this here but this lady does not have it. i am representing members of our district. i am representing my experience so that people at home can hear. what is happening here is our federal taxpayer money is being wasted. if, in the last five years, you look at the mayor's office of economic development, there was just a handful. now they have a budget of close to $18 million. i do not know if our attorneys and those that we trust to do a good job audit the mayor's

office of economic development, but as far as i am concerned, my partners -- we do business in canada, china, south america. we know all about green. the acts that come from the office of the mayor's office of economic development and workforce are not right. we should have had a lot of other people here instead of this lady. it is the first time i have seen her. supervisor chu: thank you. >> this is very shameful. supervisor chu: next please? seeing none, public comment is closed. one of the things, if i could request -- i think there is an interest from the perspective

of the board to understand better workforce development strategies across the city. not only are their activities through citybuild, the health care program to the office of workforce development, but also programs through the hsa. i think it would be helpful to get a larger perspective of the work force investments the city makes and to perhaps share that information with the members of this committee at a later time. we can have a hearing at a later time to go through those. >> absolutely. i would be happy to share that information. supervisor mirkarimi: may i add to that? it was about three years ago that we took this up to consolidate work force efforts in the city. departments like hsa and others came on board but we were not successful in consolidating every board.

that makes it a challenge for the office of work force development. for lack of a better phrase, they are the traffic cop. each time one of these grants comes to us, whether under the title of green jobs or something else, it is true, based on public comment -- based on what chair chu said -- there is not much data to that thematically, geographically, and demographically. in the same way that we isolate these questions with police departments, we want to know how populations are being affected. i think it is getting to the point now where oewd figured out

and anticipate those questions. >> thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. can we have a motion to send this item for with recommendations? without objection. item to police. >> resolution authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a community services block grant in the amount of $750,000 from the california state department of community services and development, through the economic opportunity council, to support citybuild, the summer youth employment program, and ramp sf. supervisor chu: would you also call item 3? >> ordinance authorizing the office of economic & workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $238,000 from the united states department of labor employment and training administration to fund the green jobs workforce development training project, and amendin.

>> the second item on the agenda, and the community services block grants, we received this grant late in our program. and these were stimulus dollars that were basically sub-granted to our office by the economic opportunity council, to augment some existing programming we had in place that met the requirements of those dollars. what we were able to do with these funds is add additional training services. what we ended up doing was concentrating the dollars primarily in our summer youth program. as such, we were able to surf 530 san francisco youth. they rare given a job opportunities over this past summer. they were also receiving job

readiness training, workshops, and for those of those in school, a transition back into the educational environment. because we were able to augment the program with these dollars, we will be able to continue our summer youth employment program this coming summer. we were able to start a summer youth employment program with the stimulus dollars a came into our office originally two years ago. those dollars are now expiring. but we will be able to carry forward formula dollars and run another program this summer, which we are happy about. we know there are a lot of young people who need those opportunities to stay off the streets in the summer. we want to make sure we can give as many of them opportunities as possible. we were also able to use this change to give specialized hazmat and abatement training for another 85 out of work

construction workers that we would not otherwise have been able to serve with these dollars. the additional item on the agenda, the federal training grant is part of the work force investment act funding that was received by our office. these are discretionary dollars that were granted to us in a special grant. we will use these to provide staffing and cdo support really to coordinate the variety of green program that we have running currently, including both of our youth programs and the green academy we were speaking of earlier. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: on item two, a $750,000 grant going primarily -- almost 100% of that going to contractual services. the 71 is going to fund a position with a bit of

contractual services, $30,000. >> exactly. supervisor chu: why don't we open up these two items to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. -- is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> the first time i was only given two minutes. now we have two agenda items and i am given another two minutes. if this is not mickey mouse in the issue, i do not know what is. you representatives, i think, should be ashamed of yourself to call on people to have public comment but not give them sufficient time to address such issues. what i am saying here categorically -- and i want to start a freedom of information act. when stimulus money comes to us, he constituents of san francisco, that is our federal tax money. what we have a department like this doing is they talk the talk

but they cannot walk the walk. they take the money and give it to citybuild, city college, cdo 's and the people that really need training, the ones that deserve training, and there is no doubt reach. path office of economic development to talk about this and other. the people at ground zero do not have the information. we cannot allow our taxpayers' money, our federal money to be wasted by an agency like the mayor's office of economic development. it is too fake. now that you are only giving us two minutes, we have a group of people who are investing in these issues. we are going to use that and

take this department before the ethics commission so that the whole world knows about it. i will personally address this to president obama. thank you very much. supervisor chu: are there other members of the public that wish to speak on item two or three? seeing none, public comment is closed. the two items are before the committee. >> so moved. supervisor chu: both items will be forwarded to the full board with recommendation. if you could, i think some of the questions raised here are good, specifically, i would be interested in a summary of knowing what it is we currently do, the programs we have, the dollar that we spend cumulatively, who manages the program, depending on which agency manages the project.

as well as the population that we serve. and perhaps we can work with you in the coming months to try to get that information in an easy to read fashion so that all of us have the information. >> absolutely. i would be happy to. supervisor chu: ok, without objection. please call item five. >> resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the sale and conveyance of property nonexclusive permanent easements and three temporary easements -- supervisor mirkarimisupervisor k to item no. 5. >> the item before you on item 5

is the sale of property rights to caltrans for some work that cannot and will be doing to highway 84. i have on the overhead a brief look at this property in alameda county. the city of fremont is near my finger. the section of highway 84 which is the watershed area that feeds the san antonio reservoir is the area at issue. there are eight different parcels that contract would be acquiring read it totaling -- three temporary construction easements of about half an acre. based on a grill and analysis, the fair market value of these rights are estimated to be $3,500, and administrative fees to process this request from caltrans was added on to that,

$2,500, making the total acquisition price proceed of funds to the city $6,000. a fairly straightforward acquisition for city purposes. happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor chu: there is no budget analyst report on this. our current threshold is $200,000. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item #5. seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item ford with recommendations. without objection? item four. >> resolution approving the sale of an improved surplus property located at 909 tennessee street. supervisor chu: thank you.

again, this item is an item, from my understanding, there had been new news with regard to the purchaser of the property. i know john will give us an update on that. just so committee members know, i will be introducing an amendment for the whole of this piece of legislation that will require it to be continued for a week. so we will not be taking any potential action on this item today. >> thank you. this item is regarding the potential sale of surplus fire department assets at 909 tennessee street. following a declaration of surplus by the fire commission, real estate was asked to complete its due diligence requirements to proceed with the sale of that, including an appraisal, which was concluded in the spring of 2010. the upraised knife of the asset was $340,000.

that considered the nature of the asset, requiring a lot of rehabilitation. the fact that it is a potentially contributing structured to the historic fabric of the neighborhood, and thus, somewhat limiting redevelopment options. following the completion of a purchase to sale agreement and a bid process, the property was put out to bid. public bids were secured in late november. nine bids were received. they ranged in prices from three and 77 dozen dollars to $1,310,000. eight of those bids were without contingencies, including the high bidder. the high bidder was waco heavy industries llc. that is a limited liability corporation under the auspices

of win big here the third. a local resident of the neighborhood. he had a passionate interest in the asset. however, after tendering the bid and moving the property toward escrow, awaiting court approval of the sale, final item required in order to close an escrow, mr. degear decided to withdraw his high bid. upon consultation with counsel, it is felt the best approach following this, given the discrepancy of the high bidder of $1.3 million and the second batter of $906,000, was to rebid the property through a fast- track process. that is the substance of this substitute legislation that the chair would be introducing. that would grant the authority to still sell the property at the $1.3 million price subject

to the did call. that then creates a floor for a new bid process. we have some confidence that even those secondary or tertiary bidders that been dissipated in the first time around in november, or other parties, as the market continues to strengthen 62010, will yield the results receipt of $1.3 million for the property. we also feel it is the fairest approach to rebid the property, rather than in most circumstances, going to the second bidder. given again that difference, significant between the first and second bidder, we think it is in the city's best interest economically to put it back out to bid. the intention is we can probably see bids probably in the first week of march. we are just scheduling and confirming the documents subject to that now, subject to any input the committee may have

today. with me today is deputy chief fields and finance officer mark horsa from the finance department. we are able to answer any questions you have about this bid process. supervisor chu: just to clarify what we are looking at, a 1.3 $1 million sale that we were going to vote on -- rather than to authorize the sale of, given that the purchaser has backed out of the transaction, we propose rebidding. the nature of the men and i am proposing today is simply to allow the real-estate department at the authority to go forward and we did it and to sell it for no less the $1.31 that we are currently going to contemplate. and so there is an amendment of all that i'm proposing. it would have to set a week and we would not be able to vote on that. so if i could, let me open this

item for public comment first and then we can vote on the amendment as a whole. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? before we do that, i want to welcome supervisor colon who has joined us. -- cohen who has joined us. gesso members know, this item will not be voted on today. it will be continued on to the next week. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor jim? supervisor kim: thank you. happy to see that things are moving along and there are potential bidders for this item. i want to let my colleagues know that i am interested in proposing an amendment for the recommendation from our analyst to specify the use of the remaining five under $19,000 to

actually -- $519,000 to actually go to zerhousing for those who e homeless. as the look of cuts to hrsa, reductions were toward support of housing for the formerly homeless. i will be looking toward that and could be proposing that. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, extending into the comments that supervisor kim just made, that was your -- your intimation was to suggest that the remainder of the dollar's, that we honor the original surplus property ordinance moved by supervisor daly so that it would go for exactly that purpose, isn't that what you were suggesting? >> let me clarify, madam chair,

supervisors. what we are suggesting is, first of all, normally, an exemption is considered or not by the board of supervisors prior to the sale. in this case, that did not happen. so the board made -- there was no legislation approved by the board to say either they want this to go forward for housing for the homeless or not. my recommendation to the board, given the fact there has been a sale and i understand it is going to be rebid. incidentally, supervisor mirkarimi, we are no longer sure about that $500,000 excess because of the rebid. but you are right, that is the concept. our recommendation would be to make a determination. do you want ithe excess money

that the board approved in the fire department's budget for 2010, 2011? do you want access to go to housing for the homeless or to the general fund? that is my recommendation for you to amend and take your choice on either of those two. we recommend that you approve as amended. supervisor mirkarimi: since we are looking ahead, i absolutely agree with the letter of the ordinance of the surplus property. in the spirit that supervisor ken suggested. whether it is permanent housing for senior hamas or families that are homeless, i am hoping that it is categorized in that direction. i would like to hear how it would then be best applied toward not just a general kind of remedy by really gets into

the specifics of that. supervisor kim: hopefully, we can work together on the amendment. >> just a note to my colleagues, -- supervisor chu: just a note to my colleagues, we do not have a sale to consider so we do not know how much money we will spend. as we head into the budget season, we know we will have a significant budget shortfall. the trade of we would be making if we decide to come forward with an ordinance in the future to appropriate this excess money above and beyond what was anticipated is the fact that it is a trade-off between other cuts that we would potentially be taken from the city's budget. recently, we heard news that out of the $25 million in terms of the general fund reserve that we had, we have to draw approximately $8 million in

unanticipated expenses in its current year, so our current budget deficit is growing by $8 million for legitimate reasons. you will be hearing supplementals come through. just a note for folks. if we can, think about the allocation of this money in context of our larger budget and how delicate things would be helpful. supervisor colon? >> what a wonderful introduction to keep things focused. good afternoon, calis, members of the public. i am here today to give my voice of support for this property which sets -- i want everyone to be reminded -- it is in the dog patch neighborhood, which is in district 10. the prospect of this sale has been discussed for some time. my interest now has it been in the remaining revenue that we were discussing from the properties fell after the fire department's previously budgeted portion. there are many that we need to address with the general fund support and affordable housing

is certainly one of our top objectives. i just want to call to your attention that section 23 a of the administrative code speaks to the need for affordable housing funding in san francisco and states that revenue from sale of surplus property should be considered as additional support for affordable housing programs. so i come to you today to humbly asked, in the spirit of the surplus city property ordinance, i propose using the remaining proceeds from this sale to support the hope sf project which is located up the hill from the site. as you know, the public housing developments are two of the oldest and most dilapidated public housing complexes in the city. the proposed rebuild will build 600 units of housing at below 50% ami, integrate the site into

the surrounding neighborhood, as well as generate economic opportunities for residents, and create an additional portable market rates housing unit. the project is approaching pre development phase and needs to continue financial support. the city has made significant general fund commitment to the hope sf program, which are then leverage for the state and federal support. but major funding gaps still remain. so in the coming weeks, i will be introducing a supplemental appropriation ordinance that will dedicate the excess revenue from this property sale to the mayor's office of housing for the purpose of the hope sf project. additionally, i asked that you add this language to the ordinance before this goes into effect. thank you for hearing me. supervisor chu: thank you,

supervisor, penn. a question for the city attorney. -- cohen. with regards to an allegation of funding for the property ordinance, we cannot allocate anything until a sale is complete, correct? >> madam chair, deputy city attorney, cheryl adams beer that is correct but more for in the, you could allocate the funds using this resolution as a vehicle. it would require a supplemental appropriation ordinance once the sale is complete and the funds are available. supervisor chu: thank you. ok, so we have a motion to take be amended as a whole. without objection? if the department a real-estate can provide an update on when the sale of