[water rushing]

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. the agenda was noticed with five members of the committee, but because we passed the budget yesterday, the true committee for the budget finance committee is now the three-person committee comprised of myself,

supervisors kim and mirkarimi. mr. young, do we have any announcements? >> please turn off all cellphone. please submit your speaker cards to myself if you wish to speak. if you submit items to the committee, please provide them for the file. supervisor chu: thank you very much. please call item no. 1. >> item #one. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code sections 12r.5, 12r.7, 12r.16, 12r.17, 12r.18, and 12r.25 to -- enhance the office of labor standards enforcement's enforcement of the city's minimum wage ordinance by clarifying agency access to places of employment -- require

a policy to resolve complaints or initiate enforcement actions within one year -- raise the penalty for employer retaliation -- impose a penalty for failure to post minimum wage rates -- provide for posting notice to employees upon commencement of an investigation and public posting of employer non-compliance, and impose penalties for violation of these posting requirements -- impose a penalty for failure to provide employer's name, address, and telephone number to employees -- allow for back wages held in escrow for an employee for three years or more to be used to enforce the minimum wage ordinance or other laws enforced by the office of labor standards enforcement if the office of labor standards enforcement cannot locate the employee -- provide authority to immediately issue an administrative citation upon sufficient evidence of certain violations -- require industry- focused outreach materials for employees. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i believe we have a representative from supervisor

campos' office. i do not see them in the room at the moment. let's perhaps pass through this item first. back to the city attorney, last week we heard a testimony and a presentation that we submitted an amendment to. do we need to submit public comment for this item? or have we dispense with that? >> the purpose of the item was to take this for amendment. supervisor chu: let's go forward first with public comment on this item. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number one? >> good morning. we wanted to thank the supervisors for hearing the public comments last week on this ordinance. numbers were briefed on the changes to the ordinance.

if there are any questions about ordinance, we would be happy to answer. >> thank you very much. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number one? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. colleagues, given that we do not have representatives from the supervisor's office, but that we did hear testimony and presentation last week, are there any questions? do we have a motion on this item? supervisor kim: motion to move with positive recommendation. supervisor chu: without objection. item number two, please.

>> item #two. resolution authorizing the execution and performance of an option to purchase the approximately 33,000 square foot industrial building and land at 1 newhall street for $5,304,500 contained in a lease dated for reference december 20, 2006, by and between 1 newhall, llc, as landlord, and the city and county of san francisco as tenant; adopting findings unde. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have dr. amy heart from the migrant center. >> good morning. my name is john updike, acting director of real estate. today we see the recommendation to acquire this property that jennings and newhall in the india basin subdivision. i have a general map in the overhead. the property is on a street that leads to the postal service facility and is somewhat disconnected from the basin as a result.

it does a for the city to secure an excellent match for the office of the chief medical examiner, subject to design, cheaper review, and authorization of funding over the left -- the next two to 2.5 years. originally leased in 2006, housing the laundry facility, dislocated from a hospital project. primarily as a result of an arbitration between union representative laundry workers and the city. set aside, subsequently, the laundry is now an outsourced function that never moved into this location. however, the property jurisdiction has been used as a warehouse for off site storage during construction. it served a very valuable

purpose, housing everything from art works to kitchen appliances. in the past year the property has not been put to any particular use, although the city did to engage in an aggressive attempt to sub-lease the property. one final alternative uses conformance. the 10-year lease has 35 your options for renewal with options for purchase. the current term expands the january 1, 2017. recognizing the serious deficiencies in the current space at the hall of justice outlined in our report and in the budget analysts report, a robust study of the space needs began a few years ago. pressuring to prepare for the additional inclusion by a measure of 2010. while it was not included in the

final package, the subsequent review of the space needs leads us to today's actions. critical spaces have not risen, nor has pressure from the credit ratings agency, the national association of credit ratings managers. there were several other properties examined, but none matched this properties ability at a fair market value in the location for appropriate sizing and the property entitlements that go with that this property. some of the details of the purchase agreement before you, it is for a 33,000 square foot building on a lot over the entrance. there are further is a in the particulars of the lot location. $4,500 with a close of escrow on

september 1, 2001. this was supposed to be an all cash transaction has appeared yesterday in the budget under the general services agency. so, in negotiating this transaction we extended the closing date as long as we could, beyond the range allowed for, technically, the purchase option and a price reduction for the amount that should be followed for an additional savings of $323,044. it compared this purchase to the leasing of property 331 for the same purpose, considering the potential costs of operation, finding the purchase approach with a 11% savings over that time. let me be clear, this item solely seeks authority to acquire. it does not commit the city to

place ocme in to the property for super-review or funding source secure all. although the measure is subject to that design and other findings, should the city choose not to place in this facility, the purchase provides us with a greater our right of options that we have today. holding a lease that does not expire until 2017 and no immediate user. through ownership we create opportunities for direct leasing or direct use by city entities. failing those options, we can also dispose of this asset, given the competitive purchase price and the market's recovery since the appraisal that was almost 1.5 years old, we should be financially whole on the

sale, retaining future option should be used not come to pass. the current circumstance of us having a long-term lease and a vacant asset is a rare. i know it has caused some concern. we have revealed records to see how where this was. we have seen no similar incidents of these improvements that are vacant. that is not the driver of this recommendation. it meets the needs of ocme at the right time to potentially package this for the future. that is why we are here today. i am joined by dr. amy heart, our chief medical examiner. we are happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. doctor, is there anything you

would add to this presentation? >> thank you for asking for my comments regarding this. we have been working with the capital planning committee and the people in the real-estate division for many years, trying to find an adequate location. at this time i think that a location that meets all of the needs of the medical examiner's office and fits in with the city's plan has been found. i am in agreement with mr. updike regarding this presentation. i see the purchase of this facility as a good faith from the medical examiner's office in the future, meeting needs for accreditation. supervisor chu: i was curious. does accreditation, up at the

end of 2012? >> correct. supervisor kim: if we move forward with this proposal, you will not be able to move in until 2016. what are your thoughts on the impact on your accreditation? does this impact your ability to get accreditation? >> i see it as a positive impact. i say that because the people that come to do these sections are also people who are in the medical examiner's field and have to deal with issues regarding capital needs for their facilities. so, they have an understanding that the process will take time. it is something we have been working on at the medical examiner's office for over 10 years. i believe that the purchase in

the building will show a good- faith effort on the part of this city to move in a good-faith direction, usually sufficient for an inspector to see that we are actively working to remedy the deficiencies they have identified. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: mr. rose? >> madam share, on page 6 of the report would point out that the total cost to purchase the facility, as shown in table one on page 6 of the report, that amount does not include the total cost for needed capital improvements. as shown in the second table on page 6, the total capital improvements are currently estimated to range between 25,000 -- [unintelligible]

on page 7 of the report, as shown on table 3, the total estimated cost of purchasing an occupying the facility, including acquisition costs, capital improvements, and other costs, would range between $40,000,000.50 $0.2 million. -- $40 million why and $50.2 million. we have compared leasing this facility with purchasing this facility. it would cost about 5,325,000 more, or about 99.1% more to lease, rather than purchasing. of course, capital purchasing would need to be constructive whether it was a lease for a purchase if this building could

use the location for the medical examiner. currently we are considering approval of this resolution for the supervisor and i will be happy to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. do any members of the public wish to speak on item number two? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. dr. carr. perhaps you covered this earlier. as the accreditation of the examiner's office ever been a concern bell or in jeopardy? >> it has been continuous, to my understanding, for over 20 years. it is only reason seat -- recently,