testing testing

>> what is being proposed now is what they consider the first phase which would be a 640-bed replacement jail. currently just 3 and 4 have 509 beds. so, it is a reduction. the estimated cost of this is 290 million. of that cost 30.7 million would be to purchase the land adjacent to the hall of justice. so, this current plan is consistent with an assessment made by the controller, the county jails needs assessment. if they build a 640 height and

bulk bed jail at the hall of justice, county wide there would be 220 beds, more than 2200 beds. this is expected to meet an average daily population, inmate population of 2 19 of 1900. there has to be additional beds to accommodate population days and also for what they call classification, which basically means beds need to be left vacant based on gender, type of crime and other factors. >> i want to note we have an overflow room in 263 if people are not able to find a seat in the chamber. thank you. >> so, the current proposal is 2250 beds. that is a.m. compared to the witing capacity of over 2,500 beds. ~ that's so, what we looked at is the actual change in the jail population, and it has gone

down significantly between 2008 and 2013. there's been about a 30% decrease. the average daily population, 2008, was 2015. in 2013 it's 1400, little over 1400. and part of that 1400 is the impact of public safety realignment. if you exclude the inmates that are there due to the public safety realignment, then the actual jail population would decrease as low as 1237. so, this shows sort of the arrest records in is itv. ~ san francisco. one of the main drivers of decrease in the main population of the jail is as supervisor campos referred to, this ictioner term changes in policy. the arrest rate is way down in several areas. one of the main areas is drug offenses. this is due a little bit to

changes in population, where the population isn't as young as it once was. a decline in the 18 to 34 age group. but i think more importantly to policies of the city has implemented, and the increased use of alternatives incarceration. i think this is a really important point to make in this because policies are under the control of the city and, you know, the impact it has under the jail population or under the control of the city. some of the policies are also state level but they're legislated policies. so, taking this new information in the lower population, the original forecast, the plans of the 640-bed jail was based on sort of historical data from 1996 to 2011. a lot changed between 2011 and 2013. so, we simply updated the forecast adding the next two years and as you see from this, we have a lower population in

2000 going forward based on the lower average daily population over the last two years. so, the original calculation estimate was 1900, average daily population in 2019 [speaker not understood]. our estimate now based on mere recent data ask a little less than 1500 average daily population. and that does include the impact of public safety realignment. so, kind of using some of the same calculations to meet sort of what we call peek population, but also classification, we estimated a range of between 1600 ~ and 1700 jail beds county wide, less than the 2200 that would be -- that would result in the 640-bed jail. so, if in fact you took this lower number, if you really could sort of say, yes, the need for additional beds due to

peak population and classification would give you -- require 1600 beds a day, then you could potentially build a much smaller jail hall of justice and you could build a 384-bed jail rather than 640-bed jail, which we say the savings would be 96 million dollars in terms of project costs and it would not require the use of county jail 6, which i think is important. now, when we look at these numbers, one of the things i said we did look at different alternatives and i know some discussions came up about san bruno and transportation costs. so, in our report -- i don't have it in the slides here -- we actually decided the transportation costs of moving inmates from san bruno to the hall of justice in the security costs and holding cells were significantly high. at this point in time it's not feasible to build extra jail beds at san bruno to accommodate the population. so, there is a replacement jail, what we saw was probably

made more sense to build it next to the hall of justice. so, that's sort of a brief summary. we did look a little bit at alternatives to incarceration. i know there will be more discussion later. i think that number of offenders who are in this programs has increased. i think there are still some proposals out there. we estimate that maybe as many as 60 more could be incorporated in terms of reducing the jail population. but we didn't actually include that in our analysis because those are not numbers that are -- the programs haven't been implemented and those aren't known yet. our recommendation, then, is fairly straightforward. the city is about to go into environmental review on a 640-bed jail. that should begin early in 2014 with the completion date at the end of 2015. the city at any point can decide to build a smaller jail or no jail at all without having to redo that

environmental review, and then as supervisor campos said, the board will have options in 2015 to revisit this. >> thank you, ms. campbell. i especially want to highlight all the time and energy that you personally put into this to get this report out as quickly as possible. so, thank you very much for your excellent work. supervisor yee. >> yes, i have a few questions. thank you for the presentation and it's a very thorough report. the first question is really, when you look at the graph in page 2 of your report, if you had predicted or use the forecast for 2011, and right away you use the more current data. so, you were -- not you personally. >> right. >> -- heard that the forecast for 2011 would have been way

off. is that sort of an error that may happen either way as we move into the next year, for instance? >> i think whatever you're forecasting into the future, you have to make certain assumptions. i wouldn't call it guesswork exactly, but it's certainly not a known entity. and i know the controller will be presenting later because they also are redoing some projections. i think the trend line -- we kind of worked with the prior historical data. if you change the years in which you're looking, you're going to get a different trend. i think that sort of what we wanted to say out of all of this is not that our estimate of the bed need was the final estimate, but it certainly showed that the trend was downward ~ and that by the time the board had to make a final decision on the jail, there's going to be two years more of

data and it's going to give more certainty about that downward trend. as of december 2013, i believe the average daily jail population was 12 04. so, it keeps going down ~. the other point i want to make and sort of draw out is the capital plan already envisions a two-phase process. so, there's always that capacity to do something now with the understanding if the world changes, you could do something in addition at another date. >> yeah. the other question i have, and i didn't really see it in the report but it might be in here. you looked at -- in the analysis you made some assumptions and eventually said, well, maybe it's a good idea to look into smaller replacement. my question is that -- and i

think you answered part of this question in terms of the unused jail 6, the transportation costs might be prohibitive. but in terms of looking at jail 1 and 2, my understanding is that it's not being utilized -- or being under utilized and i'm not sure if it's ever going to be used to its capacity. did anybody look at whether you could remodel or [speaker not understood] building a new jail for jail 1 and 2 to make it a little bit more appropriate for current standards? >> i'd that's a fair question. jail 1 is used for booking and jail 2 is actually used for housing. we only looked at jail 2 in the very beginning when we were trying to assess where it makes

most sense to put our efforts. i think it's worth a further look for the purposes of this analysis we didn't look at it that closely ~. >> just looking at it for slightly -- do you know if -- whether or not if it it were to be remodeled you would probably need more space per cell in terms of the configuration. do you know he what the capacity may be if they were to remodel that to modernize it? >> i don't have that. >> do you think somebody will have it in the near future? >> i think actually probably somebody here today could give you that answer. >> okay, thank you very much. >> great, thank you. why don't we now -- i know that we have now in response to presentation by sheriff mirkarimi as well, and i think it's a combined presentation once the sheriff gives his remarks by the sheriff's department, the capital planning committee, department of public works, and the controller's office.

so, if i may turn it over to you and begin with our sheriff. thank you, sheriff mirkarimi, and thank you to your staff who accommodated so many of us who wanted to see this firsthand and who gave us very thorough tours. thank you for your cooperation. >> we absolutely welcome the discussion. just wanted to resequence this. i'm going to have brian strong go ahead and lead off, and i will then segue in. okay, thank you. >> mr. strong. >> thank you very much, and i will be brief. thank you very much. brian strong, i'm the director of capital planning. i appreciate the opportunity to come and address you today and talk about this issue. we do have a presentation here, and i'm going to sort of lead off and then i'm going to pass it to the sheriff, and then we're going to have colin patterson who is with the controller's office to speak about the capacity numbers and

the forecast that he's looked at. and then we're going to have jimoki a ken taylor who is the project manager for this project speak about some of the particulars ~. and i think supervisor yee, she can begin to address some of the questions about jails 1 and 2 and some of the other things we're looking at. and i know there are also various other folks here, chief freeman who did a lot of the tours with folks this year, and other people who can help answer questions. so, to get started, this has been a driving issue in our capital plans since 2006. we've really been concerned about -- about the jail, about the conditions in 3 and 4 and about the seismic vulnerability of the hall of justice. the capital plan has a lot of needs and we really look overall city-wide and we look for the areas where we had the greatest amount of risk. and again, in an earthquake,

the expectation is that the damage is going to be extremely severe. it's going to impose appreciable life hazard and it's likely to require that the building be vacated and that it will not be reoccupiable. the idea of having to relocate our -- the jail along with the other offices, along with our criminal -- the court justice system, so forth, is a big priority. that's why we focus so much effort on it. we really think just the temporary relocation of inmates alone would cost in the 10s of millions of dollars. and there's no guarantee that even if we needed after an earthquake we'd be able to relocate them somewhere close by. as we all know, the earthquake that's going to affect us is also going to affect marin and san mateo and alameda and so forth. so, that's part of the reason that we've been spending a lot of time on this and that we've been actually reserving sort of our -- one of our most precious

resources which is the use of certificates of participation to help fund this. that is something that we have limits in the capital plan. it's part of the city's financial policy. the only 3.25% of general fund revenue, general fund discretionary revenue can go toward cops, which is -- so t' reserved for very special projects and it's what we use for san bruno jail and the veterans retrofit. it's what we're proposing to use for this project. and finally, i just want to say before passing to the sheriff is that these are really capital dollars. we have a lot of capital needs. there is some i think misunderstanding that if we don't spend the money to fix up this jail it can then be taken and used for other types of services. the funds are different so it doesn't work that way. we have capital dollars. and again, those are reserved for capital infrastructure needs like replacing the hall of justice. if those dollars are not able to be used for that, they can't

just be shifted wholesale over to programming. so, with that, i will -- finally, i would just like to say, i guess reiterating what supervisor kim was saying before, yes, i think everyone agrees that jails 3 and 4 are not an appropriate place, they're not safe, they're not serving -- they're not meeting current needs. i think we all agree we need to replace those and that's part of what we're trying to do is get them replaced as fast as we can. >> thank you, mr. strong. i appreciate. honorable supervisors, it's good to be here with you today. i just want to acknowledge the members of my staff, both the sworn staff and civilian staff of the sheriff's department and offer my gratitude and appreciation to the many agencies within the city who

have made this a very collaborative process. and it's been an extensive one that even predated me before i became sheriff. and i appreciate the level of attention to detail that has been applied to all the members who, some will be before you speaking today and some are here in the support role. i also want to say thank you to the advocates that are here from all sides of this perspective. i absolutely understand the need to call attention to the justification and reasoning of why we would consider replacing county jails 3 and 4 with another jail. i think it is a discussion that since my administration had begun that we welcome because i think it spotlights a unique position san francisco is in. i'm the first sheriff and administration that really gets

to signify that we are presiding over historically the lowest jail population in san francisco's time of providing incarceration. and per capita, and that is underscored by the fact that we have one of the most under crowded jail populations in the united states. and i don't believe that that is a fluke, simply just unique to san francisco because of a change or altercation in just arrest or prosecution. i think it has been a dividend as a result of something that should make san francisco and san franciscans proud, and that is a unprecedented level of cooperation between criminal justice partners who saw fit before there was state prison realignment or governor jerry brown who came together a few years ago when i was on the board of supervisors and others

who held a respectful positions that they do now, to call attention to the high resid advise many rates in san francisco. ~ instead of just looking on the front end of what arrest and prosecution may be and incarceration, we began to put both the wherewithal and resources into questioning how receptive are we from rehabilitation. thanks to my predecessor mike hennessy and before him jim kisto, really help set in motion what it meant to be a pioneer in effect i have reentry. but now other departments and community advocate organizations have come online to the point where we are really a stand-out city and/or county in this state and nation in how we have lowered our jail population. but that's how we arrived where we are here today, which is why i insist that when we have really almost 40 to 45% under

crowded, and there is no other county that can really report that, then you have to understand the remainder of the jail population that falls within our care. it is our mission objective, it the second large of the law enforcement agency in san francisco to uphold public safety, both inside and outside the jail system. and the people that work in our jail system absolutely know and have learned over the many years that we do not abide by the philosophy that still many do, but hopefully changing, that you lock somebody up, throw away the key, and they bed their time until they exit incarceration ~ which is why i and sheriff have been inspired by predecessors to build on our approach in doing everything we can to make sure people are not returning back to the jail system or into the prison system vis-a-vis ab 109. and this is why i think we're starting to see the kind of

payoff that we would all hope in san francisco. and now it brings us to this unique position, why do we need a jail? well, the fact remains that there is not compensatory space in either san bruno cj5 or in cj2. and to answer the question of supervisor yee, the remainder of beds that exist in county jail number 2 is 93 that exist today, that does not accommodate the remainder delta of a population that would be displaced out of the hall of justice. county jail number 1 is an intake and release facility never designed for us being able to even house inmates in those facilities. in cj5 in our san bruno facility, really is at a point where we still would not be able to accommodate, if we were to displace everybody from county jail number 4, back to cj5 where we distribute them

between two different jails. really, what the budget analyst report states and what we feel is affirmed is a facility must be built. the question is where. so, if it dials down to the question of where a facility must be built, in my forecast that means that it's either going to be built in san bruno, which i think that some of the perspective of others would help save us money and just kind of kick the can kind of strategy, or perhaps in san francisco. and i've always welcomed the discussion point that the number of beds cell spaces is a fluid discussion. and one that should be refreshed continuously in the timeline of when we actually commit whether to build a jail or not ~. when i came into office as sheriff, the original proposal was 90 3 beds ~. 8 28 beds that are rated, the

remainder were unrated beds. when 90 3 beds that comprise both county jails number 3 and 4 was before me, we regrouped. i saw better forecasts of jail population was declining and that we've reset the number at 640. i get the fact, and we support that if there is a return to us having to adjust that number again with i think the evidence that supports what that adjustment may be, then that makes more sense to me. but as it speaks to supervisor kim's remark is why haven't we shut those jails down before, excellent question. i knew that from the time of working in the district attorney's office that those conditions were deplorable. county jails 3 and 4 and the top of the hall of justice is something that when i was sitting with you all chairing public safety and being the budget committee, we should have shut that down, but the city gave us no avenue to do so. and i guarantee you, sheriff mike hennessy would have done so if the compensatory space

had been made available, and it did not. but in the history -- in the history, the first time ever of the two jails in the top of the hall of justice, my administration shut down county jail 3. that says a lot, where we consolidated county jail 3 with now county jail number 4, and we're now almost stretched completely at county jail number 4 because we needed to consolidate based on those conditions that existed, and so that we'd be more efficient and effective with our administration in overtime. and that is really the outcome of us coming together. but what concerns me a little bit about the debate of whether to build a jail or not, not just where we might house the sheriff, but drawing on my experience of 7 years on the budget committee of the board of supervisors is the question of whether to have a jail or not frankly is, in the sequence of criminal justice, almost on the back end of the spectrum of

the role of having a jail and incarceration in san francisco. and i'm a little concerned or troubled by what i think are simmering contradictions. it's this government that has just now approved a $165 million bond for a forensic drug and crime lab. what does that portend that when in the last several years we have already had off line a drug and crime lab not working to its capacity and contracting out. what occurs -- what happens when it is back online in its contemporary facility? what then does that suggest in the future of potential police dog their job and the dea affirming that job? what happens when we continue to hear about the simmerings of different districts who feel that there is not a reconciling of police who are doing their job, but perhaps criminals or perhaps inmates or offenders who feel that people feel that are not getting the kind of attention through prosecution.

and that's why i think it's a little bit unfair to suggest that the sheriff's department is one that has a role either in prosecution or sentencing. we don't. but we take it to the max in this city and county by using alternatives to incarceration as much as the local and state law invests in the power of the sheriff. for example, electronic monitoring. we have a very robust electronic monitoring program and legislation is pending before you to even extend that. our pretrial diversion program funded 5% by the sheriff's department is the most robust in the united states that we know had prevented 1200 people from even going into incarceration because of pretrial diversion really can speak to that. another concern of a simmering is a fact that we are losing our black population, the fastest of any city or county in the united states. and considering the fact that

not uncommon to any urban center and which i think has been certainly a note of shame and distinction even in san francisco, as enlightened as we seem to be claimed, that population is also too high in its incarceration. but i have to say that part of my ministration's objection is connectivity. and i have a problem that if we go ahead and arrive at the conclusion that we can go ahead and shuttle people or transfer people to san bruno and not connect the pragmatics of what it takes to connect families or keep the inmates in contact with those that they should be in contact with, that to me sabotages the level of community that is already under threat in san francisco. and that is important to us, to remain i think in the eyes and in the focus of san franciscans

and the city government of our commitment to make sure that we do everything we can for rehabilitation. and that boils down to why we're here, because the facility that we're talking about replacing, one of your jails that exists, i think there is probably consensus in this room that county jails 3 and 4 need to come down, but they would replaced with a smaller san bruno type facility. because we cannot get 80% of our rehabilitative or reentry programming which is renowned in many ways to only san francisco, such as our high school, 5 keys charter school, and many of our other programs that have made this department and this city famous, we can't get them in physically in these areas. so, if the goal is to not see them return, meaning prisoners, inmates to return, then i think we are completely undermining and belying what that overall objective is. so, i