>> we know they're and essential component of our justice system and we need to work together with them. the capital priorization is not yet final. the latest date i heard from the judicial council is midnovember, november 14th and 15th, hoping to finalize the list and we can, i hope, hear answers back about our positions about that list and the deadline in the legislation is the end of the year and that's when the court responds back to the legislature and gets the ball rolling with the department of works and public finance. all of our reconsolidated will be in partnership with the courts to operate uninterrupted and none of this would pose a slow-down in du due process. that's what i have for you about

our admin. happy to answer any questions that i can. >> i have a few. thank you for this presentation. one, and in has been a challenge with understanding fully whose responsibility when it comes to cj4 and seems the city administrator has taken the responsibility to clearly articulate what will happen with the police, with the d.a., with probation and yet there's a clear, missing people of the people living at this facility and those working directly with them. is it the city administrator's responsibility to develop this plan and ar arctic articulate i?

if so, why isn't that a part of this plan in front of us? >> thank you for the question. so i think it's all of our responsibility to do everything we can to get everybody out of that building, so i would not say it's everything in this room that's putting in for that. in terms of the custodial responsibility and the welfare of the prisoners, the contracts we would enter intos in terms of assigning where people live, that's a shared jurisdiction so the city staff and operations i described, which fall, like where those offices live is a real estate function. so the office our ad administrae function is a jurisdictional matter. there is a rule figuring out how to pay for solutions.

yoi know the board in this entie room is well aware we have been trying to close this building for some time didn't so in 2015, there was a plan for the rehabilitation and detention facility and that was a new construction project that would quote, unquote, right-sized our jail facility. the required match for that, which was $51 million, i want to say, lived in our capital plan, but when the board unanimously decided that they did not want to accept the state award, that capital project went off the burner. the capital plan published prior to this one, admitting we did not want to commit to jail construction we did not need, if we could find another way get people out of the jail, we had certificates of participation for a prisoner exit, that we

might have a capital project that would advance the exit of people from jail. no capital project that would have solved the problem emerged through the reenvisioning the project, which was the outgrowth of the 2015 rejection of state funds. there were many capital strategies floated. however, none that were specific to reduce -- that would have reduced the jail population enough to safely close the jail were identified, with the exception of building another jail, and so capital dollars at this time are not specified fo n the capital plan. when it comes to what we build in the future, i think something

that the city has -- i think we have differences of opinion about whether jail is need. maybe it's fundamentally wrong. that could be, but that's a policy matter and it doesn't matter what we take as our assumptions. so i don't want to communicate on behalf of the city administrator or anyone in this city, you know, what we assume to be necessary. i think we all hope that jail would be unnecessary. that if needed question is the question before you and the role of the office and the mayor and our leaders and the role of the office of the city administrator and capital planning function is to find and pull together the funds for the direction we want to move in as a city. and so, to your opening remarks, there is no plan, i think the plan is to plan collaboratively

and so, we look forward to that and we do have the time to do so. >> thank you. so as i understood that, the primary responsibility for the people who are incarcerate the iincarcerated iswith the sheriff of the city contracting with the sheriff. so is that how you describe that? >> so the office of the city administrator includes the purchasing function to the contracting. so contracts in that way do run through but the scope of contracts come from the departments who are entering into the agreements and in the case of a custodial function, for example, there would be a sheriff. >> and if we are in a situation where we've determined that the building is seismically unsafe, a dangerous for people who work and live there, at what point would we make the decision as a city that we would no longer

occupy that building or contract? i mean, it seems that there's a legal question here, too, of how are we able to continue to occupy that building, even for the next two years, in loot of f what we know about the safety. >> we should get out of the building as quickly as possible. i would defer to the city attorney. i can't speak to that as an expert. i know there are a number of mechanisms for closing a building, including the red-tagging you refer to that closecloses the whole building d thathere are other levers that e could pull, declearing an emergency. declaring an emergency. but we would prefer a plan and thoughtful plan that does not rely on an emergency measure.

>> let me just say, and this is not on you specifically, but this is incredibly frustrating to not understand whose responsibility this is and to say that our plan is to plan. you think we're long passed that point. i'm trying to understand specifically what your office's role is in this process. would the city administrator be the one to secure and fund, if we had additional kind of capital needs around this and other facilities and if so, i'm sure the sheriff will speak to this, too, but how does this -- is this a question of how you decide what those facilities would be and what those needs are and how is that taking place and we've heard about alameda county. is that something you've looked

at and toured those facilities. there have been a number of facilities, base proposals floated and they were jail facility. whether that's construction, new or renovation, those were not the policy will of our elected officials. in terms of our office's role, so we produce the ten-year capital plan and lines up funding and a number of sources, one being the pago program, the

certificates of participation and one being or geobond's program. when router priorities arise ine city, we try to match funds is size of the funds to the needs that arise. so there were a capital project projected to solve for the jail population, to bring it down to that 1044 that tara mentioned, you know, we could line up the funds to build that. we don't make money appear. the capital plan is fully programmed, so any decision to build something in the short-term would come at the expense of something else, also planned and expected. but alsbut that is our office'sn this. the role of supporting programs, community services, other things that might help to prevent

somebody to stay in jail, the workforce support, none of those flow through the capital budget. those are departmental budget programs and so that would be a part of the regular budget process. >> last question, because i have many, but we can continue this conversation after the hearing. so yesterday we saw -- because you're the only person, really, who is here from what would be the mayor's -- from the city, right? but in terms of what was announced yesterday, i know you're not from the mayor's office but from our sort of department at city hall, what was announced yesterday at the closure of 2021, july, what is the city administrator's role in that? is there a planning process that is a part of getting us there that you're aware of? i ask a lot of questions for the sheriff, as well, but we're trying to understand what the plan is.

>> i think you asked about out-of-county of courses. and if there were a placement, santa rita or out of city, those were be budgeted dollars. so on the planning sued, the sie capital planning would not be planning the funds there, but we're participating with the mayor's budget office and all of the of the department's try to understand the relative cost. our office is a storied and we bring information in an anlit cal capacitanlitical option. we're trying to understand what they cost compared to the capital projects that we know and also the timing of the capital projects that we know.

and the timelines of those are about four years. so the extent that 2021, july 2021, not leaving the prisoners to be the last in the building is a target to strive to meet as a city. there's no capital option that will work. it doesn't exist. there's nothing we could do to build something big enough in less than two years. that's a four-year time run andt best, and that pushes this very unpleasant consideration of what else we can do. could we, through the grant and recommended strategies lower the plays enough? population enough? we want to pursue the time frame and we don't want this to be last in this building, an

operational contracting option out-of-out and the only thing left on the table didn't it does not bring me joy to say that. >> i appreciate how candid about the choices and that there isn't options and the other reducing the population is where a lot of the conversation with be. supervisor stephanie? yes >> i wanted to follow up because we see in our budget and analysis on page 5 that in 2015, a full plan and preliminary design was actually presented with that $80 million grant we would have had from the state.

had that plan been filed, would we have had a seismic jail by now for the 384 beds? >> it would be nearing completion, i expect. >> ok, and so that was a reduction from 800 to right size it because we believe it needs to be right sized and i believe that nobody should be in that jail right now because i've toured it and it is seismically deficient and not a good location for those being held. do you recall exactly what the board said in terms of they didn't want to choose a seismically safe jail to rebuild at that time? by now, it would have been nearing completion and we would have been able to move everything out from 850 bryant, correct. >> we would have and keep them in jail. the board at the time wanted to pursue alternatives to

incarceration and that was the sentiment of the hearing and many different folks spoke. >> and i agree, there should be alternatives to incarcerate and we have reduced our jail population, especially with the use of the algorithm just explained and the public safety assessment and the way that we've had advantageous bail cases so that those that are suffering from poverty don't have to sit in jail when those that don't are able to get out. but my question is, in terms of being very realistic and honest about what we do need in san francisco, when i look at the bla report on page 34, the types of crimes for which people are held, which is we have the population -- let's see, we were

going to build a jail for 380 and we look at the jail population today with all of the work around bail reform and the psas and we have a population of about 313 based on this one date that the bla gave us and i look at these. i look at the crimes upon which people are being held and we know that we have the psa and i see crimes like murder. 30 people held for that, attempted murder, first-degree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping to commit another crime, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, sexual intercourse or sotoomy with a child 10 years old or younger, kidnapping by use of drugs. we've developed a whole entire office to deal with rape that victims in this town are not treated well when it comes to whether or not their

prosecutions will go forward, not just by use of drugs. i look at these, mayhem, torture, these are crimes that nobody wants to happen no any of their loved ones. and these are crimes by which judges and those coming up with the public safety assessment usually advocate to a judge that this person for the benefit of public safety should be incarcerated but based on a threat to public safety and that number we have right now is 313. so realistically, we all hope, and i do hope, that we don't dot have to have anyone in jail. i look at this list, that's not my reality or what i believe. that's not what i think is the best for public safety for the people that i represent.

so i would like to know, realistically, and it looks like we had it right in 2015 when we were looking at right-sizing to about 380 and we could have had a jail by now, seismically safe jail by now, and we still have 313 with this list of crimes which seem dangerous to me. so realistically, are we planning for somewhere to locate individuals who do pose a threat to public safety based on public safety assessments, based on the list of crimes i just read, based on what's listed in this budget and report and why aren't we operating from that point of reference? >> in terms of capital plannings in the short-term, we are not plan for a san francisco facility that we would build, ren forenovate to serve that fu.

it is not in the short-temple of thshort-termplan. this project does not specify a jail. the capital plan will be revised. that's in years to come, exiandf it becomes the will of the city to pursue that kind of project, we could. it has not historically been and so it's not there. >> and i ask these questions based on what supervisor mandelman said. he did get his stat but i don't care if i get that stat when i ask these question. because two nights ago, a 16-year-old in my district was robbed at gunpoint at 7:00 walking home from school. these are things that i feel that we have a residen responsio

not only address mass incarceration and the injustice of it, which all of us can agree on. and also, balancing public safety. so that has to be a consideration, absolutely has to be. >> and so the language of mass incarceration, i'm sure there's a variety of opinions in this room. san francisco really is a leader when it comes to pretrial diversion, when it comes to getting the jail count as low as it can be, again, always arguable. but we have made significant progress and not just as a result of state bills but also our own pretrial effort. we saw the news about reichers close. that's a $10,000 bed facility of abomabominable conditions.

there's not a magic bullet to zero. i would never say that, but there are some legislative realities that i think are hard to shape and that will be what you hear from the sheriffs. it's hard to get away from that responsibility of public safety to your point. >> supervisor furer. >> yes, thank you very much. and i want to thank my colleagues, and supervisor stephanie for her comment. i want to push back a bill lit anlittle bit and i say this as a wife of a husband who worked as a san francisco police officer for 35 years. my husband has worked in, i think, pretty dicey units, undercover, narcotic, he was a specialist, on a specialist team, a training office, a whole

variety. and so, i want to just say that we can look back at 2015, but none of us sitting her here in . i think the conversations that happened then extend to what we're discussing now. i understand we're looking at a jail number and that does not tell the whole picture of our jail system. i think to really evaluate our opportunities, to lower the rate of people incarcerated, we can't look at jail number four. this is not true of jail number five or jail number two. we haven't seen those numbers yet. this report is a narrow scope. we talk about jail number four, it is inadequate and doing a disservice on the board of supervisors because we have to

look at a jail system in the whole entirety and that means there are other jails and other possibilities. when i am looking, actually, at some of the other reports that are before us, we see that a majority of people really are 61% to 62% are released within 96 hours. we look at people who spend overall time and a lot are released within the week and we see a lot of movement already within our jail facilities. yes, the stats on jail number four are frightening and we are just looking at one jail. we don't have just one jail in san francisco. we have a couple of jails in san francisco and if you look at jail number two, which, of course, we'll put a kitchen in, and be more functional, i think together we have not looked at actually everything we can do at the pretrial. i don't think we've looked at other strategies. we do a great job with pretrial, actually and that's a

low-hanging fruit. i think we can do more with pretrial. that's not to say that while we're doing a great job, we should just keep doing what we're doing. but i want to push this board to think about what else could we do the next step with pretrial. i also have some questions about how to further reduce the jail population but using the strategies that we know work and some that are not working, how can we refine them to work for this population? i have been out to the san francisco jail multiple times as a school board commissioner, as i'm sure some of my colleagues on the board have, and we have looked at charter schools and the amount of graduates that have failed and how many actually get their ged and high school diplomas. all of this reducing the jail population isn't just about the jail or just about number five,

number 4 or two but what happens after they're released from jail. as we heard this morning, if we just reduce 60%, we could be reducing a significant amount, actually, of people who are incarcerated on a daily bases by doing one of these strategies. i just want to encourage us -- i understand about public safety and the reason i mentioned my husband, also, i'm not someone who is soft and quite frankly, yes, i think we all know people who have been victims of heinous, horrible crimes but to say county number 4 is a representation of the whole jail system is simply not true and i don't want that on this item. so i felt like i had to say that. thank you, miss green. >> thank you, supervisor, and thank you so much for your

presentation and for answering a lot of questions that maybe you're not usually engaging in, but i appreciate your openness and your sense of what's happening. so i appreciate it. next up, i want to invite sheriff hennessey is here who, as we all understand has a very significant role with this right now but also really a sense of how we got here and what the next steps should be. so we appreciate you being here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much for having this hearing. i think it is a very important hearing and it's important to understand how we'll close county jail. i don't understand how we'll doing it in terms of getting it

closed without having some place to put people or have people live. one of the disappointments is a sheriff coming in and not approving the reduced rehabilitation facility is that i've been trying for four years now to get an alternative to county jail and i haven't had traction because, obviously, there's not much of an appetite to build a new facility, even though people are living in that horrible facility for four years it's been one of the most congressing placedepresses placo visit. i would also say that i agree with supervisor furer, you can't ask this question without looking at the entire jail system, so the focus on county jail four is not where we should be looking but looking act the entire jail system and what to do there. as you know, i participated what

was called the reenvisioning after the decision was made not to build the jail and i think a lot came out of that process but it has not reduced the jail population the way we thought it could. it did get people out safely who could be let out safely, pretrial. i would say, supervisor, that when you characterize people in our jails as 90% or 93% pretrial and not having been convicted, a lot of the people in our jails, and you'll see from a presentation, have holds. and they're not just there because of one charge. and so, there's a lot of nuance that goes along with this. and the other thing i would also like to say to you is that the jail population is not static. these are not the same people coming back. these are new people coming into our city, new people coming into our jails. so if you just plan for the fact that the people that are here

today, that's not the right thing but for the people coming later and obviously, the ideal situation would be that nobody would come to jail but that's not the case. so i just wanted to comment quickly on the budget analyst acreport. the jail rate is high in san francisco, 2 something dollars per person, but it's high because of all of the programs we provide in san francisco. that's one of the reasons it's high, the good medical care and the general healthcare and the programs and all of these things contribute to that. so i wanted to make sure you're aware of that. i think that's it for now. let me introduce lieutenant buoy from technical services and you'll run that for me and i have people behind me that i should introduce them, as well. i have sheriff matt freeman

here, assistant sheriff kathy johnson, chief deputy paul miamoto here and ali reiker and lisa pratt who is our jail medical officer. and i want to thank the other presenters, the budget analyst, tara, and also heather for all of the work they have done. so we'll start with our presentation. let see, where are we? so this is just kind of an overview of who comes to jail and one effort things we did was drilled down a little bit more on how many times people come into jail and you'll see that more than 30% of the people booked into the county jail each year are first-time books in san francisco. and consequently, the other thing that you'll see, there are a number of people that are booked into the jails each year. one time is 71%, but it's about

30 people, 30% of the people who are booked more than one time that come into our jails. this slide shows less criminal matters and more people are released on division over the last three fiscal years. dismissed review by the district attorney. none of the things that are important didn't this goes to the mcarthur grant that's going

on right now. on october 10, 90 pip 90 peoplen custody had a court return date and 70% had one 75 days in the future and ten people had sentencing dates more than 100 days in the future and those people are in our jails and including one person with a sentencing date that was set 356 days into the future. so that's one of the items that the mcarthur grant will be looking at. >> why does this sentencing date get set that far out? >> the prerogative of the courts and could be the public defender asks for it or the public defender. i don't know and that's one of the things the mcarthur grant will be trying to find out. right now we're looking at the fiscal years and releases on bail have declined dramatically. you'll see here from the yellow loiline from the top.

alternatives to inarso incarcere increased and the population has remained static. you will see the jail population at 1258 and 1316 as of '18, '19, with the average daily population so it's gone up a little bit. pout you'll also see the sheriff's alternatives to incarceration have gone up at the bottom and that's because of the use of electronic monitoring by the courts. and in pretrial electronic monitoring, there's been a dramatic average, daily increase by the courts with the use of that and this is just taking the snapshot of that, looking at that for the fiscal year '18-'19. the most serious offense was

used, even though people have multiple charges and they represent persons on electronic monitoring during the period and these are not unduplicated criminal defendants. as a person, they may have been rearrested and released by the court. increasingly the courts are releasing persons with serious onlinepointsfelonies to or. so the next one is march 2016 to march 2019 and this tells you more about the psa, san francisco pretrial and how they work and they release people on a certification management with minimum supervision 25% of the time and new supervision at all, 30%. that's the recommendation from the courts. the court is the one that makes

this decision and this may or may not reflect what the recommendation was. this is just the ethnicity. if it's booked, it's static. as we mentioned in county jail four, 35% of african americans and however, they represent 39% of the books. for the year in '17-'18 and '18-'19 and the 26 to 35-year-old age group is the most represented group. that's in our books. so the next few pages are snapshot data of angit active cs on july 31st of 2019. so on 31st, this is what we had, 3 3100 people in jail.

they were not released due to no bail designation by the courts and we'll dig down sow can see what thiso you cansee what thiss from various agency. agencies. that left 185 people for review. who are they? first we start with the people and show you the list, the next page and you'll see where everybody was. so when we talk about 150 in jail processing, that means they were waiting for classification or release and most likely, they were waiting for classification and some for release, so they were in transit and we didn't count those. safe keep, we still have seven federal prisoners and you could reduce the amount by that. we have five others for various agencies.

sometimes they're from other agencies and sometimes from the hill might have somebodsamateo. we had the number of local charges from other counties. there's post community released super, that's probation and there were 52 brought in and either revoked or waiting for some other type of review. and then we also have probation violation and revocation and that's where the district attorney decides not to go on the charges but files a motion to revoke. cases with no bond set by the court is 427. >> what's the different between

post release and community supervision? >> it depends where they come from. it depends. probation is revoking them and probation violation is a full revocation. so it may be the probation -- i'i'm sorry, this is a post increased incarceration by probation. so then we go down to 427 cases with no bond by the courts and that means no bail. the serious open cases with 500,000 more set by the courts. and this is not the bail schedule. i just want to make sure that people understand that. and then there were 20 people on this date sentenced to prison or sentenced to prison but still had future court dates and not leaving yet for prison. and then we had 39 sentenced to county jail. and we'll go down on a few of

these in a minute. so 86% of people are not eligible or likely to be released from jail prior t to final aadjudication and there was bail at an amount of 500,000 or more. the next dat next page drills dn those people and then a bond. and then of the 105, there were 510 days length of i stay and 65 acts they were booked on. you can see what the percentages are. crimes against a person and then top angtive crimes, property,

drugs and weapons and i'll point you to second-degree burglary, 63, you'll see that, because in san francisco, property crimes are one of the highest and that's where that comes from. we go to the next one, 185 people remaining in custody, in review for custody. and these are people charged with second-degree burglary. now we're looking at the 185 people that are left over. from the previous slide and of those people charged with second burglary, they had been releasey released but returned to custody for failing to return to court or charged with a new case. so you look at 28, on 7/31 and this is different. 7/31 snapshot and looked to see where they were a month later, just to give an idea of how people move through the system a little bit. so you see we had 23 there at

7:31 but only 21 left. so so when you look at this group of people, this 185 left over, four were charged with misdemeanors and three had no-site bench warrants and two were in domestic court of those. many people are out on

electronic monitoring if the judge feet they'r feels they'reo and the recommendation and there's a lot of factors that play into it. but the people here have serious criminal histories and then 39 in custody were stance stepsed o county jail. the 39 was up above but i wanted to talk about why people are in county jail and haven't been released to alternatives in county jail because that's something the sheriff as the ability to manage. and 39 of those were sentenced to county jail and three in prereview and two were in the

review status and two with previous ben bench warrants ande people with non-eligible charges. there's protective order out against that person and the charges were not eligible for release. some of those were 1170 hpss and there's a requirement that you spend time if jail before you are eligible for release and they would be reviewed two active parole holds and three returned to custody because they didn't do that. one of the things i wanted to add and i think tara touched on this is that in may of this year, in jail, we have robust programs in our county jails and that's something i'm proud of and it's important and we

introduced milestone credits and people who are in jail and actively participating in our jail programs can earn milestone credits which can earn time off from their sentences. as of two days ago, we had 280 credits issued, 1,096 jail days were saved. if somebody gets sentenced to stale prison who has milestone credits, we make an effort to let the judge know that so the judge can give credit during the sentencing phase. so just because i know we are very concerned with people with mental illness in our jails, i wanted to make sure that we had -- we pointed out 49 of the 185 that were remaining at that low-hanging fruit, should i say,

in the group, were in psychiatric housing. these are the charges for the people in psychiatric housing. this is what happened to them. one of the things you notice between july 31st and august 31st, they went more time in jail and they'll stay longer, most likely. so the next page is -- this is something -- it has nothing to do with july 31st but has to do with august 23rd. we wanted to put this up here. these do not count count the additional number on bail. but if you see what our count would be, the red number is how many people we would have in jail if we didn't have these alternatives to incarceration that we have put up there. and the point is that san francisco does not engage in mass incarceration. we've been a leader in this area.

dr. james austin that is working with tara on the mcarthur grant, as well, he did a report in 2014 and again and updated in 2018 and the title of the report is san francisco county's lip elimination of mass incarceration. we have racial disparity in our system, to doubt about that. so this last page is about closing county jail four. so supervisor hainey, you asked whose responsibility is it and you asked heather. it's my responsibility to run a jail and i take that obligation extremely seriously and we do our best to run a safe, humane jail, even with the challenge like county jail four. believe me, county jail four presents a challenge and county jail four is not a jail that should still be open. it's one of, i feel, like a

failure in my administration that we haven't been able to get beyond this to have a way for people to stay in the conditions they have to stay in in county jail four. that includes both of the incarcerated people and the staff that have to work there. so in order to close county jail four, this is the sheriff speaking, my recommendations continue to invest in community, mental health, substance abuse and supported housing to include those exiting the jail, because we know there's competition out there right now. there's all kinds of competition. and people are getting left in jail because the competition is so great on the outside. that's for people in the community to get into services. continue to support a robust, safe pretrial release program and safe is the operative word

here and i think the fact that our pretrial release program includes a casing management, i think that has really -- i've seen a big difference and that's been a path for people to get connected with services and it's been a good path, but even there, having trouble finding beds for people. and then invest in additional mental health treatment and substance abuse programs for those incarcerated and giving us the proper environment and location to serve the people that are in our facilities. and so the primary responsibility is to invest in a humane and safe jail facilities for those incarcerated. i'm not doing against what we can to get people out of jail safely but i'm a pragmatist and understand that we did have a good plan in 2015. that's a plan that worked for

nine years. i didn't get into office january of 2016, and i was disappointed, but you threw myself full hit to see what we could do. and i came to the conclusion with 30% of people coming in, new people coming into our jails and with the length of stay we have and i think we'll see some movement from the mcarthur gra grant, but once again, that's the courts. my number one is to revive the proposal as directed by the capital plan for nine years and build a new facility for the proposed justice campus to include 31 384 beds, including sheriff support functions, a transport hub, enter ru intervis

for court, records, units and other functions now spread out. that to me is the right thing to do, the cheapest thing do in the long run and we've spent tons of money studies alternatives and we haven't come up with anything. i did broach a proposal in 2017 to begin renovating county jail six at estimated cost of 200 million to include a vocational training area for opening by 2024. if we started today, we might have it open by 2024. and this is not the optimum plan because you'll be transporting people back and forth and you'll need holding cells built here and you'll have the kitchen. there's a lot of things that go into this. and then the current 2019 proposal that came out yesterday. close county jail four by 2021.

and begin planning for comprehensive justice campus, including appropriate number of beds to be occupied by 2030. by 2030. i won't be sheriff there. [ laughter ] >> but by 2030. so that seems kind of outrageous to me and the only way to accomplish that or any of these, really now, because we've waited for so long, is to send people somewhere else. if we can't close county jail four any other way, we'll have to figure out where will they go? and how will we do that? and the only thing that's really an option right now is almeda county and we've done the research. yes, we've gone there and walked through th the facilities. they closed the jail in oakland and we looked into that. it's extremely prohibitively

expensive. this is a horrible plan because it separates people from their families and legal counsel and support groups. we're about to offer free phone calls in their county jails. we can't guarantee that in other jails. we will have no commission commissary. the one that's the farthest out is option number three. this is the right thing to do is we should have done it in 2015 and we didn't and now we're here. this was predicted and predicted during the revisioning that we

would be here and that we would have to send people out of county and it's not something i'vilike. we had to send people out of county back in the early 1990s for many years and it was a terrible, to alameda county, by the way. any questions? >> i'm guessing there are probably a few. one thing that i can clarify -- >> hold up, supervisor hainey. it does violate the board's rules to have signs up, so maybe we can recess, i guess. >> that's your choice. >> we'll take a five-minute recess.