Is when was that number presented to you by the sheriff . This was when the comptroller forecast was released. The 2015 forecast that estimated bed need between 120 and 393. We previously installed 512 beds. What we did with that, we took out two pods. Hes pod had 64 beds in each pod. Taking out 128 was almost half of the floor. We were able to reduce that to 384 to still fit within it. The comptroller gave a range of 120 . Did you do an estimate for what the cost would be if it was 120 . Well, we did the cost for 256 beds. Which was midrange. I think from the Sheriffs Department, even the he can speak to what the needs are. I understand that. If the comptroller had a range of 120 to 393 why wouldnt you a set of alternatives that looked at the entire range . The alternatives that we presented was the one that met the Sheriffs Department requirement. As my understanding at that time was 120 beds would not meet the requirement. In your analysis, youre aware that the Sheriffs Department is actually leasing some beds to the federal government . Im not aware. Thank you im more than happy to address that issue. If you had an opportunity to watch the hearing yesterday, this came up and it was discussed more than happy to discuss it again. The Sheriffs Department in our collaborative effort with the adult probation department, known as reentry pod, a program that returning inmates to the corrections and rehabilitation, returning persons that were committed to the state prison out of San Francisco county, bringing them back to the county jail, approximately 90 to 120 days post release so they can start their reentry process here in the San Francisco county jail. Unfortunately, that hasnt worked out as well as we had hoped in terms of returning inma inmates. It worked owl really well with inmates here in the county jail. I think theres three or four total of those inmates. Another issue you may be referring to is that the United StatesMarshal Service. We have Marshal Service in Northern California district. The federal courthouse is located in the city and county of San Francisco. There are times when the u. S. Marshal Service Requests from the Sheriffs Department what is known as a safe keep housing. What that does, it lets the u. S. Marshals safe keep one of their custodies in the San Francisco county jail for a short period of time while theyre bringing that prisoner to the federal courthouse here in San Francisco. I think off the top of my head, i dont have that exact number with me, the highest ive seen is usually between 40 and 45. Its its more in the mid20 range. Thank you very much deputy chief. Question for you, does your estimate take into account you may as many as 40 or 45 beds that are being used by the u. S. Attorneys office . We didnt break the beds down into the use. We just had a wholistic approach in terms of number of beds. What i like to do to illuminate the question that youre asking a little bit in terms of the costing that was done by the department of public works. Keeping in mind that were attempting to project here to the year 2020. In the Comptrollers Office, a projected inmate forecast on the high end of 1631 beds needed, with a 384 bed rdf facility, San Francisco jail would have a total of 1544 beds. Which falls well short of the high end 1631. What i would point out with 1544 beds, this past monday the county jail population would have been approximately 83 capacity. On slide number four, it itemized the scenario that was studied. This is my issue with what youre presenting before us today. Its not what we had asked for. These are all different configurations on how to rebuild a jail. We ask you to explore what it meant to rebuild facilities for alternative programs and policies that would actually reduce our jail population. Whether were looking at Substance AbuseTreatment Centers, Mental Health component, supportive housing. That is actually what we ask. This is still helpful because were interested in cj2 and cj6. We know that there are beds needed. I dont think theres argument about that. This is the critical juncture you can reimagine the system and not rebuild what we have. This is our opportunity to do that. I think were very limited when all were getting is how to reconfigure the jail. We didnt just want a reconfiguration of the jail and maybe some cost savings, etcetera. We want to address the criminal justice system. Lets talk about what we learn. What the District Attorneys just told you, what the Public Defenders Office told us. Lets use all of that data and build a better system. We know that the system is not good enough. We are rebuilding the same system because it is the easiest thing to do. Were getting offered a state grant that will help subsidized building. It may be that is the right thing to do moving forward. Before we do that, i think this board really needs to hear that the city has explored all of those a. Alternatives. Thats not in the presentation before us. We were very clear in our hearing request that we want an examination of facilities that would house the alternative and programs that reduce the jail population size and not keep it as well. I didnt want justification as to why the jail population will continue to stay the same or increase and we done everything that we can. I dont accept that as the answer. I think theres much more that we can do continue to push and challenge ourselves to address something that is finally Getting National coverage. How do we reform our incars reagan system incarincarceran system. We know that theres a percentage of jail population that is there. Theres no other reason for them to be in prison if not for that reason. Theres a percentage that is Substance Abuse addiction issues. We know that many people are there because they are poor. If those are the reasons why people are in jail or in prison, lets come up with a better system that addresses that versus just locking people away. That is what we wanted in the hearing. The presentation that you have before us, that was appropriate for yesterday. At budge and committee and finance. I have to express disappointment the hearing request that we made is not the ones being dressed. I dont know that San Francisco public works really decide policies that were not asking you to decide that. We gave a series of questions in july that said we want to you explore the facilities to house all the policies that have been proposed. The community and Public Defenders Office, they made a bunch of suggestions. The d. A. Here talked today about the miami and we gave you the policy. Now were asking you to come up with a proposal for the facilities that will house it. I get it. Im not asking you to be a policymaker. We actually did make proposals. We want the facilities that house this proposal. It is here if i can go through through the scenario, you will find how eaddress the issues that were brought up to us in terms of providing better mental and health treatment. Actually have a proposal for what are the cost to build a facility that has a Mental Health clinic . Thats what we wanted. Supervisor campos. I think the point what i would say to department of public works is, i understand your own frustration because i do think that if you step back, i dont know if its dpws role to do what i think this committee and the Board Members wanted. I think thats a responsibility of the Capital Planning committee. For whatever reason instead of addressing the request that this committee has made, the Capital Planning committee decided to kind of step back and say its not our job and have you do what they should be doing. I think thats the problem here. I think in the end, you are presenting what you are asked to present by the committee that should be the one making that presentation that we had asked for. The problem with the presentation is that, to give you analogy, if we and the board of supervisors said, we want alternatives to driving a car, then you muny came back and said, we have looked at driving a small car, driving a red car, driving an suv, driving a bus, which is helpful and its useful but not what was being asked. The request was alternatives to incarceration. What we ged instead, get instead we wanted to build a jail this size and this size. Thats not really exactly what was being asked. I dont think thats your responsibility. I think thats the Capital Planning responsibility. Its unfortunate that they havent done laughs havent done what was requested to them. To the members of the public it is telling how poor the planning is here. We are talking about a 240 Million Investment by taxpayers and yet, before signing on the dotted line, which this board is being asked to do so in a couple of weeks, its clear that we havent really considered any alternatives to incarceration really. If they have them, they would have presented them. Im not saying, you, Capital Planning committee. If they have considered them, we would have seen them. Thats the sadness about this whole thing. We are asking San Francisco taxpayers to commit to a lot of money without fully exploring all the options. Thats really not how you want government to operate and thats not true planning. Thank you. Supervisor if i my Say Something on what i was asked for us to do. The reuse of county jail number two. That was also studied. I think the chief can speak to that. I think supervisor kim also brought that possibility of using county jail number two. We studied. I see all of that. It goes back to what supervisor cam pose campos said. I want to appreciate that you examined how we can work with those existing facilities for beds. Its just that our hearing specifically asked for actual kind of more concrete proposals around facilities for the alternative program. Its not what i see in the presentation. Its important for us to get three or four concrete proposals. We want to make sure we really examine and study what the other options are. I am questioning the existing system. We have to put in 300 million of our own money to build something for the system. If were going to do that, i want to really reexamine the system that we have so much evidence that harms people and doesnt address and get to the outcome that we wants can a safer city and rehabilitating individuals. Thats what todays hearing is about. Supervisor yee. Im actually enjoying this discussion. Whats happen is that is raising more questions than answers at this point. I think whats missing thatches presented earlier in terms of what if. We can probably reduce the number of inmates. The idea the concept has been presented. Whats missing to me is i think the analysis that youre presenting also in terms of the reduced number of beds can be useful if we had information about the alternatives or the things that we if we were to do certain things, how many inmates how many people would be what would be the inmate numbers . How much are we reduce the numbers . Thats whats missing. We dont have numbers. For instance, if you were to say, were going to build Mental Health. It will be reduced by 208. The numbers youre coming up with are alternative built. May be the conclusion is that we still need to deal with a few more beds. I think what we have is adequa adequate. Were running out of time. Im hoping that the individuals that have presented what are are some things that we can do to reenvision what we can do for people that are incarcerated. Thank you supervisor yee and thank you public works. We do have karen from adult probation, chief probation officer here. Then following that, Carl Patterson from the Comptroller Office and the department of Public Health. Good afternoon, karen fletcher. I wanted tell you about our population. Since 2009, the number of probation has decreased almost 50 . That has a lot to do with the legislative reforms happened throughout the state. In addition to that, magnify i iied of the policy changes. Employing rewards and Investment Initiatives where we partnered with the d. A. And the courts to develop a system of shorter term probation. Thats affecting the numbers as well. In addition to the pretrial assessment, our d. A. Spoke about earlier. In addition, we have also incorporated a number of programs that helped with reentry. The a pod that have been discussed in cj2, the Community Assessment and Services Center and the cast program. We used programs like jericho project. What we identified in our population, criminal thinking, Substance Abuse and Mental Health as a key issue that affect the success of individuals coming out of custody and being supervised on probation. What really need to focus on regardless of a new facility or modified facility, the reentry component is the most important factor. We need space for programming. We need systems set up to address the Mental Health and Substance Abuse housing and employment issues that inmates face. What we really need is to enhance what were doing in custody so theres a seemless transition from whatever that facility might look like, the reentry component is critical. To have programming space, to have the availability of clinicians as well as probation staff to assist with the Sheriffs Department and serving this population. The services are the key component and if San Francisco really continues to focus on reentry, the key is to make it happen in custody before they are released and we lose them while theyre being push and navigated through the Community Without direct access to services. Thank you. Thank you very much ms. Fletcher. I had one question which was what will be the back for your department on having to travel to san bruno . There would be a limited back. We prepare about 100 presence reports every month for the superior court. Those are individual who are pending sentencing on felonies. Those referrals are made to officers. We conduct an assessment and write a complete social study report on them. It would require us to then travel more often to san bruno for those interviews. We have one set up for video conferences a we utilize now. Thats limited with just the one set up. It would impact us in addition, we do use the reentry pod. Thats at county jail 2. If we were to help clients being released and we needed to talk to them about services that werent in the a pod that would require us to travel to san bruno. It would be limited back but it would be some. This is something that adult probation feels comfortable if that was the direction that it board took we already go out to san bruin bruno. Our final one presentations are the comptroller and wanted top end with department of Public Health. Good afternoon supervisors, my name is kyle patterson. My office has been involved in the analysis including weve done three forecast. Weve also recently released a report earlier this week about the county jail 6. The question that we were asked to answer since the summer that weve carried out is imp. County jail six. We seen large drops in the jame population between 2009 and 2014. Youre all aware of that. Common question i usually get, why dont we. That trend to continue. In actuality, weve seen in the past couple of years, the jail population has remained relatively flat. On the chart on slide one, we can see on the left side, the jail population in 2014 has remained very flat. In november of 2014, population 47 passed which downgraded a number of felonies and misdemeanors. This is a name that came up from a number of departments including folks who has been opposed to the jail replacement project. Existing facilities are not sufficient to meet security needs. What hes saying, he doesnt think that county jail six is a viable option. Its a little more detailed than that when you look at the report. What theyre saying, some folks may be able to housed at county jail six. Those would have to be folks received a lot of programs. It would result in a need for increased staffing for security reasons. It would mean theres increased cost for transportation to and from court. Also it would mean that 70 of inmates will be housed out of county. Including the fact that families of those folks would have to travel Long Distance to visit them. What we tried to do in response to the report, what would it cost to turn county jail six into a facility as he would suggest it to be used. The line items what those cost would be. The folks wanted program space. We would need to provide them extensive programming. Theres no programming space there. Eask the question, how much it cost to build a facility that can be used to provide program space. I will say, this is a high level estimate. We only had about a week to do this. We wanted to provide you with this information. That was estimated to cost about 37 million. If we dont know the replacement next coth court, there are a couple of facilities that would have to be constru