Board authorizes application for state jail-replacement grant after extended debate over scope and financing

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Oct. 23, 2013, to authorize the city to apply for up to $80 million in state SB 1022 grant funding toward a proposed replacement of County Jails 3 and 4 at the 850 Bryant Street complex. The board also approved technical amendments to the resolution intended to tie the application to the city's ten‑year capital plan.

Why it matters: City officials say the existing jails are seismically unsafe and unsuitable for modern rehabilitation and health services; the proposed project has an estimated construction budget of $290 million as currently conceived and would reduce bed counts at the central facility, while debt service and long‑term financing implications remain a central concern for supervisors.

City staff from the mayor’s office, the capital planning program and the sheriff’s department answered supervisors’ questions through the afternoon. Jason Elliott of the mayor’s office outlined the amendments the mayor’s office requested, saying the changes clarify how appropriated local funds would be applied and reference the city’s 10‑year capital plan. Brian Strong of the capital planning program described the amendments as demonstrating to the state that the city has a “level of seriousness” about financing the project should a grant be awarded.

Chief Deputy Bat Freeman of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department described differences among county facilities and transportation and security costs tied to housing inmates at San Bruno. Freeman said County Jail 6 in San Bruno was built for minimum‑security housing and lacks cells, a kitchen, laundry, safety cells, adequate visitation and classroom space, making it ill‑suited to replace Jails 3 and 4 without major retrofit work and significant transport costs to move inmates to downtown courts.

Several supervisors said they remain undecided about the project’s current configuration. Supervisor Campos said applying for the grant would not bind the city to build; however, he noted the city would forfeit the grant if it later chose not to proceed. Supervisor Mar (who moved the amendment) and Supervisor Farrell (who seconded) both described visits to jail facilities and said they had been persuaded of the need for improved, more humane and seismically safe facilities. Supervisor Cohen, who had voted against the item in committee, said site visits had changed her view and she recognized the need for improved conditions and programming in a replacement facility.

Fiscal questions were a recurring concern. Controller Ben Rosenfield told the board that the expected annual debt service associated with the project “comes to approximately $30,000,000” under the project as currently conceived, and that total principal and interest could be “well in excess of $500,000,000 over the 30‑year life of the bonds.” Rosenfield said the proposed financing would be the largest general‑fund‑backed debt program the city had pursued and that the city’s 3.25% general‑fund debt cap policy and timing of other debt retirements were factors in evaluating affordability.

City staff and the sheriff’s office said the grant program is targeted at projects that can move quickly if funded; any subsequent design, CEQA and legislative approvals would return to the Board for further action. Mr. Elliott emphasized that applying for the funds does not authorize construction; any construction decisions would come later. “The grant itself…envision[s] a project that would be quick to come after the grant funds were awarded,” he said.

The board approved a motion to amend the resolution with technical language changes (motion by Supervisor Mar; second by Supervisor Farrell) without objection and then adopted the resolution as amended on a roll‑call vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes. The resolution authorizes submission of the SB 1022 application and outlines the city’s proposed cash contribution and capital‑planning commitments.

Looking ahead: Supervisors called for additional hearings and analysis on alternatives (including whether San Bruno could be modified), transportation costs, program space and exact bed counts. Staff said a DPW‑led master plan for San Bruno would be completed in the coming months to assess feasibility for retrofit options.