The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the underlying service contract for a sobering center project aimed at curbing open-air drug use Tuesday, but not without debate based in part on an illegally leaked memo from the city attorney’s office, which outlined some possible legal objections to the project. Budget Chair Connie Chan has threatened to revisit the contract during the city’s budget process.
The contract with Connections Health Solutions, valued at up to $14 million, covers the operation of the Rapid Enforcement Support Evaluation and Triage (RESET) Center for a 26-month pilot beginning this month, with an option to extend for an additional year.
At that point, Sheriff Miyamoto said the quiet part out loud. “This is what used to be called a drunk tank,” he told Fielder.
The RESET Center, first announced by Mayor Daniel Lurie in January, is intended to provide an alternative to hospitalization or jail for individuals arrested for public intoxication, provided there are no other aggravating factors. Part of Lurie’s Breaking the Cycle Initiative, aimed at removing individuals engaging in illegal drug use from the outside and diverting them to treatment, it will be located on Sixth Street and overseen by the sheriff’s office, with support from the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the contractor.
The contract was unanimously recommended at last week’s Budget and Finance Committee, but when the item came up for a vote at the full board on Tuesday, it was met with objections not only from District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who voiced concerns about the project possibly taking funds away from other community health services during the budget process, but by Budget Chair and District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, referencing “additional information” that she did not have in committee.
That “additional information,” which was mostly talked around rather than directly mentioned during the discussion, appears to be a confidential memorandum from the city attorney’s office to the Board of Supervisors and relevant department heads outlining potential legal risks that could arise if the RESET Center does not include certain services.
The news outlet Mission Local reported on the memo and its contents in a story published Tuesday afternoon, shortly after the board vote on the RESET Center contract. A spokesperson for the city attorney told The Voice that they could not comment on confidential legal advice given to the board, and that “no Supervisor is authorized to disclose or discuss the memo, and any city employee who shares the memo is violating the law.”
Chan described the implications of the memo as “troublesome and problematic,” and that it should have been provided to the Budget Committee before its vote.
“I think I would have a very different perspective about the RESET Center,” she told colleagues. “My assumption has been that a lot of operational issues were solved, [but now] I just think that it’s not.”
District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey, a cosponsor of the item, defended it.
“This item matters a lot to me, not solely because the facility is in my district, or even because it’s a priority to me, as a recovering addict myself,” he told colleagues. “It matters because this is the single most important drug policy innovation San Francisco has offered since the advent of the fentanyl crisis. I think this will work. It’s a much-needed measure of accountability that has been too long missing in our approach to public drug use and its myriad harms. I think it will help start to shut down the magnet San Francisco has become, as a national and even global destination, for drug-related lawlessness. And I think it will save lives.”
Chan then said she would prefer that the item be forwarded to a Committee of the Whole meeting, where it could be discussed in closed session, given the issues presented by the city attorney‘s confidential advice, but made no motion. Fielder then moved to send the item back to the Budget Committee.
The vote on that motion, as well as further discussion, was moved back to later in the meeting to allow for completion of time-sensitive items.
Once discussion resumed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto was questioned by Fielder about what kind of individuals would be sent to the site.
“There’s a seven-part test that is conducted to determine whether or not somebody’s under the influence currently. It’s not like a measurement of how much is in their system. It’s just an assessment of their current state and their behaviors,” Miyamoto told Fielder. Asked if intoxicated persons would be detained at the facility, he answered that while the original arrest would be for intoxication, “they’re not booked into custody … they’re handed off to caregivers, and they’re placed in reclining chairs until they can sober up.”
Once the subject is deemed sober enough to care for themselves, they would be issued a certificate of release. Undersheriff Catherine Johnson testified that the facility will have a licensed nurse on site 24 hours a day, supported by “peer specialists” and oversight by DPH. Sheriff’s deputies will patrol outside the facility to address neighborhood concerns and ensure the safety of the medical staff. The pilot facility will have a maximum capacity of 25 and be operated as a nonlicensed sobering facility.
Asked why by Fielder, Johnson responded, “The grounds for which we would take an individual into our care and bring them to this location would normally be a delivery to the jail itself. We’re trying to create an option that is not jail, to get more care for their current conditions because they’re under the influence … where they may not be able to care for themselves, and it’s a compelled situation. They are being arrested and taken into custody. But instead of bringing them to jail, we’re bringing them to the center. It’s not a medical care facility we’re bringing them to. [It will] provide a space to sober up under the constant supervision of the nurse and other individuals associated with the services provided. … Once they are (certified), they’re free to leave. Our hope is that an individual, when resting, awakens, finds themselves in this place, and instead of deciding to leave, decides to stay a little longer, rest a little more, and maybe start to become more cognizant of some of the services that are available.”
At that point, Sheriff Miyamoto said the quiet part out loud.
“This is what used to be called a drunk tank,” he told Fielder. “Where somebody goes, stays for four hours, up to eight hours, and then they’re released, and they get all their property back and are sent out the door,” though ideally not without the opportunity to refer them to services.
“Our intention is to get them to other services,” he told the supervisor. “Part of our process right now is determining what linkages would best be suited for the individual beyond just resting in this place for up to 24 hours.”
Fielder ended up withdrawing her motion to send the item back to the Budget Committee after consulting with Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi on the timeline established by the fentanyl emergency ordinance.
Chan wasn’t quite finished, however.
After further questions, she declared, “I just have a lot of questions about the center … I would like to at least set aside some funding until we learn more before releasing it. My goal is to do that for this contract … I can see that this is likely to be approved, but it’s still my goal to continue to learn more about this and have a discussion during the budget process.”
The item was approved by a 9–2 vote, with Chan and Fielder voting against.