Grand Jury Wants to Halt Spending for Gypsum Canyon Jail

An Orange County Grand Jury report released Thursday recommends that no more money be spent on plans for a proposed jail in Gypsum Canyon until the county has acquired the property from the Irvine Co.

About $7.5 million has already been spent on various studies at the 3,000-acre parcel just east of Anaheim Hills.

“We just felt enough is enough,” said Jodeane Harrod, who chaired the grand jury committee that completed the 2-page report.

“We all recognize that certain amounts have to be spent in preparation” for construction, Harrod said. “But further expenditures on that specific location would not be appropriate until they nail down that property.”

The grand jury’s recommendation that no more money be spent at the site will be considered by the Board of Supervisors, which can ignore it if it chooses.

The report--an advisory finding that carries no force of law--echoes concerns raised in the past by those who opposed the selection in 1987 of Gypsum Canyon for the site of a 6,000-bed jail. Even supporters of the plan now publicly concede that the county has found no way to raise the $100,000 it will take annually to operate a jail in Gypsum Canyon, much less the estimated $1 billion necessary to acquire the land and build the facility.

County officials plan to ask voters to approve a half-cent sales tax sometime next year, part of which could be used for jail construction. No one, however, expects that revenue to be remotely enough to finance the Gypsum Canyon project.

Because of those concerns, County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish said Thursday, county officials decided several months ago to limit spending at the site. He said officials at that time came to the same conclusion as the grand jury.

Asked if the money spent to date--$200,000 in administrative costs, $800,000 on the preparation of state-required environmental reports and $6.5 million on architectural and engineering studies--is money down the drain, Parrish replied:

“When there is a jail in Gypsum Canyon, then it will be money well spent. If there is no jail in Gypsum Canyon, then I guess you can say the money was wasted.”

The county intends to spend no more than another $100,000 between now and September on the completion of the final environmental report, said Steve Blaylock of the County General Services Agency. That report must be complete before county officials can even consider buying the property, Parrish said.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, who, along with Supervisor Don R. Roth has been a vocal critic of the Gypsum Canyon jail site, would not say what his official response to the report might eventually be.

“I am opposed to the site,” he said “so obviously my stance will reflect the position I have held since July, 1987,” when the Gypsum Canyon site was chosen.

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, the only other supervisor who could be reached Thursday, said the choice of Gypsum Canyon was made under pressure from a federal judge who was seeking to end chronic overcrowding in the Orange County Jail system that has since worsened.

“The grand jury report raises a valid concern,” said Wieder. “Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and evaluate where we are.”