Drug Seizure Money OKd for Branch Jail Expansion

Orange County may use $1.9 million in drug seizure money to staff and operate an expansion of the Theo Lacy Branch Jail in Orange, according to an opinion issued this week by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider said that the decision, circulated among supervisors Tuesday, would allow the county to restore 82 jail positions that were cut last month in an attempt to persuade the federal government of the county’s need for additional jail space.

The ruling, issued in a one-page letter to the county, also brings an apparent resolution to a political rift between county supervisors and Sheriff Brad Gates, who contended that the use of the money for jail expansion would be illegal.

“We couldn’t be more pleased,” Schneider said. “Now we’ve got the money to pay for this. Under the attorney general’s guidelines, we can use the money to recapture one year’s worth of (jail operating) costs.”

The 82 vacant positions had been budgeted to staff a 192-cell expansion of the branch jail that is now scheduled to open in early 1993.

The $1.9 million would come from the county’s sale last year of a 213-acre ranch called Rancho del Rio in southeast Orange County that was previously owned by international marijuana smuggler Dan Fowlie. The Girl Scouts bought the property from the county for $2.4 million to use as a camp, despite Gates’ proposal to turn the site into a regional drug training center.

County officials had asked the sheriff to seek a legal opinion on the use of funds, but he balked, saying that he thought it might be illegal to use the money for the expansion since the project predates the seizure of the land. Instead, the supervisors sought the opinion themselves from the U.S. attorney’s office.

Assistant Sheriff Walter Fath said it was the county’s task, not the sheriff’s, to request the opinion. He also said Gates would have no quarrel with the ruling.

The opinion allows for the use of the funds in the requested amount, but prohibits future money obtained through the asset-forfeiture account from being applied to pay the salaries of those who would staff jail expansion projects.

“This (ruling) should not be taken, however, as approval to permanently fund these positions with asset-forfeiture funds,” Fath said, reading from the opinion. “Such funding could be interpreted as the use of the funds to supplant the sheriff-coroner’s budget and could jeopardize continued sharing of such funds.”

Fath said the 82 staff salaries would be funded through the county’s general fund in future years.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said restoration of the 82 positions was likely, but a final decision on the matter would have to come back to the full board for approval. Vasquez said he did not expect the decision to worsen the sheriff’s disagreement with the supervisors on the funding question.

“Having the funds creates a level of comfort to then be able to operate the facility,” Vasquez said. “We’re all working toward a common goal.”

Rob Richardson, executive assistant to Board of Supervisors Chairman Roger R. Stanton, described the issue as simply a “bump in the road” in the board’s relationship with the sheriff.

“It’s a win-win deal,” Richardson said, “and now we’re ready to move on.”

Assistant U.S. Atty. Leon W. Weidman, who had been handling the issue in Los Angeles, declined to comment on the contents of the ruling.