Public commenters urge transparency on 287(g) agreements and sheriff������civil forfeitures

During public comment on the county budget on Sept. 10, multiple speakers raised concerns about immigration enforcement and civil asset forfeiture. A commenter urged commissioners to post the county’s February ("287") agreement and any related documents on county websites so residents can see what obligations the county has accepted and what taxpayer costs might follow.
The speaker said the county appeared to be taking on tasks he believed to be federal responsibilities and called it "triple taxation" because of federal and state immigration enforcement spending. He also asked for public accounting of roughly $11 million referenced in a sheriff’s annual report as civil asset forfeiture proceeds and questioned how those funds have been tracked and used in the county budget.
County responses: Commissioners said they were not immediately aware of a county 287(g) arrangement but would check. Later in public remarks a county official stated the county had had a voluntary February agreement for about eight years and that the county is 100% reimbursed by ICE for expenses associated with that program; commissioners said they would verify details and make the agreement available if appropriate.
Why it matters: Agreements that bring local agencies into federal immigration enforcement — and civil forfeiture receipts — raise legal, fiscal and public-accountability questions. Commenters asked for transparency so the public can assess cost and policy implications.