Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Property Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County says jail RFP will bar private detention uses including ICE facilities
Summary
County Manager Ed Oatman told the Union County Board of County Commissioners the request-for-proposals (RFP) for the county jail property will explicitly prohibit any private detention or immigration detention uses; speakers at public comment largely praised the decision.
County Manager Ed Oatman told the Union County Board of County Commissioners that language barring private detention uses will be included in the request for proposals for the county jail property.
The announcement followed weeks of public comment and inquiries about potential uses for the vacant facility. “We are continuing with the RFP process, but we want to be absolutely clear. The RFP will include language that prohibits any use of the site as a private detention facility such as an ICE facility, immigration, detention center, or similar operation. Those uses are off the table,” Oatman said.
Oatman said the county had received a range of informal inquiries while preparing an RFP to gauge potential market interest. He described the RFP as a standard step to “evaluate potential uses for a property of this scale” and said the county would work with community advocates on the RFP language. “As the drafting of the RFP process continues, I look forward to working with Nnedi of Make the Road to make sure the language reflects the proper intent of the RFP,” he said.
Public commenters who had attended repeated meetings in recent months responded positively. Susan Vercheck of SOMA Action’s immigration committee said the board’s announcement was “extremely heartening” and that the group “support[s] it wholeheartedly.” Cynthia Galeota of South Orange, also representing SOMA Action, thanked the commissioners: “Thank you Union County commissioners for listening to us.” Several other residents and community organizers voiced gratitude and urged the county to maintain the prohibition as the RFP moves forward.
Speakers repeatedly framed the matter as both a local and broader civil-rights concern. Some commenters referenced recent federal court rulings and national policy shifts during their remarks; those legal and policy references were made by members of the public and reflect their statements rather than new county policy.
Oatman and commissioners said the county will continue the RFP process with the added prohibitions and that staff will follow up with community stakeholders as the draft language is finalized. No formal vote or ordinance to change county law on the jail property was taken during the meeting.
