Residents urge Huerfano County commissioners to oppose proposed ICE detention center

Dozens of residents told the Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners during public comment on July 8 that they oppose plans to turn local prison property into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center, calling the facility inhuman and urging the county to use every available authority to stop it.

Speakers said the company CoreCivic and a private contractor, identified in public remarks as Apex Site Services, are seeking to operate a detention facility in the area. Multiple commenters asked the commission to hold a public information meeting, research whether a 287(g) agreement applies to Huerfano County, and examine permits or contracts that would allow federal immigration enforcement to house detainees locally.

The residents’ remarks tied the proposed facility to constitutional and humanitarian concerns. Daniel Cornell, who identified himself as a Walsenburg homeowner, invoked family history and told commissioners, “If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and wants to put a concentration camp in your town, it's a Nazi.” Other speakers described the private-prison operator CoreCivic as having a record of abuse and criticized local officials for discussing potential revenue from housing detainees.

Why it matters: speakers argued the facility would affect community safety, reputation and local services, and they repeatedly pressed elected officials to use zoning, permitting and public hearings to block a privately run facility. Several people also asked the commission to clarify whether the county or sheriff’s office intends to enter any 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements that would expand local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Commissioners’ response: a county official said the federal government is exempt from local land-use authority but that private contractors operating under federal contract would be subject to local permitting and zoning rules. The official urged residents that, if a private company submits land-use or permit applications, those applications would be posted publicly and go through the county’s normal review process, including planning commission hearings and public comment.

Residents’ requests and claims included numeric and legal assertions that were presented as citizen research or estimates; those claims were attributed to individual speakers and not verified by the county during the meeting. For example, one speaker cited a multi-hundred-million-dollar annual cost for a national detention program and a per-inmate annual figure for Colorado; another said the local facility under discussion could cost roughly $12 million a year for 750 detainees. Those figures were not presented by county staff as official estimates.

Speakers also described a range of alleged harms they said detainees have experienced under ICE operations, including limited access to legal counsel and medical care. Several asked the county to use its public-health and permitting authorities to confirm living conditions and health standards would be enforced if a privately run detention facility is proposed.

What comes next: commissioners and staff said they have not received a county-facing permit application for a second, “soft-sided” facility and that any private company application would trigger the county’s land-use review and a public hearing. Residents who asked for a briefing or an information session were told to submit documentation; several people offered to provide research the commission could review.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

First related public comment: "Daniel Cornell. I live at 215 West Third Street in Walsenburg. I'm a homeowner here. I'd like to address the proposed ICE detention center. I'm gonna invoke my mother's name now." (transcript block starting at 545.77)

Last related reply from county official about land-use authority and process: "No. The federal government is exempt from all local land use authority. But if they contract with a private company, that is not exempt. ... If an application comes in, it will be posted and go through the planning commission with public comment." (paraphrase of transcript block starting at 3923.655)