Dozens of Carver County residents urged the County Board at its Jan. 6 organizational meeting to reject a proposed contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or at least pause the decision while an independent legal, fiscal and community-impact review is completed.

Hillary Pats, a Carver County resident of 22 years, told commissioners she was “here today to urge you not to enter into a contract with immigration and customs enforcement or at a minimum to pause the decision until its full financial, legal and community impacts can be independently evaluated.” Pats cited 2025 data she attributed to the Cato Institute and Syracuse University’s TRAC project that she said shows roughly 73% of people detained by ICE have no criminal record and that in-custody stays average 55–63 days.

The comments formed the core of an extended public-comment period: Sally Brown presented an original petition bearing more than 500 signatures asking the sheriff and board not to allow ICE to detain people in Carver County facilities; Monique LaCroix read a first-person account describing fear and an 80% drop in sales for one local business; and other speakers described missed doctor appointments, school absences, labor shortages and disruptions to snow-removal and other essential services.

Why it matters: Residents and community leaders framed the board’s decision as more than a facilities contract. They argued it would shift local control to federal authority, risk civil-rights harms and impose fiscal costs while undermining trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Becky Verone, who said she has lived in Carver County for nearly 50 years, warned that by approving the jail as an operational base for ICE the county risks turning local deputies into federal agents in the eyes of the community, undermining long-term trust.

What speakers asked for: Public commenters consistently requested that the board either reject the contract or table it until an independent auditor could assess “the true long-term financial, legal, and reputational risks to Carver County,” language used by Hillary Pats. Several speakers asked the board to honor commitments to transparency and public trust and to protect local schools, businesses and essential services from the ripple effects of increased enforcement activity.

Board response and next steps: Commissioners heard the comments but did not take a formal vote on an ICE contract at the Jan. 6 meeting. The board proceeded with its organizational agenda items—electing officers, adopting operating rules and making committee appointments—and approved the consent agenda, which included unrelated items such as a U.S. Department of Transportation grant authorization for the Highway 5 project. No binding action approving an ICE contract was recorded in the meeting minutes; residents asked the board to pause any decision until a deeper review is completed.

Voices from the meeting: “Do not commit county resources, facilities, or credibility to a program that drains public funds, erodes trust, and harms our local economy,” Pats said. "I'm asking you to oppose the ICE contract in our community jail," said Margaret Coldwell, an early-childhood educator. Ken Haribi, reading a letter from a delivery driver, described lost income and reduced access to essential services when drivers avoid neighborhoods out of fear.

What to watch: If the board or sheriff’s office brings a formal contract for consideration in a future meeting, commissioners may either (a) vote to authorize county facilities to be used by ICE, (b) vote to decline participation, or (c) vote to table the matter pending an independent review. Residents asked explicitly for an independent financial, legal and reputational audit before any such vote.