Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Detention Centers topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges Page County to ban conversion of local prison to ICE detention center

Page County board · February 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Glenn Mason urged the Page County board to adopt an ordinance preventing conversion of the local correctional facility into an ICE detention center, citing examples elsewhere and public-health and permanence concerns; the board’s presiding official said the facility is a state prison and county authority is limited.

Glenn Mason, a resident who identified himself during public comment, urged the Page County board to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit converting the county’s correctional facility into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center.

Mason pointed to examples such as McCook, Nebraska, where he said a prison was converted to an ICE detention site and argued such uses tend to become permanent and hard to reverse. “One of the things I think we need to look at is before it becomes a problem here … that we have an ordinance by the board that prohibits changing our correctional facility into a nice detention center,” Mason said. He also warned about overcrowding and disease risks that he said could spread to the wider community.

The presiding official responded that the facility in question is a state prison and that the county’s legal authority to block changes is limited: “I will tell you this is a state prison,” the presiding official said, noting the county may have little ability to prevent state-level decisions. Mason replied that some jurisdictions have attempted local ordinances to prevent detention-center conversions and urged the board to be proactive rather than reactive.

The meeting record shows the board did not take formal action on the suggestion during this session. The discussion remained a public comment and request for staff or legal follow-up rather than a board directive or ordinance vote.