Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegation urges Strafford County commissioners to renegotiate ICE agreement in nonbinding resolution
Summary
By a roll-call vote announced as 22 to 11, the delegation adopted a nonbinding resolution asking county commissioners to renegotiate the intergovernmental agreement with ICE so county beds are not used for nonviolent civil-immigration detainees; the resolution includes an amendment removing one factual paragraph.
The Strafford County delegation on March 4 adopted a nonbinding resolution calling on county commissioners to reopen negotiations on the intergovernmental service agreement between the Strafford County House of Corrections and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The motion passed by roll-call, announced in the transcript as "Motion passes 22 to 11."
The resolution, introduced by Representative Howard, asks commissioners to renegotiate contract terms so that county jail beds are not used to hold people who are detained only for civil immigration violations. The measure is advisory and nonbinding; it does not itself change the commissioners' contract authority.
Representative Howard described the measure as a way for the delegation to press for a narrower contractual scope: "We should not be detaining people who only have civil offenses," he said. Representative Alexander Miller moved an amendment to strike a paragraph describing where different detainee populations are housed; Miller said the strike was intended to keep the resolution factually accurate pending clarification from the superintendent of the House of Corrections. The amendment was carried, and the amended resolution then passed on roll call.
Supporters framed the resolution as an ethical and fiscal request. Several members said a large share of recent county revenue has come from housing federal detainees and argued the delegation should insist that county beds be reserved for people who pose criminal threats to the community. Opponents cautioned that renegotiation could reduce county revenue and force property-tax increases without ready alternatives.
What it does and does not do: the measure is a request to the elected county commissioners to renegotiate specific terms of the ICE contract; it does not terminate the contract and is not itself legally binding. Delegation members requested that any future changes be coordinated with county officials.
Next steps: delegates indicated they will seek further meetings and follow-up with county commissioners and the superintendent of the house of corrections to obtain clarifying data the resolution referenced.
