Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County Legislature adopts resolution opposing proposed ICE detention site in Chester warehouses
Summary
The Rules Committee adopted an amended resolution urging the county to reject converting warehouses in the Village of Chester into an ICE processing or detention facility, citing floodplain location, lack of wastewater capacity and reported problems at other ICE sites. The measure passed with a single recorded dissent.
The Orange County Legislature’s Rules, Enactments and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Jan. 22 adopted a resolution urging the county to oppose converting warehouse space into a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing or detention facility.
Legislator Genesis Ramos introduced the resolution and argued the proposal is legally and practically unworkable. Ramos said the site sits in a 100-year floodplain and that “the county’s wastewater, and sewage infrastructure is already at capacity,” adding that the Harriman Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion is not complete. Ramos also cited national reporting and oversight findings, saying that in 2025 “there were 30 deaths, the highest number ever recorded.”
Legislator Barry J. Cheney offered an amendment adding three specific “Whereas” clauses drawn from a letter by the County Attorney: that (1) county officials have not received disclosable, non-confidential details about the scope and operation of the proposed facility; (2) the proposed ICE use is incompatible with deed restrictive covenants and zoning that anticipated commercial tax-generating uses; and (3) the Village of Chester cannot transmit additional wastewater to Orange County Sewer District No. 1 for treatment at the Harriman facility. The amendment itself passed unanimously.
The committee held a roll-call on a separate proposed deletion of a clause that said existing ICE facilities have had inadequate conditions and lacked medical care; that deletion failed 5-4. The final resolution was adopted as amended with one legislator recorded in opposition (Legislator Thomas J. Faggione). According to the committee record, the remaining members voted in favor.
The resolution directs the Legislature to rely on documented facts and the law in opposing the conversion and highlights local infrastructure and zoning constraints as primary reasons the county could not legally or practically host such a facility. The committee did not take administrative steps to block any private or federal proposal beyond adopting the resolution; the record shows the resolution is a formal statement of the Legislature’s position.
Next steps called for in the resolution include relying on the County Attorney’s guidance and public engagement; the transcript does not specify additional administrative or legal actions or deadlines.
