Residents press Bradford County commissioners over proposed ICE detention site, citing contamination, costs and safety

A steady stream of residents told the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners that a proposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility near the entrance to Stark and across from the local Walmart is the wrong fit for the county, citing environmental contamination, property-value loss and fiscal risk.

At the public-comment portion of the meeting, several speakers described deep opposition to the site. One speaker who identified local shopping centers said she supported law enforcement but warned that ‘‘this is the wrong spot’’ for a facility near heavy foot and vehicle traffic and said, ‘‘if something happens and God forbid somebody get killed, it's on your hands.’’

Kristen Rubin of Ice Springs told commissioners the proposal ‘‘is a euphemism for a concentration camp’’ and raised concerns that the site drains into the Santa Fe River and could threaten water quality. Maria Gear (Brooker) said the commission must be ‘‘completely transparent’’ before considering a project that affects long-standing local families.

Speakers also framed the proposal as a fiscal and legal risk. Scott Belelfford, who presented a 178-page cost and risk assessment to the board, said his analysis suggests Bradford County could be ‘‘about $197,000 a month short on average over the next three years’’ if the county relies on the project's proposed cost-recovery assumptions. Paul (address provided during comment) urged a public workshop and asked how much county staff time and expense have been devoted to evaluating proposals.

Property-value and liability concerns were common. Steve Wine, a former property appraiser, said the site's history of contamination and its transfer to the county raise questions about potential lawsuits and long-term liability for residents. Josh Cooper of Gainesville said the facility’s visibility approaching Stark would deter visitors and harm local commerce.

At a later point in the meeting Sheriff Smith directly addressed the crowd’s concerns. The sheriff defended his involvement and said consultants have assisted in compiling materials for submission to DHS, asserting that ‘‘no person should ever be housed in a facility without proper environmental steps’’ and that county staff would rely on professional consultants for any environmental review. He also framed the proposal as a potential source of jobs and revenue for a rural county but emphasized that any submission would still require external approval.

What happens next: public speakers urged the commission to hold a workshop to examine environmental records, clarify financial exposure and allow more citizen input. Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the ICE proposal at the meeting; public comments and sheriff remarks concluded without a final county decision recorded.