Orange County adopts resolution opposing use of warehouses as ICE detention sites after hours of public comment

The Orange County Board of County Commissioners on March 10 adopted a resolution objecting to proposals to convert industrial warehouses into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing or detention facilities, following extensive public comment and remarks from elected officials.

The measure, adopted as part of the consent agenda, states the county’s opposition to converting warehouse space for ICE processing or detention operations and affirms the board’s intent to preserve local land‑use processes and transparency. Mayor Jerry O Demings said the resolution “makes clear that any proposal of this nature is incompatible with our community’s values and priorities.”

Why it matters: dozens of residents, advocacy groups and local leaders urged the commission to end county cooperation with federal immigration detention programs and to block warehouse conversions near residential neighborhoods. The outpouring came as the county discussed a related agenda of community recovery grants and major capital projects.

“Expanding immigration detention does nothing to fix our broken immigration system,” said Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost, who came before the board. “A facility like this would also put a real strain on local infrastructure from water and sewer systems and other services while impacting the tourism that our economy depends on.”

Multiple speakers during the public‑comment period urged a formal end to the county’s intergovernmental service agreements (IGSA) and 287(g) collaborations with federal immigration authorities. Speakers cited both fiscal and humanitarian concerns and presented arithmetic they said showed local costs. “If the county is currently making $88 per day per inmate and the estimated cost to properly take care of these people is $180 per day, that means the county has been spending $92 per day” extra, said William Hill, a public commenter.

County staff and commissioners repeatedly noted limits on local authority over federal detention policy while emphasizing that the resolution expresses local policy and land‑use objections. County Administrator Byron Brooks told the board the resolution was about protecting residents, preserving the integrity of local land‑use and ensuring major decisions are made with “transparency, coordination, or respect for local government.”

What the board did: The resolution opposing warehouse conversions for ICE operations was adopted during the consent agenda (the board also approved a series of CDBG‑DR agreements totaling $37,436,587 and recognized several fire‑rescue promotions). The mayor summarized the consent outcomes after public comment.

Context and next steps: Supporters of ending county cooperation with ICE asked commissioners to pursue legal steps the county has discussed—such as seeking clarification or litigation surrounding local agreement terms—and to stop renewing or renegotiating IGSA/287(g) arrangements that commenters described as costly and harmful. Board members acknowledged both community sentiment and limits on municipal authority over federal law enforcement, and said the county will pursue funding and policy options within its legal authority.

Public comment highlights: dozens of speakers urged termination of the IGSA and cited alleged practices by ICE that they said prolong detention and harm community members. Other comments during the same public‑comment block supported major tourism and sporting events for their economic and youth benefits. The board heard both the dissent and the arguments for strategic investment in major events before taking action on both fronts.

The board’s action on the resolution does not terminate any federal agreement by itself; it registers the county’s policy position and preserves the county’s intent to oppose local warehouse conversions for processing or detention pending future, specific proposals.