Washington County Cited Federal Limits on ICE Facility. It Didn't Mention Its Federal Rights.

County officials say they're powerless to block the detention center. Federal law gives them a formal consultative role they haven't publicly discussed.

Days after Washington County, Md., officials told residents they were powerless to stop a federal immigration detention facility, a review of the regulations and documents they cited reveals a different picture. The county has a mandatory consultative role in the approval process that it has not publicly acknowledged.

The internal Department of Homeland Security letter that prompted the county’s statement — a three-page document dated Jan. 12 — was not a final order. It was what the agency called an “initiation of consultation.”

"In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, ICE has invited the Hagerstown Planning Department and the Washington County Historic Preservation Commission, both certified local governments, to participate in consultation for this undertaking," the letter states. It goes on to request "any comments on the undertaking and ICE's finding within 30 calendar days."

The ICE letter also invited two federally recognized tribes to participate in consultation: the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. A county spokeswoman said the tribes have not coordinated with the county council or planning office on a response.

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must follow a four-step consultation process before undertaking projects that may affect historic properties. The county, as a “certified local government,” is explicitly named as a required consulting party in federal regulations.

The process requires federal agencies to identify historic properties, assess potential effects and “resolve adverse effects by developing and evaluating alternatives that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate” impacts on historic resources.

While the county cannot veto the federal finding of “no historic properties affected,” it can participate in developing binding agreements that would govern how the project proceeds — none of which appeared in the county’s public statement.

The department’s letter noted it had received “no comments” from the county commission as of mid-January and set a 30-day deadline for a response. County officials said they did not receive the letter until Jan. 14 — two days after the agency had documented the county’s silence in its internal reports. The department has given the county until mid-February to respond.

A Washington County spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the public statement.

Other Omitted Options

The county’s statement also omitted several other procedural avenues that could delay or complicate the project.

The proposed rehabilitation of the warehouse, which federal documents show will include holding cells, cafeterias and health care spaces, typically requires an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. That process usually includes a public comment period in which the county could challenge the facility’s impact on local infrastructure, water supply and emergency services.

Local officials have not publicly detailed whether they intend to ask the state historic preservation officer to formally object to the federal findings — a move that would trigger a more intensive federal review.

In its own report, the department acknowledged it “withheld commenting” on a stone springhouse on an adjacent historic farm because of a “lack of information.” The agency conceded the structure could be historically significant. The county’s statement did not mention this potential opening to request further study.

A representative of the Washington County Historical Society declined to comment.

Warehouse Deals Abandoned Elsewhere

Washington County’s approach stands in contrast not only to other jurisdictions that have mounted formal opposition, but also to private property owners who have canceled sales under public pressure.

On Friday, a development company owned by Canadian billionaire Jimmy Pattison said it would not move forward with the sale of a Virginia warehouse that the department planned to convert into an ICE detention center. The decision came after pushback in Hanover County, Va., and a planned protest in Vancouver, where the company is based.

The company said it had initially agreed to sell the facility to a government contractor and only later became aware of “the ultimate owner and intended use of the building.” The leader of British Columbia’s Green Party had urged consumers to boycott other Pattison businesses, which include grocers and automotive dealers.

Pattison’s company is now the third to abandon a sale to the department. The facilities under consideration are in 23 municipalities around the country, many of them warehouses originally designed for e-commerce distribution.

When Oklahoma City received a similar notice from the department in December, city officials outlined concrete next steps, including preparing a formal response, requesting the agency pursue a special permit and sending letters to congressional representatives “requesting their support of a local public approval process.”

Washington County’s statement borrowed heavily from Oklahoma City’s language — including nearly word-for-word passages about local control and constitutional limits — but removed all provisions for resistance or formal response.

Background on the Facility

On Tuesday, the Washington County Board of Commissioners issued a statement describing federal plans to convert an 825,000-square-foot warehouse into a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility.” The statement emphasized constitutional limits on local authority, noting the county “is not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed.”

Property records show the department completed a $102.4 million purchase on Jan. 16, making it the first confirmed acquisition in what federal documents describe as a network of up to 23 processing centers nationwide.

The political environment has been complicated by the suspension of public comment periods at county commission meetings. Dave Williams of Washington County Indivisible said, “The commissioners are just throwing up their hands. They aren’t even trying to make an effort.”

Representative April McClain Delaney, a Maryland Democrat, called the acquisition a “cloak of darkness” operation and vowed to challenge it alongside Gov. Wes Moore. The facility’s design work has also hit complications after a tribal contractor terminated its $29.9 million contract.