Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Orange Park council approves memorandum of agreement with ICE after heated public comment, 3-1

3033306 · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Orange Park Town Council voted 3-1 April 15 to approve an ordinance authorizing a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after an extended public hearing that drew legal, civil-rights and fiscal concerns from residents and attorneys.

The Orange Park Town Council on April 15 approved an ordinance authorizing a memorandum of agreement between the Town of Orange Park and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), after a public hearing and extended debate that ended in a 3-1 vote.

Why it matters: The MOA would allow nominated and certified town officers to participate in specified immigration-enforcement activities after receiving ICE training; residents and speakers warned the agreement could divert local police resources, create costs for the town and increase fear in immigrant communities.

At the public hearing, Deborah Schroeth, an attorney, warned the council the MOA places financial and operational burdens on the town: “ICE has no financial responsibilities to the town under this proposed MOA other than travel expenses for our officers,” she said, adding the town would still pay officers’ salaries and benefits while they attend required training and carry out MOA duties. Schroeth also said the agreement “places no limits on the assignments to be dictated by ICE once the training is completed successfully.”

Several residents urged the council to reject the agreement on civil-rights and community-trust grounds. Will Williams, a local resident, said the MOA could harm the town’s economy by discouraging immigrant residents from using local services: “I will never be calling the police department here in Orange Park for anybody if we sign an agreement like this,” he said, describing friends who left the area because they did not feel safe. Other speakers cited case studies and county experiences—pointing to Maricopa County, Arizona, and other jurisdictions that later withdrew or criticized local participation in federal immigration-enforcement programs—saying local governments had incurred substantial legal and operational costs.

Police Chief (name not provided) told the council how the town currently handles suspected immigration warrants: officers call an ICE hotline and provide ICE a roughly 30-minute window to respond; the chief said the department does not transport detainees to ICE facilities and that officers hold a person on scene while verifying warrants. “We provide ICE with a 30 minute window to come and get the person,” the chief said, and added the chief would nominate and manage which officers receive training and certification under the MOA.

Council members debated the trade-offs between gaining access to federal warrant data and training and the potential fiscal, operational and community-trust costs. Supporters said the MOA would formalize existing, limited interactions and give the police department training and procedural clarity; opponents said it could redirect scarce local law-enforcement resources, expose the town to liability and harm community trust.

After discussion, the council voted to approve the ordinance authorizing the MOA by a 3-1 margin. Councilman Bogle cast the lone vote against the measure. Several council members and the town staff noted the town retains the ability to terminate the MOA in the future.

The ordinance authorizing the MOA was read by title during the meeting; the title language indicated it approves and authorizes a memorandum of agreement between ICE and the Town of Orange Park for police assistance and support as provided in the agreement and provides for conflicts, severability and an effective date (the effective date was not specified in the hearing title read aloud).