Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Public Facility Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents raise concerns about ICE training at city HERO building during public forum; city staff to follow up

5427972 · July 17, 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

Two residents told the council they had heard or researched that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents train at the city’s HERO building and asked what, if anything, can be done. City officials took the comments and said staff would record the information and respond rather than engaging in a back‑and‑forth during public comment.

COTTAGE GROVE, Minn. — Two residents used the City Council’s open‑forum period on July 16 to say they were worried about federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents training at the city’s HERO building and to ask what authority the city has over the facility’s use.

Peggy Nelson identified herself at the podium and asked whether ICE agents were “in Washington County or in Cottage Grove at this moment, not training at your Hero Building?” The meeting moderator told Nelson the city’s director of public safety would not answer detailed operational questions during public comment and offered to have staff take her contact information and follow up later.

Later, Ruth Jones told the council she had learned — while at a protest at the state capitol — of what she said was “a $270,000 contract” for ICE training at the HERO center. Jones said she and other Cottage Grove residents were surprised because they had not seen local reporting on the contract and asked what residents could do to learn about or influence use of taxpayer‑funded facilities.

Mayor Myron Bailey responded during the public comment exchange by telling speakers that staff would record the concerns and get back in touch rather than engage in an extended back‑and‑forth during the meeting. No council action or staff report on the matter occurred during the July 16 meeting; council members did not commit to a specific next step beyond staff follow‑up.

The two commenters framed the matter as a transparency and local‑media question as much as a policy question: Jones said she was concerned about the absence of local news coverage and asked how residents would be notified about outside agencies using city facilities. The council’s response, as stated in the meeting record, was that staff would take down contact information and follow up with the residents after the meeting.