Proposal to waive city facility fees for government agencies draws strong public pushback over ICE concerns

A council member’s request to consider waiving city facility rental fees for government agencies prompted wide public comment focused on whether federal immigration agencies such as ICE could use city facilities free of charge.

Donna Finch, the city’s community services director, told council that facility rental fees are governed by the city’s master fee recovery schedule and that the city collected roughly $36,000 from other government agencies in fiscal year 2025. Staff presented four options ranging from keeping the current fee structure (Option 1) to eliminating fees for all government agencies (Option 2), eliminating the fee only for council chambers (Option 3), or another customized approach (Option 4). Staff’s recommendation was to keep the current structure (Option 1).

Vice Mayor Speake, who submitted the request, clarified that his intent was narrower than the agenda title suggested. He said the idea originated Oct. 23 and that he wanted to offer a one-day-per-year waiver for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to meet in Corona so representatives could experience the city’s traffic and local context; he said he did not intend to invite federal enforcement agencies to use city facilities for free.

Despite that clarification, multiple public speakers said the agenda wording was dangerously broad and could be used by federal immigration enforcement to obtain free space in city facilities. Speakers recounted local encounters with ICE and urged council to prohibit federal immigration agencies explicitly from any fee waiver. For example, a public commenter said a friend was approached by ICE and a Corona police officer in a store parking lot and was asked for proof of citizenship; another speaker urged the council to adopt a policy explicitly forbidding use of city property for immigration enforcement operations.

Council debate reflected that tension: some members suggested tabling or delaying the item until political temperatures ease; others said staff’s recommendation to make no change was appropriate for now. One council member argued that the city should avoid subsidizing large regional agencies at the expense of local users and urged a broader review of facility fee policy.

Motion and outcome: A motion to accept staff recommendation (Option 1 — no change to current policy) was made and seconded; the item passed on the record after council discussion. The meeting record indicates council chose not to adopt a blanket waiver at this time and directed that clearer, narrower language be used if the council wishes to revisit a limited one-time waiver for a specific regional body.

Next steps: Council directed staff to continue engagement and to clarify any future proposals with precise verbiage (for example, naming the agency, frequency and facilities covered) before further council action. Many public commenters asked staff and council to consider a separate protective policy that would clarify that city-managed property cannot be used for immigration enforcement; some advocacy groups offered technical assistance.