Residents and advocates urge Surprise council to block planned ICE detention facility

Dozens of residents and advocates urged the Surprise City Council on Feb. 17 to take stronger steps to prevent a nearby warehouse from being used as a 1,500‑bed ICE detention facility, saying the site would threaten school safety, local services and community trust.

At the meeting’s public-comment period, speakers described personal concerns about family separations, health care in detention, and the potential for protests and heavy enforcement in neighborhoods near the proposed site. "We are supposed to be the shining city on the hill," said Georgia Spillers, adding federal immigration policy should be enforced but asking the council to avoid actions that would impede enforcement. "I thank you for not officially opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws, and I would urge you to resist the calls to do so," she said, urging cooperation with federal authorities.

Other residents addressed what they said were the human‑costs of detention. Kayla Bishop, who said she recently bought her first home in Surprise, compared the council’s letter to federal officials with more forceful public responses in other cities and asked the council to move beyond requests for information to formal opposition. "We will protest, we will call, and we will not go silently into the night," Bishop said. Amanda Kaminskas, who said she works five minutes from the site, urged the council to weigh public‑safety consequences for vulnerable residents, citing concerns about medical care and the prospect that protests and enforcement actions could place children at risk.

Several speakers asked the council to pursue legal or policy options: passing a resolution opposing the facility, investigating zoning or permitting authority, coordinating with the state attorney general, or seeking a moratorium on certain development near the site. "We need elected officials to engage with a proactive plan to identify solutions to prevent this detention center from opening," said Alexa Coulter, who emphasized planning for impacts on schools, food access and health care.

Speakers also raised fiscal and infrastructure questions, warning that a federal retrofit of the warehouse could remove the property from taxable private use and saddle local services with emergency costs. Tina Mallica suggested federal retrofit estimates near $150 million and warned the site could remain unavailable for private investment for decades.

Not all public participants opposed the facility. Multiple speakers spoke in favor of enforcement, arguing the site could help remove dangerous criminals and support law enforcement. William Spillers, a 30‑year Air Force veteran, said: "If you come here illegally ... you have already violated the law." Leo Mankiewicz and other speakers raised constitutional and public‑safety questions on both sides of the debate.

Mayor Sarter and staff reiterated that the council had sent a letter to federal officials seeking information and that some matters are governed by federal supremacy, but several speakers urged local action in parallel, including coordination with the state attorney general. The council did not take a formal vote on the facility at the meeting; members asked staff to continue outreach and to report back. The public comment block closed after more than an hour of testimony.