Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents urge Woodbury council to adopt binding restriction on federal immigration-enforcement use of city property
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents asked the Woodbury City Council to place a binding resolution on a future agenda that would prohibit use of city parks and public buildings for federal immigration-enforcement operations, arguing that a mayoral proclamation is symbolic and not enforceable; council members acknowledged community fear but cited legal and policy limits and said staff will advise next steps.
Dozens of residents urged the Woodbury City Council on April 22 to replace a mayoral proclamation opposing a federal immigration detention center with a formal, enforceable resolution restricting use of city-owned property by federal immigration-enforcement agencies.
"A proclamation is not policy," said Justin Rapela, who asked the council to place the full draft resolution on an upcoming agenda so the body can record a formal vote and direct staff to update facility-use agreements. "When people know that public property that they visit and the parks where their children play can’t be used as staging areas for raids, they feel more comfortable."
Several other speakers framed their plea in personal and historic terms. Susan Asplin said more than 150 residents signed a petition asking the council to act, and Sumitra Ness invoked historical detention sites and urged council members to "be on the right side of history." Jenny Stevens described her family’s fear after local ICE activity and said the community deserves policy, not only statements of values.
Mayor Ann W. Burt and multiple council members described the city’s prior actions — including a proclamation issued April 8 — and acknowledged residents’ fears while outlining legal and operational limits on municipal authority. Burt said some cities (she named Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Richfield) have adopted resolutions and that staff and the city attorney have weighed in on what the city can lawfully accomplish.
City Administrator Jeff Dahl and the city attorney told the council that staff had provided written materials and that any draft resolution might require review of facility-use agreements and legal analysis; the city attorney also noted that objectors could seek judicial review if they dispute administrative decisions.
Council members signaled differing views about next steps. Some members said they supported further study; others emphasized constraints arising from state and federal law and the need to balance policy changes across the city. The council did not vote to place the specific draft resolution on a future agenda during the April 22 meeting.
The public comment period at the April 22 meeting was extended by council motion to allow more speakers; the mayor reminded participants that the council typically does not respond during open forum but that staff will follow up on requests. The council did not adopt any binding restriction at the meeting; speakers asked the council to schedule a formal vote in a future meeting so the community can see a recorded outcome.
