Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Moratorium Detention Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts one-year moratorium and study on secure detention facilities after extended public comment
Summary
Bloomington adopted an interim ordinance pausing approvals for "secure detention facilities" for one year while the city studies zoning, service and infrastructure impacts; the measure passed 62D1 after emotional public testimony both for and against.
Bloomington City Council voted on March 23 to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium and a staff-led planning study on the siting of certain secure detention facilities within the city.
City planner Mr. Johnson told the council the proposed interim ordinance would apply to "secure detention facilities" defined in the draft as publicly or privately operated secure residential housing or temporary holding for 25 or more individuals under court or government custody. Under state law the city may adopt a one-year moratorium while it conducts a targeted land-use study to determine whether changes to official controls (zoning) are needed.
The public hearing drew many speakers. Supporters urged the pause and study to avoid the long-term community impacts they associate with detention centers; one speaker, Anita Smith, recounted witnessing an immigration enforcement detention and said, "No immigration detention centers in Minnesota — ICE out of Minnesota." Other commenters emphasized reputational, property-value and human-rights concerns.
Opponents and one caller raised questions about legal implications and urged the council to consider engaging federal representatives; some commenters also raised unrelated allegations that the city27s staff said were beyond the hearing's scope. Councilmembers debated the moratorium's limits, its one-year maximum under state statute and the need to scope the study carefully to avoid loopholes. Councilmember Robertson moved adoption; the ordinance passed on roll-call vote 62D1 (Councilmember Rivas opposed). The council also authorized summary publication as required.
