Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances strengthened ICE‑free ordinance, directs staff to finalize implementation and communications plan
Summary
Council advanced amendments to Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 to bar use of city property, personnel and resources for civil immigration enforcement, add definitions for staging/non‑public areas, and require a communications and implementation plan; the measure passed unanimously on introduction and staff will return with a second reading and draft implementation materials.
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously April 6 to introduce strengthened amendments to Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 that explicitly restrict the use of city property, personnel and resources for civil immigration enforcement and direct staff to develop implementation and communication procedures.
Staff from the City Attorney’s Office led by Senior Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Chin and project manager Gabino Ardondo presented the draft changes. The amendments add definitions for city property, non‑public areas, city personnel and staging areas; explicitly bar city property from being used as staging areas, processing locations or operational bases for immigration enforcement; and clarify that the city will not provide personnel, equipment, storage, communication or data systems, office space or parking to support civil immigration enforcement activities unless required by law.
The ordinance also requires the city manager to develop a coordinated implementation strategy that includes departmental procedures, training for staff and a community‑facing communications and preparedness plan. Staff proposed producing a draft implementation and communications plan within two weeks of the ordinance’s approval, followed by additional community meetings and ongoing consultation with an ad hoc group of stakeholders; the ordinance would take effect 30 days after second reading.
Public comment was strongly supportive in the online forums and in‑person speakers representing immigrant‑rights networks, rapid‑response groups and community organizations urged quick adoption and robust communications to protect immigrants and reduce fear in the community. One in‑person speaker voiced strong opposition and used confrontational language.
Council members asked detailed operational questions about defining and marking non‑public areas, whether public right‑of‑ways (streets and sidewalks) would be covered, how the city would respond if federal officers staged vehicles in public spaces, the role of signage and the limits of what the city can require of contractors and volunteers. Staff said non‑public areas are meant to capture staff‑only spaces and facilities not open to the public and that the city will require judicial warrants for federal access to designated non‑public spaces; staff also explained that independent contractors and volunteers are generally not “city personnel” and cannot be compelled to meet the same training and duties as employees.
Council directed staff to finalize the ordinance language and return for a second reading (staff identified April 21 as the tentative second reading date) and to complete the implementation and communications plan for council and public review. The motion to introduce the ordinance passed unanimously.
Council and staff emphasized that the ordinance is intended to protect community stability and constitutional rights while avoiding legal exposure for the city: a clause states that nothing in the communications section creates a mandatory duty that would give rise to liability. Staff will provide annual reporting to council on implementation starting by May 1, 2027.
