Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Surprise council to block planned DHS detention site, cite chemical-hazard concerns at nearby Rinchem facility
Summary
Multiple public commenters at the June 2 Surprise council meeting urged stronger action to stop a planned DHS/ICE temporary detention facility, raised safety concerns about hazardous chemicals stored at a nearby Rinchem facility and demanded transparent safety plans and town-hall style discussions.
A group of Surprise residents used the city’s public-comment period on June 2 to urge the City Council to block or oppose a planned Department of Homeland Security temporary detention and processing facility and to demand safety planning after citing a nearby hazardous-chemical storage site.
Kayla Bishop, who said she recently bought her first home in Surprise, told the council residents were frustrated and felt “silenced” by limited opportunities to be heard on the issue. “We did not start out this angry with you guys…The anger came later. It came when we were ignored,” she said, urging the council to hold a town hall and answer residents’ questions directly.
Jennifer McCann said the matter goes beyond politics and urged the council to “fight this every step of the way with everything that you can,” saying the facility could strain roads, water, public safety services and schools.
Several speakers raised safety concerns about a chemical storage facility operated by Rinchem located near the proposed detention site. Anne Bendheim invoked family history and said: “As the ICE prison continues to gear up for opening this autumn, please think about my family… the surprise ICE detainees could die in agony, forced to inhale the cloud of poison.” Taylor Bone similarly cited reporting and company filings and said, according to those sources, an outdoor tank failure could release 20,000 pounds of hydrogen chloride in 10 minutes, generating a plume the speaker said would travel 2.7 miles and could affect thousands of residents and nearby schools. Those figures were presented by public commenters as claims drawn from investigative reporting and company/EPA filings; the council did not provide verification on the record during the comment period.
Another public speaker referenced a lawsuit by Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays related to DHS actions and argued the city should continue to oppose the facility. Speakers called for proactive safety planning, including evacuation and shelter-in-place procedures tailored to the needs of people in custody, and for more transparent — and public — discussions about the facility’s expected operations and impacts.
No city staff provided a substantive, on-the-record technical rebuttal during the call to the public. After commenters finished, councilmembers moved to adjourn to executive session. The council is scheduled to reconvene as required by its rules; residents said they would return at the June 16 meeting.
What remains unresolved: The public’s technical and numerical claims about potential chemical-release scenarios (plume distance, chemical quantities and numbers of affected residents and detainees) were presented by commenters and attributed to external reports or company filings; city staff did not provide independent confirmation on the record at this meeting. Residents urged the council to schedule a town hall to discuss safety planning and to provide clearer, documented emergency procedures addressing the proximity of the Rinchem facility to the proposed DHS site.
