Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detention Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances 'ICE Out' building‑permit ban to full council; Lukey amendment tied and moved
Summary
The Economic Development Committee voted to move expedited Bill 13‑26, which defines immigration detention facilities and would bar permits for privately owned detention centers, to full council. An amendment requiring NEPA/APA documentation tied in committee and will be considered by full council.
The Montgomery County Economic Development Committee voted in committee to advance expedited Bill 13‑26 — the "ICE Out Act" — to the full council after a work‑session discussion of the bill's scope and possible amendments.
The legislative attorney told the committee the bill would add a definition for "immigration detention facility" to county code and would prohibit the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) from issuing a building permit or a use‑and‑occupancy permit for a privately owned immigration detention facility. "It would be any building, facility, or structure used in whole or in part to house or detain individuals for civil immigration violations," staff said in the packet presentation.
Council Member Lukey proposed an amendment to require applicants to submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before DPS would accept or issue permits. Lukey said the measure was designed to give the county "a tool" to verify federal or private applicants had followed required federal processes and to strengthen the county's position in likely litigation.
Supporters said the amendment would create transparency and slow efforts to repurpose buildings for detention use; opponents, including Council Member Glass, argued the federal nature of immigration enforcement limits local authority and that the amendment was unlikely to prevent a federal program. The committee vote on the Lukey amendment tied (two in favor, two against), so the amendment will be taken up by the full council.
After discussion, the committee unanimously approved the bill as introduced and sent it to full council for consideration. The committee record shows members framed the measure as an effort to protect residents and prerogatives of the county while acknowledging the likelihood of legal challenges.
Next steps: the bill and the tied amendment will be on the full‑council agenda; staff noted that permit decisions for partial building reuse will require case‑by‑case determinations from DPS.
