Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocates press Alamosa leaders for clearer oversight of ICE holding facility
Summary
A San Luis Valley resident and local advocates urged the Alamosa City Council to require inspections and clearer monitoring of an ICE holding facility after a sharp increase in its use, while city staff said legal limits constrain operational oversight.
Janine Tenbrook, a San Luis Valley resident speaking on behalf of local immigrant partners, told the Alamosa City Council that community members remain worried about an ICE holding facility operating in the city and urged specific actions by local government. “We would like to request health and safety inspections,” Tenbrook said, and flagged evacuation concerns for detainees who could be handcuffed or shackled during an emergency.
Tenbrook told the council the facility’s use rose sharply: it was used twice between 2022 and May 2025, and then 60 times between May 2025 and April 2026. She also cited recent detention-facility deaths and a tuberculosis outbreak elsewhere as reasons the community does not trust federal transparency. “We really don't trust the transparency of ICE even to adhere to their own standards,” she said.
City staff responded that the council's earlier decision reflected legal complexity uncovered when staff located a 1999 building permit for the site. Staff said that discovery complicated efforts to enforce zoning or operational rules and that the city lacks authority over ICE operational procedures. Staff described the council-approved next step as notifying the property owner of zoning violations and holding periodic meetings with local ICE agents to maintain channels of communication, but they emphasized, “we are not looking at how they are running their operations.”
The exchange left open questions about whether the city can require independent health and safety inspections or compel changes to physical facilities used for detention. Council members did not direct staff to pursue a particular enforcement action beyond the previously stated notice to the property owner. The council did not take a formal vote on new enforcement steps during the meeting.
What’s next: staff said they will attempt to set a meeting with local ICE representatives and will provide follow-up to council and the public as appropriate.
