On the agenda: West Saint Paul meeting — ALPR (Jan 26)

OPEN COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Municipal Center Council Chambers
1616 Humboldt Ave, West St. Paul, MN 55118
Monday, January 26, 2026
5:00 PM
1. Welcome and Note Attendance
2. Agenda Item(s)
A. 2026 Legislative Positions
Documents:
OCWS ITEM - LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AND BONDING.FUNDING
REQUESTS.PDF
RESOLUTION - ADOPTING POLICY POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZING
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH CONDITIONS.PDF
B. Immigration Enforcement Activity Update
Documents:
PRESENTATION - OCWS - COMMUNITY SAFETY AND FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.PDF
ATTACHMENT - CITY ATTORNEY MEMO OPTIONS_REGULATING_MANAGING_ICE_ACTIVITIES_ANALYSIS.PDF
MEMO - COMMUNITY SAFETY AND FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.PDF
RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES REGARDING FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION ACTIVITY.PDF
RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES REGARDING FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION ACTIVITY - ALT 1.PDF
ATTACHMENT - FLOCK SYSTEM OVERVIEW.PDF
C. Secondhand Store and Construction-impacted Business License Fee Discussion
Documents:
OCWS ITEM - SECONDHAND STORE AND CONSTRUCTION-IMPACTED
BUSINESS LICENSE FEE DISCUSSION.PDF
D. Strategic Plan Update (Time Permitting)
Documents:

OCWS ITEM - SECONDHAND STORE AND CONSTRUCTION-IMPACTED
BUSINESS LICENSE FEE DISCUSSION.PDF
D. Strategic Plan Update (Time Permitting)
Documents:
OCWS ITEM - STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE.PDF
3. Regular Meeting Consent Agenda Review
4. Adjourn

If you need an accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the ADA Coordinator at 651-552-4108 or
email [email protected] at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.
Si usted desea que alguna parte del paquete de esta agenda sea traducida al Español, por favor solicitelo
al [email protected].
www.wspmn.gov
EOE/AA

OCWS Item
Subject: Legislative Priorities and Bonding/Funding
Requests
Meeting Date: January 26, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Nate Burkett, City Manager
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☒ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☐ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
The Council is asked to consider legislative priorities and provide direction with regard to
bonding and funding requests. A draft resolution is included with this item for consideration.
This resolution is substantially similar to the resolution adopted by the Council in 2024 and
2025.
Major Changes - Prioritizing the top four requests of the City as; (1) Funding for 150
Thompson Park, (2) Extension of Local Option Sales Tax (3) Specific exemption on sales tax
for materials to construct affordable housing and public facilities or extension of the general
statute (4) Streamlining option for local governments to provide alternate methods of Paid
Family Medical Leave (i.e. self funding) and (5) funding for opioid response
Links to the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities policy positions are below:
League Policy Positions - https://www.lmc.org/advocacy/legislative-policies/
Metro Cities Policy Positions - https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/2026-legislative-policies
Attachments
Resolution Adopting Policy Positions and Authorizing Certain Individuals to Speak on Behalf
of the City
Previous Relevant Actions
Alternatives
Financial
Page 1 of 2

OCWS Item
Subject: Legislative Priorities and Bonding/Funding
Requests
Budgeted: ☐ Yes
Fund:
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 2 of 2

CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 26ADOPTING POLICY POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul has an interest in the outcomes of the 2026 legislative
session; and
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul has an interest in obtaining funding from the State or
other sources for projects and initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the decisions of the Governor and Legislature of the State of Minnesota can
have a significant and lasting impact on the City of West St. Paul and our residents; and
WHEREAS, situations arise where city staff, the Mayor and individual Councilmembers are
asked to speak on behalf of the entire City Council of the City of West St. Paul in their official
capacity with legislators, divisions of the State of Minnesota or federal government, or the
Governor’s office before being able to consult the entire City Council in a public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of West St.
Paul hereby delegates authority to City Staff, the Mayor, and individual City Councilmembers to
officially advocate for the City of West St. Paul and the City Council of West St. Paul in the
following situations:




testifying before a legislative committee to further adopted policy initiatives of the City,
the League of Minnesota Cities or Metro Cities;
participating in a press conference related to a matter involving official city business of
the City of West St. Paul after providing notification to the City Manager; or
speaking in a public forum or event in their official position for the City after providing
notification to the City Manager and in a manner which intends to further City of West
St. Paul Council approved initiatives, League of Minnesota Cities policy positions, Metro
Cities policy positions, or the City of West St. Paul funding or bonding initiatives
identified in this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, when advocating, the staff member, mayor or City
Councilmember clearly identifies whether they are speaking on behalf of the City Council or in
their individual capacity. Anytime the Mayor or City Councilmembers take an individual
position on any matter, they identify that they are acting in their individual capacity. Staff
members are subject to the personnel policies of the City of West St. Paul, including engaging in
political activities on personal time with a clear identification that they are speaking on behalf of
themselves in their personal capacity.

Resolution No. 26Page 2 of 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff, that the City Council identifies the following top
four priorities for 2026:
 Funding for 150 Thomspon Park Project
 Extension of the City’s local option sales tax
 Sales tax exemption for construction of local affordable housing projects led by the City
or EDA and construction of city facilities and amenities or extension of the local sales tax
exemption statute to all city construction
 Streamlining option for local governments to self-insure or create plans with the same net
benefit of Paid Family Medical Leave
 Funding to be directed to the City or any of the City’s partners to support the City’s
opioid response initiative.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council recognizes the following as high priority
legislative initiatives:
 Funding to be directed to the City for capital projects, including but not limited to;
funding to rehabilitate critical sanitary sewer pipes, funding for parks including the
planned park improvements at the West St. Paul Swimming Pool, capital funding for city
facilities or city facility planning.
 Creating greater opportunity for local governments to use design-build construction or
best value contracting.
 The City Council seeks reinstatement of the contribution of cannabis sales revenue to
local governments.
 Allowing cities to renew or establish local option sales tax without specific legislative
approval. (LMC, FF-20) (MC, 1-C)
 Increasing funding for urban forest management. (LMC, SD-72) (MC, 2-K)
 Increasing flexibility in the use of tax increment financing (TIF). (LMC, LE-28) (MC, 3L)
 Expanding authority for cities to fundraise for special projects such as parks, trails, and
community centers. (LMC, SD-18)
 Allowing local units of government to designate which licensed ambulance service
provider or providers may serve their communities and to determine the appropriate level
of service. (LMC, SD-16)
 Supporting the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with
four-year, staggered terms for members to stabilize ideological shifts and provide for
continuity of knowledge on the Council. (MC, 4-B)
 Supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs but opposes actions that
undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs (MC, 1-T)
 Support legislative efforts that support redevelopment efforts and facilitates the re-use of
previously developed land, thereby leveling the playing field between greenfield and
brownfield sites so that a developer can choose to locate on land that has already been
used. (MC, 3-K)

Resolution No. 26Page 3 of 3




Support state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and
commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property
tax deferrals. (MC, 3-N)
Supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions and opposes the creation of
non-local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions, and
statutory modifications that would diminish the ability of cities to set and implement
local zoning ordinances and policies. (LMC, FF-16) (MC, 4-K)

Adopted by the City Council of the City of West St. Paul, Minnesota, this 27th day of January,
2025.
Attest:

David J. Napier, Mayor

Nicole Tillander, City Clerk

Community
Safety and
Federal
Immigration
Enforcement
Activity
January 26, 2026

Workshop topics
• Legal parameters and boundaries (high level)
• What other cities are doing (what we know today)
• City philosophies and values (high level)
• Current practices
• Council feedback

Legal parameters and boundaries
• Who does what: Immigration enforcement is a federal function. City government’s job is local public safety and
city services.
• What we can control: How City staff and WSPPD use City resources, City property, City data, City contracts, and
City operations.
• What we cannot control: We cannot direct federal agencies or control their decisions. We also cannot obstruct
federal enforcement activity.
• What we are required to do by federal law: Comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders, and meet legal
obligations around certain limited categories of information.
• What we are not required to do: The City is not obligated to enforce federal immigration law, and local staff are
not required to assist ICE in civil immigration enforcement. City does not have to allow ICE to use not-public
areas of city owned property.
• Why we stay high level publicly: These situations are fact-specific and fast-moving. Overly specific public
guidance can be misapplied and create safety risks. The City Attorney’s memo provides deeper detail.

What other cities are doing (1 of 2)
• Adopting or updating “separation” ordinances that primarily codify existing practice.
• Formally restricting use of nonpublic city property for staging, operations, interviews, or processing
related to civil immigration enforcement, while honoring court orders.
• Adding internal reporting and documentation requirements for certain interactions between local
public safety and federal agencies.
• Revising existing police department policies that already set out city’s limited role in immigrationrelated actions to further clarify extent of city involvement interactions and restrictions on data
sharing and uses.

What other cities are doing (2 of 2)
• Strengthening data and vendor controls, including tighter rules around specific tools (example: ALPR
data).
• Creating advisory groups or dedicated offices focused on immigrant affairs and policy monitoring.
• Discussing pre-approvals to join litigation tied to specific conduct, property issues, or constitutional
and administrative law claims involving ICE actions. Possible options would include intervening as a
Plaintiff, if procedurally available, or writing an Amicus Brief (so not a party but giving the judge
additional information) if asked to do so by the Plaintiffs.

City philosophies and values
• Community safety is the priority: Residents should feel safe calling for help and accessing City
services.
• Lawful process and due process: We follow the law, comply with valid court orders, and act only
when authorized or required by law.
• Equal service and fair treatment: City services and City protections apply to everyone, and staff and
officers treat people with professionalism and respect.
• Focus on what we control: We control our own staff actions, property, data, and resources, and we
manage those responsibly.
• Avoid escalation and unintended harm: We avoid confusion or guidance that could be misapplied
and make situations more dangerous.
• Transparency with boundaries: We are clear about the City’s role without turning communication
into operational playbooks.

What we are doing now: operational posture
• Current practice: West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City and
WSPPD comply with federal immigration requests only when authorized or required by law.
• Warrants and legal requests: We comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders. We respond
to requests for information only as authorized or required by law.
• City property: We control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities consistent with law and public
safety. We do not provide nonpublic City space for civil immigration enforcement activity unless
required by a valid judicial warrant or court order.

What we are doing now: data and vendors
• City data: We protect City data and respond to information requests only as authorized or required
by law, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and valid judicial orders.
• Vendor expectations: City vendors are required to safeguard City data and comply with contract
terms and applicable law. We reinforce these requirements as part of ongoing vendor management.

What we are doing now: enhanced public safety
• Public safety response: If any situation creates an immediate public safety risk, WSPPD responds using standard
public safety procedures. Call 911 for immediate threats and use the non-emergency line for other public safety
concerns.
• Heightened awareness and presence: The City Manager has authorized the Police Chief to offer voluntary
overtime to increase overall police presence and maintain heightened awareness of public safety concerns
when federal activity is occurring in the community.
• Operational security: Specific direction provided to officers will be shared with Council separately as
confidential information. Specific guidance to staff for interactions with federal agents and access to city
facilities have been drafted and distributed.

What we are doing now: communications and community
support

• Communications approach: We communicate in a consistent, neutral, fact-based way focused on community
safety and lawful process. We avoid scenario-by-scenario guidance that could be misinterpreted and make
situations less safe.
• Ongoing monitoring and coordination: City leadership and WSPPD are actively monitoring developments,
coordinating with the City Attorney as needed, and keeping Council informed as the situation and external
actions evolve.
• Guidance for staff and resources for the Community: Staff have been provided with guidance for policies and
procedures related to immigration enforcement. Resources for the Community are available on the website.

Recommendation 1: Do not adopt new ordinances
• Recommendation: Do not pursue new ordinances at this time.
• Reason: Limited practical impact. An ordinance would largely codify what we already do and would not prevent
federal action.
• Reason: Formal ordinances can increase legal exposure, administrative burden, and potential funding risk
without a clear improvement to the public’s safety.
• Reason: Ordinances invite external scrutiny and can intensify conflict, which can make the community less safe.
• Reason: Ordinance language can create rigid requirements that do not adapt well to fact-specific, fast-moving
situations.
• Reason: More detailed codification increases the chance of misinterpretation and claims of noncompliance.

Recommendation 2: Narrow posture to “required only”
• Possible adjustment: Publicly document the practice that the City and WSPPD will not assist with civil
immigration enforcement except when legally required (example: valid judicial warrant or court order).
• What is different: Removes discretionary space and makes the posture clearer and easier to communicate
consistently. Aligns messaging with “only when we have to by law.”
• Draft policy statement: West St. Paul will not assist with civil immigration enforcement except when legally
required, such as in response to a valid judicial warrant or court order.

Recommendation 3: Vendor data standard, made explicit
• Possible adjustment: Add a clear vendor standard that vendors may only share City data when required by law,
and confirm key contracts and practices reflect this.
• What is different: Moves vendor expectations from general practice to an explicit, enforceable standard and a
consistent message end-to-end.
• Draft policy statement: City vendors may not disclose or share City data with immigration enforcement except
when required by law and consistent with applicable contract terms.

Recommendation 4: City property statement, clarified
• Possible adjustment: Clarify controlled access to nonpublic City facilities and that nonpublic space is not
provided for civil immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid court order. Continue to follow
city’s common property management procedures, including public safety’s authority to manage access and
address disruptions.
• What is different: Formalizes current procedures and frames action as neutral safety and operations
management. Provides Council support for staff to address situations as they arise.
• Draft policy statement: The City will control access to nonpublic areas consistent with law and public safety, will
not provide nonpublic City space for civil immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial
warrant or court order, and will use normal property management and public safety authority to manage access
and address disruptions, including restricting access when necessary for safety or operations.

Recommendation 5: Communications protocol (neutral or
values-forward)

• Possible adjustment: Reaffirm a neutral, fact-based, high-level communications approach and a single set of
approved talking points for consistent use by Council and staff.
• Additional option: Consider a values-forward posture using credible third-party sources (safety, community
policing and trust, economic disruption, public order), while affirming WSPPD accountability, strong community
trust, and Council support.
• What is different: Neutral posture has reduced headline risk and avoided unwanted attention. Values-forward
posture may better meet the moment but increases attention and pressure to defend claims.
• Draft policy statement (neutral): The City will communicate about federal activity in a neutral, fact-based, highlevel manner focused on community safety and lawful process, and will avoid scenario-by-scenario guidance
that could be misinterpreted and make situations less safe.
• Draft policy statement (values-forward option): The City is committed to communicate clearly about community
safety impacts, trust in community policing, and economic disruption associated with federal enforcement
activity using credible sources, while emphasizing the City’s role and lawful authority and affirming WSPPD
accountability and Council support. We will avoid scenario-by-scenario guidance that could be misinterpreted
and make situations less safe.

Recommendation 5: Communications protocol (valuesforward)
Below are example statements only. They are provided so Council can see the range of messaging staff could
develop if Council gives policy direction to take a more values-forward communications approach. Think of it as
a change in tone.
• These types of civil rights violations must stop.
• Law enforcement has more authority than a general citizen. That means we have more responsibility in how
we behave. Federal immigration enforcement must change their tactics and approach to recognize this.
• Trust is being damaged and broken by the questionable and unethical actions of some federal agents.
• Federal agents are clearly outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do.
• There are endless complaints, reports and videos of federal immigration agents acting unconstitutionally
and unethically – conduct unbecoming of a law enforcement officer.
• Current federal enforcement tactics are making communities feel less safe by increasing fear, volatility, and
the likelihood of confrontation.
• West St. Paul does policing the right way: body cameras, clear identification, no masks for the purposes of
concealing identity, and de-escalation. Federal immigration agents are engaging in tactics that have a
negative impact on community safety.
• Our message is straightforward: we are here for West St. Paul. We will not contribute to fear, and we will
keep our operations focused on safety, accountability, and lawful process.

Recommendation 6: Public safety presence and monitoring
• Possible adjustment: Continue voluntary overtime for increased presence and heightened awareness, with the
primary purpose of community safety and de-escalation when federal activity is occurring in the community.
Document expectations and boundaries and share them with Council separately as confidential information.
• What is different: Clarifies purpose as safety and de-escalation, protects operational security, and supports
readiness without interference.
• Draft policy statement: When heightened public safety concerns exist, the City Manager may authorize
additional police staffing focused on community safety and de-escalation, with operational direction provided
internally and shared with Council confidentially as appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Council re-engagement if conditions
change

• Possible adjustment: State that if conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate, the City will
bring this back to Council, including calling a special meeting if needed.
• What is different: Maintains flexibility, avoids predetermined thresholds, and reassures the public that Council
remains engaged and can act quickly.
• Draft policy statement: If conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate, the City Manager will
return to Council promptly with options for consideration, including calling a special meeting if needed.

Recommendation 8: Time-sensitive litigation and amicus
participation
• Possible adjustment: No existing policy
• What is different: N/A
• Draft policy summary:
• Time-Sensitive Litigation and Amicus Participation
• Court deadlines can make it impractical to convene the Council in time to act.
• City Manager may act when timing requires, coordinated with the Police Chief and City Attorney, to:
• Join or intervene in litigation
• Submit an amicus brief
• Boundaries
• Concurrence: City Attorney concurs in writing; City Manager and Police Chief concur it supports community safety.
• Scope: Only litigation participation or amicus briefs, no ordinances, no material operational changes, no ongoing commitments
without Council action.
• Cost and risk: No settlements; no ongoing obligations; cost cap $_____; no disclosure of nonpublic operational information.
• Council notice: Written summary to Council ASAP, no later than next regular meeting (action, purpose, costs, deadlines, risks).
• Council control: Continued participation, added costs, settlements, or ongoing obligations return to Council; Council may direct
changes at any time.

Council Feedback

Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone

DATE:

January 20, 2026

TO:

Mayor and City Council
Nake Burkett, City Manager

FROM:

Pamela Whitmore, City Attorney

RE:

Review for Discussion of Possible Regulations/Management on ICE activities

This memo responds to the Council’s request to provide information regarding what, if anything,
a city can do to manage U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity.
Additionally, this memo intends to provide written guidance regarding the rights of city officials
and employees related to ICE or other federal immigration enforcement agencies’ requests for
information or presence on city property.
Can ICE be on City Owned Property?
ICE can enter publicly accessible areas of businesses without a warrant, as these are considered
public spaces with no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment; however
public employees of local jurisdiction, including local law enforcement, do not need to assist ICE
agents in locating individuals and do not need to allow ICE access to nonpublic areas of city
property. Simply, local governments do not enforce federal immigration laws, however they
cannot interfere with federal enforcement in its own enforcement. See Printz v. United States,
521 U.S. 898, 934 (1977); 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Employees, elected officials, and appointed officials
may be subject to prosecution by the federal government if they obstruct or interfere with ICE’s
actions or agents, hide individuals or employees, or assist them in evading the search.
Does the City have to help ICE arrest or detain?
No, local governments are not obligated to enforce federal immigration laws. If the local
government knows that a person previously had been convicted of a felony in the U.S. and, after
the conviction, was deported or left the country, then the local government may choose to assist
with federal enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252c by arresting and detaining the noncitizen who
is in the U.S. unlawfully. Under this statute, the law enforcement officers must confirm the
noncitizen’s immigration status with federal immigration officials prior to making the arrest and
the individual may only be held until federal immigration authorities take them into custody.
Does the City have to provide data to ICE?
If ICE has requested immigration status, then yes, but only immigration status data is required. 8
U.S.C. § 1373(a) represents the federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and
agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with DHS about “information
regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals. Section 1373 does not require
1

local or state agencies, officers, or governments to proactively collect and report data, and, as a
result, does not prohibit those local jurisdictions from adopting policy regarding not asking
individuals about their immigration status. Additionally, the Minnesota State Driver’s License
law prohibits the dissemination of information about cardholders and applicants to federal
agencies that enforce immigration law, except pursuant to a valid search warrant or court order.
Can local jurisdictions, their employees and officials, be prosecuted under federal law for
interfering with federal ICE process?
Yes, the federal government has cited a number of federal statutes regarding possible prosecution
for interfering with ICE. Also worth noting, President Trump has stated local governmental
entities considered sanctuary cities, counties or states, will not receive federal funding. 1
First, committing any assault against a federal officer represents a crime under 18 U.S. Code §
111. A simple assault does not always require physical contact between the perpetrator and the
federal agent. This means someone can commit an assault without ever touching the officer.
Depending on the circumstances and the severity of the alleged assault, this crime may be
prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, with significant penalties if convicted. This federal law
covers different types of offenses, such as simple assault, serious assault without a weapon, and
serious assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon. Simple assault involves not only forcibly
assaulting, but also resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal
officers in performing their duties.
Next, obstructing justice represents a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 or §1501 which
generally has been invoked when an individual engages in intentional actions that corruptly
interfere with judicial proceedings (§1503) or in the service of a writ, legal process, or warrant
(§1501). Violations may result in severe penalties, including a maximum imprisonment of ten
years and substantial fines. The prosecution must establish the defendant's intent, which
distinguishes criminal behavior from mere negligence.
18 U.S.C. § 372 makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to prevent federal officers
from carrying out their duties through “force, intimidation or threats” and 18 U.S.C. § 371 makes
it a crime for two or more persons to conspire either to commit any offense against the United
States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.
These two statutes represent the authority cited by the federal administration with respect to
Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Historically, this statute has been used in cases involving
coordinated efforts to obstruct federal authorities, typically involving violence or explicit threats.
Public criticism of federal policy is generally considered protected speech unless it involves
direct coordination or incitement to impede law enforcement.
8 U.S.C. § 1324 criminalizes the harboring, concealing, or shielding of unauthorized aliens, and
penalizes those who encourage unauthorized individuals to enter the United States. Convictions
under §1324 generally involve defendants who provide unauthorized aliens with affirmative
assistance. While actions like issuing an official statement in support of immigrants would likely
have protections under the First Amendment, the federal government may consider warning
1

Funding Impact

2

communities about impending ICE raids as harboring or shielding immigrants, which is
prohibited under §1324.
What acts constitute interfering?
What actions rise to the level of interference remain unclear. Certainly, interfering in a physical
way with legal process or law enforcement qualifies. That is true even under state law. Minn.
Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(2) prohibits anyone from “obstruct[ing], hinder[ing], or prevent[ing] the
lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge
or conviction of a criminal offense” or from “obstruct[ing], resist[ing], or interfere[ing] with a
peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties”. In reviewing
state obstruction cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court deemed that although verbal conduct
rarely rises to the level of obstruction, it can if ‘fighting words’ or any other words that by
themselves have the effect of physically obstructing or interfering with a police officer in the
performance of his duties.
The federal administration appears to interpret interference more broadly. Not surprisingly, the
federal administration views physically blocking, preventing, or hindering an ICE officer from
carrying out lawful duties as “a crime,” that could lead to prosecution under federal obstruction
or assault‑on‑a‑federal‑officer statutes. Additionally, the federal government also considers the
enactment of certain ordinances or policies as interfering with or hindering its process in
immigration enforcement and has brought legal actions against various local jurisdictions for
doing so.
What other risks exist for cities that adopt ordinances or policies?
Loss of federal funding on any number of grants represents one of the biggest risks to cities. The
federal government has stated it will not pay out federal funds to any local entity it deems has
passed a policy or law that interferes with immigration enforcement. Additionally, the federal
government may choose to bring (and has brought) cases against local jurisdictions based on
local policies or ordinances that the federal government consider sanctuary policies, arguing that
those laws or policies violate the supremacy clause 2 and federal law. In some of these cases, the
federal government also sued individual elected and appointed officials for obstruction. So far,
courts have dismissed those claims against the individuals. Finally, the Department of Justice
(“DOJ”) issued a memorandum which instructs prosecutors to conduct investigations of
“misconduct” of local jurisdictions, including elected and appointed officials of local
government- for potential violations of the “Supremacy Clause” and prosecute if necessary. The
DOJ argues the Supremacy Clause requires state and local actors to comply with the Executive
Branch’s enforcement initiatives,” and that “[f]ederal law prohibits state and local actors from
resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related
commands and requests.” (emphasis added). Finally, I-9 audits are becoming more common. An
I-9 audit constitutes a review conducted by ICE to ensure that an employer is following federal
laws requiring verification of the identity and work authorization of individuals hired in the
United States. ICE begins the process by serving the employer with a written Notice of
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution, the
federal laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution and treaties represent the supreme law of land. Because of the
Supremacy Clause, when state law conflicts with federal law, federal law preempts the state law.

2

3

Inspection, giving the employer three (3) business days to gather and produce I-9 forms and
related documents. Cities must comply with these audits.
Have other Cities adopted ordinances or other policies that attempt to regulate
immigration or ICE activity?
Yes, though very few cities have chosen to do so and most of the ordinances or policies adopted
merely reflect practices that already fall under the City’s authority.
Minneapolis Ordinances. Minneapolis ordinance
i.
Ordinance generally. Minneapolis’ separation ordinance 3 is both symbolic and functional.
On a symbolic level, it has a broad policy statement, noting its necessity to protect Minneapolis’
peace, health, and safety 4 and codifying the city’s intent to not have city or city staff enforce
federal immigration laws. At a functional level, the ordinance only governs what the city has
direct authority over (city property and employees) and does not actually limit federal
immigration operations within the city. It prevents city employees and contractors from using
city property and resources to enforce federal immigration laws and limits public safety officials
from enforcing federal immigration laws or verifying immigration status, with certain
exceptions. Minneapolis’ ordinance also sets up a reporting mechanism to the Minneapolis City
Council for certain interactions between public safety officials and federal law enforcement, or in
those instances when Minneapolis becomes aware of an ongoing action to enforce federal
immigration laws within the city. Finally, the ordinance prevents the use of nonpublic city
property as a staging, operations, or processing area for enforcing immigration laws, and defines
nonpublic city property as city-owned or controlled property not open to the general public.
ii.
Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. Minneapolis’ separation ordinance currently
is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the federal government which alleges that the ordinance
improperly conflicts with federal immigration laws. 5 The federal government has labeled it as a
“sanctuary ordinance”, and in a recent memo defined “sanctuary jurisdictions” as those
jurisdictions that “obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws”, “refuse to comply
with 8 U.S.C. §1373”, or “willfully fail to comply with other applicable federal immigration
laws.” A memo (dated January 21, 2025) directs investigation of incidents of local governments
obstructing federal functions, including immigration enforcement actions. The Department of
Justice also has indicated it will impose conditions on funding to limit access to federal grants by
cities that do not cooperate or that they consider sanctuary jurisdictions. 6 Similarly, courts have
upheld a federal policy of giving extra “points” to grant applications from jurisdictions which
cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration. 7

Minneapolis first implemented its separation ordinance in 2003. Following recent expansions of federal
immigration enforcement activity throughout the United States and in Minnesota, Minneapolis adopted an
amendment to that ordinance on Dec. 11, 2025, with Mayor Jacob Frey approving the amendment on Dec. 17,
2025.3
4
Separation Ordinance 19.10.
5
Comply. ¶¶108-14 ,United States v. Minnesota, No. 0:25-cv-03798, (D.Minn., 2025).
6
Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives, Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General (Feb. 5, 2025),
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388531/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
7
See City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1174-83 (9th Cir. 2019).
3

4

St. Paul Ordinance. St. Paul Ordinance
St. Paul is considering amending its ordinance; however, as of now, the ordinance states that the
city works cooperatively with all state and federal agencies but does not operate its programs for
the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.
i.
Ordinance generally. St. Paul’s ordinance acknowledges that the Department of
Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws in the city and requires
the City to avoid enforcing civil immigration laws. The ordinance further provides all residents
with equal protection and equal access to city services, without regard to their immigration status
under federal law. The ordinance prohibits city officers from stopping, questioning, or detaining
individuals solely to determine immigration status and from participating in operations aimed at
detecting undocumented individuals unless it is part of a criminal investigation. It allows city
officers to assist federal authorities only in criminal investigations, not civil immigration
enforcement. Further, officers working for the city must not discriminate based on immigration
status or other protected characteristics. Nonpublic safety employees may perform their routine
duties (including, but not limited to, verifying I-9 employment eligibility documentation and
allowing lawful federal audits of these forms), employees may not (i) inquire about or record a
person’s immigration status, unless required by law or program guidelines, (ii) request
documents solely to verify immigration status, (iii) use immigration information in ways not
mandated by law or (iv) maintain immigration data unless legally mandated. The ordinance does
note that employees must comply with valid subpoenas—even those involving immigrationrelated matters.
ii.
Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. Nothing specific to St. Paul to date. The
State of Minnesota, however, is on the sanctuary list published by the Justice Department, which
includes certain states, cities and counties the federal government has identified as having
policies, laws or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws. 8
Roseville Ordinance. The City of Roseville has drafted but not yet considered an ordinance
which codifies the overview of interaction between federal and state law outlined herein
regarding immigration and reflects what West St. Paul already does in practice.
Ordinances of other jurisdictions.
i.
Washington, District of Columbia. In 2021, the Council of the District of Columbia 9
strengthened Washington, D.C.’s status as a sanctuary jurisdiction by limiting the city’s
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies other than in very limited situations.
The District may not assist federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant or order
issued and cannot hold someone past their lawful release time due to an immigration detainer
request. The District also cannot provide ICE or other immigration authorities with office space,
equipment, or access for general searches or inquiries or allow interviews of individuals in
District custody unless a judicial order authorizes it or the individual requests the interview, and
the individual has counsel present (or waive counsel knowingly and voluntarily). Federal
immigration authorities also cannot freely access D.C. jails or take custody of individuals there
8

9

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publishes-list-sanctuary-jurisdictions
D.C. Law 23-282.

5

unless the District has a valid judicial warrant to rely on. The law further requires training for
District staff on its provisions and mandates annual reporting on immigration-related requests
and D.C.’s responses.
Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. The federal administration (i) asserted that D.C.’s
sanctuary rules were void once the city was placed under federal control, (ii) publicly named
D.C. as a sanctuary jurisdiction subject to funding cuts, and (iii) ordered federal agencies to
identify and sanction jurisdictions that have limited cooperation with ICE, including D.C.
ii.
Lancaster Pennsylvania. (enacted February 2024)
Ordinance generally. Lancaster’s ordinance requires the city to maintain a minimum three-star
rating from Welcoming America, a national organization that evaluates municipalities on policies
supporting immigrants and refugees. Like the other two ordinances, it codifies what the city has
authority over including requiring provision of city services to all residents regardless of
immigration or refugee status; ensuring that city officials treat all individuals equally, without
regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or English proficiency; and
affirming the city's stance that enforcement of civil federal immigration law is solely a federal
responsibility, not a municipal one.
iii.
Cook County, Illinois & Chicago, Illinois.
Ordinance generally. Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance (“WCO”) prohibits the City and its
employees from requesting, maintaining, or sharing “the citizenship or immigration status of any
person”. The ordinance also prohibits local law enforcement from complying with civil detainers
but allows officers to respond to inquiries/requests accompanied by a criminal warrant.
Reaction to Chicago’s ordinance. In February 2025, the Trump administration sued the state of
Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago, alleging that their sanctuary city policies are
blocking federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws. It represented the first federal
lawsuit the Justice Department filed against a state or municipality for sanctuary city policies or
ordinances in effect. A judge dismissed that lawsuit in July 2025. Now, the state of Illinois and
the City of Chicago has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration, alleging federal
agents conducted an illegal "occupation," during which they utilized violent and unlawful tactics
in violation of the Tenth Amendment and federal statutes.
iv.
Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is considering an ordinance limiting the use of
county property from being used for uses other than county purposes, including for any civil
enforcement staging, processing, or operations, including civil immigration enforcement.
City Formed Committees to Advise on Policy.
i.
Santa Fe, New Mexico Immigration Committee. City of Santa Fe Immigration
Committee
Sante Fe, New Mexico, a charter city, has a charter provision related to Human Rights, and it
recently revived and redefined its city advisory committee called the Immigration Committee
(Santa Fe Resolution No. 2025‑31). The Santa Fe Immigration Committee has been tasked with
monitoring human rights conditions, informing the Council on possible policy, and promoting
inclusive protections for all immigrant residents. The City also has a policy that no municipal
6

resources can be used to identify or apprehend any non-citizen residents on the sole basis of
immigration status.
ii.
New York City Immigration Affairs Office. New York City also has a provision in its
Charter that creates a Mayoral Office of Immigration Affairs. The responsibilities of this office
include advising and assisting the mayor, council, and other agencies on programs and policies
related to and designed for immigrant New Yorkers; tracking state and federal policy and law
that will impact immigrant New Yorkers; increasing access to city programs, benefits, and
services by conducting outreach; and helping advise on the legal service needs of immigrants.
This office further must consult with the community and other stakeholders and coordinate an
interagency task force on immigrant affairs, as well as work with the relevant city agencies to
address the needs of immigrant crime victims and witnesses, including working with agencies on
the issuance of U visa certifications and T visa declarations.
Response by federal government to New York City. President Trump has deemed New York City
a sanctuary city and has stated the federal administration will withhold funding from sanctuary
cities starting February 1, 2026 10. New York City, in the past, has successfully stopped the federal
government from withholding funds. In October, a New York federal judge barred the Federal
Emergency Management Agency from withholding $34 million in anti-terrorism grants to New
York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority after FEMA told Congress it would pull those funds
due to sanctuary policies.
Executive Orders.
Albany, New York. Not a policy, but an executive order. In City of Albany Executive Order 1‑17,
titled “City of Albany Policy Regarding Community Policing and Protecting Immigrants,” the
Mayor has prohibited Albany police and all city departments from requesting proof of citizenship
or immigration status when providing services. This applies to all residents, including victims,
witnesses, or anyone seeking help.
Police Department Policies.
Roseville Police Department.
The City of Roseville, Minnesota, revised Lexipol Policy 420, Automated License Plate Readers
to strengthen the language by explicitly say that ALPR data cannot be used or shared for
immigration matters or with ICE. The city also reached out to Flock and Axon vendors to verify
ICE does not have access to the city’s data.
The City of Roseville, Minnesota, also made minor revisions to their Lexipol Immigration policy
(numbered for them as 413) to further clarify local jurisdictions limited role.
New Orleans Police Department Manual.
New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) adopted 41.6.1 to make it clear the department
would not hold a detainee without a judicial order or criminal warrant. It prohibits officers from
initiating investigations, stops, arrests, or any actions based on immigration status. Officers
cannot inquire into a person’s immigration status except in narrowly defined exceptions and
List of cities here: Office of the Attorney General | U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List Following Executive Order
14287: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens.
10

7

NOPD shall not engage in, assist, or support immigration enforcement unless there is a direct,
articulable threat to life or public safety, or assistance is required to safely execute a criminal
warrant or court order by a federal or state judge.
Are Cities and States suing the Federal Administration?
Yes, cities have started to sue the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and some
other federal actors individually. Because cities have just started filing these lawsuits, I do not
have much information on the success of doing so. Of particular interest, San Diego filed suit
against the federal government for trespass, public nuisance, and abuse of authority under the
Administrative Procedures Act 11 in order to halt the federal government’s construction of razor
wire fencing and the storing of materials on City-owned property. The suit is a bit unique as it
seeks to protect environmentally sensitive land that is part of the City’s Multiple Species
Conservation Program and ensure compliance with longstanding agreements to preserve critical
habitats. 12 Other cities that also have started lawsuits against the administration regarding
enforcement efforts include Chicago (along with state of Illinois), Minneapolis, and St. Paul
(along with the State of Minnesota). Additionally, twenty-two states, including Minnesota, have
started actions against the federal administration about withholding funds and have asked the
court to order the administration to halt the freeze and release the funds. At the time of writing
this memo, a federal judge temporarily has halted the spending freeze.
In addition to ordinances or policies, what other requests have cities received to regulate or
monitor ICE?
i.
Following and documenting. Some cities have directed its officers to follow ICE and
document activity of ICE officers, without interfering. This has not yet been challenged and
likely does not subject those individuals to risk of prosecution other than if a situation arises in
which the officer makes a judgment call about intervening because of public safety concerns.
Having officers tracking and documenting ICE also likely will result in increased overtime to
ensure availability of officers to do this and still provide normal coverage for public safety.
ii.
Reporting out ICE activity on City Website. Cities have received requests to start posting
ICE activity on the City website. Federal law sets forth clear criminal penalties for interfering
with federal immigration enforcements efforts and for providing false information to ICE.
Proactive posting about specific situations could be considered interference. However, to the
extent sharing facts on the city website about public safety events represents common practice
for the city generally, then doing so likely would not raise as many issues as long as information
shared stays strictly factual. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine makes this a bit tricky as
it prohibits treating the federal government differently than other individuals or agencies. If
allowed, this practice should only provide a brief factual, statement with public information
contained in the call for service and the city should also report out on other non-ICE calls for
service, when received, in a similar manner.

The APA provides that federal courts shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “in excess of
statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.
12
San Diego Complaint
11

8

iii.
Placing Moratoria on Evictions. Many cities have asked about enacting moratoriums on
evictions. A city’s enactment of an eviction moratorium on private landlords likely runs afoul of
the Contract Clause and potentially the Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. The
Contracts Clause forbids state and local government interference with contractual obligations,
and evictions represent a term addressed in lease contracts. 13 If, however, a city wants to institute
an eviction moratorium over housing it owns, the answer likely is yes. Cities, as property
owners, have the same rights as private property owners and a private landlord could determine
not to evict a tenant. Cities should review any grants which are applicable to the tenant or the
housing to ensure no conflicting provisions exist.
iv.
Prohibiting ICE from using portions of city property. As stated earlier in this memo, the
City need not allow ICE to use nonpublic areas of city property. However, if ICE has a judicial
warrant, then the City must comply with the judicial warrant. ICE, however, can enter publicly
accessible areas of businesses without a warrant, as these areas represent public spaces with no
reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
v.
Responding to I-9 audits. If received, cities must respond to I-9 audits. An I‑9 audit is an
official inspection by a government agency—most commonly ICE —to determine compliance by
an employer with federal employment‑eligibility verification requirements. The federal
government uses the audit to detect and deter the employment of individuals not authorized to
work in the U.S. Other agencies (e.g., the Department of Labor) also often review I‑9s when
investigating broader workplace issues. The federal agency, in this instance ICE, issues a Notice
of Inspection which gives employers at least three (3) business days to produce documents.
Employers must provide all current employees’ I-9s and payroll records. Cities should work with
their city attorney to review the Notices if the Notice requests additional documentation. ICE
then reviews the records it receives for missing forms, errors in completion, incomplete or
outdated documents and employment of unauthorized workers.
vi.
Acting on missing license plates. Cities have received reports of ICE and other DHS
officers using unmarked vehicles without license plates during immigration enforcement actions
across the state. Depending on ownership of the vehicles, this practice may violate state law. 41
CFR 102.34.175 provides a limited exemption of certain vehicles from displaying federal
government license plates and Minn. Stat. §168.012 recognizes this exemption by stating “[t]he
following vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this chapter requiring payment of tax and
registration fees… (1) vehicles owned and used solely in the transaction of official business by
the federal government”. Specifically, though, these exemptions apply to vehicles that the federal
government (i) owns, leases commercially or leases through the General Services Administration
Fleet, (ii) which the federal agency regularly uses to perform investigative, law enforcement, or
intelligence duties and (iii) for which the agency received an exemption from its commissioner. 14
For vehicles, other than those for which the federal government holds title, state law applies and
license plates must be located on the car for which the plate is registered. The Director of
Minnesota’s Driver and Vehicle Services already has warned U.S. Immigration and Customs
See Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4th 720, 727-32 (8th Cir. 2022).
In those instances, the head of the agency must deem the exclusive control of the vehicle essential for effective
performance of duties and may grant an exemption from licensing.

13
14

9

Enforcement agents that switching out or removing license plates on their vehicles violates state
law and subjects them to citations. 15 However, it is important to reiterate that, as stated above,
Minnesota law recognizes an exemption for federal government vehicles. These exemptions
make enforcement difficult for local officers.
What federal laws is the federal government relying upon?
i.
Supremacy Clause. In some instances, federal law may override state law when
Congress explicitly states preemption in a statute (express preemption). Also, preemption under
the Supremacy Clause occurs when federal regulation occupies an entire field so entirely that no
room for states or local jurisdictions exist to regulate (commonly called field preemption).
ii.
8 U.S.C. 1373. Federal government also relies upon 8 U.S.C. 1373 to argue express
preemption of the relevant sanctuary laws/policies, stating that statute restricts ordinances or
policies from prohibiting sharing information with the federal government “regarding” an
individual’s “citizenship or immigration status”. It is important to note that Courts have stated
that “regarding” does not encompass providing other pieces of information such as contact
information, custody status, and release dates, the federal government disagrees.
iii.
Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine. The federal government often cites the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine, arguing state and local governments cannot discriminate
against the federal government. The doctrine of intergovernmental immunity is a constitutional
principle limiting the ability of the federal and state governments to interfere with one another’s
governmental functions. This concept protects the separate sovereignty of both levels of
government within the United States federal system. The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth
Amendment support this proposition. The primary purpose is to prevent one sovereign from
imposing taxes or regulations that undermine the other’s ability to carry out its essential
governmental functions. Courts apply a functional analysis, assessing whether an action unduly
interferes with or discriminates against the other government’s operations.
iv.
Sensitive areas. On January 21, 2025, the Trump Administration ended a policy that
previously protected sensitive locations from immigration enforcement activity —such as
schools, hospitals, and churches. This change means that ICE can now conduct arrests in places
where vulnerable individuals, including undocumented immigrants, seek essential
services. Cities such as New York passed state‑level protections like the Protect Our Courts Act
to block ICE civil arrests in and around courthouses.
What are cities’ responsive legal arguments?
i.
Tenth Amendment. The Tenth (10th) Amendment makes up part of the Bill of Rights,
which outlines the balance of power between the federal government and the states. It states that
powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states,
belong to the states or the people. The Tenth Amendment intended to protect states from federal
overreach and preserve the states’ ability to govern local matters such as policing and public
Minn. Stat. 168.36 states “Any person who manufactures, buys, sells, uses or displays motor vehicle license
number plates, motor vehicle registration certificates, or tax receipts issued by this state or any other state, territory
or district in the United States, without proper authority from such state, territory or district of the United States,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

15

10

safety. Minnesota (and Illinois) in their lawsuits claim that the federal government’s intrusion
into the state and the unlawful and violent tactics being used, have disrupted the lives and
undermined the liberties and property rights of the people, injuring those states’ sovereign and
proprietary interests.
ii.
Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedures Act provides that federal
courts shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity.” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).) This same act further directs federal
courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Cities suing the federal government have
included claims in their complaints about violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The issues covered above intend to provide an understanding of the positions of the federal
government as well as those of state and local entities. The situation and legal landscape continue
to evolve related to these matters, all within the background of a very fluid political situation.

11

1616 Humboldt Avenue
West St. Paul, MN 55118
651-552-4100
www.wspmn.gov

To:

Mayor and City Council

From:

Nate Burkett, City Manager

Date:

January 26, 2026

Subject:

Community safety, City operations, and federal immigration enforcement activity

This memo sets up a workshop conversation about how West St. Paul should navigate increasing
public attention and requests for “action” related to federal immigration enforcement activity.
The intent is not to debate federal immigration policy. The intent is to keep the City centered on
community safety, lawful process, and consistent operations, while giving Council a clear picture
of what we already do, what we can and cannot control, what peer cities are doing, and what
recommendations Council may consider.
This matters for three practical reasons. First, community safety depends on trust. Regardless of
a resident’s views on federal immigration enforcement, we need people to feel safe calling 911,
reporting crimes, cooperating as witnesses, and accessing City services. Second, these situations
are fact-specific and can change quickly. Public guidance that drifts into hypotheticals or
individualized instructions can be misapplied and unintentionally increase risk. Third, other
cities are beginning to take formal actions, which changes expectations locally and increases
pressure on councils like ours to “match” what others are doing.
The attached City Attorney memorandum provides deeper legal detail. This memo keeps the
workshop frame accessible and operational.
Legal parameters and boundaries (high level)
•

Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. The City’s responsibility is local
public safety and the delivery of City services.

•

The City can control how City staff and WSPPD use City resources, City property, City
data, City contracts, and City operations. The City cannot direct federal agencies or
control federal decisions. The City also cannot physically interfere with federal
enforcement activity.

•

The City must comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders, and meet limited
legal obligations related to specific categories of information. At the same time, the City
is not obligated to enforce federal immigration law, and local staff are not required to
assist with civil immigration enforcement.

•

From a communications standpoint, the safest and most accurate approach is to stay high
level. Scenario-by-scenario public guidance can be misunderstood and misapplied. For
those who want deeper legal context, the City Attorney memorandum is available.

What other cities are doing (summary of known approaches)
•

Peer cities are responding in a range of ways, often by formalizing practices they already
have in place. Based on the City Attorney’s update, the main categories include adopting
or updating “separation” ordinances, clarifying restrictions on the use of nonpublic city
property, adding internal reporting requirements, updating police department policies,
tightening data and vendor controls, forming advisory bodies or offices focused on
immigrant affairs, and in some cases pursuing litigation tied to specific conduct or
property impacts.

•

Some jurisdictions are also considering higher-risk measures such as proactive reporting
of federal activity, directing officers to follow and document federal actions, or taking
more aggressive positions on property use. These approaches can raise legal and
operational concerns, increase resource demands, and intensify public attention.

•

This is not presented as a recommendation to follow any particular city. It is presented
because it is shaping the expectations residents bring to our public comment and
communications environment.

City philosophy and values
Council has consistently directed and demonstrated a practical, safety-first approach. The most
relevant principles for this topic are: community safety is the priority; lawful process matters;
City services and protections apply fairly and professionally; we focus on what we control; we
avoid escalation and unintended harm; and we communicate with transparency while keeping
operational details appropriately bounded.
What the City is doing now
At a high level, our current practices already align with the safety and lawful process posture
Council has communicated publicly.
West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City and WSPPD
respond to requests only when authorized or required by law, including complying with valid
judicial warrants and court orders. We control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities
consistent with law and public safety and do not provide nonpublic City space for civil
immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order. We
protect City data and respond to requests only as authorized or required by law, consistent with
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and valid judicial orders. City vendors are
required to safeguard City data and comply with contract terms and applicable law, and we
reinforce these requirements as part of vendor management.

If any situation creates an immediate public safety risk, WSPPD responds using standard public
safety procedures. Residents should call 911 for immediate threats and use the non-emergency
line for other public safety concerns. The City Manager has authorized the Police Chief to offer
voluntary overtime to increase overall police presence and maintain heightened awareness of
public safety concerns when federal activity is occurring in the community. To maintain
operational security, the specific direction provided to overtime officers will be shared with
Council separately as confidential information.
We communicate in a consistent, neutral, fact-based way focused on community safety and
lawful process. We avoid scenario-by-scenario guidance that could be misinterpreted and make
situations less safe. City leadership and WSPPD are actively monitoring developments,
coordinating with the City Attorney as needed, and keeping Council informed as the situation
and external actions evolve.
Recommendations for Council consideration
The options below are framed as recommendations Council may consider. Staff will implement
Council’s policy direction.
Recommendation 1: Do not adopt new ordinances
Recommendation: Do not pursue new ordinances at this time. Ordinances are likely to provide
limited practical benefit beyond codifying what we already do, while increasing risk and
attention. Formal action can reduce operational flexibility and create compliance and reporting
expectations that do not fit well with fact-specific situations.
Recommendation 2: Narrow the posture from “authorized or required” to “required only”
Possible adjustment: Direct that the City and WSPPD will not assist with civil immigration
enforcement except when legally required (for example, a valid judicial warrant or court order).
What is different: This removes discretionary space and makes the posture clearer and easier to
communicate consistently. It may require internal review to identify and discontinue
discretionary practices.
Draft policy statement: “West St. Paul will not assist with civil immigration enforcement except
when legally required, such as in response to a valid judicial warrant or court order.”
Recommendation 3: Vendor data standard, made explicit
Possible adjustment: Add a clear vendor standard that vendors may only share City data when
required by law, and confirm key contracts and practices reflect this.
What is different: This moves vendor expectations from general practice to an explicit,
enforceable standard and creates a consistent message end-to-end. It may require targeted
contract addenda or updated standard terms.
Draft policy statement: “City vendors may not disclose or share City data except when required
by law and consistent with applicable contract terms.”

Recommendation 4: City property statement, clarified
Possible adjustment: Add a short statement clarifying controlled access to nonpublic City
facilities and that nonpublic space is not provided for civil immigration enforcement activity
unless required by a valid court order. Clarify the City will use normal property management and
public safety authority to manage access and address disruptions, including restricting access
when necessary for safety or operations.
What is different: This documents a boundary we already follow without suggesting we can
control federal operations, and it improves consistency in how staff and Council answer
questions about “City property.”
Draft policy statement: “The City will control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities
consistent with law and public safety, will not provide nonpublic City space for civil
immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order, and
will use normal property management and public safety authority to manage access and address
disruptions, including restricting access when necessary for safety or operations.”
Recommendation 5: Communications protocol, reaffirmed with optional values-forward
approach
Possible adjustment: Reaffirm the neutral, fact-based, high-level communications approach and
provide a single set of approved talking points for consistent use by Council and staff.
Additional option: If Council wants a less neutral tone, direct staff to use a values-forward
approach that draws from credible third-party research and publicly available sources, with
themes such as community safety risk, impacts on community policing and trust, economic
disruption, and public order, while affirming WSPPD accountability, strong community trust,
and Council support.
What is different: A neutral posture reduces headline risk and supports the low profile strategy
that has worked to date. A values-forward posture may better meet the moment for some
residents but increases attention, follow-up demands for formal action, and pressure to defend
broader claims with sources.
Draft policy statement (neutral): “The City will communicate about federal activity in a neutral,
fact-based, high-level manner focused on community safety and lawful process, and will avoid
scenario-by-scenario guidance that could be misinterpreted and make situations less safe.”
Draft policy statement (values-forward option): “The City will communicate clearly about
community safety impacts, trust in community policing, and economic disruption associated with
federal enforcement activity, using credible third-party sources, while emphasizing the City’s
role and lawful authority, and affirming that WSPPD is highly accountable, strongly trusted, and
supported by the City Council.”
Values-forward examples for Council awareness only

These are examples only. They are not proposed final language and may not be used as written.
They are provided so Council can see the range of messaging staff could develop if Council
gives policy direction to take a more values-forward communications approach.
Moderate tone examples:
- “We are concerned that some federal enforcement tactics are increasing fear and tension in
public spaces, and that makes communities less safe.”
- “Community safety depends on trust. When people hesitate to call 911 or report a crime,
everyone is at greater risk.”
- “We expect accountability in law enforcement. West St. Paul officers wear body cameras,
identify themselves by name and badge number, do not wear masks, and prioritize deescalation.”
- “We want residents and businesses to know: the City and WSPPD are here for this community,
and we will use every tool within our legal authority to keep people safe.”
Stronger tone examples (higher risk):
- “In our judgment, some current federal enforcement tactics are making communities less safe
by increasing fear, volatility, and the likelihood of confrontation.”
- “When enforcement is carried out in ways that reduce transparency and accountability, it
undermines trust and makes it harder for local police to do effective community policing.”
- “West St. Paul does policing the right way: body cameras, clear identification, no masks, and
de-escalation. Tactics that move in the opposite direction are not good for community safety.”
- “Our message is straightforward: we are here for West St. Paul. We will not contribute to fear,
and we will keep our operations focused on safety, accountability, and lawful process.”
Recommendation 6: Public safety presence and monitoring, formalized internally
Possible adjustment: Continue voluntary overtime for increased presence and heightened
awareness, with the primary purpose of community safety and de-escalation when federal
activity is occurring in the community. Document internal expectations and boundaries, shared
with Council separately as confidential information.
What is different: This clarifies the purpose as safety and de-escalation, protects operational
security, and requires budget monitoring and clear internal guidance to avoid mission creep.
Draft policy statement: “When heightened public safety concerns exist, the City Manager may
authorize additional police staffing focused on community safety and de-escalation, with
operational direction provided internally and shared with Council confidentially as appropriate.”
Recommendation 7: Council re-engagement if conditions change
Possible adjustment: State that if conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate,
the City will bring this back to Council, including calling a special meeting if needed.
What is different: This maintains flexibility, avoids creating predetermined thresholds, and
reassures the public Council remains engaged and can act quickly if needed.

Draft policy statement: “If conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate, the
City Manager will return to Council promptly with options for consideration, including calling a
special meeting if needed.”
Recommendation 8: Time-sensitive litigation and amicus participation
To ensure the City can meet court deadlines when time-sensitive opportunities arise, the Council
may authorize the City Manager to act on the City’s behalf to join or intervene in litigation or
submit an amicus brief when it is not practical to convene the Council in time. This authority
would be used only for matters directly connected to community safety, lawful process, and the
City’s operational authority. It would require written concurrence from the City Attorney that the
action is legally appropriate and within the City’s authority, and concurrence from the City
Manager and Police Chief that the action supports community safety and the City’s operational
interests.
This authorization would be intentionally narrow and bounded. It would not allow adoption of
ordinances, material changes to City operations, or new ongoing obligations without Council
action. It would include clear limits on cost and commitments, including a Council-set
administrative cost cap per matter, no settlement authority, and no disclosure of nonpublic
operational information that could compromise public safety operations. The City Manager
would provide written notice to the Council as soon as practicable and no later than the next
regular Council meeting, summarizing the action taken, the City interests asserted, anticipated
costs, upcoming deadlines, and key risks. If continued participation, additional expenditures,
settlement authority, or ongoing obligations become possible, the matter would return to the
Council for direction, and the Council would retain the authority to modify or discontinue the
City’s participation at any time.
Risk analysis
This topic is inherently high sensitivity because it combines public fear, strong moral and
political views, and rapidly changing real-world conditions. The City’s primary objective should
remain stable: keep people safe, keep services accessible, and keep communications accurate and
consistent.
There are three major risk categories the Council should understand.
1) Public safety and community trust risk
The most direct operational risk is erosion of trust. If residents or witnesses believe that contact
with City government or WSPPD could lead to unwanted federal attention, they may avoid
reporting crimes, avoid cooperating as witnesses, or avoid seeking help. That reduces the
effectiveness of community policing and makes the community less safe. The City’s posture and
messaging should therefore be disciplined, consistent, and focused on safety and lawful process.
Any communications approach, whether neutral or values-forward, should be evaluated against
the “does this increase or decrease trust and willingness to seek help” test.
2) Communications and expectation risk

A second risk is creating expectations we cannot meet. Public statements can be heard as
promises or directives, even when intended as general principles. Overly specific guidance
invites people to apply it to their own situation, and if the facts do not match, it can lead to bad
decisions. Similarly, moving toward formal ordinances or detailed policies can create a
compliance and reporting framework that is difficult to maintain in fast-moving, fact-specific
scenarios, and it can create “gotcha” allegations if the City is accused of falling short of the
words on paper. This is one reason staff recommends caution about new ordinances, and why
neutral, high-level communications have been effective.
3) Legal, financial, and operational exposure
A third risk is exposure from formal actions that are interpreted externally as interference. The
City is not attempting to manage federal operations. Our safest posture is to manage our own
operations, property, data, and resources and comply with legal requirements. Formal ordinances
or public-facing operational detail can increase the likelihood of external scrutiny, legal
challenge, or funding threats, while providing limited practical benefit. Separately, any
additional operational steps, including enhanced police presence, require budget awareness and
clear guidance so officers are not placed into ambiguous situations or perceived to be acting
outside their role.
Across all three categories, the practical question for Council is not whether the City “supports”
one side or the other. The question is what approach best protects community safety, maintains
trust, and keeps the City’s operations disciplined and defensible.
Workshop outcomes for Council consideration
At the end of the workshop, Council could choose one of the following paths:
1) Direct the City Manager to administratively adopt all or some of the recommendations
described above, using existing administrative authority and operational procedures.
2) Amend or adopt a resolution as presented containing all or some of the recommendations
described above.
3) Continue with the City’s current approach and direct staff to maintain the existing operational
posture and communications approach, with monitoring and updates as needed.
With Council direction, staff can refine talking points, operational guidance, and internal
coordination with the City Attorney.

CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 26A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY POLICY STATEMENTS REGARDING
COMMUNITY SAFETY, CITY OPERATIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul’s priority is community safety and ensuring
residents and businesses feel safe seeking help, reporting crimes, cooperating as witnesses, and
accessing City services; and
WHEREAS, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and the City’s
responsibility is local public safety and the delivery of City services; and
WHEREAS, the City can control its own operations, including City staff activity, City
property, City data, City contracts, and City resources, and must comply with applicable law,
including valid judicial warrants and court orders; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt clear, public-facing policy statements that
accurately describe the City’s posture, acknowledge legal boundaries, and reduce risk created by
inconsistent or overly specific public messaging;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following statements are adopted, as
modified if noted, as the policy position and direction of the City Council of the City of West St.
Paul, MN.
A. Community safety and the City’s role.
(current) Our Mayor, Council, City staff, and WSPPD work for this community. Our job
is community safety and we will use every tool within our legal authority to keep people
safe.
(modified) Our Mayor, Council, City staff, and WSPPD work for this community. Our
job is community safety and we will use every tool within our legal authority to keep
people safe, with emphasis on trust, de-escalation, and ensuring residents feel safe
seeking help.
B. Participation in civil immigration enforcement.
(current) West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City
and WSPPD act only when authorized or required by law, including complying with
valid judicial warrants and court orders and with what Minnesota law requires.
(modified) West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City
and WSPPD act only when required by law, including complying with valid judicial
warrants and court orders and with what Minnesota law requires.
C. Legal process and information requests.

(current) The City will comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders and will
respond to information requests only as authorized or required by law.
(modified) The City will comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders and will
respond to information requests only as required by law.
D. City property and facilities.
(current) The City will control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities consistent with
law and public safety and will not provide nonpublic City space for civil immigration
enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order.
(modified) The City will control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities consistent
with law and public safety and will not provide nonpublic City space for civil
immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court
order. The City will use normal property management authority and lawful public safety
measures to manage access and address disruptions on City property.
E. City data and vendor data.
(current) The City will protect City data and will respond to requests for City data only as
authorized or required by law, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and valid judicial orders. City vendors are required to safeguard City data and
comply with contract terms and applicable law.
(modified) The City will protect City data and will respond to requests for City data only
as required by law, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and
valid judicial orders. City vendors may not disclose or share City data except when
required by law and consistent with applicable contract terms.
F. Public safety presence.
When heightened public safety concerns exist, the City Manager may authorize the
Police Chief to increase overtime to increase overall presence and maintain heightened
awareness of public safety concerns, with operational direction provided internally,
consistent with the direction of the City Council.
G. Communications.
The City will communicate about federal activity in a neutral, fact-based, high-level
manner focused on community safety and lawful process and will avoid scenario-byscenario public guidance that could be misinterpreted and make situations less safe.
H. Continued Council involvement.
(current) The City will monitor developments and will keep the City Council informed.
(modified) If conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate, the City
Manager will return to the City Council promptly with options for consideration,
including calling a special meeting if needed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Manager is directed to operationalize the Council’s
selected policy statements through administrative directives, departmental procedures, training,
vendor management, and other lawful operational controls, in consultation with the City
Attorney as appropriate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council recognizes that court schedules
and filing deadlines can make it impractical to convene a Council meeting in time to authorize
participation in litigation or the filing of an amicus brief, and the Council therefore establishes
the following time-sensitive litigation authorization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, when a deadline would reasonably prevent timely
Council action, the City Manager is authorized to act on behalf of the City, in coordination with
the Police Chief and the City Attorney, to (1) join, intervene in, or otherwise participate as a
party in litigation, and/or (2) submit an amicus brief, provided the action is directly related to
community safety, lawful process, and the City’s operational authority and responsibilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this authorization is subject to the following
boundaries:
A. Required concurrence. The City may proceed only when the City Attorney concurs, in
writing, that participation is legally appropriate and within the City’s authority. The City
Manager and Police Chief must also concur that the action supports community safety
and the City’s operational interests.
B. Scope limitations. This authorization applies only to joining litigation, intervening,
and filing amicus briefs. It does not authorize adoption of new ordinances, material
changes to City operations, or commitments that create ongoing obligations without
Council action.
C. Cost and commitment limits. No action taken under this authorization may:
1. Commit the City to any settlement terms without Council approval.
2. Commit the City to ongoing obligations beyond the discrete act of participation or
filing.
3. Exceed the City Managers expenditure authority per matter (inclusive of any
outside counsel, filing costs, or related professional services) or reasonably create
the expectation of budget overages, without Council approval.
4. Require disclosure of nonpublic operational information or compromise public
safety operations.
D. Council notice. The City Manager will notify the Mayor and Council as soon as
practicable, and no later than the next regular Council meeting, with a written summary
identifying the matter, the action taken, the City interests asserted, anticipated costs, key
deadlines, and any material risks.
E. Subsequent Council direction. If continued participation, additional expenditures,
settlement authority, or ongoing obligations may be required, the City Manager will bring
the matter to the Council at the next available meeting for direction.
F. Council authority preserved. Nothing in this resolution limits the Council’s authority to
direct, modify, or discontinue the City’s participation in any matter.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of West St. Paul, Minnesota, this 26th day of January 2026.
Attest:

David J. Napier, Mayor

Nicole Tillander, City Clerk

CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 26A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY POLICY STATEMENTS REGARDING
COMMUNITY SAFETY, CITY OPERATIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul’s foremost responsibility is community safety,
including maintaining public trust so residents and businesses feel safe calling 911, reporting
crimes, cooperating as witnesses, and accessing City services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that public safety is harmed when residents are
afraid to report crime, appear as witnesses, or seek help, and that fear-based enforcement tactics
such as those currently being used by federal immigration agencies undermine community
policing and make everyone less safe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned by widely reported allegations and ongoing
litigation asserting that some federal immigration enforcement operations have involved
detentions and uses of force against people who are not obstructing law enforcement, including
peaceful observers and protesters, raising serious constitutional and civil liberties concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is further concerned by reported incidents in which U.S.
citizens have been detained or temporarily held during immigration enforcement activity, as well
as reports of mistaken identity and coercive encounters, which erode public confidence and raise
due process concerns that affect all people, including citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned by reports and public statements alleging
racially discriminatory targeting during enforcement activity, which undermines equal protection
principles and damages trust between communities and law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, West St. Paul expects law enforcement activity affecting our community to
be grounded in lawful process, transparency, accountability, and de-escalation, and the City
Council believes those principles are essential to public safety and public trust; and
WHEREAS, the West St. Paul Police Department models these expectations through
accountable policing, including the use of body-worn cameras, clear identification by name and
badge number, a policy of not wearing masks in routine policing, and a consistent focus on deescalation, because legitimacy and trust are core public safety tools; and
WHEREAS, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and the City’s
responsibility is local public safety and the delivery of City services, and the City will keep its
operations focused on what it can control to protect community safety; and

WHEREAS, the City can control its own operations, including City staff activity, City
property, City data, City contracts, and City resources, and must comply with applicable law,
including valid judicial warrants and court orders; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to communicate in a values-forward manner
focused on community safety and trust, while remaining accurate about legal boundaries and
avoiding generalized scenario-by-scenario guidance that residents or businesses could misapply
in ways that make them less safe;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following statements are adopted, as
modified if noted, as the policy position and direction of the City Council of the City of West St.
Paul, MN.
A. Community safety and the City’s role.
(current) Our Mayor, Council, City staff, and WSPPD work for this community. Our job
is community safety and we will use every tool within our legal authority to keep people
safe.
(modified) Our Mayor, Council, City staff, and WSPPD work for this community. Our
job is community safety and we will use every tool within our legal authority to keep
people safe, with emphasis on trust, de-escalation, and ensuring residents feel safe
seeking help.
B. Participation in civil immigration enforcement.
(current) West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City
and WSPPD act only when authorized or required by law, including complying with
valid judicial warrants and court orders and with what Minnesota law requires.
(modified) West St. Paul does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. The City
and WSPPD act only when required by law, including complying with valid judicial
warrants and court orders and with what Minnesota law requires.
C. Legal process and information requests.
(current) The City will comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders and will
respond to information requests only as authorized or required by law.
(modified) The City will comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders and will
respond to information requests only as required by law.
D. City property and facilities.
(current) The City will control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities consistent with
law and public safety and will not provide nonpublic City space for civil immigration
enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order.
(modified) The City will control access to nonpublic areas of City facilities consistent
with law and public safety and will not provide nonpublic City space for civil
immigration enforcement activity unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court
order. The City will use normal property management authority and lawful public safety
measures to manage access and address disruptions on City property.

E. City data and vendor data.
(current) The City will protect City data and will respond to requests for City data only as
authorized or required by law, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and valid judicial orders. City vendors are required to safeguard City data and
comply with contract terms and applicable law.
(modified) The City will protect City data and will respond to requests for City data only
as required by law, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and
valid judicial orders. City vendors may not disclose or share City data except when
required by law and consistent with applicable contract terms.
F. Public safety presence.
When heightened public safety concerns exist, the City Manager may authorize the
Police Chief to increase overtime to increase overall presence and maintain heightened
awareness of public safety concerns, with operational direction provided internally,
consistent with the direction of the City Council.
G. Communications.
(current) The City will communicate about federal activity in a neutral, fact-based, highlevel manner focused on community safety and lawful process and will avoid scenarioby-scenario public guidance that could be misinterpreted and make situations less safe.
(modified) The City will communicate about federal activity using a values-forward
approach grounded in community safety and trust, while still avoiding scenario-byscenario public guidance that could be misinterpreted and make situations less safe.
H. Continued Council involvement.
(current) The City will monitor developments and will keep the City Council informed.
(modified) If conditions materially change or public safety concerns escalate, the City
Manager will return to the City Council promptly with options for consideration,
including calling a special meeting if needed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council recognizes that court schedules
and filing deadlines can make it impractical to convene a Council meeting in time to authorize
participation in litigation or the filing of an amicus brief, and the Council therefore establishes
the following time-sensitive litigation authorization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, when a deadline would reasonably prevent timely
Council action, the City Manager is authorized to act on behalf of the City, in coordination with
the Police Chief and the City Attorney, to (1) join, intervene in, or otherwise participate as a
party in litigation, and/or (2) submit an amicus brief, provided the action is directly related to
community safety, lawful process, and the City’s operational authority and responsibilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this authorization is subject to the following
boundaries:
A. Required concurrence. The City may proceed only when the City Attorney concurs, in
writing, that participation is legally appropriate and within the City’s authority. The City

Manager and Police Chief must also concur that the action supports community safety
and the City’s operational interests.
B. Scope limitations. This authorization applies only to joining litigation, intervening,
and filing amicus briefs. It does not authorize adoption of new ordinances, material
changes to City operations, or commitments that create ongoing obligations without
Council action.
C. Cost and commitment limits. No action taken under this authorization may:
1. Commit the City to any settlement terms without Council approval.
2. Commit the City to ongoing obligations beyond the discrete act of participation or
filing.
3. Exceed the City Managers expenditure authority per matter (inclusive of any
outside counsel, filing costs, or related professional services) or reasonably create
the expectation of budget overages, without Council approval.
4. Require disclosure of nonpublic operational information or compromise public
safety operations.
D. Council notice. The City Manager will notify the Mayor and Council as soon as
practicable, and no later than the next regular Council meeting, with a written summary
identifying the matter, the action taken, the City interests asserted, anticipated costs, key
deadlines, and any material risks.
E. Subsequent Council direction. If continued participation, additional expenditures,
settlement authority, or ongoing obligations may be required, the City Manager will bring
the matter to the Council at the next available meeting for direction.
F. Council authority preserved. Nothing in this resolution limits the Council’s authority to
direct, modify, or discontinue the City’s participation in any matter.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of West St. Paul, Minnesota, this 26th day of January 2026.
Attest:

David J. Napier, Mayor

Nicole Tillander, City Clerk

Flock Safety ALPR System Summary













Bottom line: West St. Paul’s Flock ALPR data is not shared with federal agencies and is
not used for immigration enforcement.
City-controlled access: The ALPR data is owned by the participating cities. West St. Paul
controls who can access it and who it can be shared with.
No federal sharing: The City does not share ALPR data with federal agencies, including
ICE. Any disclosure for immigration enforcement would occur only if required by a court
order. Minnesota law restricts ALPR data sharing and does not require sharing with
federal agencies. The City’s policy is that we do not share ALPR data with federal
immigration enforcement unless required by a court order.
Minnesota-only sharing: Data sharing is limited to Minnesota law enforcement agencies
under Minnesota law. West St. Paul does not permit sharing with agencies outside
Minnesota.
Vendor cannot sell or distribute: Flock does not sell or monetize ALPR data. Vendor
access is limited to technical support and only with agency authorization, consistent with
state and federal requirements.
Strong guardrails and accountability: ALPR use is governed by Minnesota law and
required agency policy, including audit logs of all access and regular independent audits.
Limited data, short retention: The system stores time, location, plate number, and a
vehicle/plate image (not occupants). Data is automatically deleted after 30 days unless
required for an active criminal investigation.
Public safety purpose: The system is used for local criminal investigations and public
safety (stolen vehicles, violent offenders), not for civil immigration enforcement.

Flock Safety ALPR System Narrative
The Cities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul jointly applied for and received a grant from the
Minnesota Department of Commerce, Department of Public Safety, to partially fund the
implementation of a stationary Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program, with Flock
Safety identified as the vendor.
A total of 19 stationary ALPR cameras are deployed between the two cities—10 in West St. Paul
and nine in South St. Paul. Installation is nearly complete, with two remaining cameras
scheduled to come online shortly in West St. Paul.
The use of ALPR technology by governmental entities in Minnesota is governed by Minnesota
Statute §13.824 under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This statute regulates data
collection, classification, use, access, retention, sharing, audit requirements, and accountability
related to ALPR systems.
Additionally, Minnesota Statute §626.8472 requires each law enforcement agency to maintain a
written policy governing ALPR use that incorporates the requirements of §§13.82 and 13.09,
including employee discipline standards for unauthorized access or misuse of data.

ALPR technology is not new to West St. Paul. The department has utilized mobile ALPR
systems in marked patrol vehicles since 2010. The information provided here pertains
specifically to the Flock stationary ALPR system.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) provides authorized ALPR vendors,
including Flock, with data updates twice daily. This data includes license plates associated with
vehicles that are:





Reported stolen
Associated with an individual wanted for a criminal offense
Registered to an owner with a cancelled, revoked, or suspended driver’s license
Expired or revoked

All data transferred, stored, and accessed through the system is subject to Minnesota and federal
requirements, including Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) compliance. The
department is audited by the State of Minnesota every two years, and an independent audit of
ALPR usage is conducted every two years, as required by law. Since the department’s initial
ALPR implementation in 2010, all independent audits have found the department to be in full
compliance.
The ALPR system maintains a comprehensive audit log documenting all user access and activity,
as required by state statutes.
The Flock system captures and stores the following information:





Date and time
Location
License plate number
A photograph of the license plate and vehicle

The system does not capture images of vehicle occupants.
Data captured by the system is automatically deleted after 30 days, which is more restrictive than
the 60-day retention period permitted under state law. Data may be retained longer only when
required by law as part of an active criminal investigation.
The department may enter a license plate into a targeted alert (“hot list”) when the vehicle is
associated with a crime of violence and there is an immediate public safety benefit to locating it.
Outside of those limited circumstances, a court order is required. All such entries require
supervisory approval and documentation. To date, the department has not utilized this process.
All ALPR data is owned by the participating cities. Flock does not sell or monetize ALPR data,
and vendor access to data is limited to technical support purposes and only with agency
authorization, in accordance with state and federal law.

Data is shared with other Minnesota law enforcement agencies pursuant to the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act. The department maintains full control over data sharing
permissions and does not permit sharing with agencies outside of Minnesota. The department
does not share ALPR data with federal law enforcement agencies and will not share data for
immigration enforcement purposes unless required by a court order.
Data sharing among law enforcement agencies is common statewide and nationally and is
comparable to information sharing through records management systems, computer-aided
dispatch systems, and analytical tools. All such sharing is regulated by state law and CJIS
requirements.
Since implementation of the Flock system, the department has recovered numerous stolen
vehicles and made multiple arrests. The system has been used as an investigative tool in dozens
of cases involving retail theft, fraud, and forgery, and has assisted in the safe apprehension of
individuals wanted for violent crimes involving weapons and assaults.
In late 2025, the Oakland, California NAACP publicly endorsed the use of Flock ALPR
technology, describing it as a practical tool for reducing crime while minimizing bias in policing,
and urged the City of Oakland to fully fund the program.

OCWS Item
Subject: Secondhand Store and Constructionimpacted Business License Fee Discussion
Meeting Date: January 26, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Dan Nowicki, Assistant City Manager
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☒ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☐ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
At the last regular council meeting, the City Council requested a discussion take place at the
next OCWS regarding business license fees for secondhand businesses as well as those
impacted by construction projects.
Staff will give an overview of the purpose of business license fees, the importance of
consistency, and the idea of equity to the community. Staff will take action should the council
wish to make tweaks to the fee schedule or explore other options.
Attachments
Previous Relevant Actions
Alternatives
Financial
Budgeted: ☐ Yes
Fund:
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 1 of 1

OCWS Item
Subject: Strategic Plan Update
Meeting Date: January 26, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Dan Nowicki, Assistant City Manager
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☒ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☐ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
The City Council's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan includes the following priorities:
- Community Engagement & Representation
- Housing and Affordability
- Public Spaces
- Affordability
Inside each priority are objectives that the city is working towards completing. Along with
new priorities, the City is taking a more structured approach to completing these objectives
and making progress in our priority areas.
This presentation gives an overview of the process currently being used, as well as where the
city currently stands in each of our priority areas and objectives. Staff will present current
status and look for any thoughts or direction from council.
Attachments
Previous Relevant Actions
Alternatives
Financial
Budgeted: ☐ Yes
Fund:
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 1 of 1