Montclair City Council
June 1, 2026

• Disable the Participant’s video
• Remove the participant from the meeting platform
C. Immediate Action
In case of severe disruption that prevents the meeting from continuing, the Presiding Officer may take immediate enforcement action without prior warning and order the IT Department or City Clerk, who is on duty to remove that person from the telephonic or audiovisual platform.

D. Public Comment Protection
All enforcement actions taken under this Policy shall be content-neutral and not based on the viewpoint expressed and implemented in a manner that preserves, to the extent feasible, the individual’s opportunity to provide public comment The City shall not prohibit public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services of the City.

E. Re-Entry to Meeting
A participant who has been removed from a meeting may be permitted to rejoin at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, City Clerk, or IT Department, provided the participant agrees to comply with meeting rules and this Policy.

V. Documentation
The City Clerk’s Office shall document any enforcement actions taken pursuant to this Policy, including:
• The nature of the disruption
• The warning issued
• The enforcement action taken
VI. Technology and Security Controls
The City Clerk or designated staff may implement reasonable technology controls to prevent disruptions including, but not limited to:
• Requiring those who wish to provide remote public comments to register with a valid email address when connecting to the meeting • Disabling participants’ ability to unmute themselves during meetings • Muting participants upon entry
• Use of waiting rooms or speaker queues
• Limiting screen-sharing capabilities
• Monitoring participant activity
EXHIBIT B MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 130 of 195

CITY OF MONTCLAIR POLICY FOR ADDRESSING DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR BY REMOTE PARTICIPANTS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS (JUNE 2026)

Such controls shall be applied in a manner that preserves public access and participation rights.

VII. Adoption, Review and Updates
A. Adoption
This policy was initially adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 26-3520, which was adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2026.

B. Future Amendments
The policy may be further amended by the City Council at any time at a noticed public meeting in open session. Staff will recommend changes in line with amendments to the Brown Act and as needed.

Amendments to this policy cannot be approved on a consent calendar.

C. Consistency with State and Federal Law
This Policy shall be interposed and applies in a manner consistent with all applicable laws, including California Senate Bill 707 (2025) and the Ralph M. Brown Act. If any provisions of this Policy conflict with State or federal law, the Law shall control.

EXHIBIT B MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 131 of 195

CITY OF MONTCLAIR

POLICY FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT
JUNE 2026

PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to outline the process for legislative body members and the public to make requests for reasonable accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This policy applies to all meetings of the City's legislative bodies and meetings open to the public, including, without limitation, meetings of the City Council, Council Committees, Planning Commission, and Community Activities Commission.

POLICY STATEMENT
The City of Montclair provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The City will process requests for reasonable accommodations and, where appropriate, provide reasonable accommodations in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner. You can make the request yourself, or someone can make it on your behalf with your permission.

PROCEDURES
I. Making Requests for Accommodations
Note that the accommodation will be considered to be unreasonable and will not be provided if it imposes undue financial or administrative burdens on the City or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program. If a particular accommodation is unreasonable, the City will offer an alternative accommodation that is reasonable.

Accommodations should be requested as early as possible as additional time may be required to provide the requested accommodation. Preferably, requests should be submitted during the City’s business hours (Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) at least two business days in advance of the meeting for which the accommodation is being requested. If the deadline for your request falls on a weekend or if City Hall is closed in observance of a holiday, please submit your request on the City business day before the holiday.

You can request accommodations orally or in writing by contacting the City Clerk's Office by phone at 909-625-9416 (TTY Relay: 711), by email at [email protected], by U.S. Mail or personal delivery to the City of Montclair, Attn: City Clerk, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763. Requests submitted by email should include in the subject line either " Public Meeting ADA Accommodation Request" or " Public Meeting Language Assistance." All requests should include the following content:

EXHIBIT C MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 132 of 195

CITY OF MONTCLAIR POLICY FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT (JUNE 2026)

• Accommodation. Provide information about the type of accommodation you are seeking, and/or explain how the accommodation will allow you to access and participate in the meeting. You are not required to disclose the particular disability; instead, a general statement of explanation will suffice. You may, but are not required to, submit a letter from a physician to the effect that the requested accommodation is required for you to access and participate in the meeting.
• Contact information. You must provide current contact information so staff can respond in a timely manner. This can be a mailing address, an email address, or telephone number, for example. Note that if only a mailing address is provided, you need to make the request early enough that a mailed response can be timely provided. • Specify meeting. Please specify if the accommodation is requested for a specific meeting, or for all or a series of meetings before a particular body.

A. Readily Available Accommodations
The following accommodations are either in place or can be arranged within a couple of days.
• Agendas and staff reports: Upon request, any agendas or staff report can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, including large print, most language translations, audio recordings (in English), and accessible electronic formats (e-Text, PDFs). Other auxiliary aids include sign language interpreters, real-time captioning (CART), and screen-reader compatible documents.
• For individuals with hearing loss or low English proficiency:

Qualified interpreters (e.g., ASL or spoken language interpreters) can be utilized, provided that the City is notified of this request as outlined above, so that the appropriate arrangements can be made.

You may also bring your own sign language interpreter to the meeting and a space designated for interpreters may be reserved or provided immediately upon request for them, depending on the timing of the notice provided to the City. The Council Chambers is also equipped with an assistive listening system.
• For individuals with visual impairments: City Council meetings are livestreamed on YouTube, which provides closed captioning.

Meetings may be attended in-person or remotely via Zoom.

Meetings of the Planning Commission and Community Activities EXHIBIT C MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 133 of 195

CITY OF MONTCLAIR POLICY FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT (JUNE 2026)

Commission are also available for remote participation via Zoom upon request as an ADA accommodation. City Council meetings are replayed on the City's website and public access channel, and audio recordings of Commission meetings are available upon request after each meeting.
• For individuals with mobility impairments: ADA-accessible facilities are available to access the Council Chambers, with ramps and designated areas in the front or back rows of the audience for wheelchairs. Remote participation is offered via Zoom, with an option for audio-only telephone access.

B. Other Accommodations (Upon Request)
If you would like to request an accommodation that is not identified above, please do so as soon as you can—preferably before the meeting you wish to attend or at the meeting itself if necessary. The sooner the request is made, the more likely it is that the City can provide the requested accommodation, or a reasonable alternative. The request can be made in the same manner as outlined above; however, if you contact the City Clerk's Office via mail, you need to make the request early enough so that a response can be timely provided.

II. Procedures for Staff Receiving Requests and Arranging Accommodations A. Responding to Requests In Writing
All reasonable accommodation request responses shall be provided in writing when such written response can be transmitted in a timely manner prior to the start of the specific meeting. Otherwise, the response will be provided orally. Responses will identify whether the accommodation is granted or granted in the alternative, and any instructions necessary to access the accommodation. If denied, the response will identify the grounds for denial. City staff will document requests made and responses provided orally.

B. Routing of Requests
Any staff member who receives, or believes they may have received, an accommodation request, will promptly relay the request and the requestor's contact information to the City Clerk (first), and if not available, to the City Manager, or Assistant City Manager, or City Attorney.

C. Resolving Doubt in Favor of Providing Accommodations The law requires that all doubt be resolved in favor of accommodations. Staff will make reasonable efforts to communicate with requesters to obtain clarifications or to discuss whether alternative accommodations will be viable.

D. Requesting Legal Review and Assistance
EXHIBIT C MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 134 of 195

CITY OF MONTCLAIR POLICY FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT (JUNE 2026)

The City Attorney may be requested to assist in the review of requests and assist staff in providing a response to the requester as soon as practicable.

EXHIBIT C MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 135 of 195

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 1, 2026
SECTION: RESPONSE
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: FGV200
DEPT.: CITY MGR.

PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RECEIVING AND FILING A RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL INQUIRY

REGARDING ONGOING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN MONTCLAIR BY U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AND U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PROTECTION

CONSIDER PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF BASED ON THE INFORMATION

PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA REPORT
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: At recent meetings of the Montclair City Council, members of the community expressed concern related to ongoing immigration enforcement actions in Montclair by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). At the April 6, 2026, meeting of the City Council, direction was given to the City Manager to provide the City Council with a report in response to a series of issues raised by members of the community and the City Council. The City Council receives and files responses to City Council inquiries and may use that information to provide direction to City staff.

BACKGROUND: At the April 6, 2026, meeting of the City Council, the City Manager was directed to respond to the following four points related to ongoing immigration enforcement actions by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE.gov) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP.gov)—both Divisions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS.gov):

1. Consider establishing a Local Support Fund for immigrants and/or families of immigrants impacted by ICE/CBP enforcement actions;

2. Consider adoption of a policy prohibiting ICE/CBP from staging on City–owned property;

3. Consider establishing restrictions that would prohibit City interaction with companies/agencies engaging with ICE/CBP, including restrictions against the sharing of data; and

4. Consider why Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard appear to be targeted by ICE/CBP.

In addition, to the above four points, discussion at both the March 16, 2026, and April 6, 2026, City Council meetings indicated a need to respond to the following:

1. Consider adoption of a policy related to a “no–mask” policy for law enforcement personnel, particularly federal agents assigned to ICE/CBP; and

2. Consider removal of FLOCK safety devices/cameras, or otherwise prohibit the sharing of FLOCK–generated data.

To provide additional background information about the subject federal agencies, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with protecting the nation, and its primary responsibilities include national security, emergency preparedness, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 136 of 195 immigration, cybersecurity, and disaster response. To facilitate its mission, divisions under DHS include the following:
• U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—provides immigration enforcement, homeland security investigations, detention, removal operations, and public safety resources.
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—provides border security. • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA.gov)—provides resources and protection related to cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, emergency communications, and risk management.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA.gov)—provides disaster preparedness tips, emergency response resources, recovery assistance, and updates on national relief efforts.
• Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC.gov)—provides resources for law enforcement to enhance skills, improve public safety, and support national security.
• Transportation Security Administration (TSA.gov)—provides security screening information, TSA PreCheck, and airport security. • United States Coast Guard (USCG.mil)—provides maritime safety and security services along the nations coastal areas and provides interdiction services related to illegal trafficking.
• U.S. Secret Service (SecretService.gov)—provides protection services for national and international leaders, safeguards financial systems, and investigates financial crimes.

In addition to the above Divisions, DHS provides a variety of Homeland Security services designed to enhance, facilitate, and fulfill its mission and provide services to the public.

The mission of DHS is multifaceted and includes responsibilities that extend beyond border enforcement and immigrations services, the latter including enforcement, detention, and removal of individuals deemed to be in violation of U.S. law. Over the past

1.4 years, however, the critical duo–mission of border and immigration enforcement have received the focus of the nation due to media reports and video/social media images of what is often defined as overzealous or lethal enforcement action by both ICE and CBP.

Despite statements from DHS, ICE and CBP that immigration enforcement actions are intended to target undocumented immigrants guilty of serious crimes, federal data demonstrate that a large share of people detained or targeted have no criminal convictions or pending charges. ICE’s own custody reports and independent analyses indicate that 65 percent of people taken by ICE had no convictions, and among those with convictions 93 percent had never been convicted of a violent offense, and most of those convictions were for nonviolent crimes such as immigration violations, traffic offenses, or petty crimes. By mid–2025, 40 percent of interior detainees had no prior conviction or pending charge—the first time in years that non–criminals outnumbered those with convictions.

Further analysis demonstrates that most US immigrants targeted for deportation in 2025 had no criminal charges. In that reporting, an analysis of nearly 140,000 I–213 forms (a document used in U.S. immigration proceedings to record information about non– citizens facing removal), from January to mid–August 2025, found that 77 percent of MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 137 of 195 people entering deportation proceedings for the first time had no criminal conviction.

Only 23 percent had ever been convicted, and among those, nearly half were for traffic or immigration offenses, not violent crimes.

While CBP’s public data does not include criminal conviction details, ICE’s own figures suggest that the majority of those apprehended—especially in interior raids—are non– criminals. This pattern aligns with DHS’s broader enforcement strategy, which often focuses on individuals present in the U.S. unlawfully, regardless of prior criminal history.

Government data, instead, appears to indicate that detention, deportation, and immigration–related enforcement actions over the past year have resulted in the targeting of the following: (i) undocumented individuals without any convictions, many who have been in the U.S. for years or decades; (ii) undocumented persons convicted of minor offenses; (iii) undocumented persons convicted of criminal offenses; (iv) immigrants with legal status; (v) U.S. citizens and/or immigrants in the U.S. on visas exercising First Amendment rights; (vi) undocumented and unaccompanied children; and (vii) some immigrant children and adults with serious and/or life–threatening health issues. In addition, ICE records show a historic level of deaths in custody over the past year, with ICE disclosing at least 48 deaths since January 2025, with 32 detainee deaths in calendar year 2025 and 16 deaths in 2026. The causes and manner of death are generally attributed to systemic weaknesses in medical care, mental–health protection, and mortality review rather than isolated incidents.

One analysis of the federal administration’s deportation efforts details how the administration sought to create “the largest deportation force in U.S. history.” However, when early detention and deportation numbers fell short of expectations, DHS shifted to more extreme and high–profile operations, including deporting immigrants to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo; sending deportees to a mega–prison in El Salvador; detaining people in unusual locations like “Alligator Alcatraz”; embarking on a large scale campaign to acquire and build detention centers across the country; activating National Guard units and dispatching them to U.S. cities; detaining people for reasons other than having a criminal background; and deploying intimidating tactics designed to force immigrants into self–deportation. While the administration had committed to deport “only the worst criminals,” initial low numbers appear to have led to a pivot toward broader, more visible, and politically charged deportation tactics.

Because the facts, figures and estimates related to any discussion of data may vary between government sources and media reports, this analysis primarily relies on government data because most media outlets generally agree with government reporting—more on the data can be found in Table 1, on the following page, which shows the latest federal government data, as of this writing, related to ICE and CBP arrests, detentions and deportations from January 28, 2025, to April 4, 2026:

Table 1
ICE and CBP data on arrests, detentions and deportations in the U.S.

January 28, 2025, to April 4, 2026
Arrests Detentions Deportations
Alternatives to
Detention
National Data 458,440 60,310 468,450
Los Angeles Area of
Responsibility Data (includes
San Bernardino County)
25,895 13,285 11,442 15,984
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 138 of 195

OBSERVATIONS ON STATISTICAL DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT Reliability of Federal Data. Trust in Federal data has, to some degree, been eroded by recent actions of the federal administration that have harmed data collection—actions that include, but are not limited to, last year’s termination of the U.S. Chief Statistician and the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the federal administration has generated worry among statisticians and demographers that the federal administration is purposefully undermining the short– and long–term credibility of federal data produced across the government by federal agencies. Compromised data reduces confidence in government data, which in turn undermines trust by the public and harms the decision–making ability of policy makers at the local, state and federal level. Erosion in data confidence has also been tied to multi–year budget cut proposals to federal agencies, resulting in sharp declines in personnel available to produce data used by the federal, state and local governments. Nonetheless, available federal data remains the primary and most reliable source for reporting on various government activities, including immigration enforcement. • ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics. Data related to immigration actions comes from ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics. The data tracks the number of people the federal administration has arrested, detained and deported. ICE removal data includes deportations of people who were turned over to ICE for removal. It does not include deportations from CBP.
o ICE typically publishes Detention Management and Enforcement & Removal Operations Statistics every two weeks. Archived data is also available through the Vera Institute for Justice. The data, however, makes it difficult to determine outcomes, primarily because there is no direct, one–to–one connection between the arrest, detention, and deportation of immigrants. Immigrant processing by DHS is complicated with many disposition routes available to ICE/CBP. For example, an immigrant can be arrested but not booked into detention; deported without first being booked into detention; self–deport without arrest, detention, or appearing in immigration court; and arrested, detained, making an appearance in immigration court and deported or released.
o Reported data for ICE arrests comes from the DHS Immigration Enforcement and Legal Processes Monthly Tables and Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics. Arrest figures may be an undercount because ICE reports only arrests that result in someone entering ICE detention. Detention totals come from the ICE Currently Detained by Criminality and Arresting Agency table embedded within the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics.
o Deportation data comes from the ICE Removals table, also embedded in the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics.
o Owing to the frequency that ICE reports data, minor errors in reported data are reflected in the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics visualization charts within the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics. The collection of data and its accuracy have also been affected by (i) late 2025’s government shutdown, after which ICE started releasing data inconsistently, and (ii) by the federal administration actions, referenced above, that have impacted the accuracy of collected federal data.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 139 of 195 • Alternatives to Detention Program. The Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program is a compliance tool overseen by ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Participation in ATD is based on a person’s current immigration status, criminal history, compliance history, community or family ties, caregiver or provider status, and other humanitarian or medical conditions. Officials may enroll individuals in ATD following a border apprehension by CBP or an ICE interior administrative arrest, or at a later stage in removal proceedings. ICE’s ATD program deploys the following types of monitoring:
o Facial matching technology: Facial matching technology allows participants to report compliance via an app installed on a person’s own smartphone or a dedicated government–issued device.
o GPS monitoring: Satellites track participants’ location to ensure compliance with conditions of release.
o Telephonic reporting (telephonic check–in): Phone calls are compared against a voiceprint obtained during enrollment. o Wrist worn device: Provides GPS monitoring, facial matching, and virtual case management functionality, including virtual check–ins and reminders.
• Self–Deportation. Data analysis also demonstrates a substantial increase in self–deportation or voluntary removal. Self–Deportation is the act of leaving the U.S. voluntarily when a person’s immigration status is contested.

According to ICE, if a person is in the U.S. for any period without being admitted or paroled, or for any length of time after an authorized stay expires, the person’s legal status is contested under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. If a person does not self–deport before an ICE encounter, ICE uses available resources to find, arrest and detain persons determined by ICE to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. Detainees may remain in ICE detention for months while they wait for a final decision from an immigration judge. Removal by ICE will include bars to reentry for a defined period from three years to a permanent reentry bar.

According to ICE, persons who use the CBP Home Mobile App to record their intention to voluntarily depart the United States will be temporarily deprioritized for detention or enforcement action; will receive cost–free travel, a $2,600 exit bonus, and forgiveness of any fines. Applicants will be permitted to finalize arrangements with work, school and other personal matters.

Applicants will also be allowed to return to their native home country rather than face potential deportation to an unknow destination—an “incentive” that is not necessarily available with other forms of deportation.

Potential deportations to unknown destinations stem from ICE’s third country deportation program which, of late, has been sending immigrants to nations on the African Continent—an area of the world to which deportees have no cultural, historical, personal, familial, or social connection. At a recent 2026 Border Security Expo, the current Acting ICE Director reportedly stated that ICE “is removing people to countries that [he] didn't know existed”—in reference to ICE’s controversial third–country removal program. At the same Security Expo, the CBP Commissioner stated that the agency will turn its attention to targeting a detainee’s entire family for removal from the U.S.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 140 of 195 Other reports suggest that ICE is engaging in widespread use of force in detention centers. The reports indicate that in 2025, staff at ICE detention facilities used force 37 percent more times than the previous year, jumping to 54 percent as the number of detainees increased. Investigating these reports of force, however, has been harmed by a recent decision by the DHS to shut down the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman—the independent agency created by Congress to investigate abuse, misconduct, and inhumane conditions in immigration detention facilities.
• Deportation Data. According to DHS, as of this writing, more than 2.5 million people have left the U.S., including more than 605,000 who have been deported, and more than 1.9 million who have voluntarily self–deported. More than 595,000 people have been arrested for immigration violations. • Government Data v. Independent Data. Independent reporting and analysis may disagree with statistical data recorded by DHS and ICE, with independent data typically suggesting smaller deportation and arrest numbers, including self–deportation—to the latter, an one report suggests that DHS uses an “unorthodox” methodology to combine multiple datasets and population estimates to reach its nearly 2 Million reported estimate for self–deportation.

Nonetheless, non–DHS sources do document a drop in overall immigrant population. Pew Research and reporting summarized by CalMatters, for example, noted that the U.S. foreign–born population fell from an estimated

53.3 million in January 2025 to approximately 51.9 million by June 2025—a decline of about 1.4 million—suggesting substantial net departures following the start of the current federal administration. The 1.4 million estimated decline reported in June 2025 by media outlets was also similar in scale to DHS’s claimed 1.6 million voluntary departures reported for the same period.

There is an apparent advantage for the administration in Washington D.C. to report high departure numbers as they pursue an argument that the administration’s mass deportation program is working. Nonetheless, much of the independent analyses report much smaller formal deportation counts, criticizing DHS’s methodology for aggregating voluntary departures and population estimates without a clear, standard definition, leaving the government’s figures contested and not fully reconciled with available public data.

Reputable immigration reporting sites such as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Immigration and the American Immigration Council emphasize that published removal records and historical metrics do not support the idea that the U.S. executed an unprecedented number of formal deportations in the time frame claimed. Nonetheless, as reported by the Deportation Data Project, administrative datasets on immigration enforcement are and remain increasingly central to immigration journalism, research and litigation, even though the information is difficult to use because of “1) infrequent and inconsistent data releases, 2) insufficient linking across datasets, and 3) insufficient documentation.” Further, datasets used by other independent entities are expressed in ad hoc form because they lack detail from the government—detail that is not released proactively and unlikely to emerge soon due to years–long response backlogs for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. To enhance its own efforts, the Deportation Data Project uses tracreports.org, which relies on immigration courts that post their datasets monthly. Immigration court data is, however, unconnected with the ICE data, but can still offer a window into deportation and arrest numbers.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 141 of 195 ICE ACTIVITIES IN AND AROUND MONTCLAIR.

There is no verifiable, publicly available data or official government count of how many people ICE has arrested in Montclair. The U.S. government does not release granular arrest data by individual city or neighborhood, and the datasets from immigration enforcement tracking sites (such as ICE Raid Tracker: Real–time Deportation & Immigration Enforcement Data and the Deportation Data Project) are aggregated from data available for larger regions like counties or metropolitan areas. ICE’s arrests by "Area of Responsibility", for example, provide data totals for larger statistical areas. Data for Montclair is incorporated into the Los Angeles Area of Responsibility, which includes the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and the Central Coast Counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

Various community–oriented groups may report granular data related to ICE arrests, detentions and deportations for specific communities, including Montclair—data often based on observation; this data, however, is not verifiable through official sources, including DHS, ICE or CBP, without Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and is not, therefore, incorporated into this report.

As indicated above, the closest publicly available immigration–related data set is for the Los Angeles Area of Responsibility, which, as indicated in Table 1, above, reports 25,895 arrests, 13,285 detentions, 11,442 deportations, and 15,984 alternative detentions from January 28, 2025, to April 4, 2026.

A review of data on sites such as deportationtracker.live show significant swings in relevant data, suggesting that these sites are not updated routinely, or use information sources other than data provided directly through the federal government. Other sites such as People Over Papers, SpotICE, ICE Map, ICE Raid Tracker and ICE Activity Tracker provide real–time reporting of ICE activity, without reporting archival data.

On April 26, 2026, for example, People Over Papers reported the following ICE interaction in Montclair (Image 1)—the incident reportedly occurred around Ramona Avenue and Bandera Street, an area referenced by community representatives, including the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, as an area targeted by ICE agents:

Image 1
People Over Papers Report on ICE Activity in Montclair, CA Ramona Avenue and Bandera Street
April 26, 2026
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 142 of 195 The City of Montclair’s share of ICE–related arrest totals is not disclosed in available public records. While there are verified reports on ICE activity in Montclair, there are no official public records that show an exact number of ICE arrests. Broader ICE enforcement data shows that San Bernardino County, which includes Montclair, has seen significant immigration enforcement activity, and ICE–initiated arrests in Montclair would be part of larger regional totals, but no municipal–specific arrest counts are available in open datasets.

To receive precise numbers for Montclair, City staff would need to submit for the data directly from ICE’s Office of Inspector General or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request—a request process which is reportedly confounded by years–long response backlogs. Thus, while local law enforcement, community organizations and tracking websites may be in possession of anecdotal or partial records, these data sets are not considered official public statistics and will often vary by marginal to significant degrees in their respective, reported totals.

There is no doubt, however, that ICE has maintained a presence in Montclair and other Southern California communities, particularly after it launched a series of immigration actions, arrests and detentions in the Los Angeles area starting in May 2025 when ICE staged hundreds of enforcement actions that focused on people primarily of Hispanic heritage at places where they work, shop, live, attend church, and go for food and entertainment. In June 2025, for example, ICE agents reportedly entered Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Montclair where they took at least one male parishioner into custody.

The enforcement action in Montclair came after the federal administration, in January 2025, dispensed with policies limiting arrests of immigrants at sensitive locations like schools and churches. While over two dozen religious groups sued to stop the policy change, a Federal judge refused to block immigration enforcement operations in churches. According to Newsweek, DHS disputed the claim, stating that ICE conducted a traffic stop in the general proximity of Our Lady of Lourds Church when the person chose to pull into the church parking lot, at which times ICE agents made the arrest. However, CalMatters reports that the man detained at Our Lady of Lourdes is a longtime parishioner involved in the ministry who was “doing some landscaping work” on Church property when he was detained.

The Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice has posted several videos of ICE sightings in Montclair and other communities including Pomona, Ontario, and Upland.

The IE Community News reports that ICE enforcement actions are targeting day Laborers in the Inland Empire, with immigrant rights advocates stating that efforts have intensified in cities like Montclair, Ontario, Riverside, and San Bernardino. In response, groups like the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice (IC4IJ) are continuing deployment of Rapid Response teams to hotspot locations to meet the needs of families affected by detentions and deportations—IC4IJ operates a rapid response hotline at 909–361–4588.

The recent surge in ICE activity has immigrant rights groups across the region striving to provide support through a network of grassroots organizations. In June 2025, ICE initially targeted sites in Pomona and has spread its enforcement efforts eastward into the IE, with Montclair and Ontario drawing significant attention. The IE has an estimated 260,000 undocumented residents according to Inland Empire immigrants’ rights advocates, making the region one of the highest areas of concentration for undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Groups Targeted by ICE. Federal officials have acknowledged that agents consider a person’s perceived race, ethnicity or national origin as key factors in deciding whom to arrest or detain. A Los Angeles federal district court in July 2025, in Pedro Vasquez MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 143 of 195 Perdomo, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, et al., Defendants. (2025), issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting government officials from making investigative stops based on these factors alone. Immediately after the TRO went into effect, ICE’s arrest numbers declined 64 percent from 104 arrests per day to 38, suggesting stops based on the preceding characteristics were central to ICE operations. On September 2025, however, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the temporary restraining order, giving ICE permission to proceed.

ICE enforcement actions in the Los Angeles area ultimately set the stage for similar actions in cities around the nation—enforcement actions that are funded by the July 2025 federal budget bill that allocated approximately $170 billion for border enforcement, detention and deportations.

Impacts on Communities with Large Immigrant Populations. ICE enforcement actions have constrained and discouraged many Hispanic people withdrawing from, and participating in public life, with immigrants decreasing their attendance at church, avoiding family events such as graduation ceremonies, missing medical appointments, and avoiding work, shopping and eating out. For communities like Montclair, with large Hispanic populations, these impacts have resulted in downturns in local economies, with business activity and tax revenues down. These declines in local economies are further exacerbated by global tariffs imposed by the U.S. Administration; the nation’s current war with Iran and its economic impacts on energy and fertilizer supplies; stubbornly high inflation and interest rates; and increasing unemployment rates.

ICE enforcement actions, when coupled with the significant number of workers incarcerated and climate of fear the enforcement actions have created affect both the region's economy and the statewide economy according to the California Budget & Policy Center.

Based on an August 2025 study by the University of California Merced Community and Labor Center, California’s total number of noncitizen workers had, at that time, declined by 12.3 percent compared to a 4.9 percent decline for citizen workers, with researchers making a clear attribution of noncitizen worker decline to the loss of Hispanic workers. Other sectors of the state’s economy including restaurants, the construction industry, child–care providers and the garment manufacturing industry have experienced significant impact on working conditions and sales.

The detention and deportation of immigrants have particularly harmed the state’s agriculture and food sectors, with farmers reporting significant declines in workers. The website Farmonaut reports that over 50 percent of the state’s farm workers are without documents, making ICE enforcement actions a major threat to agricultural labor supply. According to Farmonaut, ICE immigrations actions have significantly impacted agricultural operations, creating farm labor shortages in the state’s agricultural industry. Further, ICE actions have not only devastated farmers but also reverberate throughout the broader food supply chain.

The absence of workers in Ventura County—where up to 45 percent of immigrant workers reported they are no longer going to work—led to the following:
• Unharvested Crops: Fruits and vegetables left in the field rot, resulting in delayed or lost harvests.
• Processing Delays: Packinghouses and food processing plants fall behind schedule.
• Supply Chain Disruptions: Local grocery stores and national retailers experience shortages, impacting consumers nationwide.
• Price Volatility: Reduced supply often pushes prices higher, affecting food affordability.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 144 of 195 The agricultural landscape of California is responsible for a third of the nation’s vegetables and two–thirds of its fruits and nuts, and that landscape thrives on a robust, predominantly immigrant labor force. However, ICE immigration raids have significantly impacted California’s agriculture operations, introducing profound challenges to farm operations, food security, and the state and national economy.

DHS officials, in defense, justify the immigration campaign by stating that the raids target dangerous criminals. Conversely, data collected by human rights groups suggest that in last year’s ICE actions in the Los Angeles area, only 5 percent of those targeted had previous violent or sex offense convictions. According to the Cato Institute, nationally, 65 percent of people taken by ICE had no convictions, 93 percent no violent convictions.

Other targeted areas for immigration enforcement actions have included the following:

Home Depot parking lots where Hispanic immigrants often wait as they seek day jobs; court houses; car washes; swap meets; shopping centers; construction sites; clothing production shops; restaurants; food trucks; street vendor stands; schools and universities; medical facilities; and churches. At each of these locations ICE agents have converged on, and arrested workers, customers, vendors and students, sometimes without determining immigration status. ICE agents typically carry military–style weapons, cover their faces and, in many instances, have worn civilian clothing or military–style uniforms, sometimes without identification—the latter two increasing fear and concern among targeted populations.

Individuals detained by ICE in the Los Angeles Area of Responsibility are typically transferred to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, which houses more than 2,000 detainees, and is operated by The GEO Group, a company rife with accusations of poor treatment of its detainees.

Record of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. Recent reports indicate that as many as four immigrants have died at the Adelanto facility, including Ismael Ayala–Uribe, a 39–year–old former DACA recipient who had been held in Adelanto for nearly a month before his death in September 2025; Gabriel Garcia–Aviles, 56, who lived near Costa Mesa and died Oct. 23, 2025, about a week after being detained; Alberto Gutierrez Reyes, 48, who died on February 27, 206; and Jose Guadalulpe Ramos–Solano, 52, an industrial laundromat employee who died on March 25 2026, after emigrating to the U.S. from Guanajuato, Mexico, more than 28 years ago.

Ramos–Salone and the other three people who died were each Mexican nationals, prompting the Mexican government to demand an immediate review of the Adelanto facility, pointing to “serious omissions and evident deficiencies” in medical care. Mexico’s President, Claudia Sheinbaum, intends to take legal action against the U.S. President Sheinbaum also plans to bolster consular protections in the U.S.—Mexico’s 50+ consular offices represent the largest foreign consular network in the U.S.

The reported deaths at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center are the most out of ICE's detention operations. ICE officials have stated that the agency is “committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure, and humane environments.” Ramos–Solano’s death raises the nationwide death toll in ICE custody in the last three months to 14. Of the 14 individuals, seven have reportedly died of medical complications (including alcohol withdrawal, symptoms of shortness of breath/medical distress—under investigation as a homicide based on asphyxia due to neck and torso compression—liver failure and kidney failure), four from suicide, two during ICE operations, and one in a shooting (homicide) at a detention center in Texas.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 145 of 195 In 2025, 33 people died in ICE custody according to ICE Detainee Death Reporting data, compared with 11 in 2024, seven in 2023, three in 2022, and five in 2021. DHS maintains that the death rates in custody remain low, and that, as bed space rapidly expands, ICE has “maintained a higher standard of care than most prisons that hold U.S. citizens—including providing access to proper medical care.” The Adelanto facility is presently the subject of a federal class–action lawsuit alleging widespread abuse. Detainees claim they have been subjected to mold, disease, inadequate food and water, and systemic medical neglect.

In January 2026 a coalition of legal and immigrant rights organizations [the Public Counsel, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP] filed a federal lawsuit alleging unconstitutional and abusive conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The class action lawsuit outlines widespread neglect and mistreatment inside the Adelanto facility, including denial of medical and mental health care, lack of access to the outdoors, inadequate food and water, and unsanitary conditions.

According to USAFacts, ICE operates 212 active detention facilities, 103 more active detention facilities in 2026 than it had in 2024. ICE may also have access to other facilities including medical and juvenile centers. Some facilities are operated directly by ICE, while others, like the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are run through partnerships with local governments or independent contractors.

California has eight Ice detention centers, with two opening over the past year in former state prisons.

Illustration 1, below, shows the general placement of ICE’s 212 detention facilities distributed across the nation:

Illustration 1
Distribution of 212 Ice Detention Facilities, Nationwide MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 146 of 195 The top five ICE detention facilities averaging the most detainees per day in fiscal year 2026 include the following:

1. ERO El Paso Camp East Montana, El Paso, Texas – 2,902 detainees.

2. Adams County Correctional Center, Natchez, Mississippi – 2,184 detainees.

3. Stewart Detention Center, Lumpkin, Georgia – 2,001 detainees.

4. Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Adelanto, California – 1,814 detainees.

5. South Texas ICE Processing Center, Pearsall, Texas – 1,746 detainees.

ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS
The mounting volumes of data related to federal immigration enforcement activities has created palpable concern among many U.S. citizens, including many in Montclair, regarding what is perceived as overly aggressive actions, rhetoric and posturing against immigrant communities. In consideration of those concerns, the Montclair City Council asked the City Manager to prepare a response to each of the following points addressed by concerned citizens at the March 16, 2026, and April 6, 2026, City Council meetings:

1. Consider establishing a Local Support Fund for immigrants and/or families of immigrants impacted by ICE/CBP enforcement actions.

In recent years, tens of thousands of immigrants annually face potential removal from the U.S. as their cases go through the immigration court system. Despite the grave consequences of a removal order, including harm to a person’s family and/or a direct threat to his or her life, welfare and/or personal freedom, the right to a government funded attorney for individuals who cannot afford one does not apply to people in civil immigration court. Consequently, most people in removal proceedings appear before immigration judges without legal representation, and their families must deal with the adverse economic, social, legal and family impacts associated with detentions and possible deportation orders.

In order to provide persons facing deportation with a defense of their rights regardless of income, race, national origin, or history with the criminal justice system a growing national grassroots movement has emerged to provide persons at risk of deportation access to legal representation and avoidance of civil immigration detention.

Programs such as the SAFE (Safety & Fairness for Everyone) Network, sponsored by the Vera Institute of Justice, have been created to ensure that people facing detention and deportation receive a fair trial through a universal representation program. SAFE is recognized as a model of collaboration among government agencies, immigration–related legal service providers, and advocates working together to build and implement publicly funded universal representation programs at the local and street levels. SAFE is based on a vision of universal representation and the belief that every person facing deportation should be entitled to high–quality legal representation.

SAFE utilizes the following four–pronged approach for expanding legal representation to immigrant communities:
• Build a critical mass of publicly funded programs at the local and state level to drive momentum for federal change and develop the infrastructure needed to implement universal representation.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 147 of 195 • Generate proof points backed by evidence of the transformative impact associated with, and feasibility of universal representation. • Promote a narrative for change and develop public support for universal representation.
• Support community–led advocacy and campaigns designed to (i) build larger momentum for universal representation, and (ii) advance systemic change—i.e., establish government funded legal representation for individuals in civil immigration courts.

Presently, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation for criminal cases. Under Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court held that right to counsel is “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” and must be provided at public expense to any defendant in a state criminal trial (through the Fourteenth Amendment) who cannot afford one—the right attaches once formal criminal proceedings begin. Further, under Argersinger v. Hamilton (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the right to cover misdemeanor cases that carry the risk of imprisonment, ensuring no one can be jailed without counsel. There presently is no precedent in law or court ruling that extends the right of counsel to civil matters.

SAFE’s overarching goal is to leverage local and state leadership to drive change for a right to representation through its Fairness to Freedom campaign to promote the Fairness to Freedom Act of 2023 (N. Torres), along with a complementary bill, the Securing Help for Immigrants through Education and Legal Development (SHIELD) Act (R. Garcia).

The Fairness to Freedom Act would establish a universal right to federally funded representation for anyone facing deportation. The SHIELD Act would create a grant program to support the recruitment and retention of a legal services workforce, providing much needed capacity– and infrastructure–building for states and localities as they work toward universal representation.

Studies demonstrate that people with legal representation are up to 10.5 times more likely to achieve an outcome that allows them to remain in the United States, thereby keeping families together, protecting immigrant rights, and advancing a fairer and more humane immigration system.

Under the present system, most immigrants facing deportation—particularly those in detention—go unrepresented and are forced to defend themselves alone against the federal government. The scale of the problem is enormous: as of April 2026, nearly 2.3 million people in deportation proceedings were without legal representation. An estimated 63 percent of detained immigrants in removal proceedings have no attorney to protect their rights.

To date, an estimated 14 states and approximately 70 local jurisdictions across the country have publicly addressed the introduction of programs that publicly fund deportation defense. In California, with the current federal administration escalating immigration enforcement, several municipal and county governments are setting aside SAFE–responsive public money to help immigrants and rapid response networks build legal defense funds.

Government investments in defense funds for immigrants are not new, dating back more than a decade when, in 2013, New York City became the first major city to implement a pilot legal defense fund for immigrants. San Francisco launched a similar program in 2014.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 148 of 195 The trend for immigrant defense funds picked up in earnest by 2017 after the federal administration toughened border enforcement and discouraged immigration throughout the country. Contributing government agencies argue in defense of the funds by noting that they protect immigrant communities, support local labor and tax bases, and create stability for communities.

According to a 2024 report from the Tax Policy Center, undocumented immigrants made the following significant tax contributions—based on an estimated population of 11 million undocumented persons:
• Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Most of that amount, $59.4 billion, was paid to the federal government while the remaining $37.3 billion was paid to state and local governments.
• Undocumented immigrants paid federal, state, and local taxes of $8,889 per person in 2022. In other words, for every 1 million undocumented immigrants who reside in the country, public services receive $8.9 billion in additional tax revenue.
• More than a third of the tax dollars paid by undocumented immigrants go toward payroll taxes dedicated to funding programs that these workers are barred from accessing. Undocumented immigrants paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes, $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes, and $1.8 billion in unemployment insurance taxes in 2022.
• At the state and local levels, slightly less than half (46 percent, or $15.1 billion) of the tax payments made by undocumented immigrants are through sales and excise taxes levied on their purchases. Most other payments are made through property taxes, such as those levied on homeowners and renters (31 percent, or $10.4 billion), or through personal and business income taxes (21 percent, or $7.0 billion). • Six states raised more than $1 billion each in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants living within their borders. Those states are California ($8.5 billion), Texas ($4.9 billion), New York ($3.1 billion), Florida ($1.8 billion), Illinois ($1.5 billion), and New Jersey ($1.3 billion). • In a large majority of states (40), undocumented immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households living within their borders.
• Income tax payments by undocumented immigrants are affected by laws that require them to pay more than otherwise similarly situated U.S. citizens. Undocumented immigrants are often barred from receiving meaningful tax credits and sometimes do not claim refunds they are owed due to lack of awareness, concern about their immigration status, or insufficient access to tax preparation assistance.
• Providing access to work authorization for undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions both because their wages would rise and because their rates of tax compliance would increase. Under a scenario where work authorization is provided to all current undocumented immigrants, their tax contributions would rise by $40.2 billion per year to $136.9 billion. Most of the new revenue raised in this scenario ($33.1 billion) would flow to the federal government while the remainder ($7.1 billion) would flow to states and localities.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 149 of 195 Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and, contrary to claims otherwise, they purportedly receive only limited tax benefits. For example, undocumented immigrants are typically not eligible for Social Security retirement benefits or health insurance through Medicare even though they contribute billions of dollars annually to the federal payroll taxes that fund these benefits.

Undocumented immigrants, as a group, may also qualify for the federal earned income tax credit (EITC), which helps families with low incomes get a tax break.

However, to claim EITC, a tax filer, their spouse, and qualifying children must have a valid Social Security Number (SSN), which undocumented immigrants are not eligible for. Therefore, they are required to file for the EITC with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which, under IRS rules, excludes other family members of an undocumented immigrant tax filer from receiving the EITC.

A study by the Cato Institute also demonstrates that undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in government benefits.

Some states, such as California, have expanded who is eligible for state–level tax credits like the EITC and the child tax credit (CTC)—the CTC is also available to undocumented immigrants at the federal level. California also makes available a broad range of state–funded benefits, most notably full health coverage through Medi–Cal. The dividing line is generally the funding source—federal law bars undocumented resident from nearly all federally funded programs, while California has spent billions in state dollars to extend health care, emergency assistance, and other services regardless of immigration status.

Programs like SAFE have also inspired other programs at the state and local level designed to assist immigrants detained by ICE with legal assistance. In California, these programs include, but are not limited to, the following:
o California established an Immigrant Assistance Program in 2015, shortly after the Obama administration expanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, enabling immigrants who came to the U.S. undocumented as children to legally live and work in the U.S.

Known as “One California,” the $45 million fund supports nonprofits that serve immigrants, including with legal help to fight deportation.

The program prohibits funds from being used for those convicted of a serious felony. The fund is part of the annual budget year after year.

According to the California Immigrant Policy Center, One California is administered by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and provides annual grants to qualified nonprofit and community–based organizations to deliver free legal services and support to low–wage and indigent immigrants. It supports:
▪ Deportation defense (removal defense)
▪ Affirmative relief services (e.g., DACA, naturalization) ▪ Legal training and technical assistance
▪ Education and outreach to immigrant communities
Today, One California funds over 120 organizations statewide, with $45 million annually plus additional pilot project funding, and has grown into a permanent item in the state budget, providing holistic care for immigrant clients. It has enabled many nonprofits to expand removal defense services, which research shows can significantly improve case outcomes—detainees represented by counsel win an estimated 83 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 150 of 195 percent of removal cases. The program’s expansion was supported by SB 6 / “Due Process for All Act”, which guaranteed $45 million annually for removal defense and post–conviction relief. In 2023, AB 617 proposed further changes, including:
▪ Expanding eligibility to include immigrants with intent to reside in California and a nexus to the state.
▪ Removing the ban on using funds for individuals convicted of violent or serious felonies.
▪ Requiring annual public reports on program costs and
recommendations.
o California has also initiated the California Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI)—a targeted, General Assistance program, not a universal cash assistance program for all undocumented adults, that provides cash assistance to eligible adult immigrants who do not qualify for other aid programs––emergency one–time payments were deployed in the pandemic context but were distinct from the ongoing program.

CAPI is administered at the County–level, which can create variations in application processing, outreach and monthly payments. CAPI benefits are provided to aged, blind or disabled non–citizens who would qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) except for their immigration status—SSI is a federal program that helps people with disabilities and older adults who have low income and few resources. CAPI applicants must be non–citizens who meet specific immigration status criteria, meaning they are lawfully present immigrants who fall outside the “qualified alien” definition for SSI purposes. CAPI does not serve undocumented residents. CAPI fills the gap for legal immigrants who were cut off from SSI by the 1996 welfare reform law. CAPI payments match the SSI/State Supplementary Payment rates. In 2026, the federal SSI portion alone is $994 per month for an eligible individual, with California’s state supplement added on top.
o California has also expanded Medi–cal and state tuition access to many undocumented residents and provides various local benefits, food assistance, and emergency services to broaden the safety net beyond cash. Expansion of non–cash benefits does not supplant the specific role that CAPI plays in providing direct state cash to the elderly or disable noncitizen population.
o In 2017, Los Angeles launched the Los Angeles Justice Fund (LAJF)—the start of a $10 million public–private fund, providing funds for immigrants to use in deportation matters. The LAJF, which was expanded in 2022 to create and reform as RepresentLA, is an ongoing investment by the city, county and philanthropic organizations. LAJF is a public–private partnership with the City and County of Los Angeles, the Weingart Foundation, and the California Community Foundation.

Various goals of the original LAJF partnership include the following:
▪ Provide free legal representation to immigrant Angelenos in deportation proceedings, including ensuring access to due process for the most vulnerable community members;
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 151 of 195 ▪ Build and strengthen the removal defense capacity of the legal services infrastructure in the City and County of Los Angeles;
▪ Provide legal representation to a minimum of 742 vulnerable residents;
▪ Assess the ability of public‐private partnership to maximize support for immigrants; and
▪ Learn best practices for sustainable investments in
deportation defense and enhancing the impact of initial investments.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, LAJF provided free legal screenings for more than 1,730 area residents and direct representation for 546 people. Representation enabled clients to remain in the United States in 62 percent of closed cases.

LAJF was originally set to expire in 2020, however additional funding was approved by the City and County of Los Angeles to ensure that Angeleno immigrants and their families continued to receive high– quality legal representation and due process, particularly during a time when the country faced the formidable challenges of the COVID–19 pandemic. Grant extensions allowed LAJF grantees to continue to represent their clients without disruption. In 2022, Los Angeles formerly closed the LAJF program and transitioned to a new program called RepresentLA, which continues the mission of providing legal services to immigrants in Los Angeles County, including both removal defense and affirmative immigration cases.

According to the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a 2020 evaluation by the Vera Institute of Justice found that 62 percent of LAJF clients with completed cases were able to remain in the United States, compared to fewer than 5 percent of unrepresented immigrants nationwide. LAJF attorneys also helped secure release from custody for 49 percent of initially detained clients, either through bond or successful case outcomes.

More recent data shows the program’s reach has grown dramatically under RepresentLA, which has provided legal services to more than 10,000 individuals since launching in 2022, including 649 people represented in removal defense and over 1,100 represented in affirmative immigration cases. A State of Immigrants in Los Angeles 2024 – USC Equity Research Institute report further highlights that RepresentLA has become a critical pillar of due–process protections for immigrants across Los Angeles County.
o Also in 2017, Santa Clara County allocated $5 million to support response activities related to the federal administration’s targeting of immigrants. Since then, it has increased that allocation to $13 million.

The fund supports an array of immigration resource organizations including a Rapid Response Network, legal defense, outreach, education and prevention efforts.
o San Francisco City–County, Alameda County, San Mateo County, Oakland, and San Jose are among the latest local agencies to establish MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 152 of 195 a fund for immigrants to defend themselves against deportation. In September 2025, the agencies announced the Stand Together Bay Area Fund, with a goal of raising $10 million to support immigrant families impacted by detentions and deportations.

In February 2026, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors beefed up its defense fund by a unanimous vote with $3.5 million. In March 2026 Alameda County doubled the fund with $3.5 million.

The fund, housed at the San Francisco Foundation, will pool resources from individuals, corporations, the faith community, and philanthropic partners to support trusted, community–based nonprofit organizations working on the frontlines with the immigrant community. These organizations will provide direct emergency assistance and outreach to families impacted by detention, deportation, violence, and the fear of immigration raids to cover essential needs such as rent, food, and other basic living expenses, and has designated the Mission Asset Fund (MAF) as a primary beneficiary for its proven model for providing direct emergency cash assistance to immigrant families.

Officials have argued that establishing the Stand Together Bay Area Fund represents a public interest because it provides protections to an immigrant population that makes up 40 percent of the population base by providing an opportunity for defense in immigration courts.

A 2014 study by the Northern California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice found that immigrants represented by a lawyer from several Bay Area nonprofits won 83 percent of their removal hearings— substantially higher than those immigrants who had no representation.

The study also found that two–thirds of detained immigrants did not have any access to legal counsel.
o Locally, the City of Pasadena partnered with the California Community Foundation (CCF) to launch the Pasadena Emergency Assistance Fund, a resource established to support local families impacted by federal immigration enforcement activity. Creation of the fund followed an appropriation of $100,000 by the Pasadena City Council toward establishing the Fund. The Pasadena donation portal is now live at Pledge.to/PasadenaFund. The fund is designed to provide support for essential needs such as housing, rent, utilities, child or dependent care, and legal services. CCF will distribute funds to trusted local nonprofit organizations, which will deliver assistance directly to Pasadena residents affected by immigration enforcement actions. Establishing a non–profit program in partnership with the CCF and other nonprofit partners allows the fund to function as a public benefit program that is not directly controlled by the City of Pasadena.
▪ The California Community Foundation is focused on finding long–term, comprehensive solutions that address the vital issues concerning quality of life in Los Angeles County. CCF is hosting Pasadena’s fund on Pledge, an online donation platform. Pledge online platforms help nonprofits,
companies and individuals raise money efficiently through secure donation methods. Features of Pledge include the following:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 153 of 195 ✓ Fundraising flexibility with peer–to–peer support.
✓ Community engagement for personalizing messaging
and participant tracking.
✓ Analytics and insights for comparing year–over–year
performance.
✓ Ease of implementation for integration with existing
campaigns and data/contributions processing.
✓ Support and strategy to maximize donations and
engagement.

Pledge currently supports the following:
✓ Los Angeles Neighbors Support Fund (LANSF),
established in cooperation with the CCF, the Fund
provides essential assistance to families impacted by
immigration issues, offering food and cash support
to help meet basic needs. Since June 2025, more than
4,100 people have been arrested and detained in Los
Angeles County, leaving families without essential
resources. LANSF supports those affected by ICE
enforcement activities by providing financial
assistance to community organizations that help
families.
✓ City of Long Beach Neighbors Supporting Neighbors
Fund is designed to help members of Long Beach’s
immigrant community replace lost income, provide
rental assistance, fund food and grocery distribution,
and support rapid response efforts. CCF has
contributed $100,000 to the Long Beach–sponsored
fund.
✓ City of Pomona Compassion Fund. The Fund provides
critical support for vulnerable residents and
businesses during periods of heightened uncertainty
and distress. In partnership with the CCF, the
program is designed to provide financial assistance
to Pomona's immigrant community, which may
include food, essential supplies, health and mental
health services, and legal resources. Additionally, the Fund will support the business community by
providing microgrants. The City of Pomona has
pledged financial support of up to $120,000—the
Fund has a target goal of raising $250,000 and will
terminate upon exhaustion of funds.
o City of Santa Ana Immigration Legal Defense and Universal Representation Fund, in partnership with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, provides deportation defense legal services to immigrant residents of Santa Ana, regardless of case strength or financial status.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, at the Adelanto Immigration Court—where SAFE’s Santa Ana clients appear—74 percent of detained immigrants have been unrepresented by legal counsel over the past five MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 154 of 195 years, underscoring the urgent need for free, high–quality immigration legal representation. Santa Ana entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Vera Institute of Justice to join the SAFE Network to be eligible for one–time funding to support immigration legal defense services. Additional support services include on–going technical assistance and training, data collection, research support, and participation by the Immigrant Defenders Law Center to serve as the legal service provider for immigration legal defense services.

Appeals Court Rejects Federal Bid to Lock up Immigrants Without Opportunity for Release on Bond. The City Council should also be aware that on April 27, 2026, in a 3–0 ruling on the matter of Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa Da Cunha, Petitioner v. Joseph E. Freden, Deputy Field Office Director, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a panel of the New York–based 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the federal government’s bid to lock up “the majority” of people it is seeking to deport without an opportunity for release on bond, particularly if they have no criminal records and have resided in the U.S. for decades.

The decision puts the 2nd Circuit in opposition with recent rulings by the 5th Circuit in Louisiana and the 8th Circuit in Missouri. Together, these competing rulings mark a split at the appeals court level, creating the likelihood that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals found that ICE’s detention policy was based on a flawed, implausible and unprecedented interpretation of decades–old laws, and that the federal administration’s position would raise acute constitutional concerns by instituting “the broadest mass detention–without–bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.” The Court of Appeals went on to state that “the government’s interpretation . . . would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society, straining our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions, separating families, and disrupting communities . . .. If Congress meant to achieve such a radical break from the past, it would not have done so in such an indirect and ambiguous way.” The decision is the first appellate court ruling rejecting the federal administration’s view. It is, however, backed by district court decisions across the country that have widely concluded that ICE’s mandatory detention policy is illegal and unconstitutional.

While the ruling is supportive of immigrants’ rights in the matter of detention and deportation by ICE, people released on bond would still require representation while working their way through immigration court hearings.

Recommendation. While several county and local government agencies in California have established immigrant defense and/or assistance funds to address costs stemming from detentions and deportation hearings, these efforts have typically been achieved through financial collaboration with founding partners, individuals, corporations, the faith community, and/or philanthropic and grant agency partners.

City staff is of the opinion that establishing a fund sponsored only by the City of Montclair for immigrant support services would constitute an illegal gift of public funds, particularly if the City acted as the distribution agent. The reason government agencies establish donation–based funds in partnership with non– government entities is to avoid a violation of state law related to prohibitions MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 155 of 195 against “gifts of public funds” to individuals. While some cities may individually sponsor funds as a necessary public purpose/benefit, they risk exposure to allegations of “gifts of public funds.” Local governments can and do contribute funds to community–based programs that provide various levels of public assistance; further, local governments often serve as the nexus between the public and various assistance programs. However, a local agency making direct grants of funds to individuals without adequate consideration or demonstration of a public purpose would likely be in violation of state law. • The gift of public funds doctrine is a legal principle that prevents government entities from transferring public money, property or credit to private individuals, organizations or corporations without a legitimate public purpose or adequate consideration. A gift would include a direct transfer of money, property or the forgiveness of debt owed to the government entity. The City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent transparently and with accountability.

The Public scrutiny test requires government officials to ask whether taxpayers would view an expenditure as necessary and defensible for public purposes. Expenditures lacking a clear public benefit or connection to government functions may fail the public scrutiny test; i.e., funds must be used to carry out a fundamental government function. If an expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose, it is generally not considered a gift, even if a private entity benefits incidentally. Incidental private benefits do not automatically make an expenditure illegal if the primary purpose is public and serves a legitimate public purpose. Courts typically defer to the governing body’s determination of public purpose.

City staff opines that a monetary contribution to an established immigrant defense and/or assistance fund to address costs stemming from immigrant detentions and deportation hearings, in partnership and collaboration with other entities, including founding partners, individuals, corporations, the faith community, and philanthropic and grant agency partners, where funds are comingled and distributed to agencies that serve a public purpose, including providing funds for immigrants facing detention and deportation hearings, would be a legitimate public purpose based on the consideration that every person facing deportation are entitled to high–quality legal representation, and that immigrants are important members of the community, pay taxes, and contribute to the overall welfare of Montclair, the region, the state and the nation, and that they deserve protection of their Constitutional and legal rights and privileges.

It would be appropriate that any distribution of funds be monitored in partnership with appropriate partner agencies. For example, the City of Santa Ana partners with Immigrant Defenders Law Center (IMMDEF) to connect eligible community members with immigration defense services. The City Council may also determine whether it is necessary to impose a limit on the amount of funding provided to any one person/family by category of service provided or, alternatively, provide a flat amount no matter the service needed. Internally, the City Manager would designate a Department for oversight of the program, establish necessary operating rules, and provide the necessary personnel resources for program oversight.

Based on the above discussion, it is unreasonable to assume that Montclair could and should individually establish an immigrant support fund without collaborating partners. A collaborative fund at the local level would best be MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 156 of 195 achieved by establishing an Internet presence through an online donation platform such as Pledge, partnering with other entities including individuals, corporations, the faith community, and philanthropic and grant agency partners.

The Montclair Community Foundation could serve as the nonprofit agency that collaborates with inter–agency partners to establish the fund and/or secure donations and receive or distribute funds from the City for public purposes.

To avoid any appearance of a “gift of public funds,” any monetary contribution made by the City of Montclair or Montclair Community Foundation should be specified as a donation to the City of Montclair Community Partners Support Fund (MCPSF). “In kind” commitments of personnel resources should also be considered a City contributions to the MCPSF.

The public request that Montclair contribute $300,000 to the MCPSF is (i) unreasonable because it is disproportionate to what other, larger agencies have contributed to similarly–styled funds; (ii) ignores the many other resources that are available at the state and local level to assist immigrants who apply with needed resources; (iii) fails to consider the agency’s existing general operating commitments; and (iv) ignores the current economic conditions in the nation, state and local region that have reduced consumer confidence and driven down revenue earnings for state and local governments.
• U.S. consumer confidence plunged to a record low 48.20 in May 2026, down from 49.80 in April, marking the weakest reading since 1952. This follows a steep drop from 53.30 in March, reflecting a sustained period of economic pessimism. The record–low sentiment typically signals caution, although U.S. consumer credit card spending has been high, signaling declining savings and investments, and labor market remains relatively strong. However, sustained high prices will likely cause further erosion in consumer confidence.

If the City Council is inclined to establish and contribute to the MCPSF, the donation should be based on the capacity of the City of Montclair or the Montclair Community Foundation to support a one–time donation, not to exceed $50,000; alternatively, the City Council may consider a smaller, initial donation of $25,000, with an additional donation of $25,000 as a match to contributions of $50,000.

The Montclair Community Foundation currently has a cash balance of approximately $153,000. Using funds from the Montclair Community Foundation for a donation to the MCPSF would harm its ability to support other programs, including the Montclair to College Program, which supports children of the Montclair community, including children of legal and undocumented immigrants desirous of attending Chaffey Community College.

Los Angeles County communities typically collaborated with the California Community Foundation to create immigrant defense funds. City staff is unaware of any similar foundation in San Bernardino County. Therefore, establishing an immigrant support fund in Montclair would require an “in kind” commitment of personnel to identify funding sources, establish and maintain an online presence for donations, secure grants, and create partnerships that would allow for successful implementation of an online support fund for immigrants.

One collaborative alternative that may be available to Montclair is the Vera Institute of Justice. Through Vera’s SAFE Network, Montclair may be eligible for a one–time grant to support immigration legal defense services.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 157 of 195 Whether or not the City Council elects to pursue establishing the MCPSF for immigrant support services, the City will continue to make available to the community referral and support resources through the Human Services Department, including Immigration Referral Resources published on the City’s website at Welcome – Montclair, CA.

2. Consider adoption of a policy prohibiting ICE/CBP from staging on City– owned property.

According to the Vera Institute, following federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota from late 2025 to early 2026, cities nationwide started considering establishing “ICE–free Zones" in their communities. Chicago initiated the process in 2025 by Executive Order creating an ICE–Free Zone during Operation Midway Blitz. According to reports, ICE’s Chicago operations relied heavily on local infrastructure for staging and coordination, with ICE agents operating out of City–owned parking lots and deploying helicopters, armored vehicles, equipment and personnel from these locations. The use of municipal infrastructure demonstrated how immigration enforcement routinely depends on city–controlled spaces, particularly during large operations, with or without municipal authorization.

Minneapolis issued a similar Executive Order barring ICE and CBP from using municipal parking lots, vacant lots, and garages as staging grounds for immigration enforcement. The Executive Order was described as a necessary step to protect Minneapolis’ Somali population and reject what Minneapolis leaders described as the “fear–based tactics” used by ICE.

After thousands of federal agents were assigned to Minnesota under Operation Metro Surge, local leaders in various parts of the nation started looking for ways to address the scope of federal immigration enforcement while simultaneously trying to protect their residents.

What are ICE–free zones? ICE–free zone policies are land–use and administrative policies designed to limit federal agencies from using city– or county–owned property as staging areas, processing sites for arrests, or operational bases for civil immigration enforcement. The stated purpose behind ICE–free zones is to (i) prevent or interrupt the use of locally–owned infrastructure for ICE–related enforcement actions; (ii) reassert local control over public property; (iii) minimize the effectiveness of immigration enforcement activities and shield or protect residents; and (iv) reinforce or re–establish trust between immigrant communities and local government.

In practice, ICE–free zone policies may be more symbolic than impactful due to the limitations local governments have over federal and state officials, policies and practices. The practical use of ICE–free zone policies is to signal to immigrant communities that the local government is compassionate and supportive.

ICE–Free zone policies do not prohibit ICE or CBP from making arrests; they expressly avoid interfering with the legal rights of federal law enforcement personnel; and they clarify that federal authorities can conduct arrests on city property when supported by a judicial warrant. This framing of ICE–free Zone policies is purposeful because it signals to courts that local governments recognize that Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution, treaties, and federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the land", and that there is no intentional attempt at the local level to illegally obstruct or MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 158 of 195 interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The judicial warrant requirement is central to this latter point.
• The Judicial warrant requirement merely reinforces lawful enforcement practices. Starting in 2025, ICE started relying on “administrative warrants”—signed by ICE officials as opposed to judges—to enter private property and arrest people despite long–standing Fourth Amendment protections and ICE Administrative guidance to the contrary. In requiring judicial warrants, agencies adopting ICE–free zones are signaling an intent to hold ICE accountable to the Constitution by pushing back against what is perceived to be an extrajudicial practice.

Jurisdictions that have passed or are currently considering ICE–free zone policies including the following:
▪ Alameda County, CA
▪ Asheville, NC
▪ Aurora, IL
▪ Berkeley, CA
▪ San Jose, CA
▪ Chicago, IL
▪ Denver, CO
▪ Evanston, IL
▪ Los Angeles County
▪ Los Angeles, CA
▪ Minneapolis, MN
▪ Saint Paul, MN
▪ New York City, NY
▪ New Jersey (state)
▪ Oakland, CA
▪ Pinole, CA
▪ Providence, RI
▪ San Francisco, CA
▪ Santa Clara County, CA
▪ Seattle, WA
▪ Spokane, WA
▪ Everett, WA
▪ Worcester, MA
Before the term “ICE–free zone” gained traction, some municipalities used land– use authority to constrain federal immigration activity. In Portland, Oregon, for example, ICE operates out of a privately owned facility subject to a conditional land–use approval limiting detention of detainees to 12 hours and prohibiting overnight holds. In September 2025, after Portland officials received reports that ICE violated the conditions, Portland’s permitting bureau issued a formal land– use violation notice to the property owner, triggering a review that may result in a fine place on the property owner, force a correction to the “harm”, or result in a “reconsideration” of how the land in question is used.

Cities and counties adopting ICE–free zones generally operate within two models:
they restrict immigration enforcement on (i) specified categories of city–owned or –controlled property; or (ii) any city–owned or –controlled property absent explicit authorization. Jurisdictions also enact ICE–free zone policies through executive orders, ordinances, or nonbinding resolutions.

Cities that have adopted, or are considering adoption of, ordinances to establish ICE–free zones have typically chosen to define specific categories of properties that (i) have been or could be used for civil immigration enforcement, and (ii) that are designated to be off–limits. Further, ICE–free zone policies are only adopted after weighing political, legal, and practical constraints.

ICE–free zone policies would also typically require posting of signage identifying the applicable code section and stating that the space may not be used for immigration enforcement purposes without specific permission of the local agency. Ordinances further provide that employees of the agency (and members of the public) observing potential violations are encouraged, but not required, to report violations, and not act against the violator(s).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 159 of 195 Agencies with ICE–free zones collect the violation data and provide it to a designated state entity that may be charged with collecting information about federal law–enforcement activity and assessing its impacts.

ICE–free zone ordinances process may also authorize signage for private properties, subject to approval of property owners or property managers who voluntarily elect to designate nonpublic areas as off–limits for civil immigration enforcement.

The above ordinance process complies with the Constitutional protections provided to federal agencies and their personnel under the Supremacy Clause; it does not, however, provide an enforcement mechanism to hold the federal government accountable for violations, thus avoiding conflict between local law enforcement and federal government representatives—an approach that is primarily a symbolic gesture.

In contrast to the preceding approach, San Francisco developed a model ordinance that became law in February–March 2026. The first–of–its–kind ordinance amends an administrative code provision governing the use of city property to explicitly restrict federal immigration enforcement. The current code provides that city property be used only to advance authorized public purposes.

The amendment makes that principle explicit and enforceable in the context of immigration enforcement.

The San Franciso ordinance provides that “no person or entity may use” city property without authorization; provides that assisting in federal immigration enforcement “is not a City purpose”; and authorizes the city attorney to bring a civil action against any person or entity that uses city property for an “unlawful or unauthorized purpose.”
The ordinance does not prevent federal agents from entering City–owned property to conduct targeted arrests; instead, it prevents the staging of operations or establishing an ongoing presence. Further, the ordinance appears to apply to any city–owned or –controlled space, provided it does not conflict with federal law; e.g., arrests supported by judicial warrants. The San Francisco ordinance also allows the city attorney to file legal actions against violators—including the federal government and individual federal agents. By pairing an external enforcement mechanism with an explicit declaration that federal civil immigration enforcement falls outside permissible city purposes, the ordinance seeks to impose real consequences that may ultimately be challenged in court by the federal government.

Are ICE–free zones legal? Under Adderly v. Florida (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court has long granted cities and counties authority over their own property and day–to–day operations. That authority exists alongside the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the “the supreme Law of the Land.” Under Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), “supremacy” matters in immigration enforcement. Under Mandel, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the federal government’s broad authority in immigration policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court has gone on to establish two constitutional doctrines that define the boundary between two competing authorities: In a series of decisions, the Court established the Anti–Commandeering Doctrine, requiring an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to displace state authority.

Under the second doctrine—Intergovernmental Immunity—the Court early on declared its support of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Effectively, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 160 of 195 the principle of Intergovernmental Immunity provides that states cannot interfere with or control the operations of the federal government; however, the rule has been narrowed to the current doctrine which specifies that a state law violates the Intergovernmental Immunity doctrine only if it regulates the federal government directly or discriminates against the federal government or those with whom the federal government deals—see North Dakota v. United States (1990) and U.S. v.

Washington (2020).

While both doctrines have been litigated primarily in cases involving state laws, the same structural limits extend to cities (and counties), whose authority is grounded in state law and their respective constitutions. • Anti–Commandeering. The anti–commandeering doctrine, firmly established in the 1992 Supreme Court decision New York v. U.S., holds that the federal government may enforce federal law on its own. However, under Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2018), the Court determined that the federal government may not require states to use their personnel, resources, or property to carry out federal priorities—a principle that has been used to shape years of litigation over sanctuary policies.

Court decisions, the US Code, and the DOJ have repeatedly held that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from compelling states and localities to participate in immigration enforcement; i.e., while states (and cities) may not physically obstruct federal officers or prevent lawful arrests, they are not required to honor civil immigration detainers or share certain information about immigration status beyond what federal law mandates—this interpretation is the genesis of the California Values Act (SB 54).
o The Ninth Circuit held that even if California’s refusal to cooperate may “frustrate” federal priorities, the Constitution protects a state’s choice “to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.” o Enacted in 2020, New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) bars civil immigration arrests in state courthouses. The DOJ challenged the law in 2025, arguing it violated the Supremacy Clause. A federal district court dismissed the suit, concluding that New York State had not obstructed federal enforcement but, instead, declined to facilitate it. The DOJ filed an appeal in January 2026.

The anti–commandeering doctrine is now being tested at the municipal level. In Minnesota, the state and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, under Minnesota and City of St. Paul v. Kristi Noem, challenged Operation Metro Surge, alleging that federal agents repeatedly used city–owned property to stage operations without authorization. The lawsuit references Saint Paul’s municipal code section limiting use of city parking lots, absent a permit.
• Intergovernmental Immunity. While anti–commandeering limits federal coercion of states, the Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine operates in the reverse direction, limiting state interference with federal authority.

Under modern Supreme Court doctrine, states may not directly regulate the federal government or discriminate against it. A state law crosses the line if it singles out federal officers or contractors for unfavorable treatment or attempts to control how federal operations are conducted.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 161 of 195 The doctrine has been litigated primarily against state laws. In the immigration context, courts have recently drawn clear lines between different types of state restrictions on contracting with ICE. In 2022, the Seventh Circuit, in McHenry County and Kankakee County v. Kwame Raoul, upheld Illinois’s statewide ban prohibiting local governments from entering detention agreements with ICE, concluding that the law neither directly regulated nor discriminated against the federal government. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit, in The Geo Group, Inc. and U.S. v. Gavin Newsom, struck down California’s attempt to bar private companies from operating immigration detention facilities, reasoning that the law interfered with the federal government’s ability to run detention operations in the manner it chose.

The Ninth Circuit has applied the same logic to invalidate a King County, Washington, executive order that restricted ICE flights out of the county airport and cut off ICE’s access to private contractors, holding in U.S. v.

King County that the county unlawfully regulated the federal government’s method of transporting and deporting people. The precise boundary between permissible noncooperation and impermissible regulation or discrimination continues to be tested in the courts.

Establishing ICE–free Zones. While Chicago’s narrower approach may be safer from legal challenges, the broader posture of San Francisco’s ordinance raises more questions. By defining federal civil immigration enforcement as an impermissible use of city property and attaching an enforcement mechanism, the San Franciso ordinance could be characterized as singling out federal activity for unfavorable treatment. Further, because it applies across all city property, a court could view it not merely as a refusal to assist but as regulating or discriminating against federal operations.

The above distinction is narrow but consequential. Anti–commandeering protects a city’s decision not to provide its resources. Intergovernmental immunity, by contrast, limits a state or city’s ability to directly regulate or discriminate against the federal government. Where the U.S. Supreme Cour will ultimately draw the outer boundary between these principles remains an open question.

Recommendation. ICE–free zones may represent a growing step in addressing the congregation of ICE officials to apprehend and arrest immigrants. However, ICE–free zone policies cannot completely mitigate the federal administration’s immigration agenda and are subject to legal challenges. Further, the effort, for the most part, may be symbolic unless an agency is willing to embed an enforcement component, which could set up conflicts between local and federal law enforcement, and would most certainly lead to legal challenge.

It may also be argued that, alone, ICE–free zones are largely ineffective, and would need to be coupled with other policies, including sanctuary city declarations, backed by significant defense funds.

The federal administration has made it clear that it intends to oppose jurisdictions that oppose immigration enforcement by every available means. In that regard, ICE–free zones, particularly versions that incorporate enforcement mechanisms, could become the next flashpoint in the escalating confrontation between state and local governments versus federal immigration policies. The DOJ’s lawsuit in U.S. v. State of New Jersey to block New Jersey’s ICE–free zone policy reinforces this concern and, going forward, is an important case to watch.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 162 of 195 The Montclair City Council would be wise to observe how U.S. v. State of New Jersey unfolds before making any determination related to establishing an ICE– free zone policy, particularly when any such policy would likely be symbolic, only.

Accordingly, City staff recommends against an ICE–free zone policy at this time and, if directed, would return this item to the City Council for future consideration if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agrees that such policies, and in what form, are permissible.

3. Consider establishing restrictions that would prohibit City interaction with companies/agencies engaging with ICE/CBP, including restrictions against the sharing of data.

The premise of the above request for a response is nebulous and provides no clear ability to respond effectively. As a general precept, it can be stated that the City of Montclair does not knowingly engage directly with companies that have contractual relations with ICE/CBP. In practical terms, and at a granular level, ICE/CBP agents, during their day–to–day duties, make purchases at local businesses, many of which would be common to Montclair and its agents and employees; however, for purposes of this discussion, those granular activities are excluded and are not implied by the above request for response.

City of Montclair staff are not aware of any companies in Montclair that directly deal with DHS, ICE or CBP on a contractual basis.

In compliance with Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act (SB 54), Montclair does not specifically allow for the use of its Police facilities (or other infrastructure) for ICE–related detention efforts, nor does it cooperate with ICE except as provided by law.

SB 54, signed into law in 2017, limits state and local law enforcement from participating in federal immigration enforcement, establishing California as a sanctuary state. The law is designed to protect immigrant communities by restricting the use of state and local resources for federal immigration enforcement, while still allowing cooperation in cases involving serious or violent crimes.

The California Values Act aims to:
• Encourage trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, ensuring individuals feel safe reporting crimes or seeking assistance. • Prevent diversion of state resources to federal immigration enforcement. • Maintain public safety by allowing cooperation with federal authorities only in cases involving serious or violent offenses.

Overall, SB 54 establishes California as a sanctuary state, protecting immigrants from federal immigration enforcement while maintaining law enforcement’s focus on state and local public safety priorities.

SB 54 builds on the 2013 California Trust Act and the TRUTH Act, creating a framework that balances public safety with immigrant protections. The law was a response to federal policies targeting sanctuary jurisdictions and aggressive deportation initiatives. Legal challenges by the federal government were unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 163 of 195 Key provisions of SB 54 include the following:
• Limits on Law Enforcement Cooperation: State and local agencies, including police, sheriffs, school police, and security departments, are prohibited from using personnel or funds to investigate, detain, or arrest individuals solely for immigration enforcement purposes. • Data Sharing Restrictions: Agencies cannot share personal information such as home or work addresses with federal immigration authorities unless the information is already public.

For purposes of disclosure, the City of Montclair does share data with county, state and federal agencies as required by law. This data sharing is for intended purposes only, such as the sharing of social security numbers, payroll data, and other personnel related data—data that is not related to immigration programs or a person’s immigration status. In addition, public safety services share data with county, state and federal agencies as required by law. However, shared information is not intended, in any regard, to be directed for purposes of immigration enforcement activities or a person’s immigration status. The City of Montclair is not responsible for any information provided to federal agencies and/or departments that is shared internally between federal agencies and/or departments. • Prohibition on Immigration Status Inquiries: Law enforcement personnel are generally prohibited from asking about a person’s immigration status during routine interactions.
• Custody and Transfer Rules: Individuals cannot be held beyond their scheduled release for immigration purposes, except under specific circumstances such as felony convictions served in state prison, other serious felonies within 15 years of conviction, or certain higher–level misdemeanors within five years of conviction.
• Public Institutions: Schools, libraries, health facilities, and courthouses must implement model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement, ensuring these spaces remain safe for all individuals.

The City of Montclair and Montclair Police Department remain committed to the provisions of SB 54. On the City of Montclair homepage, in relation to ICE immigration enforcement events in Los Angeles County during the summer of 2025, the Montclair Chief of Police offered the following statement to the Montclair community:

A Message from the Chief of Police Regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Montclair.

To the People of Montclair, each of whom the members of the Montclair Police Department are committed to serving:

As your Chief of Police, I want to take a moment to address our beloved Montclair community during this time when many residents struggle to comprehend recent events occurring not only in our neighboring county but here, too, in San Bernardino County.

Please be assured that the Montclair Police Department is committed to the public’s health, safety and welfare, and building trust in the community. As part of our ongoing commitment to these ideals, I want to clarify your Police Department’s role regarding immigration MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 164 of 195 enforcement. I consider it important that all residents understand our primary responsibility is to serve and protect each resident, regardless of immigration status.

In accordance with California state law, including California Values Act (SB 54), the Montclair Police Department does not participate in federal immigration enforcement. We do not ask individuals about their immigration status, nor do we detain or arrest individuals solely based on immigration status. Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of federal agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

As a mutual aid agency, the Montclair Police Department will continue to support our law enforcement partners within and outside the City of Montclair, particularly when the objective of support extends to the safety of the community and residents, protection of rights and property, Police Officer safety, and maintaining peace throughout our neighboring communities.

Whether you are a resident, visitor, or someone in need of help you have the right to live and work safely. The Montclair Police Department is here to ensure that everyone can access emergency services, report crimes, seek assistance, cooperate with law enforcement, and receive necessary support without concern or fear about their immigration status.

The Montclair Police Department is committed to protecting your privacy, including information about each person’s immigration status. It is our practice and policy to not share privileged immigration information with federal immigration authorities unless we are compelled or required to do so by law or court order.

We value the trust you have in us and seek to build stronger community partnerships based on mutual respect and
understanding.

We are also committed to ensuring that each person in our community is treated with dignity, respect, and fairness; and we do so by working every day to foster positive relationships with every member of the community, regardless of personal background.

The Montclair Police Department remains steadfast in our dedication to making the Montclair community a safe, welcoming place for all, and we live by our motto of “Commitment to Service.” Respectfully,
Jason Reed, Chief of Police
In furtherance of its commitment to SB 54, Montclair does not host an ICE detention facility or immigration court, and it is unlikely that ICE would seek to locate a detention facility in Montclair. Any such intent would require a CUP and approval by the Montclair Planning Commission, which would be referred to the City Council for a position of opposition.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 165 of 195 The request for response under this section is more appropriately framed under the following questions:

What cooperation with federal immigration authorities is required by law, if any?
• The U.S. Supreme Court has held that because federal immigration law is “the supreme law of the land” and creates “a comprehensive and unified system” for immigration enforcement, federal law preempts states from enforcing their own immigration policy. [Arizona v. United States, (2012)] • To maintain federal supremacy while preserving the police powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment against commandeering by the federal government, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) provides for voluntary cooperation by state and local officials with federal immigration enforcement efforts in limited circumstances and under the direction of DHS.
• Under the INA, state and local officials may, but are not required to, communicate with DHS about the immigration status of any person, including whether a person is not lawfully present in the United States. [8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(A)]
• Also under the INA, state and local officials may, but are not required to, “otherwise cooperate” with DHS “in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal” of people not lawfully present in the United States. [8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(B)]
Cooperation, against the backdrop of federal supremacy, refers to rendering assistance to DHS officers within parameters set by DHS and under DHS’s control and supervision.
• Beyond the communication and cooperation referred to above, state and local officials may not perform the functions of federal immigration officers absent a written agreement between the state or local government entity and DHS. The most common of these is known as the § 287(g) Agreement—see discussion, below, under Response “No. 4”. [8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1)]
Under a § 287(g) agreement, if certified after training in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, state and local officials may perform certain functions of federal immigration officers as designated by DHS and under the direction and supervision of DHS. [8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(2), (3), (5)] o The performance of immigration enforcement activities by state and local officials is also authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10), which can be triggered by a declaration that there is a “mass influx of aliens.” Such enforcement activities can only be performed with the consent of the state or local government entity and pursuant to a written agreement with DHS that requires training in applicable immigration law enforcement standards and procedures and civil rights law, among other things. [28 C.F.R. § 65.84(a)(3)(vii)] • Federal law makes it clear that state and local governments may, but are not required to, enter into written agreements with DHS. [8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10) and § 1357(g)(9)]
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 166 of 195 Does federal law prohibit any restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities?
• Yes. Federal law makes it a crime for a federal, state, or local government entity or official to “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [DHS)] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” [8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)]
• Federal law also makes it a crime to prohibit or restrict:
o Sending information regarding the immigration status of any person to DHS, or requesting or receiving such information from DHS; o Maintaining such information; or
o Exchanging such information with any other federal, state, or local government entity. [8 U.S.C. § 1373(b)]
• Although state and local jurisdictions cannot prohibit the sharing of information in their possession of “the citizenship or immigration status” of people they encounter, federal law does not require state and local officials to ask about the citizenship or immigration status of those they encounter. DHS Guidance issued in 2015 states that § 1373 [see above citation] does not provide a state or local officer with authority to investigate an individual’s immigration status or communicate it to DHS. • Information “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual” has been interpreted to apply solely to citizenship and immigration status, and not to information that might be useful to federal immigration officials, such as the release date of those in state or local detention.

Does federal law require state and local officials to detain people pursuant to civil immigration detainer warrants?
• No. Courts have held that, under the Tenth Amendment, federal immigration officials may not compel state and local officials to imprison people suspected of being unlawfully present and subject to removal in the United States.
o Courts have also held that when a person is detained on an immigration warrant after the reason for the initial detention ends, the immigration warrant detention is treated as a new seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. Under the Fourth Amendment,
detention by a state or local law enforcement officer must be based on probable cause that a crime has been committed, as found by a neutral and detached judge or magistrate. In contrast, immigration warrants are based on probable cause that the person is removable—which is not probable cause of a crime—and are signed by an ICE agent—which is not a neutral and detached judge or magistrate.

Recommendation. Continue to support and maintain Montclair’s commitment to the California Values Act (SB 54) and comply with federal immigration officials to the extent required by law.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 167 of 195

4. Consider why Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard appear to be targeted by ICE/CBP.

ICE and CBP can and do coordinate with local law enforcement, state National Guard units, and other federal agencies through formal deputization programs, memoranda of agreement, multi–agency task forces, and data sharing systems; however, the extent and nature of that sharing depend on the type of partnership and the legal framework in place.

Formal agreements and deputization programs. Through its Enforcement and Removal Operations Program, ICE uses the Section 287(g) Program under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to partner with and delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local officers after training and certification. These agreements—which ICE contends number in the thousands across dozens of states—legally authorize local officers to question, detain, and process noncitizens under ICE direction and oversight. ICE’s § 287(g) Division provides oversight, develops policy, and collaborates with stakeholders to ensure these partnerships align with enforcement goals.

Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and task forces. Beyond § 287(g), ICE and CBP often coordinate through MOAs and multi–agency task forces for the assignment of roles such as serving administrative warrants, transporting detainees, or conducting joint investigations. ICE and DHS present these as “force multipliers” to target serious criminal networks. Critics argue, however, that participation can turn local police into de facto deportation agents.

Information and intelligence sharing. ICE and CBP collaborate with other law enforcement to share intelligence, resources, and expertise through joint task forces, data–sharing systems, and training programs. This includes sharing information about individuals flagged for immigration enforcement, as well as operational intelligence on transnational criminal activity. CBP works closely with state and local agencies at ports of entry and along borders to coordinate enforcement actions.

Strategic and tactical planning. While ICE and CBP do not typically publish their full strategic or tactical plans to the public, they do share operational priorities and enforcement strategies with partner agencies through formal agreements.

This can include targeting high–priority individuals, disrupting criminal networks, and responding to emerging threats. The level of detail shared depends on the sensitivity of the information and the scope of the partnership.

Despite the above, and as indicated in Response “No. 3,” above, under the California Values Act (SB 54) Montclair does not allow the use of its Police facilities for ICE–related detention efforts, nor does it cooperate with ICE except as provided by law. SB 54, signed into law in 2017, limits California state and local law enforcement from participating in federal immigration enforcement, establishing California as a sanctuary state. SB 54 is designed to protect immigrant communities by restricting the use of state and local resources for federal immigration enforcement, while still allowing cooperation in cases involving serious or violent crimes.

ICE identifies 1771 agencies participating in the Section 287(g) Program. The list, as well as Illustration 2 on the following page, demonstrate that California and its cities, including Montclair, pursuant to SB 54, do not generally participate with ICE under the Section 287(g) Program.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 168 of 195 Illustration 2
ICE 287(g) Program Map
Of the agencies participating in ICE’s 287(g) Program, Graph 1, below, shows the states with the most agencies participating:

Graph 1
States With Most Agencies Participating in ICE's 287(g) Program MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 169 of 195 Graph 2, below shows the growth in the number of agencies participating in ICE’s 287(g) Program since January 20, 2025:

Graph 2
Growth in Number of Agencies Participating in ICE’s 287(g) Program ICE also publishes its § 287(g) Monthly Encounter Report, detailing monthly participation by designated immigration officers from local law enforcement agencies. Published reports demonstrate no activity by California law enforcement agencies, including Montclair.

Coordination with ICE has become a politically and legally fraught proposition for local governments. Lawsuits, court rulings, and the growth of sanctuary policies illustrate local pushbacks against ICE and the litigation risks for participating agencies.

The above discussion clarifies that the City of Montclair, except as required by law, does not participate in ICE–related enforcement activities. This is not to say that law enforcement for Montclair does not respond to calls, either from ICE or reporting parties, for service that may be related to an ICE enforcement activity.

Montclair law enforcement does respond to calls for service from all reporting parties; however, Montclair law enforcement does not directly participate in ICE– related enforcement activities, and Montclair is not a § 287(g) community, nor does Montclair maintain a Memorandum of Understanding with ICE for the purpose of supporting or engaging in immigration–related enforcement activities in the City of Montclair..

Neither the City of Montclair nor Montclair Police Department are provided with advanced information from DHS, ICE or CBP related to immigration enforcement activities in the Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard neighborhoods or any neighborhoods throughout Montclair. It would, however, be customary and appropriate for DHS, ICE or CBP to advise the Montclair Police Department of any major tactical operation in Montclair, just as it would be customary for any law enforcement agency to do so. As a general practice, and unless there is a request to provide perimeter support, the Montclair Police Department does not participate in immigration enforcement activities outside the restrictions provided for in SB 54.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 170 of 195 City staff are of the opinion that, based on available Census Tract data, the subject neighborhood would be defined by DHS as a concentrated target area for ICE enforcement due to neighborhood demographics—please see the illustrative detail regarding demographic comparisons between Montclair, generally, and the specified Census Tract area (Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard) included in your agenda packet as Exhibit 1 – Demographic Comparison; Exhibit 2 –Montclair, CA Census Data; and Exhibit 3 – Census Tract 3.05.

The subject Census Tract 3.05 is a 0.2–square–mile section of southern Montclair bounded roughly by Holt Boulevard, Mills Avenue, Kinglsey Street, and Monte Vista Avenue. Although it represents only about 14 percent of Montclair's population, the tract diverges sharply from the citywide profile across nearly every demographic, economic, and housing indicator.

Notable key measures for the subject Census Tract are indicated in Table 2, below:

Table 2
Demographic Comparison – City of Montclair v. Census Tract 3.05 INDICATOR MONTCLAIR CITY CENSUS TRACT 3.05
TOTAL POPULATION 37,810 5,360
LAND AREA 5.5 square miles 0.2 square miles
POPULATION DENSITY 6,836 25,172
MAJORITY SEX 51% Female 53% Male
HISPANIC (ANY RACE) 73% 83%
WHITE, NON–HISPANIC 10% 5%
ASIAN, NON–HISPANIC 10% 10%
BLACK, NON–HISPANIC 6% 1%
TWO+ RACES, NON–HISPANIC 1% 1%
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $77,659 $57,988
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING < $50K 34% 42%
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100K+ 39% 19%
PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LINE 17.7% 24.8%
CHILDREN (UNDER 18) IN POVERTY 24% 37%
SENIORS (65+) IN POVERTY 17% 32%
OWNER–OCCUPIED HOUSING 55% 14%
RENTER–OCCUPIED HOUSING 45% 86%
MARRIED–COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS 56% 49%
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR HIGHER 74.2% 65.0%
BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER 18.8% 16.7%
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 171 of 195 Discussion of Key Differences between Citywide and Census Tract 3.05 The single most defining feature of Census Tract 3.05 is its housing stock. The Census Tract is roughly 3.7 times denser than Montclair as a whole (25,172 vs. 6,836 people per square mile), 74 percent of its structures are multi–unit buildings, and 86 percent of occupied units are renter–occupied—the latter the inverse of the citywide 55 percent owner–occupancy rate. Recent relocations to the Census Tract reinforce this “inverse” data: 61 percent of residents moved in between 2010 and 2017, with another 17 percent arriving during 2018–2020, indicating that most of the Census Tract's housing was repopulated through the post–Recession multifamily wave.

Economically, Census Tract 3.05 is materially more stressed than Montclair as a whole. Per capita income is 29 percent below the City figure, and median household income is 25 percent lower. The income distribution is shifted toward the bottom: 42 percent of tract households earn under $50,000 (vs. 34 percent citywide), while only 19 percent reach the $100,000–plus tier (vs. 39 percent citywide). Poverty follows the same pattern, but the gap widens at the most vulnerable margins: child poverty in the tract (37 percent) runs 13 points above the City average, and senior poverty (32 percent) runs 15 points above.

Racially and ethnically, Census Tract 3.05 is more concentrated than the City, not more diverse. Montclair is already a Hispanic–majority community at 73 percent, but the tract pushes that distribution to 83 percent Hispanic–majority. The non– Hispanic White population is half the citywide share (5 percent vs. 10 percent), and the non–Hispanic Black share drops from 6 percent citywide to 1 percent in the subject Census Tract. The Asian demographic share is essentially identical (10 percent in both).

Educational attainment in the subject Census Tract trails modestly: 65 percent of adults 25 and older have a high school diploma or higher (vs. 74 percent citywide), and 17 percent hold a bachelor's degree or higher (vs. 19 percent).

Notably, the foreign–born population share runs lower in the subject Census Tract than in Montclair overall (22 percent vs. roughly 33 percent), meaning the subject Census Tract is not driving the Montclair's immigrant population profile—instead, it is pulling the citywide average downward.

Summary of Census Tract Data
Census Tract 3.05 reads as a dense, predominantly Hispanic, renter–dominant, lower–income, younger–skewing apartment corridor. This profile diverges meaningfully from Montclair's citywide averages. Whereas, Montclair skews toward homeowner–majority with a middle–aged population and moderately diverse housing, the subject tract concentrates renters in multifamily housing, with elevated poverty rates affecting both children and seniors at notably higher levels than the rest of the City.

City staff conclude that the demographic factors identified in Table 1 place the subject Census Tract within a defined community profile identified by DHS, ICE and/or CBP as target areas for potential concentration of ICE–related enforcement activity. This conclusion is supported by similar demographic details for other target areas and neighboring communities where ICE has established an enforcement presence.

The data suggests that, as with surge–related enforcement activities in major metropolitan cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Minneapolis, ICE’s MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 172 of 195 guiding and overall strategy is to conduct enforcement activities in neighborhoods with demographics that suggest success in meeting targeted goals for detentions and deportations as established by the federal administration.

State–Based Factors Related to ICE and § 287(g) Agreements: It is likely that ICE activity in Montclair is also tied to the current approach individual states take toward cooperation with ICE. Since mid–2025, as discussed in Response “No. 4,” above, ICE has seen a growth in the number of states participating in its § 287(g) Agreements Program—participating states are generally those states referred to as “Red States,” or conservative–leaning states. In these § 287(g) participant states, ICE arrests are generally made as undocumented immigrants are released from local jails and prisons. According to available data, 59 percent of ICE arrests in Red States happen inside jails and prisons.

In contrast, 70 percent of ICE arrest in the “Blue States,” or liberal–leaning states take place in individual communities at work sites and on the streets where ICE enforcement actions often target people who have no criminal record. Blue States do not generally participate in ICE’s § 287(g) Program.

While this divide in how ICE agents conduct enforcement activities in Red v. Blue States is not new, it has grown in scope and size over the past year due to the unprecedented $191 billion allocated by Congress to DHS for enforcement, alone, in the 2025 reconciliation bill—the bill includes $74.85 billion for ICE, $64.73 billion for CBP, $24.59 billion for the Coast Guard, and $22 billion for an unspecified enforcement fund. ICE has also hired more than 10,000 agents since the funding was approved.

Congress is now considering allocating an additional $70 billion to ICE and CBP through the budget reconciliation process, with the goal of funding both departments through January 2029. The proposed legislation lacks the typical guardrails required for Congressional oversight, including authority to inspect detention facilities and the requirement that enforcement and detention practices adhere to basic civil rights—both functions previously considered critical by Congress in assessing agency performance.

For immigrants, the practical effects of these varying policies are clear: in Red States, and pursuant to § 287(g) Agreements, ICE is more likely to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants as they are released from jail or prison, even after serving time for even minor offenses. In Blue States, because state and local law enforcement typically do not cooperate with ICE, ICE agents must find and arrest immigrants in public spaces, at work, on the street, or during large–scale sweeps. In these instances, undocumented immigrants are arrested even if they have never been charged with a crime. These community–based arrests are typically disruptive and happen without advance warning to local law enforcement.

Recent reporting does indicate that the San Bernardino County and Riverside Sheriff’s Departments are transferring detainees to ICE at a rate that exceeds the State average. These detainee transfers, however, do not appear to be related to § 287(g) Agreements. Instead, detainee transfers in California are following federal law as discussed under Response “No. 3”, above.

According to the reporting, in 2025, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department transferred 158 of the 1,380 people in their jails with an immigrant detainer to ICE custody—a rate of 11.4 percent. In San Bernardino County, the reporting indicates MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 173 of 195 that 180 of the 1,674 people with an ICE detainer were transferred—a rate of 10.8 percent. Across California, in 2025, 2,077 people out of the 24,438 people with immigration detainers were transferred to ICE custody, or 8.49 percent. The Los Angeles and Orange County Sheriff’s Departments transferred 4.6 percent and 7.6 percent respectively, of prisoners with immigration detainers.

Based on the data, the Riverside and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Departments ranked 12th and 13th, respectively, in turnover rates out of the State’s 58 counties.

The report further indicates that, despite California’s SB 54, some law enforcement agencies (the report cites Riverside County) in California do retain memorandums of understanding “clarifying what they will and won’t do with federal immigration authorities.” The report further attributes the Inland Empire’s “cooperative” behavior with ICE to its proximity to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

The report’s data is derived from the Deportation Data Project, and has been disputed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which reports only 1,423 notifications from ICE, and 47 people transferred to ICE custody, not 180.

The Riverside Sheriff’s Department has responded that it complies with the law, without discretion, and that if an inmate meets the requirements under SB 54 for transfer eligibility, ICE’s transfer requests are complied with.

Recommendation. Response No. 4 is information based and does not require a specific recommendation. Montclair will continue to comply with provisions of SB 54 and will not enter into Memorandums of Understanding or § 287(g) Agreements with DHS, ICE or CBP.

In addition, to the above four points, discussion on both the March 16, 2026, and April 6, 2026, City Council meetings indicated a need to respond to the following:

1. Consider adoption of a policy related to a “no–mask” policy for law enforcement personnel, particularly federal agents assigned to ICE/CBP.

During a series of federal immigration enforcement actions in 2025 and into 2026 across California and many parts of the nation, federal ICE agents detaining people wore (and continue to wear) masks over their faces, creating concern, confusion, panic and resistance among the public. The California Legislature responded with SB 805 (The “No Vigilantes Act”) and SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”), both signed into law by Governor Newsom in September 2025. • SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act, requires law enforcement officers in California to visibly display identification—the bill is now temporarily blocked. SB 805, signed into law on September 20, 2025, aims to enhance transparency and public safety by requiring all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal, state and local personnel to visibly display identification showing the name of their agency and either the law enforcement officer’s name or badge number during enforcement activities. The legislation was enacted in response to reports of unidentified masked officers detaining individuals in public spaces, creating fear, panic, concern, confusion and resistance in targeted communities, especially among the immigrant population. The bill became law on January 1, 2026.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 174 of 195 Key features included in SB 805:
▪ Visible Identification. Officers were required to display agency name or badge number, unless exempted for undercover
operations or critical reasons.
▪ Bounty Hunters. Prohibited from participating in immigration enforcement.
▪ Policy Requirements. Law enforcement agencies would have been required to publicly post written policies, affirming commitment to transparency, accountability, and public trust.
▪ Penalties. Willful violations would be misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in county jail, a fine of $1,000, or both. ▪ Exemptions. Were provided for active undercover operations, SWAT/tactical team operations, dignitary protection, and exigent circumstances.

Status of SB 805: On April 22, 2026, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, in U.S. v. Gavin Newsom, handed down a ruling prohibiting California from enforcing a section of the 2025 law that mandates federal law enforcement officers visibly display identification while carrying out their duties. The decision by the three–judge panel of the 9th Circuit indefinitely extends a temporary ruling issued in February 2026, pending appeal. The Court ruled the law is unconstitutional under the U.S.

Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Federal authorities argued that SB 805 directly regulates federal officers, potentially violating the Supremacy Clause.
o A companion law to the No Vigilantes Act, SB 627, which bans face coverings for federal agents with some exceptions, was struck down by a federal judge in Los Angeles in February. The judge in that hearing allowed the badge and identification requirement to remain in effect [until it could be heard on appeal], but found the ban on face masks to be unconstitutional because it applied to federal officers and not to state police agencies. The California Legislature is now considering SB 1004, applying the no–mask rule to all peace officers in the state.

The 9th Circuit concluded that “[The law] purports to override the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers,” . . .. and that “The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.” The Court further stated that “The [No Vigilantes] Act does not regulate conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform . . .. Rather, it applies exclusively to law enforcement agencies and their officers, including federal law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement officers.” The Court went on to say, "We conclude that [section] 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions.”
The DOJ had sued to block SB 805, citing federal court precedent. In re Neagle, an 1890 Supreme Court case, provides that a state cannot prosecute federal law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties. In November 2025, the DOJ, in an earlier hearing before the U.S.

District Court, argued that forcing agents to reveal their identities would MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 175 of 195 put the agents at risk, alleging that during ICE actions people can be heard threatening to find out who officers and their family members are and where they live for the purpose of harassing them and their families.

Other rulings, however, like a 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, standoff to go to trial. The ruling stated that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions, and do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.

The conflicting cases serve as the basis for an appeal of the 9th Circuit Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will ultimately be settled.
• SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, prohibited law enforcement officers from wearing masks while performing their duties. SB 627, signed into law on September 20, 2025, aims to increase public trust in law enforcement and government institutions by restricting ICE agents from wearing masks during enforcement activities. The state argues the ban ensures the public can clearly identify individuals exercising law enforcement authority. The bill became law on January 1, 2026.

Key features included in SB 627:
▪ Prohibition on Masks. The bill made it a misdemeanor for law enforcement officers to wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public, with specific exceptions for medical grade masks and protective gear used in tactical situations. ▪ Exceptions. Officers engaged in undercover assignments or requiring protective gear for safety were exempt.
▪ Policy Requirement. By July 1, 2026, all state law enforcement agencies would have been required to maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting facial coverings by their personnel. ▪ Civil Penalties. Officers found to have committed tortious acts while wearing a mask in violation of the law would face civil penalties, including liability for damages.

Status of SB 627. Under SB 627, state law gave law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to assert “qualified immunity,”—the doctrine that protects officers from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing those offenses while wearing a mask is $10,000. The state argued the law was necessary to rein in anonymous federal agents.

The DOJ argued that California does not have the power to regulate federal officials doing their jobs and asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction to block the law while the case is pending. The DOJ also argued that masking is critical to the safety of federal officers because they are subject to “greater risks of being doxed, harassed, assaulted, or threatened,” particularly in so–called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” On February 9, 2026, a U.S. District Court Judge, in United States v. State of California, issued a ruling, stating that while California had the general MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 176 of 195 power to prohibit federal officers from wearing masks, it could not do so in a discriminatory way. By not imposing the same requirements on all state officers, SB 627 conflicted with the authority granted to the federal government and, therefore, the Court blocked its enforcement.

The Court recognized that federal law enforcement officers, “like many public figures, including judges, politicians, and celebrities” are exposed to such risks by virtue of their public work, and did not see how wearing masks was helpful in this “tense political environment.” “If anything,” the Judge wrote, “the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
Within hours of the ruling, SB 1004 was introduced in the California Legislature, changing SB 627 so that it applied the no–mask rule to all peace officers in the state as recommended under the United States v. State of California decision. If SB 1004 becomes law, it would seemingly eliminate the basis for the preliminary injunction imposed under United States v. State of California. SB 1004 was introduced as an urgency statute necessary “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect” upon approval.

California police unions stood opposed to the ban, arguing that it would put state law enforcement in a tenuous situation, placing them in the precarious position of facing off against federal officers over the wearing of masks.

Los Angeles County supervisors also approved a local mask ban on law enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county—the measure would have gone into effect in January 2026, pending a decision by the Court.

State lawmakers across the nation have also pushed against the wearing of face coverings while on duty, though only a few have enacted such laws.

New Jersey was the second state, following California, to enact a mask ban policy, with Washington following New Jersey. After a federal judge struck down California’s ban, noting that a ban covering state and federal law enforcement could be constitutionally permissible, Washington extended its facial covering law to cover all federal, state and local law enforcement officers.

Lawmakers in at least 27 other states have introduced or are considering bills addressing masks for law enforcement, including Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Rhode Island. Each of the proposed bills generally prohibit law enforcement from wearing masks that conceal their identity while on duty, with exceptions for undercover work, safety equipment and medical use. Like California’s companion bills, some measures also require officers to display visible identification, restrict enforcement in sensitive locations, or allow courts to consider mask use when determining civil penalties.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 177 of 195 Despite the reversals to SB 627 and SB 805, California law adopted under the package of bills continues requiring that families be notified if immigration authorities are coming to schools; prevents data about students from being shared with ICE without a warrant; prevents ICE officers from targeting patients in emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of hospitals; and makes impersonation of a federal agent a crime.

The California Legislature is also considering advancing other bills targeting immigration agents, including proposals that would bar them from future employment in California law enforcement agencies, and a measure that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents or seek redress against local, state and federal officers for violating their constitutional rights.

Recommendation. Decisions by both the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.

District Court have effectively blocked both SB 805 (The “No Vigilantes Act”) and SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”), undermining Montclair’s ability to consider any local measure similar to the local mask ban adopted by the Board of Supervisor’s for Los Angeles County’s unincorporated areas.

Following the April 22, 2026, decision in United States v. State of California, a new bill, SB 1004, was introduced in the California Legislature, changing SB 627 so that it applied the no–mask rule to all law enforcement officers in the state as recommended under the United States v. State of California decision. If SB 1004 becomes law, it would seemingly eliminate the basis for the preliminary injunction imposed under United States v. State of California.

In addition, similar laws have been passed, are pending, or have been introduced in an estimated 29 other states; further, a law passed in Washington state requires a mask ban for all federal, state and local law enforcement personnel, with exceptions. The DOJ argues these laws are in violation of the Supremacy Clause and is challenging their legitimacy.

At this time, any ordinance adopted by the Montclair City Council imposing a ban on masks for law enforcement personnel acting in the capacity of their official duties related to enforcement would be in violation of a valid court decision. The California Constitution and the state’s statutory framework set clear limits on what local ordinances can do. Specifically, Article XI, Section 7 of the state’s Constitution grants cities and counties the power to make and enforce local ordinances “not in conflict with general law.”
If an ordinance contradicts a state statute, a federal law, or a decision from a court that is binding on the state, it is invalid to the extent of the conflict. If a local agency attempts to adopt an ordinance that violates state law or a binding court decision, the ordinance will be unenforceable and may be struck down in court.

Violating such an ordinance can also expose the local agency to legal liability, including fines or other penalties for noncompliance.

State statutes take precedence over local ordinances. If a city or county ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area occupied by general law, it is considered invalid. This “preemptive rule” applies whether the conflict is with a statute or a court decision that interprets or applies state law. California does have a “home rule” provision (Article XI, Section 5) that allows certain charter cities to regulate “municipal affairs” that may supersede inconsistent state laws; this authority, however, is limited to areas explicitly defined as municipal affairs and still cannot override state law or constitutional rights.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 178 of 195 If the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of states in relation to no mask mandates and/or the visible display of identification by all federal, state and local law enforcement officers, California law would settle the matter, and adoption of a local ordinance would likely be unnecessary. Provided adoption of such an ordinance is not preempted by the state, City staff, at City Council direction, would prepare the necessary ordinance.

2. Consider removal of FLOCK safety devices/cameras or otherwise prohibit the sharing of FLOCK–generated data.

FLOCK is a public safety technology company used by the Montclair Police Department to locate vehicles, investigate incidents and collaborate across jurisdictions while maintaining clear privacy safeguards, local control and responsible data use. The service builds on the use of connected camera technology and investigative systems to help respond to and investigate safety incidents using objective evidence, while maintaining clear privacy safeguards, local control and responsible date use. The Montclair Police Department maintains full control over FLOCK camera usage, access permissions and data retention.

Because most crimes, including theft, burglary, assault and missing person cases involve vehicles, the Montclair Police Department selected FLOCK camera technology to provide objective vehicle information, allowing the City’s investigative unit to gather strong, documented leads.

FLOCK cameras focus on capturing specific vehicle information as vehicles pass through a defined location. Collected data includes license plate numbers, vehicle make, model, color and body type and the date, time and general location of the detection. The FLOCK cameras are placed at common vehicle access points such as neighborhood entrances and parking lot exists, keeping data collection limited to information relevant to public safety.

The FLOCK camera system does not:
• Use facial recognition technology. Searches are based on vehicle characteristics, not personal identity. FLOCK cameras cannot recognize, identify, or track people. FLOCK cameras are built for specific public safety investigations, not to monitor people. FLOCK cameras do not generate immigrant–related data. The Montclair Police Department does not use FLOCK camera–generated data for immigration enforcement activities. • Allow for external access to data. Access to FLOCK camera–generated data is fully managed by the Montclair Police Department and limited to authorized users with role–based permissions. Every search is tied to a specific user and automatically recorded. There are no open browsing of data and no anonymous searches, and every search is recorded to make certain agency rules and state law are followed and is reviewable by designated supervisors in the Montclair Police Department. • Permit FLOCK data to be automatically merged into a national database. The Montclair Police Department fully controls its FLOCK–generated data independent of other agencies but may elect to share data through a broader network governed by defined agreements and limited to lawful investigative purposes. Pursuant to the California Values Act (SB 54), discussed above under “Response No. 4,” Montclair does not share FLOCK camera or other data with ICE or other federal immigration agencies.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 179 of 195 o FLOCK limits the use of its technology for specific public safety investigations, and the Montclair Police Department is responsible for making certain the technology is used only for the stated purposes.

FLOCK is an independent company, and is not associated or integrated with Palantir Technologies, a company that provides operating systems to the U.S. government.

Further, FLOCK reports that Palantir does not have access to FLOCK customer data.

Why is Palantir Technologies a concern? Palantir Technologies builds software it describes as “central operating systems” for government agencies, including DHS.

It is reported that Palantir technology can turn scattered data into useful intelligence relatively fast, placing Palantir at the center of a national debate over surveillance, privacy, and civil liberties, raising questions about balancing security and privacy. The debate reflects broader questions about how democracies should use artificial intelligence and mass data analysis.
• Palantir Technologies. Palantir Technologies, is a diversified company whose identity remains linked to government work, with the goal of becoming the default operating system across the U.S. Palantir offers two primary software platforms tailored for different users and purposes. Palantir Gotham is the flagship product for government agencies described as an “enterprise platform for planning missions and running investigations using disparate data.” Gotham is the tool of choice for the defense, intelligence, and law enforcement communities, and its essential function is acting as a data fusion engine, integrating vast and varied sources (e.g., intelligence reports, financial records, social media profiles, satellite imagery, and video feeds) into a single, unified analytical environment to produce a “common intelligence picture.”
Palantir’s true power lies in artificial intelligence and machine learning integration. These features allow Gotham to go beyond organizing data, allowing it to use algorithms for analysis at scales and speeds beyond human capability. The software employs AI models for predictive analytics, used to “forecast market demand, streamline operations, or anticipate terrorist threats.” Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) allows organizations to build, test, and deploy their own AI models and applications, including generative AI tools and autonomous agents directly within Foundry and Gotham environments.

Palantir’s deepest roots lie in national security, where the software is credited with helping to "neutralize thousands of adversaries” and “prevent dozens of attacks on the United States". Beyond battlefields, however, Palantir’s technology deploys across civilian and law enforcement agencies to modernize operations—key of which is its 2022 integration into DHS for Investigative Case Management (ICM)—an official “system of record” for all investigative cases. ICM is considered so essential that ICE anticipates procuring the next ICM generation on a sole–source basis from Palantir for an estimated $100 million.

Palantir faces intense criticism from civil liberties advocates, lawmakers, and former employees who argue that powerful technology in government hands poses grave threats to privacy, constitutional rights, and democratic society foundations. The most persistent criticism is that Palantir’s technology enables a de facto national surveillance system, and that Palantir is helping to build a "mega–database” combining sensitive personal information on MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 180 of 195 Americans, linking records from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, and Internal Revenue Service. This perception was triggered by an executive order from the current federal administration requiring federal agencies to eliminate data sharing barriers.

Lawmakers have expressed alarm that the above combination of policy and technology could create a “digital ID” for every American. Palantir responds that the suspicions are wrong and that “there is no contract or project under the federal administration for Palantir to build something like a whole–of– government master database on Americans.”
Critics point to specific controversial applications as evidence of threats to civil liberties. Palantir’s long–standing relationship with ICE has been a particular flashpoint. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups condemn Palantir’s work, arguing its software is a key tool enabling ICE’s deportation and detention operations. Critics also point to ICE’s Investigative Case Management system [discussed above] as a tool that has been used to target and detain individuals based on flimsy, algorithmically generated connections, bypassing constitutional protections like Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.

Another criticism involves what is referred to as “algorithmic bias risks.” AI systems learn from training data, and if historical data reflects existing societal biases, AI can learn, perpetuate, and amplify those biases at scale.

In the law enforcement context, critics argue this leads to “increased racial profiling and disproportionate policing of minority groups.” AI trained on historical arrest data from neighborhoods subjected to “biased over– policing” would likely identify those neighborhoods as “high–risk,” justifying additional law enforcement activity, thereby creating discriminatory feedback loops—this latter concern addressing community fears related to the targeting of specific neighborhoods in Montclair.

Palantir maintains it “does not permit its software to be used for racial profiling,” critics, however, contend the systems’ very logic makes such outcomes almost inevitable.

Recommendation. The Montclair Police Department (MPD) has successfully deployed and used FLOCK cameras to retrieve stolen vehicles, investigate and solve major crimes, and achieve major public safety outcomes for the Montclair community. Data generated by FLOCK cameras is not generally shared with DHS, ICE or CBF except by warrant. FLOCK camera–generated data may be shared with neighboring police agencies for public safety purposes, and its generated data is integral to reports prepared for submission of crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Its valued integration into MPD’s investigatory practices cannot be overemphasized. Because of FLOCK’s great value for law enforcement, City Staff recommend against elimination of FLOCK cameras from MPD’s inventory of investigative tools.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) is the cornerstone for federal data privacy.

Enacted following Watergate, its purpose balances government needs to maintain individual information with privacy rights. The Act establishes rules for how federal agencies can collect, use, and disclose personally identifiable information. A central concept is the “system of records”—a group of records under agency control from which information is retrieved by personal identifiers like names, Social Security numbers, or other identifying symbols.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 181 of 195 When agencies maintain such systems, they must publish a System of Records Notice (SORN) in the Federal Register, describing the system’s purpose, record types, and information use. The Act grants individuals’ rights to access and request corrections to records about themselves.

The Privacy Act has significant electronic data and AI limitations. Its “system of records” definition struggles with modern databases where individual information can be retrieved through complex queries and algorithmic analysis, not just simple name searches. Further, the Act contains broad exemptions for law enforcement and national security systems, limiting applicability to many of Palantir’s most significant government clients. Palantir argues that its work with agencies like the IRS complies with the Privacy Act, but critics argue the Act is insufficient for addressing today’s powerful data–linking capability and privacy implications.

One of the most significant U.S. legislative proposals designed to address the “modern–day” weaknesses of The Privacy Act is the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023. This bill aims to create new safeguards for systems making “critical decisions” affecting Americans’ lives, including access to housing, employment, credit, and education. The Accountability Act’s core requirement would mandate companies using or selling these systems to conduct detailed impact assessments evaluating consumer effects. These assessments would analyze systems for potential flaws, safety risks, and discriminatory bias based on factors like race, gender, or religion.

The Accountability Act would empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create structured assessment guidelines and require companies to report documentation to the agency. Crucially, it would create a public repository of information about where automated systems are being used, giving consumers and advocates unprecedented transparency. This legislation would directly apply to Palantir’s government work. Using its software for law enforcement, border control, or public benefits administration would almost certainly be defined as making “critical decisions,” triggering mandatory impact assessment and transparency requirements for both Palantir and government agency clients. City Staff recommend encouraging the City’s Congressional representatives to support passing the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT: Receiving and filing this report has no direct fiscal impact on the General Fund.

In relation to establishing a Local Support Fund for immigrants and/or families of immigrants impacted by ICE/CBP enforcement actions, directing the expenditure of funds to the Montclair Community Partners Support Fund (MCPSF) could potentially have an economic impact on the General Fund and/or the Montclair Community Foundation based on the amount recommended for allocation by the City Council.

In relation to adopting a policy prohibiting ICE/CBP from staging on City–owned property, approving any such action could result in General Fund litigation costs and costs related to posting of signs.

In relation to establishing restrictions that would prohibit City interaction with companies/agencies engaging with ICE/CBP, including restrictions against the sharing of data, City staff anticipates no identifiable costs to the General Fund.

In relation to why Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard appear to be targeted by ICE/CBP, the response is informational only and City staff anticipates no identifiable costs to the General Fund.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 182 of 195 In relation to the additional two points:

1. Consider adoption of a policy related to a “no–mask” policy for law enforcement personnel, particularly federal agents assigned to ICE/CBP approving any such action could result in General Fund litigation costs.

2. Consider removal of FLOCK safety devices/cameras or otherwise prohibit the sharing of FLOCK–generated data – removal of the FLOCK system would have deleterious effects on the Montclair Police Department’s ability to investigate criminal activity and would likely require additional personnel for crime analysis.

Elimination of the FLOCK camera system would reduce General Fund expenditures by approximately $100,000 annually.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Receive and file a response to City Council Inquiry regarding ongoing immigration enforcement activities in Montclair by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection, and

2. Provide direction to staff based on the information presented in the agenda report in relation to the following matters:

A. Establishing a Local Support Fund for immigrants and/or families of immigrants impacted by ICE/CBP enforcement actions.

Recommendation: Consider authorizing an allocation of $25,000 to $50,000 to the Montclair Community Partnership Support Fund (MCPSF). If the approved donation is $50,000, City staff recommends an initial $25,000 donation to the MCPSF, with another $25,000 as a match based on receipt of equivalent donations from other non–profit/individual/corporate/faith–based contributing partners. Any City donation approved by the City Council would be transferred from the General Fund. City staff is of the opinion that the current position of the General Fund cannot support a contribution above the proposed allocation range. City staff will seek to secure grants and/or donations from contributing partners.

B. Adoption of a policy prohibiting ICE/CBP from staging on City–owned property.

Recommendation: Await the outcome of U.S. v. State of New Jersey before making any determination related to establishing an ICE–free zone policy, particularly when any such policy would likely be symbolic, only.

At this time, City staff recommends against an ICE–free zone policy and, if directed, would return this item to the City Council for future consideration if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agrees that such policies, and in what form, are permissible.

C. Establishing restrictions that would prohibit City interaction with companies/agencies engaging with ICE/CBP, including restrictions against the sharing of data.

Recommendation: Continue to support and maintain Montclair’s commitment to the California Values Act (SB 54) and comply with federal immigration officials to the extent required by law.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 183 of 195 D. Identifying why Monte Vista Avenue to Mills Avenue and Kingsley Boulevard to Holt Boulevard appear to be targeted by ICE/CBP.

Recommendation: Response is for information only and does not require a specific recommendation. Montclair will continue to comply with provisions of SB 54 and will not enter Memorandums of Understanding or § 287(g) Agreements with DHS, ICE or CBP.

E. Adoption of a policy related to a “no–mask” policy for law enforcement personnel, particularly federal agents assigned to ICE/CBP.

Recommendation: If the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of states in relation to no mask mandates and/or the visible display of identification by all federal, state and local law enforcement officers, California law would settle the matter, and adoption of a local ordinance would likely be unnecessary.

Provided adoption of such an ordinance is not preempted by the state, City staff, at City Council direction, would prepare the necessary ordinance.

F. Removal of FLOCK safety devices/cameras or otherwise prohibit the sharing of FLOCK–generated data.

Recommendation:
a. The Montclair Police Department (MPD) has successfully deployed and used FLOCK cameras to retrieve stolen vehicles, investigate and solve major crimes, and achieve major public safety outcomes for the Montclair community. Data generated by FLOCK cameras is not generally shared with DHS, ICE or CBF except by warrant. FLOCK camera–generated data may be shared with neighboring police agencies for public safety purposes, and its generated data is integral to reports prepared for submission of crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Its valued integration into MPD’s investigatory practices cannot be overemphasized. Because of FLOCK’s great value for law enforcement, City Staff recommends the City Council not eliminate FLOCK cameras from the MPD’s inventory of investigative tools.
b. Designed to address weaknesses in The Privacy Act of 1974, the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 (Accountability Act) aims to created new safeguards for software/hardware systems making “critical decisions” affecting the lives of Americans, including safeguards related to housing, employment, credit and education. Core to the Algorithmic Accountability Act is a mandate that companies using or selling critical data collection systems, particularly to the federal government, conduct detailed impact assessments evaluating consumer effects including for potential flaws, safety risks, and discriminatory bias. The Accountability Act would empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create structured assessment guidelines related to operation of government data collection systems, particularly in relation to their capture of personal data, and require companies to report documentation and use of capturing tools to the FTC. Crucially, the Accountability Act would create a public repository of information about where automated data collection systems are being used, giving consumers and advocates unprecedented transparency. City Staff recommend encouraging Montclair’s Congressional representatives to support passing the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 184 of 195 Demographic Comparison
City of Montclair vs. Census Tract 3.05 (GEOID 06071000305) Prepared April 30, 2026 • Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 5-Year Estimates Overview
Census Tract 3.05 is a 0.2-square-mile slice of southern Montclair bounded roughly by Holt Boulevard, Mills Avenue, Kinglsey Street, and Monte Vista Avenue. Although it represents only about 14 percent of Montclair's population, the tract diverges sharply from the citywide profile across nearly every demographic, economic, and housing indicator. The table that follows consolidates the key measures, and the narrative below summarizes the most consequential differences.

Side-by-Side Comparison
Indicator Montclair (City) Tract 3.05 Direction / Gap
Population & Density
Total population 37,810 5,360 —
Land area (sq miles) 5.5 0.2 —
Population density (per sq mi) 6,836 25,172 ~3.7× denser Age & Sex
Median age (years) 33.7 27.5 6.2 years younger
Majority sex 51% Female 53% Male Flipped
Race & Ethnicity
Hispanic (any race) 73% 83% +10 pts
White, non-Hispanic 10% 5% −5 pts
Asian, non-Hispanic 10% 10% Same
Black, non-Hispanic 6% 1% −5 pts
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 1% 1% Same
Income
Per capita income $27,549 $19,540 −29%
Median household income $77,659 $57,988 −25%
Households earning < $50K 34% 42% +8 pts
Households earning $100K+ 39% 19% −20 pts
Poverty
Persons below poverty line 17.7% 24.8% +7.1 pts
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 185 of 195 Indicator Montclair (City) Tract 3.05 Direction / Gap
Children (under 18) in poverty 24% 37% +13 pts
Seniors (65+) in poverty 17% 32% +15 pts
Housing
Housing units 10,974 1,619 —
Owner-occupied 55% 14% Flipped
Renter-occupied 45% 86% Flipped
Single-unit structures 64% 26% −38 pts
Multi-unit structures ~33% 74% Flipped
Median value (owner-occupied) $569,100 N/A (insufficient sample) —
Moved in 2010 or later 58% 83% +25 pts
Households & Family
Number of households 10,652 1,549 —
Persons per household 3.5 3.5 Same
Married-couple households 56% 49% −7 pts
Women 15–50 who gave birth past
year

7.3% 10% +37%
Education (age 25+)
High school graduate or higher 74.2% 65.0% −9.2 pts
Bachelor's degree or higher 18.8% 16.7% −2.1 pts
Other Social Indicators
Foreign-born population ~33% 22% −11 pts
Mean travel time to work (min) 30.2 30.4 ~Same
Note: Values marked with the † symbol on the source profile carry margins of error of at least 10 percent of the total value and should be treated as directional rather than precise. Tract-level race, poverty (children/seniors), and fertility figures all fall in this category.

Discussion of Key Differences
The single most defining feature of Tract 3.05 is its housing stock. The tract is roughly 3.7 times denser than the city as a whole (25,172 vs. 6,836 people per square mile), 74 percent of its structures are multiunit buildings, and 86 percent of occupied units are renter-occupied — the inverse of the citywide 55 percent owner-occupancy rate. The recency of the building stock reinforces this: 61 percent of residents moved in between 2010 and 2017, with another 17 percent arriving during 2018–2020, indicating that most of the tract's housing was produced or repopulated through the post-Recession multifamily wave.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 186 of 195 Economically, Tract 3.05 is materially more stressed than Montclair as a whole. Per capita income is 29 percent below the city figure, and median household income is 25 percent lower. The income distribution is shifted toward the bottom: 42 percent of tract households earn under $50,000 (vs. 34 percent citywide), while only 19 percent reach the $100,000-plus tier (vs. 39 percent citywide). Poverty follows the same pattern, but the gap widens at the most vulnerable margins: child poverty in the tract (37 percent) runs 13 points above the city average, and senior poverty (32 percent) runs 15 points above. The senior figure is particularly notable and may warrant attention if the tract intersects with fixed-income or senior housing populations.

Demographically, the tract is younger and more concentrated. Median age is 27.5 versus 33.7 citywide — a six-year gap that, combined with a fertility rate roughly 37 percent higher than the city (10 percent vs.

7.3 percent of women 15–50 giving birth in the past year), points to a working-age, family-forming renter population. The sex ratio also flips, with the tract running 53 percent male compared to the city's 51 percent female majority.

Racially and ethnically, Tract 3.05 is more concentrated than the city, not more diverse. Montclair is already a Hispanic-majority community at 73 percent, but the tract pushes that share to 83 percent. The non-Hispanic White population is half the citywide share (5 percent vs. 10 percent), and the non-Hispanic Black share drops from 6 percent citywide to 1 percent in the tract. The Asian share is essentially identical (10 percent in both). The combination of approximately 95 percent non-White population with a 24.8 percent poverty rate places the tract within the demographic profile that HUD and HCD typically use to identify Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), a designation that may be relevant for AFFH, CDBG, or fair housing analyses.

Educational attainment in the tract trails the city modestly: 65 percent of adults 25 and older have a high school diploma or higher (vs. 74 percent citywide), and 17 percent hold a bachelor's degree or higher (vs. 19 percent). Notably, the foreign-born share runs lower in the tract than in Montclair overall (22 percent vs. roughly 33 percent), meaning the tract is not driving the city's immigrant population profile — it is actually pulling the citywide average downward. Mean commute time is essentially identical to the citywide figure at about 30 minutes.

Summary
Tract 3.05 reads as a dense, predominantly Hispanic, renter-dominant, lower-income, younger-skewing apartment corridor — a profile that diverges meaningfully from Montclair's citywide averages. Where the city skews homeowner-majority, middle-aged, and moderately diverse in tenure and structure type, the tract concentrates renters in newer multifamily housing, with elevated poverty rates affecting both children and seniors at notably higher levels than the rest of the city. For planning, housing, grant, and fair housing purposes, the tract should be treated as a distinct sub-area rather than represented by citywide averages.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 187 of 195 i i Census Reporter ~ ''"'"
San Dimas
..Cha Oak
Montclair, CA
~
P.I?~ in: San Bernardino Countv-~ Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario.~ Ci!if2r!:!ii. 37,810
Population
Census data: ACS 2024 5-year unless noted
'Californi~"Sta1
Polytechmc Unin1

5.5 square miles
6,836.1 people per square mile
Pomona
Spadra
College Heights ,; w It I
1h I Upland
hS
- ~
w h
Wt<
w
WO
WFran )!
Uthit
Ontario
=
,
3 +
J " '
,t
Diamond Bar © Mapbox@ OpenStreetMap
Find data for this place Search by table or column name ...

Hover for margins of error and contextual data.

Demographics
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Age

33.7 ±1.7
Median age
a little less than the figure in the
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
MetroArea:35.9 ±0.2
about 90 percent of the figure In
California: 37.9 ±0.1
about 90 percent of the figure in United
States: 38.9 ±0.1
Sex
Male
Female
Population by age range Population by age category
189(,t
12%t
I 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80t
Showdata/Embed Showdata/Embed
Race & Ethnicity
73% 0 ..:;.-=-. ~ ..:;. ~ ~ --2!..._ White Black Native Asian Islander Other Two+ Hispanic Show data/ Embed • Hispanic includes respondents of any race.Other categories are non-Hispanic. Showdata/Embed Economics Income
t Marginoferrorisatlcast $27,549 10 percent of the total value. $77,659 Take care with this statistic. Per capita income Median household income t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
about three-quarters of the amount in about 90 percent of the amount in the the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA CA Metro Area: $36,450 Metro Area: $89,662
about three-fifths of the amount in
California: $49,513
about three-fifths of the amount in
United States: $44,673
Poverty

17.7%
Persons below poverty line
about 80 percent of the amount in
California: $99,122
a little less than the amount in United
States: $80,734
Children (Under 18)
about 15 times the rate in the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area: 11.9%
about 1.5 times the rate in California: 12%
about 1.4 times the rate in United States: 12.5%
Household income
Undet$SOK $SOK·$100K $100K • $200K
Seniors (65 and over)
-rty
■ Non·pc,verty €) rty
t
Showdata/Embed
Transportation to work
t Margin of error Is at least 30 2 10 percent of the total value. • minutes Take care with this statistic Mean travel time to work
Means of transportation to work
75%
Over$200K
Showdata/Embed
■ Non-poverty
Show data / Embed
about 90 percent of the figure in the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area: 33.2 139(,t t
___ ,_%'----""-'----"'----- ' '-~ __ ....:..... a little higher than the figure in California: 28.7 about 10 percent higher than the figure in United
States: 26.4
Orovealone Carpooled Publlctranslt Bicycle Walked Other Worked at home 'Universe:Workers16yearsandover Showdata/Embed
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 188 of 195 Families
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Housing
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Households
10,652
Number of households
the Riverside·San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro
Area: 1,450,250
California: 13,548,091
United States: 129,227,496
Marital status
Married
Single
• Universe: Population 15 years and over Show data/ Embed Fertility

7.3%
Women 15-50 who gave birth during
past year
about 1.4 times the rate in the Riverside-San
Bernardino·Ontario, CA Metro Area: 5.2%
about 1.5 times the rate In California: 4.8%
about 1.4 times the rate In United States: 5.1%
Units & Occupancy
10,974
Number of housing units
the Rlverslde·San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro
Area: 1,613,300
California: 14,644,735
United States: 143,775,360
Types of structure
Value
$569,100
Slngleunit
Multi-unit
■ Mobilehome
Boat,RV.van,etc.

Show data/Embed
Median value of owner-occupied
housing units
a little higher than the amount in the Riverside-San
Bernardlno·Ontarfo, CA Metro Area: $536,300
about three-.quarters of the amount In California:
$734,700
more than 1.5 times the amount in United States:
$332,700
Geographical mobility

5.9%
Moved since previous year
about three-fifths of the rate in the Riverside-San
Bernardino·Ontario, CA Metro Area: 9.5%
about half the rate in California: 10.8%
about half the rate in United States: 12.3%

3.5 Persons per household
about 10 percent higher than the figure in the
Riverside·San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area:

3.2 about 25 percent higher than the figure In California:

2.8 about 1.4 times the figure in United States: 2.5
Marital status, by sex
46% 43%
Population by household type
Marrledc:ouples
■ Male householder
Female
householder
Non-family
Show data / Embed
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Never married Nowmarrled
Women who gave birth during past year, by age group
"" 15·19
-
20-24
• Unlvetse:Women 15 to SO years
Occupied vs. Vacant
25-29
Occupied
Vacant
30-35
Showdata/Embed
Year moved In, by percentage of population
"'' Betore1990 1990, 2000.

Value of owner-occupied housing units
DI"°""'
3S-39 40-44
Ownership of occupied units
2010.2017 2018-2020
63%
Widowed
Showdata/Embed
45·50
Showdata/Embed
■ Owner occupied
Renteroccupied
Show data / Embed
Slnce2021
Showdata/Embed
U %t 13%1
~....::.... __ ,,. _ , _....::...._ ()%t
Under S100K $100K • $200K $200K • S300K $300K • S400K S400K • $SOOK $SOOK· SlM Over $1M Population migration since previous year
94%
Same houseyearago Fromsame county Fromdlfferentcounty Ftom dlfferent state Showdata/Embed
Fromabroad
Showdata/Embed
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 189 of 195 Social
t Margin of error is at least
IO percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Educational attainment

74.2% 18.8%
High school grad or higher Bachelor's degree or higher
about 90 percent of the rate in the about three-quarters of the rate in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area: 83% Metro Area: 24.5%
about 90 percent of the rate in
California: 84.7%
about 80 percent of the rate in United
States: 89.6%
Language
about half the rate in California: 37.1%
about half the rate in United States:
3S.7%
Population by highest level of education
28" 28%
---- High school Someco11ege e«helor's
• Universe: Populatlon 25 years and ewer Showdata/Embed NIA Language at home, children 5-17
No data available
Language at home, adults 18+
No data available
Persons with language other than
English spoken at home
Place of birth

30.9% Place of birth for foreign-born population
Foreign-born population
about 1.4 times the rate in the
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
Metro Area: 21.8%
about 10 percent higher than the rate
in California: 27%
more than double the rate in United
States: 14.1%
Veteran status

2.9%
Population with veteran
status
about half the rate in the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area:

5.3%
about two-thirds of the rate in
California: 4.3%
about half the rate in United States:

6.2%
25'}(,t
Veterans by wartime service
14! 37t
----- WWII Korea Vietnam
• Civilian veterans who served during wartime only
Hover for margjns of error and contextual data.
""' Africa Oceania
----
Gu1f(1990s) Gulf(2001·)
Showdata/Embed
Latin America ""' NorthetnAmerica
Showdata/Embed
836 Total veterans
796 Male
40 Female
Citation: U.S. Census Bureau (2024). American Community Survey 5-yearestfmates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Prome page for MontchJlr, CA <http:l/censusreporter.org/proflles/16000US0648788- montclalr-ca/>
R Learn about the Census
i About Census Reporter
II Censusterms&deflnitions
'I @CensusReporter
Census Reporter is a free, open-source project. Your donations help us add new data to the site and keep it running.

Data on Census Reporter comes from the US Census Bureau and is not copyrighted. • Help & feedback
(") Census Reporter on GitHub
Original text and data visualizations on ~~g by the Census Reporter project are licensed under~ @) (j) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 190 of 195 i ii Census Reporter Search for places, tables, topics, or glossaries ~ 0 (lj:!;! !'
~ ,------u-----~--~""----~ ~--------,
Census Tract 3.05, San
Bernardino, CA Census Tract in: Montclair CA San Bernardino County,J;A, California United States 5,360 0.2 square miles
Population 25,172.4 people per square mile
Census data: ACS 2024 5-year unless noted
Find data for this place Search by table or column name ...

Hover for margins of error and contextual data.

Demographics Age

27.5 Population by age range
;. '
M le ;hSc-,OCk
Orchard SI
F Jna'.>\
1 .,,_ . Rora St
,J:

Ev:rt::,t
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic. Median age
about 80 percent of the figure in
Montclair: 33.7
about 80 percent of the figure in
San Bernardino County: 34.7
·---
().9 10-19 20-29 30.39 40-49 50-59 60-69
about three-quarters of the figure
in California: 37. 9
Showdata / Embed
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Sex
■ Male
■ Female
Race & Ethnicity
1%' - --- White Black
0%
Native
10%1
-Asian
0%
Islander
HMor.ado~
Orchard St
cl:
t<:11, I j St
=
© Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
Population by age category
■ Under18
■ 18to64
64 ■ 65 and over
Showdata / Embed
Other Two+ Hispanic
Show data / Embed • Hispanic includes respondents of any race. Other categories are non-Hispanic. Showdata / Embed Economics
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Income
$19,540
Per capita income
about two-thirds of the amount in
Montclair: $27,549
about three-fifths of the amount
in San Bernardino County:
$34,343
$57,988
Median household
income
about three-quarters of the
amount in Montclair: $77,659 t
about two-thirds of the amount in
San Bernardino County: $85,478
about two-fifths of the amount in about three-fifths of the amount California: $49,513 in California: $99,122
Poverty
Children (Under 18)
Household Income
Under$50K

24.8%
Persons below poverty line 0 ■ -rty
■ Non-poverty
about 1.4 times the rate in Montclair: 17.7% t
nearly double the rate in San Bernardino
County: 13.4%
t
more than double the rate in California: 12%
Showdata / Embed
- - "'' $50K·$100K $100K • $200K Over $200K
Showdata / Embed
Seniors (65 and over)
0 ■ -rty
■ Non-poverty
t
Show data / Embed
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 191 of 195 t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Families
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Housing
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Transportation to work

30.4 minutes
Mean travel time to work
about the same as the figure in Montclair: 30.2
about 90 percent of the figure in San
Bernardino County: 32.6
a little higher than the figure in California: 28.7
Households
1,549
Number of households
Montclair: 10,652
San Bernardino County: 674,915
California: 13,548,091
Marital status
■ Married
■ Single
• Universe: Populatron 15 years and over
Showdata / Embed
Fertility
10%
Women 15-50 who gave birth
during past year
about 1.4 times the rate in Montclair: 7.3% t
nearly double the rate in San Bernardino
County: S.2%
more than double the rate in California: 4.8%
Units & Occupancy
1,619
Number of housing units
Montclair: 10,974
San Bernardino County: 743,886
California: 14,644,735
Means of transportation to work
78%
13%t
""' Drove alone Carpooled Public transit
• Universe: Workers 16 years and over
Blcyde Walked
0%
Othe< Worked at home
Showdata / Embed

3.5 Population by household type
Persons per household
about the same as the figure in Montclair: 3.5
about 10 percent higher than the figure in San
Bernardino County: 3.2
about 25 percent higher than the figure in
California: 2.8
Marital status, by sex
52%t
Male Female Male Female
Never married Nowmarrfed
15%t
.:..- Male Female
Divorced
Women who gave birth during past year, by age group
"" 15·19 "" 20·24
• Universe: Women 15 to SO years
Occupied vs. Vacant
18%t 17%t
--
25·29 30-35 35.39
Ownership of occupied units
■ Occupied
Vacant
Showdata / Embed
■ Married couples
■ Male householder
■ Female
householder
■ Non·family
Show data / Embed
Male Female
Widowed
Showdata / Embed
"" 40-44
0%

45.50 Showdata / Embed
■ owner occupied
■ Renteroccupied
Show data / Embed
Types of structure Year moved in, by percentage of population ·
■
■ --
Multi-unit
Mobile home - ■ Boat, RV, van, etc.

Showdata / Embed
Value
N/A
Median value of owner-occupied
housing units
Before1990 1990,
Value of owner--occupied housing units
60%'
""
'""' 2000,
""
2010.2017 2018·2020 Slnce2021
Showdata / Embed
--.,., - 0%
Under$100K $100K·$200K $200K·$300K $300K·$400K $400K·$500K $500K·$1M Over$1M Showdata / Embed
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 192 of 195 t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Geographical mobility

6.5%
Moved since previous year
about 10 percent higher than the rate in
Montclair: 5. 9% t
about two~thirds of the rate in San Bernardino
County: 9.6%
Population migration since previous year
94%
Same house year ago From same county From different county From dffferent state From abroad about three•.f1fths of the rate in California:

10.8%
Showdata / Embed
Social
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Educational attainment

57.8% 9.1%
High school grad or higher Bachelor's degree or
about 80 percent of the rate in
Montclair: 74.2%
higher
Population by highest level of education
about half the rate in Montclair:
about two~thirds of the rate in San 18.8% t
-
5%'
Bernardino County: 82.5% Nodegree High school Somecollege ---- Bachelor's Post•grad about two-thirds of the rate in
California: 84.7%
about two-fifths of the rate in San
Bernardino County: 23.3% • Universe: Populatlon 25 years and over Showdata / Embed t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Language
N/A
about one-quarter of the rate in
California: 37.1%
Language at home, children 5-17
No data available
Persons with language other than
English spoken at home
Place of birth

38.7%
Foreign-born population
about 25 percent higher than the
rate in Montclair: 30. 9%
more than 1.5 times the rate in
San Bernardino County: 21.6%
Place of birth for foreign-born population
0%
Europe Asia
0%
Africa
Language at home, adults 18+
No data available
0%
Oceania Latin America
0%
Northern America
about 1.4 times the rate in
California: 27%
Showdata / Embed
t Margin of error is at least
10 percent of the total value.

Take care with this statistic.

Veteran status

0.7%
Population with veteran
status
about one-fifth of the rate in
Montclair: 2. 9% t
Veterans by wartime service 24 Total veterans
24 Male
N/A Female
less than a fifth of the rate in San
Bernardino County: 4.7%
WWII Korea Vietnam Gulf(1990s) Gutf(2001·)
less than a fifth of the rate in
California: 4.3%
• Civilian veterans who served during wartime only
Hover for rnar_gins of error and contextual data.

Showdata / Embed
Citation: U.S. Census Bureau (2024). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Census Tract 3.05, San Bernardino, CA <http://censusreporter.org/profiles/14000US06071000305-census-tract-305-san-bernardino-ca/> a learn about the Census
i About Census Reporter
5 Census terms & definitions
W @CensusReporter
Ill Help & feedback
0 Census Reporter on GitHub
Census Reporter is a free, open-source project. Your donations help us add new data to the site and keep it running.

Data on Census Reporter comes from the US Census Bureau and is not copyrighted.

Original text and data visualizations on CensusReRQrter.org by the Census Reporter project are licensed under CC BY 4.0 €)@ MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 193 of 195 Personnel Committee Minutes – May 4, 2026 Page 1 of 1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MONTCLAIR

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY,
MAY 4, 2026, AT 5:05 P.M. IN THE CITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, 5111 BENITO STREET,

MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, Council Member Ruh, City Manager Starr, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Human Services Richter, and Human Resources Manager
Ghobrial
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular Personnel Committee Meeting of April 20, 2026.

Moved by Council Member Ruh, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Martinez, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the Personnel Committee meeting on April 20, 2026.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT – None
V. CLOSED SESSION
At 5:06 p.m., the Personnel Committee went into Closed Session regarding personnel matters related to appointments, resignations/ terminations, and evaluations of employee performance.

At 5:30 p.m., the Personnel Committee returned from Closed Session.

Mayor Pro Tem Martinez stated that no announcements would be made at this time.

VI. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Martinez adjourned the Personnel Committee.

Submitted for Personnel Committee approval,
Edward C. Starr
City Manager
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 194 of 195

PENDING

APPROVAL
Special City Council Meeting Minutes – April 20, 2026 Page 1 of 1

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTCLAIR
CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026, AT
6:01 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 5111 BENITO

STREET, MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dutrey called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dutrey; Mayor Pro Tem Martinez; Council Members Ruh, Lopez, and Mendez
City Manager/Executive Director Starr; Assistant City Manager/ Director of Human Services Richter; Director of Community Development Diaz; Director of Finance Kulbeck; City Attorney Robbins; City Clerk Myrick
III. PUBLIC COMMENT — None
IV. PRESENTATION
A. Community Activities Commission Presentation of 2026 Volunteer Recognition Awards
Community Activities Commission Chair Rosa Rangel recognized volunteers for their dedication to volunteerism with non–profits and City programs that benefit the Montclair community.

Volunteer(s) Program/Non–Profit
Vanessa Lara Buena Vista Elementary
Dan Furr Care & Company Organization
JoNane Walker Christian Development Center
Ann Moreno Montclair Senior Center
Jose Jauregui Montclair Youth Volleyball League
Romelisa Solis Foothill Family Shelter
Jon Huebner Montclair Meals on Wheels
Gale Taylor Women’s Club of Montclair
Anne Robbins and
Michele Hanchett Montclair High School
Doctor Michael Jaso Montclair Medical Clinic
Lorenzo Robles Montclair Community Garden
All volunteers were presented with plaques from the City and Certificates of Recognition from the offices of San Bernardino County Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman, California
Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez, Senator Susan Rubio, and U.S. Representative Norma Torres.

Supervisor Hagman presented Mayor Dutrey with a plaque and congratulated the City on its 70th Anniversary.

VI. ADJOURNMENT
At 6:28 p.m., the City Council was adjourned.

Submitted for City Council approval,
Andrea Myrick,
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/01/2000 Page 195 of 195