Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Santa Rosa City Council Meeting on Immigration, Parks, and Bridge Projects – February 10, 2026

City Council — Tuesday, February 10, 2026

BodySanta Rosa, California

SessionCity Council

DateTuesday, February 10, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 6:24:13

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:01

If you're on your cell phone or tablet, locate the three dots, tap them lightly and put a check mark on your preferred language.

0:07

Click done to activate and begin the interpretation.

0:10

Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish interpretation.

1:35

Thank you, Mayor.

1:38

Councilmember Rogers.

1:43

Councilmember McDonald, Councilmember Fleming.

1:46

Councilmember Ben Wellows.

1:52

Mayor Stapp.com.

7:40

The time is two o'clock, and we'll reconvene an open session.

7:43

Madam City Clerk, whenever you're ready, would you please call the roll?

7:55

Thank you, Mayor.

7:57

Councilmember Rogers.

8:00

Councilmember McDonald?

8:01

Here.

8:02

Council Member Fleming.

8:03

Here, Councilmember Ben Willows here.

8:05

Councilmember Alvarez.

8:08

Or Vice Mayor O'Krepki.

8:10

Here.

8:11

Let the record show that all council members are present.

8:14

Thank you very much.

8:15

And Madam City Attorney, do we need to uh have any kind of disclosure regarding um Miss Rogers' remote participation?

8:22

Uh yes, that's correct.

8:23

I will hand it over to uh the clerk and council member Rogers.

8:34

As Council Member Rogers is participating under the just cause provisions of uh the Brown Act, she does need to make a statement regarding that participation.

8:48

Three applying the Jeff Cause provision due to a contagious illness, and we'll participate with both audio and video turned on throughout the meeting in this room.

9:10

Um I am accompanied by my husband Andre Rogers in the location for which I am participating.

9:21

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

9:23

Wonderful.

9:24

All right, thank you, Ms.

9:25

Rogers, for being here, in spite of how you're feeling.

9:27

Uh, we're glad that we're glad to have a full council session today.

9:30

Uh, and not surprised to see so many of our community members out to to speak on this topic.

9:36

Uh today, Santa Rosa joins uh so many cities across the United States to uh talk about what's going on at the federal level regarding immigration enforcement, what's happened in other cities.

9:48

So we're glad to see so many of you make the time to come out this afternoon.

9:51

Uh with that, we'll go on to uh item 4.1, which is the item that most people in here have been waiting for.

9:57

This is our study session regarding federal immigration enforcement practices and potential local public safety impacts.

10:04

Uh, and I believe we have Chief Cregan and Assistant City Manager Nutt to lead our conversation or to kick off our conversation.

10:11

Welcome to you both.

10:12

Thank you very much, Mayor and Council members.

10:14

Uh happy to be here today talking about this important issue.

10:19

Um, I want to start by just reading a quick preamble from the staff report that I thought was poignant that describes exactly why we're here.

10:28

Uh, recent national events have underscored public concern about immigration enforcement activities conducted by federal immigration enforcement agents, resulting in increasing public debate and protests that have led to the nat to the tragic deaths of two individuals in Minneapolis due to the excessive use of forced tactics.

10:45

This has resulted in broad national attention, prompting local governments to evaluate the scope of local authority, public safety considerations, and community expectations relative to federal immigration enforcement actions.

10:58

I just think that uh particular statement that was prepared by the team really um establishes the reason why we're here today.

11:06

Uh, and our goal from staff perspective is to uh have this study session to hear feedback from the community and the council uh associated with how we may want to respond, react, or position ourselves uh internally to provide the best public safety and support for our community uh moving forward.

11:32

So I will be taking a little bit of time to go through a little bit of background, and that's really the focus of my conversation with you is to provide that background to uh you and the public, um, describing what actions we've done to date.

11:54

City clerk, are we having uh it's not do I need to do that?

12:15

There we go.

12:16

Sorry for the disruption.

12:19

Um, but I'm gonna spend a little bit of time just kind of walking through activities and actions that the city council has taken over the last several years to try to position ourselves in a way that respects our community uh and sets precedent on how our team and community function in uh a respectful way.

12:41

Um, that'll include conversation about the indivisible city uh resolution, um, a resolution that we put forward relating to family separate separations and safeguards.

12:51

Uh, there'll be a quick dialogue about SB 54 and what that means to our community and to the team that's out doing our local community oriented enforcement.

13:01

Um, and then the challenges that we've had most recently relating to uh the President Trump's executive order 14159, uh, and then some ongoing litigation that we're involved in.

13:13

Uh ultimately what we'll end up doing is at the end, we'll be providing that opportunity to hear the feedback that may uh roll into some directives by council.

13:23

Uh, and I'll be pro I'll give you a little information of what kind of inform uh feedback staff will need in order to move to that next step.

13:32

So back in 2017, the City Council adopted resolution 2017-17, Indivisible City resolution.

13:41

Um, that resolution was really to uh in response to federal immigration policies that were occurring under the first Trump administration.

13:50

Uh and it was aimed at trying to protect civil rights of immigrant community within our population, um, but not just the immigrant community, it's the entire community here.

14:00

It was trying to create that safe space by explaining that we are all part of one unified community.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Public Safety████████████████████████████████████████40%

Parks and Recreation██████████████████18%

Community Engagement███████7%

Procedural██████6%

Active Transportation██████6%

Engineering And Infrastructure█████5%

Pending Litigation████4%

Technology and Innovation███3%

Environmental Protection███3%

Summary of Proceedings

Santa Rosa City Council Meeting on Immigration Enforcement, Parks, and Infrastructure – February 10, 2026

The Santa Rosa City Council met for over eight hours on February 10, 2026, to discuss and act on several major items including a study session on federal immigration enforcement and its local impacts, adoption of a master plan amendment for Martin Luther King Jr. Park, and contract awards for the Highway 101 bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing. The meeting also featured a proclamation for American Heart Month, community reports, and a resolution urging Congress to improve oversight of federal immigration agents.

Consent Calendar

Approved consent items 13.2 through 13.6 (routine approvals, no discussion).
Continued items 13.1 and 13.7 to February 27, 2026.
Unanimously adopted minutes from January 13, 20, 27, and 28, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

Immigration Enforcement Study Session (Item 4.1): Over 20 community members spoke, nearly all urging the city to pass a strong non‑collaboration ordinance and sanctuary city policy. Speakers included representatives from the Sonoma County Sanctuary Coalition, RAICES, Almas Libres, the Interfaith Council, and the NAACP. Many cited the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Predi in Minneapolis, expressed fear for family safety, and called for limits on ICE access to city property, no sharing of resident data with ICE, and an alert system for ICE presence. Several speakers also raised concerns about Flock license plate readers and shared data with ICE.
MLK Park Master Plan (Item 16.1): Residents of the South Park neighborhood, including soccer club parents and coaches, requested timely completion of the park improvements and stressed the need for immediate safety upgrades (lighting, police patrols) due to recent shootings. Some advocated for synthetic turf for year‑round play; others supported natural turf and environmental review.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing (Item 15.3): Supporters noted the project has been discussed for over 20 years and urged approval to avoid losing $12 million in state grant funds. A bid protest from the lowest bidder was discussed; the council heard from the low bidder’s representative who claimed their bid was improperly rejected.
Resolution on Federal Immigration Enforcement (Item 15.1): No public comment in chambers or online.
Other Items: Comments on the Community Empowerment Plan, consent calendar, and mayor/council reports included concerns about road maintenance, homelessness, the Santa Rosa Police Foundation’s nonprofit status, and whistleblower retaliation.

Discussion Items

Federal Immigration Enforcement Study Session (4.1): Assistant City Manager Nutt and Police Chief Cregan presented a background on city resolutions (2017 Indivisible City, SB 54, executive orders), recent ICE operations (including Operation Metro Surge with 3,000 agents), and the city’s participation in three federal lawsuits. Chief Cregan detailed training differences: SRPD officers receive 855 hours of academy training plus 21 weeks of field training; federal special agents receive 520 hours plus 8 weeks agency‑specific. The council heard that local public safety is already affected—reports of domestic violence and crime are down, likely due to fear of ICE. Councilmembers Fleming, Benwellas, Alvarez, McDonald, and Rogers expressed support for a sanctuary ordinance and for the resolution to Congress. Discussion included limitations on local enforcement: city cannot impede ICE but can deny use of city resources for enforcement. Council directed staff to return with policy options, including a potential sanctuary ordinance.
MLK Park Master Plan Amendment (16.1): Staff presented the $12 million plan including a synthetic turf soccer field, playground, basketball courts, fitness area, and a trail connecting to Petaluma Hill Road. $8 million in funding is available, with the remainder expected in FY 2026-27. Council debated synthetic turf vs. natural grass, with some members wanting a separate policy discussion. The mayor noted that a previous subcommittee discussion and “two‑by‑two” meetings had occurred, but no full council vote on turf policy. Staff confirmed phasing is possible: Phase 1 (north half, ~$6.6 million) could move forward without the turf field. Council voted unanimously to adopt the master plan amendment, with the understanding that a separate discussion on turf policy would occur.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing (15.3): Director Hennessy reported that the low bid came in $8.5 million over the engineer’s estimate, requiring $10.4 million already spent and an additional $6.3 million immediately. Funding sources include grants (a $12 million Caltrans grant with a February 14 deadline) and reallocations from other projects (Hearn Avenue interchange, ADA reserves, Hopper Avenue underrun). The bid protest was upheld, so the contract is recommended for the second lowest bidder (Gelotti) at essentially the same price. Council unanimously approved the contract award and related support contracts (15.4, 15.5), acknowledging trade‑offs that delay other safety and pavement projects such as the Stony Point Corridor project.
Resolution on ICE Oversight (15.1): Council unanimously adopted a resolution urging Congress to enact legislation requiring federal immigration agents to meet standards comparable to local law enforcement: clear identification, body cameras, independent investigations, minimum training, no masks, civil rights accountability, and local notification of enforcement actions. The resolution incorporated a last‑minute addition to include vehicles in the identification clause.

Key Outcomes

Immigration Policy Direction: Council directed staff to prepare a report on options for a sanctuary ordinance, including limits on ICE use of city property, information sharing, and alert systems. A separate policy discussion on synthetic turf versus natural grass will be added to a future council agenda.
MLK Park Master Plan: Unanimously adopted; staff will return in March with design‑build authorization and information on turf options.
Highway 101 Overcrossing: Approved contracts for construction (Gelotti Construction, $44.5 million), construction management, and design support, despite cost overruns and budget reallocations that delay other projects.
Resolution to Congress: Passed unanimously, urging stronger federal oversight of immigration enforcement agents.

Meeting Transcript

If you're on your cell phone or tablet, locate the three dots, tap them lightly and put a check mark on your preferred language. Click done to activate and begin the interpretation. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish interpretation. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Rogers. Councilmember McDonald, Councilmember Fleming. Councilmember Ben Wellows. Mayor Stapp.com. The time is two o'clock, and we'll reconvene an open session. Madam City Clerk, whenever you're ready, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Rogers. Councilmember McDonald? Here. Council Member Fleming. Here, Councilmember Ben Willows here. Councilmember Alvarez. Or Vice Mayor O'Krepki. Here. Let the record show that all council members are present. Thank you very much. And Madam City Attorney, do we need to uh have any kind of disclosure regarding um Miss Rogers' remote participation? Uh yes, that's correct. I will hand it over to uh the clerk and council member Rogers. As Council Member Rogers is participating under the just cause provisions of uh the Brown Act, she does need to make a statement regarding that participation. Three applying the Jeff Cause provision due to a contagious illness, and we'll participate with both audio and video turned on throughout the meeting in this room. Um I am accompanied by my husband Andre Rogers in the location for which I am participating. Thank you, Councilmember Rogers. Wonderful. All right, thank you, Ms. Rogers, for being here, in spite of how you're feeling. Uh, we're glad that we're glad to have a full council session today. Uh, and not surprised to see so many of our community members out to to speak on this topic. Uh today, Santa Rosa joins uh so many cities across the United States to uh talk about what's going on at the federal level regarding immigration enforcement, what's happened in other cities. So we're glad to see so many of you make the time to come out this afternoon. Uh with that, we'll go on to uh item 4.1, which is the item that most people in here have been waiting for. This is our study session regarding federal immigration enforcement practices and potential local public safety impacts. Uh, and I believe we have Chief Cregan and Assistant City Manager Nutt to lead our conversation or to kick off our conversation. Welcome to you both. Thank you very much, Mayor and Council members. Uh happy to be here today talking about this important issue. Um, I want to start by just reading a quick preamble from the staff report that I thought was poignant that describes exactly why we're here. Uh, recent national events have underscored public concern about immigration enforcement activities conducted by federal immigration enforcement agents, resulting in increasing public debate and protests that have led to the nat to the tragic deaths of two individuals in Minneapolis due to the excessive use of forced tactics. This has resulted in broad national attention, prompting local governments to evaluate the scope of local authority, public safety considerations, and community expectations relative to federal immigration enforcement actions. I just think that uh particular statement that was prepared by the team really um establishes the reason why we're here today. Uh, and our goal from staff perspective is to uh have this study session to hear feedback from the community and the council uh associated with how we may want to respond, react, or position ourselves uh internally to provide the best public safety and support for our community uh moving forward. So I will be taking a little bit of time to go through a little bit of background, and that's really the focus of my conversation with you is to provide that background to uh you and the public, um, describing what actions we've done to date. City clerk, are we having uh it's not do I need to do that? There we go. Sorry for the disruption.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com