Erie County Council rejects $433,620 appropriation for housing immigration detainees after hours of public comment

Erie County Council voted down Ordinance 27 on June 3, 2025, rejecting a proposed $433,620 supplemental appropriation intended to cover costs for housing immigration detainees at the Erie County Prison.

The ordinance drew sustained public comment from residents and advocates who criticized the county’s cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), called for greater transparency about the revenue actually received, and warned of legal and moral risks. “The county executive refuses to give you a formal accounting of how much has come in,” said Christine Riel, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, calling the payments “blood money Erie County has received as a result of this contract.” Meredith Blake, a migration researcher and Millcreek resident, told the council that “Undocumented immigrants generate $523,000,000 of tax revenue towards state and local governments.”

The public commenters urged council members to withhold the appropriation until the county executive provided a detailed accounting and assurances that detainees received due process. Margaret Watts, a city resident, said the financial committee had reported a figure “under a hundred and 50,000” rather than the full $433,620 listed in the ordinance and urged council to demand receipts before approving supplemental spending.

Council members debated the measure during the meeting. County Council member Rob Copeland said the ordinance did not change the county’s legal authority over contracts already in place and that the council lacked jurisdiction to stop ICE detainees being held in the jail, but concluded, “I just think that we shouldn't participate in it. For that reason, I'm a no.” County Council member Horton said simply, “No. Hell, no.” Chairman Scatella voted no as well. County Council member Schauerman voted yes; County Council member Bale also voted yes. The final recorded tally was 2 in favor, 5 opposed, and the ordinance failed.

Speakers from across Erie County — including residents of Millcreek, Lawrence Park Township, Franklin Township, Summit and Fairview — framed their objections around three themes: (1) lack of transparent accounting for the revenue tied to the ICE contract, (2) moral and legal concerns about detaining people who may lack due process, and (3) potential future liability for the county should litigation follow. Several speakers described personal or family immigration histories and contrasted those stories with current enforcement actions.

Council members and commenters also discussed related operational points: multiple speakers asked whether ICE detainers were accompanied by warrants or court orders and cited ICE guidance that cooperation is voluntary; some warned that accepting the funds might expose the county to lawsuits and additional costs. Margaret Watts said the warden, Hall Holman, had stated the prison would not accept anyone without proper documentation, and others emphasized accounting controls for any revenue received.

The vote concluded a meeting in which residents urged alternative uses for any federal receipts, including directing funds to refugee and immigrant support organizations, public defense staffing, or education and workforce supports. Several commenters encouraged council to pursue local policy tools such as a sanctuary-county resolution or clearer county-level limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — steps described by callers as within the council’s possible authority even if the council cannot void executive contracts.

The council’s action tonight leaves in place the underlying detention contract (which commenters and council members said predates the current administration) and rejects the proposed $433,620 appropriation. Several speakers and council members said they expect further conversation about accounting, county policy toward ICE detainers, and potential administrative remedies at future meetings.

Ending: Council members set the next regular meeting for June 17, 2025. Public commenters asked for continued hearings and greater transparency from the county executive’s office about the contract terms, amounts received, and whether detainees held in the facility had been afforded counsel and legal process.