Erie County Council gives first reading to $433,620 appropriation for housing immigration detainees amid public opposition

Erie County Council on May 6 conducted the first reading of an ordinance to appropriate $433,620 in additional federal revenue to house immigration detainees, after public commenters urged the council not to release county funds tied to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contract.

The ordinance (No. 27-20-25) was read for the first time; the council did not vote on final adoption at the meeting. The item was described as "additional federal revenue for housing immigration detainees." Public commenters and at least one council member pressed the council to consider due-process and moral concerns before committing the money.

Why it matters: The appropriation would direct federal funds to cover housing for people held under an ICE contract. Several residents and community spokespeople said Erie County should refuse involvement and not profit from detention that they described as punitive or lacking due process.

Public comment and council discussion came first. Matt Teixeir, identified in the meeting as "Matt Teixeir, City of Erie," said he was concerned about the county becoming "a stop on that road" and asked that the county "not release any of the money" pending clarity. Carlos Mora, who identified himself as "a spokesperson of the immigrant community," told the council, "Erie County should be in the right side of history," and cited an Erie Foundation report he said showed immigrants contribute more than $220,000,000 a year to the city economy. Cole Shemley of Erie echoed those remarks, saying, "you don't wanna look back October from now and think about how you might have caused irreparable harm to families."

During council discussion, "Council member Cole" (identified in the transcript as "Mister Cole") urged caution and described practical and legal concerns. He said some counties avoid such contracts and called this "a bad deal for taxpayers," saying, "If you're housing people for $95 a day and you only get reimbursed 99, most people wouldn't start a business doing something like that." He also raised due-process concerns, saying he had been told by lawyers for detained individuals that many are held on administrative warrants rather than appearing before a judge.

The ordinance was read as a first reading; no motion to adopt on final passage occurred at the meeting. Council members advanced other items at the meeting, but the detainee-housing ordinance remained at the first-read stage and will return to council for additional consideration under the council's rules for subsequent readings.

Clarifying details from the meeting record: the appropriation amount is $433,620; a public commenter said approximately $130,000 was already in hand for the contract (source: Matt Teixeir). Council member Cole described the per-detainee housing figure as $95 per day and referenced a reimbursement figure rendered in the meeting as "99." The transcript shows concerns that many individuals held under the contract may be on administrative warrants and not have yet had an immigration court appearance; the meeting did not specify a total number of detainees covered by the appropriation.

Next steps: The ordinance remains at first reading and will return for further council consideration; the council's next regular meeting is scheduled for June 3, and the finance and personnel committee meets May 15, where related deliberations could recur.