York City Council fails to override mayor’s veto of immigrant-welcoming ordinance

York City Council on Jan. 7, 2024 voted on whether to override the mayor’s Dec. 27, 2024 veto of Bill 47, Ordinance 47 — an ordinance intended to add Article 156 to the codified ordinances addressing welcoming access to immigrants and refugees — and failed to reach the margin required to overturn the veto. The clerk explained that a “yes” vote would overturn the mayor’s veto and a “no” vote would let the veto stand; the motion to override did not move forward.

The ordinance, described in the resolution introducing the override attempt, would have codified the city’s practices for “provision of city services without regard to refugee or immigration status” and included severability language and an effective-date clause. The resolution cites Section 413 of the Third Class City Code (optional charter law) as the statutory path for council to attempt an override on or after the third day after receipt of a veto.

Council debate centered on fiscal and legal risk. At least one council member cited a city solicitor’s opinion and warned that sustaining the ordinance could jeopardize federal grants, including HUD funding the council was told is “about $2,000,000 annually.” That member said the city budget is tightly structured and that a loss of federal grants could directly affect services for vulnerable residents; she said she would uphold the mayor’s veto “at this time.” Other council members said they were not ready to overturn the veto and asked for more study and coalition-building before adopting the ordinance.

Speakers from the public offered contrasting perspectives during the public-comment period. Crystal Perry, who said she has worked with victims of domestic violence and human trafficking for 22 years, criticized linking immigration status to crime: “The most common denominator in my victims … is that they are people of color,” she said, and urged the council not to conflate immigrant status with criminality. Manuel Gomez argued elected officials should not scapegoat communities and said federal coercion of municipalities has been repeatedly checked by courts. Other speakers, including Tommy Smith and Scott Smith, urged the council to uphold the veto on public-safety and fiscal grounds, citing concerns about schools, services and crime.

Council members and administration staff also said that Human Relations and police leadership reviewed complaints raised at the prior meeting; council members reported receiving investigatory summaries and asked that residents use established reporting channels when they believe an officer has acted improperly. The council’s president and staff urged further collaboration with community organizations to build infrastructure so residents — documented or not — know where to seek help.

Because the override vote failed, the mayor’s veto stands and Ordinance 47 remains vetoed. Council members who spoke said the issue could return later for further study, committee review or amended language.

Votes at the meeting recorded public-roll call on the motion to override; the clerk’s roll-call sequence indicates both recorded “yes” and “no” responses from members but the transcript does not supply a clear, full tally for every named member. The result stated on the record was that the override did not pass and the veto remained in effect.