Residents urge codifying Housing First, criticize 287(g) cooperation with ICE and praise city utility crews

Several members of the public spoke during the Oct. 27 comment period, pressing the council on three recurring topics: (1) protect and codify the Housing First program as a permanent supportive‑housing strategy; (2) reject local cooperation with ICE through 287(g); and (3) commend city utility crews for fast emergency response.

Praise for utilities: KT, a city resident, described a sewage backup and said city utility staff arrived within 30 minutes, checked the city side of the system and returned later to follow up. KT called the employees “incredible people” and asked the city to pass along thanks to the crew.

287(g) and law-enforcement concerns: Resident Lana Foley directed remarks to Sheriff Lewis and other officials, arguing that entering a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would expose residents to deportation, legal risk and racial profiling. Foley said the county’s past statements about migrant populations do not support the program and asked the council to allow a formal vote rather than only reach consensus at staff or district levels.

Housing First testimony: Laura Toner urged the council to codify Salisbury’s Housing First model as a permanent initiative. Toner said Housing First is evidence‑based and “has been proven across the country to reduce homelessness, improve health outcomes, and save taxpayer money.” She argued that limiting supportive housing to one‑ or two‑year terms would destabilize residents and risk returning people to the streets amid an ongoing affordable‑housing shortage. Another speaker, Christie, who works with unhoused residents and shelter operations, urged council members to remember typical household incomes for people on disability and warned that temporary programs would not address the underlying shortage of affordable housing.

Other comments: Business owner Don De Aquila raised potential liability language in the towing ordinance (Ordinance 2918, Chapter 5.64), asking the city solicitor to review the ordinance’s provisions for abnormal traffic patterns, emergencies and contractor response time. A resident asked for clarification of the Burton Street abandonment ordinance (2958) and who would receive the abandoned property; the ordinance as read did not specify a recipient.

Council response: Council and the mayor noted the public testimony and, in at least one case (Housing First), said they were seeking to refine program design and funding levels to help more people while balancing city resources. The council did not take final action on policy changes during the meeting.

Speakers (excerpted and first reference): KT (resident); Lana Foley (resident); Laura Toner (resident); Christie (resident); Don De Aquila (business owner); Edward Klein (resident).