Erie County Council moves to convert ICE-suspension resolution into ordinance for more review

Erie County Council on Monday agreed to replace a proposed resolution calling for suspension of the county’s participation in civil immigration detention and removal of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as an authorized user with a draft ordinance that will require two readings and extra public outreach.

The move follows public comment urging action: “Civil immigration detention is not criminal punishment,” said Valerie Perkins, a minister with Libertyville Baptist Church, urging council to adopt language calling for suspension and removal of ICE from the county’s intergovernmental detention agreement.

The ordinance approach, the resolution’s author told colleagues, would put the measure on two successive agendas and give the administration time to “contemplate how all of this gets carried out” and allow for more community conversation before a final vote.

Council members and county staff pressed for details about the ordinance’s fiscal and operational effects. “If we’re going to make this decision, because typically when you make a decision that affects the budget, you also have to can’t just be one side of the ledger,” an administrator said, warning that changes could require reopening the budget. Staff estimated the short-term fiscal exposure could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; another council member cited 2025 billing of $571,000 as a reference for federal reimbursements then billed to the county.

Council solicitors described the contract mechanics: the county can provide notice to alter or end the intergovernmental agreement and federal partners generally have 30 days to remove detainees. “It literally takes nothing more than any email to articulate how we would like to alter and or end the agreement,” a solicitor said, adding that the U.S. Marshals Service and ICE then have 30 days to remove their detainees.

Members raised concerns about disruptions to court operations and jail logistics if federal detainees were removed. “There’s a large ripple effect…you would affect due process actually at the federal level because those individuals would have to be transported,” a council member said, noting potential displacement of long‑term resident inmates and increased staffing demands.

Several members expressed moral arguments for moving forward while explicitly asking for due diligence. “I truly believe this is going to…be the right thing to do from my perspective,” one council member said. Other members urged a cautious process and recommended meetings with the warden, administration and neighboring counties before final action.

Council agreed to publish the ordinance language on the next published agenda and to convene follow-up meetings with administration staff and the warden to quantify operational and budget impacts. The ordinance will appear for a first reading at the next council meeting; if council proceeds, a second reading would follow on a subsequent agenda before any final vote.