Bay City public sharply divided over proposed "welcoming" resolution as commission hears hours of comment

Hundreds of Bay City residents filled the chamber March 2, 2026, for a public‑input period dominated by opposing views on a "welcoming" resolution and the city’s relationship to federal immigration enforcement.

The meeting drew sustained testimony from residents who said cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would expose Bay City to financial and civil‑rights risk. "If Bay City holds an individual without a judicial warrant, Bay City assumes 100% of the Fourth Amendment liability," systems engineer Josh Ragner said, presenting what he described as a liability assessment and legal precedents for the record. "We cannot afford to subsidize federal administrative work with local tax dollars." Ragner urged the commission to close what he described as a liability loophole.

Other speakers framed the issue in moral and community terms. "We don't need ICE here," resident Debbie Rogers said, asking the commission whether there were documented incidents in Bay City to justify expanded federal presence. "We don't need to bring ICE here because the public safety department is doing an awesome job." Several others described fear that federal immigration operations would undermine residents’ trust in local public‑health and social services.

Speakers arguing the city should be cautious included Dustin Casic, who raised pay and budget priorities and questioned whether a high hourly rate for the city manager was justified. "If our city manager is being compensated at $150 per hour, that nearly three times the Michigan average," Casic said, urging the commission to weigh compensation and service priorities.

Several commenters criticized the national attention the controversy has drawn and said symbolic resolutions could threaten state or federal funding. "We are acting opposite from reality," said Paul Klein, who urged clearer policy language and broad stakeholder engagement in the city manager search.

The tenor of public comment was sharply partisan at times. Andrew Tibido called ICE "brutal, heartless ICE thugs" and urged Bay City to reject cooperation, while other speakers accused proponents of the welcoming language of placing the city at financial risk. Commissioner responses at the dais repeatedly urged speakers and viewers to read exact resolution text rather than rely on shorthand labels such as "sanctuary city."

The commission had pulled the item from tonight’s regular agenda for further negotiation and staff review but heard extensive testimony to inform future drafts. Commissioners repeatedly advised residents to examine the draft resolved clauses and to identify what practical protections or operational changes they expect from any statement the commission eventually adopts.

The session included procedural questions about public‑comment rules and decorum; several residents urged a ban on signs in the chamber and recommended zooming camera views on speakers to reduce distraction on the broadcast feed. Commissioners discussed whether to change meeting rules to require or request that speakers provide name and address when they sign in; legal staff advised that making that requirement mandatory would require a formal rule change.

The commission did not take a final vote on immigration policy at the March 2 meeting. Commissioners said they expect additional negotiation on language and stakeholder outreach before bringing a revised measure back for formal consideration.