County administrator warns of staff burden and funding risk as Assembly debates ordinance on immigration enforcement

The Assembly of Delegates Governmental Affairs and Rules Committee met June 1 to discuss a proposed ordinance aimed at limiting immigration-enforcement actions on county property. County Administrator Michael Dutton told delegates the measures are operationally complicated and could increase staff workload.

Dutton, who joined the remote meeting to answer questions, said the commissioners previously adopted provisions of the governor’s executive order 650 (and a later amendment, 655) and that “the majority of our space is court property which is leased,” meaning executive order protections already apply to much county space. He urged caution in drawing lines between what is public and what is restricted and said signage and guidance should vary by building.

Why it matters: delegates pressed the county for specifics on how the ordinance would work in practice and whether passing a local ordinance could jeopardize federal grants that support county programs. Dutton warned of a possible, if not inevitable, administrative burden and noted prior instances nationally where federal funding was reviewed; he said litigation by states and jurisdictions has in many cases limited mass revocations.

Dutton outlined core operational issues: how staff would identify and manage public access areas, who would be responsible for enforcement or documentation, and how departments would adopt internal procedures. He described the county’s likely approach as one of documentation and training rather than frontline enforcement: “staff understands that their role is to document these things,” he said, and recommended role‑playing and training to prepare employees for confrontational encounters, including so‑called first amendment audits.

Several delegates expressed concern that police chiefs would not intervene in confrontations and asked how staff could be protected immediately. Delegate Elizabeth Harter said the main purpose of the ordinance for her was to reassure employees that “they don’t have to do anything they’re uncomfortable with and that they’ll be protected by us.” Dutton responded that the implementation language in Section 9 — which makes the administrator responsible for issuing policies and requires departments to adopt internal procedures and designate compliance officers — is achievable but would be executed over time by his office.

Delegates also raised the political and fiscal question of whether an ordinance, compared with a resolution, would invite federal scrutiny. Dutton said he had raised funding‑risk concerns with the commissioners when they considered the earlier resolution; he could not predict how federal officials would respond should the Assembly and commissioners enact a local ordinance that differs from federal policy.

What’s next: Dutton offered to provide a memo with recommended wording changes and clarifications for the Assembly to consider. Deputy Speaker Fryel asked Delegate Frank Frederickson to draft any suggested amendments in writing so the committee could address concerns in an orderly way at the next meeting. No formal vote was taken; delegates agreed to continue the discussion and to attempt to work by memo and proposed edits before bringing the ordinance back to the calendar.

The committee adjourned for the evening with follow-ups requested of the administrator and the clerk.