Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sonoma County supervisors introduce ordinance to limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and set aside $1.5 million for services
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted April 7 to introduce an ordinance formalizing county limits on using staff, funding, technology or property for immigration enforcement and to reserve $1,500,000 in one-time contingency funds to support immigrant service providers; the move followed hours of public comment demanding a stronger non-collaboration policy and a lengthy exchange with the sheriff about current practices.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on April 7 introduced an ordinance intended to "uphold the civil rights, dignity, health and safety" of immigrants and other residents and voted to set aside $1,500,000 in one-time general-fund contingencies to support community providers and legal, mental-health and other services.
The ordinance, staff said, does not expand county authority but consolidates existing practices into county code: protections for sensitive personal information (including immigration status), prohibitions on using county staff, funding, technology or property to support federal immigration enforcement except when legally required, and mandatory staff training on interactions with immigration authorities. Assistant County Executive Jennifer Solito said the proposal "memorializes the county's existing internal practices and compliance with state law" and added that an RFP process would be used to allocate the requested funds following community input.
Why it matters: Supporters said the ordinance and the funding are urgent steps to protect immigrant families and to shore up legal and community supports amid increasing federal enforcement. Opponents and some residents urged the board to go further by removing language that, staff and counsel said, merely recognizes state limits on the board's authority over independently elected officials.
What was said: The meeting included sustained public comment from Sanctuary Coalition members, legal advocates and health workers. "Thank you, thank you, thank you," said Renee Salcedo of the Sanctuary Coalition, praising the board's action, while legal adviser Mia Sodi Tenakora urged the Board to consider additional limits on local collaboration with federal immigration enforcement and offered technical assistance.
Sheriff James Ingram addressed the Board during questions from supervisors. "The Sheriff's Office is more restrictive than Senate Bill 54," he told the Board, describing local policy changes that limit information-sharing with ICE to convicted individuals and saying his office has narrowed lists of qualifying offenses and planned further revisions (including removing "wobblers"). In response to community concerns about transfers, the sheriff said most ICE requests relate to detention releases and that his office returns information only in response to specific ICE requests; he noted 69 requests honored last year but emphasized that number represented requests, not unique individuals.
Board discussion and vote: Supervisors debated the scope of the ordinance and whether to explicitly name the sheriff and district attorney. County counsel advised that state law and constitutional provisions limit the Board's ability to direct independently elected officers; the ordinance language was amended to remove a redundant clause that named the sheriff and district attorney while retaining a statement that the Board's authority does not extend to other elected officials. After deliberation, the board voted unanimously to approve the ordinance for first reading and to set aside the $1,500,000 contingency; the item will return for final adoption on April 28.
Implementation and next steps: Staff told the Board they will develop scopes of work for prioritized categories (legal defense/removal defense, mental-health support, coordination and accountability, Promotores network expansion, language/technology access and post-detention family support) and then convene community providers to co-create an RFP. Recommendations from the ad hoc will be vetted by the Board before contract awards.
What remains unresolved: Community advocates pressed the Board to remove any carve-outs that could be read to exclude the sheriff or other elected officials from the ordinance's intent. Counsel and staff said the ordinance can'9t legally direct independently elected officers; the Board instead added clarifying language and committed to continued dialogue, including a Truth Act forum and a May public report on the sheriff's jail/ICE interactions.
The vote: The motion to introduce the ordinance and set aside $1.5 million passed 5-0 (Supervisor Rabbit: yes; Vice Chair Corsi: yes; Supervisor Gore: yes; Supervisor Hopkins: yes; Chair Hermosillo: yes). The full ordinance and funding allocations will return to the Board for final action on April 28.
