Sunbury City Council approves participation in federal 287(g) reimbursement program after heated public comment

SUNBURY CITY — The Sunbury City Council voted to participate in a federal 287(g)-style agreement at its meeting after a lengthy public‑comment period in which residents both urged the council to sign up for promised funding and warned that the partnership with federal immigration enforcement could harm trust in local policing.

The decision came after the council heard more than two dozen public comments on the topic. Many speakers pushed the council to pause and clarify how the program would operate; Peterson Toscano told the council he wanted the new police chief to settle into the job and asked the council to "wait a year" before committing. Other residents, including James Shargley, spoke in favor of the agreement as a tool to address local crime.

Chief Slack, who briefed the council on recent incidents and on the program, said the memorandum is intended "merely [as] a mechanism in place for us to put funds on these situations" and stressed training would aim to limit civil‑liability exposures. He reported roughly eight notable incidents since January and gave monthly arrest figures for April, May and June as context for the discussion.

Supporters argued the program can provide training and potential reimbursement for officer time and expenses. "We're trusting our chief and our local police department," a councilor said during the discussion. Opponents questioned whether towns actually receive funds as promised and whether local officers would be asked to perform enforcement actions that blur civil and criminal lines; one speaker cited research they said showed about 35% of participating towns had received money while 65% had not.

Several residents called for a public hearing before the council signed the agreement. Glenn Moore said the council should not "decide to go on this insane project" without broader public input; other commenters raised concerns about consequences for immigrant residents, the potential chilling effect on crime reporting, and high‑profile national incidents tied to federal immigration enforcement.

The council moved the item and a roll‑call sequence recorded multiple "yes" responses on the record; the transcript indicates the motion passed. The meeting record does not include a detailed vote tally mapped to full member names in the public portion of the transcript.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to participate in 287(g)-style program — Mover: Chair (S2). Outcome: approved (motion passed; roll‑call produced affirmative responses; transcript does not include per‑member, named tally). Notes: Chief Slack described the program as a reimbursement mechanism and said training would be provided; several residents requested a formal public hearing and asked for details on withdrawal penalties and reimbursement timelines.

• Approval of minutes and routine reports (June 8, June 22) — Outcome: approved (roll call recorded).

• Motion to advertise for a part‑time code‑enforcement officer (20 hrs/week at $17/hr) — Mover: Councilman Ramos (S18). Outcome: advanced/approved (roll‑call affirmative responses recorded in transcript).

• Motion to release security bond for 901 South 2nd Street project — Outcome: advanced/approved (roll‑call recorded).

What the council and chief said

Chief Slack told the council the agreement would not change everyday policing in most calls: "ICE already does what ICE does. This is merely a mechanism in place for us to, put funds on these situations in the instance where I've listed to you already... where those persons that we've already encountered our normal duties... a mechanism in place to seek reimbursement for some of the expenditures." He also said training would help officers distinguish civil immigration matters from criminal conduct to reduce improper detentions.

Peterson Toscano recommended delaying enrollment so the city could observe whether other municipalities received promised reimbursements: "let's wait a year," he said, urging caution and more information on financial and legal risks.

Why it matters

The council's vote commits Sunbury to a federal partnership model that some municipalities have used to recover local costs related to immigration‑related enforcement and to obtain training. Residents and some councilors framed the decision as balancing public‑safety resources and fiscal opportunity against risks to immigrant community trust and possible litigation. Several speakers said the agreement is optional funding — the memorandum "may" lead to money, not a guarantee — and urged the council to spell out withdrawal procedures and liability protections before relying on anticipated reimbursements.

What’s next

Council members said they will pursue the administrative steps required to finalize participation; several residents asked the council to schedule a dedicated public hearing to lay out specifics (training curricula, reimbursement timelines, termination penalties) before implementation. The council also advanced separate administrative items, including advertising for a part‑time code officer and releasing a construction security bond, as part of regular business.

Sources: Public comments and Chief Slack’s briefing at the Sunbury City Council meeting (transcript segments supporting this article are recorded in the meeting provenance).