Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 37 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears competing legal views as it considers local limits on immigration enforcement
Summary
Councilmembers, police and the law director debated ordinance 37-2026, a proposal to limit local use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. The chief said department policy already restricts local enforcement; the ordinance sponsor said codifying the limits into law is necessary to prevent future policy changes.
Council members and city staff spent the Committee of the Whole meeting on Feb. 17 evaluating proposed ordinance 37-2026, which would restrict the use of Sylvania resources for federal immigration enforcement. The discussion centered on whether existing police policy already achieves the ordinance’s goals and whether language in the draft could create legal risks for the city.
Chief of Police Danny Miller told council members that department practices on immigration-related contacts are guided by model policies from Lexipol and the Ohio Collaborative, and that those policies generally limit local officers to perimeter, traffic-control and keep‑the‑peace duties when federal agents operate in the city. "We have nothing to do with how they are handling their job," Miller said, describing the department's current approach to civil immigration requests.
Law director Leslie Bridal told the council she saw two legal concerns in the draft: a provision that would make compliance with the ordinance a condition of employment and a possible conflict with Ohio Revised Code section 9.6 that could risk state funding. Bridal cautioned that the employment provision "may be problematic from a Fair Labor Practices standpoint." Sponsor Doug Hingham pushed back, arguing the memo’s reading of state law was incorrect and that an ordinance is more durable than policy. Hingham said the measure is meant "to prevent spending Sylvania resources on federal immigration enforcement" and to make clear that city services — roads, snow removal, and emergency response — will remain focused on local needs.
Council members pressed staff on operational details that could trigger liability, such as record-keeping, pre-release contacts with federal authorities and whether ICE detainers without judicial warrants should lead to local detention or notification. Miller said officers frequently receive limited information from external agencies and must rely on follow-up communications to determine whether a matter is criminal. On whether Lexipol would review the ordinance for compatibility with its model policies, Miller said she would ask but had not received a formal Lexipol opinion on the draft.
The meeting included a short public-comment period with about six resident speakers. Opinions split: some residents urged adoption to protect local funds and trust in public services, while others warned the ordinance could interfere with cooperation on criminal investigations or that immigration is a civil matter best handled by federal authorities. Natalie Morgan, a public-school teacher, urged council to "consider this ordinance and support it and pass it," arguing it would help preserve trust between immigrant residents and police.
With no final vote, council voted to request that the City Council schedule a follow-up Committee of the Whole on March 2, 2026, to continue discussion. The committee adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
