At a recent Erie County Finance Committee meeting, the county solicitor recommended that county counsel refuse a proposed supplemental appropriation tied to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee costs, while county staff and a member of the public said portions of the funds may already be in the county’s coffers.

The solicitor told the committee that U.S. constitutional protections constrain how noncitizens may be apprehended and detained, and recommended refusing the ordinance and the supplemental appropriation. The solicitor said, “persons, which include immigrants, whether they're documented or whether they're not documented, all have the right to receive notice of the charges, and they all have a right to due process.” He added, “I have recommended that counsel say no to this particular ordinance and refuse the supplemental appropriation.”

Committee members opened the agenda item by reading the ordinance language and dollar amounts aloud; the agenda text referenced a general fund supplemental appropriation of $433,620 for housing conversion tables tied to the item. County finance staff later told the committee that, “From January 1 to April 30, we've received $141,000 of this money already,” and asked that the updated receipt figures be sent to the clerk so the ordinance can be amended before the next meeting.

A county jail official raised concerns about staff safety if the topic was publicly conflated with the jail’s routine operations. The official said, “We have a good jail here. We have a good staff. They don't need to be burdened with more insults and pressure,” and described incidents where officers had been assaulted. The solicitor pushed back that the legal complaint being discussed was directed at ICE policy and not at local corrections staff and said the county’s contract could be terminated with 30 days' notice.

A member of the public, Julie Hertz of Mill Creek, opposed the ordinance during the public-comment period, saying she would prefer higher local taxes over accepting the funds. She said, “I would rather spend more in taxes, honestly, than take this money.” Hertz also referenced the county’s immigrant community and expressed concern about using the funds.

Committee discussion also noted differing dollar figures during the meeting: the agenda referenced $433,620; county staff cited $141,000 already received between Jan. 1 and Apr. 30; and a public commenter said $133,000. Committee staff asked that the administration provide a single, updated figure to the clerk for an amended ordinance.

No formal vote on the ordinance or the solicitor’s recommendation was recorded in the committee transcript. Committee members directed staff to provide the corrected receipt and forecast numbers to the clerk for amendment before the next meeting, and the solicitor’s written memo was referenced as part of the record.

The committee will revisit the ordinance after the clerk’s amendment and any additional information from county counsel and administration.