San Luis Obispo debate over DHS homeland security grant intensifies as residents warn of ICE use

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors heard more than an hour of public comment on Aug. 5 after staff introduced a State Homeland Security Grant proposal that would fund hazmat detectors, night‑vision gear, drones and access control for elections. Residents urged the board to reject the $316,000 federal pass‑through, fearing the equipment could be used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other federal agencies.

Deputy Director of Emergency Services Scotty Jalbert told the board the state runs the grant program and the projects nominated locally — from methane detectors to unmanned aircraft for observation — are consistent with prior years' funded purchases. “This year's request is in alignment with the standing grant parameters, and consistent with the purchase made for the last 24 years,” Jalbert said.

County counsel told supervisors the application’s terms are “your very, very standard terms and conditions” and said there are no contractual obligations that would require the county to assist ICE. Sheriff Ian Parkinson reiterated statutory limits on local involvement with immigration enforcement, saying deputies will not act on detainers alone and that contact with ICE is lawful only when a person has been convicted of certain violent felonies or there is a federal warrant. “We do not participate in any contact with ICE absent those two issues,” Parkinson said.

Opponents from the public said the county should refuse the money because of recent, highly publicized ICE actions elsewhere and concerns about mask‑clad agents taking people without visible warrants. “I urge you to decline the Department of Homeland Security grant,” said resident Debbie Applebaum, who cited grant language about enhancing information and intelligence sharing. Multiple speakers referenced California Senate Bill 54 and urged the board to declare the county a sanctuary jurisdiction.

Supporters on the board said the grant addresses local public‑safety needs, including election security, hazardous‑materials response and wildfire readiness. Supervisor Paulding said staff and county counsel reviewed the application and found no “strings attached,” and he said the county should accept the money to avoid dipping into other funds. “I will be supporting this grant, because I think it's a fiscally prudent thing to do,” Paulding said.

The board’s discussion balanced residents’ civil‑liberties concerns against officials’ assessments that the equipment would be used for law‑enforcement safety, disaster response and election protection. After the public comment and debate, the board approved the consent agenda and proceeded with the item sequence; the record shows the board moved forward with handling the grant item consistent with staff recommendations.

The board did not take further action at the meeting to legislate restrictions or conditions beyond the usual procurement and oversight processes; several supervisors suggested additional community forums and continued oversight. The board is scheduled to reconvene Aug. 19, when staff may return with any requested transmittal pages or clarifying materials.