Sacramento public raises privacy concerns; council continues vote on fusion-center funding

The Sacramento City Council on June 5 heard sustained public opposition to a consent-calendar item that would pass federal grant dollars through the city to support staffing at the Central California Intelligence Center (fusion center).

Community speakers urged the council to postpone or reject the funding while a state audit of fusion centers is pending. Rhonda Rios Kravitz told the council she was "deeply concerned that local policing resources and data may be accessed or utilized by ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies in ways that undermine both California sanctuary law and the city's own commitment to immigrant communities." Frances Liu, who identified herself as a manager at the California Department of Social Services, said, "Giving SAC PD $800,000 to staff positions in this fusion center is egregious regardless of where the money comes from," and urged the council not to expand surveillance infrastructure.

Councilmembers asked staff detailed questions about what categories of information Sacramento Police Department (SACPD) would share with the fusion center and how the city reconciles state law with contractual language referencing federal statutes. Staff and representatives of the Urban Area Security Initiative explained the item is structured as a pass-through grant via Cal OES and said participation would be governed by state law and city policy. A staff representative stated SACPD "would only provide the fusion center with information within state law and city policy," and that Cal OES and DHS audit and vet projects funded through UASI and CSIC.

Council members expressed differing views about the proposal's timing and the need for guardrails. Council member Vang said she would vote no for now, citing ongoing concerns about federal task forces and the risk that data could be used beyond state-allowed purposes. Other council members said they supported pursuing federal funding for public-safety priorities like human trafficking and violent-crime response but asked staff for clearer transparency and formal mechanisms to ensure compliance with SB 54.

Procedurally, the council moved and passed the consent calendar while continuing item 8 for additional work and clarification. The continuation leaves the item unresolved; staff were asked to return with further explanations of the legal conflicts, data-sharing protections, and an implementation plan for any pass-through funds.

Next steps: the council continued item 8 to a later meeting; staff indicated they would work with the city attorney and Cal OES to describe the legal and operational safeguards in writing before the council votes on authorizing the pass-through funding.