Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Data Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sacramento council approves federal subaward for regional fusion center amid mass public opposition
Summary
After more than 30 public speakers urged rejection, the Sacramento City Council approved a roughly $793,000 UASI subaward to staff the Central California Intelligence Center (CCIC), with councilmembers split over sanctuary protections, oversight, and state audits.
The Sacramento City Council on Wednesday approved a federal subaward that will route roughly $793,000 in UASI funds to staff the Central California Intelligence Center, a regional fusion center, after hours of public comment and questioning from council members.
Public commenters — more than two dozen individuals and community groups — urged the council to reject the subaward, saying the CCIC shares local data with federal agencies including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the FBI and that doing so risks Sacramento’s sanctuary-city commitments. "Public safety should build trust, not fear," said Alexandra Estrella of the California Immigrant Policy Center, urging the council to "vote no on item 11." Several speakers cited a pending statewide audit and recent actions by other cities to restrict fusion-center access to local license-plate data.
Deputy Chief Bryce Heinlein, deputy chief over the Office of Specialized Services for the Sacramento Police Department, summarized the staff recommendation and addressed community concerns. Heinlein said the UASI funds are federal dollars accepted by the state and passed through Cal OES to the region and that the funds would support four non‑sworn professional staff at the CCIC and related terrorism‑prevention and disaster-preparedness work. "The CCIC does not accept any information submitted for immigration enforcement purposes," Heinlein said, adding the CCIC and participating agencies follow SB 54 and federal guidance, and that requests for data must meet legal and policy thresholds.
Council members pressed staff on whether existing state and federal safeguards are sufficient and on the scope of local oversight. Some members warned that accepting the funds could enable data flows the council cannot later control; others said rejecting the funds could place the region at risk of losing broader preparedness funding. Vice Mayor Talamantes said the city is reviewing guidance from the California attorney general and believes city policies comply with new AG guidance.
Council then voted by roll call: Kaplan — Aye; Dickinson — Aye; Vice Mayor Talamantes — Aye; Maple — No; Jennings — Yes; Vang — No; Mayor McCarty — Aye. With five votes in favor and two opposed (two members absent), the motion carried and the subaward was approved.
The approval preserves regional UASI funding that staff said is necessary to meet homeland-security obligations and maintain regional training, equipment, and response coordination. Council members and staff said they would continue to respond to community requests for oversight and enforcement clarity; opponents said the council should have delayed action pending the statewide audit.
The consent calendar, including other items not contested in this debate, was completed before the council moved to subsequent matters.
What’s next: Councilmembers who opposed the measure said they will continue to press for stronger oversight and transparency; council supporters said the city will enforce applicable state and federal privacy protections.
