Sacramento Law and Legislation Committee Special Meeting (Feb. 10, 2026)

The Law and Legislation Committee met Tuesday, February 10, 2026, scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber at 915 I Street. The meeting recessed at approximately 9:32–9:33 a.m. due to lack of quorum and reconvened at 10:23 a.m. after quorum was established. The committee adopted the Consent Calendar unanimously, then heard extensive public testimony on a councilmember proposal to prohibit immigration-related enforcement activities on City facilities/property and to add compliance, communication, and accountability measures. The committee voted unanimously to direct staff to begin work with committee members and forward the item to the full City Council without returning to committee, emphasizing urgency (including references to a 30-day timeframe discussed during deliberations).

Consent Calendar

• 2026-00294 Law and Legislation Log: Approved by unanimous committee vote (as taken in open session once quorum was established).
• 2026-00304 Legislative Advocacy Correspondence: Received and filed by unanimous committee vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jim Gonzalez, Chair, Latino Economic Council (speaking at the request of Councilmember Guerra’s office): Expressed support for advancing the proposal to full Council; referenced other jurisdictions (San Jose, Berkeley, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County) as having passed similar policies; argued the City should prevent its property from being used as staging areas for immigration enforcement and expressed concern about intimidation/rights violations.
• Rhonda Rios-Kravitz (District 7), Sacramento Immigration Coalition; courthouse accompaniment with NorCal Resist: Expressed strong support for an ordinance/policy prohibiting use of City facilities/property for immigration-related enforcement (including staging/processing/operational bases). Requested clear signage, identification of relevant properties (interior/exterior), guidance for private leaseholders/landowners, recordkeeping/oversight, immediate reporting protocols, and police investigation of alleged violations of City/state law.
• Nathan (Sacramento resident): Supported the proposal but characterized it as insufficient; urged adding a “data sanctuary” policy and ensuring federal agencies cannot access City-related surveillance data; requested prohibiting SACPD participation in joint task forces with ICE; urged rapid action (referenced a “priority level zero to thirty days” concept).
• Jarek (community outreach organizer, Organized Filipino): Supported an ordinance; urged closing “loopholes” to ensure no City resources are shared with federal agencies involved in detention/separation; emphasized transparency and accountability.
• Ethan (Ugnaya Filipino): Expressed full support; urged strengthening the proposal and adding a data sanctuary policy; asked to prevent SACPD participation in joint task forces so City resources are not shared with agencies harming immigrant communities.
• Moyes (Asian American Liberation Network): Cited community engagement figures (stating ~1,000 community members engaged at the Jan. 27 City Council meeting and ~700 eComments in five days). Referenced a Nov. 18 community accountability letter. Asserted SACPD shared license-plate reader data with out-of-state agencies until June 2024, which the speaker stated was in violation of City sanctuary policies and state law. Requested expanding “City property” to include data/surveillance infrastructure operated by contractors; explicitly prohibiting SACPD participation in joint task forces involving immigration enforcement; and urged choosing the option to begin work and send to Council promptly.
• Kau Yee Tao (District 2 resident; Hmong Innovating Politics): Supported a comprehensive, enforceable plan; urged clear timelines, budget prioritization, and stronger accountability for the City Manager and SACPD; requested inclusion of data sanctuary and joint task force restrictions.
• Marcelina (volunteer, Sacramento Immigration Committee): Stated the resolution was not enough; demanded no collusion with DHS/ICE, limits on City response to federal “crowd control” requests, enforcement around officer identification/masks, civil penalties for violations, additional community meetings after violations, and raised recall-related demands if the mayor violated these demands (speaker position).
• Nicole (public commenter): Echoed calls for accountability and clear timelines; urged data sanctuary policy and explicitly prohibiting SACPD participation in joint task forces; stated distrust of SACPD.
• Joshua Messias (Sacramento resident): Expressed strong opposition to perceived City/SACPD coordination with federal agencies; referenced alleged harassment of protesters and destruction of property at a camp/protest site; criticized the City’s approach as inconsistent with stated values (speaker position).
• Jill (NorCal Resist Court Watch volunteer; downtown resident since early 1980s): Expressed alarm about events in Minneapolis and urged Sacramento to take a strong stance; described observing immigration court applicants at the John E. Moss Federal Building.
• AJ (public commenter): Urged immediate action and accountability; demanded prohibiting ICE use of City property, ending agreements/participation in certain joint task forces, and expanding “City property” to include data; asserted SACPD has aligned with federal enforcement through intimidation/arrests/violence (speaker position).
• Taylor (Sacramento Immigration Committee): Asserted sanctuary status is “lip service” without enforcement; stated ICE is using City property and SACPD is acting on ICE’s behalf (speaker position). Cited ICE funding as “well over $80 billion.” Referenced canvassing near the Florin/Home Depot raid area and urged binding rules with consequences for collusion; invited officials to meet Feb. 28 on Florin Road at “Donuts and Coffee.”
• Elizabeth Nix (District 4 resident; Westminster Presbyterian Church; SAC ACT): Expressed support for the proposal; framed local government as a key “last bastion” for constitutional protections; urged the committee to stand firm.
• Kian Bliss (public commenter): Argued symbolic actions are insufficient; requested binding, accountable policy with clear timelines; urged expanding “City property” to include data transparency/compliance and referenced concerns about data being sent to other agencies.

Discussion Items

• Item 3 (File ID 2026-00521): Proposal—Prohibiting the Use of City Facilities and City Property Related to Immigration-Related Enforcement Activities
  • Chair Caity Maple (District 5) summarized the proposal as authored by Councilmembers Mai Vang (D8), Karina Talamantes (D3), and Eric Guerra (D6), and noted it was informed by community advocacy and a Nov. 18 letter to the Mayor and Council. She highlighted that, per the proposal framing, a prohibition alone was described as insufficient without additional mechanisms such as communication protocols, signage distribution, reporting requirements, and accountability.
  • Brown Act note (Chair Maple): Explained that sponsoring councilmembers not on the committee did not present to avoid Brown Act concerns about a majority of councilmembers in chambers.
  • Committee deliberation/questions:
    • Chair Maple requested additional information (for Council consideration) on: (1) legality/options around mask-wearing/identification for law enforcement (referencing news that a state law on masking was reportedly struck down), (2) SACPD participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force and how it relates to data sharing with federal agencies, and (3) transparency about SACPD interactions at/near the John E. Moss Federal Building and alleged coordination with federal enforcement related to protests.
    • Supervising Deputy City Attorney Steve Itagaki stated he was not yet aware of the referenced court decision on mask-wearing but would look into it.
    • Councilmember Roger Dickinson (District 2) echoed interest in the mask issue (noting he had also heard reporting that the issue was struck down because it excluded state officers) and supported moving the item forward without delay.
    • Councilmember Rick Jennings II (District 7) apologized for the delayed start due to quorum issues and supported sending the item to full Council quickly.

Key Outcomes

• Quorum/meeting timing: The committee recessed at ~9:32–9:33 a.m. due to lack of quorum and reconvened at 10:23 a.m.; the meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m.
• Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously once quorum was present.
• Item 3 (Immigration-related enforcement on City property): Unanimous motion (4-0) to:
  • Direct the appropriate Council appointive officer to commence work on the proposal with committee members, and
  • Forward the item to the full City Council for consideration without further review by the committee.
• Requested follow-up information for Council (not a separate vote): Chair Maple asked staff/City Attorney support to bring information to the City Council (or soon after) on mask/identification legal options, Joint Terrorism Task Force/data-sharing implications, and SACPD interactions/coordination related to protests near the federal building.