Sacramento City Council Behavioral Health Workshop and Public Testimony on Sanctuary Policies, Oct 13, 2026

The Sacramento City Council, sitting jointly with the Sacramento City Financing Authority, Housing Authority, Public Financing Authority, and Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency, met on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, starting at 5:05 p.m. and adjourning at 8:34 p.m. at City Hall. The meeting focused on a workshop on behavioral health services and coordination, followed by extensive public testimony regarding the city's sanctuary policies and law enforcement data sharing with federal immigration agencies. Mayor Kevin McCarty presided, with Councilmember Caity Maple absent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Behavioral Health Workshop (4 speakers): Christopher Carlisle and Annie Carlisle testified about their daughter, an individual with schizophrenia and substance use disorder who gave birth on the streets, criticizing the lack of enforcement in Care Court and the 5150 process and calling for legislative change to mandate treatment. Matthew King shared his personal recovery story, arguing that mandatory treatment saved his life and that housing without services is insufficient. McKenzie Wilson, a community organizer, criticized the city's budget priorities (72% of general fund to police/courts/cages) and the lack of real supportive resources, arguing the system fails people with behavioral health challenges and their families.
• Matters Not on the Agenda (42 speakers): A large majority of speakers, organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), Sacramento for Sanctuary Coalition, and other groups, condemned the City Council's July 2026 approval of SAC PD's participation in the Central California Intelligence Center (CCIC), which they argued facilitates data sharing with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Speakers stated that the current sanctuary city resolutions are non-binding and performative, and demanded an end to city collaboration with federal immigration authorities. Specific requests included establishing binding policies to govern interagency collaborations, conducting independent audits of data sharing, prohibiting the sharing of mental health and disability data, and ceasing participation in fusion centers and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Several speakers reported witnessing ICE activity in their neighborhoods that morning. Additional speakers addressed issues such as targeted harassment by neighbors, a dispute with code enforcement over a home food pantry, and a critique of a proposed housing development on Northgate Boulevard.

Discussion Items

• Behavioral Health Workshop (File ID: 2026-00784): Director of the Department of Community Response (DCR) Brian Pedro presented a comprehensive overview of behavioral health challenges in Sacramento. Key data points included that approximately 300,000 people in Sacramento County live with a behavioral health disorder, with an estimated 200 high-acuity unsheltered individuals in the city. He detailed the city's current response systems (911, 311, 988, DCR Heart Team, SAC Fire crisis teams), court interventions (Care Court, Prop 36, LPS Conservatorships), and gaps. He noted that while 10,836 individuals were brought into ERs on 5150 holds in FY25, only 55 reached LPS conservatorship. He stressed that a lack of data sharing between systems prevents building a strongest case for the public guardian to conserve the most impaired individuals.
• Council Deliberation and Direction: Councilmember Eric Guerra detailed how 79 high-utilizer individuals generated 5,121 contacts with the fire department over three years, costing $12.5 million. He advocated for a multidisciplinary action team, an update to the city-county partnership agreement, and aggressive state legislative reform to strengthen Care Court and the conservatorship process. Councilmember Roger Dickinson emphasized the systemic lack of coordination between the city, county, hospitals, and the public guardian, calling for a collaborative body akin to the criminal justice cabinet. Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes provided updated Care Court statistics (221 petitions, 3 graduations, less than 1% success rate) and questioned the county on jail release linkages and bed utilization. Councilmember Lisa Kaplan called for integrating hospital systems (Kaiser, Sutter, Mercy) into the coordination effort and reforming state laws preventing mandated services. The Mayor concluded that the city must aggressively address the issue through state advocacy (led by the Big City Mayors Coalition), updating the partnership agreement, strengthening the multidisciplinary team, and continuing to develop an alternative response model.

Key Outcomes

• Direction to City Manager: The council provided clear direction to the City Manager to: 1) Make state legislative reform (strengthening Care Court, LPS conservatorship, and SB 43 implementation) the city's top legislative priority. 2) Work with the county to update the city-county partnership agreement to encompass new programs (Prop 1, Prop 36, Care Court, SB 43) and improve data sharing and coordination. 3) Formalize a multidisciplinary team (MDT) involving all partners (city, county, hospitals, public guardian) to coordinate care for high-utilizers and build stronger cases for conservatorship. 4) Proceed with the Harvard Kennedy study on an alternative 911 response model.
• Next Steps: The City Manager is expected to report back to the City Council within one month on the status of updating the city-county partnership agreement.
• No Formal Vote: The item was a workshop; action was to review, comment, and provide direction as stated in the minutes. No formal ordinance or contract was voted on during the discussion item.