San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission members continued discussion of a draft regional wastewater municipal service review (MSR) and related governance options after commissioners raised concerns about stakeholder notice and the absence of some jurisdictional representation.

Jennifer, a LAFCO staff member, summarized the draft MSR as covering five primary wastewater service providers—the City of Hollister, City of San Juan Bautista, San Benito County Water District, Sunnyslope County Water District and Tres Pinos Water District—and two county service areas of interest (County Service Area 22 / Cielo Vista and County Service Area 45 / Rancho Larios). She said the report is in draft final form and that the public review draft had been circulated for 30 days.

Staff identified several issues that informed governance options: Hollister’s out‑of‑area wastewater connections (mapped in the presentation as orange areas), confusion between the “Hollister Urban Area” (roughly 20 square miles) and the city’s urban service area, city–county coordination problems that have delayed development approvals tied to wastewater capacity, and an out‑of‑date sphere of influence for San Juan Bautista (the city’s 2016 General Plan updated a boundary that LAFCO has not formally approved; the MSR will address that).

The draft presents governance options including formation of a regional sanitation district; a joint powers authority (JPA); establishment of a subsidiary district (where a city council would act as the governing board, subject to the requirement that at least 70% of the district’s land area and registered voters lie within city limits); retiring or revising Hollister’s urban service documents; and regional joint planning or the county acquiring Hollister capacity to serve new development (including reactivating latent powers of the San Benito County Water District or forming a county service area). The report’s executive summary now clarifies that study of an option does not equal LAFCO support and that further review—feasibility studies, plans for services, environmental review and applications—would be required to implement any reorganization.

Commissioners raised procedural concerns. One commissioner said the governance options packet had been distributed to commissioners the day before and not included in the public agenda within the 72‑hour window; another expressed concern that Hollister had not sent a representative to comment in person, noting the city had provided a written letter opposing use of city infrastructure for a regional plant. Joshua, a LAFCO staff member, advised that the document was publicly available when distributed to commissioners and that, under the Brown Act, the presentation could proceed, but he acknowledged the commission could continue the item if members felt more time was needed.

A member of the public, identified as Mr. Betancourt, urged commissioners to separate their jurisdictional roles from their commission roles during deliberations.

After discussion and public comment, the commission reached consensus to continue the regional wastewater MSR discussion to the October meeting to allow additional stakeholder presentations and to give jurisdictions more time to provide perspectives that staff can incorporate into a revised report. Staff said it had scheduled presentations with San Juan Bautista, San Benito County Water District and Sunnyslope County Water District and planned to incorporate agency feedback into the report before any public hearing on adoption.

Next steps: staff will complete stakeholder presentations, incorporate feedback into a revised MSR, and return the item for further consideration at the commission’s October meeting; any final determinations in the MSR will be considered by resolution referencing statutory determinations at a future public hearing.