San Benito County Civil Grand Jury

The jury reviews detention facilities, patrol ride-alongs, staffing, radio deployment, accessibility, transport practices and sobering-cell procedures in physical PDF pages 8–12. Its five findings and five recommendations address retention, radios, accessibility, transport staffing and BSCC follow-up. It also describes the Youth Services Center; this is part of the same report, not an additional investigation. The Sheriff disputes several premises, including the scope of adequate staffing, applicable accessibility standards, existing transport policies and the description of the BSCC finding. Those are respondent positions, not independently adjudicated legal conclusions or proof of current compliance. The Sheriff’s undated final response is audited separately from the unsigned County agenda attachment. Board minutes record approval of the responses, but an executed County letter was not provided.

In physical PDF pages 13–16, the jury describes delays it attributes to Hollister’s blanket subpoena process for interviews and documents. Three findings and five recommendations seek direct scheduling and document-request policies, removal of the blanket requirement and training about subpoenas. The report requests a City Council response and invites the City Manager, Police Chief and Finance Director. The timing, subpoena history and legal interpretations are the jury’s account, not a court determination that particular officials violated the law. No verified final Hollister response is included in the provided package. Known blocked agency attachments remain a source gap, not proof of nonresponse or lateness.

Physical PDF pages 17–22 examine security procurement, expenditure records and decision-making for the 2025 Rally. Four findings and seven recommendations call for earlier security contracts, vendor compliance, actual-cost disclosure, advance budgets and clearer ad hoc committee responsibilities. The report expressly does not determine whether the Rally had a positive or negative overall community impact. The jury says it lacked a complete final accounting; this does not establish a verified total loss or economic benefit. Its claims about vendor experience, sleeping arrangements and ordinance compliance remain attributed to the investigation. Recommendations naming the 2026 event retain their source timing without assuming that event occurred or that follow-up was completed. No verified final Hollister response was provided.

Physical PDF pages 23–40 review sewer-rate notice, easement acquisition, Board conflict procedures, staff and public communications, contract information, recordings, rate-study methodology and management hiring. Eight findings and seventeen recommendations retain the jury’s August 19, 2026 implementation dates. The report discloses a juror’s nonparticipation because of former employment at a different water district. The District’s September 4, 2026 Board-authorized response agrees with the premature rate change and reports rollback and refunds, while disputing most other findings. Claimed implementation is distinguished from future conditional rate review, website changes and recording-cost analysis. Legal interpretations and general claims of compliance are not independently verified. The court annual and scanned County variants are preserved unchanged; their front-matter dates are not silently harmonized.