The San Miguel Community Services District (CSD) board recently mulled over the pros and cons of dissolving after a written public comment requested that the district give its services up to the county.
“Given the current operational landscape, I believe that transitioning these responsibilities to the county would result in more efficient, cost-effective, and transparent governance for our community,” the letter from George Campbell said. “By dissolving the district and reintegrating with the larger organizations, we can ensure that San Miguel continues to receive high-quality services without the burden of maintaining a separate administrative entity.”
At its April 17 meeting, the board decided to quash the idea after District Manager Kelly Dodds said that the cons outweighed the pros.
While the pros listed administrative and operational services being consolidated, which would result in a reduction of expenses related to a local office, Dodds said the cons would mean there would be no personnel to respond to customer service-related issues; no local control over water, wastewater, and fire; as well as less control over spending and rate changes. Those decisions would be handed over to the county and the Board of Supervisors.
“One of the things I’m most proud of is our ability to work with customersāour customer service and dealing with customer issues,” Dodds told the board. “Every day, without fail, we have someone calling in with a problem that maybe we can solve, maybe we can’t, but we can help them and figure out how to solve it.”
Dodds added that if the CSD dissolved and San Miguel residents wanted to provide public comment in person about service issues, they would have to travel to the SLO County Board of Supervisor chambers during the day. Dodds said he doesn’t think the county would focus on the small community as much as it does other areas.
“Time and time again, I have seen the county has prioritized certain areas over other areas for political or other reasons,” he said. “San Miguel has been a unique little spot because we are a disadvantaged community, so while the county could apply for grant funding, … it’s a little more difficult for them to provide because it’s only for San Miguel because the county itself is not disadvantaged.”
Overall, Dodds said the district was financially and operationally well off and “divesting just to get rid of [the district] doesn’t make any sense.”
Board member Ashley Sangster brought up San Miguel’s neighboring San Simeon CSD, which is currently in the dissolution process of potentially giving its services back to the county. Dodds said San Simeon’s financial and operational needs were dire, unlike San Miguel.
Residents shared similar sentiments to Dodds’ and urged the board not to consider giving up its control to the county.
One speaker said she wouldn’t feel safe losing the district’s local fire department, and that county response times would take too long.
“We need our fire department to be local,” she said. “Keep it under our control.”
Another resident told the board that it knew how to run the district and to “ignore that letter.” Board member Brendin Beatty said he couldn’t stand to listen to the idea and would always vote to “have control within people I am around.”
Board member John Green said he wasn’t sure if he would support dissolving and felt the county didn’t share the same interest for San Miguel.
The board concluded the discussion with no intent to revisit the topic in future meetings. Ī
This article appears in May 8-18, 2025.