The short version
Six things that actually happened, if you read nothing else.
- The Water Vision Working Group was dissolved, 3–2. Directors Butler, Gere and Merchant voted to dissolve it; Directors Jenco and Maybee voted no. A separate, unanimous 5–0 vote dissolved the Administrative Oversight Ad Hoc Committee. Full story below — it's the most consequential thing that happened Wednesday.
- The Board President's Facebook post was discussed at the meeting. During public comment, before the Board reached the water items, Jeff Pearson raised a water-policy post John Merchant had published three days earlier, saying it raised questions about impartiality on the very items up for a vote that night. See the dedicated section below, including a fact-check of the post's claims.
- The audits are approved. The Board voted unanimously to receive and file the 2022-23 and 2023-24 audits — complete, signed, and largely good news.
- The Pera Drive sinkhole engineering was approved at $96,791 — not the $42,613 printed on the agenda. Staff told the Board on the record that the lower figure was a leftover clerical error from an earlier version of the project; the true number was always the larger one.
- The proposed extension to the 1988 Country Club water agreement was withdrawn after landowners in the audience said they'd never been consulted. No vote was taken.
- Cyber security spending passed unanimously at $21,168 for the year — but the discussion that followed exposed a bigger, unresolved problem: the District still doesn't have a clear process for absorbing recurring, unbudgeted expenses.
- A separate governance question came up early: who controls committee agendas? No written policy exists. The Board President said the District should "write something down" — but nothing was adopted. See below.
The Water Vision Working Group: what it was, and how it ended
This is the single biggest thing that happened Wednesday, and it will shape water planning for months. Here's the full arc — where the group came from, what it did, and exactly how the Board voted to end it.
What it was and why it existed
The Water Vision Working Group began as an advisory body to help Water Systems Consulting evaluate possible future well locations. Its scope grew from there to cover Lake Clementia, a water-use audit, questions arising from the 2024 Integrated Water Master Plan, recycled water opportunities, and other long-range water tasks.
It was chartered by the Board — not appointed informally — following a contentious May 27 meeting where directors argued openly about who should be doing this work and why. Two unanimous motions came out of that meeting: one to document the group's assignments, one directing that a tracking matrix be built. The matrix reviewed Wednesday is the result of those motions.
The group's work was reviewed by the Improvements Committee on August 4 and forwarded to the full Board — the meeting where resident Tom Shewchuk presented the condensed matrix and the disagreement over priorities became public.
What the matrix showed
Roughly half of the 26 tracked tasks were "Not Started" as of the meeting — the well site summary at 30%, the water-use audit at 20%, the IWMP data agreement at "70% Completed?" with a question mark in the original document.
Those labels need context. At the August 4 Improvements Committee meeting, Working Group member Tom Shewchuk explained that several assignments had stalled for reasons outside the group's control, not from inaction:
- Waiting on the water attorney. The group had reviewed the groundwater report, evaluated earlier proposals, and forwarded questions to the District's newly retained water attorney through Interim GM Amelia Wilder — but had not received answers.
- Waiting on the Board itself. Director Jenco said the broader process had been on hold while the matrix was completed and the Board decided who should own each task.
- Lake Clementia had no policy decision to work from. Shewchuk said the group could not meaningfully advance those assignments until the Board decided what role the reservoir should play — an emergency drinking-water source, or primarily irrigation.
- The water-use audit was waiting on staff. Shewchuk said he had identified roughly 100 residential accounts that appeared not to be paying incremental water charges, but the work stopped while District staff reviewed the data.
- Some items weren't reaching committee agendas. Director Jenco said progress had stalled because topics weren't being placed on the Improvements Committee's agenda — the same governance gap covered below.
- Staff capacity. Committee Chair Bill Gere said staff was already stretched, and the District needed to set priorities, costs, funding sources and grant opportunities before advancing several major projects at once.
A "Not Started" label describes a task's status. It doesn't explain why — and the August 4 record shows several of the group's open items were waiting on legal advice, Board policy, staff bandwidth or agenda access, not simply sitting untouched.
The vote ▶ 2:50:30
Motion 1 — dissolve the Water Vision Working Group. Passed, 3–2. ▶ 3:18:48
Motion 2 — dissolve the Administrative Oversight Ad Hoc Committee. Passed, 5–0. ▶ 3:19:55
The arguments, briefly
President Merchant's position was procedural: dissolve both bodies now, ahead of a new permanent General Manager, and let that person decide what advisory structure they actually need rather than inheriting one.
Why dissolution? Why not just say don't meet again until there's a new general manager and let the general manager decide if it's a good idea to have the working group continue to work on the tasks that they were given?
Director Tim Maybee, questioning why the group had to be dissolved immediately ▶ 2:55:05I look at both of these committees, and both of these committees were formed for a purpose. I think it's time to move on from both of them.
Director Bill Gere, opening the discussion that led to his yes vote on both dissolutionsJeff Pearson, speaking for the group afterward, disagreed that it was time to move on. The group had made real progress despite repeated obstacles, he said, and offered to walk the Board through the record of what it had already been chartered to do and had delivered.
What it means now
Fourteen of the matrix's unfinished tasks were owned by the Working Group. With the group dissolved 3–2 and no successor body named in the same motion, those tasks currently have no assigned owner. The Board did not vote to reassign the work to staff, a standing committee, or the incoming General Manager as part of either motion — Director Jenco's concern about exactly this gap was part of what he voted no on.
Background reporting by Gail Bullen for the River Valley Times: the August 4 matrix debate and the related agenda-setting dispute. RMCSD's own Integrated Water Master Plan materials are posted at ranchomurietacsd.com/integrated-water-master-plan-iwmp.
The Board President's Facebook post — and the fact-check ▶ 0:20:22
This became part of the public record Wednesday night. A resident referenced it directly during public comment, before the Board even reached the water items it touches on. Here is what was posted, what was said at the podium, and how its claims hold up against the primary sources.
Board President John Merchant published a post titled "The High Stakes Of A Community Water Plan," sharing a link to the Regional Water Authority's newly released Watersheds Resilience Plan for the American, Bear and Cosumnes rivers, along with his own written commentary. His full piece is posted here: "The High Stakes Of A Community Water Plan," John Merchant, Aug. 23, 2026 (PDF).
In it, he summarized several of the plan's climate projections and argued the findings mean Rancho Murieta should not "approve radical increases in water demand." He wrote that the District is legally required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan, and that existing residents should be placed "at the head of the line" for future water entitlements ahead of new development.
He signed it in his capacity as a private citizen and closed by asking readers to "support candidates that advocate for a careful and rational water strategy" — three months before a Board election in which he is not personally on the ballot, but which will decide the balance of the board he presides over.
What was said at the podium ▶ 0:20:22
During public comment — before the Board reached the water agenda items — Jeff Pearson, identifying himself as a project manager with Rancho Murieta Properties, asked to address "two linked items on the agenda" concerning the Water Vision Working Group, items 16 and 17. He referenced Merchant's post by name and date, and said Merchant was certainly within his rights as a private citizen to comment.
But he told the Board he was concerned that "the post publicly advocates a position on issues that appear related to matters on the agenda tonight... and currently involved in pending litigation affecting the CSD," and that this raised questions about "whether such statements may affect public confidence in the CSD's handling of the matter" and "the impartiality of board deliberations." He submitted written material for the record and asked that it be included in the minutes.
Whose hat was speaking
Two facts sit next to each other here, both on the public record. John Merchant is the sitting RMCSD Board President. He also serves as Vice President of SOLOS (Saving Our Lakes & Open Spaces), a community organization whose stated mission includes organizing support for development limits and long-term land preservation. Holding both roles is not, by itself, a legal conflict of interest.
But the post's central argument — that existing residents should be prioritized ahead of future development in water allocation — is also SOLOS's core public position. And the post was published while two matters bearing directly on that argument were both active: the Board's own water-committee restructuring vote that night, and pending litigation in which a developer alleges the District is improperly withholding water service.
The test raised at the podium is a fair one for any Director, on any topic: is this an official Board position (cite the vote or resolution), a personal opinion (say so), or an outside organization's advocacy (name it)? The post identifies itself as personal opinion. Whether readers could tell that from a district Facebook page, and whether the timing next to a live board vote and pending litigation was appropriate, is exactly the question Pearson put on the record — and one the Board did not respond to on the night of the meeting.
Fact-check
Prepared by Destination Rancho Murieta using primary source documents (named and linked below and in each row).
| Claim in the post | Verdict | What the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| Snowpack decline ~60% by mid-century; snowmelt 2–4 weeks earlier; wildfires 17% more frequent; extreme precipitation 15% more intense | Accurate | Matches the RWA plan's executive summary (PDF) figures. Correctly sourced to the June 2026 plan release. |
| "Days over 100 degrees are forecast to double" | Not supported | The RWA executive summary (PDF) states 20 more extreme-heat days a year above 100°F by mid-century — a specific addition, not a doubling. No baseline is given that would make a "doubling" claim possible. |
| "Peak flood flows could increase by approximately 19%" | Missing qualifier | The RWA executive summary (PDF) gives a 19% increase in 100-year peak flows — a defined statistical flood event, not a general rise in peak flows. |
| The report is a comprehensive, actionable analysis of the Cosumnes specifically | Contradicted by the source | The plan's own gap review (Appendix J, PDF) says prior studies show a strong foundation for the American River but gaps in geographic representation and analytical depth for parts of the Cosumnes. Every headline figure cited is a three-watershed regional average, not Cosumnes-specific. |
| The 2017 American River Basin Study "mirrors these conclusions" | Date and scope wrong | The Bureau of Reclamation release shows the study completed in August 2022 (selected for funding in 2017). Its study overview (PDF) shows the area bounded by the Cosumnes River as its southern edge — the Cosumnes is the boundary of that study, not a subject within it. |
| "We must prepare an Urban Water Management Plan… Water law requires we do this" | Not currently accurate | Water Code §10617 triggers the UWMP mandate above 3,000 connections or 3,000 acre-feet/year. RMCSD remains below that threshold under its own 2026-27 budget reporting. The $500,000 UWMP line item in that budget is voluntary, and a developer publicly disputed the figure as inflated. |
| Existing residents must be "first in line," ahead of all future development | Legally incomplete | Swanson v. Marin Municipal Water District (1976) permits shortage-based moratoria but bars using one to enact a no-growth policy, and imposes a continuing duty on the district to make every reasonable effort to augment supply. The post does not mention that second half of the standard. |
Every source cited above is named and linked in the row where it's used. All of them, plus every other source in this guide, are also gathered together in References at the bottom of the page. This fact-check reflects publicly available documents as of August 24, 2026 — litigation status can change quickly, so verify current status before republishing or quoting.
What was actually decided, item by item
The rest of Wednesday's agenda, in the order it happened.
The 2022-23 and 2023-24 audits ▶ 0:01:54
Voice vote, no objection ▶ 0:14:04
The Board received and filed both years' audits. The auditor thanked Finance Director Cecilia Min directly for reconstructing years of records she did not originally create — the reason audit corrections dropped from around 40 in past years to seven and four this cycle. One resident asked where infrastructure-replacement reserves are shown in the audit; staff pointed him to the restricted-reserve detail on page 38 of the full report.
Extension to the 1988 Country Club water agreement
No vote taken ▶ 1:53:39
Before discussion began, landowners in the audience — including a representative identified as speaking for Rancho Murieta Properties — said they were parties to the underlying agreement and had never been contacted about a proposed extension. President Merchant withdrew the item on the spot rather than debate it, and the Board instead affirmed consensus to proceed with staff's written response to the related Grand Jury finding (Item 10), which does not include billing the Country Club for 38 years of reclaimed-water delivery costs.
New development fees
Staff to return September 16 ▶ 1:55:07
As previewed, no fee was adopted. Staff will gather actual cost data from the utility supervisor, engineering and finance, and bring proposed water and sewer connection, inspection and fire-suppression-letter fees back for the required public meeting on September 16, with new fees potentially in effect by January 1.
Cyber security — $21,168 for one year
Roll call: Butler, Gere, Jenco, Maybee, Merchant — all yes ▶ 2:30:31
The Board approved the IT manager's recommendation as a one-year agreement rather than a multi-year commitment, specifically to allow time for what Director Gere called a broader look at the District's overall technology infrastructure before committing further. The discussion that followed ran long and exposed a structural problem: with a backhoe repair, the Pera Drive overrun, and this cyber item all landing as unbudgeted expenses in the same month, several directors and a former board member both said the District needs a real policy for how these recurring surprises get funded, rather than defaulting to "take it from reserves" — especially since, as Finance Director Min and a resident both noted, the District still doesn't have a fully reconciled picture of what's actually sitting in each reserve account.
Pera Drive sinkhole — $96,791
Roll call: Butler, Gere, Jenco, Maybee, Merchant — all yes ▶ 2:33:10
Staff resolved the number discrepancy on the record: the $42,613 printed on the agenda was a clerical carryover from an earlier version of the project scope, not a competing lower bid. The Improvements Committee had already directed staff to expand Domenichelli & Associates' task order to include full project management — pulling permits, overseeing contractors — the same model used for the Equestrian Center repair, which pushed the true number to $96,791. A further $40,354 (Task 4, construction) is being deliberately delayed until spring to avoid starting excavation right before the rainy season.
Candidates Night
Direction requested, not finalized ▶ 2:38:47
The Board discussed format and venue at length — the last candidates night was in 2018, and one resident recalled a prior meeting where attendance exceeded the room's fire-code capacity of 69 and people were turned away at the door. Staff was asked to look at venue alternatives; whether the District hosts the event itself or a community organization does was left open.
Org chart cleanup and the Administrative Services job description
Pulled from consent, not decided ▶ 0:37:58
Director Maybee asked to hold this until the incoming General Manager can weigh in, noting both GM finalist candidates asked during interviews to have input on job descriptions and org structure. The Board agreed to bring a version reflecting Wednesday's committee dissolutions back next month, along with the finance director's title, which is being cleaned up to "Director of Finance and Administration." The rest of the consent calendar — including bills paid, the July check register, the watershed survey vendor switch, and both emergency repair items — passed as amended.
What Monday's finance meeting revealed
For context: the Finance Committee met August 24, two days before this meeting, to review the audits before they reached the full Board.
The person handling accounts payable had been a security guard.
Cecilia Min, Director of Finance and Administration, explaining to the committee why the old accounting records were, in her words, "so chopped up"Her point was about qualifications, not about any individual. The District, she said, had not had a person in that position with the financial-reporting knowledge the work requires — an understanding of GAAP and GASB, the accounting rules every California special district must follow. Assigning the work to an employee hired to do something else was a District staffing decision, made well above that employee's level.
It was also a consequential seat to get wrong. Accounts payable is where a transaction first gets entered and categorized. Enter it in the wrong place and everything built on top inherits the error — the monthly financials, the budget comparisons, the numbers the Board used to set rates. That is why staff spent two years rebuilding the books rather than simply auditing them.
Audit corrections dropped from roughly 40 in past years to seven for FY23 and four for FY24. Four older significant deficiencies were resolved and removed from the report. Three material weaknesses remain open: keeping the accounting system current, timely year-end closing, and properly recording developer-donated infrastructure — which is why the audit still carries a qualified opinion on the Water and Sewer funds specifically.
The rest of the consent calendar
Everything below passed together in one motion, minus the two items pulled out above (6.A.4, approved separately by voice vote right after, and 6.E, continued to September).
| What it is | Cost |
|---|---|
| Bills paid, July 202693 checks, largest to Golden State Risk Management (insurance pool) and California Waste Recovery. | $1,459,062 |
| Continue the Equestrian Center culvert repair | — |
| Updated organizational chart (as amended following Item 17 — ad hoc committee removed) | — |
| Emergency electrical repair, wastewater plant — Prodigy Electric, already completed | $13,059 |
| Rio Oso generator control panel — Holt of California | $19,877 |
| Switch vendors on the watershed sanitary survey — Lumos & Associates replacing Verdantas | $33,440 |
| Conflict of Interest Code rewrite — Ordinance O2026-03, first reading | — |
Another unresolved issue: who controls committee agendas?
This surfaced early in the meeting — before the water items even came up — and traces back to a dispute at the August 4 Improvements Committee over whether a requested water item could be kept off that committee's agenda.
At ▶ 0:33:19, Director Maybee said he was concerned about whether a single committee member could stop an item from being placed on an agenda. Counsel Patrick Enright said he would need to review the District's policy on committee agendas before he could answer.
If we need to write something down to clear that up, let's do it.
President John Merchant, on the lack of a written agenda-setting policy ▶ 0:35:26No policy was written or adopted at Wednesday's meeting. The issue resurfaced later in the evening, during public comment on correspondence.
Background: River Valley Times — Agenda-setting dispute.
What got resolved, and what didn't
Several discrepancies flagged before the meeting were addressed live. A few new ones surfaced.
Resolved at the meeting
- The Pera Drive number gap. Staff confirmed on the record it was a clerical error, not a second proposal — the true figure was always $96,791.
- The Water Vision Working Group naming error. Staff confirmed the "Water Development Working Group" language in item 17 was simply incorrect.
- The 1988 agreement's missing extension terms. Never resolved on paper — resolved instead by withdrawing the item after the landowners objected they weren't consulted.
Still open
- Who owns the Water Vision Working Group's unfinished work? Fourteen tasks lost their owner when the group was dissolved 3–2, and no motion reassigned them.
- Agenda-setting authority. No written policy exists on whether a single committee chair can keep an item off an agenda. President Merchant said the District should "write something down" — but nothing was adopted Wednesday. Full story below.
- Reserve funding for recurring unbudgeted items. The cyber security discussion made plain the District still lacks a documented process for this, and doesn't yet have a fully reconciled reserve-by-reserve balance to draw the answer from.
- The org chart and Administrative Services title — continued to September, as flagged before the meeting.
Dates to put on your calendar
- September 1Improvements Committee, 10:00 a.m. — Rio Oso options report expected, confirmed at the meeting ▶ 0:44:09.
- September 16Regular Board meeting — development fees public hearing, Conflict of Interest Code final adoption, revised org chart, Grand Jury response approval.
- September 24District's formal response to the Grand Jury is due.
- December 31, 2026Federal deadline to certify the water system's emergency response plan.
- January 1, 2027State backup water supply requirement (SB 552) takes effect.
Six questions that work at any meeting
- What changed?
Not what everyone talked about. What is different now than before the meeting?
- Who owns the next step?
Board, staff, engineer, attorney, consultant, committee — and when is it due?
- Which number are we using?
Board-adopted, engineer-produced, draft, estimate, outdated, or disputed? Label it.
- What does it cost, and who pays?
Existing ratepayer, developer, reserve, grant, another agency, or shared?
- Can the public find the decision?
The report, the recommendation, the motion, the vote — without listening to hours of audio.
- Who is speaking?
Board policy, staff conclusion, engineering opinion, a Director's own view, a litigant, or an advocacy group. All may be worth hearing. They are not the same.
References
Every source used in this guide, in one place, sorted by topic.
This meeting
District page for the August 26 meetingThe official agenda, packet, and referenced materials — the primary source for every item, page number, and dollar figure in this guide.
- Original meeting audio
The full recording. Every timestamp chip in this guide (▶) links directly to that moment.
- Written transcript of the meeting audio
Produced for Destination Rancho Murieta by a paid transcription service — not an official RMCSD record. Source for every quote in this guide.
- August 24 Finance Committee packet (PDF)
The full audits reviewed two days before this meeting.
Water Vision Working Group
RMCSD Integrated Water Master Plan materialsBackground on the 2024 study referenced throughout the water discussion.
- River Valley Times — the August 4 matrix debate
- River Valley Times — the related agenda-setting dispute
The Merchant post & fact-check
John Merchant's post, "The High Stakes Of A Community Water Plan" (PDF)- RWA Watersheds Resilience Plan — full plan and downloads
- RWA plan — executive summary (PDF)
- RWA plan — Appendix J, watershed delineation (PDF)
Defines what area the plan does and doesn't cover.
- American River Basin Study — Bureau of Reclamation release
- American River Basin Study — study overview (PDF)
- California Water Code §10617
The Urban Water Management Plan connection/acre-foot threshold.
- Swanson v. Marin Municipal Water District (1976), full opinion
- Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (1991)
- River Valley Times — original coverage of the watershed plan's release
- River Valley Times — CSD Sued Over Water, Development Agreements
- River Valley Times — From Moratorium Talk to Courtroom
- River Valley Times — CSD Approves Budget, Rate Increases
Source for the disputed $500,000 UWMP line item.
Finance background
Companion guide to the August 24 Finance Committee meetingPage-by-page index of the finance packet and the full audits.
Your board
Contact informationPresident John Merchant, Vice President Linda Butler, and Directors Bill Gere, Randy Jenco and Tim Maybee.