RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Developer fees, an emergency lift-station repair and continuing disputes over the Integrated Water Master Plan dominated the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board’s Nov. 19 meeting, which ran more than five hours and covered a long list of other issues.

The agenda called for the board to review and accept the Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Lumos & Associates, introduce an ordinance to replace the existing developer fees with the significantly higher fees recommended in the study, and schedule a Dec. 17 public hearing prior to final adoption.

After almost two hours of discussion, the board postponed action on the fee study to allow revisions and scheduled further discussion at the Dec. 3 Improvements Committee meeting.

Enright opened the discussion with a PowerPoint presentation that outlined the legal framework governing how special districts may establish and implement development impact fees.

Lumos consultant Kristi Thompson reviewed her 22-page report analyzing proposed updates to connection fees for water, sewer, drainage and security: fees that have not been revised since 2017 and that no longer reflect the district’s current list of capital improvement projects. Her summary table showed the existing total fee of $13,709 and a proposed increase to $29,084. She also outlined two alternatives for the water fund, noting that it does not generate enough revenue to support scheduled capital projects.

During the ensuing discussion, several speakers said they accepted the Lumos methodology but questioned the underlying numbers provided by the district. Board President John Merchant was skeptical of the $15 million estimate for drilling wells, emphasizing the uncertainty around finding water and achieving projected yields. Developer Bob Keil said he wasn’t opposed to fee increases but suggested slowing down the approval process to get the numbers right.  Director Tim Maybee said it was important to sit down with the developers to see where they were regarding fees.

At one point, Merchant suggested a workshop approach. 

“Maybe we just do something like a workshop where we get together and come out of it with an eight and a half by 11 sheet of paper that’s got the numbers we’re going to live with."

Director Randy Jenco explained why he had asked for action on the district’s water-needs assessment to be placed on the agenda. He said he still doesn’t have a clear answer on water requirements for existing customers and new development, adding that “the only way to get definitive answers” would be to finish the study. Completing it, he said, would demonstrate due diligence in water planning and could withstand legal scrutiny. His motion was to seek a proposal from engineer Lisa Maddaus to complete the study. Maybee said he was seconding the motion “for the sake of discussion.”

Merchant, in an extremely lengthy response, strongly opposed revisiting the Maddaus-Adkins report. He said the Working Group had already extracted the information it needed and agreed with Maddaus’ figures for current and future development. He argued the district should instead be working with Water Systems Consultants.

“The only thing I’m not all in on is just rehashing this Maddaus stuff,” he said. “I’ve seen it four times and I don’t want to see it again.”

District Counsel Patrick Enright said the board should begin preparing for an Urban Water Management Plan, which will be required once the district reaches 3,000 water connections. He recommended developing a request for bids so that any qualified firm – including Maddaus and Water Systems Consultants – could submit a proposal.

Jenco and Chief Plant Operator Travis Bohannon noted that Water System Consultants had previously submitted substantial bids to redo the Integrated Water Master Plan and prepare an Urban Water Supply Plan. The costs were so high, they said, that the board ultimately narrowed the scope to a more limited study focused on identifying potential well sites.

Jenco told Merchant he wasn’t approaching the water-planning process correctly, particularly if the district moved toward enacting a development moratorium and the matter ultimately landed in court. The central question, he said, would be where Merchant’s numbers came from.

“I don’t think you want to say that we did this water plan, but we didn’t like it, so we got some of the SOLOS people together, and we came up with some numbers we thought were better than the engineers’,” Jenco said. “You might as well hand them your checkbook and say, ‘Take everything I’ve got.’”

Maybee noted that unless the board adopts the current Integrated Water Master Plan, the district must continue relying on the 2010 plan for its numbers. 

He acknowledged that the draft master plan contains some discrepancies but said they could be resolved later. Drawing on his own experience being interviewed by the Grand Jury, Maybee added that the district’s water-planning process could also be at risk of scrutiny.

Merchant said the district is not legally required to complete an Integrated Water Master Plan, though it will have to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan once it reaches 3,000 connections. He also noted that the county will require a Water Supply Assessment when the Rancho North project completes its application. In the meantime, he added, “We have no risk when we are below 2,999 (connections).”

Enright also addressed a future water supply assessment, saying Maybee had made a good point. 

“We should at least have accepted the numbers, although we don’t accept all the conclusions and recommendations,” he said. “This is so we have current numbers and not those from 2010 or 2016.”

Merchant said that once the water supply assessment is requested, the district would manage the process and the developer would pay for it, so “it would absolutely be free.”

“But I’ll do it any other way than going back to Maddaus again, but I am just one of five,” Merchant added.

Although the Working Group agreed with Maddaus’ water demand figures, “I am not in favor of approving the rest of it,” Merchant said. “I am definitely not going to endorse those mitigation strategies because they are ridiculous.”

Audience member Jim Farrell, who essentially wrote the Working Group report, agreed that the group accepted much of the draft Integrated Water Master Plan. However, he said they still had a series of questions he believed could be better answered by Water Systems Consultants. The Working Group members who reviewed the draft master plan and produced the report were Farrell, Merchant, Operations Director Eric Houston – who is currently on leave – and Janis Eckard.

The discussion concluded with a vote on Jenco’s motion to ask Maddaus to finish the report.

Jenco and Maybee voted yes, while Merchant and Directors Linda Butler and Bill Gere voted no.

Afterwards, it emerged that the contract with Maddaus and Adkins Engineering had already been cancelled. Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder said Houston signed the cancellation on Aug. 21. Merchant explained that Water Systems Consultants could not begin working with the district until that contract had been terminated.

Director Bill Gere asked whether the contract cancellation should have required board action. Enright said it depended on whether the project had been completed.

When Jenco asked whether Maddaus had been paid for the remainder of the contract, Enright replied that the consultants had been paid in full in 2024. 

“For the last three or six months, they have been basically working for free,” Enright added.