RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Security policy took center stage at the Feb. 18 meeting of the Rancho Murieta Community Services District board, where directors spent nearly an hour weighing a proposed restructuring of the Security Department, revisions to job descriptions and authorization of Tasers.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to table the item until March, citing unanswered questions about funding in the upcoming budget cycle and because the union has not yet responded to the proposed job description changes.

The debate exposed differing views over how far the district’s security force should move beyond a traditional “observe and report” role, and how much operational and liability risk the district is prepared to accept.

Butler: Align Titles and Duties

Director Linda Butler, who chairs the Security Committee, introduced the item by reminding her colleagues that the board had previously discussed moving away from the Community Service Officer model and returning to a Security Patrol Officer I and II structure.

“Basically, that’s what we’ve done,” Butler said, referring to discussions that date back to August.

Butler contended that the CSO classification is not a good fit for Rancho Murieta’s structure. Community Service Officers are typically employed by cities or sheriff’s departments, she said, an arrangement that does not apply in Rancho Murieta. In her view, the existing CSO job description “does not fulfill the requirements to provide a safe and secure community,” and she recommended adopting updated Patrol Officer I and II classifications instead.

She then turned the presentation over to Security Sgt. Brandon Arino.

“Brandon is going to give you a complete review … observe and report, what our security patrol and officers do, and patrol officers in particular,” Butler said.

Arino: Observe and Report

Arino’s report outlined what he described as an “observe, report and intervene when safe” operational model.

“For the purpose of district security, security patrol officers are employed by the district to help protect life and property within the community,” Arino said. “Security patrol officers are not police officers and do not replace law enforcement. Instead, they work alongside law enforcement agencies to enhance safety and provide additional community support.”

He described a patrol structure that includes approximately 66 checkpoints during an eight-hour shift, with each stop lasting two to five minutes. Those checkpoints cover CSD facilities, Rancho Murieta Association properties and commercial areas, accounting for roughly five hours of a typical shift.

Daily duties include conducting vacation checks, responding to resident complaints, enforcing RMA and district rules such as parking and noise restrictions, assisting emergency responders and documenting incidents. The overarching goal, Arino said, is deterrence through visibility and a consistent security presence.

Common calls for service include burglary and panic alarms, suspicious persons or vehicles, prowler reports, noise complaints, welfare checks, animal issues, smoke or unattended campfire concerns and DUI complaints, the latter limited to observation and notification of the California Highway Patrol.

Arino also underscored what officers do not do. They do not pursue suspects, conduct criminal investigations, initiate traffic stops or respond directly to domestic violence, weapons-related or suicide calls.

Under his proposal, the board would:

Acknowledge the observe, report, and intervene framework;
Affirm continued authorization of batons, OC spray and handcuffs;
Approve Tasers as an additional, less-lethal option, subject to a comprehensive policy and state-compliant training; and
Adopt updated Patrol Officer I and II job descriptions to align with current duties.

Arino framed the proposed changes as a way to “enhance officer and community safety, reduce injury and liability exposure, support de-escalation practices, align classifications with actual duties, maintain modern non-firearm security standards and strengthen policy defensibility.”

Maybee: Risk Management

Director Tim Maybee, who chaired the Security Committee for several years before the board’s January 2025 reorganization, began by stressing that his concerns were not directed at Arino or the security staff.

He said he had “gotten [his] rear end kicked” in prior meetings on the topic and was now approaching the issue solely in his role as a board member, focused on policy, governance and risk management.

Maybee said his concerns center on what he views as a gradual shift away from a pure “observe and report” model toward an “observe, report and intervene when safe” approach. He questioned when that language was formally adopted and who determines, in real time, what qualifies as “safe.”

He reminded the board that prior direction had been to avoid placing patrol officers in situations requiring split-second decisions about physical intervention, arguing that such judgments carry heightened risk for both the officers and the district.

Maybee also referenced the failed Measure R, the 2024 parcel tax proposal that would have generated additional funding for security services. He argued that its defeat signaled the community’s reluctance to expand – or substantially increase the cost of – district security operations.

Maybee’s central concern was liability. He argued that authorizing batons, OC spray, handcuffs and potentially Tasers without guaranteed, recurring funding for comprehensive training creates significant exposure for the district.

He described the state-required guard-card training as the “bare minimum,” saying it does not adequately prepare officers for high-crisis situations in which a baton or Taser might be deployed.

If an incident were to result in a lawsuit or deposition, he warned, attorneys would closely examine training hours, documentation and whether policies align with actual practice. Expanding tools and intervention authority without corresponding, ongoing budget commitments for training, he said, would leave the district in what he characterized as a “risk management deficit,” even a “risk management crisis.”

Maybee returned to the issue of liability during director comments at the end of the meeting. He noted that patrol officers are still formally classified as Community Service Officers, yet they are carrying defensive tools not reflected in that job description. That disconnect between classification and actual duties, he said, increases the district’s legal exposure.

Responses

Arino responded to the earlier discussion about potentially eliminating defensive tools for patrol officers.

“So from what it sounds like from the risk management aspect of it … is it asked that we’re further disarming our security personnel, taking away batons, taking away pepper spray, taking away handcuffs to where they just wear a leather belt to work? Is that what we’re aiming for?” he said.

The “leather belt” remark underscored his view that officers need defensive options if they are expected to respond meaningfully to real-world incidents.

Arino also disputed the notion that training was absent, noting that officers annually train and recertify in batons, pepper spray and handcuffs as part of their guard-card requirements, with the district reimbursing them.

Butler later acknowledged that there is currently no dedicated line item in the operating budget for expanded security training. She said training – along with proposed gate and radio upgrades – has been placed on the 2026-27 capital improvement list and will be considered as part of the upcoming budget process.

District counsel Patrick Enright added that the security union has not yet responded to the proposed revisions to the job descriptions, providing another reason to postpone action.

After nearly an hour of discussion, the board agreed to revisit the matter at its March meeting.

Security Report

In his monthly report, Arino said all patrol positions are currently filled, with a total of 15 employees in the department: seven full-time gate officers, four part-time gate officers and four full-time patrol officers. Of those, five remain on probation. He said recent hires have completed their required training.

Butler noted that security staffing levels only allow patrol and gate coverage “24/7/365” if no one calls in sick or takes vacation. In reality, she said, any absence immediately creates gaps in patrol coverage, even though many residents continue to assume the community has uninterrupted, full-time security presence.

Arino also reported that the department recently used the district’s alert system to notify residents of a water main break on Pescado Circle. Officers also responded to several significant incidents, including a suspected stroke at the post office, a welfare check in which a resident was found deceased, and a case involving a lost elderly resident.

Arino said he is working with Rancho Murieta Association Compliance to develop a “Bring Me Home Safe” registry designed to help first responders quickly identify and assist vulnerable residents who may wander.