RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Two Rancho Murieta residents – one seeking volunteers for a protest and another with experience managing large corporate budgets – urged the Rancho Murieta Community Services District to find ways to lower rates next year.

Nicole Williams and Tom Shewchuk spoke during public comment at the March 18 board meeting, following Finance and Administration Director Cecilia Min’s presentation of a draft 2026-27 budget. The proposal calls for a 31.5% increase in water rates: about $92 per month for the average customer behind the gates. Min said the budget was developed to address an anticipated $2.5 million increase in costs in the coming fiscal year.

With a March 31 deadline looming, the board ultimately voted to mail a Proposition 218 notice reflecting the full 31.5% proposed increase. In doing so, Min and the directors emphasized that the figures in the notice represent a cap under Proposition 218, meaning the district cannot later raise rates above those amounts. However, the board could still reduce the rates after further analysis and public input.

(See the separate story on Min’s budget presentation at the board meeting, "Audits, Planning Are Topics at CSD Board Meeting," as well as a second story on her earlier presentation to the Finance Committee on March 12, "Utility Bills Could Rise $92 Per Month in Rancho Murieta").

Williams has already posted a social media request seeking volunteers to protest the proposed increase. She was one of the organizers of a successful protest against a proposed 12% rate increase in 2022-23, which led the board to adopt a rollover budget from the previous year.

Shewchuk has attended nearly all of the district’s major meetings this past year and is a member of the Water Vision Working Group, which is exploring new groundwater sources. He said he previously led the corporate budgeting process for a 5,000-employee division at Intel, overseeing about $4 billion in annual spending.

Williams, a south-side resident, began by commending Min for her work. She said what Min has inherited is “immense” and thanked her for the energy and effort she has put into digging into the numbers and working to fully understand the district’s finances. Williams said she recognizes the district needs additional funding and does not dispute that, noting that infrastructure is at risk of failing to support the community, affecting everyone who lives there.

Williams then said that, for her and many others, the biggest unresolved hurdle since 2022 is credibility and trust. She explained that during the Proposition 218 protest effort, which involved a large group of volunteers, a common refrain from residents was that they did not know where their money was going and did not trust how it was being spent. She added that while residents love living in Rancho Murieta and respect and rely on the CSD, they do not trust it. In her view, that trust issue remains unresolved. 

Williams then asked whether a more moderate rate increase had been fully considered. She said that since 2022, many residents have contacted her – particularly those on fixed incomes or facing childcare costs, rising grocery bills or job losses – saying an increase of this magnitude could force them to leave Rancho Murieta or is simply not affordable. Speaking on behalf of those who could not attend, she urged the board to consider a smaller ongoing increase combined with a one-time assessment.

Director Tim Maybee responded directly to Williams, pointing to the failed 2022 Proposition 218 increase, when the district sought what he described as a “simple 12%” hike. Because that increase was voted down, he said, the district is now short roughly $2 million compared to where it would have been if the 12% had passed and compounded over time. In his view, the missing $2 million is a major reason the current proposal is so large.

“I get you didn’t trust us on 218. You didn’t trust us on Measure R,” he said. “We are now trying to make up a gap of $2 million on those folks who didn’t want any rate increase whatsoever.”

Williams pushed back on where responsibility lies, arguing that the protest stemmed from years of board and management decisions that eroded credibility. 

“You are where you are at because of the individuals who have been on the board in CSD historically who dug the grave, not because of the people that sent out the letters.”

Maybee said he agreed. When he joined the board, prior directors were proud that they had not raised rates for three years, a stance he challenged: “How does that make any sense?”

He added that he now “just happens to be sitting in the seat” and was “the one that got [his] ass kicked” (by the Grand Jury over the district’s failure to raise rates.) “We’re now paying the price for the Prop 218 rollover budget,” he said.

Board President John Merchant told Williams he did not understand how an assessment would address her concerns.

Williams said she had not done the math. 

“If there is some sort of middle-ground alternative that supports both sides and helps residents who are worried about how they will afford this on top of everything else, it’s worth the discussion,” she said.

Shewchuk also argued for a middle-ground solution. Drawing on his budgeting experience at Intel, he said Min had completed the essential first step by building the budget from the ground up. However, he said a second step should follow before locking in a 31.5% increase: requiring each department head to identify what they would cut at 5% and 10% below their requested budgets.

He said those cut lists would help the board identify which programs or projects could be deferred or trimmed, potentially bringing the increase closer to 20% to 25% rather than above 30%. He also encouraged exploring other funding sources, including grants and developer fees, and conducting a more detailed comparison with neighboring utilities whose water bills appear significantly lower.

During the budget presentation, staff explained that developer fees dedicated to infrastructure must be tracked in separate accounts and cannot be used for operating expenses, limiting their ability to offset ongoing, rate-funded costs.

In the end, the board voted 4-0 to mail the Proposition 218 notice with the full 31.5% proposal (director Bill Gere was absent). Directors emphasized again that this figure represents a ceiling, not a commitment. The district cannot later charge more than that amount, but it may adopt a lower rate after further staff analysis and public input.