RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Accusations of secret committees, developer influence, anti-growth politics and even a “horrible memory” flew between directors and audience members on May 27 as a Rancho Murieta Community Services District discussion about the Water Vision Working Group devolved into one of the board’s most contentious exchanges in recent months.

The sharpest differences emerged between Directors Bill Gere and Randy Jenco. Gere argued that Jenco was “aligned with the developer” and criticized the Water Vision Working Group as a “secret little committee.” Jenco countered that the group’s efforts to develop new water supplies repeatedly encountered resistance.

“It’s almost like you don’t want to find the water,” he said.

Although the dispute began when Gere questioned whether the Water Vision Working Group should be disbanded, it ended with two unanimous board actions aimed at better defining both the group’s role and the district’s broader water-planning efforts.

The board appointed five members to the Water Vision Working Group in November: Director Randy Jenco, the chair; Rancho Murieta Association General Manager Rod Hart, who has since retired; resident Tom Shewchuk; Interim Operations Director Travis Bohannon and Jeff Pearson, a project manager for Rancho Murieta Properties. Amelia Wilder, interim general manager, also attends the meetings.

Questioning Group’s Future

Gere opened the discussion by arguing that the group had largely completed the task for which it was created: assisting Water Systems Consulting in identifying potential groundwater well sites.

He criticized the group’s operations, saying it does not publish agendas, keep minutes or meet at designated public times. Calling it a “secret little committee,” Gere said it was “high time that we brought it under control.”

District Counsel Patrick Enright cautioned that the group was not operating independently.

“It’s a working group created by board members,” Enright said.

Jenco strongly disagreed with Gere’s assertion that the group had only one assignment.

“The very first one was to oversee the well site plan,” Jenco said. “We were given three or four more tasks by this board. The motion was made, and it passed.”

When asked by Jenco, Enright agreed that because the board had assigned those responsibilities, another board vote would be required to disband the group or limit its duties.

Board President John Merchant reiterated concerns he has raised at previous meetings, arguing that the district should have legal agreements in place before expanding groundwater investigations, including a recent Dunn Engineering proposal to study whether groundwater could be found closer to the district’s reservoirs. The board voted 3:2 not to fund the project in April.

Jenco defended the group, saying its membership included staff, community representatives and only one developer representative.

“You are way off base on the whole process and what we do,” Jenco told Gere. “Travis is on the committee. Amelia sits in on the committee. We’ve got members of the public on the committee. We’re trying to move the process forward.”

Gere responded sharply.

“What you said is silly, Randy. I mean, you’re an aligned developer; you’re aligned with the developer,” Gere said.

He then suggested district staff would simply go along with whatever ideas the group developed, saying Wilder and Bohannon would “sit there and listen to anything that you guys gin up.”

Jenco replied that the board itself had created the group and assigned its responsibilities.

“The idea that we’re going to somehow negotiate an agreement with the property owners is ludicrous,” he said.

Gere countered that the group had worked with Dunn Engineering to develop a $90,000 proposal to find more water without first going through the Improvements Committee.

As the debate intensified, Director Tim Maybee strongly objected to Gere’s suggestion that staff would simply follow board members’ directions.

“I think it’s horseshit,” Maybee said.

Turning to Wilder and Bohannon, he added: “As a sitting board member, I absolutely apologize to you.”

Maybee argued that before directors considered eliminating or restructuring the group, they should first review its original assignments and determine which had been completed. He then suggested postponing any decision about the group’s future until that information could be assembled and reviewed at the next board meeting.

Public Comments Deepen Divide

When public comment opened, the disagreement intensified.

Pearson rejected Gere’s claim that the group was primarily about facilitating development, calling many of his statements “completely incorrect and fabricated.” He later urged Gere to review the record, saying he appeared to be “having a challenge with recalling what has happened in the past.”

Pearson said the group’s strength came from bringing together people with different viewpoints, including community members, staff, board representation and a developer representative. “We each come from a different direction for a common goal,” he said. “Collaboration is the best way to get things done.”

Without that collaboration, he warned, the district would lose an important forum for solving complex water issues.

Shewchuk said the group’s first charter was to recommend potential test-well locations, but that work was not complete. Although Water Systems Consulting had finished its siting report, the group still needed to integrate those findings with an earlier Dunn Engineering study and evaluate whether groundwater could be located closer to the district’s reservoirs under the later Dunn proposal.

He noted that Pearson had even suggested exploring another well location outside developer-owned property.

“I stand behind Jeff that he is not acting as a developer in this group. He is not,” Shewchuk said. “I’ve been in every meeting. He doesn’t act like a developer. You have not been to any of them, so you can’t say,” he told Gere.

“That is absolutely absurd,” Gere replied.

Shewchuk said the group’s second charter involved examining how to pursue permitting for Lake Clementia as a potable water source. Work on that assignment had not yet begun because members were waiting to consult with the district’s newly hired water attorney, who had canceled two appointments.

He said other assignments included auditing district water use and evaluating whether the district should complete its Integrated Water Master Plan or move directly to an Urban Water Management Plan.

“We’re not done,” Shewchuk concluded. While the board could terminate the group by motion, “that would be a true shame in my opinion.”

The most personal criticism came from developer Bob Keil.

“So, Bill, you’ve shown your true colors tonight,” he said.

After Gere asked what he meant, Keil replied, “First off, you say things that aren’t true. You do have a horrible memory, and I’m concerned.”

Keil specifically challenged Gere’s claim that the group was dominated by developers and questioned why he was criticizing the Water Vision Working Group as secret when he had also voted to authorize another small working group involving Jim Farrell and consultant Lisa Maddaus.

“Bill, this again concerns memory,” Keil said. “You voted to have Jim Farrell represent CSD in discussions with Maddaus. Do you remember that vote?”

Keil argued that resistance to the group’s work reflected broader opposition to future development.

“Every time we come close to a solution, the three SOLOS members on the board stop it,” he said.

Gere rejected the accusation. “I’m not a SOLOS member, never have been, never will be,” he replied. “I stop people from trying to get around the rules.”

Keil disagreed, saying water issues were being used to block future growth.

“It’s very apparent that you’re using water to stop development,” he said.

When the discussion returned to the board, Jenco said the group continually encountered objections whenever it made progress toward identifying new water supplies.

“I hate to say it, but I think Bob (Keil) has a point,” Jenco said. “It’s almost like you don’t want to find the water.”

Board Reaches Resolution

A resolution emerged after Wilder asked directors for guidance.

Maybee argued that two separate issues had become intertwined. The first was whether the Water Vision Working Group had completed its assigned tasks, and whether directors fully understood how it was formed and the responsibilities it had been given. The second was Merchant’s broader concern that the district lacked a clear framework for tracking major water-related projects and responsibilities.

The board unanimously approved Maybee’s motion directing staff to compile information on the group’s formation, assignments and accomplishments.

Directors then unanimously approved a second motion, proposed by Merchant, directing the Improvements Committee to develop a matrix categorizing major district projects and responsibilities into fiscal, infrastructure and legal tracks, and to send it to the board.

Director Linda Butler said the action finally provided a roadmap for moving forward.

“Now we have a plan,” she said.

For months, Butler has argued that the board needs a strategic plan to guide operations and long-term decision-making.

Much of Gere’s criticism focused on the Water Vision Working Group’s lack of agendas, minutes and publicly noticed meetings, leading him to describe it as a “secret little committee.” Gere currently serves on the district’s Administrative Ad Hoc Committee, which similarly operates without published agendas, meeting minutes or regularly scheduled public meetings, although its activities are reported during board meetings.