RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board of Directors unanimously approved its formal response to a Sacramento County Grand Jury report that credited the district with making financial improvements but found ongoing problems with overdue audits, management turnover, governance and ethics.

Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder explained most of the district’s response during the Sept. 16 meeting, with District Counsel Patrick Enright addressing legal and conflict-of-interest issues. Director Linda Butler questioned whether the Grand Jury would later review the district’s progress in carrying out the promised corrective actions.

The 2025-26 Grand Jury report, released June 24 under the title “Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress,” contained 12 findings and 11 recommendations. The district’s response was due Sept. 24.

Wilder said preparing the response highlighted how much progress the district has made since a 2023 Grand Jury report concluded that it had “lost the public trust.”

“A lot of what they asked for were the audits and the financial upgrades to our systems, which we have been working on,” Wilder said.

The district agreed with most of the Grand Jury’s findings and reported that many of its recommendations have been implemented or are underway.

Wilder noted a typographical error in the draft response concerning improvements to the district’s Great Plains accounting system. The response stated that accounting modules were upgraded in fall 2026, but Wilder said the work was completed in fall 2025.

She said the upgraded system helped Finance and Administration Director Cecilia Min and her staff reconstruct the district’s financial records.

Wilder said the district has completed the fiscal year 2022-23 and 2023-24 audits and is working simultaneously on the 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial records. Accounting procedure manuals are expected to be completed by Dec. 31, although they may have to be revised if the district selects a new financial software system.

Staff members continue to uncover problems as they reconstruct earlier accounting records, Wilder said. 

“Every stone they turn over, they find, you know, a rattlesnake’s nest under there,” she said. “Then they have to go back and recreate and reconstruct all this past accounting, and it’s very difficult to do.”

Wilder credited Min and her staff with making substantial progress, including reducing the district’s chart of accounts from more than 2,000 accounts to 99.

Butler emphasized that finishing the overdue audits will not complete the district’s financial work.

“The important thing is to recognize that all of the work that’s had to be done behind getting the audits done is going to go on,” Butler said.

The district also responded to findings involving management turnover and the delay in recruiting a permanent general manager. The Grand Jury found that the district waited approximately 10 months before beginning its search.

The district partially disagreed with that finding. It acknowledged the delay but noted that it had appointed an interim general manager, retained an outside human resources firm and was completing the recruitment process. Earlier in the Sept. 16 meeting, the board approved a four-year employment agreement with Marti Brown, who is expected to begin work as general manager Oct. 19.

The district agreed that its conflict-of-interest code needed to be updated. The board adopted a revised code that reflects current job titles and identifies the officials and employees required to file Form 700 Statements of Economic Interests.

Enright said state law requires the board to review its conflict-of-interest code every two years, even if no changes are necessary.

The district, however, disagreed with the Grand Jury’s conclusion that a director’s participation in discussions about a possible water-connection moratorium created the appearance of a financial conflict of interest.

The report did not name the director, but the finding concerned Director Randy Jenco, who owns undeveloped property in Rancho Murieta where he is building a home.

Enright said the district agreed that Jenco participated in the discussions but disagreed that he had a conflict of interest. He cited both a district legal opinion and the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s decision not to pursue an earlier complaint involving the same issue.

The district also adopted written procedures for identifying Form 700 filers, tracking deadlines and providing the forms to the public. Wilder said the required forms were current, with one exception involving a staff position that had not yet been added to the electronic filing system.

In response to the Grand Jury's findings regarding training, the district adopted a policy requiring ethics and fiscal training for board members. Wilder said current directors had completed their ethics and harassment-prevention training. Training for newly elected or reelected directors will be arranged after the November election.

The district also disputed portions of the Grand Jury’s findings involving its relationship with the Rancho Murieta Country Club.

Wilder said the district’s 1988 reclaimed-water agreement allows treated wastewater to be disposed of at three locations: the golf course, a proposed park that was never built and a maintenance yard that was also never constructed at the contemplated location.

“Really, the only place that we have to dispose of the reclaimed water is the Country Club,” Wilder said.

She described the arrangement as beneficial to both the district and the Country Club because other wastewater agencies may incur substantial costs to dispose of recycled water.

The Grand Jury also questioned whether a district loan to the Country Club fully accounted for increases in the Local Agency Investment Fund interest rate. The loan was made after a pump at Bass Lake failed in 2021.

Wilder said the pump was necessary for the district to deliver recycled water to the golf course. She said the Country Club made every payment on time and paid the additional interest required by the loan agreement. 

“They did everything that they said they were going to do,” she said.

After Wilder and Enright reviewed the response, Butler asked whether the district could report its progress to the Grand Jury after six months.

Wilder said the Grand Jury had not requested an additional report. Enright explained that the membership of the county Grand Jury changes each year.

“But the report doesn’t change,” Butler responded.

Enright and Wilder agreed that the district could continue tracking its progress, even if a follow-up submission is not required.

Directors approved the response 4-0. Jenco was absent.