Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board President John Merchant (left) gestures toward developer Bob Keil as Keil challenges Director Bill Gere (second from left) over social media statements about water augmentation fees during the Oct. 21 board meeting. The exchange grew heated as Gere repeatedly interrupted Keil, who questioned the accuracy of Gere’s posts.

RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Statements posted on social media by Rancho Murieta Community Services District Director Bill Gere drew sharp criticism at the Oct. 21 board meeting, prompting calls for rules governing directors' online conduct and a heated confrontation over the district's water augmentation fund.

The controversy began during public comment when Bob Keil, a partner in the Residences of Murieta Hills development, welcomed new General Manager Marti Brown and expressed concern about Gere's social media statements.

"I believe them to be inaccurate and inflammatory," Keil said, offering copies of Gere's posts to Brown and district legal counsel Patrick Enright for review.

During the correspondence portion of the meeting, Jeff Pearson of Rancho Murieta Properties challenged three statements by Gere about who would pay for additional water supplies needed for future development.

Pearson cited posts on Nextdoor and Facebook that he said conflicted with district records.

First, he disputed a statement suggesting existing residents might be required to pay approximately $20,000 per home for additional water supplies.

Pearson said the figure came from a district study proposing a water supply augmentation fee of $20,436 per equivalent dwelling unit, roughly one home. That development fee has not been adopted. The current fee is $7,752.71.

Second, Pearson challenged Gere's assertion that developers had repeatedly refused to pay for water exploration and that residents would therefore have to cover the estimated $2 million to $3 million cost.

Pearson said developers are already required to pay water augmentation fees under district regulations. He also cited a development agreement requiring the developer to pay the fee for each building and construct water improvements at its own expense.

Third, Pearson disputed Gere's statement questioning the existence of a separate fund for augmentation fees, pointing to district financial reports identifying the water augmentation fund.

With the Nov. 3 election approaching, Pearson said residents deserved accurate information about who pays for additional water supplies, particularly from a sitting director who is seeking reelection.

Call for Social Media Policy

Tom Shewchuk, a candidate for the CSD board, urged directors to establish guidelines for online conduct, possibly incorporating them into the district's code of ethics.

"I would strongly encourage this district and this board to come up with policies for the district and the board," Shewchuk said.

He also suggested designating a staff member to communicate with residents online, recommending Amelia Wilder, who served as interim general manager before Brown took office Oct. 19.

Director Randy Jenco opposed having a district representative participate directly in online discussions. Instead, he suggested examining how other public agencies handle communications. "We don't need to reinvent the wheel here," Jenco said.

Brown agreed. "You are correct. There are lots of answers out there, and there is a way to proceed," she said.

Director Tim Maybee criticized board members who, when confronted about their online comments, claim they were posting as private residents. "You got to make a decision. You ran for the board," he said.

Maybee said the problem was not limited to Gere and had occurred in the past. He said the current controversy had been going on for some time and needed to be addressed.

Board President John Merchant also regularly uses social media to comment on district matters.

Mike Martel, another candidate for the board, questioned whether the district had an obligation to correct inaccurate statements made by its elected representatives.

"Somebody needs to correct it, either the president or the lawyers or the general manager," Martel said.

Enright responded that the district's control over social media was limited. "The district has no control over the general social media. The only social media account we have control over is our own account," he said.

Enright said he does not monitor Nextdoor or Facebook to review statements made by directors or other users.

Martel, who said he has lived in Rancho Murieta for 40 years, questioned whether the California attorney general should investigate the controversy. "Something smells wrong here," he said, describing the situation as the worst he had encountered during his years in the community.

The board did not direct Brown to develop a social media policy.

Confrontation over Augmentation Fund

The dispute resurfaced following Finance Director Cecilia Min's report, which included fees collected from developers for water-related improvements.

Keil approached the podium and read language from the district's code stating that water augmentation fees are intended to finance expansion of the district's water supply system to meet future demands from undeveloped land.

He then challenged Gere over a statement concerning whether a separate account existed for augmentation fees.

Gere repeatedly interrupted Keil, insisting that his remarks were not relevant to the finance report and at one point telling him, "Sit down, Bob."

Keil maintained that his comments were relevant because the finance report included water augmentation fees collected from developers.

When Keil said Gere had posted that there was no special account for augmentation fees, Gere responded, "I did not say that."

Keil continued, quoting a statement he attributed to Gere: "Saying we have a special account set aside just for them is false."

Merchant also intervened, asserting his authority to limit Keil's remarks.

"You don't answer mail. You don't let people speak. This is crazy," Keil said.

As his speaking time expired, Keil directed one final question to Gere: "You have stated to the public that there is no special account for augmentation fees paid by the developer. Did you say that, or did you not say that?"

Gere did not answer the question.

Merchant declared Keil's time expired and told him to sit down.

Maybee urged Keil to submit his questions in writing to the board, legal counsel and general manager, saying he assumed the district would respond but could not promise it.

"I appreciate that,” Keil replied. “It ain't going to happen if he is not willing to take a position.”

When Merchant again told him to sit down, Keil responded, "I'll do better than that, John. I'll leave."

As Keil was leaving, Enright said the district was working on a California Public Records Act request submitted by Keil and Steve Booth and expected to provide at least a partial response the following day.

"That guy should not be on the board," Keil said as he walked out, referring to Gere.

Questions about Fund Balance

Pearson then returned to the podium, asking the district to prepare a plain-language report explaining the water augmentation fund, including how much money it contains and how the money may be spent.

Gere interrupted Pearson, questioning whether his comments were relevant to the finance report. Merchant instructed Gere to allow Pearson to finish and restored time lost to the interruption.

Pearson said the last audited fund balance he had seen, from 2024, was slightly more than $2 million. He said he believed the fund might now contain approximately $3 million but had been unable to obtain a current figure.

Enright said the district had completed its accounting of the fund through June 30, 2026, and would provide Pearson with the same information being prepared for Keil and Booth.

In an Oct. 22 letter to Keil, Enright reported that the fund contained $2,877,965.93 as of June 30, 2026, approximately $703,000 more than the balance previously reported by the district.

Enright explained that the earlier report had not included certain augmentation fees, interest earnings, interfund loan repayments and an adjustment to expenditures for the previous two fiscal years.

The revised balance is unaudited and subject to change because the district has not completed its audits for fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26.

The discussion also raised questions about how long the district may hold augmentation fees without spending them.

Jenco asked Enright when the district could get in trouble if the money remained unspent.

"Well, it's not that we have to spend it. We've got to have a plan to spend it," Enright said. "We have to have a capital facility type project to spend it."

Enright said he would provide the board with the applicable time requirements at its next meeting.

The district has not completed its long-term planning for projects that would augment its water supply. At a March meeting, Min said the district needed to determine its capital improvement needs for the next 10 years before completing an updated water augmentation fee study.