The short version
Six things to know if you read nothing else.
- The water plan is the biggest thing on this agenda, even though it is only listed for discussion. The Board reviews the Water Vision matrix — and in the very next item, considers dissolving the group that wrote it. See the section below.
- The overdue audits are done and signed. The 2022-23 and 2023-24 audits are now final, dated August 24, and printed in full in the packet. The auditors gave a qualified opinion on the Water and Sewer funds — they could not fully sign off, because infrastructure built by developers and handed to the District was never recorded on the books.
- Monday's finance meeting explained why the books fell so far behind. The Finance Director told the committee the District had not had anyone in the accounts payable role with the government accounting training it requires — the work had been assigned to a security guard. Everything built on those entries inherited the errors.
- Last year closed at a loss. An $819,000 operating loss for the year ended June 30, covered by property tax revenue. Total spending hit 107% of budget.
- Roughly $185,000 in spending is on the table, across generator repairs, electrical work, a required watershed study, cyber security, and engineering for the Pera Drive sinkhole.
- A new item appeared at the last minute. A rewrite of the District's Conflict of Interest Code — who has to disclose financial interests, and what they must disclose — was added to the consent calendar, where it passes without discussion.
The main event: the water plan nobody can move
Agenda items 16 and 17 · Packet pages 428–431 · Listed as a discussion and an action item, with no staff report between them
Item 16 asks the Board to review the Water Vision Working Group's project matrix — a chart tracking every major water-supply project, who owns it, and what is blocking it. Item 17, immediately after, asks the Board to dissolve the Water Vision Working Group and decide what happens to its unfinished assignments.
The Board looks at the roadmap, then votes on whether to disband the people holding it. Item 17 comes with no staff report and no written list of the pending assignments.
What the matrix says
Twenty-six tasks are tracked across wells, Lake Clementia, and everything else. Roughly half are "Not Started." The well site summary sits at 30%, the water use audit at 20%, and the master plan data agreement at "70% Completed?" — question mark in the original. The drought contingency plan's owner is listed as "TBD."
How we got here
The matrix came out of two unanimous board motions on May 27, at the end of one of the Board's most contentious meetings of the year — the one where Director Bill Gere called the Working Group a "secret little committee" and said Director Randy Jenco was aligned with the developer, and Jenco answered that efforts to develop new water kept meeting resistance. Before that, in April, a proposal to advance groundwater work stalled when Board President John Merchant objected that the District should not study water on land it does not control. In July, group member Jeff Pearson asked publicly why water items kept dropping off agendas, noting Rancho North had offered to discuss sites for a third emergency tank and had not been contacted. Resident Tom Shewchuk presented the condensed matrix on August 4, and it was forwarded to the Board.
The whole process has been on hold waiting on this matrix to be completed with names next to each task of who's going to do what.
Director Randy Jenco, August 4 — arguing that once the Board approves the matrix, the named people can resume workChairman Gere took the opposite view: the District has to set priorities first, given how thin staffing is — it is hiring a new general manager and director of operations, and still needs costs, funding sources, grants and land before pushing several engineering efforts at once. Shewchuk raised a third problem staffing cannot fix: Lake Clementia work cannot advance because the Board has never decided whether the reservoir is an emergency drinking water source or an irrigation source. That one undecided question is why all six Clementia lines read "Not Started."
What to listen for
- Does the Board actually affirm the matrix? It lists its own approval as pending "Board Affirmation." Discussion without action leaves the tasks frozen for the same reason they have been frozen since May.
- Who owns the work after item 17? Fourteen tasks name the Working Group. If it is dissolved, ask who picks up each one, and by when.
- Does anyone decide Lake Clementia? Emergency drinking water or irrigation — a policy call only the Board can make, and it unblocks six tasks.
- What does "Gated by Attorney" mean, and until when? The matrix records that securing a water attorney is Completed, so the attorney exists. Ask what has been asked of them and when answers are due.
- The third emergency water tank is not a line on the matrix at all, despite months of discussion.
- Two versions of the matrix are still in the packet. Pages 428–429 hold an older scan; 430–431 the current one. They disagree on whether the Dunn well proposal was rejected or awaits more information. Ask which is being affirmed.
- The group's name does not match. The packet calls it the Water Vision Working Group throughout. Item 17 proposes dissolving the "Water Development Working Group." Whether those are the same body should be stated plainly on the record before a vote.
Background reporting by Gail Bullen for the River Valley Times: the August 4 matrix debate and the May 27 board fight that produced it.
What Monday's finance meeting revealed
The Finance Committee met August 24 to review the two overdue audits before they reached the Board. Two directors were present — Merchant and Gere — and the meeting ran just over an hour. Its minutes are now in the packet at page 150.
The person handling accounts payable had been a security guard.
Cecilia Min, Director of Finance and Administration, explaining to the committee why the old accounting records were, in her words, "so chopped up"Her point was about qualifications, not about any individual. The District, she said, had not had a person in that position with the financial-reporting knowledge the work requires — an understanding of GAAP and GASB, the accounting rules every California special district must follow. Assigning the work to an employee hired to do something else was a District staffing decision, made well above that employee's level.
It was also a consequential seat to get wrong. Accounts payable is where a transaction first gets entered and categorized. Enter it in the wrong place and everything built on top inherits the error — the monthly financials, the budget comparisons, the numbers the Board used to set rates. That is why staff spent two years rebuilding the books rather than simply auditing them, and why the cleanup is still turning things up: working through the 2024-25 records, staff again found duplicate transactions tied to voided checks left in the system, meaning some expenses may have been counted twice.
A resident with a finance background asked the question that follows from all of it: how did the District and the Board make sound budget decisions during those years, when basic reconciliations and controls were not functioning?
The cleanup is working — by the numbers
The auditors credited the finance team directly, noting they are reconstructing years they did not create. A new pre-audit checklist — requiring accounts to be reconciled before anything goes to the auditors — got much of the credit for the drop in corrections. Both directors present agreed to send the audits to the full Board.
Four things residents should keep an eye on
- About $568,000 sits in the books as Board-designated money the reserve policy does not cover. Staff and auditors are still working out where it came from and how it should be treated.
- A $19,000 Cal Fire crew expenditure drew a director's attention — he did not recall it or its approval. Staff agreed to verify. A question raised, not a finding.
- Costs caused by developers may not have been billed back to them. Staff has built the schedules and accrued the revenue but wants to finish the audit work before sending some bills. Separately, about $60,000 of bond-district administrative costs from past years was charged back to the correct account.
- Operations are not paying for themselves. The finance director's point on the $819,000 loss was direct: water and sewer rates should cover the cost of running water and sewer, rather than leaning on property tax. Unbudgeted emergency repairs were a major driver; the new budget adds a contingency.
And the question nobody has answered
One speaker put the District's asset base at roughly $50 million, much of it decades old, and called RMCSD "woefully under reserved." How the District eventually pays to replace aging pipes, plants and pumps — rates, reserves, grants, loans or bonds — was discussed but not settled. One director cautioned against long-term debt for routine repairs and argued grants and state assistance should be pursued hard first.
The other decisions
Where the Board takes a real vote or gives direction that shapes what happens next.
The 2022-23 and 2023-24 audits
Packet pages 4–140 · Richardson & Company · Now printed in full
Both years were audited at once. The headline findings: a qualified opinion on the Water and Sewer funds; a negative unrestricted net position of $1.6 million, driven by $7.6 million in pension and retiree health obligations; and revenues exceeding expenses overall by $1.9 million. Every fund except Security showed net income.
Three material weaknesses from prior years remain open: keeping the accounting system current, timely year-end closing, and properly recording developer-donated infrastructure. Four older findings were resolved. No new findings were added. The two Mello-Roos district audits are also included, at pages 113–140.
The Finance Committee recommended these go forward, so a vote to accept is likely. Ask when the Water and Sewer funds will be clean enough for an unqualified opinion — completed, clean audits affect the District's ability to compete for infrastructure grants, which is exactly how it would pay for aging pipes without borrowing.
Pera Drive sinkhole engineering
Packet pages 419–427 · Domenichelli & Associates
A sinkhole on Pera Drive is tied to failing storm drain pipes under the road. The Board is asked to hire an engineering firm to study and design the fix. The recommendation: leave the sinkhole safely plated through this winter and build in 2027, after the rains — there is not enough time to design, permit and construct before then.
The agenda still advertises $42,613. The staff report still asks for $96,791, with another $40,354 deferred. The agenda was revised to add "and approve updated RFP from Domenichelli & Associates" — but the only proposal attached is still the July 31 one totaling $42,613. The August 12 estimate the staff report relies on is still not in the packet.
Which number the Board votes on. Staff's written motion says $96,791 — more than double the advertised figure. Also ask whether a plated sinkhole on a residential street through winter is acceptable to the neighbors on Pera and Guadalupe.
Cyber security purchase
Packet pages 400–418 · Quotes now attached
The earlier packet asked for approval with no dollar figure. The revised packet includes a nineteen-page briefing and vendor quotes. The IT manager's ask is $1,764 per month in added services — roughly $21,000 a year — for Microsoft account monitoring and upgraded endpoint protection.
The vendor briefing goes further, recommending a "virtual chief information security officer" engagement at $3,000 per month for a three-year program, plus separately quoted onboarding, penetration testing and a governance portal. The briefing is candid: the District was a bystander in the July attack on Greenfield Communications, and it argues the District currently has limited ability to detect an intrusion that does not announce itself. The SCADA system running the water and wastewater plants is the stated concern.
What exactly is being approved. The $1,764 monthly ask and the $3,000 monthly program are different commitments — together they run about $57,000 a year, and the vendor materials list several items as "quoted separately." Ask for a not-to-exceed figure and which budget line pays for it.
New and higher fees for new development
Packet pages 384–399 · Reviewed by District Counsel
These are the fees a builder pays to connect a new home or business to District water and sewer — plan review, connection permit, meter installation, inspection. They currently total $852.68 per home, barely above the roughly $800 charged in 2013. When those fees fall short of actual cost, existing ratepayers absorb the difference.
No fee is adopted August 26. State law requires the District to publish cost data and hold a public meeting first. That meeting is being set for September 16. A 2014 agreement with certain landowners bundles two of these fees into a fixed per-home charge; counsel says the District can still raise them but expects objections.
The agenda still promises a "fire flow capacity fee for new development" — and there is still no such proposal anywhere in the 431 pages. If you care who pays for fire flow capacity, September 16 is the meeting to attend.
The Grand Jury findings on the Country Club
Packet pages 327–383 · Response due to the Grand Jury September 24
Finding 11 — the water. Under a 1988 agreement, the District sends treated wastewater to Bass Lake and the golf courses for irrigation. The contract lets the District bill the Club for delivery cost, on written request. In 38 years it never did. The Grand Jury asked staff to calculate the lost revenue and report by September 30.
Staff's answer, backed by outside counsel, is that the arrangement benefits the District: it generates 226 million gallons of wastewater a year that must go somewhere legally, the golf courses absorb up to 550 acre-feet at no cost, and the discharge permit both bars changing the discharge location and makes continuing the golf course agreement a condition. The memo concludes: "no such determination will be made."
Finding 12 — the loan. In 2021 the District loaned the Club roughly $115,000 from sewer reserves to repair the pump station moving reclaimed water. The Grand Jury found the repayment schedule does not disclose total interest owed. The memo says the Club has met its obligations and the loan is repaid.
Item 11 then asks the Board to approve an extension to the 1988 agreement.
The packet contains the original 1988 contract but still no proposed extension — no term, no revised payment language. Ask what is being extended and for how long, and whether the extension preserves or waives the District's right to bill for delivery cost going forward.
There is a prior question too. Staff's own memo says the agreement runs 40 years and then renews automatically for another 20 unless both parties agree in writing to end it. If that is right, the agreement renews on its own. So why does the Board need to affirmatively approve an extension — and what changes if it does?
Also worth knowing: when the 2021 loan was approved 3–0, three of the five sitting directors were Country Club members. The memo describes how names were drawn from a cup so only one could vote.
The permanent General Manager
Agenda item 2.A · Public Employee Appointment · 3:30 p.m., not open to the public
The District has run on interim leadership for months. The closed session lists a General Manager appointment, which makes this arguably the most consequential item of the day — and the one residents can see least of. The public packet says only that recruitment is "progressing as planned."
It also connects to the consent calendar: a permanent manager will inherit the organizational chart and the new administrative manager role the Board is approving in a single unanimous motion an hour later.
Any report out of closed session at the start of open session. If an appointment is made, the Board must report it publicly, including the name and the terms of the contract.
Candidates Night for the November election
No supporting documents in the packet
The Board gives direction on a candidates forum. The August 6 Communications Committee minutes note a strong community response to the board election and a candidate night being planned for October.
Date, location, format, who moderates, and how residents' questions get asked. These details are being set now.
The consent calendar — where things pass without discussion
What "consent calendar" means: all nine items below are approved together in a single vote, with no discussion, unless a director asks to pull one out. It is a normal way to move routine business quickly.
It is also where about $66,000 in spending sits this month, plus an organizational restructure and a rewrite of the District's Conflict of Interest Code. If you want any of these discussed in public, that is what public comment is for — ask a director to pull the item.
| What it is | Cost |
|---|---|
| Minutes from seven meetingsNow includes the August 24 Finance Committee minutes, which were missing from the earlier packet. | — |
| Bills paid, July 202693 checks. The largest is $777,745.80 to Golden State Risk Management — the District's insurance pool — then $128,054.29 to California Waste Recovery and about $88,000 to two temporary staffing agencies. | $1,459,062 |
| Continue the Equestrian Center culvert repairChanged from "Discontinue" in the earlier packet to "Continue" in this one. Still no memo explains it. The August 4 minutes describe that repair as 99.5% complete with only railings remaining. | — |
| Updated organizational chartA real restructure: adds a Director of Operations, separates Finance from a new administrative manager role, reclassifies Utility Workers as Utility Technicians, adds a second equipment mechanic. | — |
| New job description: Manager of Administrative Services / Clerk of the BoardStaff says this is not a new hire — it formalizes duties the District Secretary already performs. | — |
| Emergency electrical repair, wastewater plantBad wiring feeding the filter panel, then the transformer failed. Prodigy Electric. The memo says the work is already done. | $13,059 |
| Rio Oso generator control panelControl panel and voltage regulator are obsolete; full upgrade by Holt of California, three-week parts lead time. | $19,877 |
| Switch vendors on the watershed sanitary surveyState law requires this study every five years; due December 2026. Replacing Verdantas ($37,990, approved in June) with Lumos & Associates — a $4,550 savings. | $33,440 |
| NEW: Rewrite of the Conflict of Interest CodeOrdinance O2026-03, first reading. Fifteen pages from District Counsel. Sets which District officers and employees must publicly disclose financial interests, and in what categories — including anyone with an interest in real property within two miles of the District. Would go to the County Board of Supervisors for approval, with second reading September 16. | — |
Things that don't add up
Documented gaps between two official District documents, or between an agenda item and the paperwork behind it. Errors happen in a busy district with interim staff — none of this is evidence of wrongdoing.
Fixed since the first packet — worth acknowledging
- The full audits are now printed in the packet, not just eight summary slides. So are both Mello-Roos district audits.
- The audits are final and signed, dated August 24 — the earlier versions were stamped "DRAFT."
- The August 24 Finance Committee minutes are now included.
- The cyber security item now has quotes and a dollar figure attached.
Still open on Wednesday
- The sinkhole has two price tags. Agenda: $42,613. Staff report and written motion: $96,791. The newer estimate the staff report relies on is still not in the packet.
- A fee is advertised that nobody can read about. The agenda promises direction on a "fire flow capacity fee for new development." In 431 pages, no such proposal exists. The only related item is a $396 charge for writing fire flow letters — a different thing.
- Two versions of the water matrix are still in the packet, and they disagree about whether the Dunn well proposal was rejected or is awaiting information.
- Two items still arrive with no paperwork. Candidates Night and dissolving the water committees — the second of which redirects every water assignment in the matrix.
- The culvert item flipped without explanation. "Discontinue" became "Continue" between packet versions, with no memo either way.
- The Personnel Committee said September. Its August 5 minutes forwarded the reorganization chart to the September board meeting. It appears instead on Wednesday's consent calendar. The related job description uses three different titles for the same position — "Manager," "Admin. Manager," and "Director."
- No extension document for the 1988 agreement, though item 11 asks the Board to approve one.
- Forty-four pages can't be read aloud. The scanned 1988 agreement (pages 340–383) is a photograph, not text, so screen readers cannot reach it.
- A 162-page packet revision landed the night before the meeting. State law requires materials distributed less than 24 hours before a special meeting to be available for public inspection at the District office. That is a low bar for a document this size.
Five questions that cover most of it
- Is the sinkhole vote $42,613 or $96,791?
- What is the total annual commitment on cyber security — $21,000, $57,000, or something else?
- If the Water Vision Working Group is dissolved, who owns each of its fourteen tasks, and by when?
- Is Lake Clementia an emergency drinking water source or an irrigation source? Six tasks wait on that answer.
- Should the org chart and the new Conflict of Interest ordinance be pulled from consent and discussed?
The bigger picture: where every issue stands
Wednesday's agenda is a snapshot. This is the whole board — fifteen running issues, what state each is in, and the one question that decides whether it moves. Most are not on this agenda; that is part of the point.
Improving Active Watch Stuck
| Issue | Where it stands |
|---|---|
| Stuck One agreed water-planning baseline |
The 2024 Integrated Water Master Plan was an update, not a finished plan — its own slides called it "Phase 3, in-process scenario planning." It modeled 1,716 acre-feet of existing demand and 3,290 at full buildout, using connection counts from December 2022. Since then the count has been corrected to 2,875 connections. The matrix still shows the underlying data agreement at "70% Completed?" Which numbers is the District officially using before it spends millions on water infrastructure? |
| Watch What the water study actually found |
Worth stating precisely, because it gets misquoted in both directions. Under average hydrology including climate change, the model found enough water for existing and buildout demand with Lake Clementia online. Under a modeled historic worst-case drought with Clementia offline and no supplemental well, it found a minor shortfall at current demand and a larger one at buildout, and recommended considering supplemental supply. Neither "we have plenty" nor "we're running out" is what the study said. |
| Stuck Backup water supply — SB 552 |
Today's storage is strong: as of July 31 the three reservoirs stood at 94.2% overall — Clementia 102%, Chesbro 96.2%, Calero 89.4%. That is genuinely good news and it does not answer the separate legal requirement to plan for system failure or prolonged drought. The state deadline is January 1, 2027. Well and Clementia tasks on the matrix are mostly "Not Started." Which source is the backup, and when does the Board choose it? |
| Active Third water tank and Rio Oso |
No third-tank decision is on this agenda. But staff told the Improvements Committee that Rio Oso will eventually have to be drained for major rehabilitation — which means the District needs either another tank or a workable bypass to keep water flowing during the work. A report on options is expected at the September 2 Improvements Committee. September's Rio Oso report may matter more than another abstract third-tank debate. |
| Active Treatment, manganese and wastewater |
Both potable plants are running; July production was 68.3 million gallons, 248.6 million for the year to date. The manganese study RFP is written but will not go out until roughly November or December, to have a consultant in place before manganese returns next season. The tertiary filter panels are deteriorating, with a preliminary repair estimate of $250,000–$300,000. The wastewater plant is producing about 2 million gallons a day of reclaimed water. Does the District start treating supply, treatment, storage and reuse as one system? |
| Watch Development, fees and litigation |
Three different things are often blurred: one filed lawsuit (Rancho Murieta Properties and affiliates), one government claim (Rancho Murieta 205, L.P., filed August 12), and anticipated litigation. They are not interchangeable. Separately, service-cost fees go to a public meeting September 16; capital capacity fees are a different study; and a $396 fire-flow-letter fee is still under legal review. Can the District modernize cost recovery without rewriting contracts after the fact? |
| Improving Audits and internal controls |
The clearest success story. Both audits complete, no new findings, no remaining significant deficiencies, four prior findings resolved, adjustments down from about 40 to seven and four. Three material weaknesses remain in progress. 2024-25 is being reconstructed now. Can the improvement hold once the historical cleanup ends? |
| Watch Reserves and operating cash |
The newest financial concern, and it is not about total cash. Of roughly $13 million on hand, about $2.4 million is unrestricted and $10.4 million restricted — against a six-month operating reserve target Finance estimates at about $5 million. A transfer of roughly $2.6 million from restricted accounts is under consideration. Even after it, the remaining restricted balance would be modest against roughly $31 million in net fixed assets. Auditors separately note the written reserve policy does not match the ledger, two capital reserves show negative balances, and the investment policy has not been updated since 2016. What is legally restricted, what is truly available, and what should reserves be? |
| Active Grand Jury, the Country Club and recycled water |
Response due September 24. The District produces about 694 acre-feet of wastewater a year; the two golf courses can absorb roughly 550. Staff's argument is that the Club is not simply receiving something valuable for free — it is also providing a permitted disposal site the discharge permit names. The Grand Jury asked for a calculation; staff recommends not making one. Does the Board adopt staff's position, or direct the calculation? |
| Active General Manager and organization |
A permanent GM appointment sits in Wednesday's closed session. The org chart and the new administrative manager role are on the consent calendar — and staff recommends keeping that position separate from Finance, which is sound internal-controls practice. The Personnel Manual is nearly done but is being held until union negotiations finish near year end. Will a permanent manager inherit an organization clear enough to actually run? |
| Stuck Aging infrastructure and capital planning |
The recurring theme: too many projects become urgent before they enter any predictable replacement cycle. Rio Oso tank and generator, Pera Drive culverts, wastewater wiring, filter panels, drainage, sewer. Each arrives as an emergency authorization. When does the District move from emergency spending to a ranked five-year replacement plan? |
| Improving Governance and public access |
Real progress here: the Conflict of Interest Code rewrite on Wednesday's consent calendar updates outdated titles and adds missing positions, responding to a Grand Jury recommendation — first reading August 26, adoption September 16, effective around October 16. Staff is also pricing board-room and website accessibility improvements. Agenda-setting procedure remains disputed, with an attorney letter in the packet. Can a resident who missed a four-hour meeting still find out what the Board decided? |
| Watch Which hat is speaking |
A transparency question, not an allegation of misconduct. Directors sometimes hold roles in outside organizations that advocate on the same subjects the District regulates — water, development, open space. Holding both is not by itself a legal conflict. But residents should be able to tell an official Board position from an individual Director's opinion from an outside group's advocacy. A workable rule for everyone: Board position? Cite the vote. Personal view? Say so. Outside group? Name it. |
| Improving Security and the RMA relationship |
All full-time Security positions are filled — seven full-time gate officers, six part-time, two patrol officers, fifteen employees total. RMCSD and RMA are already cooperating on rule and speed enforcement. The Lago gate has malfunctioned for about a month; staff plans to replace the old under-street wiring with a wireless system. The larger question of which organization should provide which services is unresolved. Before any transfer of services: what does each model cost, who holds enforcement authority, and who carries liability? |
| Watch Conservation and Rancho Murieta North |
The North project has already been substantially reduced, including removing development from parts of the back-lakes area. That matters — but undeveloped is not the same as permanently protected. Plans change, ownership changes, applications change. A conservation easement or acquisition survives those changes; a revised site plan does not. Does the community move from opposing development to creating permanent protection — which needs a willing owner, an appraisal, funding and a land trust? |
| Watch Cybersecurity |
New to this list after the August 25 packet update. The consultant assessment reports the District currently lacks a formal incident-response plan, a disaster-recovery plan, a business-continuity plan, a completed risk assessment, penetration testing and tabletop exercises, and notes a single internet-provider dependency. These are consultant findings offered for Board consideration, not a regulatory audit. The federal emergency-response-plan certification deadline is December 31, 2026. Does this become a managed program, or another emergency after something goes wrong? |
Dates to put on your calendar
Several of Wednesday's items do not actually get decided Wednesday. Here is where they land.
- September 2Improvements Committee — the Rio Oso options report is expected here.
- September 16Regular Board meeting. The required public meeting on development fees, and final adoption of the Conflict of Interest Code.
- September 24The District's formal response to the Grand Jury is due.
- December 31, 2026Federal deadline to certify the water system's emergency response plan.
- January 1, 2027State backup water supply requirement (SB 552) takes effect.
- April 26, 2028Federal web accessibility deadline for special districts. Existing obligations apply in the meantime.
Six questions that work at any meeting
You do not need to be an engineer, an accountant or a municipal lawyer to follow this District. These six get close to the heart of most items.
- What changed?
Not what everyone talked about. What is different now than before the meeting?
- Who owns the next step?
Board, staff, engineer, attorney, consultant, committee — and when is it due?
- Which number are we using?
Board-adopted, engineer-produced, draft, estimate, outdated, or disputed? Label it.
- What does it cost, and who pays?
Existing ratepayer, developer, reserve, grant, another agency, or shared?
- Can the public find the decision?
The report, the recommendation, the motion, the vote — without listening to hours of audio.
- Who is speaking?
Board policy, staff conclusion, engineering opinion, a Director's own view, a litigant, or an advocacy group. All may be worth hearing. They are not the same.
How to be heard on Wednesday
This is a special meeting, so the rules are narrower than usual.
- You can only speak about items on the agenda. At a special meeting the Board cannot discuss or act on anything not listed. General comments wait for the regular meeting on September 16.
- Fill out a comment card and hand it to the Board Secretary before public comment begins, or before the item you want to speak on comes up.
- You get three minutes speaking for yourself, or five minutes on behalf of a group or organization.
- Arrive for the 5:00 p.m. open session. The 3:30 closed session is not open to the public — it covers the general manager appointment and pending litigation.
- If you need an accommodation to participate, the District asks that you call (916) 354-3700 as far in advance as possible.
- Can't attend? The audio recording is normally posted afterward on the District's meeting page, linked below. Written comments emailed to directors before the meeting become part of the record.
Find it in the packet
The current packet is 431 pages. Type a word — audit, water, sinkhole, cyber, conflict — to jump to the right pages.
| What you're looking for | Pages |
|---|---|
| The agenda itself | 1–3 |
| Audit results — auditor's summary slides | 4–11 |
| Full audited financial statements, 2023-24 | 12–58 |
| Full audited financial statements, 2022-23 | 59–105 |
| Management letter and required auditor communications | 106–112 |
| Mello-Roos district (CFD 2014-1) audits, both years | 113–140 |
| Minutes of the July and August meetings, including August 24 finance | 141–150 |
| Bills paid in July — every check, every vendor | 151–152 |
| Organizational charts, before and after | 153–154 |
| New administrative manager job description | 155–159 |
| Emergency electrical repair invoices, wastewater plant | 160–162 |
| Rio Oso generator repair quote | 163–166 |
| Watershed sanitary survey vendor change | 167–169 |
| Conflict of Interest Code rewrite — Ordinance O2026-03 | 170–184 |
| September 2026 meeting schedule | 185 |
| Attorney letter on how board agendas get set | 186–187 |
| Resident correspondence on meeting access and transcripts | 188–193 |
| Transcripts of the May 7 committee and May 27 board meetings | 194–292 |
| General Manager's report | 293 |
| Finance report and full year-end figures for 2025-26 | 294–312 |
| Security report — gate entries, violations, July incidents | 313–319 |
| Operations report — water production, storage, capital projects | 320–323 |
| Information technology report | 324–326 |
| Grand Jury response — Country Club pump loan | 327–336 |
| Grand Jury response — payment for recycled water | 337–339 |
| The original 1988 reclaimed wastewater agreement (scanned) | 340–383 |
| Connection and inspection fees — staff report and draft resolution | 384–399 |
| Cyber security report, vendor briefing and quotes | 400–418 |
| Pera Drive sinkhole — staff report, photos, engineering proposal | 419–427 |
| Water Vision Working Group matrix — wells, Lake Clementia, other | 428–431 |
Read the originals
Everything in this guide comes from these documents. We encourage you to check for yourself.
- District page for the August 26 meeting
Where the current packet is posted — and where the audio recording goes afterward. Because the packet has been revised more than once, download from here rather than an older link.
- August 24 Finance Committee packet
The finance materials as presented to the committee on Monday.
- Our guide to the August 24 finance meeting
Page-by-page index of the finance packet with a plain-English glossary.
- River Valley Times: "Water Vision Matrix Advances, Debate Exposes Competing Views on Stalled Water Planning"
Gail Bullen's August 19 report on the August 4 Improvements Committee meeting — the source for much of the water section above.
- River Valley Times: "Water Vision Fight Sparks Accusations of Developer Influence, Secret Meetings"
Background on the contentious May 27 board debate that produced the matrix.
- RMCSD Integrated Water Master Plan materials
The 2024 update behind the water-planning baseline question in the tracker.
- California DWR — SB 552 backup water supply
The state requirement taking effect January 1, 2027.
- Sacramento County — Rancho Murieta North project
County planning file for the development discussed in the conservation entry.
- Your board of directors
Contact information for President John Merchant, Vice President Linda Butler, and Directors Bill Gere, Randy Jenco and Tim Maybee.