The Public Utility Commission (PUC) forwarded my informal complaint to RCH WSC regarding the annual meetings. According to the procedures, RCH WSC is required to investigate and advise the Commission in writing of the results of its investigation of my complaint within 15 days. The Customer Protection Division (CPD) said that RCH WSC failed to respond and now I am able to proceed filing a formal complaint at the Commission as of Friday, February 24, 2023.
Complex State Complaint Process Discourages Citizen Participation
If you are successful at filing an informal complaint then you would receive a letter with a brochure of the next steps. It’s a lot more work than just submitting a complaint online. After I mail my 10 copies to the Central Records in Austin, Texas it will be just a matter of time to get a number and assigned to the docket.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a document called an order requiring the party (RCH WSC) that is the subject of the complaint to respond by a certain date and provide a deadline for PUC staff to make a recommendation on how the case should be handled. The ALJ will have to determine whether my requested relief is something that the PUC can order. The PUC can order a variety of corrective actions. If the PUC will determine whether the case can be decided based on the law or whether a hearing will be required in order for the PUC to decide any facts in dispute by the parties.
If there are factual disputes, the PUC will refer the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for a hearing, SOAH is a neutral and independent agency where Texas agencies, like the PUC, and private citizens or entities can resolve legal disputes.
RCH WSC Is Going To Court
RCH WSC did not ensure that additional protection was provided at connections served by on-site sewage facilities where irrigation systems were installed. The investigation took place in 2021.
On January 12, 2023 at 10am RCH WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION failed to appear to the preliminary hearing or evidentiary hearing, the factual allegations in the notice of hearing may be granted by default.
Read the EDRP and Joint Motion to Waive Appearance at Preliminary Hearing and Submission of Agreed Hearing Schedule.
March 6, 2023 is the deadline to issue discovery requests, including requests for disclosure, interrogatories, requests for production and inspection, and requests for admissions.
April 5, 2023 is the deadline to issue responses to discovery requests, regardless of when the discovery requests were timely submitted.
June 13 or 29, 2023, or July 12, 2023 is the Evidentiary Hearing.
TxDOT Is Still Waiting on RCH WSC To Respond
On Valentine’s Day, TxDOT‘s Utility Coordinator followed up with RCH WSC Board Director Steve Hatfield about relocation plans for the SH 205 project. TxDOT is in possession of all new ROW and are expecting all utility owners to begin their relocations immediately. TxDOT Utility Coordinator wanted to know when their office is to receive RCH WSC‘s relocation plans for a preliminary review.
Meanwhile, Robin Baley on behalf of RCH WSC is still making calls and searching for an engineer to replace their previous engineer Eddy Daniel who proposed to be paid upfront $500k. Hatfield is still leading TxDOT on that soon they will award a contract to a new engineer to do these relocation plans.
RCH Insults Customers
Customers received in their March account statement on February 24, 2023 this letter [FIGURE 3] signed by the RCH WSC board deflecting responsibility and containing inaccuracies.
This, my friends, is a sterling example of corporate bullshit. There are requirements for a reason, to avoid a health crisis and maintain the standards of a healthy public water system. In addition to that RCH WSC has violated their water purchase agreement for years, in multiple TCEQ investigations this water supply corporation has not managed improvements, lack of reporting, demanding new homebuyer customers to remit builder’s water consumption, hasn’t hosted an annual meeting and lawful elections. These are necessary because we are well over 1,359 connections and in the peak season we need over 2.1 million gallons a day.
There is a bit of a disconnect on the topic of a “Merger” which has not ever been offered to RCH WSC. The City has only offered for RCH WSC to transfer all of their assets and customers to the City of McLendon-Chisholm. An official election date still has not been published, nor election procedures and the lack of urgency is not a priority to RCH WSC board directors.
Thank you for reading to be informed and for taking part of the RCH WSC WATCH. I’m definitely looking forward to the next RCH Board Meeting. Please let me know if you plan to come to the meeting and definitely say hello if we have not met yet. If you are new to my blog consider clicking yes if asked, “Would you like to receive notifications on latest updates?” Or visit the Politics category in the menu to read all my local Rockwall County political articles.
It would be great to see you at the next meeting to comment that you would support for the board to stop the shenanigans and motion to vote in favor of to dissolve, convey all of RCH WSC assets, customers and property to the City of McLendon-Chisholm.
Comment below what are some of your concerns that you believe should be addressed I would love to hear your thoughts.
6 comments
Although I share your concern regarding the manner in which RCH has failed to provide complete and honest reports on their business, I am reluctant to say I support a takeover by MC (the city). I’ve seen no information that even hints at the levwl of financial obligation that we’d be signing up for. I keep asking when a public meeting will be held for us to see a plan. How are you comfortable enough to continue encouraging the action?
Hi Gary! Mayor Pro Tem Trudy Woessner was successful in requesting items to be on the City Council agenda which allowed the City Water Committee to present an introduction to Blackland WSC and their engineer Velvin & Weeks at the February 22, 2023 City Council Meeting. There was a lot of information discussed and hopefully it will lead to an interlocal agreement for the parties to determine what would be the costs for their management, operations and engineering for operating this water system.
This was an introduction to the City Council to understand once we get passed a transfer of RCH WSC assets and customers that based on the evidence it would be best to consider a viable option of maintaining this system with an operator that would be a local asset to accommodate “the current customers”. (Yes even those in the Highpoint Ranch area.)
Also included in the presentation we presented THREE YEARS worth of RCH WSC monthly billings/receivables/water usage. Regular billing should be able to cover the costs of the monthly water usage to Rockwall and any alternative water source purchases. Most utilities involved in the TxDOT S HWY 205 project financed the project so that could be an option for MC to consider and City already has an engineer to utilize that is already on retainer. Or the City could consider an entire different engineer to be dedicated to this specific project.
Regular maintenance improvements will have to be reviewed with an appropriate field techs and engineer to ultimately give the City what the immediate needs are. If there is monies transferred from RCH WSC the City will be able to use that funding or City maintenance funds already dedicated to public improvements. Once the City is approved as a NTMWD customer which could take approximately 2 years then the City would plan in a timely manner phases that would include “major” infrastructure improvements. State funding options would be available for the City Council to consider. Yes, there could be bonds as an option too. “Major infrastructure improvements” would be contributing to acquiring land for a new NTMWD takepoint, storage and/or elevated storage.
Blackland WSC graciously shared their story of how they overcame passed administration failures with new leadership and engineer. Mended relationships with the City of Rockwall and discussed their process of how Blackland became a direct customer with NTMWD. The City Water Committee also reviewed their timeline as they will begin tapering off of the City of Rockwall’s to their new takepoint approved by NTMWD. They are constructing their new take point off of 34/249 area which began last month. The construction process will take approximately 3 years.
The City Water Committee informed the MC City Council that once we obtain the assets and with new agreements with Rockwall to taper off the system there will be options for other agreements to purchase additional water. As we pursue becoming a “direct customer” with NTMWD realistically the administration alone could be between 2 to 5 years. Meanwhile, as we address the water purchase agreement needs and infrastructure improvements (Highpoint area) we could potentially use Blackland as an alternative water source for a period of time.
TxDOT project water lines was briefly discussed that the water lines is the utility’s responsibility. That alone should really motivate RCH WSC to transfer all of the assets over to the municipality. RCH WSC, I mean “Robin Baley” is still “calling around” town to find an engineer that will do the relocation of the water lines plan for cheaper than $500K. Most of the other utility engineers that are on this project have been working with TxDOT for the last 2 years and they all have finished turning in their work. So a fresh engineer is going to have to work on this from scratch in a very short time span. Fortunately for the City I have the utility map as a starting point.
TxDOT has been very direct with RCH WSC. However, RCH WSC has NOT been really honest with them. EVEN if RCH miraculously produced the maps and get it approved by October 2023 and the lines are moved by December 1, 2023. TxDOT could potentially stamp RCH WSC’s account to get a penalty and that $4 million dollars is gone. The program offers a utility to receive a portion of their funding back within 3 years. RCH WSC probably would not qualify.
(source) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5b8KZKmD2A
As you are aware this is a very complex issue that will take much effort by many over time to resolve. You have been focused as we all are on seeing the proper infrastructure is provided. Another major factor is how this will be paid for through customer bills. The complexity grows as the City assumes the system that has both city and non-city customers. The City has the ability to build capital and maintenance cost recovery systems straight forwardly for their citizens but not for non-citizens that have no standing at city council meetings. The non-citizens do not have a vote to elect the board/council that is making decisions that impact them. This is a concern that will need explanation before the transfer vote.
Hi Terry! Yes I agree that this is certainly a complex issue and thankfully we have neighboring WSC’s that could be an asset to meeting the “current customers” needs. Which includes citizens of McLendon-Chisholm AND those who are in the ETJ. The way that the PUC works with the CCN approval process is not going to be oh the City can only take those that are citizens only. So have confidence in knowing that part. At the moment I am aware that Highpoint and Blackland are NOT planning to request from PUC to take a portion of the CCN that would cover only the ETJ customers. Filing for a CCN is a very detailed time consuming process that will ultimately end up in front of the Commission for approval. It may possibly take 9 months or longer.
I hear your concerns of not having a vote to elect the board/council. At the moment, the current RCH WSC customers don’t have remedy with RCH WSC to elect new board directors because those current board directors refuse to host an annual meeting with a lawful election. Just getting through PUC’s Informal Complaint Process to address this issue took several weeks and now I have to go through several more government agency hoops at my own financial expense to hopefully stand before the Public Utility Commission in Austin, Texas. PUC/TCEQ will still be able to address any customer complaints and the same process could be applied to the City if they failed to meet standards.
RCH WSC board told us they are working on becoming a direct customer with NTMWD…In January 2023, when I spoke to the NTMWD executive directors it confirmed what I already knew that RCH WSC has not filed a single document.
Having a municipality manage this utility has more options for even those who are not citizens. You will be able to express your issues and there will be a billing administration/customer service where it will be substantially better than what is being served today. In fact, they could be assigned to report to the City Council like our trash service does and McLendon-Chisholm Fire Department.
Customer billing will take care of the water purchase agreements based on consumption and additional alternative water sources during peak season. The maintenance and infrastructure improvements will have to be presented before the City Council for approval because of the nature that they are (Public Improvements). And those plans will mostly be done in phases along with presenting how to pay for it. The effects on billing the customer will most likely be addressed but ultimately I don’t forsee the municipality executing a substantial increase in customer billing. In fact, I believe I read in PUC some policy that they are against such measures.
I do hope that you come to the Wednesday, March 1, 2023 RCH WSC Board Meeting at 2pm.
I have experienced issues with non-citizen city water customers and they were treated as second class customers who were forced to pay higher rates that citizen customers. This is a concern. I understand there is well intentioned desire to make things better and I believe the city can do that, but as time progresses and new councils are in place the dynamics can and do change with outside pressures. I want to be certain the rights and concerns of non-citizens are addressed correctly and appropriately codified in any transfer agreements. Cities do not fall under the jurisdiction of the PUC for their citizen water system rates. They will be for other retail water customers if any. Hence there has been divergence in rates between the two type of customers in areas..
Yes, I have seen it often happen at the municipal/local level. In your comment you mentioned customers were forced to pay higher rates than citizen customers is honestly not always the case. Your concerns are valid and I certainly have that listed as something to be addressed. Based on the PUC filing documents and the agreements until there is an actual assessment from an engineer and of course the CPA…there is a process of filing when rates do have to change. Which RCH WSC has not done consistently with PUC.
The examples why would a rate change it might be discovered that your area doesn’t have adequate pressure due to the lines being too small or equipment needs to be upgraded. There is that possibility that customers in that area may have an increase. One of the pillars of the CCN/state law is to provide “adequate service” and if customers are not getting water or the pressure to get the water then that might be something to be concerned with. Now as far elevated water towers, 3 Million Gallon Water Storage Tanks and a NTMWD take point that will be reviewed as a municipal funding options that will have to follow city policies.
The Texas Water Code (TWC) §13.042(b) allows the governing body of a municipality by ordinance to elect to have the PUC exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the utility rates, operation, and services of utilities, within the incorporated limits of the municipality. Under TWC §13.042(c), a municipality that surrenders its jurisdiction to the PUC may reinstate its jurisdiction by ordinance at any time after the second anniversary of the date on which the municipality surrendered its jurisdiction to the PUC.
The City of McLendon-Chisholm hasn’t established this ordinance yet. There is a great many things that needs to be done administratively. As far as requirements go yes there are statutes in place like Sec. 13.043. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. for you to appeal your rate if something were to occur where your rate is different because you are outside of the city limits. The utility commission shall hear the appeal and the municipality shall have the burden of proof to establish that the rates are just and reasonable.
Within 60 days I believe is the time frame the municipality has to let the water customers to know of any rate changes per Texas law.
No matter what there is a slew of things that need to happen with agreements with the City of Rockwall and other interlocal agreements that will have to be addressed at the very beginning.
By the way…I do want to thank you for commenting and bringing these concerns up. There are many out in the ETJ who have similar concerns Terry.
(source) https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/water/forms/water_utility_tariff.pdf