Introducing TRWA's 2021 Awards of Excellence Winners

Introducing TRWA's 2021 Awards of Excellence Winners

Texan water systems are built on merit and TRWA proudly salutes that spirit and determination with its annual Awards of Excellence. These awards are our way of honoring those individuals and rural water systems within TRWA's membership that exemplify excellence, dedication and achievement. This year's award winners were announced and recognized during the Opening General Session of RuralWaterCon 2021 in March. For those who were unable to attend the awards ceremony, we are proud to now be able to share their stories with you! Excellence in Administration

Cynthia Raleigh, Business Manager, SS Water Supply Corporation

Nominated by Carlos Febus, General Manager, SS Water Supply Corporation

From left: TRWA Board President Chris Boyd, award winner Cynthia Raleigh, TRWA Vice-President Bruce Alexander, and TRWA Executive Director Lara Zent.

Cynthia has worked for SS WSC for nearly six years, and came to the system with more than 15 years of experience as a public works coordinator and project manager. "She has absolutely revolutionized the business administration, governance, and human resources policies of the corporation," said her nominator and General Manager, Carlos Febus.

Her improvements not only brought the system “into the 21st Century, they also saved the membership tens of thousands of dollars while increasing the efficiency and productivity of her team. She inspires those under her charge to strive for the same level of excellence and professional achievement she demonstrates.

One great achievement was transitioning their all paper-based records tracking system to a cloudbased digital documenting system, seamlessly archiving nearly 50 years of paper records in a digital format.

Another notable achievement was streamlining the management of more than $20 million in cash and assets and consolidating 24 different bank accounts from 24 different banks into a single bank with three accounts. This achieved the same level of cash asset protection required by the system's bylaws at a greatly reduced cost. These newly consolidated accounts also generated 250 percent more interest income for the corporation, directly benefitting the membership.

Cynthia created the conditions necessary to abolish "convenience fees" for members using electronic bill payment options, saving over 6,100 members an average of 3 percent per bill and recouping more than 50 man-hours per month.

Her exacting attention to detail has resulted in five consecutive years of flawless financial, general liability and worker’s compensation audits conducted by third parties.

Cynthia has hired and mentored seven full-time employees, ensuring they had the tools and training necessary to serve the membership. She updated all position descriptions under her purview to ensure that both management and employees shared the same expectations. She also implemented several employee engagement initiatives, such as a quarterly recognition program, monthly birthday taco breakfasts, weekly team meetings, and fitness incentives.

These are just a few of the reasons outlined in her nomination that made Cynthia Raleigh stand out in her category and deserving of the Excellence in Administration Award!

Excellence in Operations

Jonathan Williams, Field Operator, Upper Jasper Water Authority

Nominated by Waylon Balusek, Board President, Upper Jasper County Water Authority

Jonathan Williams accepts his plaque and cash prize from representatives of TRWA and the award sponsor, Master Meter.

Jonathan has been with Upper Jasper County Water Authority (UJCWA) for 14 years. He has a Class C water operator license and a customer service inspections license.

In his nomination, he is described as the employee who stepped up and stood out amidst all of the challenges that the year threw at the system.

In December 2020, the Coronavirus hit UJCWA. The Authority was shorthanded and the office was in a major bind. Jonathan, a field operator, stepped up to the plate and showed what it really means to be a team player. "He was not obligated in any way to jump in and help the office staff. But he did it, and rescued the office more than once," wrote his Board President, Waylon Balusek, in his nomination.

On one occasion, the new accounts/billing clerk and the temporary on-call employee were out with COVID-19, while the receptionist/payments clerk was also out with her very ill husband. The office manager was trying to cover three desks and simply could not do everything, so Jonathan stepped up. He voluntarily worked the front desk, taking payments and answering the phones so the office manager could handle the New Accounts customers. Numerous customers showed up to do name transfers and applications for new taps that day. Jonathan had never worked the front desk before but he took numerous cash payments, answered phones, and dealt with customer questions that day and never complained. The cash drawer even balanced at the end of the day!

In December, Jonathan voluntarily handled the lock-offs, preventing income loss for the Authority. He also voluntarily handled the billing reports and printed the bills because the billing clerk was still quarantined with COVID-19. He worked in the field that morning and then came into the office to assist where needed. He called the billing clerk at home and she walked him through every step. Jonathan ended up working twelve hours that day, and never complained.

In January, there was a major issue with the meter readings — they were not carrying over from the handheld device to the billing system. The billing clerk called their meter company for assistance and was told the readings were lost and the guys would have to reread the entire system. Jonathan tinkered with it until he found all of the readings, preventing the field crew from having to completely start over on a three-day process. "This place would not have made it without his willingness to voluntarily step up where needed and assist the office these past few months. And he did it all expecting no recognition," said Balusek.

These are just a few examples of how Jonathan has made a huge difference at UJCWA. Congratulations to Jonathan on his well-deserved Excellence in Operations award! Thank you to Master Meter for also sponsoring this category. Excellence in System Management

Wendell Moore, Manager, Pink Hill Water Supply Corporation

Nominated by Dacey Fouse, Administrator, Pink Hill Water Supply Corporation

Wendell Moore has been the manager at Pink Hill Water Supply Corporation for over five years.

During his time as manager, "he has created the most healthy and rewarding work environment for his employees," said his nominator and employee, Dacey Fouse, Administrator of Pink Hill WSC.

Wendell makes his employees feel like they are part of his family, while also maintaining professionalism. In his nomination, he is described as being an organized, determined and caring manager

Wendell Moore accepts his plaque and cash prize from representatives of TRWA and the award sponsor, Master Meter.

who demonstrates extreme dedication to the system. He is very quick to respond to all issues related to the system, both inside and outside of the office.

Not only does he have the love and admiration of his employees, but he also has the love and respect of his community, as well. He embodies the system's mission to deliver safe, clean, sparkling water all to their customers.

Congratulations to Wendell Moore for his Excellence in System Management Award! A special thank you to Master Meter for sponsoring this award. System Excellence Award

Mustang Valley Water Supply Corporation

Nominated by Amy Healy, Administrator, Mustang Valley Water Supply Corporation

Nominator Amy Healy, Administrator for Mustang Valley WSC, was present to accept the award on behalf of her system.

Mustang Valley WSC currently serves 810 members and is comprised of approximately 250 miles of distribution lines. Their Operations Manager holds a Class A water operator license, backflow prevention assembly tester license, and a customer service inspections licence. The system had a very successful and busy year implementing a variety of changes that improved both in-house and field operations. These changes included: • Bringing their accounting in-house, resulting in cost savings to their system and membership. • Developing and adopting an employee handbook and enhancing their employee benefits by offering an IRA with 3 percent employer matching. • Upgrading their IT support and enhancing infrastructure by moving to a client server with centralized network storage and backup. • Utilizing a new bill payment platform, which enables the system to implement new and varied ways of accepting payments. • Implementing a public outreach campaign to customers experiencing leaks on their side of the meter. Their customers can now also sign up for alerts from the system when there are scheduled or emergency main line repairs. • Providing hose bib vacuum breakers to all members free of charge in order to prevent backsiphonage. • Purchasing a Mini-X, trailer and third truck which allowed the system to bring 95 percent of their contract labor in-house, saving the corporation and members thousands of dollars per month and the time spent waiting for an outside contractor to mobilize to make repairs. • Purchasing a drone to assist in finding leaks in areas where it is difficult to drive or walk. • Making route adjustments and installing several booster antennas, improving the meter read time of the system, eliminating overtime for their field technician and reducing miles driven. • Implementing a rate increase to meet the needs of their budget, preparing for system upgrades and the installation of a SCADA system. • Hiring a new consulting engineering firm to update all system maps to confirm various pressure planes. They also record main line leaks which allows the system to pinpoint weak areas for possible line upgrades.

• Installing a variable frequency drive on one of their well sites, saving on electricity and pump wear. They also grounded the site to protect equipment from lightning strikes. They have scheduled these upgrades to their other sites in the future. These are just a few of the improvements outlined in Mustang Valley’s nomination that makes them a deserving winner of the System Excellence award! A special thank you goes out to CoBank for sponsoring this award.

* * *

Congratulations to the 2021 Awards of Excellence recipients, and a big thank you to everyone who helped spread the word about this program. Without you, these programs would not be possible. Stay tuned — the nomination period for the 2022 awards will open in August!

Financing Solutions for Rural Water Systems

In partnership with TRWA, CoBank can offer members specially negotiated terms.

Visit www.trwa.org/cobank or contact John DeLuca at 303-694-5958

WTR_ADM_TX-RWA-3625x4875.indd 1 2/12/21 7:04 AM

Keep It Legal

Answers to Members’ Questions by TRWA Assistant General Counsel Trent Hightower

Q:We recently received a request for documents under the Public Information Act. In their request,

the requester told us that we must produce the documents within 10 days. Is this accurate? If not, how long do we have to respond to a request under the Public Information Act?

A: I think the requester is slightly confused, but if complying with the request would be simple and not take up much of your staff’s time, the answer is “probably.” The Texas Public Information Act does not contain a strict 10-day time frame for complying with every request because not all requests are created equally. Some ask for more information than others and some require more legwork to track down the responsive information. The general standard for timeliness is found in Section 552.221(a) of the Government Code, which requires that the responding entity produce the information for inspection or duplication “promptly,” which it defines as “as soon as possible under the circumstances, that is, within a reasonable time, without delay.”

With that in mind, the legislature doesn’t like the idea of Public Information Act requests languishing for indeterminate periods without any kind of response, so Section 552.221(d) requires the responding entity to notify the requester within 10 business days if it will need longer than that to make the information available. You count 10 business days from the day you receive the request and include the days your utility’s main office is open, so weekends or other days your office is regularly closed don’t count toward this deadline. This may be the case if the request was for a large volume of information, for information that is old and in storage, or if it will simply be difficult to locate among all your other documents and records. Permanent or temporary staffing issues could also limit your ability to respond within 10 business days. All of these are valid reasons why it may take you longer to make the information available — the key is that you must notify the requester of the situation within that initial 10-business day window and work diligently to produce the information “promptly” as required by the statute.

Q: We recently had to do an emergency repair on a main line, and in doing so we hit a telecommunications company’s fiber optic line, which was buried very close to our own. We didn’t call 811 before digging due to the emergency nature of the repairs, but we realize we may be liable for the damage. That said, the fiber optic line seemed much too close to our existing water line — are there any rules relating to line spacing that could mitigate our liability for damages?

A: I spoke to an attorney about your question who represented several of our members on the other side of these disputes where a phone company’s excavations result in damage to a water utility’s line. Though your situation is different, we agreed that the same principles would apply. First, your options will likely depend on whether the lines in question were located within a state right of way or in a private easement. For lines located in a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) right of way, Texas Administrative Code Section 21.40 states that underground utility lines should be at least 12 inches apart from each other, both vertically and horizontally.

If these lines were within a private easement rather than a state right of way, you will want to look at your easement to see what it says. If your easement says it's "exclusive" and your line was there first, you have a good argument that you were under no obligation to call 811 because you had no reason to expect anyone else's line to be there. This could absolve you of responsibility altogether, but if the telecommunications company is threatening litigation to collect damages, you may need to retain an attorney to enforce your rights under your easement if this turns out to be the case. If your easement is silent as to exclusivity, the attorney I spoke to said he thought there is a good argument that it is implied. Again, however, this would be an argument you

would need to make in court or in negotiations with the other party to bring down the damages you may owe.

Q: We have a customer that had an exposed meter before the big winter storm. Our field operator had told them they needed to get it covered before the storm hit, but they did not cover it and the meter cracked in the cold. Can we charge them for the cost of another meter and labor to replace it?

a complaint with the PUCT, because the system was in a position to fix the problem before it started. It’s a different matter if the property owner prevented you from coming onto the property to properly maintain the meter by covering it. In that case, the customer committed an act that resulted in damage to your meter, and I think you would have a better case for assessing a fee. But based on your question, it does not seem like that is what happened here.

With all that in mind, I think you should look at this the same as you would look at any other situation A: This is an interesting question, but ultimately, I where a meter simply malfunctioned due to the don’t think you should charge the customer based on elements, normal wear and tear, or defect in design, these facts unless your tariff or district service policy and absorb the cost of replacement.explicitly imposes on your customers or members a duty to winterize or otherwise maintain their meters. Q: We are a small water supply corporation. The TRWA Sample Tariff and District Service Policy, Due to the costs associated with taking on which are used by many of our new members, some in members, do not impose such "Each time a new piece of our membership want our a requirement in any of the sections outlining a customer’s property comes onto your system to stop accepting new applicants for service. Can responsibilities under their system, the owner of that we do that? service agreement. In fact, they clearly state that water meters property should be paying A: The short and definitive are the utility’s property, and that the utility’s responsibility for maintenance “shall end at the an equity buy-in fee, which essentially brings that answer here is “no,” and I think it would be a good idea for you to educate your membership meter.” property up to speed with on your system’s legal obligations. The state requires Further, all references to the money invested by other water supply corporations to damage to utility property contemplate an affirmative action ratepayers in the system for obtain a “certificate of public convenience and necessity,” by the customer that results many years." or CCN, which gives the in damage to a meter or other corporation the exclusive right property — things like digging without asking for a to serve all customers within a geographic area. The line locate or tampering with a meter or meter lock. reason the state grants these monopolies is because With that in mind, consider your utility’s stance if the water infrastructure is expensive, and it would be customer had somehow damaged their meter trying impossible for utilities to efficiently plan and develop to winterize it. In that case, most utilities would likely that infrastructure if all providers were free to place view the customer’s actions, though well-intentioned, lines and facilities wherever they want. In addition as a form of tampering with the utility’s property to making things difficult to plan and maintain, if that resulted in damage. I think the Public Utility we didn’t keep utilities contained within their own Commission of Texas (PUCT) would find it unfair to geographic bubbles, we would create unnecessary charge a customer for failing to maintain a meter, and expensive duplication of resources, which would when most systems’ tariffs or district service policies drive up costs for everyone. clearly place that responsibility on the system. For example, if a customer wants service from Finally, based on your question it seems that your one utility, and their neighbor wants service from a staff was aware that the meter was uncovered before different utility, both utilities would need lines running the storm hit and presumably had access to cover it. right next to each other to serve their respective If anything, I think that knowledge would work against the utility if you charged this customer and they filed Continued on next page

customers. This would be inefficient and would cost both utilities more money than if one system served them both. The monopoly granted by a CCN prevents this from happening, because each utility knows that they are the only provider that can serve customers within their area. With the privilege of an exclusive service area, however, comes a statutory requirement that the CCN holder serve every qualifying customer in their boundaries. This is an absolute duty imposed by Section 13.250 of the Water Code, and a CCN holder cannot dispense with it. Refusing to serve a qualified applicant would quickly result in costly actions at the PUCT, and possibly draw attention from a legislator in your area as a “bad actor” utility.

If cost is an issue for your members, it could be that your rates and fees are structured incorrectly. Each time a new customer comes onto your system, the owner of that property should be paying an equity buy-in fee, which essentially brings that property up to speed with the money invested by other ratepayers in the system for many years. These fees should be used to finance additional growth. Likewise, your rates should be structured such that they pay for necessary upgrades and improvements necessary to serve new customers moving into the area. The TRWA Circuit Riders offer assistance in this area, and they can evaluate your rates and fees to see whether they line up with the growth needs of your system.

If you have a legal question you would like answered, please email legal@trwa.org.

Design-Construct Wastewater Treatment

100,000 GPD Extended Aeration

60,000 GPD MBR Plant expandable to 240,000 GPD

TRADITIONAL EXTENDED AIR

MBR

Prefabricated Packaged Plants

Lease to Own and Financing Options Design Construct Solutions Exceeds TCEQ Reuse Requirements License Operators for Installation, Commissioning and Training