Opinion: Reasons Vogelgesang should be on STPUD board
To the community,
My name is Randy Vogelgesang and I am asking for your vote for seat 3 of the South Tahoe Public Utility District board.
My position on the issues was well covered in the Lake Tahoe News here.
However, I would like to emphasize a few points.
Randy Vogelgesang
My engineering experience and my reputation for making common sense, cost effective engineering decisions make me uniquely qualified to represent the ratepayers.
The district and its employees provide an excellent product and we should strive to continue this high level of service, however, all projects need to be evaluated based on necessity, and less expensive options should be considered. In these tough economic times we will need to prioritize our spending and cut costs wherever possible.
I see no reason to justify a rate hike when most of the ratepayers that I know have had their incomes decrease. Wages and benefits for the districts employees should not exceed comparable local private sector jobs.
Until all customers are metered, I would like to lower the metered rate portion of the bill as much as possible. In addition, meter installations need to be done at a more accelerated pace. I don’t think it is acceptable to have customers using the same volume of water paying very different amounts for the next dozen years. The current metering amounts are based on average use in order to remain revenue neutral to the district. However, the district is composed of full-time and part-time residents, neither of which fit the average. It has been known for many years that meters were coming, but inaction has caused this problem.
The priority of the board is to represent the public and oversee how the district spends our money. When making decisions on behalf of the ratepayers I plan on using the same common sense, fiscally conservative, approach that has worked well for my business. The key word in STPUD is public and I will always keep that in mind when making decisions.
Randy Vogelgesang, South Lake Tahoe
Randy, when you say, “lower the metered rate” do you have a target number in mind?
I’ve heard that $1.16 per ccf is equal to the Flat Rate that non-metered customers are paying.
If this is true, would you be in favor of charging all metered customers $1.16 per ccf until the day comes when everybody has a meter?
Randy would you be willing to show up at the Board meeting tomorrow at 2:00 pm and speak to the Board about lowering the rates?
The whole meter reader digest is nothing but a live catch 22,damn if you do, damn if you don’t!
How about charging these commercial business more and leaving the year round residents out the equation, the second home owners could use some increases since they live in better areas of economic climates.
I would be willing to bet that Spud spends more time after broken pipes reported on second homes that the local residents,most are too cheap to keep the places heated, and wrap the pipes with heat tape.
Still amazes me we need meters at all,Spud got have lots stashed cash somewhere besides the employees bank accounts.
The key word in STPUD is public and I will always keep that in mind when making decisions.
This quote Sounds kinda fishy there Son!
Ernie, I will see you tomorrow at the STPUD board meeting.
Prisoner, I am not sure what you mean by “sounds kinda fishy”. Almost all of the decisions the board makes have an effect on the amount the public pays in rates for the services the STPUD provides. I think it is important to always think of the rate payer when making decisions.
Good luck Randy, you got my vote. It will be interesting to see how your analysis of the current rates comes out.
I wonder if STPUD saves money in the long run issuing bonds to replace lines rather than paying maintenance on the old lines. Interest is so low now maybe nows the time for capital improvements. I hope you dig into that a bit.
Does anyone know the answer to this question.
Does the state mandate in a two tiered billing system (i.e flat/metered) a percentage of what metered revenue must be?
Or another way of stating it, will the state allow a metered rate alongside a flat rate maintenance fee and if so what percentage of the metered water has to make up the entire water budget of the district?
Because of the disproportionate amount of second homes to primary homes in STPUD district there exist the potential for 40% of the population to now pay (when all meters are in) what 100% used to share equally through a flat rate system.
In other words metered second home owners bills will go down because they aren’t using nearly as much water, one by their absentee ownership and two, less likely to landscape.
Whereas primary residences will see a dramatic increase to make up for the lost revenue of the second home flat rate fees.
My hope would be since we maybe saddled with meters, that we could count consumption but be billed very little for it and still share the budget of the water company through a flat rate maintenance fee.