My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
05-28-86 Meeting of the La Porte Area Water Authority Minutes (approved on 6-4-86)
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
La Porte Area Water Authority Board
>
1980's
>
1986
>
05-28-86 Meeting of the La Porte Area Water Authority Minutes (approved on 6-4-86)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2017 3:00:50 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 2:41:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
La Porte Area Water Authority Board
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
5/28/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Jack Owen <br />Ju ne 16, 1986 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />4. Our recommendation that the Authority seriously consider <br />participation in the Southeast Plant is based on the <br />acceleration of the schedule for construction of this plant, <br />our belief that the project represents the most cost-effective <br />approach to providing water to the LaPorte area, and our <br />realization that our long-range surface water resources are <br />limited and that this limitation will require us to seriously <br />re-evaluate raw water contracts in approximately 10 years. <br /> <br />5. We would be happy to entertain a specific proposal from the <br />Authority concerning a schedule of capital payments, <br />provisions for assuring future capacity in the event of <br />unexpected growth, and participation by the City in certain <br />planning activities already accomplished by the Authority. At <br />your request, I am enclosing information concerning interest <br />rates and redemption schedules for the recent City's recent <br />revenue bond issue. <br /> <br />6. While our plans for extension of treated water lines are not <br />yet firm, and depend in part on the interest of other <br />potential customers, it is possible that the City would <br />request that the line serving the Authority be increased in <br />size to meet other needs. In this case, participation by the <br />City (or another customer) in the cost of the line would be <br />possible. <br /> <br />7. The layout of your service area suggests that only two of your <br />possible members (Seabrook and El Lago) might benefit by <br />exploring an alternate point of delivery from the Southeast <br />Plant system. The options facing these communities are not <br />yet entirely clear, and it is possible that they might also <br />best be served through a redistribution system operated by the <br />Authority. <br /> <br />While the points above summarize our general discussions, they should <br />not be construed as modifying or expanding upon any future contractual <br />agreement which might be entered into between the City and the <br />Authority. <br /> <br />Again, I enjoyed meeting with you last week, and trust that the <br />information provided will be helpful to the Authority as it weighs <br />options for surface water delivery to the area. <br /> <br />Truly yours, <br /> <br />~~. -;.~ <br />1 ....-'~. 4'Y/ "." -,.. <br />~:. ........I:=------ <br /> <br />Michael S. Marcotte, P.E. <br />Assistant to the Director <br />Department of Public Works <br /> <br />MSr1:pr <br />cc: Mr. Cecil Allen <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.