Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Effluent Value topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee discusses options to quantify value of treated effluent and suggests contract review

Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee · August 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members asked staff to seek documentation to quantify the fiscal value of treated effluent — including a possible historical $200,000 figure and any sale contract language tying water distribution to the Highlands/Highland Lakes course — and agreed to develop a one‑page public explanation for taxpayers.

Committee members spent a substantive portion of the meeting on how to quantify the dollar value of treated effluent to the city and how to communicate that value to taxpayers.

"I think what we were working on was trying to quantify the value of the effluent to the city," one committee member said, framing the work as both a technical and communications task. Members proposed producing a concise public summary (a one‑pager suitable for the utility bill or the city website) that would lay out assumptions and alternatives used to calculate any net fiscal benefit from reuse on the golf course.

Participants identified several potential data points: historical budget line items (members recalled a prior $200,000 valuation), contract terms in the sale of the Highlands/Highland Lakes course that might specify water-distribution obligations or pricing, and comparisons between the cost of using drinking water versus effluent distribution. One member noted that a sale contract could provide a reference price even if enforcement of that contract is uncertain.

The committee agreed on next actions: ask staff to search for relevant sale contracts and prepare background numbers and assumptions; consider an open-records request if necessary; and develop a draft outreach piece that explains the "soft benefits" (for example, avoiding use of potable drinking water) alongside any hard-dollar estimates.

No formal vote was taken on the valuation methodology; members emphasized the need for transparent assumptions and verification before any figures are published to the public.