Travis County Commssioners Court
January 21, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 10
10 is to review and take postponement action on grant proposals applications, contracts and permissions to continue, a is to approve grant contract with united states fish and wildlife service, usfws, through the Texas parks and wildlife department, tpwd, for the balcones canyonlands preserve program and tnr. The grant provides for $10 million in additional federal funds and has an up to 3.33-million-dollar match requirement that is anticipated to be met by the bcp tif when the funds are needed. And my question goes to the anticipated county match and how the timing of this fits in. $3.33 million is a lot of bread if the general fund has to meet that. And I would like to be left with the impression that a contribution in this amount from the general fund is unlikely because we expect the tif to be able to cover it.
>> that is correct, sir. Let me just walk through real quick on the budgetary side of this. As I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, the funds are not needed until the purchase of the land is actually executed, therefore this would approve the contract, but the funds do not need to be in place until the land is purchased. Also the --
>> do we anticipate when the land will be purchased. > we're actually looking at three tracts of land with the funds we have in place now and then that fourth tract with a grant fund as soon as we get additional matching fund.
>> one acquisition would take place within two months, and the others I would anticipate perhaps by this summer.
>> tif would be tax revenue generated from the land freed up for commercial development. Are we on pretty much the same timetable with receipt of that revenue?
>> the tiv -- actually, the transfer from the general fund to the bcp fund, and I believe that is occurring as we speak. It is total -- the total is actually $2 million this year. The bcp fund, however, has revenues certified in excess of that two million dollars. Is actually has revenues certified for $6.4 million at the moment. And that's made up of beginning fund balance of 1.9 million, intergovernmental revenue of 2.4 million, interest and miscellaneous revenue and the tif. As I understand it, donna has put together a financial scenario that shows that given the grant as it stands currently, we do not have a budgetary problem. Now, cash flow problems could occur depending on the intergovernmental revenue coming in throughout the year. That is the only issue that I have explored with tnr that there could be a cash flow issue is some of the purchases of the land come through before some of that intergovernmental revenue comes in. But there is not a budgetary problem and there's definitely revenue certified in the grant fund -- excuse me, in the bcp fund of $6.4 million, which is in excess of this.
>> so the language about other possible revenue options was really more cautionary. We really actively expect the tif to be able to meet whatever local match requirement there is?
>> yes.
>> kind of a pay as you go. We have always timed the acquisitions to be with the current dollars on hand. And there are always ongoing participation certificates that are being sold to homeowners and other property owners, and those dollars are transferred into Travis County. Is it a quarterly basis that we've done that? So we anticipate a certain amount of monies coming in, but they don't spend it until it gets here. I would be happy to second the motion.
>> yes. Let me just make sure that all this is really saying is that we -- that we have the funds up to $3.3 million. It's a little confusing to me because our match is 25% and the feds do survive%. All we're stating here is that we have $3.3 million. This is not a third si deal as it looks here, I mean, as it looks generally evolved with when we do 25%. And the feds do 75 percent.
>> the federal portion would be 10. The 3.3, we're saying that if we spend the full two million dollars that comes from the federal government, we will spend 3.3 of our own money. If doesn't require us to have that in our hands at this moment.
>> it's to have the contract in place so we can pull down the federal dollars.
>> then I move approval.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM