This is the official website of Travis County, Texas.

On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 2004

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 24

View captioned video.

Joe, I guess we can take some of your items. 24, is to approve conservation easement agreement covering a 168.769-acre parcel from the crossings to become part of the balcones canyon lands preserve.
>> morning, judge, Commissioners. I'm the environmental officer. It is with great satisfaction that I finally bring this item to you. We've been discussing this at least amongst the key Commissioners probably at least four of them over the years now. But what this is is a conservation easement that is mitigation for an individual 10-a permit that was received by a gentleman by the name of ken beck associated with a retreat facility called the crossings. It may have a little fancier name than that, but that's what we call it. It's just, I suppose, north of bullock hollow on fm 2769 adjacent to our existing tubes tract, and very close to several others that we have either acquired or intend to acquire in the near future as a part of the balcones, canyon lands preserve. It was originally a 202-acre property and actually 40 acres of that was used for the development itself and the balance committed to preserve. Which needed to be managed by one of the partners. And since the city has over 13,000, 14,000cres or so under their management, it made sense for us to take on that responsibility. The idea here is that they received that permit back in July I think of 2000 or so, and we have been literally sort in an off and on mode negotiating the terms of the easement and the operations and maintenance dollars associated with that. The o and m monies were settled early on. It was an easy negotiation, it just was one that had some tax problems and some other things to slow it down. But here we are with an approvalable easement for you to consider. And in terms of o and m monies, this is one that is fairly unique. The easement itself is in perpetuity and the o and m funding is in perpetuity as well. And it's approximately 14,000 a year for the first five years, and from 2009 on or 2010, it would be adjusted up with the consumer price index. And we feel comfortable with that amount being sufficient for management. We are here for questions if you have any.
>> john, do we think that the cost that we get out of this, it covers whatever costs we're going to have?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> another question?
>> no. John laid it out very well. This is a lock time coming. This has long been an account to the required acreage and it does make long-term sense for the management, which is still the ongoing issue for all of us, that rather than having a private group of individuals try and take care of this conservation easement, that they go go ahead and gut up the dollars to properly get our professionals to do it in a manner that would be consistent not only in this macro site, but throughout the preserve. And unlike other o and m deals, this is not one that's for five years and then there's some kind of a tif that's kicking in dollars for the county. This is one where they're in perpetuity providing the dollars that are necessary for this management. So we're the vendor.
>> judge, I move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thanks.


Last Modified: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:22 AM