Travis County Commssioners Court
April 13, 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 10
On 10 I just want this laid out so we know exactly what it is. I think that I understood the backup. But a public layout if we could briefly. 10. Consider and take appropriate action on request for a conservation easement agreement to include a 52.3-acre parcel from "greenshores" as part of the balcones canyonlands preserve.
>> john kuhl again, environmental officer. Greenshores is a developer or a -- a representative name for a development that is -- has gotten a 10-a permit through the u.s. Fish and wildlife service. What this conservation easement represents is onsite mitigation for that development. As we stated there in the posting, it's a 52 dark acre conservation -- 52-acre conservation easement, located in the vicinity of oak shores and city park road in precinct 3. And that is the north lake Austin macro site of the balcones canyonland preserves and conservation site area. What this is going to transfer is the actual conservation easement, which places upon us the responsibility for management of that land as a part the preserve itself. We will a one-time funding of approximately $19, which will cover some -- some labor costs -- [indiscernible] costs, rather, for -- it's basically a portion of a vehicle or equipment or what have you that goes to -- to be expended on, in that patrol and that management, as well as $6,100 for a five-year period for labor and so forth for the management and census and so frort forth that was due there. After this period, this has come to be a traditional term where this five-year period, we assume that the tip of this mitigation support kicks in, we are able to cover that. Now, that also goes to your earlier question, judge Biscoe, about compensation. But -- about the plan. Therein lies the root of the problem because we don't dip into those funds at this time until we have finished with acquisition. That's kind of the agreement that's in the interlocal. So that's -- that's -- just wants to be open with you on that. I mean, there is a lag in trying to -- in trying to could that. But staff has reviewed the easement. We have worked with the county attorney's office, that's been sitting for a couple of years while we worked through some of the details and so forth. But -- but we recommend that -- that you give us the authority to manage this land and we accept the easement.
>> okay. Judge, I mean, it seems to be consistent with what -- with what we have done, all over. Since, you know, we've been setting over for two years, unless I can get it pushed for another four, we might as well go ahead and move approval. I’m comfortable with the t.n.r. Telling us that it's the thing to do. So unless somebody has a lot more history on it, Commissioner.
>> second.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM