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 11
11. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. Conservation easement and fencing agreement with houston lakepointe partners for 24.17 acres out of a 56.376-acre parcel, being lot 47, grandview hills subdivision, section 8, to become part of the balcones canyonlands preserve; and. B. Amendment to conservation easement and fencing agreement from lnr-grandview limited partnership.
>> very similar project. Actually been sitting around maybe a bit longer, even. This goes back to 2001 when we negotiated a series of conservation easements as well as transfers and fee related to the grandview hills subdivision development and u.s. Fish and wildlife service 10 a permit [indiscernible] 447, this is a conservation easement of 25 acres more or less and it would get us a -- approximately a $16,000 one-time fencing payment. And the o and m, the operations and maintenance money negotiated back in 2001, staff feels will adequately cover management of this piece, we are already doing quite a bit of work in that exact area. It's 26 acres out of a bigger 1700-acre block that we are already working on on a daily basis. The reimbursement basically goes back to the issue of delay and the developers -- actually, we were very grateful, since we didn't get this easement out very quickly, we were grateful that the developer was actually willing to do some of the fencing and protect the preserve land behind there. So essentially what we are doing in the second part of this, I guess it would be 11 11 b, would be to actually give them a reimbursement for fencing that they have already paid for. We would only be reimbursing at the rate that we pay. I can assure you that the fence that they put in is more costly that r than that. It would be a partial reimbursement. They are okay with that and we are.
>> move approval.
>> any more discussion?
>> of both a and b. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, john.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM