Travis County Commssioners Court
April 20, 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 8
>> I do think that I would like 8 laid out. These are big numbers. 8. Review and approve requests regarding grant proposals, applications, contracts and permissions to continue: a. Grant application to united states fish and wildlife service (usfws) through the Texas parks and wildlife department (tpwd) for the balcones canyonlands preserve program in the transportation and natural resources department. The grant provides for $34 million in additional federal funds and has an up to $11.50 million dollar match requirement that is anticipated to be met by the bcp tif and mitigation fees as needed; b. Amendment to interlocal agreement with the tpwd for grant funds to acquire land for the balcones canyonlands preserve in the transportation and natural resources department. The grant increases the current program and provides for $7.7 million in additional federal funds and has an up to $1.94 million dollar match requirement that is anticipated to be met by the bcp tif and mitigation fees as needed; and c. Grant contract with the capital area planning council for a solid waste enforcement grant in the transportation and natural resources department. A new grant program to provide an investigator and supplies for six months. In terms of 8 c, we have been expecting this for some time. This is simply the contract, right?
>> yes, sir, this is the contract.
>> that's why I move approval of 8 c.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of 8 c? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, can we just walk through 8 a? Those numbers are big, but I should not be as shocked as I am because?
>> because we are buying land. That's expensive. And what we are looking at, is a -- is a price that represents willing sellers who have come to us and offered their land for sale for the balcones canyonland preserves. The number that we are looking to get -- the amount of our request is not necessarily what we'll get. And also once -- if we were to get the entire amount we request, we would have several years to buy it. And the matching funds that are required, would be -- we would have to commit at the time that you approved the purchase contract for each individual acquisition project. So we would spend the money down as we had matching funds available. In the last few years, matching funds have become less of a problem for us than they were at first because we have tax increment financing that comes in and covers our match steadily. I -- beyond that, the matching requirement, if we were to get the entire 34.8 million would be 11.6 million.
>> there is good news on -- on t.i.f., Generation of revenue?
>> the t.i.f. Was a little over $3 million this year. Which would -- which would give us $9 million in federal funds. And we -- it's gone up steadily every year. We would -- we would -- planning and budget department would have to give us the projections. Just the initial projection that I heard was, you know, it might easily go up to 4 million next year.
>> the nice thing is that very large developments have on time, and I see Ron ellis shaking his head saying yes, have come in on target in terms of when we needed an infusion of a large amount of development. Steiner has been taking us through in terms of the continued platting. If you notice on today's agenda related to twin creeks, twin creeks which is another large development going on just outside of Cedar Park, 22 a and b will continue to help, so twin creeks is becoming another one of those very large drivers. How I wish it were that we would get 34 million in one chunk because if that were the case I would retire. Very happy. But the most -- [laughter] the most that we have ever gotten in one year is 19 million. The least that we have gotten since Travis County has been making the grant applications is 4.
>> now, for those watching this -- [laughter] -- who have no idea about this t.i.f., It really means what? A t.i.f. Is a?
>> tax increment financing.
>> just the --
>> it means that the properties that come through the b.c.p. That are developed, that are inside the preserve that are -- that the tax -- I really wish somebody else -- the tax revenue is brought to us for -- into the t.i.f. And we can use it for --
>> [multiple voices]
>> look at all of these people.
>> the land is still taxed and stays in the general fund but it's the improvements in terms of the tax value on the ism improvements is redirected into a special fund so that development is paying for the continued purchase of habitat land.
>> thank you.
>> under the terms of the interlocal agreement that the county has with the city of Austin and the lcra, yes.
>> that simply means that the development that occurs as part of the program generates tax revenue.
>> correct.
>> we have committed to turn around, reinvest that tax revenue back into the program. So we use is that revenue to purchase, to provide the local match to purchase additional preserve land.
>> that's right.
>> right.
>> the general fund, it is still benefiting from this because the land value as it increases with -- going from agricultural land or preserved land into the development mode, the general fund does capture that new value and that stays in the general fund.
>> if we were to get incrediblely lucky.
>> [indiscernible]
>> there is that $34 million to Travis County, then we think, one, it would be a multi--year acquisition.
>> that's right.
>> still got to find motivated sellers.
>> well, they are in the list. So it would be based on -- before we go in, we established that the sellers are motivated.
>> they have to be motivated and agree on a price. Then the more of this we achieve, hopefully the more revenue it will generate and the greater our ability to provide the local match from money generated by the program.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. And the -- and the overview that -- that I asked for would be delivered in about three weeks, this one week passed.
>> you can have it even sooner, judge.
>> judge, I would move approval of the grant application under a.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez, any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And is it pretty much the same explanation for b, except b is an amendment?
>> b is actually funding from last year's grant application. Just now coming through. And it includes a 4.9 million dollar grant plus some additional funds that have been held back to -- to specifically so that we can apply them to the purchase of the [indiscernible] property. Now they are coming to us, a total of 7.7 million, my office made a mistake in calculating the match. It's actually 2.5 million. The requirement, I apologize.
>> has that correction been made in the amendment?
>> the amendment doesn't actually have to state the match. They just tell us how much they are moving into our contract. It's an interlocal agreement that the Texas parks and wildlife department amends each year to increase it with each new grant application round.
>> we have the match on hand,, though?
>> we don't have all of the match for this. We have the money to -- we have the match to get through all of the acquisitions, which we went into as a backup in case somebody turns us down. We are in pretty good shape. By October 1st with the new t.i.f. We would be able to spend all of that money. I don't know if the acquisition deals themselves will move that fast.
>> we think that by the time we need the local match, we'll have it.
>> we will have it. And again we don't have to have the match in hand in order to receive the funds, unlike mini grants where that's required. In this case each time we bring a purchase contract we have to have the match.
>> okay.
>> move approval of the amendment.
>> second. 7.
>> we have been doing these amendments [indiscernible]
>> yes.
>> and in anticipation of -- of additional revenue becoming available at some point in the future.
>> and/or an ending purchase. The feds don't let us pull down the dollars until we are ready to expend them. We have got some things that are fixing to hit, now is the appropriate time to start pulling down.
>> as a matter of fact we are not supposed to enter into any kind of a contractual agreement until we have this match approved, the amendment approved.
>> we have been executing amendments like this --
>> routinely.
>> routinely?
>> yes, sir.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:31 AM