Travis County Commissioners Court
August 15, 2006
Item 2
Number two, consider and take appropriate action to discuss tragedy to complete acquisition -- discuss strategy to complete acquisition of land for balcones canyon land preserve.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Basically there are a number of events going on in the community around us that indicated it's time to get more serious with this conversation. First of all, individual members of the court have come to us with a recognition that balcones canyon land conservation plan and preserve has a long ways to go. Some of the initial financial forecasting and so forth were based upon very, very outdated land costs and values and so forth. So essentially we thought we would begin the dialogue with this entity just by having a series of options. Kind of give you some backup that gives you a little bit of history and also some potential for where we can go. Today kevin connell wli the bcp program and we also have members of the city staff and their consultants, city staff both from the bcp or wild lands management side as well as their public works. And so just to let you know they're there in the audience in case there are any questions relating to them. The big issue is how do we finish 30,428-acre requirement that's in our regional habitat conservation plan and permit? There are a number of ways we could do that. The biggest issue is time for us. Land coftz are very high. There's a 20-year requirement within the permit. We're at our 10-year anniversary right now, approximately halfway through that requirement period it for that acquisition. So a more detailed part of the presentation, I'd like to turn it over to kevin connally.
>> judge, commission you were, good morning. In the backup memo you have before you, when we asked to present to the court, we asked to address a number of questions, provide some additional backup. We've outlined at least 11 different opportunities that have been considered as ways to accelerate the acquisition of balcones canyon land preserve in the permit. I know you're on a tight agenda schedule this morning. I'd like to present that information to you, let you knee essentially staff is asking for the court's direction related to initiating expanded discussions with the planning and budget office, the elder's office, the city of Austin, and any other potential partners to identify and expedite acquisition strategies to complete the preserve design. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to address your questions rather than going item by item through our list of suggested potentials.
>> kevin, it's really not a question as onsed to a challenge -- as opposed to a challenge. The permit is silent, is it not correct, as to who is supposed to acquire what on behalf of this permit? I think there is a conception by our partners at the city that they're done, and whatever's left over is the responsibility of the county. And that's not correct, is it?
>> the permit technically states that the city and the county are jointly responsible for achieving the goals of the permit. There's no specific language that states that one particular entity is required to do any -- to acquire one particular tract or to focus on one particular area in any way, that's correct.
>> and who's got how many karst features and who has the golden cheeked warbler habitat. And that in terms of the thought that, well, we've fulfilled what we need, that is really related to what the city of Austin government thinks it will need in its mitigation banks related to city of Austin government public projects where they would need do mitigation. It does not speak to the permit is really on behalf of all citizens within Travis County and mitigation that may be needed by citizens, landowners who are out in the west, some of that is in the e.t.j., some of it is not in the city of Austin, it is really about them having the ability to piggyback on this permit '. So we're jointly responsible for finishing it. We need to get into some good discussions about how we jointly are going to finish it up.
>> as you know, one of the primary goals of the permit is to facilitate growth and development in your community. And the bcp specifically provides an expedited way for proift landowners and developers to develop their lands, to do things with their land through our quick and much easier often times much, much less expensive process than what would be required through the u.s. Fish and wildlife service formal consultation process. So you actually write in ensuring that we provide the appropriate amounts of lit mit metgation for our snits the county is an important goal that we've been working on for 10 years.
>> can you give us an update as to where we are at in spending down some of these dollars that are accumulating there in terms of federal grant monies from -- I think we only have grant monies from this previous year. We're waitoga grant announcement for current fiscal year. I take that back.
>> where are we in terms of spending down the money as opposed to having it in an account that we admire and say isn't that lovely? Where are we?
>> certainly there are nuns the account sfundz in the act now. I believe there's approximately $2 million in that account today in the county's account derived from participation certificates. All of that funding is currently dedicated to land acquisition to identify a couple of projects we're working on finalizing the appraisals now. The tax increment financing program currently is largely dedicated to matching the federal grants that you mentioned. There are actually I believe two -- the last two years have grant funds that are still available and eligible for a match. We're in the process of negotiating lands with those funds today. And we are waiting hopefully any day may receive a response about the 2006 grant request.
>> let me ask the question in a slightly different way. If indeed what happens happens in response to the spending down and the account in negotiation right now, approximately what kind of acreage are we talking about in terms of those dollars being used for?
>> given potential conservation eementzs, negotiations that are currently underway, we believe after we complete all current deals that we may still be outstanding about 1400 acres.
>> does that include or not include steiner?
>> that does not include steiner.
>> so what is the city of Austin's strategy for completing the preserve?
>> would we like to ask that question of the city?
>> we have not asked them and they have not told us.
>> I believe the city's stated position for some time is that they feel that they've already achieved their obligations under the permit.
>> and so how much has the city acquired and how much has the county acquired?
>> the city land holdings are approximately 13,000 acheners the bcp.
>> and the county?
>> the county's bcp holdings are roughly 5,000 acres if you count the 800 acres of steiner ranch. That's lands that we manage to the standards of the bcp as directed by fish and wildlife service, but those acres have not yet been counted. The other partners --
>> balance in.
>> the total balance remain remaining is 27,000.
>> 13 and five actual 18.
>> the balance is our other partners, lower colorado river authority, the nature conservancy of Texas, travis awd bon society, a number of private mitigation hold thearz went to fish and wildlife service that obtained their own permit.
>> so those partners have taken the same position as the city?
>> I believe the other partners thabl they have covered their own agency's mitigation needs, which is one of the reasons they chose to participate in the plan. Again, it's really only the city and the county that are responsible to fish and wildlife service for up holding the permit.
>> okay. So is fish and wildlife looking county or look to go the city and the county?
>> I think they look to the city and county as joint permit holders.
>> it seem like one thing we ought to do is get a form of communication with the city of Austin as to how we complete the preserve. And if we reach an impasse on whether the county has responsibility for 100% of what's left, we ought to know that that's the case. And deal from there. It's not like we have a thousand options. We really have three or four, right? And it seems to me that since the federal government has been a big partner to this point, I would try to put together a strategy that could interest them in helping us complete this. I know y'all have told us before that other governmental entities are interested in this and the feds have given them a little bit more attention than they were when we started ours. To me that says let's put together a strategy that enables us to complete this with the fed's help as soon as possible ', and that we have become attractive. And rather than giving us a little bit a yeerks maybe one big with us helping out and the other partners, we can go ahead and get it done. I'm looking at it. I don't know that I would adopt the strategy that assumes the feds will give a whole lot less. If that comes to pass, then we have no choice but to accept it anyway. But they have been a partner for years, and I guess for years they have known we've got to goal and we're not there yet, but we've made great progress toward it. Do you see what I'm saying?
>> judge, I think we have a companion item that is an executive session item related to the city's ongoing efforts to do water treatment plant number 4. And I have a feeling that the end result of those discussions, which do impact bcp, and the permit, that if we can get to a place there, we will have a much better sense of what is still left on the permit. I think there are -- well, we have to work together on wtp number 4 because we are jointly impacted by wtp number 4. And there are some things in executive session in terms of where we're at on that one. But I think that will force the good discussions to occur because one is talking about taking out acreage and we're trying to keep in acreage.
>> did the city representative come prepared to share with the court the city's position on a strategy to complete the bcp? Bcp. I don't want to put you on the spot, but you have -- you have that I'm eager to speak look.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I'm willie conrad, the manager for the city's wildlife conservation division. We've had some discussion with city manager, staff the last week or so about this issue that you're discussing today. And the city manager's authorized us to explain that we consider ourselves the county's full partner here. We believe it's in our -- all of our best interest to complete bcp as originally envisioned and we would certainly welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and plan an acquisition to the bcp as well as how we can fund ongoing operations and maintenance after that time.
>> you said there are several strategies that have been listed in today's backup. I guess the question to staff is have the city been made aware of the strategies that may be obtainable with the relationship between the city and also the county on the acquisition of remaining acreage from the bccp?
>> we apologize for the $11 hour deliver roadway this backup, but they certainly have not had time to restriew in detail.
>> that was owe to review it in detail. Irtion but at some point that should be exposed to them since the gentleman has spoke eloquently and said that they are full partners with Travis County and bccp to acquire the remaining acreage that's before us now?
>> right. Rest assured that the completion of the bcp is probably at the very top of every one of our career goals sitting at this table right now. So these situations happen continuously. It'sious a matter of protocol that we wanted to come before you and make sure that we were authorized to have this discussion and kind of take it to the highest levels that we could to make it an effective discussion.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> we never need to forget the city of Austin was there first that got us to the 13,000-acre point very quickly because of their efforts. So we just need to kind of pull that together and say let's join back together to get this thing done.
>> make sure that the city knows that came from Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> acknowledged that they did very good work.
>> to make sure that we finish our discussion of 29, since we have several individuals here on that, we may ought to go into executive session on these few items, give us a chance to finish that within the next 45 minutes or so if possible. Let's leave that strategy hanging for a while, okay? In case we need to discuss it when we come back into court. So that's number 2.
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.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 16, 2006 12:08 PM