Travis County Commissioners Court
May 8, 2007
Item 16
16 is to consider and take appropriate action to authorize transportation and natural resources staff, to work with the planning and budget office, the auditor's office and the city of Austin to develop a funding strategy to complete acquisition of the balcones canyon lands preserve within four years and ensure adequate long-term funding of operations and management obligations. Afternoon.
>> good afternoon. My name is rose farmer and I work with natural resources. As you might remember, we came before you a couple of weeks ago in the work session and talked about this issue. We wanted to bring this to the Commissioners court today for action that we are requesting that you give us some support and direction for putting together a team of folks to try to come up with a different strategy, maybe a revised strategy from what we've dmun the past to help -- we've done in the past to help with acquiring the ccp land within the next four years. We feel like vs very important to speed up the acquisition because of a variety reasons that we've laid out for you before. And we wanted to try to get a team together to do that. Since we met with you, we talk to planning and budget office and christian smith and leroy nellis are interested in helping with this, be and the auditor's office, they said they are short staffed to keep directing these notices to susan spitero and she would have staff to help work with us on that. So we would like your direction to put this team together to sit down and look at the long list of options that we had talked about as possibilities and see what's legal, what's feasible, what's possible. And then come back to you with a recommendation from our teams.
>> did we ever get any response from the city of Austin as far as maybe helping us? As far as financial help. This is a big hurdle, very expensive hurdle, but as we sit here and talk it's not set getting any cheaper.
>> we have continued to talk to the city all along the way, and I think as our team is being put together, we're going to be inviting the city to come and join us and be be part of this discussion. So this isn't the first time they will have heard this. Every time we meat with them we talk about this issue. So I think it will be a continuation and we'd like to bring them into the -- if we can finish this and tie it up with a bow, that they will probably be involved in this, and we'll say if you will do this part, we will do this part. For the last faw years they haven't been willing to do additional because they felt like they've spent their money, they did their part and they felt like we needed to continue working on our part of this. But we will continue the city in this project.
>> but they still have a place at the table?
>> yes. In addition, some of the options that were laid out previously, for instance, the extension of the geographic area where we could purchase property would require their acquiescence, right?
>> anything that necessities a change between the sustained county that was set forth in the interlocal that set out the bcp in 1995 would require not just their participation, but amending the interlocal would require a vote of the full Commissioners court as well as the city council, so they would have to be completely involved.
>> then I would move for the creation of the committee between tnr, bpo, auditor's office and the city of Austin to come up with a tree awj of which are the most feasible options for completing the purchases within four years.
>> second.
>> is there anybody else who may want to join or maybe some other cities that may also want to be a part of this? The more of merrier as far as I'm concerned.
>> should we start the ball rolling with this committee and if any other entities -- it becomes obvious that some other entities want to be ininvolved, we can come back be and enlarge the party?
>> I think what we ought to improve are certain individuals at some point.
>> so you would go to these entities and I guess others and try to get persons. And when you come back, we can look at individuals and then determine whether we need to augment that list or what. A lot depends on you're hope to go refine the options that you have also, right?
>> yes.
>> a lot depends on where we land with the options. It make sense to me. But I also have the following three or four ideas. One is to consider the option of reducing the amount of acreage necessary to complete the preserve. And that would be important if we concentrate on quality preserve. Based on what have you taught me previously, some reserve is of better quality than other because of known habitats there or because of the amount of habitat. And I have next land on exact acreage required. Y'all have mentioned that the fish and wildlife may be sympathetic to the idea of including steiner ranch at some point. Why isn't that point now? I guess we need to know whether they will consider it or let us consider it or not and then land on the specific acreage so one or two are kind of tied together. I do think that we should optimize the partners and their contributions and under there I have what is Travis County's total contribution to date. And I don't really just mean money that we have gotten from developers that we have used to operate and manage the preserve, but proceeds from all possible sources at Travis County. Then of course be we really ought to know what the city of Austin and what the federal contributions have been also. My guess is that they may be be left with the impression that they're contributing a whole lot more than we are, but the facts may show that I think we have contributed a lot more than we actually have. The other thing is why wouldn't we try to give Texas fish and wildlife and u.s. Fish and wildlife as a partner. They have been partners anyway, haven't they?
>> fish and wildlife service is who this permit was issued through, and so they've been a partner in that way from the very beginning. Be aware that before this permit was issued in 1996 that actually the recommendation originally was for 150,000 acres in Travis County and that was through negotiation pared down to about 75,000 acres in the county that will be managed intensely instead of putting buffers around it. Basically they took out all the buffers and then it was determined that fish and wildlife service would manage the federal refuge, the balcones canyon land refiewnl, which is in the western part of the county, about 40,000 acres. So they are partnered in that. They created and are managing half of the habitat that's need understand this area. So they're already a partner in that way with and this come to all our mieghts. They are a non-voting member on the coordinating committee that Commissioner Daugherty serve on and they come to all our meetings and are a party to all this.
>> what I have in mind is comments that you gave us. That is that early on we were one of the few governmental entities nation nationwide going to the feds and asking for money to fund the preserve. Now we are just one of money. But it seems to me that to the extent that fish and wildlife is enthusiastic about our willingness and ability to complete the reserve, the better they are. We are much better off with them. They're with us and they have partnered with us this far. So my point is this would for the be the time to stop, but to get together and try to complete the preserve as noon as we can. -- as soon as we can. And you have advised us too that the local contributions would be substantial. So part of the strategy deliberations will be exactly how we should go about persuading local residents that we ought to step up to the plate and do more financially, right? And so having the feds there with us, I wouldn't -- it's not the time for to us lose them in my view. Then I have just city of Austin as another point. They ought to be kept abreast of what's happening and what we think they can do to assist us. And if the preserve is not completed, then that is a bad mark on our regards and theirs too. Once it's done both of us can move to other preserve be related activities, right? Whether we like it or not, we've been together in this for years, and the most dramatic comments you've told us is the realization that in order for us to acquire the last 10 percent will take almost as much money as it took to acquire the first 90% because of increased property values, etcetera. The other question is based on the contributions we have all made, how does that compare to the total? Which is the 90 percent -- the money we've spent for the 90% as well as I guess another 50% to acquire the next 10. So when you look at those contributions what do they really show you? Hopefully they show you that all of us need to do a bit more to get this deal dufnlt those are just ideas that let you know that I had read your memo.
>> and we appreciate your -- your thoughts.
>> do you want them to come back, judge, with a definitive list of folks that can represent each of the concentrations here?
>> I think so. It does help us to have a prn on the committee who -- it does not help to us have a person on the committee who cannot work on. When we see the name we need to know this person has committed to spend the time necessary to get this done and this person has the time.
>> you just want them to circulate that to us or do you want this brought back?
>> I saw put it back on the agenda.
>> a week?
>> I will tell you that I did get a commitment from christian smith and leroy nellis to be on that committee and I got an e-mail from diane warner from the auditor's office that said include susan spitero and her. So it was my understanding they were committing that. So I thought that we actually would not bring it back and I might be able to present that to you today.
>> so all we need at this point is a city of Austin representative.
>> and willie conrad is who is the head person that we work with. And I think I can speak for willie that he will come to these meetings.
>> I think the judge's point is to have something actually in writing and letting us know who is who and what's what. I would feel a lot more comfortable also in that regard if we have these people identified and what their affiliation is. That's why I pulled the question earlier. That's why I asked the question about the city of Austin. Who would that contact person be? Because we are in partnership with the city of Austin for this preserve. We are.
>> absolutely.
>> for them not to be at the table kind of raises a ced flag for me. I can see where you're coming from as far as having some affiliation with those name. And there are also other entities because it's more than just us that should be looking at the remaining acquisition of the preserve.
>> let me say this. I don't want them to watch this and have that comment taken the wrong way. The city of Austin is involved in this. The city of Austin has been involved in this. The city of Austin will be involved in this. They have made a comment that they have done a lot of heavy lifting, but they all know that both the city and the county are responsible for getting this thing completed. The most important thing that we can get done is to identify an exit plan. We have heard that for going on two years now from the feds. Show us what you're willing to do in order to close this thing out. That has been consistent. And we will get that. But quopt anybody to get the impression that the city of Austin doesn't want to participate because they do. They will participate and they have participated hugely in this thing. So the last thing we want to do is have one much them watch this and there been an inference that --
>> I don't think it's taken that way. My perception of what I'm saying here is I want to make sure that there is a slot -- make sure that there is a slot available, still there with the city of Austin because of the nature and the fact that we're in partnership. I just want to make that clear that there's still a slot at the table, a seat available for the city of Austin or anybody else that wants to help us to bring this to closure.
>> we share this permit with the city. The city and the county are the two permit holders. So we are the one that signed up and are responsible for this. And the city is with us every step of the way.
>> there have been conversations already between tnr and the city of Austin got this, and I know that there have also been conversations. Councilmember leffingwell was speaking of it just recently in caz we will conversation about what we could do to complete it as well. So there are conversations currently both at staff level and at council level about how to crack this nut.
>> in order for the county to generate a substantial amount of money to acquire additional property for the preserve, we would have to get the approval of taxpayers. And that's why I think that whatever central texans we use should be open. We may as well try to educate the public as we go along, one. Two is that I do think that we ought to approve certain individuals and know who they are. Having the county people is just part of it. Three is that I do recall y'all having listed a whole lot of options. We need to land on where the court stands on those options and whether those options should be augmented. If I were in washington, d.c. And had spent $48 million and somebody came and told me, if you spend x amount more and it's small compared to the 48 million, then I would be be a little bit more enthusiastic than if I really felt that the local residents were not doing their share. See what I'm saying? So we have been working with this for 10 years?
>> 11.
>> 11 years. And the feds have been with us every step of the way. My guess is federal officials ought to be as eager to get this preserve completed as we. And so working -- if you've got four or five partners, we can generate the money necessary to finish it out. It will be very, very difficult for Travis County alone to do it, though. But I think we ought to come back with those and have the court approve not only the persons, but the options that we look at, the order. I don't have any problem with somebody contacting fish and wildlife. We will need you to attend some meetings at Travis County because we're trying to put together a master strategy to complete the bcp. I mean, it seemed to me they would jump for joy.
>> I have a question. Perhaps not as a part of this motion -- and again, it should be a part of this motion. One thing I think that we lose sight of, another stakeholder at the table that perhaps we forget is really there is that the bcp exists so that property outside the bcp can be developed despite the fact that it is endangered species habitat. So if there's a way that we could meaningfully engage that portion of the private sector that is a huge beneficiary of the completion of this bcp to engage the private sector in helping us out to complete it.
>> the motion as I understood it was to proceed. We're posted to approve the strategy that involves partners, most of which are us in the item. And we're saying there are partners outside Travis County that have to be incorporated and we may as well incorporate them and on another date and another agenda item, consider them as well as the strategy options and other related stuff. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
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:
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:03 PM