Travis County Commissioners Court
December 16, 2008
Item 21
T.n.r., joe geiselman, are you nearby? There are several items of yours that we need to call up at this time. 21 is consider and take appropriate action on guidelines for use or disposition of balcones canyonlands preserve buildings.
>> yes, judge, joe geiselman of t.n.r. And rose is on her way. Over the years we've acquired properties for the balcones canyonland preserve and on those properties when we acquire them there are sometimes structures, single-family homes, sheds, barns, and there are a couple that have come to my attention that need to be destroyed because of -- for safety reasons. They are hazardous. And there are adjoining neighborhoods that are close to the balcones canyonland areas and in one instance there was some vandalism caused by young men from that neighborhood. And it's just in this particular case it was just a hazardous building that they shouldn't have been in the first place. But it but it brought to mind what we do to dispose of these properties when we get them. And so I asked the staff to come together and kind of lay out some general procedures that we would go through to assess what to do with any of these particular properties. In your backup you have basically the criteria that we used. We looked at the existing county policy with regard to disposition of real estate. That is primary for when we sell properties or lease properties, they don't exactly pertain to what we may be doing in the case of leveling properties in some of these recommendations that we're making today. But we did look at those at a starting point. We also went through the inventory of structures that we have on these properties. As you know, we did make use of one of the homes on a bcp property for an office space that is currently serving our field staff, the bcp field staff. And we have others on various properties. And we're making recommendation today to take down some of the hazardous buildings, to proceed to look at whether or not to lease or sell others like the
>> [inaudible] building, it's a single-family home, very good condition, about 3300 square foot of home, and that's where the asset is fairly valuable. We could you're we could either lease it out for some purpose or sell the property, just carve out that single-family home. It's fairly close to a public roadway, and get it off the -- put it back on the tax rolls and out of the bcp property. So let me have just rose go through some of the specific recommendations that we're making today.
>> we have -- as joe said, when we acquire bcp land, there are a number of those that have buildings on them. Sometimes they are in good shape. Some are not. Some are farm buildings and we are proposing to do assessment of all the properties or all the buildings we have on our various bcp lands and I'm estimating there may be as many as 20 structures of one kind or another that today we are coming asking for a few to do something sooner than the full assessment that we have on the button property we have two houses that have asbestos that we have known since we acquired the land in about 2002. We've known that those two houses had asbestos and we worked to get funding set aside for that and we're just wanting to come and say rather than waiting for a full assessment, we already know those properties -- that those houses have problems and we need to take those two houses down on the bunton property. On the stratton property, we have a house that was vandalized after we acquired the property, but the house wasn't in good shape even before and it's next to an apartment complex that's got more that 500 apartments and we feel like that's a safety hazard and we need to take that down soon. So that's the immediate need. Longer term we want to be looking at others because we have other buildings that could be used for a program and we have -- we've set up in the backup I've given you some criteria for making decisions about what do we do with different buildings that come with the land that we acquire. Remember that the purpose of acquiring bcp land is never for these buildings. That's not the purpose. The purpose is acquiring it for the endangers species habitat, but we need criteria toss to what do we do with the building. Do we fix it up so we can use it for educational purposes for our volunteers that we are fixing to begin on the volunteer coordinator-led program. Do we use it for educational purposes, do we use it to help with research projects or are they ones that we can actually physically sell and they can move the house off the property or what. And so we have listed here some criteria to help us decide on should we keep and maintain these, what's the cost going to be, are there any conflicts with the program, the permit that we have at fish and wildlife service. Is it in good condition? Are there any health and safety issues? Is it an historic house? What are the kinds of things we need to be deciding as we look at the property. So keeping and maintaining them is one option. Don't maintain them and just leave them be. We have a number of things like old wooden farm buildings like a shed that it's not worth county money to take those down because nature is going to take care of it, it's not near any paved road, it's not bothering the public, it's just out in the woods somewhere and so some of those we'll just leave them alone and let them fall down. And some we need to take down, to tear down, such as the properties I just mention odd the bunton and strafford tracts for health and safety reasons either because of asbestos or it's a safety hazard for the public.
>> how do we know this house has asbestos?
>> we did an environmental site assessment prior to acquiring the property so we were awar of it from the very beginning. And since then we've had -- had a firm come out and not only tell us that the environmental site assessment guy told us there was asbestos and then we hired somebody else to come back and tell us how much asbestos and where the asbestos was. So we have reports that describe that.
>> because the presence of asbestos tells us that we have to be very careful --
>> precisely.
>> -- about how we demonthly issue it. You are talking about getting experts.
>> that's correct.
>> so for residents who wonder why we made a certain decision as to a certain structure, do we anticipate having a written document that --
>> yes.
>> -- that represents an assessment?
>> yes. We anticipate actually taking all of the structures what we have whether they are old farm buildings or an old house that is in good condition that we only need to paint it, some only need minor repairs and we'll take it through these -- these questions that for those we may want to sell or lease, we have the policy that was put in place that was approved by the Commissioners in 2004. But for these other properties that are on the land that we don't intend to sell or lease, then we will take it through and do a full assessment and we'll provide a written report back to Commissioners and to joe geiselman for your decision.
>> and the budget for this very important public work?
>> the budget for the tear-down is actually within bcp money. The court had approved back a number of years ago in our regular budget there was some money set aside for tearing down the bunton house. Financial staff and t.n.r. Have informed me because of money we collect from other sources from developers or from land management costs that we take in that there actually is money available for tearing down the stratton houses as well. So that money is set aside right now.
>> and there's a note that we believe that bcp management funds will be available for this work whenever it needs to be done.
>> management money meaning for tearing down or doing the assessment? Sha your question?
>> this says funding for the removal of these structures will come from allocated bcp management funds.
>> yes. That is correct. We have --
>> not to surprise you. I just wanted to confirm that source of funding.
>> yes. Yes.
>> the three specific things are assess all the properties under the criteria that y'all laid out on page 4, to raise the bunton and stratton properties and pursue the lease or sale of the merchant property.
>> yes, that's correct.
>> and numbers 1 and 3 would all come within the regular management of the bcp budget. Correct?
>> yes. Tearing down those houses that funds are already set aside to do that and we have them in place now.
>> and proceeds from the lease or the sale of the merching property, does that go back to the bcp?
>> that would be our recommendation but we are just at the beginning of trying to do assessment of that property to decide what to do. It would be my recommendation that go back into the bcp for acquiring additional land.
>> I didn't see a bomb line total amount for the particular recommendation that you are making as for as removing.
>> for the tear-down, I don't know the final number yet.
>> would that be -- but you basically would have it covered?
>> yes.
>> I guess under what's being proposed, you've got the money set aside somewhere?
>> we have the money set aside. My guess is for tearing down both properties plus doing the remediation for the asbestos, I think the total bill will be less than $50,000. I know that sounds like a lot of money, but when you are dealing with there's two houses on one property and four structures on another property and then you are having to hire someone to come and do -- make assessment reports on how -- how and where does the asbestos go, I think that's like three or four thousand dollars of hiring that contractor to figure out how to deal with the asbestos and you are hiring somebody else to do the work. And then taking it to different types of landfills. So there are a number of costs involved, but I think the full amount is a little less than $50,000.
>> okay. So I guess --
>> I'm sorry, I couldn't understand.
>> I guess you will go out for an estimate to determine.
>> yes, actually, these contractors are already on county contract so we're working with purchasing and with our t.n.r. Financial staff on that.
>> so if we go out and just demolish an old building, we would expect to carry those materials to a landfill --
>> other than the asbestos to a regular landfill. It would be the contractor's job.
>> okay. I see the assessment, evaluation, recommendations. I don't see that a written report will be generated. But that's our intention.
>> yes.
>> questions? Move approval of the recommendations.
>> second.
>> discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you.
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, December 16, 2008 1:45 PM