Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 16, 2010,
Item 17
>> 17 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to amend chapter 92 of the Travis County code to add a provision regarding the use or proceeds from the sale of open space parkland, parks and preserves.
>> yes, judge.
the reason why I didn't allow this to go on consent was because of the fact that I just think it needs to be laid out.
I think there's been some misunderstanding on this particular item that came up before in the past.
and I just want to make sure that staff have a chance to lay it out exactly what this does with this chapter on 92.
so just lay it out so folks could really understand.
>> mr. Gieselman, are you next-door?
>> I can start it until he gets here, I think.
and I don't know if susan can weigh in on this as well.
this is an issue of when park assets are sold, based on the information regarding what they were purchased with and under what conditions, the desire is to keep utilized for the same thing the proceeds meant for them to be.
so, say, you've got a park bond and you purchase some land with it and it turns out that the city of Austin needs right-of-way and they pay you for some right-of-way in the park, those proceeds go back to the park or as close to that as possible.
and this was worked out with the auditor's office with regard to the greater degree of information on where the money came from and the arbitrage issues.
>> if we have arbitrage we would calculate it correctly.
I think all that's worked out.
>> yeah.
>> and I have no problem with it, but I kind of wanted staff to do that.
thank you, Commissioner.
you're right on target.
I don't knock what you are saying.
>> I was just treading water until someone who knows --
>> [laughter]
>> of all the times joe has been in here, where is he now?
I wanted him to lay out because there was some misunderstanding on this from folks.
and we got an email according to that.
I just want to make sure they laid it out accordingly and, Commissioner, you did a great job.
we see what it is and we see the backup.
but I just kind of wanted joe gieselman and his staff.
>> these are the guidelines we have used in the past, too, aren't they?
>> on the sale of the open parkland.
>> yeah.
>> I think the only addition was --
>> oh, okay.
>> there you go.
>> the minor tweaking in section 92.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt did a great job.
>> good.
do you have any questions?
>> [laughter]
>> just kind of lay it out.
>> actually pretty straightforward.
>> it is straightforward.
>> the intent was straightforward.
>> yeah, yeah.
>> in that basically what we were trying to do is when we were forced to sell a park because of some other entity has condemnation and needs to put an easement through or like on bcp, we acquired a piece of property and already had a cell tower on it.
the county is going to receive some money from that lease.
what do you do with the money?
well, the intent here was just put it back in the, say, pool that could be used for the same purpose.
if the voters authorize it to acquire parkland, then we ought to use the proceeds to acquire more parkland.
very simple intent.
when it comes to implementation, we are talking about an entirely different thing.
we have what's called arbitrage.
some of these park assets are being acquired with tax-free debt.
and as long as there's an outstanding debt that's still being paid off, we have to be careful about what proceeds we receive from the use of those assets.
and so that is information that the auditor has to look at to determine if we're insync with the federal laws in regard to arbitrage.
if we're making more money than it cost to buy, then we have to give some of that money back to the federal government.
there are some laws that we have to conform to, same with the grants.
when we go acquire parkland with a state park grants, those grants come with terms and conditions.
so we have to be careful about how we use that parkland, in this case, it's not so much the proceeds, but what the other entity may want to do on land that we acquire for parks.
all of that's to say the policy was rewritten in such a way that we look at the facts first.
we run those facts through the auditor's office and the bond council, through the grant administrators to make sure we're on the right side of the law.
and then we proceed to follow the policy, to go ahead and take the proceeds from the sale under the lease and what not and use it for the original intent.
if that cannot be done, you should know about it before you take any action to do that.
so we will be working closely with the auditor on a case-by-case basis to ferret out just how we got this parkland.
this is still being paid for by tax-free debt.
these rules don't apply to something you acquire out of a general fund revenue or bcp certificates because it's not tax-free debt.
so they are going to determine the facts, be able to brief the court on what the facts are before you take any action.
but I think the way the policy is written, we've got all our bases covered right now.
the intent is still the same, but we also provide enough due diligence in there before the court takes action.
>> with that, I?d like to move approval.
>> second.
>> great explanation.
>> any discussion on 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, November 16, 2010 3:20 PM
