Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 16
Number 18, consider and take appropriate action for conservation easement agreement with owner of doerfler ranch.
it's 16.
>> good morning, steve manila, t.n.r.
I'll ask wendy to walk us through that.
>> good morning.
staff is asking the court to consider a request from the Texas land conservancy to co-purchase a conservation easement on the doerfler ranch.
this is 244 acres on will barger creek adjacent to the broken branch.
the easement is approximately $1.2 million and the county is asking to participate as 25% partner in this.
nrcs, natural resources and conservation service, has approved this project.
they've assessed it to be worthy of land conservation and is providing roughly a $600,000 grant.
the county would be approximately 300,000.
and the landowner would be participating contributing approximately 300,000 as well.
this project meets the proposed land conservation program and it has benefit to the county and the county would be holding -- let's see, would be holding contingent rights to the conservation easement and it's also consistent with the proposed conservation values.
of the county.
we have proposition 2 funds, 8.3 million earmarked for this purpose.
and if the court does approve this, it would be a reimbursement resolution to fund this project.
let me say this.
I want to applaud the community, the voters of Travis County for approving the bonds and, of course, this is one of the first, I guess, examples of what we're going to do here today is to approve item number 16.
it's a real big dell here because what it does, it actually takes 244 acres and actually puts it into a conservation easement adjacent to an original one.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I think this particular action will take funding initiative that -- the money will have to be withdrawn from the unallocated reserve and of course reimbursed under the format of a reimbursement resolution.
so it's a big deal, judge, all across this.
the open space situation, the conservation easement.
this is what we said we'll do.
and thank goodness that the bonds will pass.
>> I have a couple more things, Commissioner.
we have coordinated with pbo.
they will be bringing the reimbursement agreement to y'all next week.
and also I attended a barton springs neighborhood association meeting last night and they voted on supporting this project.
they had 100% support for this project.
>> in fact, steve, that particular action that was taken by park springs, the unanimous support of item 16, we alertly gave a couple to our clerk.
so she has a copy of that particular action that the parks springs neighborhood association took last night.
so again, I'm really excited about this.
I know there may be other comments that may need to be made, but I'm going to move approval of this particular item.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> I want to thank y'all very much for your hard work.
>> two questions.
so what kind of agency is the nrcs?
>> it used to be the soil conservation services.
>> state, federal, international?
>> department of agriculture.
>> okay.
and that reimbursement resolution is to reimburse what fund?
>> I believe it's allocated reserve fund, but jessica can make that call.
>> pbo has received a reimbursement resolution request from three departments, including tnr, its and facilities management.
this is one of the projects that tnr is requesting.
we are currently gathering those and trying to post those for next week or the week after.
we're hoping for next week.
and we're hoping for budget adjustments that would be the same day as the budget adjustments they've been preparing.
they would take fund from the unallocated reserve on a temporary basis to allow these projects to start up now, knowing that when we issue bonds and certificates of obligation, late spring.
this has been done annually for the past 10 years.
>> I have found it every time we've done it.
>> that's why I only want to do it once.
>> what would keep us from taking it from the allocated reserve.
>> the request from tnr is over $30 million because it includes the purchase of parkland that also needs to happen in December that is a 20-million-dollar purchase.
so it's better in our opinion to isolate all reimbursement resolution requests and budget adjustments from one funding source so we can better track them and make sure they get reimbursed appropriately and timely.
>> I can understand the large one, but the two small ones.
I guess the concern I have is at one time the unallocated reserve was the untouchable reserve.
we have been touching it too much in my view.
so I would take the small amounts from allocated reserve -- it doesn't matter as long=#
>> that's correct.
>> I would think about that.
on the large amount, the unallocated reserve may be the only source.
on the small amounts, though, and 299,000 is a small amount, I would take it from allocated reserve unless there are legal reasons not to.
>> there are no legal reasons.
the only reason is better tracking, but it's at the court's pleasure.
>> there was a time --
>> is there a monetary limit that you would like for us to -- anything under that to be from the allocated?
>> you almost have to look at the amount of the request plus what's left in allocated reserve.
so I would say on a case-by-case basis.
the other thing is on unallocated reserve, we really access it too much.
so if other funds are available that will serve the same purpose, my recommendation will be to do that.
I don't know that we've ever asked the bond rating firms what they thought about it, but it can't be good.
>> to be very clear, we never expend -- we always reimburse.
at the end of the year that allocated reserve is untouchable.
>> but we borrow against it.
>> that's correct.
>> those are my thoughts.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> I have no problem with it.
it -- as long as the source of funding -- and I did bring that question up to jessica.
we discussed that yesterday whether it should come basically from the allocated reserve or the unallocated reserve.
I want to make sure that the source of funding is there so the reimbursement resolution would go against whatever reserve we met.
now, if we are saying today that we would like to use the allocated reserve against the fund, judge, I have no problem with that.
>> I don't think there's any advantage.
>> but if there's a tracking mechanism was the point.
>> the 20 million has to come from unallocated reserve because it's the only source.
>> right.
>> the 299,000 does not.
what's the other amount?
>> from tnr we have 1.5 million related to u.s.
290 and state highway 71 that was 2000 voter approved bonds that we'll be issuing in the spring.
we also have a request that we're working with tnr to see if the full amount is actually needed, but we have a request for 5.6 million for all the county fleet purchases for this upcoming year.
then from facilities management I don't have the amount for me, but it's for 700 lavaca work and then@has a couple of items that total 1.3 million.
>> how much is in allocated reserve?
>> I don't know if I have it in me?
it's about $60 million, isn't it.
>> I thought it was less than 60, but it's in the 50 something range, I thought.
>> okay.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> just that I think you're right, judge.
I think we need to make sure -- we need that sometimes we do this in order to move ahead with the project and one as important as this and the voters have approved it.
but I think that we do have to have some precautions there so that we don't slide and then continue to touch it.
I just think we need to make sure people understand it's untouchable.
except in dire times when it's absolutely necessary and we know we're going to pay it back.
>> anybody here to speak against the motion?
for those who came to talk on it, you would rather for us to take positive action than listen, right?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.
miss fleming, are you here on a particular item still?
>> 28, judge?
>> okay.
let's call it up and then the next item will be 17.
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.
