Travis County Commissioners Court

April 10, 2012 - Item 9
Agenda

View captioned video.

Number 9, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, Discuss the land conservation program guidelines and conservation easement program application, b, discuss the resolution to conserve natural and cultural resources in Travis County; and c, approve setting a public hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, two receive comments regarding the proposed land conservation program guidelines, conservation easement program application, and resolution to conserve natural and cultural resources in Travis County.
and by the way, item number 11 is next if ms. Dana debouvier is listening.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, steve manila, t.n.r.
what you have before you is a -- the guidelines for the conservation easement program that we were granted authority to -- to get into by the legislature a year or two ago, and we also received funds from voters in the November election to fund the acquisition of certain conservation easements.
so this is a result of a committee's efforts to develop guidelines on how we would determine what pieces of property are good investments for conservation purposes and what aren't.
also included is an application.
it's a two-step application.
the first step hopefully will screen out those -- they don't have to spend a lot of time doing a full application.
if they simply can't qualify, we would like them to know that as early possible.
then a resolution which would help for tax purposes for those folks.
we do require conservation easements from.
and finally setting a hearing date of April 24th.
also included in your backup is a copy of hays county guidelines just to see how they are handling the same situation.
wendy and I are here to answer questions you may have about the guidelines, the application, the resolution or the request to set the public hearing.

>> steve, let me ask you a question.
the public hearing on this, the c portion, how will you get this information out in time enough so the persons in the community can review exactly what's being required here to qualify or either have the necessary input when that particular date arrives.
how will that be given out?
can you basically tell me that?

>> we're going to do an email blast and we have a pretty well developed list from the bond, people involved with the bond public meetings.
people that have just expressed interest relative to this.
so we'll be doing that and then posting it on the county's website.

>> okay.
okay.
and that's the -- we basically know or do we know exactly who has shown an interest or we just -- because I've heard different persons in the community say, hey, we've got a keen interest in a lot of these things, but I don't know if they are the ones that have access to what you are suggesting.
and tell me how this blast works.

>> like I said, it's several -- several hundred people.
I think it close -- it's more than 300, 300 to 500, generated over the years through -- well, it would be park public meetings and then bond public meetings.
and I've been getting calls from people or talking to people so I've been adding them to the list.
and if you have anyone specifically you want to get, we'll gladly add them to our list.

>> yeah, I've had different contacts folks letting me know.
but again, it would be good if they could be included in this.
and I guess have it in a timely manner where persons in the community would have a chance to react to it.
do they have access as far as a response back to you as far as some of the considerations within the application process, for an example?

>> they have telephone numbers.
they can contact me and there's also an email address, which is posted online and will give them that information in the email blast.
so they will have the opportunity to talk to us or send emails or come to the public hearing.

>> okay.

>> are we doing anything like a press release as well?

>> we have not done that, but we certainly could do that.

>> I think it would probably be good to develop a press release and perhaps share the list with the public information office that the sheriff and emergency services are sharing.
many of the folks -- I'm finding many of the folks that are concerned with the wild land fires are also concerned with our land use.
so there might be a considerable amount of overlap.

>> will do.

>> we can do that.

>> in our last conservation request we spent quite a bit of time talking about public access.
and on page 6, paragraph 3, seems to me we are pretty -- we are soft there.
why wouldn't we require public access unless the court basically grants a waiver of the provision?

>> well, what we're presenting to you today is the result of a committee and certainly we want to hear the court's opinion.

>> you are talking to five.

>> we're bringing forward what the recommendation of this committee is.
fully aware that we want your --

>> I'd like to, if I may, answer part of that.
much of the matching funds that are available at the federal level, they cannot be obtained, the grants aren't given if there is public access associated with it.
and one of the biggest roles of conservation easement is to set aside lands at lower costs for a whole lot of other reasons not only for parks.
we have many for parks and open space, but we're trying to look at watershed protection and buffers and wn that weeatures would not otherwise be set aside, and in order to get those because of the costs, frequently the federal grants need to be accessed.

>> the funds from the nrcs, we've been told, can't be used to buy access to property.
you can use it to buy the conservation easement but access is a different issue.
but in the guidelines, rather than requiring it outright, we're saying that for those folks who come in with -- providing an opportunity to sell their conservation easement to us we'll give a higher priority to those who provide a higher level of public access to the property.

>> well, we required it in the last one.
right?

>> we did.

>> did that one go away, are we still considering it?

>> it's still under consideration, judge.

>> if the feds have a requirement that public access be denied --

>> I don't believe it's to deny it.
as steve said, they will not pay for that.
so when they are looking at it, that's not a consideration.

>> all right, then, what's our money for?

>> well, our money.

>> we pay for it.

>> yes.

>> I just think we ought to do that.
we did it that time and I thought it made all the sense in the world.
if we give ourselves the ability to waive the requirement, I think we're in good shape.
and if -- if federal funds are jeopardized because of the provision, that's a good reason to waive it.
however, if our contribution is substantially greater than the federal government's, I mean, that will raise some issues for me, I think.

>> okay.

>> right now it's been -- judge, that's a good point and thanks for bringing it up.
but when we did go through this whole process, that did come up.
and, of course, I don't want to divorce myself from that either.
and, of course, those particular conservation easements have been in precinct 1, the watershed.
but let me say this by saying that, right now it's kind of a formula that's been kind of set up.
you know, the leverage of what -- and I think the taxpayers ought to know that.
let me ask this question.
what is -- has the leverage been thus far, the federal government contribution and the contributions that Travis County has end up paying in the formula set of things?

>> yeah, I think -- and also the landowner.

>> of course and the landowner.
we can't leave that person out.
and I just -- go ahead.
what I'm trying to get is a leverage that we get with the tax dollars.

>> right.

>> that the voters has approved in this past bond election.
anyway, go ahead.
I didn't mean to cut you off.

>> tom, the first one was at 25% towards the entire acquisition of the agreement, do you recall?

>> Travis County's share?

>> yes.

>> I believe so.
and the landowner provided the other 25%.
so it's basically 50% federal, 25% landowner, 25% county -- or I guess it's -- it's 50% federal, 50% local.
and the local has been made up of a combination of county, land conservancy and landowner contributions.

>> and much course

>> [inaudible] the county's portion because the whole intent, not the whole intent, but one of the intent in this particular conservation easement scheme of things was to make sure that the money, the investment at this end was probably make sure we matched the investment of the other, which was a greater amount of investment, you know what I'm saying, coming from the federal government.
so we get more bang for the buck actually in this particular scenario.
and so I can definitely see whether -- where we need to go with this and especially if we end up having to pay for some of this excess, it's going to be a situation where we need to value our either give it point I guess is the best way to look at it.

>> we do have that.

>> let's give a point system by whatever that is and we evaluate that and, of course, make sure that is the case.
so -- and that maybe other input other than what we're saying today, but it would be good to hear from all of these folks and how we get that information out to the persons in the community as far as conservation easement and what they can do to apply to obtain this type of negotiated process.
and, of course, that's what we're looking for.
whatever source we need to get out there and do it, I think we ought to do it to make sure we have a full brunt of what we're trying to do here.

>> well, one of the things the court asked us to do when we were here last time was develop a point system.
and on page 4 you can see how we've allocated points and cost effectiveness by looking at how much the county is being asked to contribute relative to our other partners is one of the high -- is one of the highest ranked criterion.

>> every once in a while, I didn't see anywhere in here and it may be here, maybe I just overlooked it, but where in the scheme of things there's sometime or always a cutoff point as far as at the federal level.
it's a time line of some type associated with some of these things that we try to end up doing as far as getting some of their money.
is that something that needs to be taken under consideration?

>> well --

>> legal or someone else.
at the federal level?

>> if I understand, we're going to have calls for applications, so we would be looking to time that so it would work with, say, the federal applications, the best that we can.
does that --

>> there's a cutoff point in some of these things as far as getting federal dollars, I believe.

>> yeah.

>> and I don't know what that is.

>> well, they -- they don't do regular calls for applications.
so it's -- it's -- you know, it's not predictable.

>> right.

>> but we would work with them very closely.

>> okay.

>> Commissioner?

>> on page 4, characteristics, I'm just wondering if we should consider another bullet here or perhaps it's addressed somewhere else and I didn't see it.
but one related to, like, critical water features, water quality, recharge.

>> we have -- I mean, that is under -- I think we talk about the purpose would be covering that as well as the uniqueness.
I think factor, number 6.

>> I guess -- I guess given the conservation easements are so targeted these days towards water quality and water issues, I think I would really like to see something site characteristic, something site specific to water.

>> okay.

>> well, now, how will the point system work?

>> we would receive applications and there would be a team of t.n.r.
staff that would include representatives from natural resources, planning, parks, development services, and we would, you know, subject these different applications to this ranking process.

>> is there a minimum score for favorable consideration?

>> yes.
it would be competitive, so depending on how much money is allocated and how the projects work out would determine how -- how far down that list of priorities we could go.
and I believe we set -- yes, a minimum of 70 points.
so we could conceivably have a call for applications in which none of the projects are considered satisfactory.

>> so if we approve the draft before us, what do we do about with the proposal that we've recently required public access for?

>> well --

>> that would more or less be grandfathered is the way I would look at it, judge.

>> transaction at closing.

>> [inaudible].

>> I don't think we ought to back off of that.

>> okay.

>> the access we asked for was four times a year.
you could complete that in a matter of a few hours each day.
I just think the public ought to get more out of this than an agreement that we can point to.

>> the landowner

>> [inaudible].

>> okay.

>> that will give us the ability to waive it in proper circumstances.

>> okay, would you like us to come back then with this revision and then ask for the public hearing or --

>> no, I would say I would make that change in the draft is my recommendation.

>> what specifically is your change?

>> that we require public access, but the Commissioners court reserves the right to waive the requirement in appropriate circumstances or when public access is not feasible, something to that effect.
then if we look at it a year from adoption and it's having an adverse result, then we just change it.
but I would rather from day one us try to get public access if possible.

>> so on number 3 do we describing the word "limited" and leave the wording -- how should we change the wording, do you think?
I 100% agree.
I'm use wondering how we should change the wording.
one easy fix is strike the word "limited" because that's an assumption that we --

>> I think it should start by saying that the proposal is required to have -- Commissioners court requires public access.

>> we could make it a threshold criteria.

>> right.
however, if it is not feasible to grant public access, the Commissioners court may waive the requirement.
and any other good language here that --

>> so that's -- it will be a threshold criteria, along with we have on page 203, one is that there's an identifiable benefit, it's perpetual, and that the county will either co-hold or hold a contingent right.
either we make it that or we revise criterion 3 as Commissioner Eckhardt --

>> seems like we can do both.
we have establish a fourth criterion -- makes the public access feasible does the candidate project provide public access.
I recognize there are certain conservation easements, for instance, the balcones canyon long landpreserve must be denied with guided access.

>> just word smith it appropriately.
I think we've got enough to cross the point.
I would go ahead and do.
that I think we ought to approve this today for the public hearing proposed for April 24th which is two weeks from today.

>> go ahead and move approval.

>> Commissioner Huber.

>> are we approving that we approve what's in here or approving this subject to the public hearing and revisions after that.
I understand the public access standpoint and I think that is something that should be negotiated, but with it actually to me flies in the face of the whole purposes of conservation easements as have been negotiated by the nature conservancy and the press for public lands because I think if we put a require public access in there that it will be a hurdle to start out having to get over.
if we put in a provision that's wordsmithed where we can negotiate public access where it's appropriate, I think that's a much better avenue.
so you know, if we're saying we're going to require public access, I can't vote for that today.
if we're saying we're going to wordsmith it where we can look at how the public access is negotiated and look at the final result after the public hearing, then I can approve.

>> I don't think we've ever signed -- adopted a policy, then had a public hearing.
in my view it would be our approval of the document with this revision and our having a public hearing and the Commissioners court address ing this matter after the public hearing two weeks from today and deciding what to do.
on the public access, I mean, you know, if -- it just made all the sense in the world to me from a good government, what do we get for a quarter million dollars of public money to get access if we can.
but I think we give ourselves the ability to waive that in proper circumstances.
and you know, I don't -- I'm not here to harm us.

>> right.
right.

>> so if we can't achieve our goal of conservation with that provision, we just take it out at the appropriate time, but I would start off with it in there.

>> I guess having the public hearing itself I think is a good barometer of what folks are saying about with that.
and, of course, I move approval of what we just stated --

>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
I'll recognize four a motion in a minute.
Commissioner Eckhardt.

>> judge, if we're coming back in the afternoon for the corporations, can yes just give staff the morning to come up with some actual language to vote?
because I share Commissioner Huber's concerns.
I am reticent to vote a draft to go to public comments without knowing what the actual wording is on the revision.
I think we're like 9/10 of the way there.
let me ask staff, would an hour give you all the opportunity -- an hour or two give you the opportunity to put the language in so we can actually vote the proposed language?

>> I think so.

>> the language, though, I'm hearing two different concepts here.
do you want us to set it up so that it's a requirement and each applicant who comes in if they want us to weigh that requirement, we would have to come to court, or do you want it set up such that it's negotiated with staff when they come in with their application?
they say I like everything here except I don't want to require public access, who can I talk to about waiving the requirement.

>> my goal is not to be here this afternoon, by the way.
I think that with the business we have left we really ought to finish it by 11:30 or so.

>> if tom is available, we can move right into this.
try to get it within the next hour.

>> okay.

>> we'll call this item back up at the appropriate time.
mr. Reeferseed, do you want to be on that committee?

>> I want to make a brief comment about limiting public access is a great example of arrogance and how y'all are losing touch with reality.
people should have access to this.
we're not wanting to go in and tear it up or build a house right quick, we want access to this.
this is public land.
so don't sit there and think you have all this power to take and take and do a word smith trick around it so the people don't know what's going on, that's foul.
I'm ashamed of you.

>> that's not what we're contemplating, mr. Reeferseed.
what we're trying to do is make it a requirement there be public access and that we waive it only under circumstances where the -- the federal grant money that we are seeking to leverage doesn't allow it or there are extenuating circumstances.
we're trying to create a threshold requirement to public access.

>> okay.
I misunderstood I guess.

>> Commissioner Davis, are you holding off on your motion?

>> yes, judge.

>> we'll call this item back hopefully in about an hour.

this morning we discussed item no.
9.
and left it at revising a draft that we would make available for a public hearing on Tuesday, April 24th.
and did we tweak that language some?

>> we did, judge, we have something to offer to you.
in your packet, under -- under exhibit a titled Travis County conservation program guidelines, that's where we're talking about making these changes -- under project threshold criteria, you have criteria 1 through 4, we want to add a criteria number 5.
and that's what wendy is handing out to you.
it would read does the -- does the candidate project provide public access, the Commissioners court reserves the right to waive this requirement, if there are special circumstances, for example, federal requirements, where public access would not be appropriate or feasible.
then that would go on to read, Travis County generally prefers to invest county dollars in conservation easements that provide opportunities to access for land for educational, research, scientific and other purposes consistent with conservation values of the easement.
as a threshold matter all applicants must evaluate in their application the relative value, desirability, practicability indefeasibilities of -- feasibility of providing access for those services.
the final decision on whether that access ...
in the conservation easement will be made by the Commissioners court.
then we had a couple of other cleanup items. Where was that at?
okay.
the item that Commissioner Eckhardt was talking about, limited public access, we struck the word limited.
now it reads public access, that was item no.
3, then item no.
4, which was brought up by Commissioner Huber, we've added another element that says at the bottom of that list it starts out site characteristics, at the bottom of that list we put in protects critical water quality features.

>> questions, comments?
meets my needs.
move approval.

>> second.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.

>> judge, does that cover the approval of the resolution as well?
the guidelines, the applications, the approval of the resolution and then this sets the public hearing which I think you just approved.

>> move approval of all of that.

>> move approval of all of that in addition to the revised guidelines, I guess.

>> I second that.

>> 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.