Travis County Commissioners Court

April 24, 2012 - Item 2
Agenda

View captioned video.

Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding the proposed Travis County land conservation program guidelines, conservation easement program application, and resolution supporting conservation of natural and cultural resources in Travis County.

>> move the public hearing be open.

>> second.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> good morning, steve manila from t.n.r.
wendy will be joining me in a few moments.
we with had a little bit of a snafu with our backup on the conservation guidelines.
what was included in the backup that you can pull down from the internet was an older version.
however, if you went to the front page of Travis County and downloaded it from there, it's the correct version and we also emailed out the correct version after we made the corrections or the changes that you all asked us to at the last meeting a few weeks ago.
we also sent out an email blast last night, late yesterday afternoon, advising the folks of that issue and directing them to where they could get the up-to-date version of the guidelines.
and the biggest change that was made had to do with with the public access and including water quality as one of the site characteristics criteria.
what I would like to do is go ahead and hand that out to you all and any member of the audience who would like a copy of it and wendy will give you a briefing.

>> this item is posted for action in item 14.

>> right.
that's right.

>> today.
so is the recommendation still to take action today?

>> that's the court's discretion.
I guess it depends on the public hearing.

>> what is staff's recommendation, or do you have one?

>> no, we want with to hear -- the court to hear public hearing.
and we do feel that criteria 5, which addresses public access, includes the court's right to waive it so there will be flexibility in terms of being a threshold criteria.
and it's public access for educational and scientific purposes.
I have talked to the individual that administers the nrcf, the federal program for the farms and ranch land protection program, which is where we have partnered with them on the broken bow ranch and we would like to continue.
his opinion is that he's refused it, this criteria in and of itself is not a problem because we with offer the waiver, and we specifically mention special circumstances, for example, federal requirements.
he further said he does not -- would not have the -- be willing to play a condition on the landowners for further agreements; however, if he was aware -- they do not support public access.
they will not fund a project where they know there is public access as part of the easement; however, I think the court, county in good faith would not want to establish a relationship with nrcs in which we pursued agreement after funding.
he also raised the issue, and this is procedural, about when, the timing of the county awarding or agreeing to partner on a project, and they are needing to know what funds are allocated for the project.
so I said that's a procedural question that perhaps we don't address today.
does that answer your question?

>> court, should we indicate at this time we do not plan to take action on 14 today or that we with plan to?

>> I would personally prefer to hear the testimony and decide after that.

>> then my request is that we not take action today.
you need to lay out -- somebody needs to lay out the proposed policy.

>> we can.

>> okay.
so is that the only point of contention that has surfaced so far?

>> that is the only point of contention, yes.

>> now, only two that Travis County has done, we have limited public access there.

>> I believe in one it is part of the agreement and the other is actually not part of the agreement.

>> the first one.
I don't think we had it in the first one.

>> we talked about tours and notice stuff of an educational nature.

>> we with did, and the concern that we're hearing from some of the property owners is the liability associated with it, but we've advised them that it would be under very structured type of process.
the folks who want to tour a piece of property, for example, would need to approach that property owner, they would have to get liability insurance or insurance to cover the property owner.
it would have to be a guided tour.
just can't have people traipsing all over the place, so it would be a very controlled type of environment.

>> and we promised we would.

>> we would do that if this is a requirement.

>> okay.
yes, ma'am.

>> an overview of the guidelines, is that what you are requesting?

>> just the highlights.

>> well, we do have the threshold criteria which pertain to there being a identifiable benefit to the county.
it's perpetual.
and that the county holds, co-holds or is a holder of contingent right.
that is, the county would simply give funds and not have the right to protect the agreement.
fourth criteria is the landowner or partnering entity willing to pay the cost of the appraisal and other transaction costs.
and the county would want to have an appraiser that they approve of doing that.
and then the fifth criteria, threshold criteria is the -- the public access requirement.
again, which the Commissioners court reserves the right to waive.
so then we have criteria by which we would with judge the applications and there would be a call for applications.
we have seven criteria which we have a point system associated with, so purpose would be a marks of ten points.
kiln side service with planning priorities, and that is county adopted plans as well as other plans that are in the community such as the greenprint.
the city of Austin's imagine Austin and their preferred growth scenario.
control public access.
this is not a threshold criteria, but this is where we would be awarding point for providing access for research, educational and scientific purposes.
this one with is -- we've awarded 15 points so you can get an idea of the relative weighting.
cost effectiveness.
this is where the county, the question of leveraging county funds enters into and this is one of the top criteria.
we would award up to 20 points.
site characteristics.
this gets into the land use issues as well as addressing the water -- the protection of critical water quality, but this is where we would with be looking at does it buffer parkland, preserve land.
does it buffer different land uses, especially like incompatible land uses.
it would have to meet the minimum size requirements of our partnering entity.
we would love to see it part of the larger conservation project.
we're looking to get mass here rather than scattered entrance from pecan at this time, and then protecting critical water quality features.
uniqueness is just laying out something like hamilton pool or something like that or close within with on property we would want to be able to award points.
and then development threat.
has the site already been subdivided?
are there plans to subdivide it?
is water being brought into the vicinity?
so that is another one.
and lastly, at its discretion, the review panel would have the ability to add five points.
if there's special projects such as ecological restoration work.
we also have applications developed.
it would be a two-phase process.
in which are disbursed threshold screening and just basic information about the project and should they pass that we would go into further review of it.
and then we're asking the court to adopt a resolution stating our support for protection of natural and cultural resources, and that really is something, a tool for our partnering landowner in that they are making a charitable contribution, i.r.s.
wants clear evidence that the governing partner has -- it's part of a program or a part of an objective of the county.
I think that's it in a nutshell.

>> Commissioner.

>> who consists of the review panel?

>> that would be staff, planning, parks, natural resources, development.
I think that's it.

>> and I'm just curious how you came up with the assignment of the points system.

>> that was -- we had a work group who put together the application -- the package here, the guidelines, and we sat down and kind of, you know, just hashed it out.

>> the work group, was that the one with with the stakeholder in it or is that purely staff?

>> no, stakeholders.

>> then we added the public access after that.

>> on April 10th when we came to the court to ask for the public hearing, the access, public access criteria was added.

>> so then staff just assigned points to that?

>> well, no, the -- the threshold criteria doesn't have points.
the public access that's within -- has always been there, the one with that's part of the point system has always been there because we with value that.

>> I just kind of had a question for clarity purposes.
I mean, when I look at the point system, you've got the purpose at 10.

>> uh-huh.

>> and then some of the other individuals higher -- the rest of them except for the few.
is purpose not --

>> well, I mean, if it's made it to this point, it's already of benefit to the county and it's been with screened somewhat.
and it's really a matter of just, you know, a relative weighting of the other criteria.
so purpose is important, but it's already been screened for benefit to the county.

>> okay.

>> court members, anything else?

>> judge, if you would just let the public know exactly what the -- especially under this policy and guidelines that we're looking at here, there are levels of arenas whereby money can be drawn down to, of course, the intent is to conserve this particular acres we're trying to preserve and reserve for in perpetuity for future of public and the use of that area as we define in some of these criteria.
however, I think to see what leverage possibility that we with the court will allow as far as if we agree to accept one of these particular properties under the conservation easement guidelines.
so if you will for me so the folks that are viewing this may get a better handle on those participation levels.
but as far as Travis County end of it, what we actually contribute using the conservation easement money we have available to acquire conservation easements.
so would with you lay this out.

>> sure.
in the best case scenario, which is one of the first once we did, we had a partnership with ourselves contributing.
the property owner selling their property or the easement at a reduced amount so they contributed to it.
the nrcs, natural resource conservation service contributing, and we also had contribution from a land trust.
in that case, we leverage -- you know, the best we could and got a pretty good deal on the acquisition.
I don't want to present, though, that every time we do one of these, we're going to get all four party together, but we would strive to at least get the nrcs's funding and they are willing to put in 50% of the cost of acquisition and the other 50% divvied up however the locals can make it work.
so that's pretty much how it could work.

>> okay.
and, of course, the nrcs, that's the federal government, the federal leg of this.

>> that's right.

>> now, there's also been in question the timing mechanism.
of course, you have persons that may want to participate in this particular program, but in order for the leverages to be realized, how is that done to make sure a person say, all right, Commissioners court, I'd like to participate in this particular conservation easement program that you have and I would also like to get the full leverage of all of the money that may be available to allow this particular property to be placed -- will be in perpetuity as far as a conservation easement is concerned.
what is the time lines that a person or is there a moving time line, I really don't know, as far as making sure that those particular moneys, the needs and the use of those moneys is done in a timely fashion?

>> yeah.

>> is that something that we with may can throw out or lay out?
because every time we pick up a person, if a person is owners of want with to go participate in this program, it would with seem to me there ought to be a sense of when the money will be available, when it can be drawn down, how long do I have to get into this process as far as the timing.
could you maybe just lay that out just a little bit?

>> well, nrcs doesn't have regularly scheduled calls for applications, as I understand.
so, you know, it's going to be a little tricky.
and as I mentioned also, they are in the same position as us.
they want to see a commitment from another partner so we're going to have to -- I don't have the answer for that today, but we're going to have to figure out a solution, procedural solution on that.

>> okay.
if we could research that a little bit with more because if I wanted to have my particular property, if I owned property, I would want to do it, well, not that I'm going to do that, but I would want to know that.

>> I know.

>> I would definitely want to know that.
so -- and then lastly, because I know other folks have probably a lot to say about this, can you possibly tell me with this particular involvement, especially with with -- and I guess I would have to hear the public have reference to this, and especially in the public access arena, which seems to be a realisticking point, I want to participate, however, the public access end of this is something that I just don't really want to deal with at this time.
and I know we with don't have a structure, we do not at this time have a structured situation as far as easements or right-of-way within that public access, the guided tours or whatever we end up dealing with with these things, could you possibly let the court know or the public know how long would with it probably take to come back with with something structured where liability, access, all these other kind of points that have probably been brought up by some of the owners that would like to participate, but with their may be a sticking point as far as public access, how long would it be able to bring something back or get with the owners with or come to the court and see if this is the direction we with really want to go, and especially if there are remedies to what the concern of the owner of the property, the owner participating in the conservation easement program is willing to hear and listen.

>> are you referring to a case-by-case basis?

>> it may be a case-by-case basis, but somewhere along the line I think we with need to let them know that there are possibilities that there can be a remedy to the public access end of it also.
if possible.

>> I don't have that answer today.
rose, do you?

>> rose parmer, natural resources.
in the dorfler conservation easement that we with just completed a week or two ago, there was public access that was put in the contract.
we worked with their attorneys and our attorneys to put that in.
and so it structured it so that there was a notice, a clearly notice period that we would work with the landowners to let them know we would like to bring a group out.
that group needed to have their own liability insurance.
the process of requesting that was with clear.

>> [inaudible] and so it is possible to do that very clearly, but with I think those will be on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific property, the sensitivity of the property, the landowner.
so we with will work -- our attorneys and theirs, we look work together to structure that so it's a win-win or all.

>> structure as such.

>> and I also wanted to -- to answer your question a you few moments ago about with the timing on when these would with -- applications would come in.
we with will be having four times a year call for applications, so quarterly we will accept application so they will be all reviewed at the same time something on a quarterly basis.
and so we will come back to the court once we've gotten through the applications and we'll come back at the beginning to say we have a, b and c that we would like to negotiate with them, and then once we gone through that negotiation process, we'll bring it back to the court for acceptance.
so the court will be seeing these all along the way.

>> okay.
okay.
all right.
that's my final question.
thank you.

>> since this is a new initiative, I take it we will monitor and evaluate the first year or so?
ease of implementation would be one of the factors that we consider.

>> yeah.

>> okay.
this is a public hearing on item number 2.
there was no need to sign in, but four persons did so we'll give them the first opportunity.
carolyn vogel, john beal, john williams, robert ayers, and after these four if you would like to give comments during the public hearing, please come forward.
george cofer.
we have at least five chairs available, maybe at least four.
now we have five.
if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.

>> good morning, Commissioners court.
I'm carolyn vogel.
I have the privilege and honor to serve as vice chair of the Travis County citizens bond advisory committee last year as we prepared for taking these opportunities to the voters of Travis County, and I want to thank you again for those successes and the opportunity to serve.

>> thank you for serving.

>> it was a great process and I hope I get asked again.
and I want to say that in another hat of my life I've worked in the conservation easement field for about with 20 years, and, you know, for Travis County to get to the point that it offers willing donors of conservation easements for sellers of conservation rights or development rights to the organizations and government, that's a -- you know, you are a model.
there are very few other public entities in the state of Texas that have gotten to this point and so you certainly are a model and that's another thing that's a hurrah so Travis County.
I also want to tell you about with the process itself, and I also got chance to serve on the stakeholders committee that helped craft and recommend these guidances and policies.
so what I really want to say today is that my experience is is that a policy and guidelines at the government level really needs to be very flexible.
I think that and I think it's already been stated that the flexibility and the opportunity for staff to make independent -- you know, independent decisions of each projects.
in other words on, a project by project basis is extremely important.
I also want to add to what steve and wendy and rose were saying too, I know there's been a lot of focus on the nrcs programs, but there's certainly a lot of other opportunities for funding.
so keeping flexibility, keeping broad criteria, now, the purposes are very direct and that's what's important.
I think Commissioner Huber, that's what you were asking.
the purposes are very direct and focused.
the opportunity, the criteria, staying broad with with these points because different funding entities may have different, you know, opportunities and different criteria for funds.
so I'd really encourage maintaining this flexibility and I guess to get to the point I think that public access should remain a criteria, not a requirement, but a part of the criteria for acknowledging and working with the willing landowner.
and a willing landowner in a conservation easement is always -- we've all -- we've all, you know, in our years in doing this have learned that's the most important component of this.
what does the landowner want and then how do we as the holders of a conservation easement or the purchasers of a conservation easement, how do we with make it work for a landowner who is want to go meet and preserve natural and cultural resources.
that's my statement.
thank you.

>> thank you.

>> mr. Beal.

>> only one copy available?

>> I came in late.

>> all right.
gave it to the right person.

>> [laughter]

>> if that can show up on our monitors.
there we go.
my name is john beal.
I'm here speaking as a public citizen.
the email showed up last night but it is a former associate's county judge I'm sure you recognize his name.
and the question I think that is complicating our discussion is what is public access.
and it's the definition of public access.
and so this is an article about the public access that people are afraid of.
and even government entities do not want this kind of public access.
so the public access that we're talking about with is something that mr. Lundgren, a long-time farmer can visualize controlled public access for events like well planned field days associated with long-term projects, instructional and research plots which are supervised by the county, by local public schools, the extension service, public and private universities, or Austin community college.
and he lays out certain criteria that he, and he is burning in an application, you will see an application for he and his son, into this program as we attempt to agricultural prime soils is there in northeast Travis County.
so the -- the public access that everybody is afraid of is not really what has been included in any of your projects so far and I don't believe it's envisioned by anybody at Travis County either.
some of the -- did it show up?
okay.
some of the potential for research in public access out there is through this eco lab project set up by the state of Texas.
and I've given you a list of projects that have been conduct on my farm in one year.
we are talking about, unfortunately, not enough from Texas a&m, but these projects, the young people that come out there to conduct these projects, it's vital in the state where there's 4% public lands for these researchers to have access.
that might be why there are so many that -- that come to the few landowners.
and I haven't met really a landowner yet that would object to having some of this research that helps further my knowledge of my land.
let me also give you an example of another project which we're trying to not include because we don't need to include it in -- in this conservation easement, but it's land owned by peggy wil wilson.
peggy's great, great grandfather died at the alamo.
his brother died in the massacre at goliad.
well, peggy is 85 years old.
she wants to give this the Texas heritage -- Texas land grant farm that has been in her family where she was born there just off bidding school road in northeast Travis County near the community of littig, because she is so proud of it, she would love to have people also appreciate her family farm.
so -- so there's -- when I talk to a landowner, I do not see a great -- I do not see resistance to the kind of public access which Travis County itself envisions and has implemented in the past.
the criteria allows for citizens to benefit from the expenditure of taxpayer funds.
I like this criteria that you have devised and I think we're going to accomplish great things through the generosity of Travis County.
thank you.
the.

>> john, I have a question for you.
with regard to what mr. Lundgren terms as planned events strictly monitored and controlled, actually I may should direct this so our bcp staff, but I think you are familiar with it too, would that be similar to what we do with the bcp with our limited and controlled access?

>> that is correct, yes, uh-huh.
he's a tractor, he's an antique tractor collector.
he's talked about putting an antique tractor museum display on his land.
so how that can be worked into public access, he's -- he's all for several uses of his land.
his son is a hard-core farmer.
he just planted like 2,000 tomato plants.
so --

>> in terms of -- I mean, I'm looking at the language in criteria 5 and I'm trying to get out down to what you are saying with regard to controlled and limited public access.
we have with the right to waive the requirement for special circumstances and the public access -- where the public access would not be appropriate or feasible.
it goes on to say provide opportunities to access the land for educational, research, scientific or other purposes consistent with with the conservation values of the easement.
do you have any suggestions for how that language should be adjusted given mr. Lundgren's and your comments?
because I want to be mindful of what you are saying and what we're getting from those who work in this field.
I would like to be able to have access for scientific and educational purposes to the extent appropriate.
I want to be respectful of the landowner's desire to not infringe upon their productive use of the land.
but I am mindful that, you know, 100 years from now, these are going to be extremely valuable lab sites for us to determine how we may be mucking things up, or not.

>> that's a very good point.
I would suggest that something to include research and maybe the eco lab program by name see how it's a long-established state program might be appropriate.

>> thank you.

>> mr. Will with yums. Williams.

>> I'm john williams. I, like carolyn vogel, was honored to be a member of the bond committee.

>> thank you so much.

>> thank you.
thank you very much.

>> [inaudible].

>> thank you.

>> I hope I did anyway.
I'd like to give you some perspective about with what I was thinking and what I understood as a member of the bond committee and when I talked to voters what we talked about.
we were very careful in making our decision to separate conservation easements out in a different category than parkland.
and to me -- I mean, I'm not the expert, wendy and steve and your staff can tell you about the proper legal definitions of what's a park and what's a conservation area, but to me as a member of the committee, I was thinking of a park is someplace that had public access.
I mean, some parks are very heavily used.
we got picnics and ball games and everything else.
other parks are much more lightly used, hiking trails through the trees or whatever.
but with to me, a sort of defining characteristic of a park is public access.
to me as I was thinking of this, a conservation easement, the defining characteristic is conservation or protection.
what we're trying to do is preserve the character of the land, protect the environment, particularly watershed.
a lot of the area that we're talking about with is in the gilleland and wilbarger creek watershed.
we're trying to protect those things.
we also made reference to scenic views.
I'm struck as I drive down jones road, which I do about once with a week, as I go across the crest of a hilly look out over land that is now subject to a conservation easement.
and you know, that's not the most important public use of all, but with there's a scenic view that I get and I enjoy.
the reason I handed this out to you is that it's a copy of what -- and I guess I can say you as a county gave the voters about with what they were voting on.
and you specifically told them that it was going to be acquisition of conservation easements.
to the best of my recollection, and mr. Manila or laura seton or somebody else can double-check the record, I do not recall that in any of our public meetings, and we held lots of them throughout the county, any citizen came up and raised the issue of we want, we need public access to conservation easements.
as I was voting, I wasn't thinking that there would be public access in, you know, the traditional sense on these conservation easements land.
I sympathize and understand the need to provide public access of the kind of scientific, educational character, but please don't transform these conservation easements into parks.
that was not our intent as a committee.
it certainly was not my intent as a -- as a voter when I voted yes, and I'm willing to say I voted yes for the bond issue.
Commissioner Eckhardt, to speak to your point.

>> yes, sir.

>> I don't see why criteria 5, public access, needs to be a threshold criteria.
you've got it built into your selection criteria in your rating system.
if you are going to require 70 points minimum for something to pass and it doesn't have any public access at all, I find it the almost unthinkable that the project is going to get a perfect score or so close to a perfect score in all the other criteria that it's going to pass.
also, as I went through last night and looked at this, on page 1, you are listing the public benefits of conservation easements.
the other threshold criteria refer to those public benefits are pretty clear.
public access doesn't seem to me to fit with with those.
what you might do is tweak the lapping and add to criteria 4 -- language and add to criteria 4 something about is the landowner or partner willing to pay the costs of raising other costs and consider appropriate public access for educational, scientific purposes, something like that is a threshold criteria.
but in your attempt to be good with stewards of public money and protect the public, and I appreciate that as a taxpayer, I think you've gone too far making criteria 5 a threshold criteria.
thank you.

>> john, can I ask you a question about with that?
I mean, I'm just seeing this language here with each successive presenter, but with I'm wondering if we couldn't-i like your suggestions how we might actually edit, and I really appreciate you going through the document.
I'm wondering if we might scope it down to access to the land for conservation -- for conservation-related education and research or other purposes.
because I -- again, I think that these -- these, you know, years from now are going to be invaluable lab spots.
I don't want to infringe upon the appropriate use of the property.
but I really do want to say at the upfront, the public wants to maintain one stick in the bundle of sticks for the purpose of educating the purposes.
but with if the purpose is to educate on the value of conservation or research with regard to furtherance of the conservation.

>> my first blush reaction is very positive to that, but I think we need to keep in mind the point that carolyn vogue will made.
vogel made.
made.
we don't want to write things so tightly at this point that 50 years from now the hands are tied.

>> the opposite, of course, is also true, if you write it too broadly, then 50 years from now a camel

>> [inaudible] can occur and we've seen that with with the balance canyonlands.
many people want access although that's not what it's for.
we do have a case study right in front of us today of what could happen with these conservation easements if we are too losey goosey at the up front.

>> Commissioner, we can provide some background.
in establishing public access as a threshold criteria, we're not saying public access must be required for it to get over the threshold.
all we really are doing is saying as a threshold matter all applicants must evaluate in the application the relative value, desirability of providing access.
we really want to give the applicant to give their assessment of public access in the application so we've got it from the beginning.
if a landowner thinks access is unsuitable and impractical and is not willing to provide it, he simply needs to say that in the application and the threshold requirement is met.
it then becomes -- it then goes down to the scoring criteria to see how that conservation easement proposal would rank given all the different factors.
so we're not -- by making it a threshold requirement, we're not saying you have to provide it.
we just wanted to know the applicant's view on it so that we didn't get halfway into the process before the public access issue came up and at that point we would have to go back to the applicant and say what's your position on access.
so we're really just saying -- all this requirement really does is say give us your position on access in your application.
regardless of what that is.

>> so that's a requirement.

>> right.

>> that they give us a position as it's written right now.

>> yes.

>> and I heard john say in the gilleland and also bill wilbarger watershed in which we've already done a couple of conservation easements and also the doffler ranch, to ones we've come to closure on and they are actually living evidence of what we're actually doing with moneys that have been made available to enter in these conservation easement agreements with these particular owners.
now -- but also there are those that may be in the pipeline to want to participate, and, of course, and you look at the greenprint and you look at a lot of these areas over there as far as trying to -- and john, I think the citizens board environment did just an outstanding job in separating open space situations and also conservation easement allocations which the voters overwhelmingly approved.
now, it's our job, I think, as -- this Commissioners court's job and staff and the public's job to make sure these things come to fruition.
and, of course, that is the intent of this public hearing and we're hearing a lot of good information.
some things I have never heard and others I've heard before with.
so we are trying to get to the end resolve to make sure this thing works best for everybody because you think about it, you know, you are giving up -- in this conservation agreement, the owners are actually giving up property, property that may could be developed in some future date.
but no, they said, listen, we would like for this to become within the realm of the conservation easement and also be available to end that particular title in perpetuity.
I'm looking to a lot of good comments but I wanted to throw that?

>> speaking of comments, robert ayers is next.

>> I'm robert ayers, manager partner of the shield ranch in southwest Travis County.
we have with a conservation easement have both donated and sold on our property.
I'm not here as someone interested in participating further.
we've done that.
we with don't have public access required in either of our easement and we have a lot of public access on our property year round.
and I think many landowners who are interested in conservation are interested in having the public on their land.
I also served as the chair of the land committee on the hill country conservancy so I've been on the land trust side of the equation in evaluating easements from the other side as well.
and I guess the first thing I want to say and echo what carolyn said is just how remarkable and outstanding the county is moving forward with the conservation easement program.
I think that's great news for citizens of the county.
and I -- I am concerned about the public access language the way it's written and -- and I'll say a few things.
I think one thing, one objective is to incentivize public landowners from participating in the program and I think by -- I heard what mr. Nuckols said about the language, but with nevertheless it says this requirement.
and maybe it's just a matter of clarity, but when you have this as a threshold requirement, it rather suggests to me if I were evaluating this as a landowner that while it might be waived, basically I'm required to provide public access if I'm going to be considered seriously for this program.
I think to have, you know, scoring that considers public access and for the county to incentivize public access is a great idea and all appropriate opportunities should be considered for that.
but I think myself if you were to look at criteria 1 in the purpose section and -- and does the candidate project have a identifiable benefit, I would add public benefit.
these are public dollars and there should be public benefit, however, there are many public benefits to a conservation on private land and these are all listed very clearly in these documents.
but then I would tend to want to see the public access issue addressed separately in the scoring process rather than as a threshold criteria.
the other thing from the county's point of view is I don't think you all want to tie your hands if you have a particular scoring system that everyone needs to go through, let's say you are looking at kind of a jigsaw situation where you've been working on a number of tracts and there are two or three tracts that are kind of holes in your puzzle and you really want to, you know, to finish out the project in that massing way that your staff has referred to and maybe you have a landowner in the middle of that who is opposed to public access, it might be in the county's benefit to have that easement on that property as part of the larger picture.
there are other places that have agreed to access and that can happen and you are not penalizing a program that maybe really important to the overall success of what you are trying to do.
the other thing I would just say briefly and this is a little bit technical, but conservation easements are perpetual, more or less forever.
and -- and they are hard to change by intention.
and so what may be desirable or appropriate public access for one landowner may not be for subsequent landowners who are going to hold that same property subject to that same easement.
similarly the county's interest may change over time.
so if there's going to be access language as part of these easements, I would strongly suggest that they be a separate document, perhaps an exhibit, and maybe this is the way it's already being done, where those could be renegotiated over time as owner ships and situations change, otherwise I think you could end up either the county or the landowner with requirements that are just simply irrelevant and impractical but very difficult to resolve.
I'll end there.
others have lots more to add, but I would be happy to answer questions.

>> playing with with language here because I'm getting loud and clear the words public access are frightening to landowners who are contemplating this.
and I -- and I want to be careful about that because you are right, a willing landowner is gold.
what if it was -- does the candidate project provide educational and/or scientific access?
because that's really what we're talking about.

>> I think that is a helpful clarification.
I think it's less intimidating.
I think the likelihood of a liability issue related to those uses while all is possible is somewhat less and anything that sends the message of unlimited, you know, public access is necessarily going to be of concern to most landowners in Texas.
but I think the -- I mean, on the other hand you may have landowners who would be happy to negotiate more public forms of access.
so here's what I would argue.
you don't need a eco lab on every one of these properties and I think the thing is to have flexibility, get access where you can in different ways and not deincentivize landowners.

>> could I ask a question quickly because he brought up something I never thought of before.

>> Commissioner Huber.

>> do you see if there was a requirement written into the conservation easement for a landowner for public access, that that could be a significant negative in the future sale of the property which would then basically tie the landowner's hands?
is that what you were alluding to?

>> not exactly, but absolutely that's the case.
I mean I think that, right, if you are going to encumber your property in perpetuity, even if you are going to be paid generously for that right, you are accepting not only the management obligation but you still have value in that land, it's still an asset, an economic asset to your family.
and if you are considering, well, what if we with in 20 years decide to sell or I die and my child inherits the property and they want or need to sell the property, if public access is required, that is one more thing that might be a disincentive to a future buyer.
it's one of the many things that an owner is going to consider when thinking about easement.

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> george cofer.

>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
george cofer, life-long resident of Travis County.
I think most of you know me as executive director of hill country conservancy, one with of your land trust partners.
I feel compelled to clarify I'm not speaking on behalf of hill country conservancy today.
hill country conservancy does not have a position at this time on this particular draft.
also my director of conservation, frank Davis, will speak in a moment.
we'll try and address different points than what mr. Davis will address.
I hope you now realize why mr. Ayers was chairman of our land committee.
he's very judicious in his comments but with I have to agree this could be problematic.
I think what I would like to do as a citizen, not speaking on behalf of hill country conservancy, I would like us to go back to the consensus draft.
I search and rescued on that working group.
we did -- I served on that working group.
we had consensus.
and this is something new.
so I'd like to -- my recommendation would be to go back to that draft.
let me put on a different hat for a moment.
I chose my great, great grandparents very carefully.

>> [laughter] I'm blessed to be part of a family that owns a ranch in uvalde county.
we donated the first conservation easement, did the first conservation easement and it was a donation in that part of the world.
we probably have more public access on that ranch than anyone could imagine.
I know that's true of mr. Ayers' ranch as well with and mr. Broken bow's ranch, but it was not required of us.
had it been with a threshold criteria of our partners in uvalde county, that would have been a far different conversation.
and I think I'm preaching to the choir, but forgive me for being so straightforward, trust me, friends, this is what I do for a living and when they read that public access we're going to lose a lot of partners.
we're achieving this public access, I lead this tour on all of the projects -- I should say our team leads tours all the time, nature hikes.
and so landowners want to share.
but not during hunting season.
and not during critical ranch operation times.
and so when we start negotiating the details of what that public access looks like, that, I promise you, is burden some on the landowner paying somebody 300 bucks with an hour to sit there, and mr. Nuckols and your staff and work through the details.
and every single agreement is going to be different.
you are not going to achieve uniformity.
in closing, I would say this was 10% of the package.
the other 90% of the package, we have extraordinarily beautiful land.
we're blessed in Travis County with public access.
through such incredible natural outdoor opportunities.
let's go do all the eco labs and nature hikes and the good things that rose and others have achieved on some of those lands, I think we could spend the next 20 years enhancing those activities without investing precious time on what could be problematic on the private lands.
in closing, I thank you all.

>> who has plans to give comments during the public hearing?
yes.

>> hi, my name is terry knox and I am executive director of pines and prairies land trust, we've based in bastrop county but with also serve eastern Travis County and I'm here to thank Travis County for your proactive and forward thinking in --

>> what's your name again?

>> I'm sorry, kerry knox.

>> thank you.

>> and I'm hear because we work in eastern Travis County as well as several other counties in central Texas.
I do think that Travis County is way on top of the curve with even considering these types of programs and I laud you all for that very much.
this public access issue is problematic and we're certainly hearing that today, but I did want to point out that when you -- you all are requiring a land trust as a potential partner in these deals, and I wanted to point out that land trusts think about with this every day and we with are very serious about with thinking about with perpetuity and what the effects of a conservation easement placed today will be tomorrow and in the future.
I think Commissioner Eckhardt had a really great point in observing that these lands that we're going to be protecting, prime agricultural lands and special features of Travis County, could be so incredibly important in the future that the last thing we want with to do is disincentivize have agricultural producer from not wanting to place an easement because of their concerns of having folks on the property, getting run over by a combine or gored by with a bull.
so the public access can be addressed in other ways.
the cost conservation easement itself, which is a legally binding document that is perpetual, can also be used as a way to address the public access issues.
so we've got Travis County with with your sort of overall criteria, which I think actually is quite good with, but then we have with a conservation easement.
the conservation easement document is a beautiful thing because each one is negotiated individually by the landowner and the land trust and the land trust partners, Travis County, nrcs or whichever other entity may be partnering with with the land trust.
so I did want to point out that there's another layer of information here that's going to be occurring.
Travis County is going to have their criteria and I personally as a person, a private individual, not executive director of pines and paris land trust, I like your document as it's written because it does allow the flexibility to waive the public access if that's appropriate.
and yet it does address the fact that you want to be good stewards of the county's money and you want the highest number of people to be able to enjoy the fruits of Travis County's labor.
now, we already have the view escapes.
even if someone cannot step foot on that property, they can drive over the hill and see a beautiful rural landscape or a field of horses, and that is important public access.
because believe me, people like that and when they are driving to work, they enjoy those types of views.
but also you've got a conservation easement that that landowner the going to be negotiating line by line, and these types of issues can also be addressed within the conservation easement document in partnership with with whichever partners are going to work with with that land trust.
so I guess what I'm saying is it's almost a little bit of a secondary level of protection, if you will, that every land trust is thinking about with.
we have -- not only do we have our own intrinsic criteria within the land trust, most land trusts are strive to go follow a national standard that is extremely high.
and so there's just some room here.
I hope folks don't worry too much about that aspect.
I think it's easily overcomable in partnership on an individual basis with the land trust, the landowner and the county.
thank you.

>> thank you, ms. Knox.
mr. Siff.
we kind of need to move on as quickly as possible.
we have a full agenda other than this item.

>> I appreciate that.
I'll try to be brief.
my name is ted siff.
as at least some of you know, I served for several years as the citizen advisory committee chair of the bccp, in that capacity as well as others for at least the last 20 careers.
I've worked with landowners to -- to acquire or get them to donate conservation easements.
and on the cac of the bccp advocated strongly and successfully for public access to those limited conservation lands.
however, and I applaud staff and the working group for all of the work as well as Commissioners court for coming up with with the document you have before you.
I would simply make one suggested change and that is to adjust the threshold criteria 5 that we've all -- at least the vast majority of us have been with speaking about -- in the ways that your counselor tom nuckols described only moments ago.
that is, if you simply eliminate the first six lines of it or so and get to the core of its purpose, and that is to require as a threshold criteria the landowner to evaluate and describe what the potential public access opportunities are or are not on their land, that meets the purpose of this criteria and doesn't raise the huge potential of unintended consequences.
one that hasn't been directly mentioned except for right at the beginning of this presentation is that in your first two conservation easement transactions, the vast majority of the funding came from one federal program, nrcs, about with 75% of the funding, and that program does not allow public access.
so you don't want to have that unintended consequence.
as many speakers have said, this is a leadership program.
don't cease from the jaws of victory defeat by -- seize from the jaws of victory defeat by putting a stick out there of public access when you can incent the public access that the vast majority of us want and have long advocated for.
thank you.

>> thank you.

>> thank you.
yes, sir.

>> thank you.
jeb voight, an attorney here in Austin in Travis County, and practice in the area of conservation easements and conservation law for a good part of my practice.
and in addition I've served as board member with with the hill country conservancy and the Austin metro trails and greenways and other conservation organizations.
thank you for putting together this policy and, you know, taking the lead on this initiative.
I think this is a great, a great effort.
but again, and as I say, I do think there's some concern with with the public access approach as it is now structured.
I think really your objectives and everything we've talked about with, about with the values of public access and what we're seek to go achieve through public access are nicely handled under the scoring criteria in the project selection criteria.
but my concern here is having the public access out as the threshold criteria.
as mr. Cofer has spoken to and others have spoken to, the concern is to have it as a threshold criteria may mean you never beer into conversation with many prospective partners because they are just put off by the threshold matter question of public access.
and it is certainly important to remember that the key component of what we're talking about here is these would be conservation easements, which is to say the landowner would remain a partner, remain involved, remain owning the land, living on the land or conducting agricultural operations to land so there would be an ongoing partnership between the county and the land be owner in this.
and so, you know, while it is certainly possible that the -- we can enter into a great -- negotiate an agreement providing the amount of public access that is appropriate for the uses of the land and for the wishes of the landowner, it's important we actually get to the point we're having that negotiate and can reach that point.
and that public access can be nicely handled and addressed through the scoring criteria.
I'm just concerned about including it as part of the threshold criteria.
and then just a secondary matter, I would encourage to you look carefully at the scoring points.
I'm just a little concerned that saying that the project -- want to make sure that projects can easily meet the points of 70.
for instance, certainly if a project design includes a unique feature that takes ten points off the table right off the bat and there are other areas projects may lose points so therefore have trouble getting over that threshold.
but I would be happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time.

>> thank you for your comments.

>> what's your last name?

>> voyt.

>> my name is frank Davis and I'm speaking to you as a private citizen and I was also part of the steering committee that helped to draft these guidelines and director of land acquisition.
we're supportive of this bond measure and we've been with a part of trying to help promote it and very happy to see it happen and see Travis County leading the way so thank you to the court for making this happen.
I'm also on the board of the Texas land council, charged with with furthering the conservation mission throughout Texas and enhancing excellence in land trust throughout the state and we're part of helping to educate and improve the work of those land trusts.
really I just want to comment on a couple of things.
I think the guidelines are very well with laid out.
I think they touch on a lot of really important points and it's clear we're going to achieve real public benefit through this work.
the concern that we have with is, again, about with the threshold criteria and I think there's been a lot of really good points made so I won't attempt to repeat a lot of those but just say the word threshold, the words threshold criteria seem to indicate without being willing to provide public access you don't have a shot at the program and maybe this is a question of semantics.
I think tom nuckols made a good suggestion.
and I think if we can get the wording to a place it's clear tell us what your feelings are about with public access, let us explore that, that should be a threshold.
but there are a lot of landowners with with significant resources, maybe they have some critical stream integral to protection of our drinking water, maybe they have some caves that are so sensitive they are concerned about with someone falling into a cave and they don't want to cage every one of those off.
maybe there's wild with life habitat, you can't always control it to the extent you would like to.
I hope we with can be mindful there are some landowners the idea of providing public access is the end of the conversation with with them.
and when we're thinking about with these public dollars, you know, there's 70 some odd million that were applied towards public parks, we've accounted for that in the way that the money is laid out.
the conservation easement money is going to be a separate pot of money.
this is achieving some different purposes and maybe more diverse purposes and I just am plea to go the court that we with consider very carefully how we apply who public access criteria.
if, I think those are really my thoughts.
I'll keep it brief.
I know there's been a lot of comments today and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

>> I have a question for legal and for those who have a lot of experience in this area.
is -- is there --

>> do you have any questions of mr. Davis?
eye think mr. Davis may be able to answer this.
my concern is that we would with use public dollars to purchase an easement that many, many years from now it becomes with crucial that we be able to determine some scientific fact with regard to water quality or endangered species or whatnot and because we never negotiated access to it, the landowner would say, you can't come on this property.
yeah, the public paid for it 20 years ago and yeah, I hear you, you want to see whether there's a affect on x, y or z, but you never negotiated that.
you don't get any access.
is that -- is that the -- does that appear?
is that the default position on these negotiations?
because if it is, I want it to be the opposite.
the default position is that for educational or scientific purposes, in furtherance of conservation, the public can get on there.

>> can you answer?

>> I think there's context for that certainly.
I did my master's studies at storm ranch, which is a local ranch on which there's a conservation easement.
I did all of my work there.
they allowed my me access to do prescribed burns with on their property.

>> could they have denied access is what I'm after?

>> yes, they could have and I would have had to look elsewhere.
I think there's going to be missed opportunities on every project and there are going to be some cases we weren't able to protect water quality or maybe there's an old barn from the 1860s and the landowner says that's not part of the deal, but there's such benefit otherwise we have the opportunity to say yes or no based on those opportunities.

>> thank you, mr. Davis.

>> thank you.

>> yes.

>> I'm ann brokenbow and I'm a rancher who participated in the frrp program and thanks too Travis County for having such foresight to do that, to want to partner with the federal government to do the frrp program.
I'm not going to repeat, you know, I am very concerned that if we have public access as a threshold criteria, it will scare off a lot of ranchers, farmers in my neighborhood, and I've been with working hard to try to talk them into doing these easements to protect this amazing wild with life corridor.
we've mountain lions still out there, we have all sorts of amazing wildlife.
I have a woodpecker that is -- it's not even its territory but it's nesting on my place.
I was not required in my frpp to have public access like I was required -- like it was -- and frpp does in the allow to you have it in the easement.
the hill country conservancy wrote it, and maybe you can help me with with that, frank, I looked at this this morning and identify said we would like the opportunity to come out and do educational research and this and that and I'm required to let them come out like at least once with a year to monitor what with I'm doing, make sure I'm not putting a waste dump on there.
you are agreeing to certain public access if you do this for monitoring.
maybe, you know, I would with like to see future deals done just like mine.
and like george said a lot of landowners are proud to have their land showed off.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] access,

>> and I'm just trying to think.
I want to just look and make sure that I'm not forgetting something.

>> if it were retermed educational and scientific access, would that make a difference, do you think?

>> one thing that I want to say that was said in the very beginning I called yesterday afternoon at 4:45 and talked to clawed ross the head of the nrcs in temple.
he said it cannot be written into the easement, can't be required in the conservation easement.
I think for the dorfler did Travis County did a side agreement with them and claude ross said I don't want a part of that.
he can't do it.
to keep in spirit with the bond money, like everyone said, the large part of it was to protect public space, public access.
10 percent or maybe less was to go for conservation easements and really the point of it I thought was to try to match federal dollars, the frpp.
in the case of my deal they leveraged those dollars like Travis County one to 10.
like, you know, Travis County put in 10% of, you know, the value of my property and for that I took it, you know, I can't ever develop it, I have preserved a mile of ridge line and not to mention like miles of creek, amazing habitat, every time I drive home from Austin, I am like wow!
like that ridge line will never be developed.
and that is the biggest public benefit.
we are going to lose out on that benefit.
I'm trying to, you know, we've got the first thousand acres of landowners that have agreed to do it.
not just with Travis County but with the other federal program that doesn't require the grassland preserve program.
my other neighbor got that.
that doesn't require public access.
but anyway, the point is I think, you know, my neighborhood is a destination for cyclists.
it drives the ranchers in my neighborhood crazy because every weekend, but it's because they are quiet country roads, this 4,000 acres that I'm trying to preserve, you know, the cyclists their race route is exactly around this 4,000 acres.
it quiet country roads, they're not going to get hit by a truck.
they love riding by and just looking at that beautiful scenery.
I'm afraid we're going to, you know -- we're gonna miss out on being accident preserve that land if we require public access.
and but yet like we said, every landowner that's done an easement has allowed people to come in like me.
the hill country conservancy is bringing another big group out there in may.
I'm not going to be around.
other landowners will be concerned about liability.
I talked to george about that, if something happens are you going to take full responsibility?
you know that's going to scare people off the public access thing.
but the public gets so many benefits from preserving that land.
I mean like claude ross said yesterday, he said, you know, public access can actually work against some of these things we're trying to preserve, like scaring off the wildlife, like the wood pecker.
causing erosion if there's too much traffic in certain places, you know, but these farms and ranches are so important to us protecting our water quality, our air quality, we need them to partner with us.
so ...

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you so much.

>> thank you.

>> mr. Reeferseed.

>> yes, I would like to speak on behalf of private property and try to educate the fine people about agenda 21.
if you ever heard about that?

>> I don't think that's really relevant --

>> it's directly related to this.
and it's all part of this plan to take private property away from citizens and you spoke about worrying about the people having access to the land.
well, people need access to the land and by the rules that exist they're not going to go in there and develop it.
you pointed that out yourself.
it's just for people who want to go there for educational purposes, whatever, look at the birds, whatever.
they're for the going to tear anything up.
it's private property as it is now.
there are rules about people invading your private property.
before you give it away to the state.
I think it's a good thing for the state for you guys to be considering public access.
it's land that the public should have access to.
it's not a museum.
it's not -- we shouldn't have guards with barbed wire and like y'all already wisely pointed out.
to -- to fence it off or something is detrimental to the wildlife.
they need their space.
they need their access to travel in between these -- these lands that are granted or whatever.
so let's err on the side of freedom and private property and assume that the public knows best on how to preserve life.
we have lots of huge ranches all over this wonderful state.
we have more -- we have more private property in the state of Texas than anywhere else in our nation.
and they are trying to fight it and they're trying to take it from us.
I'm just urging us to be relatively cautious and preserve public access.
it's not -- it's not the end of the world.
it's actually the preservation of our way of life.
and our -- our understanding of private property.
we don't want to surrender our public access to the government and assume that they will have it all right and do it in a good way here in Austin.
for example, our former mayor, they had something like this going on.
we were going to hold off something for public use later but by golly the city of Austin let a few years go by and then they just gave it to their friends or their cronies so there's a potential for harm here.
and we should preserve as much private property and public access to any public land as we possibly can because as you know, as we all know, national parks are a real blessing for living here.
anybody might have seen on the so-called public broadcasting network, their program, about our public lands, our national parks.
it's something to be really proud of.
it's something our nation has already led the world.
we gave an example of the rest of the world how they can do it, too.
they can set aside from land, people can go in there and occasionally within rules not to develop but to observe and appreciate and love and help conserve and in fact when it's used for educational purposes, it does just that.
it educates the kids, for example, yes, we want to conserve life.
no, we don't want to develop everywhere.
yes, we want things to live.
yes, we want future generations to be able to do that.
so the -- so to come up with arbitrary rules because you don't like the public or you are suspicious of the public or whatever, I'm just asking y'all to resist that and proceed with the idea of granting public access.

>> thank you, mr. Reeferseed.

>> thank you.

>> anybody else who has not commented today?
okay.
so do we need one week or two weeks to be back?
I think only public access access we ought to come up with language that takes into account the testimony that we've heard today.
separate it from the rest of the documents, so we can address that.
looks like we didn't hear many objections to the other language, but have that where we can address it.
alone.
and figure out how to deal with it.
okay?

>> okay.

>> so one week or two weeks?

>> we could do it in one week.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> we need to send whatever language we propose to those who commented today.
those who want to see it prior to it being on the court's agenda again.
I don't anticipate that we will receive public comments because we received it today.
but -- but I would -- I would like to give those who commented an opportunity to see that language before we act on it.
so can we do all of that in one week.

>> I think so, sure.

>> all right.
then we'll have item no.
2 back on next week.

>> thank you all if on coming.
we appreciate it very much.

>> thank y'all.
appreciate it.

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.