Travis County Commissioners Court

May 1, 2012 - Item 15
Agenda

View captioned video.

Item 15, consider and take appropriate action on the proposal being Travis County Land Conservation Program guidelines, Conservation Easement Program application and resolution supporting conservation of natural resources in Travis County.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, steve manila from t.n.r.
last week we had a public hearing to receive comments regarding the proposed guidelines, application and resolution for conservation easements.
if you may recall that the actual resolution was approved actually before the public hearing as was the application.
so what we really focused on last week with the public comment was the guidelines.
if there are any changes, if we decided to any changes today, we may have to go into the application and tweak that to make sure it lines up with what's in the guidelines.
so the most vocal point raised last week about the way the guidelines are written is that we had a threshold criteria of public access included in them.
and there was a lot of discussion whether that would scare off some potential applications -- applicants from this program, and then on the other side of it, you know, should we require access even if we get the okay with the property owner.
because property owners change hands over time and it may have some effect on the value of their land.
what we did to try to compromise on that, I guess, is we struck -- we struck through the language in the threshold criteria so you won't see that anymore.
it was item number 4, I believe.
and we took some of that -- the intent of that language and plugged it into the project selection criteria.
you will see in there, I think you should have a copy of the guidelines, the legislative format.
we still are impressing upon possible applicants that we would really like them to make their land available for research and scientific purposes, but it's more of a -- a point score that they will get assigned rather than making it you must have some attitude about whether or not you are going to have access or not before you even are considered for application.
so those changes were the two major ones we made and I'm hoping that will meet everyone's expectations at this point, but we're here to answer any other questions you may have or consider other changes you may want us to look into.

>> we got from mr. Williams last night an email indicating he was happy with the changes and I guess all right with them.
it came at 10:10.
I got it this morning.

>> I had not seen that.

>> I was about to ask whether we know any of the others who gave comment last week --

>> we had a couple of folks respond in support of the changes that were being made.

>> who were they?

>> we had christy muse and -- hold on a second.
okay.
well, the imperial valley neighborhood association actually spoke against the criteria.
it came in after our public hearing, however.

>> did we hear from them?

>> no, we did not.
neal cook also spoke -- following the public hearing, he spoke against having the threshold criteria and public access.
the only person heard after viewing the changes we made was christy muse.

>> but we eliminated the threshold criteria.

>> yes, we did.
which is what a majority of folks were objecting to.

>> I don't know, it seems to me that we did soften the language quite a bit.
seems to me that we ought to try to get whatever public access we can and look at it a year from now and if it's not producing the desired results, then we know what to do.

>> that makes sense.

>> the other thing is early on we were left with the impression that the county's contribution would be small in the grand scheme of things, but you really never know what kind of application you'll get as evidenced by the one we got last week.

>> yes.

>> it was -- it was kind of huge.

>> yeah.

>> especially in view of the total amount available for a seven-year period.

>> right.
so we would be looking at that relative in the projects that we got.

>> there was one email, I don't recall the name of the person, who just said we need to be very careful with public taxes and perhaps needed to be controlled because folks are not aware of -- you know, not being able to go to some of that land and just walk on it safely.
there are rattlesnakes, there are other things that need to be --

>> I agree with that.

>> -- watched.
so just need to do that.

>> we had in mind really supervised access.
scheduled with the property owner.

>> that's right.

>> so we wouldn't just open gates.

>> that's right, no, it would be events oriented with -- most likely the holder of the agreement managing that.
with the landowner's approval.

>> am I correct in assuming that most of these projects will be on land that is a bit distant from urban areas?

>> yes.
uh-huh.

>> and my thinking really was that supervised access for young people to have an opportunity to see some of these tracts of land would be educational.

>> well, one of the changes we made when we came back, we came to the court early on and you asked us to beef up the language about public access, who our target audience was, and we did say youth, youth at risk -- or at-risk youth, and the population that doesn't have opportunities to access natural areas or ranch and farmland easily.

>> I wonder if you could explain the list.

>> the list?
did you distribute?
we got some comments before the public hearing and we thought we would just go over that quickly.
I think you should have that in front of you.
so before the public hearing we had two people not supporting having public access as a threshold criteria.
we've addressed that concern.
we had two people who supported having access for low impact and hike and bike trail trails.
support having access for educational purposes t city of Pflugerville submitted a few questions.
they wanted to know if are utilities existing still proposed with conservation easements.
and tom might want to -- don't know.
that would be a case by case bay sit.
are hike and bike trails permitted with conservation easements?
that would be permitted on a case-by-case basis.
and we have the senate bill we can forward to trey fletcher.
what limitations, exclusions, apply to proposed easements in city e.t.j.s and city limits or this program, is this program exclusive to unincorporated areas?
this is kind of interesting because the public information that went out said throughout the county, which indicates it could be the in incorporated areas.
the bond process when we were going through that, we had a threshold criteria, one of them was it was to be -- or a project in unincorporated from Travis County so we have kind of a mixed message there, but we would obviously be coming to the court with all our recommendations.
and then if enabled within cities or citys e.t.j.s do those cities have opportunity for input.
we would be contacting them, but we would not involve them in the project review and scoring process.
and then a formula, of course, of what projects are being recommended if any.
now, following the public hearing we heard -- there were a few comments -- oh, no.
there was still some talk about being against the public access as a threshold criteria and then support changes as shown in the latest draft of the threshold -- or the guidelines.
that's it.

>> so by listing threshold criteria, we really sort of elevated it to the statistic you was an absolute requirement.

>> yes, yeah.

>> it would have been perceived that way.
it wasn't intentional but it would have been perceived by some of the applicants.

>> taking that out leaves the flexibility of working with the property owner to try to achieve accessible public access.
and failing to do that, the county now has the authority to waive it.

>> that's right.
and 15 points out of the 100 points are allocated to that, so we do feel that makes it a carrot for working with the county on that.
15 out of 100.

>> court members, questions, comments?

>> judge, let me say this.
I really appreciate the members of the public coming down and making testimony to I think such a very essential, critical tool of preserving land in perpetuity.
this is really a big step, I think, as we proceed in protecting a lot of conservation easements properties that especially for those particular owners that are willing to participate in this process.
we had a lot of good testimony last week I think about -- and

>> [indiscernible] who actually was the first person here as far as the conservation easement over in precinct 1 that participated in this program.
of course, she gave testimony and, of course, the following that after it was doppler ranch folks who also were involved in the conservation easement program.
so it appears -- it appears that it has caught a lot of steam and caught a lot of attention.
as we go through this process, coming up with the policy to ensure that those owners of this particular property will allow and specially e.t.j., and I notice she did mention e.t.j.
because I was thinking about that when you said all of Travis County.
of course, we looked at the e.t.j.
of this which allows the bond money was city aid side for the e.t.j.
area, gilleland creek and a greenbelt and other areas in the county as we look to preserve and conserve essential property, acreage for years to come for our youth and for youth generations.
it's a big deal, in my mind, and I just think -- I would like to thank this court and staff and everyone else else.
after I got the emails showing full support and testimony last week from the hill country conservative, it's really monumental and I'm just glad this court is a part of that and no one else is doing it like tract, believe me, judge.
Travis County is an out standing county and folks really ought to be happy with the Commissioners court as far as what we're doing in Travis County overall.
so I'm really ready to move forward with this and I know there were a few comments but I think we've addressed the concerns a lot of folks had brought up especially with the emails I received in support of what we have now.
I just want to lay that out.

>> anybody else here on this item who would like to give comments?
if so, please come forward.
we have before us guidelines and application arrest resolution supporting conservation and natural and cultural resources in Travis County.
I move approval of all three documents.

>> second.

>> discussion on the motion?
this is what you need from us, right?
Commissioner Huber.

>> I do want to echo Commissioner Davis.
I think it's great that Travis County is a leader in this innovative program and I applaud staff and the public that's participated in making this happen.
I think it's a very good indication of how our public process works well from the bond advisory committee to public hearings to the court and if final decisions.
one question, though.
the -- it was pointed out in the public hearing last week to be cautionary on the point -- how the point systems may come together on this.
and I just wonder on -- on the education and scientific research that public access negotiating point, and one thing that maybe the public doesn't understand is -- as well as those who are inmately involved in this is that each conservation easement is negotiated unique unto itself.
this is not a rubber stamp program.
so I can envision a situation where we may have a very critical piece of land that we would be interested, the court would be interested in for a conservation easement, but where there would be perhaps because of the danger associated with the property and elevation and risks and whatever, that we would really want to severely limit the public's access to that one particular piece of property.
and I'm just wondering how that would be evaluated in the point process if we had consensus that it was perhaps not the best property for public to access, but there's a 15 point allocation for that for the scoring.
how would we address that?
and not finalize the property we may want that has --

>> well, I think staff would exercise some judgment there and bring to the court our recommendation that would address our concern on something like.
that the guidelines, we want to use them hard and fast, but we're feeling our way along on this too.
so if we felt we could justify or make an argument to that we would bring it before the court.

>> we would tom cow on something of that nature.
absolutely.

>> me too.
appreciate the public input.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all for your hard work.

>> thank you very much.

>> and y'all want to make me really appreciate public employees day.

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.