Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kendall County approves three conservation easements using Proposition A bond funds
Summary
After a public hearing, the Kendall County Commissioners Court approved conservation easements on three Boerne properties using Prop A bond funds. The court set transaction caps and made one approval contingent on staff review of potential conflicts with a pending city project.
Kendall County Commissioners on Sept. 23 voted unanimously to accept the Proposition A committee’s recommendations to purchase conservation easements on three properties in the Boerne area.
The court approved re‑approving a conservation easement for 424 Kreitzberg Road after the landowner reduced the conserved acreage to about 69 acres; the county will cover transaction costs not to exceed $65,000. For two adjacent Old San Antonio Road parcels (commonly referenced as 33 and 35 Old San Antonio Road), the court approved both easements collectively with total transaction and closing fees capped at $75,000, contingent on county staff confirming no conflict with a pending public construction project the county or city may undertake.
Committee representative Rusty Busby told the court that one tract (35 Old San Antonio) had a recommended contribution toward conserved value of $50,000 while the paired parcel owned by a nonprofit would not receive a conservation payment; combining both easements into a single closing reduces transaction costs. Commissioner Chapman raised a concern about one parcel’s historical tax‑exempt status; Busby said the parcel has been held by a nonprofit and that, if sold later, taxes could be assessed on the private owner.
County staff clarified the funding source as Proposition A bond funds (Fund 74 in the county’s budget). County financial staff reported the Prop A fund balance in the general range of the high‑teens to low‑twenties of millions of dollars (reported figures during discussion ranged near $17–$20 million after interest adjustments), and the court said these purchases are consistent with the voters’ bond authorization for open‑space and conservation purchases.
All motions related to the three easements passed 5–0. The court’s approval directs staff to complete standard closing documentation, ensure easement language accommodates any necessary public‑works exceptions, and proceed per the capped transaction amounts the court approved.
The public hearing for the easements included one public commenter who urged approval to allow property owners to preserve family legacy and acknowledged the administrative and time costs of placing land into easements.
The court’s action is procedural approval to proceed with acquisition under the stated caps; the easements will be recorded when closing steps are complete.
