KYLE — Kyle City Council members spent nearly three hours discussing and advocating for what each individual believed the community amenity project should be prior to voting to approve a new project proposal.
Over the past several fiscal years, council has identified community needs for a Sportsplex, recreation center, space for older adults and more in multiple visioning workshops. One of the most prominent projects has been the intimately discussed community center, which would feature some of the above aspects, that was approved for preliminary design services from Burditt Consultants in the amount of $120,000 on April 16, 2024, while the design services for the Sportsplex was awarded to Stantec Consulting Services. The latter of which has eight acres within Plum Creek identified as a location, as well as a possible public/private partnership that has been proposed to the city.
“We do have limited funding for the 2024 bond program,” said city manager Bryan Langley. “We have identified about $100 million in capacity that we could have if we were going to go up to the $0.59 tax rate. Because of that, [we] can’t do both a community center and an indoor sports complex, at the levels at least that we have been talking about. So given this, the question really for the council is, do you wish to pursue an indoor sports complex instead of the community center that’s previously been discussed or continue on with the current strategy that we’ve been pursing.”
The potential strategies would be as follows, according to Langley:
• 2024 bond election at $65 million (or other amount) for the indoor sports complex
• Provide $4-6 million in cash funding to purchase and renovate the existing property at 1500 Dacy Lane, which could be used for a senior center or a combination of other uses
• Repurpose the Krug Activity Center for other uses
• Develop a plan to create a signature amenity at Lake Kensington Park
If council was to adopt this plan, the following would have to occur, explained the city manager.
1. Cancel the contract with Burditt Consulting on June 18
2. Proceed with a city-owned indoor sports complex and pursue a 2024 bond election for $65 million (or other amount)
3. Approve amended proposal from Stantec Consulting Services to include the conceptual design for the complex on June 18
4. Authorize the issuance of a request for quote (RFQ) for designs services at Lake Kensington Park on June 18
5. Negotiate a contract and acquire property in June/July
6. Initiate RFQ design services on acquired property
7. Present preliminary conceptual designs of sports complex to council
8. Council calls bond election for November 2024 in August
For the discussion that followed, it was assumed that the space for local seniors would be at the 1500 Dacy Lane property and, presumably, the new location for an amenity for the community would be at Lake Kensington. This would, according to Mayor Travis Mitchell, provide them with a more immediate solution, rather than building a new facility a number of years down the road.
“I never thought that these two things, [the community center and the Sportsplex], would be competing against each other. I thought that the vision was that we were looking at something central, with the community central top priority, then rec center and library,” said council member Miguel Zuniga.
After looking at the financials presented on page 78 of the market and financial feasibility study, Zuniga noted that, although it is only $70 million for the indoor, the outdoor portion would cost an additional $80 million. This, combined with the cost to operate the facility and the reliance on the tournaments held to bring in money caused the council member to feel unsure of the project.
In response, council member Bear Heiser stated that the outdoor facility has already been “bonded out” in 2020, with $7 million from the city and $7 million from the county, so anything discussed at the meeting is only in regard to the indoor portion.
As a parent who had to travel to Georgetown multiple times a week so his daughter could play in a sports league, council member Robert Rizo felt strongly about the Sportsplex being a priority, as it would give children in the city the ability to participate in these activities closer to home.
Similarly, council member Lauralee Harris explained that she understands this sentiment, especially as her granddaughter faces a similar situation. She also stated that the older adults could benefit from the indoor facility, as well.
Zuniga has previously explained his desire for an additional library on the east side of town.
“I think that when we [spend money] on a library, what we’re really doing is investing in the kids, in the future generations. Not all kids will play sports; not all kids will be athletes. We have to have, as we in invest in this city for families that move in, opportunities for their kids to pick up books, read, have safe spaces, get tutoring [and] get job training. That’s what I believe investment needs to be in,” said Zuniga.
Rizo took this as a personal attack, as Zuniga was “looking right at” him; therefore, he must be “taking a shot at” him. The discussion began to escalate, leading to Zuniga revealing that he could not afford sports, so he often was reading, which Rizo “commended” him for.
As the two began to argue, Mayor Travis Mitchell quickly dissipated the situation and warned the members of getting too personal in the meeting, emphasizing the importance of the discussion, which was to decide what the best plan for the city going forward. Continuing with this idea, Langley stated that there has not been a formal RFQ done and Burditt Consulting still could be the best firm to work with for the potential Lake Kensington project, but the city should evaluate all firms to confirm that this is true.
Council member Daniela Parsley noted that the Sportsplex was originally lower on the list and that she would be in favor of creating a facility at Lake Kensington, which could have more indoor activities for children. But if council was to continue with the Sportsplex, she would like to know the financials of it, such as the cost, how will staff be budgeted, etc. All of which, council member Michael Tobias agreed with.
“When do the operational costs start? When does that question get answered? Probably 24 months from now, not right now. We’re not even close to being able to [receive an] answer. So, we should just decide, philosophically, whether or not this is a concept we want to proceed with,” said Mitchell.
The idea of a smaller facility was not an idea with which Rizo agreed, due to the inability to generate revenue, forcing the entirety of the cost would be a burden to the taxpayers, rather than the sales tax alleviating some of the pressure.
“Our residents are the taxpayers, so we should be building something for them, not for visitors,” said Zuniga.
Tobias stated that the question that needs to be asked is if this is about quality of life or about generating revenue.
After a lengthy discussion, full of back-and-forths, Mitchell interrupted to explain that council has “reverted back to the conundrum of where we were, so congratulations. That’s where we’re at now … This is the kind of conversation rhetoric that has led to us being in such a pickle.”
“The only option for this rhetoric is that we just stop, everything stops. Is that what y’all want? I thought we decided we didn’t want that and that we wanted to try to put a plan together that would work and that would solve problems for the community, both local and in terms of generating long-term revenue, quality of life amenities, as well as regional draws,” he said.
Eventually, Mitchell noted that there are three individuals against the project — Zuniga, Parsley and Tobias — preventing either scenario from moving forward.
“Nobody’s against this, [Mitchell]. We’re asking legit questions. Because, again, we went to one specific project to now this, so we do have just specific questions. Again, for me, $65 million, is this just an estimate, a ball park figure? It’s just those kind of things. No one’s attacking this. I understand we have a need for it. It’s just, where did this dollar amount come from?” asked Tobias.
“You’re not just learning of the change this morning. A lot of the things that have been brought up today, have been brought up in previous conversations,” said Heiser. “If you guys don’t want to do this, that’s fine. But this feels like there’s some sort of game being played or there’s some sort of script that was put together before this meeting and I just don’t have it … We paid a company for a feasibility study and I’ve asked you, all of you, multiple times [to] please read it.”
Council then began to quarrel with each other and, while Rizo whistled at them, stating “Hey, one at a time,” Mitchell called for an impromptu break.
After, discussions quickly began once more, with Zuniga stating that they should wait for the Sportsplex because "it will come" in time.
“With proposal, we get both. We get the development of the Kensington property. We get the senior center moved up years in advance of what it would be, in a great facility. We get a visionary project for this community and the Sportsplex. To do the Kensington development, like we were talking about, it would take a bond. We’re going to go to bond for that. We pull the bond off, but we’re not losing the project. We’re just changing how we’re doing that,” said Harris. “We will bring back what we want to do in the development of that … In the meantime, if the residents approve a bond for the Sportsplex, then we are also getting a visionary project that will meet the need for our citizens, as well as be a major economic driver.”
Parsley stated that, right now, she could be in support of a Lake Kensington park, not a facility, acquiring the Dacy Lane property and continuing with Stantec Consulting Services to continue with the design of the outdoor Sportsplex: “To do the design of any indoor facility, whether it is a rec center or the indoor Sportsplex, I don’t think we’re all on the same page. And if we want to go out to bond, for that amount of money, it’s something that we should all be in favor of.”
She also requested that the work that Burditt Consulting has completed so far be presented to council.
Ultimately, council voted 6-1, with Zuniga dissenting, to approve the steps one through eight as mentioned earlier, as well as to negotiate the purchase of the Dacy Lane property for a "fair and reasonable" price. To listen to the full discussion, visit bit.ly/3yYPoM7.
