Brittany Kelley
KYLE — Kyle City Council discussed several partnerships, including those with the Kyle Area Senior Zone (KASZ) and Hays County, at its July 30 special meeting.
Facility use agreement
KASZ has called the Krug Activity Center in downtown Kyle its home for years, but as the new Dacy Lane Senior Community Center prepares to open, a new agreement is needed between the city and nonprofit since the original in 2007.
“This agreement has been in the works with Parks and Recreation and KASZ for over a year. It’s been a long time. There’s been a lot of back and forth and, recently, with leadership changes and the moves we’ve made, we’ve reexamined the agreement itself. [It was] not necessarily a bad agreement, but when we started looking at it from a view of more of a partnership with KASZ, we realized there was probably a lot of maybe heavy-handed things in there,” said assistant city manager Jesse Elizondo, adding that once this perspective changed, it came together quickly.
The main highlights of the agreement, according to Elizondo, include:
• Allows for continued and enhanced city partnership with KASZ
• Supports older adult programming
• Clearly defines shared use of the facility between KASZ and the city
• City maintains the building and oversees scheduling and facility operations
• KASZ has priority scheduling and manages its own programming
• Better defined responsibilities
• Clearly establishes insurance and liability provisions
• Includes annual review and renewal provisions
• Shared scheduling provides more opportunities for city programming or use when available
• Monthly coordination meetings will support ongoing communication and efficient operations
“I think it’s a really good agreement, [but] I did want to make a comment that I think that it would be in the best interest of KASZ to have an outlined agreement with any other 501(c)(3)s or any entities that are operating within that building under the KASZ umbrella,” said council member Courtney Goza. “I also want to comment just on all of the things KASZ does for our community; it is not just for the seniors. They work with a lot of other nonprofits to provide support to a large section of our community, so I’m very excited to see this.”
“We’re going from 2,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. We’re going to have a party. That’s all I have to say — we’re going to have a party and the whole city’s invited,” said KASZ president Betty Conley, after noting that the future plans for the facility include more dining opportunities and bridging gaps between generations.
Because the item was to obtain council feedback, a formal approval will be completed at a later meeting.
Animal shelter
Since the announcement in 2024 from the San Marcos Regional Animal Shelter (SMRAS) that it will no longer serve as the county’s intake facility come October 2026, the city of Kyle has been working to create its own center.
The city of Buda and Hays County joined in this endeavor through an interlocal agreement to create a new regional animal care facility, which noted that Kyle would retain full ownership and operational control, while the county and Buda would contribute to funding and operation costs in January 2026.
Kyle City Council approved a $1.6 million design contract for the facility in January, as well, though the proposed location — the Kyle Vista property off of Dacy Lane and Bebee Road in Kyle, which was also considered for the Hays County Eastside Campus — later caused uproar from community members, after many cited that it was slated to be parkland. Kyle staff confirmed this through discussions at the July 7 meeting.
Because of this, council asked staff to bring back information regarding the Kyle Vista property. The design contract has since been paused, prior to the schematic design kickoff, said Elizondo.
According to agenda documents from the July 30 meeting, the property comprises three tracts: 8.622 acres acquired from Nester Development in 2008; 7.98 acres from Alfonso and Hope Martinez in 2008; and 13.22 acres from The Meadows at Kyle II in 2008. The latter was dedicated to the city under a development agreement as parkland.
Each of the properties contain the same deed restrictions, including no commercial operations — specifically that “[n]o fowls or animals shall be kept on the premises in such numbers of manner to create a nuisance” — restrictions on types of residences constructed, annual assessment per tract and roadway to the property must remain open and unobstructed.
The presentation also detailed that the city charter contained two provisions that limit the sale or lease of parks and other city facilities and would require an election prior. This meant that the city could have been in violation of the city charter if council had completed the approval to lease land to the county for the Hays County Eastside Campus earlier this year, before the county terminated the contract plans after delays, due to legality concerns of Kyle Vista Park.
Regarding the animal shelter, Elizondo noted that the city was discussing a location in the 7.98-acre tract, not the 13.22 acres, which were considered dedicated parkland.
Staff presented four options for the future of the shelter.
Option 1: $21.7 million (Kyle would pay 32.7%)
• Continue partnership with Hays County and Buda through the ILA
• Approximately 31,000 square feet
• Located on the Kyle Vista property
• Seven acres
• Challenges would include intergovernmental coordination, funding in either a certificate of obligation or general obligation (GO) bonds in 2027/28, a large intake area and municipal coordination
Option 2: $21.7 million (Kyle would pay 32.7%)
• Same details as Option 1, but located at a new undetermined site
• Challenges would include a potential price increase, due to site evaluations, and funding in either a certificate of obligation or GO bonds in 2027/28
Option 3: $8 million
• City of Kyle develops, owns and operates its own animal shelter facility
• Reduced facility footprint at 20,000 square feet
• Reduced facility amenities
• Possible renovation or retrofit of facilities
• Located at Kyle Recreation Fields, though other sites could be identified
• Six to seven acres
• Challenges would be location and funding in either a certificate of obligation or GO bonds in 2027/28
Option 4:
• City does not construct an animal shelter
• Animal shelter services are provided by Hays County and/or another third-party provider through contractual agreements
• Texas law authorizes counties and municipalities to enter into agreements for animal control and shelter services
• Challenges would include finding and negotiating with outside partners, having little control over operations and potential unexpected changes.
Beginning discussion was Goza, who shared her hesitation of partnering with the county, after hearing that collecting payment from the county is “difficult” and that it is a “big risk.” She, personally, would want to put out the operation to bid with services in mind.
Animal Control Division supervisor Briana Geddes noted that Option 4 does have a lack of control, since these organizations have their own dynamics and sometimes begin turning away animals.
“I think we can all agree that the need is there; we’re just trying to find the best way to try to solve that need,” said council member Marc McKinney, suggesting looking at other sites. “I feel like partnering with the county and Buda is the best and most efficient way to go about providing that service, especially considering how many would be coming from outside the city of Kyle. If we just did our own thing, those animals would still come to our facility. There’s no geofencing that we can put around saying, ‘No. No. No, that’s not our animal.’ We would still have to take care of those animals. This way, at least we get the funding from the regions that are responsible for it.”
Council member Michael Tobias felt comfortable putting it out to a GO bond, in order to hear directly from the voters whether or not they want it.
The earliest this bond could be placed on the ballot is November 2027, said interim city manager Perwez Moheet, but “it would have to be on a high speed track,” meaning that the following would need to be completed: 30% design to ensure an accurate cost estimate, the formation of a Bond Committee, a tax impact analysis, determination of location and partnerships and more.
To meet this timeline, council member Lauralee Harris asked whether SMRAS would be willing to be patient with the city, as it is undergoing this process, to which Elizondo stated that this would have to be determined through meeting with leadership at a later date.
Mayor Yvonne Flores-Cale stated that, if the partnership with the county and city continues, the city should build an exit strategy into the contract. Additionally, she wanted to discuss with Buda leadership to know where they stand, while noting that the Hays County Commissioners Court unanimously voted Tuesday, July 28, to obtain an appraisal on former PAWS of Central Texas’ shelter, after the closure of its Kyle location.
She then motioned to remove Option 1, due to the location on Kyle Vista property. The motion passed 5-0, as council members Melisa Medina and Claudia Zapata were not in attendance.
“I’d like to make a motion that we accept [Option] 2, with the conditions that all the parties are still on board with it and that we can get a satisfactory agreement, as we continue forward with the costing,” said Harris.
Flores-Cale wanted to know the cost difference between Option 2, partnering with the municipalities, and Option 3, the city on its own, since she doesn’t understand why the city has to pick up the county’s "slack" for not doing anything.
“Before y’all vote, let’s say, it’s a three-party deal and we opt for a GO bond and the voters decide, ‘No.’ Now what happens with Buda and the county or vice versa,” prompted Moheet, as state law notes that certificates of obligation bonds could not be issued for at least three years, if the election bond fails.
According to city attorney Aimee Alcorn-Reed, there is a provision in the ILA that if there is no appropriated funding in the budget, that they can back out of the contract.
“This is not set in stone, but they are three very different directions to go into and so, we can bring back — obviously we would, many times — more detail, more conversation, more numbers, more analytics behind it. But each one of these is one completely different direction than the other and that’s where staff is [asking for direction],” said Elizondo.
After calling the question, Harris’ motion to pass Option 2 failed 3-2, with Flores-Cale, Tobias and Goza dissenting.
Flores-Cale motioned to direct Moheet to bring back cost estimates for Option 2 and Option 3, with programming. The motion passed 5-0.
To listen to the full discussions, visit bit.ly/4g37u2q.
