Brittany Kelley
KYLE — Animal shelter discussions will be held off until at least after the November General election, following discussion at the Kyle City Council Thursday, Sept. 24, special meeting.
This item follows council discussion at the July 30 meeting, which directed staff to return with comparisons of the two remaining paths for future animal services. This includes either option two, continuing the regional partnership with Hays County and the city of Buda or option three, developing a smaller, standalone structure for Kyle. Either facility will no longer be located on the Kyle Vista site, which was option one, after it was determined that the land was for park-use only.
Option two
• Partnership with Hays County and the city of Buda through an interlocal agreement (ILA)
• Approximately 31,000 square feet
• An estimated construction cost of $21.7 million, to be split with the county and Buda. Kyle would be responsible for $7.1 million and would likely be funded through certificate of obligation (CO) bonds
• Six or seven acres
• Would have 75% of Hays County’s intake
• Kyle would fully manage and operate the facility
• Cost an estimated $2 million to operate annually, with Kyle paying $1.32 million
Option three
• Purely for city of Kyle use
• Approximately 12,000 to 18,000 square feet
• An estimated construction cost of $6 to $9 million to likely to be funded through CO bonds
• Could possibly renovate or retrofit other facilities
• Four to five acres
• Three-times less intake than option two
• Cost approximately $1 to 1.5 million to operate annually
Assistant city manager Jesse Elizondo noted that originally, a fourth option to use third-party services, rather than operating a city-owned facility was removed, but he brought it back, due to the announcement that PAWS of Central Texas and Austin Pets Alive! have created a partnership together and may be looking to develop a shelter in Kyle in the future.
Sharri Boyett, part of the team that founded Prevent A Litter (PALS), noted that the partnership is not for animal control; it is purely to “resurrect PAWS Shelter.” Additionally, she stated that the partnership has a long way to go before making any headway.
He also noted that staff talked to the Hays County Commissioners Court and was told that if the ILA moves forward, they are still open to continuing, but that they are also looking at other options.
“Our next steps after this conversation and getting direction from council would be to bring back a resolution with that direction and then, include whatever element in the five year [capital improvement program] with design and then, construction, all laid out. The more nuanced elements of location and evaluations and programming and design would all come back to council as we move forward. This is just the first step,” said Elizondo.
Council member Courtney Goza began the discussion by noting that many community members that are heavily involved in animal care are requesting that council hold off on voting until after the election, due to the potential that new elected officials could lead to different outcomes. She stated that she agrees with the sentiment of waiting.
Agreeing with Goza were council members Lauralee Harris and Melisa Medina, who stated that the county has “flipped with this dilemma for the last few years, [with] things being started and then, stopped.” However, Harris did emphasize urgency after November and that she would like to keep the option of the partnerships open, as a relationship with the county is “critical.”
Council member Michael Tobias stated that he’s “glad everybody’s finally seeing that this basically comes down to politics in the end,” as he’s been asking for updates with the county and Buda for the past year, with no clear answer, adding that the animals are the ones suffering, currently, because of these politics.
He also brought up operating costs and how they could potentially increase in the future.
“I think there’s a lot of factors that played into this, so I think delaying for a little bit, while we collect some more information, is not going to hinder us tremendously,” said council member Marc McKinney.
In response to a question from McKinney, Brianna Gettys, animal control supervisor, stated that animals in the outside of the city’s service area are complicated, which is why there needs to be ILAs with all shelters in the area, so they can get transferred to the appropriate areas. She also shared that the county has direct liability, due to state law, for all livestock. So, they have a wrangler that picks up those animals and houses them until they can be returned.
Mayor Yvonne Flores-Cale stated that because the San Marcos Regional Animal Shelter (SMRAS) extended the city’s contract for another year, instead of not renewing as planned, she wanted to have some movement with the project. So, as community members suggested, she mentioned a potential committee, but was concerned about wasting the resident’s time, if the county decided to build their own shelter.
Gettys stated that she met with a national organization for animal welfare, who suggested having an advisory board. So, it could be an animal advisory board, rather than a shelter advisory board.
“This is already in the works, but we could reach out to San Marcos, meet with them and talk to them about our next steps, where we’re going, what we’re looking at and maybe get some ideas from them, as far as [a board],” suggested Elizondo. “I think that the feedback we get from them, based on this next year that we have in the contract, would be really helpful for those next steps.”
Flores-Cale stated that she would like to see the beginnings of a board, at least.
Ultimately, Elizondo stated that they will meet with SMRAS to get feedback and look into a board, which should take council through the November election, before more direction is needed.
To listen to the full discussion, visit bit.ly/3VdEDAB.
