Item 15: The Human Services Advisory Board (HSAB)
Every year, we give money to nonprofits. The HSAB sorts through the applications and gives out money.
This year, they are giving out $550K.
HSAB has a tumultuous past. In addition, they used to have a bunch of Covid money to give away in 2022 and 2023, and now they don’t. So this is a tough spot to be in.
This year, they got 37 applications for a total of $1.1 million dollars requested. So that’s also a tough spot to be in!
The HSAB Process
First, some useful guiding principles:
The whole decision process takes months.
Here’s how they evaluate the applications:
(“Council priorities” always drives me fucking nuts. It’s all about Council ego, and not what’s best for those in need.)
Here’s how HSAB ranked the applications:
(I know that’s tiny, but I think you can click on it and make it bigger.) Green is highest score, yellow is medium, pink is lowest.
Then the board discusses each application individually. They consider:
- Rankings
- Amount of money requested
- Need in San Marcos
At the end of all that, here’s what the board recommends:
They talk a little bit about why they chose not to fund the agencies at the bottom. Some of them are hard to measure, and they wanted programs that can measure results. Some of them were not aligned with which needs the board wanted to focus on this year. Some are not local.
Summary by category:
What does Council have to say?
OH LORD, YOU GUYS, THIS WILL GET INTERESTING.
Matthew Mendoza kicks things off. He wants to remove $10K from ACCEYSS, and give it to the Salvation Army.
What is ACCEYSS?
Ok, summer camps and after school programming in Dunbar. They were awarded $20,000 to do this.
Here’s what the Salvation Army wants to do:
They were awarded no money.
Jane asks why? The answer is that one of Council’s priorities is to support locally grown organizations. Since Salvation Army isn’t local, they lost points for that. [Jane deeply sighed, “Ok.”]
Jane explains this away: this is a local chapter of the Salvation Army. They are extremely local.
Note: Roland Saucedo – the council candidate that Jane campaigned for and supports – shows up to speak on behalf of the Salvation Army. That’s how local they are!
Council talks to the Salvation Army representative for a long time, about the Salvation Army budget, and whether or not we could partner with the Salvation Army on utility assistance, which is also an ongoing conversation. Maybe we could direct some utility assistance money over to them?
The vote:
Move $10K from ACCEYSS to Salvation Army: everyone
Keep things as they are: No one
So that money is shifted over.
…
Next, Jane brings up the HOME Center.
HOME Center is these guys. They do individual case management with homeless people to get them into stable, longterm housing. It is exceedingly difficult work and they do an outstanding job.
I frankly don’t know how to sugarcoat this: the city has a history of being vindictive and retaliatory towards HOME Center. This is because historically, the city has not always been on the up-and-up regarding the homeless community, and HOME Center advocates on behalf of the homeless people who have gotten the raw end of things.
Jane proposes moving $15K from HOME Center, and giving $10K to Salvation Army, $5K to Nosotros La Gente. This would bring the Salvation Army up to $20K, and put HOME Center down to $5k. (Actually, her first proposal is to bring HOME down to zero. Matthew gently chides her to leave HOME Center with $5K.)
Keep in mind that Jane openly endorsed and campaigned for Roland Saucedo, who is loosely affiliated with the Salvation Army. He was present at Tuesday’s meeting and advocated for the Salvation Army.
I like to stick to cut-and-dried facts, but you absolutely have to know that this is a very tense topic. Jane is not a neutral party here, and her proposal feels like a shot across the bow.
Jane’s stated reason is that HOME Center is requesting money for a case manager salary. She says, “We don’t want to fund salaries, because we don’t want someone to be laid off if we don’t fund them.”
The staff member says, “In the application, we said Board can allocate up to 20% of a fulltime position or fully fund a part-time app.”
Jane argues this point, but she is wrong here. Here is the policy from January 2023:
And in the actual discussion, they settled on 20% of a fulltime position is okay, and funding a parttime position is okay.
So first, Jane is technically wrong. But more important, she’s morally wrong. The staff, Alyssa, and Amanda all point out to her that many of these applications asked for staff funding, and yet she’s singling out HOME Center to slash.
Jane: We have given a LOT of money to Southside. They are hiring. So that’s an issue that I have with HOME Center in particular.
She is referring to the $800k of Covid money that the city recently gave Southside Community Center, to implement our Homeless Action Plan. She is somehow making the case that Southside’s funding works against HOME Center?
Alyssa comes in hard: Absolutely not. We gave Southside an obscene amount of money. Initially, there were community concerns and Council concerns about Southside’s capacity. We had grace and did a trust fall. We need to extend that to HOME Center. They do boots on the ground hard work. The service and case management they do is unmatched.
She continues: “I know this is not your intention, Mayor, but I need to name this. Within different groups that do homeless outreach, there is a perception that HOME Center continues to face retaliation because they use their platform to bring to light some historic concerns and trends regarding homeless outreach in general in our community. And so I know that’s not your intention, but the community had a very thorough process with feedback and open meetings. It is not a good look, without any process or notification, to be making these moves.”
There’s some continued hectoring from Mark and Jane – they could have asked for money for different costs! They could have shown up to this meeting and defended themselves!
Amanda is furious: “This is not the only organization that asked for staff funding! So many of these organizations are funding staff! I’ll be honest: I’m losing my patience, because as someone who has volunteered with HOME center, as someone who has spoken to the clients that receive what they do: our community benefits in ways that we will never understand…. The reasons you’re giving are not strong enough for me, and this just feels wrong.”
Jane, sweetly, “Then you can vote against it!”
Amanda, coldly: “I will.”
Jane: “I just wish they’d asked for money for something else!”
Alyssa, “Well, I wish you weren’t nitpicking, but sometimes we don’t get our wishes granted. We need to meet the moment where it’s at.”
(I’m abbreviating all this hugely. Feel free to listen yourself. HSAB item starts at 2:00, and Council discussion starts at 2:19ish.)
Eventually Alyssa makes a motion to postpone. She says, “We need space for community feedback. We’re overstepping and moving things around without rhyme or reason. We need to let our neighbors know.”
The vote to postpone:
Yes: Alyssa, Amanda, Shane, Saul
No: Mark, Jane, Matthew
So the postponement squeaks through. This will come back around in January.
…
Let’s zoom out for a moment on the HSAB funding:
The committee spends months on these applications. All of the agencies provide metrics and ample documentation of how they spent previous money – literally over 2000 pages of applications in the Council packet this week. Council argues passionately about whether $5000 is better spent on kids in Dunbar, or emergency funding from the Salvation Army.
Here is a list of things that received zero discussion on Tuesday:
- $45,000.00 to McKimm & Creed, for Leak Detection Services
- $241,036.36 to Cunningham Recreation, for various playground and outdoor fitness equipment
- $573,458.79 to Nueces Power Equipment, for the purchase of a Wirtgen Asphalt Milling Machine
- $2 million (annually) for McCoy Tree Surgery Company, for tree trimming
- $6 million for Techline, Inc, for materials and supplies for San Marcos Electric Utility
- $8.6 million for the Lower Colorado River Authority, for various goods and services concerning electrical transmission, control and substation facilities
- $765 reimbursement to Tantra
Was Jane Hughson worried about us paying someone’s whole salary at McKimm & Creed? Was she worried that the company might become too dependent on us?
Did a committee meet for months, and have a scoring system? Why do we scrutinize $20,000 to HOME Center, and not $6 million to Techline, Inc?
We also give homestead exemptions of $15,000 to all homeowners, and $35,000 to seniors and people with disabilities. We have an estimated 10,295 owner-occupied homes in San Marcos. The tax rate is 60.3 cents per $100. So ballpark, we’re giving homeowners $904,500 yearly in homestead exemptions.
Why don’t we include this $900K in an application to HSAB? We could call it “Subsidies to Home-owners Program” and see if it scores higher than ACCEYSS on the evaluation criteria. We don’t think of this as charity, but we should. And we don’t even make the home owners provide metrics, measurable outcomes, nor turn in performance reports for how they spend their extra charity dollars each year. Isn’t that nice?
(And finally, I will never get sick of reminding you that we’re giving $1.2 million yearly to Kissing Tree. No metrics, no scrutiny, no gnashing of teeth. Just a nice, gated community that’s not for you.)
…
Item 16: Guiding Principles to lobby the Texas Legislature.
The Texas legislature only meets once every two years, for 140 days. This is to minimize the damage that they can do.
Or as Molly Ivins put it, “The Texas Legislature consists of 181 people who meet for 140 days every two years. This catastrophe has now occurred 63 times.”
Or, as the old joke goes: “The Texas legislature meets every two years for 140 days. Many citizens believe that the law was incorrectly transcribed and that the legislature was meant to meet for two days every 140 years.”
Anyway! San Marcos lobbies the state legislature on behalf of our interests. So we have a Guiding Principles document, to determine what we’ll lobby.
Amanda comes in with a ton of amendments. Keep in mind that she’s worked with the state legislature for the past few years. It quickly becomes clear how much expertise she’s bringing to the table.
The first batch is all under the mental health section. Here’s the original:
Amanda #1: Suggested add: Support legislative action to establish a school mental health allotment fund.
Why? The Legislature passed a School Safety Bill last time, but it doesn’t fund mental health. So this asks the state to create line item funding to address mental health funding.
Everyone loves this. The vote: 7-0
Amanda #2: Support legislative action to increase in funding for Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs) to provide early intervention services to prevent crises.
The vote: 7-0
Matthew Mendoza is so happy. He says, “Yes, because it will go to SMPD!!” when he casts his vote.
Amanda #3: Support legislative action to expand access to maternal mental health support throughout pregnancy and the post-partum period.
The vote: 7-0
Amanda’s on a roll! Everyone loves these!
Amanda #4: Support legislative action that expands eligibility for Medicaid.
Texas turns down $5 billion in federal money every year for Medicaid. About 19% of Texans are uninsured, which is far and beyond the worst in the country. This is because we never expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Mark has finally had enough of this nonsense! “I’m going to be a no on this. Those are conversations for the state and federal government to have.”
He has a deep moral conviction about staying neutral on healthcare coverage. Should uninsured diabetics die for lack of insulin? Mark refuses to have an opinion, and you can’t make him!
The vote:
Yes, the state should accept Medicaid funding: Everyone but Mark
No, this is none of my business: Mark
Amanda #5: Support legislative action to increase funding for permanent supportive housing programs. (Housing First programs.)
There is a fake-debate among homelessness experts. Should you provide housing and then treat the mental illness and/or substance abuse? This is Housing First. Or, should you withhold permanent housing until the person gets their issues solved? This is Treatment First.
I’ll give you a hint: in Trump’s first term, his housing guy was a strong Treatment First guy. (And then we hired him as a consultant.)
Mark: I’m a no. Housing First isn’t always the best!
Mark is wrong. (If that link gets scrubbed under Trump, then we can use this one.) Housing First works better, and it’s more humane. It’s better all around.
The vote:
We support Housing First: Amanda, Alyssa, Jane, Shane, Saul
We don’t: Mark, Matthew
Amanda #6: There is no section on Housing in our Guiding Principles. We should have a Housing section.
In the Housing Section, Amanda recommends:
- That we support legislative action that prevents unnecessary evictions
- To promote housing stability and protecting tenants from undue hardships
The vote: 7-0
Mark is deeply suspicious, though.
Amanda #7: Support legislative action that seals a tenants eviction records in the event that a court rules in their favor
Mark and Matthew are both gobsmacked that this is not already the case. A tenant can win in court, but landlords can still use their eviction against them? Yes, currently.
The vote: 7-0
Mark is so suspicious! He literally says, “How is this not already the case?! WHATEVER. Yes.”
Amanda #8: Support budgetary measures to increase state funding for low income housing in Texas, especially for the most cost-burdened households that are at or below 50% of the AMI.
The vote: 7-0.
Amanda #9: Remove the whole carve-out for SMART/Axis.
This brings us back around to the Citizen Comment, four hours ago! (Backstory on the SMART/Axis development here.)
Mark: Hard no. We have to increase and diversify our tax base! People don’t realize what that development could mean to this community! All the jobs! This is PRIME for development! I-10, Toll road, railroad, and airport! JOBS! JOBS! Major mistake! In 50 years, this will be the most important bullet point in this whole document!
Matthew: We just postponed due to second-guessing HSAB board and here we are, second-guessing this board! There aren’t smokestacks. This is environmental protection! Do you really want SMART/Axis to go to Caldwell county? Plus Gary Job Corp is right there.
(This is the weakest argument I’ve ever heard.)
Amanda: I’m not opposed to diversifying and growing our tax base. This is a very specific major development that arose through shady means. The entire city is not behind this development. Nowhere else in this document are we so specific.
Mark: Because it’s 3000 acres! Nowhere else in the COUNTRY has this opportunity! DC wants to hear how we’re diversifying. This is amazeballs!
The vote:
Remove the carve-out for SMART/Axis: Alyssa, Amanda
Keep it: Jane, Shane, Mark, Matthew, and Saul
So that stays.
That’s all of the amendments!
…
After this, we have a series of little items:
- the $2 million on tree-trimming
- the $6 million to the LCRA
- we officially the money back to Tantra
- an appointment to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee
But Council zips through these, and so will I.
The San Marxist 