AGENDA CAPTION:
Title
Receive a Staff presentation and consider approval of Resolution 2025-225R, allocating to non-profit agencies Human Services Grant funding of $750,000 from the City’s General Fund and additional funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA); authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to act as the official representative of the City in matters related to said grant funds, including authorization to execute funding contracts with selected agencies on behalf of the City; and declaring an effective date.
Body
Meeting date: November 18, 2025
Department: Planning and Development Services
Amount & Source of Funding
Funds Required: $750,000
Account Number: 10001275 - Social Services Agency
Funds Available: Yes, FY2026 Budget
Account Name: Social Services Agency
Fiscal Note:
Prior Council Action: Click or tap here to enter text.
City Council Strategic Initiative: [Please select from the dropdown menu below]
Quality of Life & Sense of Place
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Comprehensive Plan Element (s): [Please select the Plan element(s) and Goal # from dropdown menu below]
☐ Economic Development - Choose an item.
☐ Environment & Resource Protection - Choose an item.
☐ Land Use - Choose an item.
☐ Neighborhoods & Housing - Choose an item.
☐ Parks, Public Spaces & Facilities - Choose an item.
☐ Transportation - Choose an item.
☐ Core Services
☒ Not Applicable
Master Plan: [Please select the corresponding Master Plan from the dropdown menu below (if applicable)]
Choose an item.
Background Information:
Annually the Human Services Advisory Board (HSAB), a City Council-appointed board, reviews applications for funding allocated to Human Services Grants through the City’s budget. For the FY2026 year, City Council allocated $750,000 for these grants. Applications totaling $1.2 million were received from 25 agencies for 32 programs. The attached blank application contains the eligibility requirements and evaluation criteria.
BOARD ORIENTATION
In order to provide objectivity, all applications were scored by the Board members on the criteria contained in the attached blank application. At the Board orientation in August and again before the discussion meetings in October, staff reviewed with the Board some key principles of funding based on the City Council guidance and other feedback received in the past. These include:
• The goal is to select the programs that will have the most impact on the highest priority needs of this community.
• The application does not specify any preference for uses of funding (for example, there is no preference for paying for direct services vs operational costs or other uses.)
• Do not place more weight on personal passions
• Do not include perceived additional resources in your consideration.
• Consider highest priority needs for San Marcos
• Look for most impact (either depth or breadth).
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed each application individually, sorted by rank, considering the scores, amount of funding requested, and the impact of each program on the services needed in San Marcos. They held a thorough discussion of the merits of each. All board members actively participated in the discussion. To account for different scoring ranges, the Board members’ scores were designated as “low” (pink), “medium” (yellow), or “high” (green) so the Board could compare results for each program.
The funding decision was made separately for each program but just to organize it for the presentation, the list is ordered by the amount of funding recommended compared to amount requested. The board chose to allocate some funding to all but one of the programs.
Referring to the attached presentation:
(slides 11-13) The board recommends that sixteen of the programs receive the amount requested. For those sixteen
• Services for domestic abuse survivors and the direct provision of food had the highest combined scores.
• Three programs were seen as providing a big impact for the amount requested - Centro Esperanza, the Housing Authority’s Resident Services Coordination, and a new rental assistance program being set up by Community Action of Central Texas.
• Other programs fully funded were seen as providing a strong impact for the amount requested, and it was noted that the last five programs shown on the slide are unique.
(slide 14) Five programs are recommended to receive most of the funding requested The Board noted that the need for mental health services is particularly high at this time.
(slide 15) The next five programs are recommended to receive about 2/3 of the funding requested. These continue the themes of providing support for mental health programs, domestic abuse, and rental assistance.
(slide 16) The three programs shown on slide 16 are recommended to receive half the funding they requested.
• The Board discussed the fact that Southside Community Center had already received $800,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funding through the City to establish the Homelessness Prevention program.
• They felt that Nosotros La Gente’s presentation about their emergency assistance program was less clear than their shoes and coats program presentation, and noted that it appears this organization has mostly relied on City funding in the past few years, without showing action on other fundraising.
• The Board noted that while the San Marcos Youth Services Bureau provides a good service, it does not serve as many people as other personal support programs, and is not as technical as the mental health programs run by other organizations.
(slide 17) The board desired to fund two programs at some level, but not at the amount requested.
• Angels for Our Elders received praise for being a grass-roots organization that supports culturally appropriate programs and interaction for seniors, especially those alone in their homes. The board supports the organization’s desire to expand their services; however, it was stated that their board should have additional members who are local, and that the risk of contracting with this organization is higher because it is not established as an agency or a 501(c)(3).
• The application from Hill Country MHMR for the Youth Crisis Respite Center program generated a lot of discussion. The Board acknowledges that the need for mental health support for teens is at a critical level right now, and that this program is excellent. However, it was discussed that $180,000 was a very large request for a first-time application, and the agency did not make clear why this amount was needed at this time.
• Texas Rio Grande Legal Aide proposed providing a multi-faceted civil legal services program for low income residents of San Marcos. They requested $200,000 for an estimated 140 clients, or a minimum of $100,000 to start the program and serve approximately 75 clients. The Board believed that San Marcos residents would receive more impact for less money by funding other organizations and other needs.
Overall, the board funded requests related to food and domestic abuse most highly, along with fully funding Any Baby Can’s request for important early intervention in children’s lives. Community Center services and community education received the next highest proportion of funding requested. Emergency Assistance and Mental Health services were discussed as critical needs right now, but the funding amount was balanced against prior City-related funding for emergency assistance and the desire to programs other than mental health that have a broad impact on the community.
Council Committee, Board/Commission Action:
The Board met October 15 and 22 for discussion, and is pleased to provide the attached recommendation for funding allocations. Please see attached pdf recommendation list and presentation for details.
Alternatives:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the allocations recommended by the Human Services Advisory Board as presented.