12-19-22 meeting

Julio Gonzalez Altamirano

Dear Colleagues,

As we prepare for our special December 19th meeting to deliberate on Rosemont proposals, are there any suggestions on the format of the meeting?

I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the format. Here's a draft format based that I think will be satisfactory to the entire board. I've also added my expectation of how much time we would need for each part of the agenda.

Citizen testimony (30 minutes)
Presentation of bids and scores for each. The staff tells us their scoring and highlight any quirks in the proposals they deem noteworthy. (20 minutes)
Deliberation on scoring. While still in the public part of the meeting, the Directors ask questions to staff about scoring and the bids. (10 minutes)
Executive Session. The Board deliberates about the merits of the different proposals and selects a path forward. Staff can present their recommendations during executive session. (60 minutes)
Adopt resolution for action. We adopt a resolution for action that selects a winner and outlines the next steps - including potential negotiations with the winner - to complete the transaction. (15 minutes)
Adjourn

I didn't include a portion for the respondents to present their proposals. Though I am not opposed to it! In theory, they can use a slot in citizen testimony to make a pitch. Would other folks be interested explicitly inviting them and hearing their pitches?

Finally, is there any independent research that Directors would like the staff to do in addition to the scoring work?

In terms of timeframe: let's try and have all our potential suggestions ready for the staff and the meeting Chair by this Wednesday at 5pm so everyone has plenty of time to prepare for/communicate about the meeting format? Is that enough time for the Directors?

Thank you.

JGA

Lisa Rheams

Yes Time should be ok for me and the format is fine.

Kecia Prince

I agree with the time and format

Jan Wenig

Sorry for my delayed response. I have contracted RSV, and while I am on the mend, I am still contagious. So I have arranged to participate remotely in Monday's meeting -- including ensuring that there will be adequate remote connection during the anticipated Executive Session. Per Patrick, members who participate remotely have the same opportunities for comment and to vote, as do members who participate in person.

Given the recent increase in public interest in the sale of Rosemont and the preservation of permanent affordability, I would like to ensure that we are prepared to welcome public comment, and that we allocate sufficient time for community testimony.

Kecia Prince

I'm sorry that you are sick. I'm glad that you are getting better and that you can attend the meeting remotely.

Jan Wenig

Once again, apologies for the late entry in re: tomorrow's meeting. I have reviewed the materials provided by staff, and want express my appreciation to them for the work to collect all the bids, apply the scoring criteria, and provide us with their assessment. I do have some questions on a few of the scores, which I can raise tomorrow; one appears to be a simple arithmetic error. (But since I am a bit under the weather, it could be that it is I who is misreading something.)

I look forward to joining my colleagues [remotely] tomorrow to move forward with our deliberations. Thanks again to the staff and to all the Board members for the considerable work effort it has taken to get us to this decisive point in the review process.

Julio Gonzalez Altamirano

I want to echo Director Wenig's commendations to the staff for pulling together the scoring so nimbly and transparently. The staff scoring report is detailed, clear, and reasonable. I believe it will serve us well as a point of departure for our discussions today. Thank you, SHFC staff!

Below are some modest adjustments to the staff scoring based on my own processing of our criteria. I will be submitting these into the record of our meeting but do not intend to discuss them at length or take action on them. They are supplementary information to the staff scoring.

Director Gonzalez Altamirano's scoring

Capital A. 100 points. Grant the 10 points for support services as the proposal's intent is to create sustainable, permanent funding for their provision.

Foundation Communities. 100 points. The 5 bonus points awarded for support services are not merited as (1) their services proposal is in-line with the expectation of the 10 standard points already awarded and (2) the funding sustainability of the proposed support services is unclear.

Hayden Glade. 90 points. The 5 bonus points awarded for deep affordability are not merited as that affordability is premised on a unique funding level by Travis County. Similarly, the 2 bonus points awarded for support services are not merited as (1) the support services proposal is in-line with the expectation of the 10 standard points already awarded and (2) the funding sustainability of the proposed services is unclear. Additionally, the proposal does not provide "credible evidence" of a track-record of providing "high satisfaction" services in affordable housing projects.

Mission DG. 60 points. While the proposal extends the LURA, it does not agree to a 99-year restrictive covenant or explicitly to other affordability provisions. It does not pass tenant responsiveness or the threshold for permanent affordability. Additionally, the proposal does not provide "credible evidence" of a track-record of providing "high satisfaction" services in affordable housing projects.

Kecia Prince

I agree with what Jan and Julio has said regarding the staff scoring of the RFP's.