The subcommittee agreed to divide responsibility for reviewing model requests for proposals so members can report back at a Sept. 17 meeting and begin drafting an RFP template.

Leah (Staff member) introduced a packet of RFP examples and said the city had previously used an RFP for downtown lots that included an affordable housing ask. “The city did an RFP for development of downtown lots, and 1 of the 1 of the projects that was requested was affordable housing,” Leah said. Members suggested assigning two or three examples to each reviewer, with one member volunteering to review three documents and others taking two.

Members identified the following elements they want compared across models: period of affordability, AMI (area median income) targeting, scoring metrics, whether stated items are strict requirements or preferences, accessibility and universal design considerations, and required project elements such as family‑sized units. Marielle (board member) said, “I would think that 2 things that would be good to compare across it ... would be the period of affordability as well as ... the AMI requirements.”

Several members suggested the subcommittee use a simple review template (project elements, what you like, what you don’t) and to return materials by the Friday before the Sept. 17 meeting so those writeups can be attached to the agenda. Leah said she will circulate a document and that agendas require attachments be submitted the Friday before the meeting.

Leah also flagged an internal constraint: the city purchasing policy requires RFPs to go through the purchasing office, and prior practice limited the number of non‑staff reviewers on some procurement review committees. “Our purchasing policy requires all RFPs to go through purchasing. And it only allows like, for the housing study, it we were only allowed 1 non staff city staffer on the committee,” Leah said. She said she will check which elements of standard city RFP policy must be followed for this RFP and where the subcommittee can exercise flexibility.

The meeting produced no formal decisions; the group set assignments, an internal deadline for materials to be attached to the Sept. 17 agenda, and a plan to use the Sept. 17 meeting largely for report‑outs and template drafting.