Talent Urban Renewal Agency approves revised Gateway RFQ, removes detailed scoring guidance

The Talent Urban Renewal Agency voted to direct staff to publish the Gateway Redevelopment Request for Qualifications (RFQ) as amended after a lengthy discussion about scoring guidance and committee structure.

Board members and staff agreed to remove the fine-grained scoring guidance columns from the materials that will be made public and to adjust point weights in the evaluation rubric. According to staff summary and board discussion, the RFQ packet already clarifies the city’s expectation for commercial development, brings a middle‑income household definition forward, adds indoor/shelter bicycle storage, and clarifies parking rules in the Leland attachment.

The board debated whether to publish the detailed scoring guidance that had been included in the packet. Alex, a staff presenter, recommended withholding the two scoring‑guidance columns while keeping the categories, subcategories and point ranges visible to prospective respondents. "Eliminate not published — the last two columns, the scoring guidance or the score recommendation," Alex said during the discussion.

Members discussed the relative weights assigned to evaluation topics. Staff described the current distribution as 25 points for housing, 25 for commercial development, 20 for environmental stewardship/climate change, 10 for open space/connectivity and 20 for urban design and architecture. Several members argued for increasing emphasis on connectivity and on higher‑level environmental and climate outcomes. After exchanges about whether categories should be grouped or kept distinct, staff and the board agreed on a compromise: remove the detailed scoring guidance (columns four and five) and add 5 points each to (1) the first environmental stewardship/climate change category, (2) open space and connections, and (3) the degree of expected public financial support (the anticipated write‑down of land and subsidy).

Before voting, staff summarized the agreed language for the record: remove columns 4 and 5, add 5 points to the first environmental stewardship and climate change box, add 5 points to open space and connections, and add 5 points to the degree of expected public financial support. "So I think what we've discussed is removing the fourth and fifth column, adding 5 points to ... environmental stewardship and climate change, adding 5 points to the open space connections and 5 points in degree of expected public financial support," Alex said in summarizing the amendments.

A motion to "direct staff to publish the gateway redevelopment request for qualifications as amended" was made and seconded; the subsequent roll call produced affirmative votes and the motion carried.

Votes at a glance: - Consent calendar (items 3.1–3.3): Motion to approve moved by Member Coley; second recorded; roll call recorded unanimous affirmative vote. (Recorded in the transcript as passed.) - RFQ publication as amended: Motion to direct staff to publish the RFQ as amended moved by a board member identified in the record as Councillor Potomaroff; second recorded; roll call produced unanimous affirmative votes and the motion carried.

Board members also discussed how to structure the RFQ selection process. The chair proposed forming a recommending subcommittee composed of members of the Urban Renewal Agency to work closely with staff on application review and scoring and then report recommendations to the full board. Some members favored an advisory group that would work with staff; others expressed concern that a subcommittee or any group of mixed staff and board members could trigger open‑meetings requirements.

A legal/staff advisor (recorded as Davis in the transcript) clarified that whether the group is made up solely of board members or of board members plus staff, it may be considered a public body for purposes of open‑meetings law if it makes recommendations to the board. Board members expressed a desire for transparency given the project's public scale but also concern about protecting applicants during interviews. The board agreed to delay appointing individual members to any selection group because one member was absent; staff were asked to capture the agreed structure and return with a proposal at a future meeting.

The meeting adjourned after a brief break and the board indicated it would take the appointments up at a later date.

Notes and attribution: Direct quotes and attributed positions in this article are taken from the meeting transcript. Speaker names and titles are used as they appear in the record (e.g., "Member Coley," "Alex," "Chair Ayerslood"). Where the transcript shows inconsistent name spellings across roll call and discussion, the article follows the name form used at the first attributable utterance for each quoted passage.