The Talent Urban Renewal Agency voted unanimously on Sept. 17 to publish a revised request for qualifications for the Gateway redevelopment site after the board and staff agreed on wording and scoring changes.

Staff presentation and board discussion focused on readability of the RFQ, the level of detail publicized about scoring, and the relative weights for evaluation categories. Staff said the updated draft clarifies the middle-income household definition, adds indoor/sheltered bicycle storage language, emphasizes that parking rules are fluid, and includes attachments describing evaluation criteria and scoring spreadsheets for internal use.

Board members agreed to remove two internal columns from the publicly distributed document: the detailed scoring guidance and score recommendations. The board also approved three scoring changes: +5 points to the first environmental‑stewardship/climate‑change category (trees/vegetation), +5 points to open space and connectivity, and +5 points to the degree of expected public financial support. Staff recorded a related wording edit that would change a sentence characterizing a development team that seeks donated land from language that "insists" to the neutral phrasing "requires" the land be donated.

During the meeting, board members discussed the balance of priorities, with several saying they wanted to emphasize housing and commercial outcomes while also adding weight to connectivity and environmental measures. One board member suggested grouping environmental categories; others preferred keeping separate categories for vegetation and broader climate measures because they require different design responses.

The motion to "direct staff to publish the gateway redevelopment request for qualifications as amended" was moved and seconded; a roll-call vote recorded all board members present as voting yes. Staff said Matt Brinkley was unavailable but a subcontractor will finalize layout and staff will publish the RFQ with the agreed amendments. Board members also discussed a future process for reviewing proposals and named concerns about public access, quorum rules, and whether a subcommittee should be advisory to staff or make recommendations to the board. Some members preferred public interviews and open scoring discussions; staff noted public‑meeting-law constraints if a body of board members will meet to make recommendations.

Ending: The board directed staff to publish the RFQ as amended and asked staff to return with a proposed selection/committee plan at a future meeting so the board can finalize who will review and recommend applicants.