Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rfp Developer Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional planning commission outlines RFP process and funding paths; committee schedules July 2 follow-up
Summary
Southwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission outlined an RFP process to find development partners for the Richland County campus, explaining evaluation criteria, fairness controls and likely public funding sources; the committee scheduled a July 2 follow-up meeting to review an additional proposal.
The Southwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission presented a proposed request-for-proposals (RFP) process to the Richland County Campus Reconfiguration Committee to identify potential development partners for the county campus.
Troy Nagy, director at the Southwest Regional Planning Commission, and a colleague outlined a scope that would prepare an RFP describing timetables, submission requirements, desired development types and ownership structures, and a scoring matrix to evaluate respondents. The presenters said they would post a public Q&A to keep the process fair, screen respondent insurance and references, and rate experience, funding depth and proposed public benefits.
Why it matters: the RFP will shape what kinds of development proposals the county receives, how bidders demonstrate financing and how the county evaluates trade-offs between private investment and public incentives.
The presenters said grant writing was not included in the current RFP scope but could be quoted separately; they recommended asking bidders to identify funding streams they would pursue for their proposed uses. Troy Nagy and the panel named potential public funding sources that bidders commonly reference: U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants for industrial projects, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) programs, Wisconsin Department of Administration infrastructure or housing-related funds (referred to in discussion as WIDA/WD A-type programs), and municipal tax-increment financing (TIF). Nagy said the city had significant TIF capacity and advised an early, informal conversation with city staff to confirm local support.
Committee members asked how grants are typically pursued. The presenters said developers often lead financing efforts, but the RFP could require bidders to disclose which incentives they would need and how they plan to secure them. The presenters described a kickoff process of two or three meetings to finalize RFP contents with the committee and noted they have managed comparable procurement and can compare respondent track records.
No formal contract award was made. Committee members requested that staff collect another proposal for review; the committee set a follow-up meeting for 5 p.m. on July 2 to receive an alternate proposal and continue RFP planning. The presenters agreed to leave their written RFP scope, deliverables and costs for committee review and to participate in follow-up meetings as requested.
