Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rfp Template Thomas Street topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff present reusable RFP template for Thomas Street property; committee debates sale vs. long-term lease

Marathon County Human Resources, Finance & Property Committee (joint with Extension Education & Economic Development Committee) · November 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff presented a reusable RFP template using the former Thomas Street social‑services building as an example and invited committee feedback on evaluation criteria and disposition options.

Marathon County staff presented a template request‑for‑proposals (RFP) intended for reuse on multiple county properties and used the Thomas Street property (former social services building) as the immediate example. The template is designed to solicit a broad array of proposals and to allow proposers to bid on purchase, long‑term lease, or other disposition structures.

Administrator Lance Leonard and staff explained the template draws on examples from other jurisdictions and prior county RFPs. Staff said the credit union currently occupying the Thomas Street building has acquired a new site and plans to leave the county property in 2026; staff warned that IT infrastructure serving the credit union runs through River Drive and cannot be decommissioned until the credit union no longer requires it.

Supervisors debated evaluation criteria and whether the RFP should prefer sale over lease. Vice Chair Pfeiffer and others said sale/divestment is generally preferable to avoid the county becoming a long‑term landlord; some supervisors asked that evaluation criteria explicitly consider property‑tax impacts and neighborhood priorities. One supervisor suggested keeping leasing as an option if the county receives insufficient purchase offers.

The proposed RFP included a 15‑page proposal limit with an option to submit addenda; staff said they can allow addenda to provide supporting detail while keeping the main response concise. Administration committed to further edits reflecting committee feedback, to contact the credit union for an updated relocation timeline, and to return with proposed release dates.

No final disposition was approved for Thomas Street at this meeting; staff expect to return with a revised template and a recommended schedule for issuing the RFP.