Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Village Center Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Germantown adds Graef to village‑center outreach; board directs RFP with three consultants
Summary
The Village Board voted to add Graef to the list of consultants for community engagement on the Pilgrim and Mequon intersection redevelopment and asked staff to prepare an RFP including Graef, Rinka and Van de Waal for board review at the next meeting.
The Germantown Village Board voted to add Graef to the list of consultants available to lead community engagement on the Pilgrim and Mequon intersection redevelopment — the project the board and staff are calling the “village center” — and directed staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) that includes Graef, Rinka and Van de Waal for review at the next board meeting.
The action followed a long discussion by trustees about whether to continue with earlier consultants already engaged on preliminary work or to hire an outside firm for a “fresh perspective.” Administrator Kraklo presented alternatives and said the village needs outside professional resources for additional in‑person and online engagement. He told the board Rinka could complete outreach more quickly and at lower cost because it has already prepared concepts, while Van de Waal had estimated a larger, more comprehensive scope and a cost of roughly $40,000. Rinka’s additional community engagement was estimated at $5,000–$10,000.
Why it matters: the Pilgrim and Mequon intersection parcels sit at the heart of the village’s long‑range plan for a village center. Board members and residents said a clear community engagement process and follow‑up zoning or design guidelines are necessary before development proceeds; some members also linked the discussion to tax increment financing (TID) and the village budget.
Trustee Jan Miller moved to add Graef to the consultant list and Trustee Katz seconded the motion. After debate the motion passed; several trustees voted no or abstained, and trustees asked staff to draft an RFP that defines deliverables, meeting formats, visuals and cost caps and return the RFP to the board for review. Trustee Dave Baum asked the board to make the RFP specific about deliverables (for example: number and format of neighborhood meetings, sample visual illustrations of building heights and densities, and the number of online engagement tools). President Soderbergh said staff will collect trustee suggestions for the RFP and present a draft at the next board meeting.
Residents who addressed the board during public comment urged a community engagement vendor other than Rinka. Melanie Smythe, a Germantown resident, said, “Graef did an admirable job on the work at the workshops on the 2050 plan, and they were nonpartisan, unlike Rinka,” and asked that Graef be considered. Other residents asked that the village keep engagement materials and administrator performance goals in open session and requested clearer financial summaries tied to TID activity.
Board members emphasized different priorities: some said visuals and concept boards are needed so residents can compare two‑, three‑ and four‑story building examples; others said the priority should be new zoning guidelines (density, height, signage and materials) rather than another site layout. Several trustees also asked that the village clarify whether Graef, Rinka or Van de Waal would provide only engagement or a fuller package including zoning illustrations and draft code language.
Next steps: staff will draft an RFP that includes the three consultants for the board to review and will solicit trustee input on required deliverables, meeting formats and budget caps. The board set review of the RFP as the next step before selecting a consultant to lead community engagement on the village center.
