Village Board — Agenda packet

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM BOARD MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026, 7:00 PM 9996 Water Street- Village Hall VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1853 NOTE: THIS MEETING WILL BE SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD VIA TELECONFERENCING. STAFF, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MANNER. TELECONFERENCING WILL BE AVAILABLE BY COMPUTER, PHONE, TABLET, OR DIAL-IN. CONNECTION INFORMATION BELOW: 1. Call to Order: 2. Quorum: 3. Changes in Agenda: 4. Visitors’ Comments: 5. Approval of Previous Minutes: 6. President’s Comments: 7. Consent Agenda Items: 8. Administration: a) Presentation of annual report from Destination Door County and Door County Tourism Zone b) Discussion and Consideration regarding – Combination Class “B” and “Class C” Alcohol Beverage Retailers License: 1. Waterbury Inn Owners Association – dba Waterbury Inn – 10321 Water St c) Discussion and Consideration regarding Administration building and Village Hall project planning, design and options d) Discussion regarding draft Protected Waterfront Ordinance e) Discussion regarding North path tree planting 9. Wastewater: a) Discussion and Consideration regarding WW request to send out an RFP for Solar Project 10. Airport: a) Discussion and Consideration regarding right of first refusal for hangar A4 b) Discussion and Consideration regarding sale of hangar A4 from Mary Houck to Fabian Waleffe c) Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Fabian Waleffe for hangar A4 11. Committee Minutes for review 12. New Business for Next Meeting: 13. Adjournment: Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://meet.goto.com/772912365 You can also dial in using your phone. Access Code: 772-912-365 United States: +1 (646) 749-3122 *Deviation from the listed order may occur*** Please note, that upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information please contact Andrea Collak, Clerk Village of Ephraim, PO Box 138, Ephraim, WI 54211 Date: 8 /7/2026 Andrea Collak, Clerk X Village Administrative Office X Visitors’ Center X Post Office Kim Roberts, Deputy Clerk X Website: ephraim.wi.gov X Emailed to WDOR Radio/Peninsula Pulse 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM VILLAGE BOARD MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 – 7:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET- EPHRAIM VILLAGE HALL Present: Ken Nelson – Chair/President, Rick Hoyerman, Matt Meacham, Carly Mulliken, Tim Nelson Staff: Brent Bristol -Village Administrator, Andrea Collak - Clerk-Treasurer Guests in-person: Kim Roberts, Michael McCutcheon, Kelsey Stone, Lane Methner, John Cox, Keith Krist, Ken Pabich, Sean Donohue Guests online: BD Thorp, Angie, J. Larson, Michael Miller, Margaret, CR 1. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Quorum: A quorum was present for the meeting. 3. Changes to the agenda: There were no changes to the agenda. 4. Visitors’ Comments: Past President Mike McCutcheon offered a brief public safety note, urging the public that in any emergency, they should call 9-1-1 rather than individual officials, as dispatch can direct the right resources efficiently. He then shared a story written by Kevin and Wanda McDonald, titled "A Story of a Dog Named Ghilli and a Village," about McDonald’s family who had adopted a two-year-old Airedale terrier named Ghilli from a Chicago rescue organization, and brought her to Ephraim for the Fourth of July holiday. During the visit, Ghilli was startled and bolted, escaping during the family gathering. Over the following four days—from July 1st through July 5th—the McDonald family searched desperately for the dog, enlisting the help of what grew into a village-wide effort. They in their letter described how the search spread organically through the community, with neighbors, visitors, gardeners, veterinary contacts, the non-emergency sheriff's line, firefighters, dog trappers, and complete strangers all participating. They named dozens of individuals from Ephraim, Bailey's Harbor, and Sister Bay who joined the effort on foot, bicycle, and by vehicle at all hours. They recounted multiple sightings that gave hope and eventually led to Ghilli being found on the afternoon of July 5th, tangled by her leash around a tree on Wilder Lane, miraculously unharmed. They concluded by thanking the entire village of Ephraim and Door County, saying: "This is truly a special place—more than just its beauty, but also its people." They noted the quote shared by one of the searchers, "It takes a village," from Hillary Clinton's 1996 childern’s book, and said it perfectly captured what the community had demonstrated. No other visitors' comments were offered. 5. Approval of previous minutes: Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2026 meeting, all ayes. Motion carried. Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2026, Closed Session meeting, all ayes. Motion carried. 2 Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of the June 22, 2026 Special Board meeting, all ayes. Motion carried. 6. President’s Comments: K. Nelson shared that the Village of Ephraim had, the previous afternoon, successfully acquired the parcel of property located north of the Firehouse Marina. He extended his thanks to Keith Christ, who was present at the meeting, and to Christ’s relatives, the Rispens, for giving the Village the first opportunity to come to an agreement and for their cooperation in bringing the transaction to close. K. Nelson noted that the acquisition would be discussed further under the relevant agenda item. 7. Consent Agenda Items: Mulliken moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the consent agenda items as presented, T. Nelson abstained, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. Administration: a. Presentation of quarterly report from Ephraim Business Council: Kelsey Stone and Lane Methner from the Ephraim Business Council (EBC) presented their quarterly report, covering several highlights from the season. Fyr Bal Festival: Methner began by describing the 61st Annual Fyr Bal Festival as a tremendous success. The weather was beautiful, attendance was strong, and feedback from both community members and visitors was positive. The Viking cultural elements reflecting Ephraim's Scandinavian heritage were noted as particularly meaningful. Stone added that longtime community figure BD Thorp had been named the 61st Fyr Bal Chieftain, which she said was "very well deserved." The medallion presented to BD was handcrafted by local artist John Balistreri of Balistreri Fine Art. She praised Thorp’s moving speech about his Ephraim roots. Lane extended gratitude to all businesses and community members who contributed to the fireworks show, as it remains a significant expense. Both thanked village staff for their ongoing support in making the festival a success. North End Path Celebration: Stone described a celebration held two days after Fyr Bal on the newly completed North End Path. Businesses on both sides of Highway 42 at the north end of town participated in open houses, sidewalk sales, and pop-up tents. The event coincided with the kickoff of the first Farmers Market of the season. Evenings in Ephraim: Both presenters noted that the ongoing Evenings in Ephraim series had been well-attended. The Farmers Market runs Mondays from 3–6 PM at the Red Putter, followed by concerts in Harborside Park from 6–8 PM. Seven are still left. Stone encouraged all board members to attend. Visitor Information Center: Methner reported that the Visitor Information Center, located across from the Old Post Office restaurant, had been open since early May with four staff members. Hours are Monday through Saturday, 10 AM to 5 PM. The center carries Ephraim-branded merchandise including hats and t-shirts. Stone and Methner closed by thanking the Village Board and staff for their continued partnership. K. Nelson thanked EBC for organizing the ribbon-cutting ceremony. 3 b. Discussion and Consideration regarding distribution of $10,529.28 received from Door County Tourism Zone Commission for 250th anniversary celebration: K. Nelson opened this item by providing background. He noted that in April, while serving on the Door County Tourism Zone alongside Matt Meacham and Missy LeBelle, he had raised the topic of the nation's 250th anniversary and what could be done to mark it. At a subsequent meeting, the Tourism Zone voted to distribute $100,000 back across the Door County’s contributing municipalities, proportioned by each municipality's room tax contribution. The Village of Ephraim received a check for $10,529.28. K. Nelson offered a suggestion for how to allocate the funds. He explained that the Village had planted a Liberty Elm tree and that a bronze plaque was currently being mounted on a stone—total cost estimated at approximately $2,000. He recommended that the remaining balance, after covering the Liberty Tree plaque and ceremony costs, be transferred to the Ephraim Business Council—specifically earmarked for future fireworks. Mulliken expressed support, noting that while it was a one-time transfer, it would "make a really big difference" and help offset the significant ongoing expense of fireworks for events like Fyr Bal. T. Nelson said he agreed that distribution. Meacham also agreed. Hoyerman agreed as well and raised the question of whether the board could request that the EBC specifically earmark the funds for fireworks. K. Nelson said that was appropriate given the stated purpose of the Tourism Zone's disbursement, referencing their memo encouraging funds be used for event-related expenses or cost offsets. Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded, to approve the balance of the $10,529.28, less the cost of the Liberty Elm tree and plaque cost, be transfered to the Ephraim Business Council for future fireworks, all ayes. Motion carried. c. Discussion and Consideration regarding Village of Ephraim capital reserve fund(s) for Anderson Dock maintenance/endowment and fund usage guidelines: K. Nelson opened the discussion by summarizing the history: over many years, the Village had been setting aside money in a capital account called the "Anderson Dock Cement" fund, originally intended for concrete repair work. The current balance stands at approximately $33,800, with an annual contribution of roughly $1,908.88—approximately $2,000 per year. He noted that in a recent review of all capital accounts, the board found they were setting aside approximately $20,000 less per year than needed across all accounts, including vehicles and fire equipment. The conversation, he said, was about whether to rename and repurpose this fund—potentially as an Anderson Dock reconstruction or replacement fund—and whether to consider a second, separate account for donated funds. T. Nelson confirmed that the fund had indeed been established specifically for concrete maintenance. The money had never been spent and the accumulated balance was "not even close to enough" to address the need, hence the current reconstruction project estimated at over $1.7 million, with construction expected to begin in the fall of 2027. He suggested renaming the fund as a "reconstruction fund" and noted the importance of continuing contributions, even if $2,000 per year over 50 years would yield only $100,000 against a much larger eventual need. McCutcheon then came forward to offer context from the fundraising task force perspective. He explained that potential major donors would likely ask what the Village itself was contributing to a project involving a municipally-owned structure. Having a dedicated capital account with ongoing Village pledges would be a meaningful answer to that question. He also mentioned that the Door County Community Foundation had suggested the task force aim for a $1,000,000 endowment—though 4 no money had yet been collected. He said that even the seed of $33,800 and a commitment to ongoing contributions would help the task force when approaching donors. Mulliken added that the fundraising group had been working with the Door County Community Foundation on materials and that the concept of a "50-year fund" had resonated well with them. She noted the importance of being able to communicate to potential donors exactly what their money would be used for, and raised the issue of two separate accounts: one for reconstruction costs and one for endowment-style maintenance beyond regular operations—such as large-scale power washing or graffiti abatement—that the Village's own staff resources could not handle. She stressed that the uses of the two accounts must be kept clearly distinct when soliciting donations. T. Nelson agreed with the two-account concept, expressing a preference to avoid the word "endowment" and suggesting "extra maintenance" as a more descriptive label for the second fund. K. Nelson noted that Option 1 in the capital account framework would simply be continuing the existing $2,000 annual contribution, resulting in roughly $133,800 to $135,000 after 50 years when combined with the current balance—a meaningful starting figure, even if far short of full reconstruction costs. Bristol added a broader financial caution, noting that while the Village's fund balances were in better shape than initially feared going into the review, the levy tax increase limit imposed by state law made it very difficult to suddenly find an additional $20,000–$40,000 per year for capital contributions. He suggested that room tax funds or PRAT funds could potentially be used to seed future capital accounts, though he cautioned that those accounts had already been drawn down significantly by projects like the North Path, the maintenance garage, and other recent initiatives. He suggested the budget process in September would be the appropriate time to work through specific contribution levels. The consensus of the Board would establish what the accounts are for and what the goals are, and revisit contribution amounts during the budget process. He acknowledged that with the fundraising still in its early stages, specific numbers would likely become clearer in the next couple of years. No formal motion was taken on this item; the discussion was understood to be directional, informing the upcoming budget process and the fundraising task force's communications. d. Discussion and Consideration regarding Anderson Dock Fundraising Focus Group term extension: K. Nelson noted that the Anderson Dock Fundraising Task Force's original one-year term had expired the prior month, and he asked Mike McCutcheon whether he would be willing to continue. Mike responded the he would carry it through the end. K. Nelson proposed extending the task force's term by two years, which would carry it through the summer of 2028. He explained that by that time, the fundraising effort should be largely complete and the reconstruction project well underway, providing clear answers to the questions the board was currently working through. The two-year window, he said, "should give the task force enough time to complete their work." Tim seconded the motion with the added specification that Mike McCutcheon would continue to lead the effort, which drew a brief laugh. Mulliken moved, Meacham seconded, to approve the Anderson Dock Fundraising Task Force 2 years term extension with Mike McCutcehon leading the effort until 2028 to complete the work, all ayes. Motion carried. 5 e. Discussion and Consideration regarding – Combination Class “B” and “Class C” Alcohol Beverage Retailers License: 1. Project Zulu LLC - dba Bad Moravian/Ephraim Coffee Lab – 3055 Church St 2. Wilder Inn LLC – dba Wilder Inn – 10013 Poplar St Meacham moved, Hoyerman seconded, to approve the Combination Class “B” and “Class C” Alcohol Beverage Retailers Licenses for Project Zulu LLC dba Bad Moravian/Ephraim Coffee Lab at 3055 Church Street and Wilder Inn LLC dba Wilder Inn at 10013 Poplar Street, dependent on passed fire and health inspection, Mulliken abstained, all ayes. Motion carried. f. Discussion and Consideration regarding Door County Emergency Communication Tower Project Draft Intergovernmental Agreement and Easement and exemption from Ephraim tower ordinance: Bristol summarized the item. The Village's attorney and the county's legal counsel had reviewed the documents and reached agreement on the terms of the lease and intergovernmental agreement. The matter had gone before the Plan Committee two weeks prior, which passed a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the intergovernmental agreement, the easement, and a waiver of the applicable sections of the Village's tower ordinance—limited to this project only. Bristol noted one refinement since the Plan Committee review: the committee had suggested moving the tower compound slightly to the northwest from the original southeast corner location on the German Road property, in order to preserve a small vegetative buffer of existing trees along both the eastern and southern boundaries. He confirmed that the County had indicated it was comfortable with this adjustment. No board members raised questions for the county representatives present at the meeting, and the Board moved directly to a vote. T. Nelson moved, Hoyerman seconded, to approve the Door County Emergency Communication Tower Project Draft Intergovernmental Agreement, Easement required for access road and exemption from Ephraim tower ordinance for this project only, all ayes. Motion carried. g. Discussion and Consideration regarding Administration building project planning, design and options: Bristol provided background. He, President Ken, and Trustee Carly had met with Keller, the project architect, who had reviewed both the administration building and Village Hall. Following the previous board meeting where Option 3 was eliminated, the group had compiled an updated summary document outlining project costs and existing conditions for Options 1 and 2. Staff had also prepared a memo— presenting the administrative team's perspective on the scope and goals of the project. “Dear Ephraim Village Board of Trustees, The Village Board has now held three meetings regarding the future of the Administration Building. While it has been communicated that staff support Option 2, neither the Board nor the community has heard directly from the employees who work in the building every day. Following the most recent Board meeting, staff felt it was important to share our perspective on the project, our operational needs, and why we believe Option 2 represents the best longterm investment for the Village. Our support for Option 2 is based on three primary considerations: Providing a safe and stable working environment for staff and the public, creating an efficient and accessible hub 6 for Village operations, and investing taxpayer dollars in a lasting solution rather than a temporary fix. Before discussing these needs, it is important to address a common misconception regarding the Administration Building. The building was constructed in 1947 and is not listed on either the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places. That said, staff recognizes and respects the important place the building holds in the memories of many residents. For some, it served as the one-room schoolhouse of Ephraim Village School District No. 2. Others remember it as the home of Peninsula Preschool, attended by their children or grandchildren. These connections are meaningful and deserve acknowledgment. Throughout the Capital Projects Ad Hoc Committee discussions, Chuck Pearson consistently emphasized the importance of investing in facilities where Village work is performed. As he noted, “We ought to spend money where people work. That is where we will get the most payback.” Guided by this principle, the Capital Projects Ad Hoc Committee (Ken Nelson, Chair; Matt Meacham; Chuck Pearson; Maggie Peterman; and Fred Bridenhagen) established several key objectives for evaluating capital projects: 1. Focus on facilities with a projected lifespan of 30 to 50 years. 2. Prioritize locations where Village services and work are performed. 3. Maximize the value of taxpayer dollars through efficient design and operation. 4. Avoid short-term patches in favor of durable, long-term solutions. 5. Maintain the character and ambiance of Ephraim while modernizing facilities. 6. Use design dollars effectively and responsibly. 7. Seek the most responsible balance between investment and long-term community benefit. From the staff's perspective, these principles strongly support Option 2. The current Administration Building has experienced significant water intrusion and deferred maintenance over many years. Additionally, the building tested positive for asbestos. The resulting deterioration is visible both inside and outside the facility. These conditions have created environmental concerns that affect the health, safety, and comfort of employees and visitors. This March, during the blizzard Elsa, we watched the ceiling of the central room bow and crack. In 2019, the ceiling in one of the offices cracked, and water poured onto the employee’s desk. In July of 2021, during a heavy rainstorm, we experienced water pouring out of the ceiling in the copy room. Ice damming and water intrusion have been an almost annual event. Administrative staff spend more time in this building than any other Village employees spend in a single workspace, making the condition of the facility particularly important. Beyond the physical condition of the building, the current layout no longer adequately serves the needs of Village operations or the public. Residents frequently struggle with accessibility challenges, particularly when navigating stairs or using the elevator. During elections and public meetings, these limitations become even more apparent. In considering alternatives, staff believes consolidating Village administrative functions into a modern, accessible facility would provide several important benefits: • Improved accessibility: A single, modern facility would better accommodate residents and visitors who use walkers, canes, wheelchairs, or other mobility aids. Current conditions, including access to the Village Hall stage and meeting spaces, present challenges and do not fully meet modern accessibility expectations. 7 • Enhanced public participation: Technical limitations in the Village Hall can make it difficult for audience members to hear proceedings, reducing engagement and transparency during meetings. Physical modification of the stage and making it a permanent setup for the Village Board and committees would alter the purpose and availability for community use and would not necessarily solve the present acoustic issues. During the summer months, acoustics can be compounded by the noise from the rear bathrooms when the hand dryers often drown out the meeting underway. Further, significant permanent changes would not enhance the historic aesthetic of the Village Hall ( which is listed on the National/State Historic Register of Historic Places). • Safer elections and public events: The current facilities present challenges related to parking, staffing, accessibility, and emergency egress. A facility designed to accommodate elections and large public gatherings would better serve residents while improving safety. • Greater operational efficiency: Housing staff and public services in a centralized location would improve day-to-day workflow, communication, and customer service. It would also reduce the need to divide staff between multiple locations during meetings and public events. • Improved safety and code compliance: The lack of adequate egress routes in some areas raises concerns during elections and high-attendance events. A modern facility can be designed to meet current safety standards and provide a more secure environment for staff and the public. Ultimately, staff believes this decision is about more than a building. It is about creating a facility that supports the delivery of Village services for decades to come. Option 2 aligns with the guiding principles established by the Capital Projects Ad Hoc Committee by providing a long-term, efficient, and responsible solution that serves residents, visitors, staff, and future generations. We respectfully ask the Village Board and community to consider the operational realities, accessibility needs, health and safety concerns, and long-term financial implications of this decision. From the staff perspective, Option 2 represents the most responsible investment in the future of the Village. Thank you for your time and consideration. Village of Ephram Admin Staff.” Brent acknowledged receiving, but forgetting to distribute, a letter from community members Bruce and Cindy Nelson, which he committed to forwarding to the Board. The Nelsons' letter emphasized heeding staff input and highlighted the challenges of the current Village Hall space for audience members—suggesting that some attendees found it easier to follow meetings from home online than in person due to acoustics. Meacham opened by raising what he considered the essential threshold question: before discussing options for the administration building, the Board needed to decide whether it wanted to continue holding meetings in Village Hall. That decision, he said, fundamentally shapes the administration building design, because if meetings remain at Village Hall, the admin building does not need to accommodate a permanent meeting room. 8 K. Nelson described his walkthrough of Village Hall with Bristol and the architect after their earlier meeting. The architect had quickly identified several challenges. To create a permanent, accessible meeting setup for up to nine stations (to accommodate the Planning Committee's seven members plus the administrator and minute-taker), he said the stage would need to be extended 10–12 feet in depth into the main hall and widened. This would require a ramp for accessibility, routing back to the existing elevator. The architect also flagged that the current elevator requires someone inside the building to call it down, making it inaccessible from outside—a significant accessibility problem given that the handicapped parking is on the opposite side of the building. Additionally, the architect observed that the hard floor and wall surfaces create serious acoustic problems and would need to be softened if the room were to function well for meetings both in-person and remotely. The estimated cost for all of these modifications, K. Nelson noted, was in the "couple hundred thousand dollars" range, as an educated architectural estimate. Hoyerman expressed strong philosophical opposition to abandoning Village Hall as an official meeting space. He argued that the building is central to the identity and character of Ephraim and that allowing it to become "an ornament" would be a mistake future boards would regret. He pushed back on the scope of changes the architect had described, saying he was skeptical that modifications needed to be so extensive. He called for a second—or even third—independent architectural opinion: "I think we should do it no matter what. I think it would just be awful if this building just was the place we eat pancakes twice a summer." He was careful to say he was not making allegations against Keller, but felt that for a building of this importance, an independent perspective was warranted. He is in favor of fixing the administration building so it does not become run down place even if a new building is built for the admin staff. However, he believes that the symbolic place such as Village Hall should not be abandoned from an official use. Meacham supported getting a second opinion on Village Hall specifically. He has no issues with options 1 or 2 for the administration building and noted that whatever modifications may come to Village Hall, those costs would need to be added to the overall project figures. He agreed that any changes to Village Hall must be analyzed in light of the cost of the option chosen for the administration building. Meacham also noted that to him it does not make much sense to stick all the money into the administration building if there can be a new building built with everything the way we wanted. T. Nelson offered a reframing, suggesting the board think of the administration building as "the old schoolhouse" and Village Hall as "the Village Hall"—shifting the perspective to underscore that Village Hall has always been the civic heart of the community. He supported a second opinion regarding the Village Hall and offered a list of specific challenges that a new architect should be asked to address: accessibility, acoustic treatment, and audio-visual improvements. He was particularly reluctant to change the floor surface, noting the cleaning challenges it would create for other uses, but suggested softer audience chairs as one possible alternative. Mulliken noted that she understands why there are those who encourage the meetings in the Village Hall because it is historic, central location to the Village. However, if we start modyfing it we will be taking away from what we actually value about the building. Are we willing to make these changes? She encouraged the Board to stay focused on the problems they were originally trying to solve, noting that the memo from staff was specifically written for that purpose. She suggested that major Village Hall renovations could be considered as a separate future capital project rather than being folded into the current administration building initiative. Bristol, while supportive of keeping Village Hall in use for meetings, raised an ongoing operational challenge: on days when a committee meeting is held at Village Hall, at least two of the three administrative staff must be present (one for the meeting, one for the minutes), meaning the third must 9 stay at the admin office to keep it open. This effectively means that roughly five days per month, staff cannot take leave. He noted that board meetings at night did not present the same problem, but that the daytime committee schedule created real staffing constraints. He said there were potential solutions— such as remote minute-taking if the audio-visual system were improved—but that the challenge was real and should be considered. Kelsey Stone from the EBC, who was still present, asked the board to keep public use of the stage in mind as they explored options, noting that EBC uses the stage for Santa Claus events, children's performances, musician setups, and movie screenings. She expressed hope that any modifications would preserve the ability to use the stage for community events. Accessibility improvements were identified as a non-negotiable component of any plan. The group agreed to proceed in parallel with the administration building planning. Reminder of Problems Trying to Solve: • Admin Building has a flat roof that leaks, despite reroofing in 2013. • Building has a lack of conditioned spaces. Two offices lack heat, all offices lack AC. • Building is not properly insulated. Especially due to roof system design and lack of wall insulation. • All of which contribute to an unsafe working environment for employees, along with insufficient functional (eg long-term record storage) and aesthetic issues with the building (such as erosion of mortar and water stains from ice dams). • Space does not provide employees with optimal working conditions, such as lack of privacy and disruptions from visitors. Especially during elections. • Admin Building is not fully accessible and limited to one egress point. • Hosting meetings at Village Hall creates technology issues that can be time consuming for staff to troubleshoot. Additionally, the Village Hall’s tall ceilings create audio issues that make it difficult for everyone (both online and in-person) to hear properly. Tear down and set up are also a burden on staff time. Stage is not accessible for committee and board members. • OPTION 0 (Deferred Maintenance, Existing 2,172 sq. ft.): $600,000 with $50,000 contingency The project scope is limited to targeted deferred maintenance, including the addition of HVAC to two enclosed office spaces (currently not code compliant), improvements to building insulation / exterior envelope, conditioned HVAC basement, and full roof replacement. The work does not include building expansion, reconfiguration, or full system replacement beyond these defined areas, and is intended to address specific performance deficiencies rather than a long term solution. Pros: • Addresses the deferred maintenance issues within the current building. • HVAC added to the two rear offices and basement (making space available for storage) • Board members agree that the building must remain standing Cons: • No alterations within the office building • No relocation of meetings from Village Hall • Not intended as a long-term solution • OPTION 1 (Remodel Existing 2,172 sq.ft): $1.3 million with $100,000 contingency A comprehensive renovation of the existing 2,172 square foot facility to improve functionality, code compliance, and overall building performance. Work would involve reconfiguration of interior spaces, upgrades to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and improvements to 10 the building envelope as needed. This approach maintains the existing structure while modernizing the facility to better support current and future operational needs.addition, some interior reconfiguration within existing space. Pros: • Can possibly move smaller committee meetings back to Admin Building • Conditioned basement allows for additional storage • Options for minor reconfiguring of office layout within the existing building envelope • Some modernization of facility to better support current and future needs • Better accessibility with the addition of exterior ramp • HVAC added to the two existing rear offices and basement Cons: • External Ramp with no protection from weather • Still requires the use of Village Hall for HPC/Plan and Village Board Mtgs. • Smaller committee meetings occupy 1/3 of office space of the entire building for approximately 5 meetings a month and are disruptive to office operations as the flow has not been sufficiently improved • AV system while new would likely still have to be broken down from time to time and cannot likely be hard wired. This increases the likelihood of failure, disruption and maintenance. • Still nota long-term solution Work Required to Village Hall for Long Term Accommodation of Village Meetings: Cost estimate: $200,000 We met with the architect from Keller to determine the long-term modifications needed to the VH to hold all meetings there. Assumed the largest meeting would be Plan Committee requiring 9 seats (7 members + Admin + Minute-taker). Design would include: • An open “U” shape for stage. All seats and electronic devices would be permanent. • The stage would be extended outward by at least 10 feet. Currently the width of the stage will not accommodate 9 seats, but a “U” shape with more depth will work. • The stage is currently inaccessible, so a ramp would be built on left side. Current configuration on right side would remain for access to elevator. • Moving the stage out and building a ramp would require modifications to walls on either side of the current stage. Challenges with meetings at VH, even with proposed updates: • Given the cavernous design of the VH and the hard walls and floor, it will still be challenging for both in person and on-line attendees to hear. People who speak from the floor without going up to the microphone at the lectern will still not be heard on-line. • The aesthetics of this work in the historic building will be challenging. • The VH is not now readily accessible. The elevator is in the rear with no dedicated parking nearby. A ramp in the front of the VH may be considered. • The current stage would have a folding panel in front of it to secure all the equipment. StaStage would no longer be available for other Village events. • Remaining floor area for events is smaller with the larger stage. • OPTION 2 (Remodel & Small Addition, Total 2,990 sq. ft.;Existing 2,172 sq. ft. & New 818 sq.ft.): $1.8 million with $100,000 contingency This option includes renovation of the existing 2,172 square foot facility combined with an 818 square foot addition to allow internal ramps (rather than external). This option improves on ‘option 2’ in allowing a safer solution with lower long-term maintenance costs. Work includes integration of new and existing systems, interior reconfiguration, and upgrades to building systems and envelope as required to support the addition. 11 Pros: • All village meetings, minus the largest public hearings, can move back to Admin bldg. • Board/Committee member table and AV systems can be permanent/hard wired • Conditioned basement allows for additional storage • Small addition allows for a more significant reconfiguring of the office/meeting room layout for more separation and better flow. • Modernizes facility to better support current and future needs • Accessible ramp is completely enclosed • Addition only impacts the portion of the building that was previously an addition. Original aesthetics retained • Staff supports this option as most viable Cons: • Looking at the long term this plan likely limits office staffing to 3 full-time employees. Current stagff does not see the need for a 4th full-time staff member on the horizon. Space can be found for part-time employees, limited-term employees or interns if need be. • OPTION 3 (Remodel & Large Addition, Total 4,178 sq. ft.; Existing 2,172 sq. ft. & New 2,006 sq.ft): $2.3 million with $100,000 contingency Option 3 was eliminated as a viable option. • OPTION 4 (New Building, 3,500 sq. ft.): $2.0 million with $100,000 contingency This option includes construction of a new 3,500 square foot facility, replacing the existing building entirely. The new facility would be designed to meet current operational requirements, building codes, and energy performance standards. Important to note this does not include land cost. This approach eliminates constraints associated with the existing structure and allow for a fully optimized layout, modern system s, and long-term durability with reduced maintenance. Pros: • Ground up purpose built new construction that will be a long-term solution without the need to utilize a portion of the existing building • Eliminates disruption of day-to day operations during construction Cons: • Plan results in in relocating the facility to NW end of existing property. Depending on use of existing building, will likely generate more traffic to site overall • New building would require parking lot, utilities, and stormwater retention (e.g. rain garden). • Still requires the costs of deferred maintenance in Option 0 (could be approximately $300,000 for minimal work) along with ongoing costs of annual maintenance and utilities. • Several community members/neighbors have expressed their opposition of a new building and supported updating the current building. The board reached consensus that they would engage an independent architect to assess Village Hall and develop options for creating a permanent accessible meeting setup while preserving as much of the building's character and usable floor space as possible. h. Discussion and Update regarding village purchase of parcels 121-24-0033B and 121-24-0031C: K. Nelson noted he had touched on this in his opening comments. The Village had successfully closed on the purchase of two parcels located north of the Firehouse Marina. He once again thanked Keith Christ and the Rispen family for their cooperation. Bristol provided additional context. He noted that in his nearly 20 years with the Village, these two parcels had always been of significant interest to the Village because they effectively connect the marina and park on the south with the expansive parkland to the north, completing a critical link. He 12 confirmed that no immediate development plans exist for the property—it will serve as a park extension for now—and that the board had discussed the acquisition and its pricing in closed session. Bristol noted that the Village paid cash for the parcels and committed to bringing additional information to the next meeting regarding financing options, including the possibility of long-term debt to reimburse the Village's cash position. He drew a parallel to the due diligence process undertaken before the streetscape project bond, including a credit rating review, and noted the board's existing financial policies around fund balances and assigned reserves. He indicated that the key question going forward would be whether the Village wants to reimburse itself through borrowing or can absorb the cash outlay given other ongoing capital projects. No formal motion was required, as the purchase had already been executed. The board received the update with apparent satisfaction, and no questions were raised. i. Discussion and Consideration regarding posting of meeting minutes and recordings on website: Bristol explained that staff had explored using YouTube as a free hosting platform for meeting recordings, as the Village's website lacks the storage capacity to host large MP4 video files. Deputy Clerk Roberts had conducted a test, uploading a recording without public notification, and had shared the link with at least one interested community member who responded positively. The system works by hosting recordings on YouTube and linking to them from the Village's website. Bristol confirmed the service is completely free with no storage limits, no ad revenue concerns, and requires only a couple of clicks to upload. He noted that under the current system, individual recording requests are difficult to fulfill because the files are too large to email and require arrangements like flash drives or Dropbox. This approach would be simpler and more transparent. Meacham a questioned whether the Village already met its open meeting law requirements. Bristol responded that there are no legal requirements to archive meeting videos, and that this initiative is primarily about transparency and ease of access. Meacham expressed skepticism about the need for YouTube posting.He said he didn't see what problem it was solving, since the public can already request recordings. T. Nelson asked whether the YouTube format was strictly view-only, with no interactive element. Bristol confirmed it is purely a passive viewing medium—essentially like recording a TV program and watching it later—with no ability for viewers to comment or interact once posted, protecting the integrity of the official record. He also noted that the uploaded video would capture the full meeting view, including any remote participants shown on screen. Others noted that it is already common practice among other municipalities and school districts in the county. K. Nelson observed that even very large MP4 files could be stored without charge. Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the posting of meeting minutes and recodings on the Village website through YouTube as discussed. Motion carried 4-1, with Meacham opposed. j. Discussion regarding North Path tree planting proposal from Tom Wolf: K. Nelson introduced horticulturalist Tom Wolf, describing him as a highly accomplished professional who had done the tree planning and planting work in Egg Harbor. K. Nelson and Bristol had met with Wolf and asked him to develop a proposal for replacing the trees removed along the first 1,000 linear feet of the North End Path during construction—primarily cottonwood trees and one maple, totaling approximately 15–18 trees removed. Wolf's proposal, included in the board packet, was a detailed, property-by-property tree selection plan recommending approximately 22 trees at roughly 50-foot spacing. 13 • Starting at the east end the Old Sled Dog property 130 ft - 5 Crabapples o 3 Royal Raindrops, blooms deep red - 7 ft multi stemmed persistent red fruit all winter 15 ft height, 12 ft spread o 2 Adirondack Crabapples, blooms white -2 in dia. persistent orange fruit 15- 20 ft height, 20 ft spread • Front of Green Gables and Universal Unitarians 230 ft - 11 Catalpa Trees 25 gal White Flower Yellow Autumn Color 40-50 ft height, 20 ft Spread • Front of 106-9 lodge/resale shop 100 ft. - 3 Sienna Glenn Maple 2 in dia., 40 ft height, 25 ft spread • Front of George Burr Gallery 100 ft - 3 Crabapples o 2 Royal Raindrops, blooms deep red - 7 ft multi stemmed persistent red fruit all winter 15 ft height, 12 ft spread o 1 Adirondack Crabapples, blooms white -2 in dia. persistent orange fruit 15- 20 ft height, 20 ft spread Delivery Planted Staked Mulched $14,000.00 Wolf operates in a turnkey "design-build" model, meaning he delivers and plants everything. K. Nelson suggested two parallel next steps: the board members review the proposal individually and do their own research on the species, and the proposal be forwarded to the Physical Facilities Committee for their input—particularly on spacing and the relationship to planned solar bollard placement. T. Nelson raised the question of whether the proposed species were native, noting that crabapples, for example, are technically introduced. He asked that staff follow up with Tom Wolf on this point. He also said he would appreciate more flexibility on spacing, noting the trees did not need to be equidistant. Mulliken said she would appreciate a visual rendering of what the planting would look like. T. Nelson flagged that bollard placements need to be coordinated with tree locations to ensure trees do not block solar bollard lighting. He noted that the bollard plan called for roughly 100-foot spacing and that now that the path is built, a realistic on-the-ground assessment of bollard placement is possible. K. Nelson and the Physical Facilities Committee to revisit the bollard placement plan, noting that the path's curves and bends may have resulted in minor deviations from the original plan that should be confirmed before trees go in. T. Nelson agreed, noting the bollards must stay within the 10-foot easement corridor for the sections beyond the state right-of-way. Meacham raised a concern about the proposal's inclusion of 11 Catalpa trees, noting that catalpas are known for aggressive root systems that could damage the path surface over time. K. Nelson agreed this was worth flagging and said it would be included in the follow-up questions to Tom Wolf. The board agreed to proceed with simultaneous review by board members and the Physical Facilities Committee, with a goal of implementing the tree planting in the fall. 14 No formal motion was taken. k. Update, Discussion and Consideration regarding liberty tree planting and plaque ceremony: K. Nelson noted that the bronze plaque for the Liberty Elm Tree had been completed and was currently being mounted on a stone by local craftsman Mike Anderson. He proposed organizing a small public unveiling ceremony for the plaque, suggesting it could be held on a Monday evening before one of the Evenings in Ephraim concerts in order to take advantage of the existing crowd. Kelsey Stone from the EBC suggested that the Monday, July 27th concert might be a particularly fitting occasion, as that evening's performer is Eddie Larson's Classic Memories Band—a nine-piece patriotic group that concludes its set with Taps and asks all veterans to stand. She said the unveiling of a Liberty Tree plaque could pair naturally with that program. K. Nelson proposed targeting July 27th, pending confirmation from Cody Schreck; the point of contact for the plaque and stone; that the mounting would be complete in time. Mulliken noted she had been in contact with Schreck earlier that day and believed the timeline would not be a problem. No formal motion was required; the board reached consensus to target the July 27th Evenings in Ephraim concert for the ceremony. 9. Airport: a. Discussion and Consideration regarding Village’s position relative to future expansion and property purchases associated with current master plan discussions: K. Nelson provided background. He had attended a public meeting at the airport the previous Thursday, July 9th, 2026 which reiterated the findings of an earlier May presentation by the master plan consultant. The meeting confirmed the preferred alternatives previously discussed with the Ephraim Village Board: - Runway 14-32 Rebuild: Option D, including a 300’ extension to increase the runway length to 3000’ - Runway 1-19 Options: turn the turf runway approximately 10 degrees giving the Airport complete control over runway protection zones. Runway will remain turf. - Hangar Development Options: Alternate A1 - Future Hangar Expansion: Building Area Alternate D (on existing Airport property) At the Public Open House on July 9, 2026, the possibility of obtaining the parcel of property in Ephraim immediately to the north of the existing hangars for future hangar development was discussed, labeled Alternative B. Drajesk emphasized this would only be done if the owner was willing to sell. K. Nelson stated that he had stood up and told the meeting that the Village of Ephraim is opposed to any airport property acquisition for hangar expansion in Ephraim. He noted that Gibraltar Township Administrator Travis had also spoken up to say the township was likewise not interested in airport expansion into adjacent properties. K. Nelson explained his core concern: in the previous airport layout plan process six years ago, what the Village was told was merely a "wish list" of aspirational items later became interpreted as approved items. He feared that if Alternative B remained in the master plan, and an opportunity arose to purchase the parcel, it could be treated as pre-approved—creating a situation the Village would have to fight retroactively. He wanted the Board to formally state its position now, while the master 15 plan is still in comment stage, so that the record is clear.The master plan will come to the Ephraim Board for the final approval. He described the property in question as a 12-acre parcel along Maple Grove Road, where—under the airport's current hangar specifications of 25 feet by 25 feet minimum footprint and 35 feet maximum height—up to 25 large metal buildings could theoretically be constructed. T. Nelson questioned whether there was a way to require some form of vegetative or visual buffer along Maple Grove Road through Village zoning ordinance, rather than simply opposing expansion outright. He acknowledged that while he personally did not want to see the property developed into hangars, he saw some likelihood that the proximity to the airport would eventually make the parcel attractive for that use. He suggested the Board think about how to "make the growth qualify for Ephraim's aesthetic desires" rather than trying to stop growth indefinitely. Hoyerman countered that the Village did have legitimate oversight—any airport land acquisition would require Village concurrence as a 50/50 joint owner—and argued that sending a clear signal now was the right course of action. He noted that while the Board cannot bind a future board, a formal comment on the master plan would be entered into the public record. Mulliken suggested editing the final paragraph of President K. Nelson’s written position statement to focus specifically on property acquisition—not expansion generally—and noted the text could end after referencing the adequacy of existing property for hangar development under Alternative D, without the additional sentence that had been included. Bristol provided useful zoning context: the parcel in question is zoned R-1 Residential, in which airports are neither a permitted use nor a conditional use. Airports are a conditional use only in the rural residential district on the eastern limits of the Village. Even under the most intensive zoning, Village code only allows one principal structure per lot of record, making it essentially impossible to build 25 hangars without a comprehensive overhaul of the zoning code. He acknowledged that ordinances can always be rewritten, but noted there are substantial existing barriers. On the question of tax revenue, K. Nelson noted that the airport's personal property tax income to Ephraim from existing hangars works out to approximately $100 per hangar—not the significant revenue some might have expected. The Board agreed that financial considerations were a secondary concern compared to the visual and character impacts. The Board reached consensus to formalize and transmit the written position statement—clarifying that the Village does not support any additional property acquisition for hangar development in the Village Ephraim, that adequate existing property exists for extensive new hangar development (Alternative D), and requesting that Alternative B be removed from the master plan. The statement would be sent to the Town of Gibraltar, the Airport Commission chairman, and the master plan consultants. No formal motion was taken; the Board proceeded by consensus. b. Discussion and Consideration regarding right of first refusal for hangar D5: T. Nelson moved, Meacham seconded to waive the right of first refusal for hangar D5, all ayes. Motion carried. c. Discussion and Consideration regarding sale of hangar D5 from Warren James to Lauren Lopez: 16 Meacham moved, T.Nelson seconded to approve the sale of hangar D5 from Warren James to Lauren Lopez, all ayes. Motion carried. d. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Lauren Lopez for hangar D5: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar D5 with Lauren Lopez, all ayes. Motion carried. e. Discussion and Consideration regarding right of first refusal for hangar A8: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to waive the right of first refusal for hangar A8, all ayes. Motion carried. f. Discussion and Consideration regarding sale of hangar A8 from Lauren Lopez to Jeff Drajesk: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the sale of hangar A8 from Lauren Lopez to Jeff Drajesk, all ayes. Motion carried. g. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Jeff Drajesk for hangar A8: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar A8 with Jeff Drajesk, all ayes. Motion carried. h. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Steve Grasely for hangar C7: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar C7 with Steve Grasely, all ayes. Motion carried. i. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Rich Bierman for hangar E7: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar E7 with Richard Bierman, all ayes. Motion carried. j. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Tom Wilson for hangar F1: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar F1 with Tom Wilson, all ayes. Motion carried. k. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with Laura Seidensticker for hangar F2: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar F2 with Laura Seidensticker, all ayes. Motion carried. l. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with John Wilson for hangar F3: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar F3 with John Wilson, all ayes. Motion carried. m. Discussion and Consideration regarding lease with David Krueger for hangar F4: Meacham moved, T. Nelson seconded to approve the lease agreement for hangar F4 with David Krueger, all ayes. Motion carried. 10. Committee Minutes for review: There were no comments raised on the committee minutes. 11. New business for the Next Meeting: Mulliken noted that Green Tier would like to continue the solar installation option at Wastewater Facility. She indicated that the engineering team may be far enough along to present a full enough plan to explore grant opportunities, and that the conversation should continue. T. Nelson requested that the Physical Facilities Committee be asked to consider a tree planting plan for the area just south of the Firehouse Marina parking lot, where trees had been removed following the 17 windstorm the previous fall. He acknowledged it might create additional work for the committee but felt the timing aligned well with the broader tree-planting discussion already underway. 12. Adjournment: T. Nelson moved, Meacham seconded to adjourn at 9:30 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by, Andrea Collak – Clerk/Treasurer 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM VILLAGE BOARD MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 – 8:30 AM 9996 WATER STREET- EPHRAIM VILLAGE HALL Pres ent: Rick Hoyerman, Matt Meacham, Carly Mulliken, Tim Nelson, and Ken Nelson – President. Absent: None. Staff: Brent Bristol -Village Administrator, Justin MacDonald – Fire Chief/Maintenance Manager, and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Greg Straub (Keller, Inc.), Devin Wagner (Keller, Inc.), Journey Sikorsky (Quantum Technologies), and Jake Sikorsky (Quantum Technologies). Guests Online: None. 1. Ca ll to Order: K. Nelson called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM. 2. Quorum: A quorum was present for the meeting. 3. Administration: a. On-site discussion with Keller Inc. and Quantum Technologies regarding potential for Village Hall improvements associated with Administration Building Project option discussions and long-term viability of Village Hall for meetings. This is a discussion-only topic; no action will be taken, and no virtual login will be available. Introductions were made between the Village Board and guests from Keller, Inc. and Quantum Technologies. K. Nelson explained that, with options being discussed for the Administration building, it is important, from a planning perspective, to determine whether the Village Hall is the best option for a permanent location for all Village meetings. He noted that until 1983, the Village owned only one building: the Village Hall. The Village purchased and remodeled the Administration Building in 1983. Village meetings were moved from the Village Hall to the Administration Building at some point in 1984. Meetings were held at the Administration Building from approximately 1984 through March of 2020. The only reason meetings were moved back down to the Village was COVID and the resulting need for social distancing. The Village Hall was a space that provided ample space for social distancing. Meetings have stayed at the Village Hall since COVID. K. Nelson briefly reviewed the options for the Administration Building, noting the current plan considers a meeting room large enough to accommodate Village meetings. There have been suggestions that the Village Hall should be made the permanent meeting space. The purpose of the meeting is to try to develop options to make the Village Hall the permanent meeting space by determining what improvements would need to be made in accessibility, space, and audio/video equipment. T. Nelson expressed that he would like to keep meetings at the Village Hall and keep the Administration Building where it is. The Village Hall was always meant for municipal use. He expressed the desire to continue to be able to accommodate Village Hall rentals while improving electronics with permanent installation and better accessibility to the platform. Mulliken stressed that it made more sense for meetings to be held at the Administrative office. She felt that changes to improve meetings at the Village Hall would change the vibe and the type of activities the hall would accommodate for rentals. Meacham explained that the current audio/video system is a liability due to its inconsistent dependability. The audience cannot hear. He encouraged the Board to keep the look of the building 2 while improving accessibility. The improvements needed do not equate to a recording studio; rather, the audience at home and in attendance at the Village Hall do need to hear the meeting. Hoyerman stated that the Board is not asking for any other administrative function to happen at the Village Hall other than the meetings. He did not want to intertwine the discussion of the Village Hall with the topics of time and employees. He stressed that the Village Hall is central to the identity of the Village; it is symbolic. The people’s business should be done at the Village Hall; it should have an official use. He did not support extravagant solutions nor major transformations but supported permanent equipment. He cautioned against looking for a solution in search of a problem. K. Nelson explained that the need is to look for options and debate them at another meeting. What impact would the options have on the historic building? How can the acoustics be improved? How can full committees be accommodated on the stage? He noted that Quantum has been trying to improve the acoustics since the system was installed. Bristol discussed the hard surfaces in the Village Hall that impact acoustics. He explained the sacrifices that may be required for a permanent, hardwired audio-video system. He spoke to the amount of time it takes to set up, break down, and troubleshoot the current system. He explained that the current system had about $25,000 invested into it and that the speakers are in their 4 th or 5th location. The location of the speakers plays into the reverb issues. He stressed that whatever solution is developed, it has to be plug-and-play, easy to use for staff, and not require constant adjustments throughout meetings. Ideally, people speaking from the audience should be picked up audio-wise as well. Devin Wagner of Keller Inc. noted that the Village Hall was a big, beautiful building. It has been used for meetings for years. He reviewed what he heard as the issues: Stage size and height, sound effects due to the size and cavernous shape of the hall, reliability issues with the current system, and challenges with the constant setting up and breaking down of the current system, which creates a situation in which it is challenging for the current system to work all the time perfectly. Wagner explained that a hard-wired system would be easier to control. He discussed expectations of meeting rooms and how to meet those needs. The big challenge, he explained, is what we are comparing to. Are we comparing the expectation of the audio at the Village Hall to a new building or a remodel? Are we expecting it to perform like a new building or a little better with a remodel? He stressed that the hall is a huge room. He couldn’t say it won’t work, but there is likely to be code issues the State is going to require when you start changing the hall. Greg Straub explained how the scope of work impacts code application. He noted that the front Village Hall bathrooms seemed to meet accessibility standards. The existing building maintains its code compliance depending on the scope of the project and the project cost. If the work commenced on something, then it has to be brought up to code. Wagner discussed the intent of keeping the stage the same or if the desire was to change the shape. Based on that decision, code would be looked at and how changes would function with the walls surrounding the platform. He noted that the floor is beautiful but is a major factor in the acoustics. The addition of soft surfaces would be necessary to reduce the hard surfaces in the hall. K. Nelson commented that before COVID, there was nothing online for meetings. Now the challenge is for both the audience and the people at home to hear the meeting adequately. Hoyerman asked Straub if the Village Hall was currently in violation of any codes and if any changes were made, would the Village have to become more ADA compliant? Straub replied yes, to some degree. Currently, the Village Hall is grandfathered regarding code as long as any work is considered level one improvements, which are one-for-one replacements that are allowed without increasing the ADA compliance. Once the space is changed beyond level one improvements, a percentage of construction costs gets put towards ADA compliance. He went into further detail, explaining that 20% of the cumulative construction cost would need to be put towards 3 ADA compliance. For example, if the Village Hall remodel cost $100,000, then $20,000 would have to be spent on ADA upgrades. K. Nelson addressed that with regard to ADA accessibility, if someone parked in a handicap spot, they would need to get to the rear of the building and have someone on the inside of the building to send the elevator down. It cannot be called from the outside of the building. Meacham further notes that the platform is not ADA accessible. He remarked that it may need to be lowered, but may not need expansion of space to fit more people. He suggested moving the speakers to make it easier for people to hear, but stressed that it doesn’t need to be perfect. T. Nelson stressed that Bristol had already explained that the speakers had been moved numerous times with the assistance of Quantum; it’s easier said than done. If it were so easy, it would already be fixed. He explained that the wood floor was good for all the functions held at the hall. Wagner asked the Board if they wanted the platform seating to remain in a straight row or in a “U” shape. This detail would be necessary in deciding if the platform needed to be expanded. T. Nelson felt that a lower platform would be helpful in a “U” shape that only pushed out two to four feet (2’-4’) on the ends. He noted it was a matter of opinion, but didn’t want to destroy the hall as we know it. Further, he stressed that the stage was not original to the hall. K. Nelson felt there was a tradeoff if they were to go with a permenant set up for the platform. If permanent equipment was installed, then the platform is lost and has to be secured. He wondered if there was a semi-permanent option. Journey Sikorsky of Quantum Technologies said the sky is the limit when it comes to AV technology. A major factor is whether the equipment will be hard-wired or temporary. How the platform is designed will impact the design for AV. He stressed that it is hard to design for everyone and that core limitations (floor and room acoustics) with the current equipment may continue to be core issues and challenges. K. Nelson noted the Village was very proud of the floor. The Norwegin folk paintings paneling was completed in 2003. He asked the Board if they all could agree to no carpet or wall changes. Mulliken felt that there had been enough advances in sound-dampening materials that could be explored if more needed to be done. Meacham stressed for Bristol and Village staff reliability of the system is essential. He revisited meetings when the system had not worked, causing delays and rescheduling of a meeting. Hoyerman felt the focus should be on what improvements should be made to make the building as useful as possible. Mulliken worried about the Village Hall becoming a whole other Capital Project with large scope creep. Hoyerman added that the Village needs to think about keeping its buildings code compliant. K. Nelson suggested that once the Administration Building is completed, another Capital Project could be started. A Village Hall project could make the hall more attractive to more groups. He stressed that he did not want to sacrifice the platform. Bristol explained that a layout change to the platform would impact the AV design. He discussed that the wireless gooseneck microphones were maxed out in function. Ideally, permanent solutions without individual microphones would boost audio without introducing more background operations. Sikorsky noted that technology has changed in function and usability. He provided an estimated overview of technology needed to improve the Village Hall AV system: Network boxes, digital sound processor with echo cancelling, individual microphones, and speakers. He stressed that the echo cancelling would be very important. 4 Bristol reminded Sikorsky that the original sound processors installed at the Village Hall caused delays. He asked if technology has improved. T. Nelson noted that with a permanent solution, it is expected that the cost of the system would increase. K. Nelson added that there is the option to build a perfect meeting room at the Administration Building, and there will still be significant expenses in it. There is going to be a large expense whether meetings are held at the Village Hall or Administration Building. Meacham suggested wearable microphones to eliminate background noise. Sikorsky explained wearable microphones seen on social media would not operate the same way in the Village Hall. You don’t get background noise on social media because you are not projecting into the same space that you are speaking. Wagner explained that he was looking for enough information to generate a scope to draw. If the Board does not want to go with a “U” shape platform, he suggested wearable microphones to still pick up conversation when heads are turned, with everyone on the platform in a straight line. He added that microphones were a better investment. He questioned putting money into the ceiling to get a tangible result and if there was value in doing that and if it was money well spent. Hardwiring the system allows for reliability to shoot through the roof. He added that even if nothing was done to address the sound issues, maybe the reliability itself would be enough of an improvement. Roberts commented as the minute taker that at times the conversations in the audience, bathroom fans, bathroom doors slamming, and hard surface sound projection make hearing the meeting challenging. K. Nelson preferred hanging or wearable microphones while retaining the current platform with improved IT that would allow for a switch to be flipped and work hardwired. Bristol reminded the Board that there was a difference between audio and video and that the goal was to find a permanent solution. Sikorsky explained that the current AV system was a modular system that has to be connected. A permanent system would be tied together, push button. He stressed that ease of operation and reliability come with significant expense. A discussion was held regarding the shortcomings of the narrow tables, how to get rid of the need for the tv’s used for the Village Board viewing (tablets were discussed as well as an additional projector screen at the front of the hall for the Board to look ahead to), and how wireless microphones charge in a bank similar to the current gooseneck microphones currently being used. Bristol expressed the need for one type of microphone to be used by all members of the Board and Committees. The directional microphones only work as well as people speak into them. T. Nelson cautioned the Board against teching our way through all the issues; some solutions may require discipline in having people speak into the microphone or getting up out of the audience to speak at the podium. Bristol added that the solution needs to be based on human nature and the goal should be that audio should be good for both those at home and in person. Currently, those online have better audio than those in person. Wagner inquired about a ramp to address accessibility issues for the platform. He explained that a ramp has to move out one inch for every one foot in height. He provided a visual with a tape measure showing where the ramp would have to come off the platform 20” into the hall with railings on both sides. (The tape measure came out approximately halfway into the hall to reflect the twenty inches of the platform). K. Nelson inquired if a single step to the platform would be considered ADA. Straub replied no. Six inches or less is considered ADA accessible. 5 K. Nelson reflected on the advantages of the platform. People can see over the audience's heads to see the Board and Committees, and the Board and Committees can see over the equipment to see the audience. T. Nelson expressed that the priorities should be the stage and the AV system. He desired high fidelity and low maintenance. He suggested considering improvements for the room to soften the hard surfaces. He asked the Board to consider obtaining proposals. K. Nelson agreed with T.Nelson regarding obtaining proposals. Sikorsky estimated that, to be safe, the Board could expect a cost of $100,000 for the AV system. He added that he would steer the Village away from drop-down microphones. Ideally, for the audience, people could pass a microphone to the speaker if they are unwilling to stand at the podium. Additionally, he would need a rough idea of floor plans to provide an estimate. Bristol asked the Board if the ramp idea had support. K. Nelson felt that Keller could drop the platform, but a ramp would not look good. However, the Board needed to get to the point to decide if viable or not. Wagner cautioned the Board about establishing a cost threshold for the project; otherwise, there could be significant scope creep. K. Nelson stressed that the idea is to spend a minimal amount to preserve meetings with a lower platform with more shape (enough of a “u” shape to make a difference) as a long-term solution. 4. Adjournment: Mulliken moved, T. Nelson seconded to adjourn at 10:02 AM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by, Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1853 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE BOARD FROM: CLERK SUBJECT: CLERK’S REPORT AUGUST 11, 2026 In July the office was preparing for the upcoming Partisan Primary Election taking place on August 11th, 2026. We sent out absentee ballots to those registered electors who applied. The office was conducting in-person voting which began on July 28th, 2026, and lasted until Friday before the election. The Public Test for the election machine in the Village of Ephraim was performed on Tuesday, August 4th, 2026 at 2:00 PM. On July 15th, 2026, Deputy Clerk, Kim Roberts and I attended election emergency tabletop exercise in preparation for our fall election through Door County Emergency Department. All 2026/2027 alcohol licenses were reported to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Kim, along with her day-to-day duties, completed the Summer 2026 newsletter and continues to work on the sewer rate analysis and rate structure project. She has sent out a letter and form to obtain data needed for Commercial properties that is due back by 8/31/2026. She will continue to communicate with commercial properties to clarify and confirm information to move the project forward. As more properties submit information, the data received is helping shape a rate structure for commercial properties. A similar letter and form will be sent shortly to some residential properties for assistance with missing data. I will be attending the 2026 Annual Wisconsin Municipal Clerk Association Conference in Green Bay. I will be participating in Alcohol Licensing Regulations and Practices, Training of Poll Workers as well as the Municipal Clerk classes such as Legal Notices and Open Meetings Law, and navigating Roberts Rules of Order . I very much appreciate the opportunity to learn and grow in my role. Waterbury Inn applied for a combination of Class "B" & "Class C" Alcohol License for 2026/2027 season. Alcohol Application for Liquor License was published in the newspaper on July 17, 2026. The application is attached to your packet. The approval should be contingent upon a passed fire inspection and health inspection. I have taken minutes for the Village Board meeting, entered invoices for payment, and reconciled bank and General Ledger. I also processed payroll and all the necessary government reports. Please, let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Andrea Collak Clerk/Treasurer VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 1 ADMINISTRATION 100-10 -41110 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES .00 1,382,021.58 1,382,022.43 .85 100.0 100-10-41150 MANAGED FOREST LANDS .00 78.28 8.00 ( 70.28) 978.5 100-10-41210 ROOM TAXES 23,375.10 34,828.32 370,000.00 335,171.68 9.4 100-10-41220 ROOM TAX GRANT .00 29,076.22 50,000.00 20,923.78 58.2 100-10-41223 PRAT .00 52,787.58 150,000.00 97,212.42 35.2 100-10-41800 INTEREST ON TAXES 9.00 92.51 300.00 207.49 30.8 100-10-43410 STATE - SHARED REVENUE 6,306.21 14,350.84 42,041.00 27,690.16 34.1 100-10-43430 EXEMPT COMPUTER AID 142.37 142.37 142.00 ( .37) 100.3 100-10-43530 STATE TRANSPORTATION AIDS 25,787.00 77,361.00 103,148.00 25,787.00 75.0 100-10-43650 STATE AID - FOREST CROP .00 ( 11.33) .00 11.33 .0 100-10-43660 STATE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES .00 2,368.57 2,000.00 ( 368.57) 118.4 100-10-43690 STATE-VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDER 2,773.44 2,773.44 2,773.00 ( .44) 100.0 100-10-44100 CABLE FRANCHISE FEES .00 5,890.91 13,000.00 7,109.09 45.3 100-10-44110 LIQUOR LICENSES 1,730.00 3,259.00 2,500.00 ( 759.00) 130.4 100-10-44111 OPERATOR LICENSE 360.00 1,050.00 500.00 ( 550.00) 210.0 100-10-44112 PICNIC LICENSE .00 20.00 20.00 .00 100.0 100-10-44113 SHORT TERM RENTAL LICENSE .00 1,000.00 12,000.00 11,000.00 8.3 100-10-44200 DOG LICENSES .00 77.00 8.00 ( 69.00) 962.5 100-10-44300 BUILDING & SIGN PERMITS .00 150.00 1,500.00 1,350.00 10.0 100-10-44310 BUILDING INSPECTION FEES 763.60 4,270.20 2,000.00 ( 2,270.20) 213.5 100-10-46100 SALES OF COPIES/PLATS ETC .00 17.00 .00 ( 17.00) .0 100-10-46101 ASSESSMENT LETTERS 175.00 800.00 1,000.00 200.00 80.0 100-10-46730 TENNIS COURT FEES 571.00 1,150.00 1,000.00 ( 150.00) 115.0 100-10-46840 PERSONNEL SERV PAYMENTS .00 .00 19,900.00 19,900.00 .0 100-10-46900 OTHER REVENUE ( 540.05) 9,989.23 2,000.00 ( 7,989.23) 499.5 100-10-48000 MISCELLANEUS INCOME .00 1,000.01 .00 ( 1,000.01) .0 100-10-48100 INTEREST INCOME/GENL 7,985.67 75,327.21 120,000.00 44,672.79 62.8 100-10-48200 RENTALS OF VILLAGE PROPERTIES 3,870.51 5,971.51 5,500.00 ( 471.51) 108.6 100-10-48307 SALE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS .00 2,324.51 2,000.00 ( 324.51) 116.2 100-10-48330 SALE OF OTHER EQUIP AND PROP .00 20,000.00 .00 ( 20,000.00) .0 TOT AL ADMINISTRATION 73,308.85 1,728,165.96 2,285,362.43 557,196.47 75.6 FI RE 100-50 -43420 STATE - FIRE DUES .00 19,313.11 11,000.00 ( 8,313.11) 175.6 TOT AL FIRE .00 19,313.11 11,000.00 ( 8,313.11) 175.6 TOT AL FUND REVENUE 73,308.85 1,747,479.07 2,296,362.43 548,883.36 76.1 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 2 ADMINISTRATION 100-10 -51100-100 SALARIES 2,500.00 15,900.00 30,000.00 14,100.00 53.0 100-10-51100-101 SS/MED 191.25 1,216.35 1,377.00 160.65 88.3 100-10-51100-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES .00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0 100-10-51300-200 LEGAL FEES 4,316.50 14,670.00 25,000.00 10,330.00 58.7 100-10-51400-100 SALARIES 17,464.80 84,651.00 151,355.46 66,704.46 55.9 100-10-51400-101 SS/MED 1,246.89 6,482.89 11,578.69 5,095.80 56.0 100-10-51400-102 RETIREMENT 1,257.45 6,680.45 10,292.17 3,611.72 64.9 100-10-51400-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,952.60 22,719.91 47,431.17 24,711.26 47.9 100-10-51400-104 DISABILITY INSURANCE 306.97 2,148.79 2,800.00 651.21 76.7 100-10-51400-105 WORKERS COMPENSATION .00 300.00 457.47 157.47 65.6 100-10-51400-310 VEHICLE FUEL 47.56 111.95 400.00 288.05 28.0 100-10-51400-311 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 100-10-51400-312 CELLPHONE 45.00 886.08 1,750.00 863.92 50.6 100-10-51400-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES .00 299.00 1,500.00 1,201.00 19.9 100-10-51400-330 BANK FEES 48.55 334.45 500.00 165.55 66.9 100-10-51400-331 POSTAGE 302.00 3,431.78 3,500.00 68.22 98.1 100-10-51400-332 OFFICE EQUIPMENT .00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0 100-10-51400-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPENCES 161.02 1,713.98 5,000.00 3,286.02 34.3 100-10-51400-334 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/EXPENCES 846.27 12,893.30 15,000.00 2,106.70 86.0 100-10-51400-335 PROFESSIONAL DUES/EXPENCES 170.00 235.00 1,500.00 1,265.00 15.7 100-10-51400-336 LEGAL NOTICES/ADDS .00 193.86 500.00 306.14 38.8 100-10-51400-339 PRINTING COSTS .00 747.04 2,500.00 1,752.96 29.9 100-10-51400-340 VEHICLE INSURANCE .00 267.00 373.48 106.48 71.5 100-10-51400-342 COMMITTEE/WORKER EXPENSE .00 .00 220.00 220.00 .0 100-10-51400-343 CONTINGENCY 2,764.43 2,764.43 3,500.00 735.57 79.0 100-10-51400-344 UNIFORMS .00 .00 300.00 300.00 .0 100-10-51400-710 CHARITABLE DONATIONS .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 100.0 100-10-51440-316 SUPPLIES/EXPENCES 71.84 157.08 1,500.00 1,342.92 10.5 100-10-51440-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES .00 135.00 500.00 365.00 27.0 100-10-51440-342 COMMITTEE/WORKER EXPENSE .00 602.00 2,500.00 1,898.00 24.1 100-10-51500-100 SALARIES 4,112.64 21,848.90 35,639.97 13,791.07 61.3 100-10-51500-101 SS/MED 292.58 1,521.33 2,726.46 1,205.13 55.8 100-10-51500-102 RETIREMENT 296.10 1,573.08 2,423.52 850.44 64.9 100-10-51500-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 961.44 5,526.44 11,537.31 6,010.87 47.9 100-10-51500-300 AUDITING EXPENSES .00 15,891.72 15,000.00 ( 891.72) 105.9 100-10-51530-210 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICE 724.20 5,793.60 8,500.00 2,706.40 68.2 100-10-51600-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE .00 1,231.00 1,259.06 28.06 97.8 100-10-51600-303 ELECTRICITY .00 5,364.05 7,500.00 2,135.95 71.5 100-10-51600-304 LP GAS .00 1,151.44 1,500.00 348.56 76.8 100-10-51600-305 WELL TESTS .00 60.00 240.00 180.00 25.0 100-10-51600-306 PHONE 398.40 2,677.28 4,000.00 1,322.72 66.9 100-10-51600-307 WATER TREATMENT 60.00 60.00 .00 ( 60.00) .0 100-10-51600-309 INTERNET 89.99 629.93 675.00 45.07 93.3 100-10-51601-210 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 100-10-51601-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE .00 3,304.00 3,332.47 28.47 99.2 100-10-51601-303 ELECTRICITY 384.46 1,723.53 3,500.00 1,776.47 49.2 100-10-51601-304 LP GAS .00 4,969.06 7,000.00 2,030.94 71.0 100-10-51601-305 WELL TESTS .00 60.00 .00 ( 60.00) .0 100-10-51601-308 SEWER FEES 565.50 1,131.00 1,500.00 369.00 75.4 100-10-51601-309 INTERNET 440.33 1,672.88 1,700.00 27.12 98.4 100-10-51910-200 ILLEGAL TAXES REFUNDED .00 4,011.37 .00 ( 4,011.37) .0 100-10-51910-730 MISC EXPENSE .00 .00 3,800.00 3,800.00 .0 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 3 100-10-51930-212 LIABILITY INSURANCE .00 7,573.00 7,000.00 ( 573.00) 108.2 100-10-52400-100 SALARIES 1,155.84 6,140.67 10,017.60 3,876.93 61.3 100-10-52400-101 SS/MED 83.11 433.32 766.35 333.03 56.5 100-10-52400-102 RETIREMENT 83.22 442.12 681.20 239.08 64.9 100-10-52400-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 213.66 1,228.15 2,563.85 1,335.70 47.9 100-10-55300-316 SUPPLIES/EXPENSES 209.11 249.11 2,600.00 2,350.89 9.6 100-10-56400-100 SALARIES 2,889.60 15,351.66 25,044.00 9,692.34 61.3 100-10-56400-101 SS/MED 207.76 1,083.29 1,915.87 832.58 56.5 100-10-56400-102 RETIREMENT 208.05 1,105.31 1,702.99 597.68 64.9 100-10-56400-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 534.12 3,070.15 6,409.62 3,339.47 47.9 100-10-56400-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPENSES .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 100-10-56700-720 SUBSIDY TO ORGANIZATION .00 29,076.22 .00 ( 29,076.22) .0 100-10-56701-210 ROOM TAX EXPENSES .00 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .0 100-10-58100-600 PRINCIPAL .00 442,016.40 235,000.00 ( 207,016.40) 188.1 100-10-58200-601 INTEREST .00 90,532.29 114,293.76 23,761.47 79.2 TOT AL ADMINISTRATION 49,603.24 859,043.64 905,364.47 46,320.83 94.9 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 4 PUBLIC WORKS 100-20 -53000-100 SALARIES 18,509.76 88,614.55 170,268.40 81,653.85 52.0 100-20-53000-101 SS/MED 1,340.79 6,606.10 12,681.28 6,075.18 52.1 100-20-53000-102 RETIREMENT 1,332.69 6,802.17 11,225.25 4,423.08 60.6 100-20-53000-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,877.26 21,366.13 61,696.79 40,330.66 34.6 100-20-53000-104 DISABILITY INSURANCE 374.76 1,484.44 2,500.00 1,015.56 59.4 100-20-53000-105 WORKERS COMPENSATION .00 2,983.00 5,028.86 2,045.86 59.3 100-20-53000-312 CELLPHONE .00 148.62 600.00 451.38 24.8 100-20-53000-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES .00 .00 600.00 600.00 .0 100-20-53000-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPENSES .00 803.38 1,000.00 196.62 80.3 100-20-53000-344 UNIFORMS .00 314.15 2,250.00 1,935.85 14.0 100-20-53301-220 MOWING .00 181.14 1,500.00 1,318.86 12.1 100-20-53301-221 SWEEPING/MARKING 2,974.36 7,952.60 6,000.00 ( 1,952.60) 132.5 100-20-53301-222 ROAD TRIMMING .00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0 100-20-53301-223 SNOW REMOVAL .00 11,043.03 32,000.00 20,956.97 34.5 100-20-53301-300 FACILITY EQUIPMENT .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 100-20-53301-302 FACILITY MAINT./REPAIR/STREET 130.81 165.80 5,000.00 4,834.20 3.3 100-20-53302-820 OTHER IMPR. OUTLAY/STREET REC 9,835.00 104,195.05 .00 ( 104,195.05) .0 100-20-53302-830 OTHER IMPR.OUTLAY/DOT RESURFA 1,277.81 1,277.81 .00 ( 1,277.81) .0 100-20-53310-310 VEHICLE FUEL 737.89 4,574.72 12,000.00 7,425.28 38.1 100-20-53310-311 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE .00 1,993.31 20,000.00 18,006.69 10.0 100-20-53310-340 VEHICLE INSURANCE .00 1,062.00 1,476.60 414.60 71.9 100-20-53321-303 ELECTRICITY/VISITOR CENTER .00 127.15 700.00 572.85 18.2 100-20-53321-305 WELL TESTS/VISITOR CENTER .00 .00 150.00 150.00 .0 100-20-53321-307 WATER TREATMENT/VISITOR C 30.00 30.00 .00 ( 30.00) .0 100-20-53321-308 SEWER FEES/VISITOR CENTER 150.00 300.00 600.00 300.00 50.0 100-20-53321-309 INTERNET/VISITOR CENTER ( 160.00) .00 .00 .00 .0 100-20-53322-210 OTHER CONTR. SERV./MAINT.BUILD .00 1,269.00 2,500.00 1,231.00 50.8 100-20-53322-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE/MAINT.BUILD .00 4,665.00 4,693.76 28.76 99.4 100-20-53322-301 FACILITY SUPPLIES/MAINT.BUILD 30.98 578.02 2,000.00 1,421.98 28.9 100-20-53322-302 FACILITY MAINT/REPAIR/MAIN.B 77.96 3,379.33 17,000.00 13,620.67 19.9 100-20-53322-304 LP GAS/MAINT.BUILD .00 3,986.72 2,500.00 ( 1,486.72) 159.5 100-20-53322-305 WELL TESTS/MAINT.BUILD .00 .00 300.00 300.00 .0 100-20-53322-307 WATER TREATMENT/MAINT.BUILD 60.00 60.00 .00 ( 60.00) .0 100-20-53322-309 INTERNET/MAINT.BUILD 237.50 485.00 2,225.00 1,740.00 21.8 100-20-53322-350 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES/MAINT.BUIL 777.74 1,667.21 5,000.00 3,332.79 33.3 100-20-53322-351 HARDWARE/TOOLS/MAINT.BUILD 64.66 1,025.32 1,500.00 474.68 68.4 100-20-53322-352 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 100-20-53322-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY/MAINT.BUILD .00 50,000.00 .00 ( 50,000.00) .0 100-20-53322-820 BLDG IMPR.OUTLAY/MAINT.BUILD .00 536.32 3,000.00 2,463.68 17.9 100-20-53323-308 SEWER FEES 150.00 300.00 .00 ( 300.00) .0 100-20-53420-301 FACILITY SUPPLIES/STREET LIGHT 20.50 128.10 200.00 71.90 64.1 100-20-53420-302 FACILITY MAINT/REPAIR/STREET L .00 .00 400.00 400.00 .0 100-20-53420-303 ELECTRICITY/STREET LIGHT 713.28 9,518.90 18,000.00 8,481.10 52.9 100-20-53440-210 OTHER CONTR SERVICE/STORM SE 669.50 669.50 2,000.00 1,330.50 33.5 100-20-53620-210 OTHER CONTR SERVICE/RECYCLING 458.89 4,896.93 8,500.00 3,603.07 57.6 100-20-53621-210 OTHER CONTR SERVICE/GARBAGE 331.93 1,608.07 3,000.00 1,391.93 53.6 100-20-53640-210 OTHER CONTR SERVICES/WEED .00 .00 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0 100-20-55200-225 MULCH .00 4,439.91 5,000.00 560.09 88.8 100-20-55200-226 DIRT & STONE .00 .00 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0 100-20-55200-227 FLOWERS 20.17 2,133.16 6,000.00 3,866.84 35.6 100-20-55200-228 TREE CUTTING 77.97 1,866.99 6,500.00 4,633.01 28.7 100-20-55200-229 PLUMBING 666.26 2,359.48 3,000.00 640.52 78.7 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 5 100-20-55200-230 ELECTRICAL/PARKS & GROUNDS .00 23.24 500.00 476.76 4.7 100-20-55200-232 CONCRETE .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 100-20-55200-300 FACILITY EQUIPMENT/PARKS&GROU .00 4,457.98 1,800.00 ( 2,657.98) 247.7 100-20-55200-302 FACILITY MAINT/REPAIR/PARKS&GR 151.73 2,596.90 4,500.00 1,903.10 57.7 100-20-55200-303 ELECTRICITY/HARBORSIDE/WETLAN 66.98 498.56 700.00 201.44 71.2 100-20-55200-353 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/MAINT/PARKS .00 1,144.45 2,500.00 1,355.55 45.8 100-20-55200-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY/PARKS & GROU 61.44 61.44 .00 ( 61.44) .0 100-20-55200-830 OTHER IMPR OUTLAY/PARKS/TREES .00 12,671.62 28,400.00 15,728.38 44.6 100-20-55200-840 PROJECT OUTLAY/PARKS&GROUNDS 17,500.00 18,031.00 5,000.00 ( 13,031.00) 360.6 100-20-55401-830 OTHER IMPROVEMENT OUTLAY .00 26,812.88 .00 ( 26,812.88) .0 100-20-55420-305 WELL TESTS/BEACH 30.00 30.00 120.00 90.00 25.0 100-20-55420-308 SEWER FEES/BEACH 165.00 330.00 645.00 315.00 51.2 TOT AL PUBLIC WORKS 61,743.62 424,256.18 497,260.94 73,004.76 85.3 FI RE 100-50 -52100-301 LAW ENFORCEMENT .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 100-50-52200-100 SALARIES 1,604.17 7,601.69 21,000.00 13,398.31 36.2 100-50-52200-101 SS/MED 610.31 3,181.09 4,000.00 818.91 79.5 100-50-52200-102 RETIREMENT 148.30 948.04 1,200.00 251.96 79.0 100-50-52200-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 159.49 1,042.17 3,000.00 1,957.83 34.7 100-50-52200-105 WORKERS COMPENSATION .00 474.00 1,000.00 526.00 47.4 100-50-52200-106 LOSA (AD) .00 .00 7,000.00 7,000.00 .0 100-50-52200-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE .00 752.00 780.73 28.73 96.3 100-50-52200-302 FACILITY MAINTENANCE/REPAIR 267.90 1,720.98 5,000.00 3,279.02 34.4 100-50-52200-304 LP GAS .00 1,187.13 1,500.00 312.87 79.1 100-50-52200-310 VEHICLE FUEL 1,299.35 4,801.81 5,000.00 198.19 96.0 100-50-52200-312 CELLPHONE .00 311.70 800.00 488.30 39.0 100-50-52200-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES 270.00 5,560.62 13,000.00 7,439.38 42.8 100-50-52200-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPENCES .00 10.99 400.00 389.01 2.8 100-50-52200-335 PROFESSIONAL DUES/EXPENCES .00 1,160.00 1,200.00 40.00 96.7 100-50-52200-340 VEHICLE INSURANCE .00 4,536.00 6,311.15 1,775.15 71.9 100-50-52200-353 EQUIPMENT REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,278.59 18,928.48 30,000.00 11,071.52 63.1 100-50-52200-368 PREVENTION MATERIALS (AD) .00 .00 300.00 300.00 .0 100-50-52200-369 FIRE NUMBER IMPROVEMENTS 50.58 184.92 500.00 315.08 37.0 100-50-52200-370 PAGER MAINTENANCE .00 .00 600.00 600.00 .0 100-50-52200-371 EQUIPMENT 1,308.12 4,243.52 28,200.00 23,956.48 15.1 100-50-52200-372 EPHRAIM FIRE CALLS 648.00 3,712.50 7,000.00 3,287.50 53.0 100-50-52200-373 MID DOOR FIRE CALLS .00 ( 569.90) .00 569.90 .0 100-50-52200-374 MUTUAL AID FIRE CALLS 1,350.00 9,824.25 8,500.00 ( 1,324.25) 115.6 100-50-52200-375 EPHRAIM FIRE MTGS 2,524.50 9,037.50 22,000.00 12,962.50 41.1 100-50-52200-378 EPHRAIM EVENT CALLS 322.50 322.50 475.00 152.50 67.9 100-50-52200-379 INSPECTION/DATA ENTRY (AD) 931.50 1,437.50 3,100.00 1,662.50 46.4 100-50-52200-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY .00 .00 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0 100-50-52300-377 FIRST RESPONDER EXPENCES .00 .00 9,000.00 9,000.00 .0 TOT AL FIRE 12,773.31 80,409.49 189,866.88 109,457.39 42.4 TOT AL FUND EXPENDITURES 124,120.17 1,363,709.31 1,592,492.29 228,782.98 85.6 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 GENERAL FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 6 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 50,811.32) 383,769.76 703,870.14 320,100.38 54.5 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 7 PUBLIC WORKS 201-20 -46410 WATER TEST REVENUE 6,931.80 27,893.41 38,627.00 10,733.59 72.2 201-20-48100 WATER ACCOUNT INTEREST 51.69 435.51 .00 ( 435.51) .0 TOT AL PUBLIC WORKS 6,983.49 28,328.92 38,627.00 10,298.08 73.3 TOT AL FUND REVENUE 6,983.49 28,328.92 38,627.00 10,298.08 73.3 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 8 WASTEWATER 201-30 -53700-110 PERSONNEL SERVICES .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 201-30-53700-210 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICE .00 .00 12,000.00 12,000.00 .0 201-30-53700-331 POSTAGE .00 624.00 1,000.00 376.00 62.4 201-30-53700-335 PROFESSIONAL DUES/EXPENSES .00 .00 400.00 400.00 .0 201-30-53700-397 WATER TESTING COSTS 5,699.53 12,855.74 12,800.00 ( 55.74) 100.4 201-30-53700-398 WATER TESTING OPERATIONS EXP 610.16 2,056.17 8,400.00 6,343.83 24.5 201-30-53700-400 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT .00 .00 3,745.00 3,745.00 .0 TOT AL WASTEWATER 6,309.69 15,535.91 39,345.00 23,809.09 39.5 TOT AL FUND EXPENDITURES 6,309.69 15,535.91 39,345.00 23,809.09 39.5 NET REV ENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 673.80 12,793.01 ( 718.00) ( 13,511.01) 1781.8 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 DOCKS FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 9 DOCKS 202-40 -46751 MOORINGS 702.53 7,167.61 8,000.00 832.39 89.6 202-40-46752 SEASONAL SLIPS 2,265.00 71,760.19 84,000.00 12,239.81 85.4 202-40-46753 LAUNCHING FEES 1,939.00 6,319.00 10,000.00 3,681.00 63.2 202-40-46754 TRANSIENT FEES 15,261.51 21,192.71 25,000.00 3,807.29 84.8 202-40-46755 SEASONAL DINGHY FEES 130.00 722.72 1,000.00 277.28 72.3 202-40-46756 SEASONAL LAUNCH FEES 1,080.00 1,980.00 2,000.00 20.00 99.0 202-40-48100 INTEREST INCOME 503.94 3,533.04 4,000.00 466.96 88.3 TOT AL DOCKS 21,881.98 112,675.27 134,000.00 21,324.73 84.1 TOT AL FUND REVENUE 21,881.98 112,675.27 134,000.00 21,324.73 84.1 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 DOCKS FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 10 DOCKS 202-40 -55430-100 SALARIES 5,159.43 6,968.89 24,000.00 17,031.11 29.0 202-40-55430-101 SS/MED 394.69 533.11 1,500.00 966.89 35.5 202-40-55430-105 WORKERS COMPENSATION .00 222.00 337.40 115.40 65.8 202-40-55430-110 PERSONEL SERVICES .00 .00 19,900.00 19,900.00 .0 202-40-55430-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE .00 5,875.00 5,903.15 28.15 99.5 202-40-55430-303 ELECTRICITY 180.13 1,104.04 1,800.00 695.96 61.3 202-40-55430-305 WELL TESTS 60.00 60.00 120.00 60.00 50.0 202-40-55430-307 WATER TREATMENT 1,474.15 1,474.15 3,000.00 1,525.85 49.1 202-40-55430-308 SEWER FEES 150.00 300.00 496.00 196.00 60.5 202-40-55430-309 INTERNET 276.85 1,016.85 1,300.00 283.15 78.2 202-40-55430-312 CELLPHONE .00 145.14 300.00 154.86 48.4 202-40-55430-331 POSTAGE .00 .00 175.00 175.00 .0 202-40-55430-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPESES 59.06 833.23 1,200.00 366.77 69.4 202-40-55430-334 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/EXPENCES .00 105.00 6,000.00 5,895.00 1.8 202-40-55431-240 BUOYS & PLACEMENT .00 10,687.36 10,000.00 ( 687.36) 106.9 202-40-55431-360 DOCK REPAIR .00 .00 8,000.00 8,000.00 .0 202-40-55431-361 DOCK EQUIPMENT .00 .00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0 202-40-55431-362 MINOR PROJECTS 368.62 1,142.22 10,000.00 8,857.78 11.4 202-40-55431-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY .00 .00 38,468.45 38,468.45 .0 202-40-55431-830 OTHER IMPROVEMENT OUTLAY .00 8,255.00 .00 ( 8,255.00) .0 TOT AL DOCKS 8,122.93 38,721.99 134,000.00 95,278.01 28.9 TOT AL FUND EXPENDITURES 8,122.93 38,721.99 134,000.00 95,278.01 28.9 NET REV ENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 13,759.05 73,953.28 .00 ( 73,953.28) .0 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 11 WASTEWATER 610-30 -41900 MISC NONOPERATING INCOME/TAX .00 131,120.66 131,120.00 ( .66) 100.0 610-30-44900 CONNECT/HT PERMIT FEES .00 14,157.00 .00 ( 14,157.00) .0 610-30-45190 0.045 LATE CHARGE-SEWERED CUS 33.14 111.39 1,500.00 1,388.61 7.4 610-30-46410 SEWER CHARGES .00 230,754.00 460,308.00 229,554.00 50.1 610-30-46411 HOLDING TANK/SEPTIC CHARGES 6,799.25 14,924.96 24,000.00 9,075.04 62.2 610-30-46730 MISC RENTALS/SERVICES .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 610-30-48100 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 2,129.71 14,878.23 .00 ( 14,878.23) .0 610-30-48400 MISC INCOME/LAWSUIT SETTLEMEN .00 .00 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0 610-30-48410 WATER TEST LABOR INCOME .00 .00 12,000.00 12,000.00 .0 610-30-49200 TRANSFERS IN OTHER FUNDS - WW .00 .00 3,500.00 3,500.00 .0 TOT AL WASTEWATER 8,962.10 405,946.24 653,428.00 247,481.76 62.1 TOT AL FUND REVENUE 8,962.10 405,946.24 653,428.00 247,481.76 62.1 VILLAGE OF EPHRA IM EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 7 MONTHS ENDING JULY 31, 2026 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 58 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/06/2026 01:48PM PAGE: 12 WASTEWATER 610-30 -57401-100 SALARIES 23,461.81 103,124.52 167,576.70 64,452.18 61.5 610-30-57401-101 SS/MED 1,700.50 7,704.62 12,475.37 4,770.75 61.8 610-30-57401-102 RETIREMENT 1,416.00 7,488.58 11,089.22 3,600.64 67.5 610-30-57401-103 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,720.77 22,530.95 45,031.78 22,500.83 50.0 610-30-57401-104 DISABILITY INSURANCE 148.19 1,037.33 2,000.00 962.67 51.9 610-30-57401-105 WORKERS COMPENSATION .00 2,867.00 4,853.47 1,986.47 59.1 610-30-57401-200 LEGAL FEES .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 610-30-57401-211 PROPERTY INSURANCE .00 8,139.00 8,167.28 28.28 99.7 610-30-57401-306 PHONE 498.05 2,861.54 2,500.00 ( 361.54) 114.5 610-30-57401-309 INTERNET 77.50 485.00 1,500.00 1,015.00 32.3 610-30-57401-310 VEHICLE FUEL 462.40 1,580.72 3,000.00 1,419.28 52.7 610-30-57401-311 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 71.51 2,119.11 4,000.00 1,880.89 53.0 610-30-57401-312 CELLPHONES 15.00 653.84 1,000.00 346.16 65.4 610-30-57401-320 TRAINING/CONFERENCES .00 726.09 4,000.00 3,273.91 18.2 610-30-57401-331 POSTAGE .00 .00 400.00 400.00 .0 610-30-57401-333 OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXPENSES .00 174.44 250.00 75.56 69.8 610-30-57401-334 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/EXPENSES .00 626.41 2,000.00 1,373.59 31.3 610-30-57401-335 PROFESSIONAL DUES/EXPENSES .00 3,064.44 4,000.00 935.56 76.6 610-30-57401-337 AUDITING EXPENSES .00 6,005.74 6,900.00 894.26 87.0 610-30-57401-340 VEHICLE INSURANCE .00 1,221.00 1,698.59 477.59 71.9 610-30-57401-343 CONTINGENCY 54.28 286.63 1,000.00 713.37 28.7 610-30-57401-344 UNIFORMS .00 157.76 450.00 292.24 35.1 610-30-57401-387 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 14.99 66.94 500.00 433.06 13.4 610-30-57401-389 SAFETY EXPENSES 89.57 421.41 4,000.00 3,578.59 10.5 610-30-57402-210 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 106.58 2,598.51 2,000.00 ( 598.51) 129.9 610-30-57402-303 ELECTRICITY 3,521.55 18,592.08 30,000.00 11,407.92 62.0 610-30-57402-304 LP GAS .00 2,841.85 2,500.00 ( 341.85) 113.7 610-30-57402-351 HARDWARE/TOOLS 127.95 500.10 1,300.00 799.90 38.5 610-30-57402-380 CHEMICALS PLANT .00 4,325.32 9,500.00 5,174.68 45.5 610-30-57402-381 CHEMICALS LAB 45.60 985.85 3,000.00 2,014.15 32.9 610-30-57402-382 LAB EQUIPMENT & REPAIR 319.99 2,794.43 2,000.00 ( 794.43) 139.7 610-30-57402-383 SLUDGE EXPENSE 1,300.00 7,669.86 20,000.00 12,330.14 38.4 610-30-57402-385 PLANT EQUIPMENT & REPAIR 1,017.30 4,464.47 10,000.00 5,535.53 44.6 610-30-57402-386 ODOR CONTROL 40.00 209.90 2,600.00 2,390.10 8.1 610-30-57402-390 UV PLANT DISINFECTION .00 .00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0 610-30-57402-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY .00 .00 7,500.00 7,500.00 .0 610-30-57403-303 ELECTRICITY 859.70 5,710.25 7,500.00 1,789.75 76.1 610-30-57403-304 LP GAS .00 80.10 1,000.00 919.90 8.0 610-30-57403-384 COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINT 139.46 13,273.56 13,000.00 ( 273.56) 102.1 610-30-57404-810 EQUIPMENT OUTLAY 1,022.52 18,248.18 116,515.60 98,267.42 15.7 610-30-57404-840 OTHER IMPROUTLAY-ENGINEERING .00 31,275.30 .00 ( 31,275.30) .0 TOT AL WASTEWATER 40,231.22 286,912.83 522,308.01 235,395.18 54.9 TOT AL FUND EXPENDITURES 40,231.22 286,912.83 522,308.01 235,395.18 54.9 NET REV ENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 31,269.12) 119,033.41 131,119.99 12,086.58 90.8 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 1 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Invoice Sequence Description Type Invoice Due Invoice Discount Net Invoice GL Account Number Number Date Date Amount Amount Check Amount Number 13 FRONTIER 262-159- 073 1 Phone Charges-WW 262-159-0737 Invoice 07/25/2026 08/12/2026 502.06 502.06 610-30-5740 Total 262-159-0737-7/2026: 502.06 .00 502.06 Total 13 FRONTIER: 502.06 .00 502.06 24 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE 0403256491- 1 Streetlights Invoice 07/28/2026 08/12/2026 713.39 713.39 100-20-5342 Total 0403256491-22-7-26: 713.39 .00 713.39 0403256491- 1 Admin Invoice 07/15/2026 07/31/2026 403.93 403.93 100-10-5160 0403256491- 2 Streetlights Invoice 07/15/2026 07/31/2026 459.75 459.75 100-20-5342 Total 0403256491-31-7-26: 863.68 .00 863.68 Total 24 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE: 1,577.07 .00 1,577.07 58 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC INV1550898 1 Contract Usage Charge 7/29 - 8/28/202 Invoice 07/27/2026 08/12/2026 53.24 53.24 100-10-5140 INV1550898 2 Supply Freight Invoice 07/27/2026 08/12/2026 10.00 10.00 100-10-5140 Total INV15508989: 63.24 .00 63.24 Total 58 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC: 63.24 .00 63.24 64 CULLIGAN JULY2026-W 1 Bottled Water Invoice 07/30/2026 08/12/2026 46.50 46.50 100-10-5140 Total JULY2026-WATER: 46.50 .00 46.50 JULY2026-W 1 Salt at WW Invoice 07/30/2026 08/12/2026 45.60 45.60 610-30-5740 Total JULY2026-WW: 45.60 .00 45.60 Total 64 CULLIGAN: 92.10 .00 92.10 195 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 2001170373 1 WIS 42 Streetscape-North Path-2026 C Invoice 08/04/2026 08/12/2026 4,848.03 4,848.03 100-20-5330 Total 2001170373: 4,848.03 .00 4,848.03 Total 195 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC: 4,848.03 .00 4,848.03 228 NCL OF WISCONSIN INC. 538510 1 Lab Chemicals Invoice 07/20/2026 08/12/2026 174.96 174.96 610-30-5740 Total 538510: 174.96 .00 174.96 Total 228 NCL OF WISCONSIN INC.: 174.96 .00 174.96 235 QUILL CORPORATION 49732776 1 Office Supplies Invoice 07/27/2026 08/12/2026 42.74 42.74 100-10-5140 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 2 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Invoice Sequence Description Type Invoice Due Invoice Discount Net Invoice GL Account Number Number Date Date Amount Amount Check Amount Number Total 49732776: 42.74 .00 42.74 49767461 1 Office Supplies Invoice 07/28/2026 08/12/2026 61.08 61.08 100-10-5140 Total 49767461: 61.08 .00 61.08 Total 235 QUILL CORPORATION: 103.82 .00 103.82 543 CELLCOM WISCONSIN RSA 10 286888 1 Cell Phone Charges-Spartan Go Cam Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 14.77 14.77 100-20-5300 286888 2 Cell Phone Charges-WW Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 89.23 89.23 610-30-5740 286888 3 Cell Phone Charges-Admin Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 65.22 65.22 100-10-5140 286888 4 Cell Phone Charges-FD Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 24.23 24.23 100-50-5220 286888 5 Cell Phone Charges-FD Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 27.76 27.76 100-50-5220 286888 6 Cell Phone Charges-Marina Invoice 07/22/2026 08/12/2026 24.23 24.23 202-40-5543 Total 286888: 245.44 .00 245.44 Total 543 CELLCOM WISCONSIN RSA 10: 245.44 .00 245.44 605 NORTHERN LAKE SERVICE INC 2613574 1 Ammonia Tests Invoice 08/05/2026 08/12/2026 86.95 86.95 610-30-5740 Total 2613574: 86.95 .00 86.95 Total 605 NORTHERN LAKE SERVICE INC: 86.95 .00 86.95 673 TOWN OF GIBRALTAR 3 1 Fuel for M-425 Invoice 07/26/2026 08/12/2026 725.69 725.69 100-50-5220 Total 3: 725.69 .00 725.69 Total 673 TOWN OF GIBRALTAR: 725.69 .00 725.69 799 AFLAC ATTN: REMITTANCE PROCESSING 765100 1 Supplemental Insurance Invoice 07/29/2026 08/12/2026 396.82 396.82 100-21515 Total 765100: 396.82 .00 396.82 Total 799 AFLAC ATTN: REMITTANCE PROCESSING: 396.82 .00 396.82 809 VACUUM PUMP & COMPRESSOR INC 154462.1-1 1 New Blower #2 Invoice 07/17/2026 08/12/2026 11,560.41 11,560.41 610-30-5740 Total 154462.1-1: 11,560.41 .00 11,560.41 Total 809 VACUUM PUMP & COMPRESSOR INC: 11,560.41 .00 11,560.41 966 NORTHERN METAL ROOFING CO. INC 0028423-IN 1 Roof Repairs on WW Plant Invoice 08/01/2026 08/12/2026 4,600.00 4,600.00 610-30-5740 Total 0028423-IN: 4,600.00 .00 4,600.00 Total 966 NORTHERN METAL ROOFING CO. INC: 4,600.00 .00 4,600.00 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 3 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Invoice Sequence Description Type Invoice Due Invoice Discount Net Invoice GL Account Number Number Date Date Amount Amount Check Amount Number 1064 KIM ROBERTS AUG2026 1 Phone Reimbursement-August 2026 Invoice 08/01/2026 08/12/2026 15.00 15.00 100-10-5140 Total AUG2026: 15.00 .00 15.00 Total 1064 KIM ROBERTS: 15.00 .00 15.00 1178 NICOLET NATIONAL BANK 2JG00F0WF 1 GoToMeeting Subscription Invoice 07/11/2026 08/12/2026 425.38 425.38 100-10-5140 Total 2JG00F0WFNE: 425.38 .00 425.38 2JMS66GGR 1 Marchant's-Meat for Staff Lunch Invoice 07/16/2026 08/12/2026 112.86 112.86 100-10-5140 Total 2JMS66GGR5F: 112.86 .00 112.86 6HS5ZPF681 1 2x Clear Suction Hoses & Suction Hose Invoice 06/19/2026 08/12/2026 325.83 325.83 100-50-5220 Total 6HS5ZPF681K: 325.83 .00 325.83 6JR60TW7M 1 Business Card Holder Invoice 07/19/2026 08/12/2026 11.39 11.39 100-20-5300 Total 6JR60TW7MTY: 11.39 .00 11.39 6NJ602L3W4 1 2x Batteries-Icom BP-232WP Invoice 07/17/2026 08/12/2026 95.88 95.88 100-50-5220 Total 6NJ602L3W4K: 95.88 .00 95.88 8HVP2Y0Y6 1 Premium Gas Invoice 06/19/2026 08/12/2026 114.30 114.30 100-20-5331 Total 8HVP2Y0Y6RJ: 114.30 .00 114.30 8JJLYPMQN 1 H2O-FD Invoice 07/13/2026 08/12/2026 11.97 11.97 100-50-5220 Total 8JJLYPMQN4J: 11.97 .00 11.97 Total 1178 NICOLET NATIONAL BANK: 1,097.61 .00 1,097.61 1190 DANIEL OAKLEY AUG2026 1 Cell Phone Reimbursement-August 202 Invoice 08/01/2026 08/12/2026 15.00 15.00 610-30-5740 Total AUG2026: 15.00 .00 15.00 Total 1190 DANIEL OAKLEY: 15.00 .00 15.00 1226 RIESEN'S LANDSCAPE 860090 1 Cherry Street Steps-Spring Clean Invoice 08/03/2026 08/12/2026 1,935.00 1,935.00 100-20-5520 Total 860090: 1,935.00 .00 1,935.00 Total 1226 RIESEN'S LANDSCAPE: 1,935.00 .00 1,935.00 1248 DOOR COUNTY IT 6500 1 Lenovo Thinkstation Firewall Invoice 07/06/2026 08/12/2026 3,124.50 3,124.50 100-10-5140 Total 6500: 3,124.50 .00 3,124.50 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 4 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Invoice Sequence Description Type Invoice Due Invoice Discount Net Invoice GL Account Number Number Date Date Amount Amount Check Amount Number 6517 1 New Server and Networking Related W Invoice 07/20/2026 08/12/2026 1,027.00 1,027.00 100-10-5140 Total 6517: 1,027.00 .00 1,027.00 6519 1 Lenovo Thinkstation Firewall-addon Invoice 07/20/2026 08/12/2026 134.00 134.00 100-10-5140 Total 6519: 134.00 .00 134.00 6551 1 Huntress, Data Protection w/Cove Back Invoice 07/24/2026 08/12/2026 577.05 577.05 100-10-5140 Total 6551: 577.05 .00 577.05 6583 1 System Maintenance Invoice 07/24/2026 08/12/2026 142.00 142.00 100-10-5140 Total 6583: 142.00 .00 142.00 6595 1 Old Server removed & Windows Font Is Invoice 07/25/2026 08/12/2026 128.00 128.00 100-10-5140 Total 6595: 128.00 .00 128.00 Total 1248 DOOR COUNTY IT: 5,132.55 .00 5,132.55 1273 INSPECTION SPECIALIST LLC JULY2026 1 Building Permits Invoice 07/31/2026 08/12/2026 270.00 270.00 100-10-4431 Total JULY2026: 270.00 .00 270.00 Total 1273 INSPECTION SPECIALIST LLC: 270.00 .00 270.00 1285 ACE HARDWARE SISTER BAY 27936 1 Paint for Hatch Covers Invoice 07/24/2026 08/12/2026 50.99 50.99 610-30-5740 Total 27936: 50.99 .00 50.99 Total 1285 ACE HARDWARE SISTER BAY: 50.99 .00 50.99 1324 DEMPSEY LAW FIRM LLP 2239800000 1 Attorney Fees Invoice 08/04/2026 08/12/2026 1,694.50 1,694.50 100-10-5130 Total 22398000000-7/2026: 1,694.50 .00 1,694.50 Total 1324 DEMPSEY LAW FIRM LLP: 1,694.50 .00 1,694.50 1368 RELYCO PLUS LLC 26804.01 1 Ephraim North Path Project #60736646 Invoice 06/15/2026 08/12/2026 394,760.38 394,760.38 100-20-5330 Total 26804.01: 394,760.38 .00 394,760.38 Total 1368 RELYCO PLUS LLC: 394,760.38 .00 394,760.38 9204 PROFESSIONAL SUPPLY 1134433 1 Soap & Kitchen Towels Invoice 07/30/2026 08/12/2026 190.41 190.41 100-20-5332 Total 1134433: 190.41 .00 190.41 Total 9204 PROFESSIONAL SUPPLY: 190.41 .00 190.41 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 5 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Invoice Sequence Description Type Invoice Due Invoice Discount Net Invoice GL Account Number Number Date Date Amount Amount Check Amount Number 9240 SEPTIC MAINTENANCE LLC 48852 1 3 Loads of Sludge to SB Invoice 06/16/2026 08/12/2026 990.00 990.00 610-30-5740 Total 48852: 990.00 .00 990.00 Total 9240 SEPTIC MAINTENANCE LLC: 990.00 .00 990.00 9279 PENINSULA PULSE LLC 39013 1 Alcohol License Applications Invoice 07/01/2026 07/31/2026 34.36 34.36 100-10-5140 Total 39013: 34.36 .00 34.36 Total 9279 PENINSULA PULSE LLC: 34.36 .00 34.36 9290 ANDREA COLLAK AUG2026 1 Cell Phone Reimbursement-August 202 Invoice 08/01/2026 08/12/2026 30.00 30.00 100-10-5140 Total AUG2026: 30.00 .00 30.00 Total 9290 ANDREA COLLAK: 30.00 .00 30.00 Total : 431,192.39 .00 431,192.39 Grand Totals: 431,192.39 .00 431,192.39 Summary by General Ledger Account Number GL Account Number Debit Credit Net 100-10-44310 270.00 .00 270.00 100-10-51300-200 1,694.50 .00 1,694.50 100-10-51400-312 110.22 .00 110.22 100-10-51400-333 297.54 .00 297.54 100-10-51400-334 5,557.93 .00 5,557.93 100-10-51400-339 63.24 .00 63.24 100-10-51600-303 403.93 .00 403.93 100-20-53000-312 14.77 .00 14.77 100-20-53000-333 11.39 .00 11.39 100-20-53302-820 399,608.41 .00 399,608.41 100-20-53310-310 114.30 .00 114.30 100-20-53322-350 190.41 .00 190.41 100-20-53420-303 1,173.14 .00 1,173.14 100-20-55200-227 1,935.00 .00 1,935.00 100-21515 396.82 .00 396.82 100-50-52200-302 725.69 .00 725.69 100-50-52200-312 51.99 .00 51.99 100-50-52200-370 95.88 .00 95.88 100-50-52200-371 337.80 .00 337.80 202-40-55430-312 24.23 .00 24.23 610-30-57401-306 502.06 .00 502.06 610-30-57401-312 104.23 .00 104.23 610-30-57402-210 86.95 .00 86.95 610-30-57402-381 220.56 .00 220.56 610-30-57402-383 990.00 .00 990.00 Village of Ephraim Unpaid Invoice Report Page: 6 Report dates: ALL-ALL Aug 06, 2026 01:50PM Summary by General Ledger Account Number GL Account Number Debit Credit Net 610-30-57402-385 50.99 .00 50.99 610-30-57404-810 16,160.41 .00 16,160.41 Grand Totals: 431,192.39 .00 431,192.39 Summary by General Ledger Posting Period GL Posting Period Debit Credit Net 00/00 431,192.39 .00 431,192.39 Grand Totals: 431,192.39 .00 431,192.39 Ephraim Fire Department P.O. Box 138, Ephraim, WI 54211 Fire Chief Justin MacDonald JULY 2026 EPHRAIM RUNS: 4 07-10-26 Water St. & Meadow Ln. 9 Firefighters 2 Car Accident/Traffic Cont rol 07-13-26 Water St. & Brodd Ln. 9 Firefighters 1 Car Accident/Traffic Control 07-14-26 9887 Water St. 4 Firefighters Smoke Scare/Inves tigate 07-14-26 3140 Larson Ln. 5 Firefighters Propane Leak/Invest igate EPHRAIM EMR CALLS: 16 MUTUAL AID (MA) AUTO AID (AA) or MABAS RUNS: 4 07-01-26 Nicolet Bay GFD (MA) 6 Firefighters Water Rescue/Assist on sc ene 07-08-26 9360 Cottage Rd. GFD (AA) 7 Firefighters Smoke in home/Cancelled 07-19-26 12832 Kenosha Dr. SBLG (MA) 5 Firefighters Water Rescue/Cancelled 07-25-26 1860 Schoolhouse Beach Rd. DCEMS (MA) 2 Firefighters Transport Medics for Drowning YEAR TO DATE FIRE CALLS: 54 YEAR TO DATE EMS CALLS: 42 TRAINING COMPLETED: Ephraim Home Meeting: Our 1st monthly meeting was held on July 2nd training was on Boat Rescue. Practical training at Anderson Dock as a boat had sunk in a slip, firefighters utilized multiple techniques in raising the vessel from the water including ropes, portable fire pumps and basic manpower. Boat was pumped out an d moved to firehouse dock to be placed on a trailer. Firefighters discussed upcoming 4th of July weekend and debriefed Fyr-Bal. 13 Firefighters participated in this training. 2nd July Ephraim Meeting: Our 2nd July meeting was held on July 16th, and training was on Rope Rescue. Firefighters reviewed all de- partment Rope Rescue Gear and went through each area of Rope Rescue from rigging to patient contact. Re- view of basic Rope Rescue Safety was also gone over. 11 Firefighters participated in this training. Other Training: -EMR’s attended their monthly meeting in Sister Bay. Other: -Monthly Truck Checks were completed. -Several Fireworks permits were issued in the Village with the approval from the Village President and Fire Chief. Respectfully Submitted Justin MacDonald Fire Chief Ephraim Fire Department July 2026 Ephraim WW, WWT, SS Manager OIC Report EFF samples sent to Northern Lake Services for ammonia testing: Ph testing: Five times per week as required. TSS, BOD, Po4, labs with lab cleanup: Twice per week as required. Eff E-coli test, this must be done May-October once per week while running disinfection. • We had an audit conducted on our well water testing lab; she found a couple minor things which have been corrected and approved. • There was a close by lightning strike which caused some issues. We had to reset our overhead door opener and four of them at the new maintenance shop, we also had to restart the clarifier drive and some lab equipment. • Blower # 2 had a possible bearing failure. I called Vacuum Pump and Compressor right away. Luckily the factory had a new blower like ours in stock, we had it rush ordered and installed four days later. Blower #2 is being inspected, and they will give us a quote on repairs. • The same day the battery blew on the Lift # 1 generator which was caused by the charger which failed and was overcharging. • NEI installed the new generator transfer switch at Lift # 2. This required shutting off the power completely for almost five hours. We called in two Septic Maintenance trucks to keep up with the flows during the shutdown. • We painted the rusty exhaust vents on the roof of the plant and receiving station. • We disassembled our spare diffusers and installed new sleeves and clamps. Ephraim Well Water Testing Year to Date as of 7/23/2026 Number of Water Tests: 273 803 In-House Bacteria: 262 715 Clean Water Testing: 26 88 Ephraim Septage Service: Holding Tank Pump Outs: 10 35 Septic Pump Outs / Inspections: 0 11 Emergency Call Ins: Weather: Precip: 4.0 21.31 Max Temp: 89 79 Min Temp: 55 -17 Respectfully submitted, Brad Rasmusson Village of Ephraim Physical Facilities/Utilities July Maintenance Manager Report Work done in July: • Daily Tasks (Bathroom Cleaning, Garbage collection, Flower Watering, Litter Pick-up) • Lawn Watering and Mowing as needed • Cleaning of Administration Building, Village Hall and Library. • Set-up and Take Down Village Hall as needed for events • Tilling of Beach as needed • Push up dump as needed • Moved all Recycling to Fire Station Parking lot for Paving Operations • Door County Highway Paved Spruce Ln., Holand Rd., N. Orchard Rd. and Maintenance/Wastewater Facilities. • Painted pedestrian signage on North Walking Path • Quarterly Water Testing • Painting of Trim at Administration Office • String Trim Moravia Point Guardrail from CTY Q to Water St. • Leveled 2 loads of Gravel at dump due to water ponding issue • Mowed Old Dump as required by DNR • Mowed Wastewater Access on Stock Ln, ditches on several roads • Installed multiple fire numbers • Replaced several burned out bulbs in old streetlights • Repainted trim on gazebo border • Patched potholes on several streets • Installed Rock/Plaque at Liberty Tree • Spraying of Weeds at various locations • Removed 2 Dead Deer that were on Village Right of Ways • Repaired several toilets that had issues. Respectfully Submitted Justin MacDonald Maintenance Manager jmacdonald@ephraim.wi,gov WARMING KITCHEN ENTRY VESTIBULE HALL STORAGE TOILET ROOMS LIBRARY INFORMATION OFFICE LIFT VESTIBULE TOILET PLATFORM STORAGE ALCOVE TOILET TOILET ALCOVE PASSAGE ALCOVE (156 SEATS) 3'-3" 3'-2" TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: EX1.0 08.06.2026 ------- ------- ------- P26182 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 9996 WATER STREET 54211 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 Existing Village Hall WARMING KITCHEN ENTRY VESTIBULE TOILET ROOMS STORAGE INFORMATION OFFICE TOILET VESTIBULE LIBRARY ALCOVE LIFT PASSAGE HALL RAMP LANDING A/V ROOM PANIC HARDWARE PANIC HARDWARE PANIC HARDWARE R 6' - 0" R 8' - 0" 4'-6" (148 SEATS) (20" ABOVE MAIN LEVEL) PLATFORM UP RAMP UP 20" (20" ABOVE MAIN LEVEL) (20" ABOVE MAIN LEVEL) WALL MOUNTED HANDRAIL FLOOR MOUNTED GUARDRAIL WITH HANDRAIL OR HALF WALL WITH WALL MOUNTED HANDRAIL CLEAR 3'-0" TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: A1.0 08.06.2026 ------- ------- ------- P26182 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 9996 WATER STREET 54211 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN NORTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 HALF WALL HALF WALL OPTION 1 Option 1 – Extend stage to East 1) Remove restrooms 2) Keep platform at existing height 3) New ramp & railings 4) Demo walls 5) Wall reconfiguration 6) Budget $70,000 - $80,000 Village Hall - Option 1 WARMING KITCHEN ENTRY VESTIBULE TOILET ROOMS STORAGE INFORMATION OFFICE TOILET VESTIBULE LIBRARY ALCOVE LIFT PASSAGE HALL PANIC HARDWARE PANIC HARDWARE R 6' - 0" R 8' - 0" 4'-6" BUILT-IN LOCKABLE A/V CABINET UP MIN. 1'-6" RAMP UP 12" (12" ABOVE MAIN LEVEL) PLATFORM LANDING ALCOVE TOILET TOILET ALCOVE (138 SEATS) HALF WALL HALF WALL HALF WALL TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: A1.0 08.06.2026 ------- ------- ------- P26182 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 9996 WATER STREET 54211 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN NORTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 OPTION 2 Option 2 – Extend stage to West 1) Reduce stage height to 12” 2) Demo platform / new platform 3) Demo walls 4) Wall reconfiguration 5) New ramp & railing 6) Budget: $40,000 - $50,000 Village Hall - Option 2 TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL DN UP STAIR ELEV. WOMENS' LOCKERS ARCHIVE FILES WOMENS' TOILET MENS' LOCKER MENS' TOILET RECEPTION OFFICE OFFICE BREAK ROOM STORAGE COPY/ WORK MEETING 2,172 SF PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: EX1.0 05.08.2026 ACM ------- ------- P25244 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 10005 NORWAY ST N 54211 1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 NORTH OPTION 0 Existing Admin. Bldg. TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL DN UP STORAGE STAIR PASSAGE JAN. UNISEX TOILET UTILITY SINK ELEV. TRANSACTION COUNTER COPIER OFFICE LOCKABLE BUILT-IN A/V CABINET LAT. FILESLAT. FILES LAT. FILES LAT. FILES TVTV TV TV SERVER OFFICE OFFICE COPY / WORK 7'-7 1/4" 3 1/2" 9'-2 3/4" 7'-4 1/2" 3 1/2" 3'-1 1/4" 3 1/2" 12'-8 3/4" 9'-5" 3 1/2" 9'-5" 3 1/2" 22'-6 1/4" (30 SEATS) MOTORIZED SOLAR SHADES 30" REF. MICRO COFFEE MIN. 1' -6". TV BREAK ROOM MEETING ROOM INFILL FLOOR @ LOCATION OF DEMOLISHED CHIMNEY 5'-7 3/4" 3 1/2" 5'-4" UNISEX TOILET 9'-6 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-3 1/4" 3 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 11'-3 1/4" ENTRY LOBBY 23'-9 1/2" 14'-6" 3 1/2" 4'-4" RAMP UP RAMP UP 5'-0"24 '-0"10'-0" 8'-0" 5'-0"15 '-0" DN LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE TO MATCH EXISTING 8" MAX. 3" GAP PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: A1.0 02.18.2026 ACM ------- ------- P25244 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 10005 NORWAY ST N 54211 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 03.10.2026 ACM 2 3 4 5 6 OPTION 1 Admin. Bldg. - Option 1 TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL DN UP STORAGE STAIR PASSAGE JAN. UNISEX TOILET UTILITY SINK ELEV. COPIER WORK / BREAK TV TV 7'-7 1/4" 3 1/2" 9'-2 3/4" 29'-7 7/8" 3 1/2" 5'-9 3/16" 3 1/2" 5'-11 3/16" MOTORIZED SOLAR SHADES OFFICE INFILL FLOOR @ LOCATION OF DEMOLISHED CHIMNEY LOBBY LAT. FILES LAT. FILES LAT. FILES LAT. FILES 23'-9 1/2" TRANSACTION WINDOW AT 42" A.F.F. LAT. FILES LAT. FILES 4'-0" 42'-0" 3'-0" 6' -4" 15'-8" 6'-4" 10'-8" TV 9'-8 3/8" 3 1/2" 10'-2" 8'-3 15/16" 818 SF ADDITION OFFICE TV 30" REF. MICROCOFFEE TV (49 MAX. OCCUPANCY) MEETING ROOM (40) CHAIRS SET UP AT ALL TIMES CEILING MOUNTED MOTORIZED PROJECTION SCREEN PORTABLE LECTERN R 6' - 0" R 8' - 0" WOMEN'S TLT. MEN'S TLT. BABY CHANGING STATION BABY CHANGING STATION CLEAR 4' -8" SERVER OFFICE 30" DEEP COUNTERTOP @ 30" A.F.F. RAMP UP 41'-0" RAMP UP14'-6" RAMP 12'-0"6'-4"9'-8"6'-4"6'-8" 28'-6" RAMP 13'-7 1/4" 3 1/2" 5'-1 1/4" 3 1/2" 13'-7 1/2" 5 1/2" 7'-6" 11'-3 3/4" 3 1/2" 8'-7 1/4"3 1/2"11'-0 1/4"8'-4 5/16" 4'-8" 8' -8 1/4" 3 1/2" 11 '-6 1/2" INTERN WORKSTATION PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: A1.0 05.08.2026 ACM ------- ------- P25244 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 10005 NORWAY ST N 54211 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 OPTION 2 Admin. Bldg. - Option 2 TYPICAL EXISTING WALL DEMO WALLS WALL KEY NEW WALL/FURRING NEW MASONRY/ VENEER WALL NEW COOLER/ FREEZER WALLS NEW PRECAST WALL FIRE WALL OR FIRE BARRIER NEW IMP WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING MASONRY WALL DEMO MASONRY WALL (69 SEATS) (40) CHAIRS SET UP AT ALL TIMES CEILING MOUNTED MOTORIZED PROJECTION SCREEN PORTABLE LECTERN R 6' - 0" R 8' - 0" TV 1014 SF MEETING ROOM 103 93 SF MEETING ROOM STORAGE 101 154 SF CONFERENCE 104 33 SF SERVER 106 157 SF BREAK ROOM 105 273 SF ENTRY 100 6'-8" 16'-8" 10'-0" 16'-8" 18'-0" 46'-0" 45 SF ELECTION STORAGE 102 62 SF UNISEX TLT. 113 62 SF UNISEX TLT. 114 9'-4"4 1'-4" BABY CHANGING STATION 30" DEEP COUNTERTOP @ 30" A.F.F. BABY CHANGING STATION 4'-8" 151 SF OFFICE 109 151 SF OFFICE 110 98 SF OFFICE 111 117 SF COPY/ WORK 107 131 SF LOBBY 112 176 SF PASSAGE 108 68'-0" 133 SF MECH./ JAN. 115 TRANSACTION WINDOW AT 42" A.F.F. LAT. FILES LAT. FILES TV LAT. FILES LAT. FILES TV LAT. FILESLAT. FILES UTILITY SINK COPIER REF. MICROCOFFEE INTERN WORKSTATION TV TV TV FD W.H. ELEC. PANELS WATER COOLER 4'-8" 4'-8" 6 '-0" 4'-8" 6'-0" 4'-8" 6'-0" 23'-4" 6'-0" 8'-0" 6 '-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 8'-0" PRELIMINARY NO: SUPERVISOR: EXPEDITOR: DRAWN BY: CONTRACT NO: DATE: SHEET: REVISIONS "COPYRIGHT NOTICE" This design, drawing and detail is the copyrighted property of KELLER, INC. No part hereof shall be copied, duplicated, distributed, disclosed or made available to anyone without the expressed written consent of KELLER, INC. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WISCONSIN DESIGNER: PROJECT MANAGER: INTERIOR DESIGNER: A1.0 07.10.2026 ACM ------- ------- P25244 ------- PROPOSED FOR: EPHRAIM, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM D. FLANIGAN G. STRAUB ------- 10005 NORWAY ST N 54211 NORTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 OPTION 4 1/4" = 1'-0" FINISH FLOOR PLAN New Admin. Bldg. - Option 4 Quantum Technologies S T U R G E O N B A Y · A L G O M A P R E P A R E D F O R Village of Ephraim Brent Bristol, Village Administrator Q U O T E Q10516 S T A T U S Budgetary, valid 30 days V I L L A G E H A L L · P E R M A N E N T A U D I O , V I D E O A N D C O N T R O L Walk in, press one button, run the meeting. This is the full build, not a menu of options. It assumes the board keeps meeting in the Village Hall and wants the room to work the same way every time, without an hour of setup and without anyone on staff acting as the AV operator. The number below is a budgetary figure meant to hold up in a board packet. It is intentionally scoped to the ceiling of what the room needs, so the board can decide what to trim rather than discover what was missing. O N E - T I M E I N V E S T M E N T $79,079.76 O N G O I N G S U P P O R T $240.00 / month O N S I T E L A B O R I N C L U D E D 80 hours S E A T S A T T H E T A B L E Up to 9 P L A T F O R M H E I G H T T O D A Y 24 inches P U B L I C R E S E R V A T I O N S / Y E A R About 25 M E E T I N G P L A T F O R M GoToMeeting S P E N T O N I N T E R I M F I X E S About $25,000 W H A T H A S T O C H A N G ESix problems the board named, and what this build does about each one Drawn from the July 28 walkthrough in the hall. Left column is the room as it operates today. Right column is what the equipment in this quote actually changes. T O D A Y The laptop, the Owls, the mixer and the mics get carried in and cabled together before every meeting, often an hour ahead, and someone has to be in the building to do it. A F T E R Everything lives in a locked rack and stays connected. Cameras, speakers and processing are fixed in place. Starting a meeting is one tap on the iPad or wall panel. T O D A Y The Owls lose their pairing, GoToMeeting stops seeing an audio input, a remote caller makes the Yamahas squeal, the front screens blank for a few seconds. None of it reproduces on demand, so none of it gets fixed. A F T E R One processor owns all audio in the room. Networked cameras replace paired appliances. Four microphone inputs and six speaker choices collapse into a single tested preset, so there is nothing to select and nothing to re-pair. T O D A Y By your own estimate, roughly one speaker in four gets within useful range of a microphone, and everyone turns away from the mic to talk to the member beside them. A F T E R Nine licensed wireless channels, one per seat at the table, plus the podium position and a handheld the chair can pass into the audience. Each position has its own mute the speaker can see. T O D A Y The room is a hard box: maple floor, plaster walls, tall ceiling. The last attempt to boost audio into it produced feedback and an audible delay, so the processing was switched off and never turned back on. A F T E R Acoustic echo cancellation and per-zone processing in the Q-SYS core, tuned in this room with these microphones. This is the part of the acoustic problem that gets solved without touching the floor, the walls or the windows. T O D A Y People in the back rows cannot hear, and on a good night the audio at home is better than the audio in the room. A F T E R Four loudspeaker pairs distributed through the hall instead of two boxes at the front, zoned so coverage reaches the back without overdriving the platform. T O D A Y When something fails mid-meeting, it lands on the administrator, and the fallback is shutting one system off and running the backup. A F T E R Monitored under Quantum Care AV Tier 3. We hold remote access to the core, the amplifiers and the switch, so most of what happens now gets caught or corrected without a truck roll. T H E S Y S T E MFive subsystems, one control surface V O I C E C A P T U R E A Shure Axient Digital receiver licensed for nine channels, with nine ULX-D handheld transmitters and an eight-bay networked charging dock. Channels are licensed rather than fixed to a form factor, so a seat can move to a gooseneck, a lavalier or a wearable later without replacing the receiver. Batteries charge in the rack, and the dock reports state on the network instead of relying on someone remembering. P R O C E S S I N G A N D R E I N F O R C E M E N T A QSC Q-SYS Core 24F handles mixing, gating, automatic gain and acoustic echo cancellation. Two networked Dynacord DSP amplifiers drive four Electro-Voice EVID 6.2 loudspeaker pairs, zoned front and rear. The core also owns the connection to GoToMeeting, so remote callers and in-room audio are handled by the same device rather than fighting each other. C A M E R A A N D I M A G E A single Bosch 4K PTZ camera with 20x zoom, permanently mounted, with presets for the platform, the podium and a wide room shot. It replaces the Meeting Owls as the meeting camera and removes the pairing step entirely. Mounting height is set during install so the framing is level with the table rather than looking down on it. C O N T E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N Turtle AV Chazy over the AV network: two USB-C wall plates as inputs, so a laptop connects with one cable at the platform or the podium, and three decoders feeding displays. The Control Pro box manages routing. Existing displays are reused in this scope. If the board wants a rear- wall projection or per-seat screens, that is an addition, not a redesign. B A C K B O N E A N D C O N T R O L A Netgear M4250 AV-line PoE+ switch and a 27U enclosed rack, with 16 Cat 6 riser pulls to microphone, camera, display and speaker locations. Control is a 13-inch iPad running a purpose-built Q-SYS interface: start meeting, end meeting, camera preset, volume. Nothing on that screen requires knowing what is in the rack. S U P P O R T Quantum Care AV Tier 3 at $240 a month covers monitoring, firmware and configuration management, remote troubleshooting and an annual tuning visit. The reason it is on this quote and not an afterthought is that reliability was the board's first requirement, and reliability is a service, not a product. B I L L O F M A T E R I A L SLine items Grouped by subsystem for reading. Quantities and pricing match quote Q10516 line for line. Q U O T E Q 1 0 5 1 6 · V I L L A G E O F E P H R A I M · V I L L A G E H A L L I T E M Q T Y U N I T A M O U N T V O I C E C A P T U R E Shure wireless receiver for Axient Digital and ULX-D systems 1 $7,856.00 $7,856.00 Shure ANX4 four-channel license pack 2 $4,093.00 $8,186.00 Shure ANX4 single-channel license 1 $1,087.00 $1,087.00 Shure ULX-D(R) digital handheld transmitter Nine channels total: seats at the table, the podium and a pass-around for the audience. 9 $1,227.00 $11,043.00 Shure SBC850 eight-bay networked docking station1 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 SUBTOTAL $29,422.00 P R O C E S S I N G A N D R E I N F O R C E M E N T QSC Q-SYS Core 24F network and analog I/O processor Acoustic echo cancellation, automatic mixing and the GoToMeeting audio path. 1 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 Dynacord four-channel networked DSP amplifier2 $2,805.00 $5,610.00 Electro-Voice EVID 6.2 dual 6 inch two-way surface-mount loudspeaker, pair, black 4 $1,857.14 $7,428.56 SUBTOTAL $18,438.56 C A M E R A A N D C O N T E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N Bosch PTZ camera, 4K and Full HD, 20x zoom 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 Turtle AV Chazy 4K RX HDMI 2.0 Dante AV-A / JPEG 2000 decoder3 $1,113.00 $3,339.00 Turtle AV Chazy 4K USB-C wall plate transmitter, two-gang Decora2 $1,113.00 $2,226.00 Turtle AV Chazy Control Pro central management box1 $1,113.00 $1,113.00 I T E M Q T Y U N I T A M O U N T Turtle AV Chazy 6U rack mount kit, holds 10 Chazy units1 $171.00 $171.00 SUBTOTAL $9,449.00 C O N T R O L Apple iPad Pro 13-inch (M5), 256 GB, Wi-Fi 7, Space Black Runs the custom Q-SYS control interface. Docked at the platform. 1 $1,499.00 $1,499.00 SUBTOTAL $1,499.00 N E T W O R K , R A C K A N D C A B L I N G Netgear AV Line M4250-40G8F-PoE+ managed switch, 40x1G PoE+, 480W, 8x SFP 1 $2,617.00 $2,617.00 Rack Solutions 27U tall enclosed rack Lockable. Location to be confirmed against the Keller layout. 1 $1,431.00 $1,431.00 Cat 6 UTP riser cable pull 16 $214.00 $3,424.00 SUBTOTAL $7,472.00 I N S T A L L A T I O N Onsite labor Install, termination, DSP configuration, in-room tuning, control interface build and orientation for staff and board. 80 $159.99 $12,799.20 SUBTOTAL $12,799.20 R E C U R R I N G Quantum Care, AV Service Tier 3 Billed monthly. Begins at project acceptance. 1 $240.00 $240.00 / mo O N E - T I M E $79,079.76 R E C U R R I N G $240.00 / mo S H I P P I N G $0.00 T A X $0.00 exempt Quote Q10516 shows a total of $79,319.76, which is the one-time figure plus the first month of service. R E A D I N G T H E N U M B E RThree things worth saying out loud at the board meeting It lands under the range the room floated The walkthrough put a permanent build somewhere north of $100,000, with $150,000 named as the outer edge. This is the full version at $79,079.76, with no options removed to get there. If the board wants a smaller number, we can trim from here, and the obvious candidates are channel count and the content distribution layer. Most of it moves if the meetings move The receiver, transmitters, dock, core, amplifiers, camera, switch, rack and iPad are equipment, not construction. If the board later decides meetings belong in the Edmond building, that hardware relocates. What does not move is the 16 cable pulls and part of the labor, roughly $12,000 to $16,000 of the total. That reframes the decision as a timing question more than a sunk-cost question. It does not depend on the platform decision Whether the platform stays at 24 inches, drops to a single step, or flares into a U, this design does not materially change. Speaker positions, camera height and cable routes get finalized once the layout is set, so the AV scope can be priced and approved now, with the install sequenced after the building work. N O T I N C L U D E D I N T H I S S C O P E Where the line sits N E X T What we need to move Acoustic treatment of walls or ceiling, and any flooring change Platform modification, ramp, handrails, guardrail or millwork, including the lockable equipment closet New electrical, conduit, coring or wall and ceiling repair Replacement displays, rear-wall projection or per-seat screens Meeting tables and any per-seat device mounting Floor plans from Keller. Existing conditions are enough to mark speaker, camera, rack and cable locations on a drawing for the packet. 01 Confirm nine channels is right. Seven planning committee members plus administrator and clerk gets us to nine. If the note taker comes off the platform, that frees a channel. 02 Decide on the existing displays. Reuse as- is in this scope, or price a rear-wall projection so the board can read what the audience is reading. 03 Items in the first three lines fall to Keller and the electrical contractor. We will coordinate rough-in locations with them directly once a layout exists. Quantum Technologies S T U R G E O N B A Y · A L G O M A Quote Q10516 · Village of Ephraim, Village Hall AV Modernization Budgetary. Pricing valid 30 days. Equipment pricing subject to distributor availability. Prepared by Journey Sikorski, Vice President of Technology Sales tax, permits and prevailing wage if it applies Internet service changes or a replacement meeting platform Board packet and vote. This document plus a marked-up plan is what goes in the packet ahead of the August 11 board meeting. 04 Image of 9996 WATER ST Image of 9996 WATER ST Image of 9996 WATER ST Image of 9996 WATER ST Property Record HISTORIC NAME: Memorial Town Hall OTHER NAME: EPHRAIM VILLAGE HALL REFERENCE NUMBER: 16850 Property Location LOCATION (ADDRESS) 9996 WATER ST COUNTY Door       click zoom to display a high-res image  CITY/VILLAGE Ephraim TOWNSHIP UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY TOWN RANGE DIRECTION SECTION QUARTER SECTION QUARTER QUARTER SECTION Property Features YEAR BUILT 1927 ADDITIONS 1961, 1943 SURVEY DATE 1975 HISTORIC USE city/town/village hall/auditorium ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Arts and Crafts STRUCTURAL SYSTEM WALL MATERIAL Limestone ARCHITECT William Bernhard-1943,Henry Tideman-1961 library addition OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE DEMOLISHED No DEMOLISHED DATE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FLARED EAVES. SQUARE TOWER IN CENTER. ELABORATE TRUSSWORK IN FRONT GABLE. The limestone for the construction of this building came from nearby Eagle Bluff. Henry Anschutz of Sturgeon Bay supervised the building work. Ephraim was founded in 1853 by a small group of Scandanavian Moravians. From its beginnings as an isolated community with an economy based on fishing and lumbering, through the onset of its development as a summer resort area in the 1890s and into the twentieth century when Ephraim was well established as a resort, the village was unincorporated and governmentally a part of the town of Gibraltar. The advent of better transportation and greater leisure time after World War I helped to establish Ephraim's popularity as a resort area. The community of nearly 200 would often double in population during the summer. People who first stayed in hotels or rented cottages began to builf their own summer homes and, therefore, became local taxpayers. This increase in visitors and permanent summer residents generated a demand for mor direct local government and ancillary services. As a result, in 1919 Ephraim was incorporated as a village with four of the first elected village officers being hotel owners. The need for a village hall for the new governmentcoincided with the growing demand among many Ephraim citizens for a community center. Around 1915 the Ephraim Mens Club started a fund for building a community center and in 1922 the village voted to increase local taxes $1,000 per year and put the money in a fund for a hall. Money from lyceum courses, entertainments and donations were also put into the fund. No building was erected until the present structure at first called the "Memorial Town Hall", was completed in 1927. One indication of the support the hall had among different factions of the village population was shown when a group of resort owners and summer residents threw a fund raising party to benefit the nearly completed hall. In 1943, architect William Bernhard made specifications for new basement entries, stairs and interior work. The Village Hall, located in the commercial center of Ephraim was a multi purpose building serving the community in various ways. It was used as a village hall, basketball court, lecture room, library, lounge, and U.S. post office (until 1983). It is still used as an information center for tourists during the summer months. The library, once located in the basement of the hall was moved to a new addition of the building built in 1961. Besides village governmental meetings, the hall has been used for community activities such as movies, fish boils, music lessons, and rummage sales. Resurveyed March 2014; no visible changes. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES DOOR COUNTY ADVOCATE, 1/7/1927. DOOR COUNTY NEWS, 7/14/1927. Door County Advocate 2/18/1927. Door County Advocate 5/13/1927. Specifications for Village Hall alterations by William Bernhard of Ephraim, WI, 1943. Door County Advocate 7/22/1927.  Door County Advocate 7/27/1927. Door County Advocate 10/26/1922. Door County Advocate 11/15/1922. Door County Advocate 7/10/1923. Door County Advocate 10/24/1919. Door County Advocate 6/4/1926. Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, State of Wisconsin Blue Book (Madison, State of Wisconsin). National And State Register Of Historic Places Listings NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER LISTING NAME Ephraim Village Hall NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING DATE Mar 27, 1985 STATE REGISTER LISTING DATE Jan 01, 1989 CONTRIBUTING Map data ©2026 9996 Water St S 9996 Water St S, Ephraim, WI 54211, USA City/Town/Village Hall/Auditorium Arts And Crafts Door COUNTY Ephraim COMMUNITY 1920-1929 DECADE National and State Register Listing Permalink PERMALINK  Fall-Winter Update – page 1 EE EEphraim Updatephraim Updatephraim Updatephraim Update FallFall FallFall-- --WinterWinter WinterWinter 200820 0 8 20082008 Letter from the Letter from the Letter from the Letter from the Village President…Village President…Village President…Village President… Hello friends and neighbors, In a recent village newsletter, I wrote about past village boards and committees and the people who were members of those groups. If one thinks back years or even decades, we can see how our village evolved the way it did. Careful consideration and discussion of the issues by those participants still proves invaluable to the Village Board and its standing committees today. Today in Ephraim, we have several active committees in addition to the Village Board. The standing committees meet on a regular basis to advise and make recommendations to the Village Board to help manage the village, protect our heritage, and possibly the most important responsibility, shape the future direction of our special community. Our committee members represent most subgroups of Ephraim property owners. The dedicated friends and neighbors that make up our diverse committee membership lists include residents, non-residents, people who live in Ephraim but work elsewhere, seasonal homeowners, retirees, and Ephraim business owners. The personal backgrounds and opinions of committee members make for well-rounded discussion on many issues that are important to all Ephraim taxpayers. At many committee and Village Board meetings throughout the course of the year, members and trustees tend to see eye to eye, but other times an issue may arise that provokes healthy debate resulting in well thought out decisions. The debate along with public participation and correspondence assures that taxpayers are being well represented on those very important decisions that will shape our future. Most if not all of your village committee members do not wish any notoriety for the time they put in and they do not receive compensation for their efforts. There is a list of all your village committee members on another page in this newsletter and on the village web page. All of our committee members deserve our gratitude for the many hours they put forth for our community. Please make an effort to thank them. Shortly after the first of the year, Ephraim will begin a new chapter. After more than twenty years, the village will be hiring a new administrator to replace Diane Kirkland who most of you know by now has decided to retire. At the time of the printing of this newsletter, the Village Board is in the process of reviewing several applications to fill the position. The Village Board has contracted with a consulting firm to help guide us through the process, assuring that we hire the best-qualified candidate. It is anticipated that the new administrator will arrive and take over the day-to-day management of our continued….continued….continued….continued…. 10005 Norway ~ PO Box 138 ~ Ephraim WI 54211 Phone: (920) 854-5501 ~ Fax (920) 854-2072 office@ephraim-wisconsin.com ww w.ephraim-wisconsin.com Fall-Winter Update – page 2 …continued…c ontinued…continued…continued village shortly after the January 1, 2009. Please avoid comparing the new administrator to our retiring administrator. It is inevitable that when the new administrator takes the helm, there will likely be a few management changes. The Village Board will work closely with the new administrator during the transition and into the future. In my nearly twenty years working for the Gibraltar School District, I have known many school employees who have retired after a long, fulfilling career. After they leave the job they have held for such a long time, you tend to see them in a different light, at different places, doing different things, etc. One of my neighbors once told me that after he retired, he found that he didn’t have enough time in a day to accomplish all the things that was on he wanted to. He said it with a little smile on his face. You know the kind of smile I am talking about. I was pretty sure I knew what he was driving at. He seems pretty happy to me even though there is not enough time in the day. Diane, if we see that little smile, we can only assume retirement is agreeing with you. Please wish Diane well. Thank you and congratulations! Seasons Greetings, John Cox ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FF FFrom The Wastewater Treatment Plant rom The Wastewater Treatment Plant rom The Wastewater Treatment Plant rom The Wastewater Treatment Plant Dave Alberts, Brad RasmDave Alberts, Brad RasmDave Alberts, Brad RasmDave Alberts, Brad Rasmusson, Russell Salfiusson, Russell Salfiusson, Russell Salfiusson, Russell Salfi Doesn’t it seem like winter comes sooner every year? It is a time of year when residences and businesses are closed and winterized. Just a reminder, our Village ordinance prohibits the use of ethylene glycol (automotive antifreeze) for winterizing. It can have adverse affects on a small wastewater plant like ours. The collection system and wastewater plant gets winterized too – the UV system is shutdown, sewer is flushed and the aeration basin is cleaned, just to name a few of the things we’ve been working on. The major project this year was replacing the leaking roof on the wastewater plant. The WW Committee accepted the low bid from Northern Metal & Roofing of Green Bay to do the installation. Various other projects were done to keep an aging plant in good working order. Wellwater testing looks to be on record pace again this year. The focus for 2009 will be to keep making the public aware of “Ephraim Wellwater Testing” by advertising and word of mouth. Make sure to have your water tested next year and tell a friend or neighbor. Septic and holding tank pumping had another good year providing excellent service at a reasonable price. Call us for your pumping needs at (920) 854-4991. The Wastewater Committee and staff approved our budget for 2009 with an objective not to increase sewer rates. Happy Holidays from the staff & Wastewater Committee! David L. Alberts – Manager Ephraim Wastewater Ephraim Wellwater Testing Operator in charge of Septage hauling Fall-Winter Update – page 3 From Brent aFrom Brent aFrom Brent aFrom Brent at the Zoningt the Zoningt the Zoningt the Zoning// //InspectionInspection InspectionInspection Desk D esk Desk Desk Brent B. BristolBrent B. BristolBrent B. BristolBrent B. Bristol Beginning December 15, 2008 I will be taking over Ephraim’s residential building inspection services from IIL. This change marks a new and higher level of service and convenience for the residence of Ephraim, as now both zoning and state building permits can be written “in house.” This change only applies to RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; the Village of Ephraim will retain the services of IIL on the commercial side. Inspections for current permits that have been written by IIL will be completed by IIL. I will be doing inspections for any and all permits that I write as of December 15, 2008. Dealing with this transition over the next few months is likely to get a little confusing for some. It is of great importance that we keep a good line of communication open between property owners, contractors, IIL, and the Village Office to ensure that everyone is on the same page. The inspectors at IIL and I will be doing our best to make sure this transition occurs as smoothly as possible. As I have said in the past, almost any land disturbance or building related activity within the Village of Ephraim requires a permit, and it is my job to work with you throughout the permitting process. This statement rings even truer now that building inspection will be included. I encourage you, and or, your contractor to contact me as early in the planning process as you can. Brent Bristol, Zoning Administrator/Building Inspector 920-854-5501 - bbristol@ephraim-wisconsin.com AA AAdministrator/Clerkdministrator/Clerkdministrator/Clerkdministrator/Clerk Corner Corner Corner Corner Th ree weeks after I moved to Ephraim in 1983, I was appointed Ephraim’s very part-time Clerk. I became full-time in 1989 with the addition of Administrator/Zoning Administrator to my title. After 12 years in zoning, I passed that work along to Nancy Goss and now Brent Bristol. After almost 26 years, I will be retiring, and our new Administrator/Clerk will settle into the position. I hope you will welcome her into the community. She will be arriving in the office sometime in mid-January, and I will be staying on a month or so to familiarize her with Ephraim and her tasks ahead. Please allow time for the adjustment. In 1983, the Village owned one building: the Village Hall. We had no employees, no office, no sewer system, and a total budget of $80,000. Times have certainly changed, and I feel privileged to have participated in the growth and progress of the Village and its governance. I will miss the daily contact with our dedicated employees and being in the “thick of things” but am looking forward to a different chapter of my life. A big Thank You to all of you who have supported me through the years and made my time here so rewarding. --Diane Kirkland Ephraim’s Icons There is an ambience about Ephraim… a mystique, if you will, that makes a visit to the village unforgettable. Permanent residents count their blessings to be a part of a community surrounded by great natural beauty, and they cherish its relative serenity and isolation. Part of Ephraim’s mystique has to do with its historic authenticity and the community’s investment in preserving its past. Historic buildings play a prominent role in making the village a special place. Some are preserved as museums, others have much of their original look but are now business establishments, and many residences built in the early 1900s appear much the same today. One of the historic icons dominating the heart of Ephraim is the Village Hall. The original design was by William Bernhard, a Russian-born Chicago architect who studied with Frank Lloyd Wright, but who gave up big-city life and moved to Door County. In 1920 he and his wife built their dream house in Ephraim. Shortly after he moved into his new home, village leaders approached him about designing a village hall. He was delighted to accept the challenge, and he devoted many days and nights creating a structure that would reflect the heritage and spirit of Ephraim. Ephraim’s Village Newsletter P.O. Box 138 Ephraim, WI 54211 On the web at ephraim-wisconsin.com And what a building William Bernhard designed. His plans called for a structure constructed of native stone capped with an open log turret, steeply pitched roofs of slate, and a front porch with carved pillars. The massive design appeared Norwegian to its core. Bernhard was justifiably proud of his unique creation, but village leaders found it too unique (and probably too expensive to build). After heated meetings with the village board, an uncompromising Bernhard threw up his hands, gave the board the plans, and walked out. To the trustees’ credit, they accepted the plans and turned them over to Fred Crandall, who designed buildings for the county and Sturgeon Bay. A competent (continued…) Ephraim Update Special Edition July 2003 architect in his own right, Crandall found a way to redesign Bernhard’s plans and create a structure that pleased village leaders and still reflected many of the elements of Bernhard’s original design. Ephraim’s Village Hall was completed in 1926. It was (and still is) a proud structure that became the centerpiece of “downtown,” serving residents year around as a meeting and gathering place. Movies were shown in the hall, potluck suppers and rummage sales brought the community together, and soon even the post office became part of the structure. Viewing Ephraim along the roadway, or from the bay, the Village Hall is the anchoring icon of the village. It’s most fitting that on its sesquicentennial year Ephraim took steps to renovate and preserve the building, while at the same time adding some 21 st century technologies that will help ensure that the building lasts another 75 years. --Paul Burton, Village President 1940s 2003 Notice any difference between the 1940s and 2003? Not much? Good! That’s what Historic Preservation is all about. Village of Ephraim P O Box 138 Ephraim, WI 54211 You are invited to the Ephraim Village Hall Open House Sunday, July 27, 2003 5 pm – 7 pm Refreshments Construction Photos Stay for the Sing-Along at 7:30 ! The Restoration/Renovation of the Hall The Village Board had been contemplating the process of restoration of the Village Hall for more than two years before the work actually began. At issue was restoration of the Hall to its former self, while at the same time updating it for our current and future needs. A thorough search turned up no photos of the interior of the Hall in its early years, and there are no interior plans from the original construction. We found plans from 1943 that gave specifications for adding a projection booth in the attic, constructing toilet rooms in the basement, laying the concrete basement floor, installation of a new boiler and coal chute. We found even earlier plans with an aggressive addition on the north end that never materialized. The Hall, foyer, attic and “old Post Office” were gutted and rebuilt. Restorations and renovations you will see in the Hall include: • The plywood wainscoting in the main Hall had been painted many times—we replaced it with better wood in the original dark stain and in the same style; • The wiring was there for sconces that no longer existed. All wiring in the entire Hall has been updated and sconces of the period restored; • The original plaster ceiling, walls and lighting had been replaced with acoustic tile and office-type fluorescent lighting. A new acoustical ceiling and appropriate lighting has brought back the original look of the Hall while making it user-friendly for groups; • The wood floor has been restored in the foyer and entrance to new handicap- accessible bathrooms; • The oil boiler is now a new propane unit, and we added AIR CONDITIONING! • All walls and trim were repainted, doors stripped and restained; • Plumber-pipe railings replaced front and rear with custom black steel rails; (continued…) July 2003 Sing-Along New handicap-accessible bathroom Restoration/Renovation (continued…) • The concrete projection booth was removed (it was contributing to sagging joists below!), floor refinished and balcony opened up to the floor below; balcony area rewired to accommodate sound and lighting equipment for the more- sophisticated shows such as AFT puts on in the Hall; light bars installed in the ceiling to accommodate theater lighting; • All tuck pointing matched and repaired, weathervane eagle repaired and replaced; • New “Velkommen” sign, new refrigerator, Norwegian folk paintings placed in the old window panels on the Library side of the Hall. These panels are “on loan” to the Village, painted in a recent Masters Class with renowned rosemaler Sigmund Arseth. Com e to the Open House on July 27 and see your Village Hall! Hall Attic May 2003 2026 Village Hall Reservations with stage use. 2026 Reservations for the Village Hall 2/6 - Library – 2/22 - EHF Smorgasbord Event – – stage used 2/28 - Village resident rental ($160 daily charge) stage used 4/21 - EHF Presentation – stage used 5/18 - Library County Meeting – stage used 6/17 - PGA Potluck–stage used 6/19-6/20 - EYC Pancake Breakfast – stage used 6/19-6/20 Fyr Bal stage used 6/22 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 6/25 - EHF Presentation – stage used 6/29 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 7/6 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 7/8 - EHF Presentation – no fee stage used 7/9 - Library Event - no fee 7/13 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 7/15 EHF Presentation – stage used 7/16 DDC J1 Signup 7/18 EHF Annual Meeting -stage used 7/20 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 7/21 - EHF Presentation – stage used 7/23 - Library Event - 7/27 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 7/29 - EHF Presentation – stage used 7/31-8/1 – Ephraim Men’s Club – stage used 8/3 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 8/10 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 8/17 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 8/18 - EHF Presentation – stage used 8/22 EBC Event Harborside – hall rain location – stage used 8/24 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 8/31 - Concert in the Park (rain location) – stage used 9/16 - EHF Presentation – stage used 9/25 – MS WALK – stage used 12/4-12/5 – Christmas in the Village – stage used 12/11-12/12 – EHF Christmas Traditions Field Trip – stage used Comparison of Proposed & Original Protected Waterfront Ordinance §17.20 What hasn’t changed: • Intent: Still focuses on preserving open viewing and encouraging property owners to use and maintain their existing residences. • No structure shall exceed 23’ with certain features allowed up to 25’ Clarification: • Define a 1 1/2 story house. Added several other definitions. • Define decks and porches. What has become more restrictive: • Proposed footprint alterations can be no wider than existing as measured parallel to STH 42. • Previously allowed up to 50% of roof to be less than 6/12 but greater than 3/12. Changed to allowing down to 3/12 for only a limited number of shed dormers, porches, and front entrance roofs. • Only allow replacement of existing deck or porch. • Minimize outdoor lighting to entrance points. What has become less restrictive: • Under permitted uses, now include the reproduction of an existing structure. • Allow for 3 methods for Additions/Modification (Sections 6, 7, & 8). These encourage the preservation of original structures, including Reproduction. o Section 6 is new language that allows exceptions for applicants who retain the original building to preserve the character of the PW District. • Allow an attached garage to be part of the footprint, with restrictions on overall width (as measured parallel to STH 42) and no upper level on reclaimed garage area (no wider than original footprint). • Allow a combination of accessory building into principal building, with restrictions on overall width (as measured parallel to STH 42) and no upper level on accessory building area (no wider than original footprint). 26-8-4 17.20 PROTECTED WATERFRONT (PW) DISTRICT. 1) INTENT. The open shoreline is one of Ephraim’s most distinctive features and is characterized by buildings sited on mostly small non-conforming lots. This ordinance is intended to preserve the open views of the shoreline as well as the historic appearance of Ephraim’s built environment while also allowing for some leeway for Protected Waterfront (PW) District property owners to modify or replace their residences. Consistent with the intent and provisions of the Ephraim Historic District Ordinance (§17.26), property owners are encouraged to use and maintain their existing residences. However, if residential modification or replacement is desired, s uch modification or replacement must strictly conform to the provisions of §17.20 and §17.26. 2) PERMITTED USES. a) Park and open spaces , provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. b) Beaches provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. c) Reproduction: i) Structures destroyed by natural disaster or fires in this district may be reproduced using the former dimensions and location, subject to design review and §17.20(7). ii) Reproduction of the existing structures, subject to design review and §17.20(7). 3) CONDITIONAL USES. a) On parcels where there is not a residence: i) Dockage and launching; ii) Boat and related rentals; iii) Sale of marine fuel and accessories for marine use only; iv) New structures necessary for permitted uses in the district, including bathrooms. v) Non-profit organizations on village- owned property. Sales within such shall be subject to any existing lease or other agreements with the village. In the event that no such agreement speaking to sales exists, the Village of Ephraim Planning Committee, through Conditional Use review, shall oversee and have final approval over any such sales area. This review will include, but is not limited to, the type of merchandise sold and the total amount of display area the merchandise will envelop. b) On parcels where there is a structure , additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6) and §17.20(8). 4) PROHIBITED USES. a) New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1998. b) Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District. 26- 8-4 5) SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW. The provisions of this section, including the setback and lot coverage requirements from §17.24, shall be mandated except in the case of buildings, structures, or public projects along the shoreline that are deemed to be in the greatest interest to the public by a majority of the Plan Committee and a majority of the Village Board, and this exception can occur only through special exception review. 6) EXCEPTIONS FOR ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING RESIDENCES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE PROTECTED WATERFRONT DISTRICT (PW). When working with a goal to retain the original residence, exceptions for additions or modifications may be considered by the Plan Committee, so long as the additions or modifications match the original architecture to preserve the special character of the PW District. 7) REPRODUCTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE PROTECTED WATERFRONT DISTRICT. a) Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of footprint, size, volume, and appearance. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original structure must be replicated, including design and materials. The materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction. b) Design Criteria: Modern materials may only be substituted for original materials insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of §17.20(7)(a) and subject to design review and design criteria in §17.26, Historic District. 8) ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS . “PW DESIGN REVIEW”. (Completed by Historic Preservation Committee and Plan Committee.) a) General Requirements: i) Footprints in the PW District can be modified, subject to the following provisions: a. Footprints of finished interior space ( see definition in §17.09) in the PW District can be modified so long as there is no increase in the width, as measured parallel to STH 42, of the residence or accessory buildings, and no increase in the total footprint. b. Footprints of attached garages can be modified so long as there is no increase in the width, as measured parallel to STH 42, and no increase in the total footprint. No upper level will be allowed over the reclaimed square footage of the attached garage. c. Footprints in the PW District cannot be increased with the following exception: Consideration given to principal building footprint increases when existing accessory buildings are to be removed. The footprint of the accessory building may be reclaimed and combined with the principal building, provided there is no increase in the width of the footprint , as measured parallel to STH 42, of the principal building. No upper level will be allowed over the reclaimed square footage of the accessory building. 26-8-4 ii) All projects are subject to applicable floodplain ordinances of the Village and State. b) Design Criteria. i) The style of a project within this district shall meet the design criteria in §17.26, Historic District, and generally, as a maximum, have the design characteristics of a single-story or one and one-half-story house (see definition in §17.09). ii) Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. The width of any individual structure as measured parallel to State Highway 42 cannot be increased. When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, a Landscape Permit is required (See §10 Permit Application.) iii) From the view of any side of the residence, the number and varying pitches of the rooflines should be minimized. The overall guiding principle of design is simplicity and avoidance of bulk. iv) Any existing deck or porch ( see definitions in §17.09) may be replaced on a project within this district, assuming the size is no more than the existing deck or porch, and the deck or porch is a one-for-one replacement. For example, an open porch may be replaced by an open porch, but not by a screened or windowed porch. v) Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, generally limited to entrance points on all elevations. vi) Covered front entrances: A minimal roof over a front entrance will be considered. c) Dimensional Standards. i. All projects are subject to the applicable dimensional standards of §17.24 of the ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided in this section. PW Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 100' Front Setback Minimum 30' Side Setback Minimum 15' Rear Setback Minimum 40' Maximum Lot Coverage 20% Min. Building Separation ii. Addition/modification or replacement projects , including existing dimensionally nonconforming buildings considered under this section , may apply the existing grandfathered setbacks of the existing buildings as the required setback for new work, so long as the new work increases or , at a minimum, does not further encroach on the setbacks in question. 26-8-4 iii. No residences shall exceed twenty -three feet (23’) in height , and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height as measured from the crown grade of State Highway 42. iv. Other rooftop accessories on residences, which include but are not limited to: a. S pires, belfries, parapet walls, domes, and all other projections shall not exceed the peak roof height of the building. b. Cupolas, flues, vent pipes, chimneys , and communication devices are allowed to a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’). v. Roof pitches less than 6/12 and greater than 12/12 are prohibited, except for the following circumstances: a. A roof pitch for a limited amount of shed dormer of less than 6/12 and a minimum of 3/12 may be considered. b. Roof pitches for porches less than 6/12 may be considered. c. Covered front entrances less than 6/12 may be considered. 9) OTHER REQUIREMENTS. a. Special Plan Committee approval shall determine the number of required parking spaces on a case- by-case basis unless the use has a number established under ordinance §17.15(9); parking requirements may be met through a combination of off-street, on-site, and/or dedicated parking spaces within common ways. Pervious surfaces for parking are preferred in this district. b. Consideration given to allow for ten percent (10%) additional lot coverage when that area will be used for adding off-street parking. 10) PERMIT APPLICATION. a. Beyond the normal requirements as outlined in § 17.40, an overlay is required showing the footprints of all existing buildings , including decks and porches , if any, with the footprint of all proposed buildings and attachments. The measurement in square feet (SF) should be provided for all footprints and attachments, both existing and proposed. b. A Landscape Plan is also required when the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced. The Landscape Plan should not reduce the water view between the buildings . The plan shall show all new plantings along with all proposed hardscape and impervious surfaces. Samples of all hardscape (pervious a nd impervious) are required, showing material and color. c. A Construction Parking Plan is required showing the location of construction and worker vehicles as outlined in §17.40(1). d. No Occupancy Permit will be issued until the Village Administrator has inspected all elements of the project for compliance with the approved plans. 26-8-4 17.09 DEFINITIONS. Except where specifically defined herein, all words used in this chapter shall carry the meanings as defined in Webster’s Unabridged 3rd New International Dictionary or a dictionary based upon it. Words used in the plural include the singular. The word “shall” is mandatory. DECK: A deck on a house is a flat outdoor surface, typically made of wood or composite materials, that is elevated from the ground and often connected to the main building. FOOTPRINT: The area of a single horizontal plane bounded by the exterior walls of the building , expressed in square feet. See §17.24 for attached garage exemptions to this definition. ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY HOUSE: A one and one-half story house has a full first floor with full- height interior walls [typically eight feet (8’) high] and an upper level that has less full-height floor area than the first floor. The upper level has steeply pitched roofs with gables and dormers (normally with windows). The upper level typically has sloped ceilings with knee walls (normally five to seven feet high (5’ - 7’)] that define the floor area. These features reduce the floor area on the upper level. PORCH: A porch on a house is a covered area adjoining an entrance to a house, usually with a separate roof. A porch can be open or enclosed by screens or windows. STRUCTURE REPRODUCTION: Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of size, volume, and appearance. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original house must match the project, including design. Materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction. 17.20 PROTECTED WATERFRONT (PW) DISTRICT. 1) INTENT. Recognizing that the open shoreline is one of Ephraim’s most distinctive features, the intent of this ordinance is to provide for as much open viewing space along our shoreline as possible. As an important contributing component of the Ephraim Historic District Ordinance §17.26, owners of residences in the Protected Waterfront “PW” District are encouraged to use and maintain their existing residences. Since most of the residential buildings in this area are sited on small non-conforming lots that would otherwise prohibit the erection of such structures under the existing ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided for in this section, structures shall be restricted to those in existence as of January 1, 1998. 2) PERMITTED USES. a) Park and open spaces, provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. b) Beaches provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. 3) CONDITIONAL USES. a) On parcels where there is not a residence: 1) Dockage and launching; 2) Boat and related rentals; 3) Sale of marine fuel and accessories for marine use only; 4) New structures necessary for permitted uses in the district, including bathrooms. 5) Non-profit organizations on village-owned property. Sales within such shall be subject to any existing lease or other agreements with the village. In the event, that no such agreement speaking to sales exists, the Village of Ephraim Planning Committee, through Conditional Use review, shall oversee and have final approval over any such sales area. This review will include, but is not limited to, the type of merchandise sold, and the total amount of display area the merchandise will envelop. b) On parcels where there is a residence: 1) Additions/modifications to or replacement of existing residences. Subject to §17.20(5). 2) Residences destroyed by natural disasters or fires in this district may be replaced using the former dimensions and location. 4) SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW. The provisions of this section including the setback and lot coverage requirements from §17.24 shall be mandated except in the case of buildings, structures, or public projects along the shoreline that are deemed to be in the greatest interest to the public by a majority of the Plan Committee and a majority of the Village Board, and this exception can occur only through special exception review. 5) ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCES. “PW DESIGN REVIEW”. (Completed by HPC and Plan Committee.) a) General requirements: Original Ordinance 1) Addition/modification or replacement projects including existing dimensionally nonconforming structures considered under this section may apply the existing grandfathered setbacks of the existing structures as the required setback for new work so long as the new work increases or at minimum does not further encroach on the setbacks in question. 2) Footprints in the PW District can be modified, but increases to the total footprint of individual structures within the district are prohibited. 3) All projects are subject to the applicable dimensional standards of §17.24 of the ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided in this section. 4) All projects are subject to applicable floodplain ordinances of the Village and State. b) Design Criteria: 1) All projects shall incorporate a design that is in keeping with the character of the Village Historic District and the language of the Historic District Ordinance §17.26. 2) Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. 3) No structures shall exceed twenty-three feet (23’) in height as measured from the crown grade of State Highway 42. 4) Only chimneys shall be allowed up to two feet (2’) above the approved peak roof line. 5) Primary roof pitches less than 6/12 or more than 12/12 are prohibited. 6) OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the total roof pitch square footage can be made up of dormers that may be less than 6/12, but in no case may be less than 3/12. a) Special Plan Committee approval shall determine the number of required parking spaces on a case-by-case basis unless the use has a number established under ordinance §17.15(9); parking requirements may be met through a combination of off- street, on-site, and/or dedicated parking spaces within common ways. Pervious surfaces for parking are preferred in this district. b) Consideration given to allow for ten percent (10%) additional lot coverage when that area will be used for adding off-street parking. 7) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. See ordinance §17.24 8) PROHIBITED USES. Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District. North Path Tree Proposal Tom Wolfe Wolfe Horticulture LLC • Starting at the east end the Old Sled Dog property 130 ft - 5 Crabapples o 3 Royal Raindrops, blooms deep red - 7 ft multi stemmed persistent red fruit all winter 15 ft height, 12 ft spread o 2 Adirondack Crabapples, blooms white -2 in dia. persistent orange fruit 15- 20 ft height, 20 ft spread • Front of Green Gables and Universal Unitarians 230 ft - 11 Catalpa Trees 25 gal White Flower Yellow Autumn Color 40-50 ft height, 20 ft spread • Front of 106-9 lodge/resale shop 100 ft. - 3 Sienna Glenn Maple 2 in dia., 40 ft height, 25 ft spread • Front of George Burr Gallery 100 ft - 3 Crabapples o 2 Royal Raindrops, blooms deep red - 7 ft multi stemmed persistent red fruit all winter 15 ft height, 12 ft spread o 1 Adirondack Crabapples, blooms white -2 in dia. persistent orange fruit 15- 20 ft height, 20 ft spread Delivery Planted Staked Mulched $14,000.00 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The Village of Ephraim (Door County, WI) is requesting proposals for the design, supply, construction, installation, and startup of a PV solar power system for the village of Ephraim wastewater treatment plant. PART ONE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The purpose of this request for proposal (RFP) is to obtain proposals for a complete turn-key installation of a solar photovoltaic system for the wastewater treatment plant at 10285 Townline Road for the Village of Ephraim, Door County, Wisconsin. General Scope of Work The project is to be designed following the general concepts set forth appropriate Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, regulations as well as applicable federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Communication All communications concerning this project must be directed in writing or by telephone to: Project Manager , Administrator 10005 Norway Ephraim, WI 54211 (920) 854-5501 No other official or employee is empowered to speak for the Village of Ephraim with respect to this RFP and project, with the Board of Trustees reserving the right to participate in making *This is a very rough concept of the scope of an RFP for the Solar project at WW, utilizing the framework of the RFP the Village used for the North End Sewer project. It is not intended to be a draft for consideration. I thank Bruce Nelson for taking a first swing at the language, notes and scope talking points. Many sections within likely will not be applicable to this project, notes as such are indicated but those changes were not made. Our intent was to have something to supplement the recommendation and request of the WW Committee to the Board to send out an RFP. - Brent Bristol decisions that may impact the public. Prospective firms will wish to consult regularly with our Treatment Plant Manager, (or other contact), as named below: Brad Rasmusun WWTP Manager or other contact as decided Need address and phone # Proposers who seek to obtain information, clarification or interpretation from another official or employee are advised that such material is used at the proposer’s own risk and the Village will not be bound by any such representation. Questions Proposers who have questions about this RFP may ask them prior to select a date. Addenda Changes to this RFP will be made only by formal written addendum issued by the Village of Ephraim. Any addenda will be issued in time to be consistent with the RFP process schedule. Organization To be considered responsive, proposals must include the information listed in Part 3 Proposal Content. To facilitate evaluation, proposals should be organized in the order outlined in Part 3. Copies Proposers should provide the Village with five (5) copies of their proposals. Format Proposals should be prepared on 8-1/2” x 11” paper. Fold out chart tables and spreadsheets are acceptable. Delivery of Proposals Proposals must be received at the address below no later than (select a date) by 5 pm. Proposers are solely responsible for ensuring that proposals are delivered on time. Brent Bristol, Administrator 10005 Norway @ Hwy Q P.O. Box 138 Ephraim, WI 54211 Delays caused by any delivery service, including the U.S. Postal Service will not be grounds for an extension of the proposal due date and time. Proposals received after the due date and time will not be considered. Cost, Disposition and Rejection of Proposals This request for Proposal does not commit the Village to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal for this request, or to procure or contract for services. The Village reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request. To negotiate with any qualified firm or to modify or cancel in part or in its entirety the Request for Proposal if it is in the best interest of the Village to do so. All materials submitted in response to this RFP shall become the property of the Village. Schedule The Village may change the schedule at anytime. Dates RFP Issued: Proposal Due Date: Committee Review of Proposals: __ Village Board Review of Proposals: __ Committee Contract Award Engineering Work Begins: There are references in this RFP to the Proposal due date. Prospective proposers must assume, unless it is clearly stated to the contrary, that any such reference means the date and time that the Proposals are due and not just the date. PART TWO: SCOPE OF WORK AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE Scope of Work The design build firm awarded the contract (hereinafter called “the firm”) will be required to provide a complete turn-key installation of a photovoltaic system for the wastewater treatment plant. 3 Payment Schedule A fixed price estimate for the cost of all services under this RFP is required. The estimate shall include all tasks to perform the work set forth in the RFP and be prepared on the form attached to the RFP. The firm will submit invoices to the Village based on a schedule of deliverable items completed. The firm and the Village Board will negotiate the specific payment schedule. PART THREE: PROPOSAL CONTENT To be considered responsive, proposals must include the following information. Proposals that do not fully comply with these instructions may not be considered. To facilitate evaluation, proposals should be organized in the order outlined below. A. Project Approach – Describe your proposed approach to the scope of work. In detail, describe how you would address each activity identified in the RFP. Also, provide a description of the proposed project staffing to be used during the course of the project, including any subcontractors. Identify the roles and responsibilities of each person. Specifically identify the lead consultant/project manager. B. Qualifications and Experience – It is mandatory that the firm have experience in the design and installation of solar photovoltaic systems.. The proposers must outline the firm’s experience on projects that are similar in nature to the work required for this project. The information should include: name of project, general description, scope of overall project, project implementation status, and other appropriate information. C. References – Provide three recent references that may be contacted concerning your firm’s performance on projects of this type. Include names, organizations, and a brief description of the project and telephone numbers. D. Cost of Work – Please identify your proposed project costs.. All utilities shall be field located and verified. The location of utilities on the drawings shall not be derived from utility drawings. PART FOUR: EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Rejection of Proposals This is not intended to be a bid process. The Village Board may reject any Proposal that is not in the required format, does not address all the requirements of this RFP, or that the Village Board believes is excessive in price or otherwise not in its interests to consider or to accept. In addition, the Village Board may cancel this RFP, reject all the Proposals, and seek to do the work through a new RFP or other means. 4 Evaluation of Proposals Generally The written proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the Village Board of the Village of Ephraim or its designees. The Village Board or its designees will rate the written proposal on the following evaluation criteria: 1. Project Approach 2. Resource Commitment 3. Qualifications & Experience 4. References 5. Cost Initial Review This RFP asks for responses and submissions from proposers, most of which represent components of the above criteria. While each criterion represents only a part of the total basis for a decision to award the Contract to an offeror, a failure by an offeror to make a required submission or to substantially meet a mandatory requirement will normally result in a rejection of that offeror’s Proposal. PART FIVE: AWARD OF THE CONTRACT Contractor Selection If this RFP results in a Contract award, the Contract will consist of this RFP, written amendments to this RFP, the Offeror’s Proposal, and written, authorized amendments to the Offeror’s Proposal. It will also include any materials incorporated by reference in the above documents and any purchase orders and change orders issued under the Contract. 1. This RFP, as amended; 2. The documents and materials incorporated by reference in the RFP; 3. The Offeror’s Proposal, as amended; and 4. The documents and materials incorporated by reference in the Offeror’s Proposal. Notwithstanding the order listed above, change orders, and amendments issued after the Contract is executed may expressly change the provisions of the Contract. If they do so expressly, then the most recent of them will take precedence over anything else that is part of the Contract. 5 ATTACHMENT ONE: Project Description The project will consist of a complete turn-key installation of a photovoltaic solar power system at the wastewater treatment plant, including PV solar modules, inverters, fixed mount racking system, online energy monitoring and performance package with owner supplied internet connection. …………….We need to include current electrical bills from WPS, possibly a years worth…. ???????????Do we specify a ground mounted system?????????? The firm shall provide professional services to prepare a detailed design for the turn-key photovoltaic system. The detailed tasks involved in this part of the work are as described herein. i 1. Meet with the Village Board or its designees to determine project requirements, provide updates of the project progress, and discuss any relevant issues concerning the project. 2. Develop and monitor a schedule for the project. 3. Assist the Village Board or its designees in conducting public information programs, as needed. ?remove? 4. Coordinate soil exploration and soil testing work performed by a subcontractor, if needed. 5. Obtain property line, right-of-way, and easement data to define property ownership. Identify if additional property or easements will be required. ? remove? 6. Assist the Village Board or its designees with preparation and acquisition of easements. ?remove? 7. Obtain data on existing electric, cable TV, natural gas, telephone, sanitary sewers, and storm drains to identify potential conflicts. ??? remove #8 through #13 ?????? 8. Prepare base mapping of project area showing physical features, existing utilities, property lines, and right-of-way limits. 9. Perform fieldwork to establish horizontal and vertical control and fieldwork for pipeline route selection. Establish horizontal grid system for project area. Set permanent markers for horizontal control points and benchmarks. 10. Select and finalize routing of pipelines. Review final pipeline routes with Village Board or its designees. 11. Perform detailed hydraulic analysis of pipeline to establish pipe size, slope, and invert elevations. Determine velocity and hydraulic grade line of pipelines at design and average flow. 12. Review results of soil exploration and geotechnical work and incorporate results in final design of improvements. Develop design criteria for structural design of pipelines and structures. 13. Prepare detailed structural design for pipelines. Select pipe class and bedding section. 14. Perform detailed architectural and structural design and layout for the photovoltaic panels and support structures. 15. Perform detailed civil design and layout for the PV panel site work. 16. Perform detailed mechanical and electrical design and layout for the PV panels and support structures. ii 17. Perform detailed electrical and instrumentation design for sewage lift station and its SCADA system. ??remove??? 18. Evaluate and select appropriate electrical and instrumentation equipment for the system equipment. 19. Develop construction sequence and schedule to determine length of construction period and to minimize disruption of wastewater treatment plant operation during construction and start-up. 20. Develop a proposal schedule and contract documents in accordance with Village Board recommendations. Review proposal schedule and contract documents with Village Board or its designees. ???remove???? 21. Prepare technical specifications and construction drawings for the PV system. 22. Prepare five (5) copies of technical specifications and construction drawings for review by Village Board or its designees. (/Remove and for submittal to regulatory agencies. ) 23. Review final design with the Village Board or its designees. 24. Complete WDNR submittal forms and submit forms, technical specifications, and construction drawings to the WDNR for approval. Monitor progress of the WDNR review, respond to questions, and furnish additional information as requested. ????remove??? 25. Prepare and submit financial assistance applications for the Focus on Energy and federal tax rebates. 26. Prepare a final cost estimate based on the detailed design. Review final cost estimate with Village Board. ???Remove this entire section??? Bidding Services The Engineer shall provide professional services to conduct bidding services for the sewage lift station and interceptor sewer, and lift station SCADA. The detailed tasks involved in this part of the work are as described herein. 1. Finalize the proposal schedule and contract documents in accordance with Village Board recommendations. Review proposal schedule and contract documents with Village Board or its designees. 2. Obtain Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations wage rate determination for the project. 3. Provide 45 copies of the contract documents with half size drawings for the sewage lift station improvements for obtaining bids. Distribute five (5) copies of the contract documents to the Village office and Treatment Plant for use during bidding. iii 4. Assist the Village Board or its designees in advertising and obtaining bids. Distribute contract documents to interested parties. Maintain a written list of all plan holders. 5. Answer questions regarding contract documents. Maintain a written record of all questions and answers. 6. Issue addenda to clarify intent of contract documents. 7. Attend bid opening and tabulate bids. Prepare a summary and a detailed bid tabulation showing contractor’s prices and engineer’s estimates. 8. Analyze bids and make recommendations for award of contracts. Construction Administration Services The firm shall provide professional services to conduct construction administration services for the PV solar power system. The detailed tasks involved in this part of the work are as described herein. 1. Prepare and issue Notice of Award 2. Prepare construction contracts for signature. Distribute contracts for signature. 3. Review and distribute completed contracts and prepare and issue Notice to Proceed. 4. Conduct a preconstruction conference with all interested parties. Prepare and distribute a written summary of the meeting. 5. Add a copy of addenda to contract documents to be used during construction. Update drawings to reflect changes made by addenda. 6. Provide five (5) sets of contract documents, consisting of specifications and half size drawings, and five (5) sets of full size drawings s. Prepare and process Change Orders, and prepare and process Field Modification Orders. 7. Review and process contractor’s payment requests. 8. Interpret the meaning and intent of the contract document 9. Review progress of the construction work. Conduct periodic on-site meetings with designated village representatives. 10. Review and monitor contractor’s construction schedule. 11. Review and process contractor’s submittals. Maintain a written log showing the date submittals were received, the action taken, and the date they were returned. Forward one copy of all submittals to field office. 12. Conduct final inspection of the project and issue Certificate of Final Acceptance. 13. Provide one copy of contractor’s submittals to the Village of Ephraim or its designees. 14. Provide an as-constructed record of the work on a reproducible set of drawings and disk, using a mutually agreed upon format compatible with Village computer systems and programs. Construction Observation The supplier shall provide professional services to conduct construction observations for the PV solar power system. The detailed tasks involved in this part of the work are as described herein. 1. Establish reference benchmarks and control points for construction of the PV solar power system. 2. Provide appropriate observation to determine the amount, quality, acceptability, and fitness of the work, material, and equipment, which are to be paid for under the contract, and to reject or condemn work, material, or equipment which does not conform to the terms of the contract. 3. Provide appropriate observation to decide all questions relative to the classification of materials and the measurement of quantities. 4. Maintain a written log of daily construction activities. Provide a photographic log of construction activities and all special construction activities. 5. Maintain an as-constructed record of the work on a full size set of drawings. Update drawings to reflect changes made during construction. 6. Witness and document start-up and performance tests results required to demonstrate compliance with the contract documents. 7. Conduct an inspection prior to the introduction of solar power to the wastewater treatment plant. Prepare a “punch list” for the village. 8. Assist with overall supervision of operation during the introduction of solar power to the wastewater treatment plant. 9. Conduct construction observation lift station SCADA System. 10. Assist the Treatment Plant Manager in establishing a maintenance program for the PV solar power system. 11. Review, process, and file all operating and maintenance instruction for mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation equipment provided under the contract. ATTACHMENT TWO: Price Estimate Format Work Item Design Time & Expense Bidding Time & Expense Construction Administration Time & Expense Construction Observation Time & Expense Consultant shall provide a detailed breakdown of man-hours, subcontractor costs, expenses, and indirect costs for each work item and attach to the proposal. 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Grace Held, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox and Kathy Pentler. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. K. Nelson walked the Committee through changes to the permitted uses section, specifically the addition of a section for "reproduction" as §17.20(2)(c). The Committee reviewed and refined the definition of "house reproduction" under Section §17.20(8). Bartelt suggested adding "and appearance" to the phrase "size and volume" to ensure the look of the structure was captured, not just its dimensions. The Committee agreed. Hoyerman suggested breaking up the lengthy sentence and proposed: "The materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity," to which the Committee agreed. Current Section Language for §17.20(8)(a), “House Reproduction: A house reproduction means creating a replica of the existing residence in terms of size and volume. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original house must match the project within this district, including design and materials, which must be sourced to be replicated or recreated to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction.” Proposed Section language for §17.20(8)(a), “Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of size, volume, and appearance. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original house must match the project, including design and materials. The materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction.” Under 17.20(8)(b), the Committee debated the intent of the provision allowing modern materials to be substituted for original materials. The original language restricted substitution to cases where original materials were "not available." Bristol raised the question of whether the carve-out was strictly for unavailability or also permitted for reasons of cost and modernity. The Committee discussed whether a product such as LP SmartSide—engineered siding molded to look like cedar—should qualify. After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed that substitution should be permitted more broadly, provided it remained consistent with the intent of paragraph (a). Current Section Language for §17.20(8)(b), “ Design Criteria: Original materials not available for reproduction may be recreated with modern materials, subject to design review and design criteria in §17.26, Historic District.” Proposed Section Language for §17.20(8)(b), “Design Criteria: Modern materials may only be substituted for original materials insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of §17.20(8)(a) and subject to design review. The Committee reviewed §17.20(3) Conditional Uses. They noted the need to replace the word “residences” with “structures” in §17.20(3)(b) and §17.20(3)(b)(1). After further discussion, the Committee concluded that for reproduction (Section 2, Permitted Uses), the word "structures" was more appropriate, as it would encompass not just residences but also accessory buildings, stone walls, flagpoles, and similar features that exist on protected waterfront properties and could be destroyed and reproduced. Further, the Committee suggested amending §17.20(3)(b)(1) to read, “Additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6). In §17.20(8), the Committee agreed to replace the word “residences” with the word “structures” in the section heading as well as throughout the definition of reproduction in §8(a). 2 For conditional uses under Section 3(b), the Committee debated whether to replace "residences" with "buildings" or "structures." The Committee agreed to leave Section 6 -“Additions/Modifications to or Replacement of Existing Residences “PW Design Review” referencing residences for now, with Bristol noting he would consult the Village Attorney regarding “residence” as a use in Section 6. The Committee decided to reverse the order of §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a) and §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b), with subsection (b) being listed first. Further, in the new §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a), it should read, “Footprints in the PW District can be modified so long as there is no increase in the width as measured parallel to STH 42 of the residence or accessory buildings, and no increase in the total footprint.” K. Nelson reviewed the Design Criteria subsection §17.20(6)(b), which references the Historic District Ordinance §17.26 for style and includes a provision that the design characteristics of a project must reflect, at maximum, a single-story or one-and-one-half-story house. The Committee reviewed the definition of "one and a half story house" in §17.09 - Definitions, which describes a full first floor with full-height interior walls of nominally eight feet (8’) and an upper level with less full-height floor area than the first floor. A discussion was held regarding the definition of a one and one-half story house. Bartelt expressed concern that the phrase "less full height floor area" still permits a near-full second story if pressed to the maximum by a creative architect. Bristol noted that the definition itself is not intended to establish the limitations — those would be set elsewhere — and that the definition simply characterizes what qualifies as a one-and-a-half-story building. The Committee reviewed the version from the June 23 meeting, a more detailed definition that described deeply pitched roofs, gables, dormers, and knee walls, and generally preferred it for its greater clarity. K. Nelson indicated the Committee should return to the original definition and also examine how the Village Assessor defines story-and-a-half. The Committee agreed to revisit this definition. The Committee reviewed the provision on visual impact in §17.20(6)(b)(ii), which states that the width of individual structures as measured parallel to STH 42 cannot be increased, and that when existing landscaping is to be modified or replaced, a landscape plan is required. The Landscape Plan should not reduce water views between buildings. Bartelt proposed that the visual impact paragraph simply reference Section 10(b) for landscape plan requirements, rather than duplicating the discussion. It should read, “When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, it should not reduce the water view between buildings. (See §10 Permit Application; in such cases, a Landscape Permit is required.)” Cox raised a philosophical concern about restricting private landowners' ability to landscape their own property in the interest of public view corridors. K. Nelson acknowledged this tension, and stressed the intent of the ordinance was to maintain views. The Committee agreed to keep the provision focused on situations where a building project triggers new landscaping, and not to extend it to standalone landscaping changes. The Committee discussed the growing prevalence of permeable pavers and how they are currently counted — or not counted — as impervious surface. Bristol noted the risk of allowing unlimited permeable pavers between structures and the waterfront, potentially resulting in what would look like a fully paved yard. The Committee acknowledged this needed further thought, with Bristol noting it would be preferable to address it before, rather than after, passing the new ordinance. The Committee spent significant time discussing the definition and treatment of "house attachments," in §17.20(6)(b)(iv). The Committee reviewed the definition in §17.09 – definitions. A House Attachment is defined as elements not part of the conditioned living interior space but attached to the house — such as decks, porches, screened porches, and windowed porches. The Committee discussed that any existing attachment may be replaced on a one-for-one basis (same size, same type), giving the example that a porch must be replaced by a porch, not a screened or windowed porch. A discussion on house attachments was held. The term "conditioned space" was flagged as problematic. Cox and others noted that many older cottages have no central conditioning at all, making the term inapplicable as a dividing line between interior and attachment space. K. Nelson proposed striking the conditioned space language 3 and replacing it with "finished interior space," referencing the footprint definition, which describes space with walls, floors, and ceilings of materials generally accepted for interior construction, with a ceiling height of at least seven feet (7’). The Committee agreed to remove “conditioned living space” from the definition of house attachment and replace it with “finished interior space” to tie to the definition of footprint. Bristol questioned whether "finished" was the right word, noting that a windowed porch could have carpeting and electrical outlets and still arguably be "finished." Regarding the definition of footprint, §17.09 definitions, the Committee agreed to strike “dimensions” and replace it with the word “area”. Further, the Committee decided to strike the sentence, “This is a conditioned space where temperature and humidity are controlled in the space.” The larger policy question of whether attachments such as screened or windowed porches should be included in the footprint was debated at length. K. Nelson described the situation with a prior application where a windowed porch was significantly enlarged because the ordinance lacked clear controls. The one-for-one replacement rule was described as the primary mechanism to prevent this kind of expansion. The Committee discussed whether decks should be treated differently from porches. K. Nelson suggested decks might be less of a concern from a bulk and visual standpoint than roofed porches, though second-story decks were noted as potentially more impactful. No final decision was made on this distinction. Cox raised the specific situation of his own cottages, which have covered, unenclosed porches and fall below the six hundred square foot (600 ft 2) residential minimum. He asked whether a conditional use process could be created to allow PW property owners in such situations to enclose an existing porch. By doing so, they would be able to meet minimum residential square footage requirements, subject to conditions imposed by the Committee to become more conforming with the ordinance. Bartelt questioned whether the Committee’s goal was to bring non-conforming structures to conforming. K. Nelson expressed caution about opening this door, noting it could result in structures being substantially enlarged under a conditioned living space scenario combined with a twenty-three-foot (23’) height allowance. Further, the minimum requirements were established after the nonconforming properties were built. Additionally, he stressed that many of the properties in the PW district will never be conforming due to setbacks. Hoyerman suggested that the right framing for a conditional use in such cases would be that the applicant is asking for something but potentially giving something up in exchange, and that this quid pro quo logic could be better codified in Section 7. Bristol cautioned against trying to enumerate every possible scenario; the section is intentionally broad. The Committee agreed that Section 7 provides the necessary latitude and guidance for such situations without requiring exhaustive specification, and that these cases would still be subject to Plan Committee discretion. The Committee discussed the broader goal of encouraging property owners to retain and work with their existing structures rather than demolish and rebuild, noting this was the original purpose of the reproduction provision. Bartelt revisited a fundamental question: whether the concern about attachments was specifically about preventing them from being incorporated into a rearrangeable footprint and built up to a story and a half, or whether there was a different concern. K. Nelson affirmed that a porch-as-porch replacement was the intent — the porch footprint should remain one story, while the main house footprint could go up to the one-and-a-half-story maximum. Thorp moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 2:05 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM HISTORIC PRESERV ATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 – 6:30 PM 9996 WATER STREET ACTION ITEMS: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the March 31, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes with Thorp and Russell abstaining. Motion carried. Shreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the May 26, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the landscape/land disturbance plan for Julia Uihlein at 10235 STH 42, all ayes. Motion carried. Russell moved, Schreck seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, all ayes. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, all ayes, with Pentler nay. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to adjourn at 7:03 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Marcia Ellis, Kathy Pentler (online), Amy Russell, Cody Schreck, and BD Thorp – Chair. Absent: None. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Steve and Mary Homa (Pea Properties, LLC), Nick Meissner (Meissner Landscape, Inc.), Andy Bartelt, Ken Nelson, Monique McClean, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Ruann Larson, and Susie Samson. Guests online: Doug Evans. 1. Call to order: Thorp called the meeting to order at 6:15 PM. 2. Quorum: A quorum of the Historic Preservation Committee was present. 3. Changes in agenda: There were no changes to the agenda. 4. Visitors’ Comments: There were no visitors’ comments. 5. Approval of previous minutes: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the March 31, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes with Thorp and Russell abstaining. Motion carried. Shreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the May 26, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 6. Julia Uihlein – 10235 STH 42 – Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan: Bristol provided background, noting that this is a nearly completed new home within the Historic District. He explained that final landscape design had not been finalized during the original design review process, which is common for large waterfront projects. Given the complexity of the landscape plan, he invited Nick Meissner of Meissner Landscape, Inc. to present the materials and design details in person. 2 Meissner walked the Committee through the overall site plan, describing the general design philosophy as one of naturalism — blending as seamlessly as possible with the surrounding landscape. Key elements of the plan included the following: The driveway will be asphalt for most of its length, transitioning approximately two-thirds of the way down to a permeable cobblestone paver. The owners had selected a specific cobblestone option that day, described as predominantly gray in a herringbone pattern, including a soldier course. A turf stone application will differentiate where the driveway starts and stops near the garage. The entry walk will be dry-set flagstone leading to the main entry, with a stepper path through a garden connecting to the building between the house and garage. Stormwater management was a central focus. All driveway water will be directed north along the property line into a dry creek bed filled with clear gravel beneath to promote infiltration. A catch basin with piping to the wetlands serves as a backup for heavy rain events. On the north side of the house, a stone stepper pathway will run through a planting area and open to a sodded lawn area with an 18” retaining wall to tuck the space into the landscape. An upper retaining wall, approximately 21’’–22’’ above grade, will serve as a knee wall to border the lawn and provide safety. Stone "seat stones" will protrude from the retaining wall as gathering spots. Steps on both the north and south sides allow for circulation around the property. A boardwalk — similar in character to a prior project at the same property — will traverse the wetland using galvanized steel pads that float on the surface, leading to a waterside patio and dock. On the south side of the house, stone stepper paths lead through a planting bed to a fenced dog run, which will be primarily turf with foundation plantings. Meissner noted that the fence design for the dog run had not yet been finalized, but he was exploring rustic options and planned to screen the generator with trees or solid fencing, and the air conditioning units with a lower wood fence. He noted that these portions of the project would be separate applications, once decisions were made. Meissner also presented photographic samples of the materials proposed, including dry-set irregular flagstone, split-face limestone retaining walls in an irregular bond pattern, "lily pad" steps with hand- dressed edges meant to evoke a natural bedrock ledge, weathered stone steps near the shoreline, dry creek bed materials referencing a neighboring property completed previously, and the chosen cobblestone paver. Bristol noted that impervious surface calculations had been submitted and that the project is approaching approximately 20% impervious coverage, with the permeable paver options helping to address this. He described the property as a large parcel being pushed close to its limits. Committee members were broadly positive regarding the project. Ellis expressed support for the plan and inquired about the boardwalk, asking about its length and construction method. Meissner estimated approximately 40’-50’ across the existing wetland and clarified that the galvanized steel pads float on the surface rather than being driven into the wetland. Russell praised the lily pad steps and the overall hardscape design. Pentler asked whether the dog run fence extended to the property line (it does not) and inquired about fence height, which Meissner indicated would comply with code and would be sufficient to contain both small and large dogs. She also asked about the steep driveway grade, and Meissner acknowledged it was very steep, noting there was limited ability to modify the slope without encroaching on wetlands. Schreck had no negative notes and expressed appreciation for the level of thought put into the design. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the landscape/land disturbance plan for Julia Uihlein at 10235 STH 42, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. PEA Properties LLC -9751 STH 42 – Accessory Structure – Design Review: Bristol introduced this item, noting that the footprint of the existing accessory structure, described by the owner as a historic bunkhouse or "sugar shack," would not change, and that the enclosed space would be 3 slightly reduced. There were no setback issues identified. Property owners Steve and Mary Homa were present for Pea Properties, LLC. Steve Homa explained that the lower sloped roof section of the structure was in poor condition and would be removed. He intends to extend the roof to the north to create covered space for wood storage and a wood splitter, with a concrete slab poured underneath. The materials discussed included stained cedar siding and a black standing seam metal roof. Steve indicated the 1:12 pitch section of the roof requires a metal roof due to the low pitch being unsuitable for shingles, while the 4:12 pitch section faces the road but is set well up the hill from it. A discussion was held regarding the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42. Pentler noted she had visited the property but could not locate the building. Homa confirmed it is situated up the hill and to the right of the main house, well over 100’ from the road and not readily visible. Pentler stated she did not prefer the black metal roof but acknowledged it was unlikely to be seen by anyone. She also asked about the foundation, and Homa explained the structure currently sits on block and wood framing. He explained that he has plans to lift it, pour a concrete slab beneath it, and add posts with gravel or pavers around the perimeter. Schreck stated he was in favor of the white or cedar siding treatment but not the black metal roof. Pentler did not like the black metal roof as well. Russell moved, Schreck seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, LLC, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. PEA Properties LLC -9751 STH 42 – Addition – Design Review: Bristol explained that the proposed addition would be built over the northernmost portion of the existing building, which currently serves as a garage. He noted that the elevation drawings may appear unusual on first glance because the structure is built back into the hillside — appearing two stories from the front and single story from the rear. He confirmed there were no dimensional or setback issues with the project. Steve Homa explained that the existing asphalt shingle roof is approximately twenty (20) or more years old and would likely be replaced entirely in conjunction with the addition, using dimensional black shingles throughout. A discussion was held regarding the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42. Pentler said she had visited the property and appreciated that the existing structure was being retained with a modest modification. She approved of the black dimensional shingle roof over the metal option. Schreck noted that the addition maintained a simple, rectilinear design, the windows matched the existing structure, and the rear porch railing matched the existing railing already on the building. He expressed no concerns. Thorp noted that a rendering appeared to show a blue or charcoal-colored foundation. Homa confirmed the foundation was painted charcoal when purchased and was not proposed to change. Thorp acknowledged the Plan Committee would make the final determination on that detail. A concern was raised by Pentler regarding the black metal railing on the rear deck, noting that the Committee had previously been strict about prohibiting black metal railings on other projects. Schreck acknowledged the difficulty, pointing out that requiring a different railing on the addition would effectively be asking the owners to change what already exists on the front of the home. Bristol clarified that there is no formal prohibition on black metal railings in the code, noting it is more a matter of preference. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, LLC, all ayes with Pentler nay. Motion carried. 9. Doug Evans – 9807 Brookside Lane – Additions –Concept Review: Bristol introduced this item as a concept review, noting that the property off Brookside Lane consists of three small historic cottages — all under 550 ft 2, with the smallest at approximately 260 ft2 that were likely once part of a larger vacation rental complex. He noted the project may ultimately require variances 4 due to setback and other dimensional issues, and that the owner, Doug Evans, had requested a concept review before HPC and the Planning Committee to gauge initial reaction before investing in full plans. Doug Evans, participating remotely, explained that the primary driver of the project is overdue maintenance. All three cottage roofs need replacement. He described his intent to raise the roofline on the cottages by increasing the pitch from 4:12 to 7:12, which would allow him to add vaulted ceilings, create loft spaces for bedroom use, and free up floor space in the very compact interiors, which currently have 7- foot ceilings that feel cramped. He also noted that the steeper pitch and proposed steel roofing would help shed tree debris, reducing the need for frequent roof maintenance given the heavily treed site. He emphasized he was not looking to dramatically change the overall appearance of the cottages and sought feedback before proceeding further. A discussion was held about the concept review for 9807 Brookside Lane. Pentler said she had driven to the property and found it interesting. She expressed appreciation for Evan's intent to maintain the existing design character and raise the structures to improve functionality, and said she had no issues with the concept. Ellis agreed it looked like a great improvement. Schreck raised a design concern, stating that the renderings felt "a little too modern" to him. He observed that the proposed exterior treatment appeared to switch from horizontal siding to a board-and-batten style, and that a more elaborate entrance featured in one of the renderings had a "grand lodge" quality reminiscent of contemporary spec homes being built elsewhere. He encouraged efforts to bring the design closer to the original cottage character. Thorp echoed this sentiment, agreeing the design could look "a little bit more Ephraim-like." Evans asked for clarification on whether the concern was with the exterior material choices rather than the architectural lines, and Schreck confirmed that the rectilinear massing was being handled well, but that some of the stylistic choices in the renderings leaned too contemporary. Thorp noted that as this was a concept review, no formal recommendation to the Plan Committee would be made. 10. New Business for next meeting / next meeting date: No new business was noted. The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee is August 25, 2026. 11. Adjournment: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to adjourn at 7:03 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by, Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 – 7:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET ACTION ITEMS: Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 14, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the New SFR – Design Review for Brian Attar at 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. McClean moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan for 10235 STH 42 for Julia Uihlein, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for PEA Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Hoyerman moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 8:47 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Andy Bartelt, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Grace Held. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Cora Elquist, Steve and Mary Ohm, Susie Samson, Nick Meissner, Ruann Larson, Sara Glenn, and Brian Reinhardt. Guests online: Brent (John Joseph Company), John Van Der Vaart, Kathy Pentler, John Cox, John Cultra, “Matt”, “Paul”, and Tim and Nancy Christofferson. 1. Call to order: K. Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Quorum: A quorum of the Plan Committee was present. 3. Approval of previous minutes: Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee minutes , as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 14, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 4. Changes in agenda: There were no changes. 5. Visitors’ Comments: There were no Visitors’ Comments. 2 6. Brian Attar– 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive- New SFR – Design Review: Bristol introduced the application for a new single -family residence (SFR) on Norwegian Wood Drive. He noted the project complies with the Village's 28-foot over-the-counter building height limit, meets all other dimensional standards, and that the Design Review Checklist had been completed. Representatives from Portside Construction were present and presented material samples, including asphalt shingles, LP Smart Side dark gray siding, black trim board, and natural stone elements. Committee members expressed no concerns with the application. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the New SFR – Design Review for Brian Attar at 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. Julia Uihlein – 10235 STH 42– Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan: Bristol provided background, explaining this is a landscaping plan for a single-family residence previously approved by the Committee. He noted that for waterfront properties, landscape design is often not finalized at the time of the original building approval. Nick Meissner of Meissner Landscaping had presented the plan in detail at the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting held earlier the same evening, and all Plan Committee members had been present for that presentation. Thorp summarized the HPC discussion, noting members were impressed with the quality of the plan, the natural stone materials fitting within the V illage's palette, and that the only outstanding questions were regarding the dog walk and railing heights, which were to come back before HPC and Plan Committee at a future date. Bristol added that the plan includes detailed impervious surface calculations and complies with the Village's impervious surface limits, utilizing some permeable options. He confirmed that fencing and the dog run detail are not yet finalized and will return for future review. A discussion was held regarding the landscape and land disturbance plan for 10235 STH 42. K. Nelson asked Meissner about the project timeline. Meissner indicated a fall start was planned. Hoyerman inquired about the lot size, which was confirmed at approximately 49,000 square feet — just over one acre. K. Nelson asked how the impervious surface calculation was handled for elements such as steppers with grass between them. Meissner explained that steppers are counted at their full surface area, and that floa ting walkways and similar elements with gaps are treated differently. He noted that retaining walls and steps are not counted into the permeable calculation, consistent with past practice. Bristol added that the intent and construction of the permeable elements is to direct and manage stormwater appropriately. K. Nelson also raised the question of whether drainage improvements could impact adjacent properties. Meissner described the drainage system, including dry creek beds along the north property line functioning as reservoirs and a catch basin that pipes water to a low -lying area on the other side of the pond for larger storm events. McClean moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan for 10235 STH 42 for Julia Uihlein, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. PEA Properties – 9751 STH 42 -Accessory Structure – Design Review: Bristol presented the application for an Accessory Structure Design Review on the north side of the property, noting it is located approximately 120–125 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way with no setback issues. The applicant, Steve Homa, was present. The project involves modifications and repairs to an existing accessory structure, including a new slab-on- grade foundation to replace the deteriorated existing one. Thorp summarized the HPC recommendation, noting the Committee felt the plan was an improvement for the property. A discussion was held regarding the Accessory Structure Design Review Application. H art asked about 3 the chimney visible in photographs. Homa explained there is an evaporator for maple syrup in the accessory structure with a small stainless steel stack, and a separate chimney on the house. Discussion arose regarding the proposed black metal roof, as the existing structure has a mossy shingle roof that appears green. Homa noted the pitch to the back requires a metal roof. K. Nelson expressed some hesitation about black roofs in the Historic District, though acknowledged the structure is near the south end of the district. Homa indicated the cedar siding would be stained in a natural cedar tone to blend with the surrounding woods. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for PEA Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 9. PEA Properties – 9751 STH 42 -Addition – Design Review: Bristol presented the Addition Design Review application for 9751 STH 42, which involves a second- story addition over the existing garage, resulting in a two-story front and single-story rear configuration. He confirmed there are no dimensional, setback, or height issues. Bristol reiterated that a rendering had given the false impression of a blue retaining wall, which is in fact the existing, gray concrete color. Thorp relayed HPC's recommendation, noting the vote was 4–1 in favor of approval, with the dissenting vote stemming from concern about the proposed black metal deck railing on the rear, which is intended to match the existing grandfathered railing on the front. Thorp also confirmed that the addition will use shingle roofing, while the accessory structure (sugar shack) will receive the metal roof discussed under agenda item 8. Homa noted that the addition will use LP Smart Side white siding, and that he would prefer a pewter or landmark gray shingle color. Bristol noted that the color would fall within the village's approved shingle palette. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 10. Cora Elquist – Town Line Drive – 121-01-24312714B3 – New SFR – Concept Review: Bristol introduced the concept review for a new single-family residence (SFR) on a parcel split from a larger parent parcel off Town Line Drive. He noted the project is not adjacent to Town Line Drive but is accessed via an access easement, making it unlikely to be visible from the road. The building height is anticipated to be between 28 and 35 feet, though it has not yet been finalized and will require a special exception. Contractor Brent Heim participated online. Heim explained that the height is driven primarily by the natural contours of the property. On the main entry side, the building will read as approximately 1.5 stories, while the southeast-facing side, which overlooks an adjacent field, will be the tallest face due to a walkout basement in a natural low pocket of the site. He indicated the maximum height at the southeast face is approximately 32 feet, while the northeast face would be in the low-twenties range, suggesting an average across all four sides could potentially fall under the 28-foot threshold. A discussion was held on the concept review for parcel 121-01-24312714B3. Bristol confirmed that height is measured from pre-construction grade and that he and Heim would work through the averaging calculations together. K. Nelson noted this is an unusual situation; most Village lots are flat, but this property has significant natural grade changes. Hart commented that the block model drawings appear very busy, with what looked like nine different roof structures. Heim clarified there are really only three main peaks — the garage, the main house body, and a connector link with a fourth shed dormer bump- out on one side to provide height for an upstairs bathroom and walk-in closet. Hart asked whether the bump-out was intended to allow windows; Heim confirmed windows would be included to make it look appropriate. McClean asked about the architectural style. Cora Elquist, the owner, explained the design 4 is inspired by Swedish and Nordic farmhouse aesthetics with a dark stained wood exterior, dark roof, and that adding the garage connector had made the design somewhat more complex compared to the original, simpler concept. K. Nelson offered guidance that the Committee would prefer the building to come in at or under the 28- foot average if at all possible, noting that the site's natural topography may allow for that outcome. 11. John Van Der Vaart – 10329 STH 42 – Addition – Concept Review: Bristol introduced this concept review for a property on the north end of Ephraim, noting the applicant intends to add a second story to an existing commercial structure without expanding beyond its current footprint. New foundation work would be required as the existing foundation is inadequate. The proposed use is commercial on the ground floor and residential above. John Van Der Vaart participated online. Bristol explained that a variance from the Board of Appeals would be required because the 75-foot front setback, measured from the edge of the road right-of-way, bisects the building. Any new work to a nonconforming structure must comply with current setbacks, hence the need for variance relief. Van Der Vaart confirmed there would be no footprint expansions to the existing structure, but a new foundation would be needed. A discussion was held regarding the concept review for 10329 STH 42. Hoyerman noted that the Plan Committee's role at this stage is purely advisory on design, as it cannot grant variances. Bristol agreed, adding that having a conceptual design discussion is still useful so that if strong design concerns exist, the applicant can address them before going to the Board of Appeals, and then the project would return for full Design Review if a variance is granted. Hoyerman observed that the design is stylistically reminiscent of old Door County schoolhouses. Van Der Vaart confirmed the intent was to draw on elements of downtown Ephraim's character and tie them to the northern end of the village. The Committee responded positively to the design overall. Thorp and McClean both indicated the design looks fine and would be an improvement over the existing structure. K. Nelson asked about Van Der Vaart's plans for the other buildings on the property; Van Der Vaart explained that the immediate priority is the front building to serve his architecture/design-build occupation, while the other structures would be cleaned up, landscaping updated, painting, windows and siding replaced over the next three to five years, with future uses to be determined based on market demand. 12. Ephraim Village Cottages – Larson Lane/Water Street – Mixed Use/Multi-Family - Concept Review: Bristol provided an extensive background on this complex property. The site, historically operated as a cottage rental complex with a manager's residence, was condominiumized in the recent past, a process that does not require Village oversight, so long as the use does not change. One unit, a duplex closest to Highway 42 (the Bayview building), has already been sold under the condominium structure. Bristol outlined three general paths forward as the property is being brought to market: Option 1: Sell the entire property as-is to a single buyer who continues operating it as a cottage rental business with an on-site manager. This would require no Village involvement. Option 2: Sell units individually as single-family condominium homes, which would constitute a change of use to multifamily. This is a conditional use under the Village's multifamily ordinance, requiring four units per acre. The property is approximately 2.23 acres, which rounds down to nine allowable units under the ordinance, while the property currently has 12–13 units. This discrepancy would require a variance from the Board of Appeals before the conditional use could come before the Plan Committee. One duplex unit (units 3 and 4) at 432 square feet per side also falls below the 600-square-foot minimum for individual units and would need to be combined or receive an additional variance. 5 Option 3: A hybrid approach, where a portion of the units (e.g., the manager's residence plus a few adjacent cottages) are sold together under the existing rental use, and the remainder seek a change of use to individual single-family ownership, potentially meeting the density threshold without a variance. Sarah Glenn and Brian Reinhardt of True North Real Estate, representing owner Ruanne Larson, appeared before the Committee. Glenn explained that the property was listed for sale as of that day. She acknowledged the preferred outcome is to find a single buyer to continue the existing use, but that given today's property values and market conditions, that may not be realistic. The appraiser's opinion of highest and best use is to sell the units individually as single-family homes. Glenn noted the opportunity to provide more attainable housing in Ephraim, potentially under $500,000 per unit. She emphasized that no one wants to see the historic cottages demolished, with the oldest dating to 1951. She discussed that if a developer were to acquire the property and tear down the structures, construction of a new multifamily building may be permitted in the district, an outcome less desirable than preserving the existing cottages. Glenn asked the Committee whether, if a variance were granted for the density issue, the change of use to multifamily could be applied to the entire property at once rather than requiring each individual buyer to return for separate approvals. Bristol confirmed this would be handled as a single conditional use review before the Plan Committee, so individual buyers would not need to appear separately. McClean inquired about year-round occupancy. Glenn indicated that while some units have historically been used year-round, it has been a long time, and the buildings could be made suitable for year-round use with improvements. She also confirmed that as single-family homes within the historic district, all the protections and restrictions of that district would apply, and a homeowners association with governing documents would provide additional controls. Hart expressed interest in Option 3, asking whether specific units had been identified for the hybrid cluster. Glenn said that had not yet been determined and would depend on market demand and buyer interest. Hoyerman asked about the fire-damaged cottage and whether it would be rebuilt. Glenn confirmed the intent is to market that lot with the ability to rebuild a cottage of the same size on the existing foundation, at a lower price point to reflect the need for reconstruction. Hoyerman also asked about the two remaining duplex structures. Reinhardt clarified that only units three and four are below 600 square feet, while the other duplex — a two-story structure — has units that each exceed 600 square feet. Hoyerman expressed that he had heard the Committee discuss the value of preserving existing structures frequently and believed the applicants could take that sentiment into account with reasonable confidence, while noting he was speaking only for himself. Bristol emphasized that regardless of use, physical expansion of the existing structures will be extremely constrained due to multiple road frontages on Larson Lane, Hidden Spring, and Birch — each carrying its own front setback — plus a 25-foot commercial building separation requirement, effectively limiting any significant enlargement without individual variances. Bartelt raised the question of building separation requirements; Bristol confirmed that for the existing structures as-is, building separation is moot, but would become relevant for any new construction. Thorp asked how the property is currently being marketed. 6 Glenn confirmed it is listed as one property with the caveat that any change of use requires Village approval, noting that eleven (11) units remain available as the two Bayview units have already been sold. Bristol explained that the sale of the Bayview units had already set a precedent for the individual sale concept under the existing condominium structure, making the continuation of that path a logical next step. Bristol noted the process going forward would likely involve a Board of Appeals hearing for the variance, followed by a conditional use review before the Plan Committee. 13. Doug Evans – 9807 Brookside Lane – Additions – Concept Review: Bristol introduced this concept review for three existing cottages on a property along Brookside Lane near Ephraim Creek. Bristol noted the item also went before HPC earlier in the evening. Thorp summarized the HPC discussion: The Committee agreed the proposed improvements to Cottage 1 would be an improvement over the existing conditions, but a couple of members felt the darker wood exterior treatment proposed would look better in white to maintain the Ephraim aesthetic. Thorp summarized his own guidance as "keep it looking like Ephraim." HPC recommended that the design be refined accordingly. Bristol explained the broader context: Cottage 1 has the cleanest path forward from a setback standpoint, being more centrally located on the property. However, the other two cottages are in proximity to a potential wetland delineation and Ephraim Creek, which is likely a navigable waterway carrying additional setback requirements. Any physical improvements to those structures beyond routine repair - and-replace would require a variance from the Board of Appeals, as they appear to be nonconforming relative to those setbacks. Bristol noted that Evans is interested in re-roofing all three structures at the same time, since the roofs are in significant need of repair, but does not want to invest in new roofs on Cottages 2 and 3 before understanding whether the larger improvement plans have viability. He is using the concept review to gather as much C ommittee feedback as possible before investing in full construction drawings for the board of appeals. A discussion was held regarding the concept review for 9807 Brookside Lane. McClean commented that she strongly supports the renovations in concept but encouraged the applicant to keep the exterior character of the cottages as close as possible to their current appearance while achieving the height and livability improvements. She acknowledged the appeal of metal roofing for practical reasons, but noted it should still read as a traditional Ephraim cottage. K. Nelson echoed that sentiment, noting the proposed design had a somewhat modern or "mountain" aesthetic and suggesting the applicant look more closely at the historic district design guidelines. Bartelt expressed concern about the variance prospects for Cottages 2 and 3 given their apparent location relative to the creek setback, suggesting it would be a significant stretch. He asked whether the proposed renovations could be characterized as repair rather than expansion. Bristol confirmed that given the extent of the proposed work — including loft additions — the projects clearly exceed what could be classified as routine maintenance and would require variances as currently proposed. Bartelt acknowledged that while he would not have a problem with Cottage 1 subject to the HPC caveats, it would make more practical sense to address all three roofs simultaneously. Hoyerman and others noted this is ultimately the applicant's decision and t hat the Committee can only review items as they are brought forward. K. Nelson asked whether the two noncompliant cottages could be relocated within the compliant portion of the property to avoid the variance need. Bristol indicated that he did not believe Evans was strongly interested in relocating structures, and noted that Evans's design approach for the additions had already been modified to direct expansion toward the more inland, meadow side of the property rather than toward the creek. 7 K. Nelson also asked whether there was any way to avoid the Board of Appeals for the other two cottages. Bristol confirmed that given the scope of proposed improvements, there is no path that avoids a variance application for those structures. The Committee's collective guidance was that it supports the concept of improving the cottages, encourages Cottage 1 to move toward a formal Design Review Application with refinements to better align with the Ephraim Historic District aesthetic, and acknowledged that Cottages 2 and 3 will need to navigate the Board of Appeals process before Design Review can proceed. 14. Discussion and Consideration Regarding PW Ordinance Amendment Chair Nelson noted this item was placed on the agenda in the event the Committee was ready to discuss it, and determined that further preparation was needed before the discussion could proceed. The item was passed over. 15. New business for next meeting / next meeting date: The next meeting date of the Plan Committee is July 28, 2026, at 7:00 PM. 16. Adjournment: Hoyerman moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 8:47 PM; all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Grace Held, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox and Kathy Pentler. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. The Committee reviewed the intent statement of §17.20. Two (2) versions of the intent language were discussed with Hart and Hoyerman, explaining that they had worked on a version on their own. After brief discussion, the Committee agreed that both drafts conveyed the same ideas and that the substantive difference was minor wordsmithing. The Committee agreed to retain the current version and to strike the word "also" from its opening line. The Committee reviewed the Permitted Uses section without changes. In the Conditional Uses Section §17.20(3)(b)(1), Bristol suggested adding the reference to §17.20(7) at the end of the sentence. The Committee reviewed the Prohibited Uses and Special Exception Review sections without changes. Section 6 — Additions, Modifications, and Replacements The Committee discussed the addition of "accessory buildings" to the heading of the section, alongside residences, explaining that this would allow applicants proposing changes to structures such as sheds — including adding a hip roof or rebuilding for reduced exposure — to come before the Committee. It was noted that retaining walls, fences, and stone walls are addressed elsewhere in Chapter 17. Section 8 — Reproduction of Existing Structures The Committee jumped ahead to review Section 8 and identified a drafting inconsistency: the word "house" appeared in a sentence within this section that should read "structure," consistent with the broader language change. The Committee agreed to amend "of the original house" to "of the original structure." Regarding materials, the Committee discussed a potential conflict between paragraph (a), which states materials "must be sourced" to ensure authenticity, and paragraph (b), which allows modern material substitution. Members debated whether the word "ensure" was too strong given the exception. The Committee ultimately opted to leave the language as-is, accepting that authenticity in this context is meant to address appearance rather than requiring use of identical historical materials, and that the two (2) paragraphs together provide a workable road map prioritizing original sourcing while permitting suitable substitution. Section 6(a) — General Requirements (Footprints) In §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a), the Committee decided to add, “Footprint of finished interior space” at the beginning of the sentence. Section 6(b) — Design Criteria 1.5 Story Definition: The Committee reviewed the definition of a 1.5 story house, which had been restored to its fuller form including references to knee walls, steeply pitched roofs, gables, dormers, and sloped ceilings. The Committee discussed whether to impose a hard numerical limit on the ratio of upper floor area to first floor area to address bulk concerns. Members examined square footage data from recently approved projects. The Committee debated whether this ratio was acceptable or whether it indicated insufficient restriction. Members discussed whether defining a hard percentage was workable given the difficulty of determining where to measure floor area relative to knee wall height. Several members expressed concern that a percentage could be disadvantageous to owners of small structures. The Committee ultimately concluded that requiring a minimum 2 6:12 roof pitch — already agreed upon — would be the more effective control on bulk, and that imposing a hard upper-floor area cap was unnecessary. The Committee agreed not to include a maximum percentage for upper floor area. The Committee also agreed to change "nominally" to "typically" in the definition of a 1.5-story house for consistency with the word "normally" used elsewhere in the same definition. The Committee reviewed design criteria section §17.20 (6)(b)(iv) and the associated definition of "house attachment," which had been drafted to address porches and decks as non-conditioned structures attached to the principal building. There was discussion that using the term "house attachment" was confusing because it implied attached garages, which are a separate issue. The Committee reviewed an inventory of existing structures in the PW district. The underlying policy goal was discussed: to grandfather existing attachments so that owners who modify or tear down their structures can replace what they had — on a like-for-like basis — without new additions being allowed. For example, a porch could be replaced by a porch, but not upgraded to a screened or windowed porch if it was not previously one. After extended discussion, the Committee agreed to eliminate the term "house attachment" from both the definition section and the body of the ordinance. The Committee agreed that "house attachment" could be struck from 17.20(6)(b)(iv) and be replaced with “decks and porches”. The Committee identified that attached garages present a distinct issue from porches and decks, as they are enclosed structures that fall within the footprint definition. Two (2) properties in the PW district currently have attached garages predating recent construction. The Committee discussed whether owners of attached garages should be permitted to convert garage space to finished living space. Members agreed that such conversion should be permissible — as it would not increase the footprint or the width of the structure as seen from the highway, but that no upper level (second story) should be permitted over the repurposed garage space. Members suggested inserting a new sub-paragraph that specifically addresses attached garages, stating attached garages may be converted to finished living space, provided that no upper level is added above the converted space, and there is no increase in width. The Committee agreed to add language in a new §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b) to address attached garages becoming living space. The current §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b) would become §17.20(6)(a)(i)(c). Section 6(c) -Dimensional Standards The Committee discussed whether new or replacement construction should be limited to the existing height of the structure being replaced, rather than the 23-foot maximum. The Committee discussed this but concluded that the 23-foot cap, combined with the 6:12 minimum roof pitch, would serve as an effective practical constraint, particularly on narrow lots, and that maintaining a uniform standard was preferable to tying height to prior structure dimensions. The Committee engaged in extended discussion regarding the permitted width of shed dormers, which may be considered with a roof pitch as low as 3:12 and a maximum of 6:12. Members discussed whether a percentage of the roofline width would be a more proportional cap than a fixed footage. A suggestion was 50% as a reasonable starting point; Bartelt suggested 75%, also acknowledged as somewhat arbitrary. There was discussion about whether the shed dormer provision applies to one or more sides of the building, with concern that allowing shed dormers on multiple sides — particularly all four (4) sides of a square footprint — could effectively create a full second floor. In §17.20(6)(c)(5), “except for the following circumstances” was added to the end of the sentence. In §17.20(6)(c)(5)(a), language was amended to, “A roof pitch for a limited amount of shed dormer of less than 6/12 and a minimum of 3/12 may be considered. In §17.20(6)(c)(5)(b), “Roof pitches for porches less than 6/12 may be considered.” In §17.20(10)(a), the word “house attachments” was replaced with “decks and porches”. 3 The committee did not complete a full pass through the ordinance during this session. K. Nelson acknowledged that a further working session would be needed before the draft is ready for the regular Plan Committee meeting. Held moved, Hoyerman seconded to adjourn at 2:08 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM WASTEWATER COMMITTEE MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2026 – 9:00 AM 9996 Water Street- Ephraim Village Hall Action Items: Peterman moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the minutes of June 1, 2025, all ayes. Motion carried. The consensus of the Wastewater Committee members present was to submit the updated CMOM to the WI DNR, with the corrections to be made first. The consensus of the Wastewater Committee members present was to recommend to the Village Board that the Village prepare and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified solar installation contractors, using existing power usage data and site information, and to bring supporting documentation, including the McMahon memorandum and Elan Electric cost estimate, before the Board at its next meeting in August. McMurtry moved, Jewell seconded to adjourn at 9:44 AM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Rick Hoyerman, Jim Peterman, Bruce Nelson, Dennis Jewell, and Karen McMurtry - Chair. Absent: None. Guests: None. Staff: Brad Rasmusson – Wastewater OIC, Dan Oakley (Online) – Wastewater Operator, Nathan Merkel – Wastewater Intern, and Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk. 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by McMurtry at 8:00 AM. 2. Changes to the agenda: There were no changes. 3. Visitors’ Comments: There were no comments. 4. Approval of the previous minutes: Peterman moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the minutes of June 1, 2025, all ayes. Motion carried. 5. Plant Manager’s Report: Rasmussen reviewed the July 2026 Plant Manager Report: Water Lab Audit: The facility underwent a water lab audit. The auditor spent half a day on-site and identified two (2) minor findings which have since been corrected and approved. Lightning Strike: A lightning strike knocked out overhead doors at the treatment plant and the new maintenance shop. The clarifier drives and some lab equipment required manual restarts but were restored without significant issue. Blower Failure: A failing bearing on a blower was discovered during a walk-through of the boiler room. A replacement unit was sourced from factory stock and installed within a couple of days. The original blower has been sent for evaluation, and a repair quote will be brought forward for a future decision. Generator Battery Incident: Smoke was reported along with loud noise coming from a green box near the beach. It was ultimately determined that the battery charger was overcharging, causing the generator battery to fail. Cummins was called and responded within approximately two (2) hours, installing a new battery and charger by 4:30 PM the same day. Transfer Switch Replacement at Lift Station No. 2: NEI replaced the transfer switch at Lift Station No. 2, which required a complete power shutdown for nearly five (5) hours. Septic Maintenance trucks were brought in to haul sewage up the hill, where it was diverted by gravity to the plant via Bella Vista Lane. Rasmusson acknowledged that the work was completed successfully. He also noted the new switch was intentionally sized to accommodate a future generator upgrade. Paving: A paving project required a shutdown of the Wastewater Treatment Plant for approximately one and one-half weeks. The work was described as looking great, though a small concrete repair is still needed 2 at the plant entrance where the new asphalt came in slightly higher. The contractor agreed to provide labor if the Village supplies the concrete, which Rasmusson considered a favorable arrangement. Routine Maintenance: Staff painted the roof vents at the plant, giving them a uniform appearance. Old diffusers that had been stored for approximately two years had their membranes stripped and replaced. Septic inspections are ongoing, with the remainder expected to be completed soon. 6. Discussion and consideration regarding 2026 CMOM update: Rasmusson explained that the CMOM (Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance) update is a DNR requirement with a deadline of September 30th. The original CMOM was prepared by McMahon in 2016. Rasmusson reviewed and updated the document, producing a revised version for Committee review. A discussion was held regarding the 2026 CMOM. McMurtry raised a question regarding the nitrogen testing schedule, which listed the 3rd quarter of both 2026 and 2027 as testing periods, and questioned whether the 2027 entry should instead be the 4th quarter. Rasmusson stated he would verify the permit requirements to confirm the correct schedule. Rasmusson walked through the key components of the updated CMOM, which includes a copy of the current operating permit, the annual budget, and Chapter 13 of the Ephraim Code of Ordinances. He noted a new permit is currently in process with the DNR and is expected within one to two months. Hoyerman asked whether effluent requirements would change under the new permit, and Rasmusson confirmed that nitrogen testing requirements and PFAS monitoring are expected to change. Regarding PFAS, Rasmusson reported that when the Village's testing was conducted, the result was approximately 21 against a threshold of 30 for combined PFAS compounds, placing the Village below the level that would trigger additional monitoring. He noted that some neighboring communities came in at or above 30, but that in all cases regulators would likely look for identifiable industrial sources before imposing further requirements. On televising, Hoyerman asked about the requirement to inspect 10% of the collection system annually. Rasmusson explained this is accomplished via camera truck, and acknowledged that in recent years televising has been funded from whatever remains in the Collection Maintenance budget line item rather than from a dedicated line item. He suggested that establishing a separate budget line for televising may be worth considering to ensure the 10% target is consistently met. Rasmusson suggested January as a logical time for the annual review of the CMOM, as operational activity is typically lower and the new budget would be in place. Emergency contact information was identified as needing an update, specifically the medical clinic listing, which still referenced Fish Creek and an outdated clinic name. The consensus of the Wastewater Committee members present was to submit the updated CMOM to the WI DNR, with the corrections to be made first. 7. Discussion regarding solar power at the Wastewater Treatment Facility: B. Nelson opened the discussion by expressing concern that the Village has been slow to advance the solar project, and proposed an alternative path forward. He noted that McMahon's prior engineering work — which cost the village approximately $330,000–$360,000 — did not produce a standalone, biddable set of plans and specifications for the solar component, which he acknowledged had been a mistaken assumption on the Committee’s part. B. Nelson proposed that rather than paying additional engineering fees, the Village could prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) and distribute it directly to qualified solar installation companies. His position was that the Village already possesses the information these contractors would need: Power usage data, utility costs broken down by month, and knowledge of where panels would be sited. He argued that suppliers themselves are best positioned to design the appropriate system based on those inputs, and that this approach would avoid significant additional engineering costs. A discussion was held regarding drafting and RFP for solar at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Hoyerman asked whether the Village had enough information today to issue such an RFP without additional 3 work. B. Nelson confirmed that he believed so, citing experience with Elan Electric and the Grow Solar program. The discussion touched on the urgency of moving forward. B. Nelson stressed that federal funding opportunities and Focus on Energy incentives carry hard deadlines, and that inaction could result in the Village paying 100% of the project cost rather than a third or two-thirds. He noted that both the Wastewater Committee and the Green Tier Committee have previously made recommendations to the Board to pursue the project. Jewell agreed with B. Nelson's framing, observing that the Committee does not yet have an actual cost for the system — only a two-year-old budget estimate from McMahon prepared by Elan Electric — and that getting a real proposal from contractors is the logical next step. Peterman expressed broader frustration, noting that the Committee has been discussing the Wastewater Treatment Plant renovation for close to a year without sitting down with McMahon to go through the full scope of work item by item. He compared the situation to home renovation, arguing that doing it right once is more cost-effective than piecemeal fixes. He also suggested the solar project should be evaluated in the context of the larger plant renovation, and endorsed the idea of going directly to solar contractors for competitive proposals. Hoyerman suggested that before the next Village Board meeting, the Committee determine what it would cost to prepare and issue the RFP, and bring that information along with supporting documentation — including the McMahon memorandum and Elan Electric's budget estimate — before the Village Board for a vote. The goal would be to keep the process moving without committing the Village to a final decision. The consensus of the Wastewater Committee members present was to recommend to the Village Board that the Village prepare and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified solar installation contractors, using existing power usage data and site information, and to bring supporting documentation, including the McMahon memorandum and Elan Electric cost estimate, before the Board at its next meeting in August. 8. Visitors’ Comments: There were no Visitors’ Comments. 9. New business for the next meeting: a. Solar for the Wastewater Treatment Facility. b. 2027 Budget. The next meeting of the Wastewater Committee will take place on Monday. August 31, 2026 at 9 AM. 10. Adjournment: McMurtry moved, Jewell seconded to adjourn at 9:44 AM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PHYSICAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2026, 8:00 AM 9996 WATER STREET Action Items: Flottman moved, Lohman seconded to approve the minutes of June 3, 2026, all ayes. Motion carried. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded to table the placement & number of trees on North End Path agenda item until Tom Wolfe can be present to meet with the PFU Committee, all ayes. Motion carried. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded to table the placement of solar bollards on North End Path agenda item until Tom Wolfe can be present to meet with the PFU Committee, all ayes. Motion carried. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded to wait one year for the grass to establish at the south end of Firehouse Marina and reevaluate the need for a tree at that time, all ayes. Motion carried. Lohman moved to adjourn at 8:21 AM, Flottman seconded, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Paul Flottman, Scott Lohman, and Matt Meacham – Chair. Absent: Brian Reinhardt. Staff: Brent Bristol – Village Administrator, Justin MacDonald – Maintenance Manager/Fire Chief, and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests online: Kelsey Stone (EBC). Guests in person: Bruce Nelson. 1. Call to Order: Meacham called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM. Quorum: A quorum was present for this meeting. 2. Changes in Agenda: There were none. 3. Approval of Previous Minutes: Flottman moved, Lohman seconded to approve the minutes of June 3, 2026, all ayes. Motion carried. 4. Visitors’ Comments: There were none. 5. Maintenance Manager Report: MacDonald outlined ongoing summer operations including daily bathroom maintenance, lawn mowing, and watering. He reported that the department had undertaken a painting project covering the trim at the gazebo at Harborside Park and the Administrative office. Regarding the dump, MacDonald noted that daily monitoring continues. He further reported that an additional fence is being constructed at the dump to delineate the acceptable dumping area better, as signage alone has proven insufficient to deter improper dumping. 6. Discussion and Recommendation on Placement & Number of Trees on North End Path: Bruce Nelson addressed the Committee, identifying himself as a resident of Church Street appearing on behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Door County, located at 3041 Water Street. He expressed that the congregation has consistently supported the North End Path project and noted anecdotally that the path appears to be well used, but they do have concerns about the loss of trees in the project area. He relayed recommendations from a contractor to plant a sugar maple just south of the Fellowship's driveway entrance onto Highway 42, and a white oak and a serviceberry staggered to the north of the driveway, noting that these are native species suited to the site. A discussion was held regarding tree planting along the North End Path. Meacham explained that the intersection of tree placement and solar bollard installation was a key reason the Committee was 2 reviewing this item. He raised concerns that some trees proposed by Tom Wolf have large canopies that could interfere with solar charging efficiency. He additionally flagged root clearance as a concern given the significant investment in the path, noting that root growth from large trees could eventually damage the asphalt. Lohman agreed with those concerns, suggesting that larger trees such as maples and white oaks should be planted in areas with more room between the path and the right-of-way, while fruit trees could be placed in tighter areas. He also raised the point that mixing species would be beneficial. Fruit trees would provide faster growth and visual interest in spring and fall, while the slower-growing hardwoods would provide long-term canopy. Flottman echoed the concern about maple trees in particular, noting they tend to deteriorate all at once over time and require eventual replacement, and stressed the importance of voicing concerns about setbacks, shade, and potential path damage to whoever is making the planting recommendations. He noted that blacktop is more susceptible to root crowning than reinforced concrete. MacDonald noted that he had invited Tom Wolfe, the landscape professional who developed the tree proposal, to attend the meeting but that Wolfe was unavailable. MacDonald committed to reaching out with the next meeting date to ensure Wolfe could attend next month and explain his plan directly to the Committee. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded to table the placement & number of trees on North End Path agenda item until Tom Wolfe can be present to meet with the PFU Committee, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. Discussion and Recommendation on Placement of Solar Bollards on North End Path: Meacham explained that without the functioning website, the meeting packet was not available to share with the Committee on the screen. Therefore, the plan sheets with bollard placement could not be reviewed. Tom Wolf was also not present to address tree placement questions. Meacham stated that AECOM's proposed bollard locations appeared largely appropriate, but that the primary concern remained the interaction between the proposed tree locations and the solar bollard placement, specifically, whether large-canopy trees would shade the bollards and reduce their effectiveness. A discussion was held regarding solar bollard placement along the North End Path. Lohman acknowledged the concern but offered that solar technology has advanced considerably and that the bollards may not require full, unobstructed sun to function adequately. He also suggested that bollards could potentially be positioned at the perimeter of a tree's canopy rather than directly beneath it, or offset enough so as not to be significantly shaded. Meacham added a further concern about overhead power lines in the area, noting that if large trees are planted near lines, they may eventually be topped, resulting in an unattractive appearance. Flottman noted that the Committee has had positive experience with the solar bollards installed at the Cherry Tree steps, which are located in a clear, unshaded area, and expressed optimism that a professional with experience in these situations would be able to provide sound guidance on placement relative to trees. He also suggested that solar bollard technology has improved since those were installed approximately ten years ago. The Committee agreed that this item should also be tabled pending Tom Wolf's attendance at the next meeting. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded, to table the placement of solar bollards on North End Path agenda item until Tom Wolfe can be present to meet with the PFU Committee, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. Discussion and Recommendation on Tree for Southend of Marina: Meacham explained that a request had been made to discuss placing a tree at the south end of the marina where cedars had previously been removed. The area is also occupied by two picnic tables. Flottman expressed his view that no action should be taken at this time, suggesting the Committee allow the area to settle and observe how use patterns develop before making any planting decisions, noting that a tree can always be planted later. 3 MacDonald indicated that the grass in the area is still coming in and agreed that waiting another year to allow it to fully establish would be reasonable. He suggested that a tree may be aesthetically appropriate there eventually but that the priority should be re-establishing the ground cover first. Lohman moved, Flottman seconded to wait one year for the grass to establish at the south end of Firehouse Marina and reevaluate the need for a tree at that time, all ayes. Motion carried. 9. New Business for the next meeting: a. Placement & Number of Trees on North End Path. b. Placement of Solar Bollards on North End Path. 10. Adjournment: Lohman moved to adjourn at 8:21 AM, Flottman seconded, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by, Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Grace Held. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox and Kathy Pentler. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. K. Nelson reviewed the changes that Committee members agreed to at the July 14, 2026 meeting. Thorp inquired regarding Section 7 – Exceptions. He expressed concern that the section seemed very vague and open-ended, while in comparison, Section 8- Reproduction, specifically outlines size, volume, and appearance. A brief discussion was held regarding Section 7. K. Nelson explained that the goal of Section 7 was to encourage the retention of existing homes rather than tearing them down. It leaves the Committee discretion, but he asked the Committee if they felt the section was too vague. Thorp felt it was vague and feared the Committee would be swamped with Special Exception requests. Bartlet added that keeping an original residence is vague, but it would be hard to be more specific. Hoyerman explained that if the Committee wanted to be more specific and define Section 7, it would take two (2) more pages of ordinance. He felt it best to leave it in the Committee’s hands to make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis, allowing for discretion. A summary of the changes to §17.20 - August 4, 2026 Ordinance Working Session: • Section 1- Intent o Line 8 of the intent section, replace the word “said” with “such” to read, “such modifications”. o Strike and relocate to Section 4(a), “New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1988.” • Section 3 – Conditional Uses o Section 3(b): Combine 3(b) with 3(b)(1) so that the sentence reads for 3(b), “On parcels where there is a structure, additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6) and §17.20(8). (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; these cite references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) • Section 4 – Prohibited Uses o Take the last line from the intent statement in Section 1, and create 4(a), “New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1988” o Create 4(b), “Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District.” • Section 7 – Reproduction (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; Section references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) o §17.20(7)(a) - The first sentence was amended to read, “Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of footprint, size, volume, and appearance. • Section 8 – Additions/Modifications (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; Section references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) 2 o §17.20(8)(b)(ii) amended to read, “Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. The width of any individual structure as measured parallel to State Highway 42 cannot be increased. When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, a Landscape Permit is required (See §10 Permit Application.) o §17.20(8)(b)(iv) amended to read, “Any existing deck or porch (see definitions in §17.09) may be replaced on a project within this district, assuming the size is no more than the existing deck or porch, and the deck or porch is a one-for-one replacement. For example, an open porch may be replaced by an open porch, but not by a screened or windowed porch. • Ordinance Section reordering: o Section 6 Additions and Modifications became Section 8 Additions and Modifications o Section 7 Exceptions became Section 6 Exceptions o Section 8 Reproduction became Section 7 Reproduction K. Nelson explained that a draft would go to the Village Board for review on August 11, 2026, to obtain feedback as a discussion-only agenda item. The Plan Committee would also review the ordinance at its August regular meeting. In September, the Village Board could set the ordinance for Public Hearing in October, and in October the Public Hearing could be held. K. Nelson asked the Committee to consider if they wanted to make a concept review a requirement for applications submitted for the Protected Waterfront for the next meeting. He noted it was currently encouraged but not required. He further explained in response to Kathy Pentler’s remarks that the Committee was charged by the Village Board to clarify the ordinance, not make it more strict. Hoyerman moved, Hart seconded to adjourn at 1:16 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM MARINAS AND MOORINGS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2026 – 8:00 AM 9996 Water Street - Ephraim Village Hall Action Items: B. Nelson moved, Thorp seconded to approve the minutes of July 8, 2026, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Plansky moved, Thorp seconded to adjourn at 9:35 AM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: John Held (online), Bruce Nelson, Bob Plansky, BD Thorp, Tim Nelson-Chair. Absent: None. Guests: None. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator/Harbormaster, Justin MacDonald – Fire Chief/Maintenance Manager, and Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk. 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by T. Nelson at 8:01 AM. 2. Changes to the agenda: There were no changes. 3. Visitors’ Comments: There were no comments. 4. Approval of the previous minutes: B. Nelson moved, Thorp seconded to approve the minutes of July 8, 2026, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 5. Discussion regarding future use of newly acquired property north of Firehouse Dock: T. Nelson introduced the item, identifying the property as the former Krist/Olson property, which the Village recently acquired. Now that the Village owns the property, it was appropriate to discuss its potential uses. He noted the significance of the acquisition, explaining that it links Village property to the south with Firehouse Marina and the Village property to the north in front of Hillside, creating a continuous corridor of Village-owned waterfront. A discussion was held regarding the new property acquisition. Held suggested the Committee consider whether it has a role in making recommendations regarding the property's development, noting that such recommendations would likely flow through the Physical Facilities & Utilities (PFU) Committee before reaching the Village Board. He suggested that continuing the rock wall and keeping any walking path as close to the wall as possible—eventually connecting to the crosswalk near the firehouse museum—were logical starting points, and encouraged members to bring their individual thoughts to the next meeting. T. Nelson agreed that while the Village Board would make final decisions, feedback from the Marinas and Moorings (M&M) Committee and coordination with PFU would be valuable. He highlighted the extension of parking spaces along the highway and linking the walking path to the crosswalk near the marina office as near-term priorities that had been discussed even before this property was acquired. He also suggested the Committee consider whether to expand the marina. He shared that he had done some preliminary research on marina expansion options. He outlined two (2) rough scenarios: Constructing an entirely new main dock north of the existing facility, which he estimated at approximately $ 1 million, or more thoroughly developing the north side of the existing north dock with perpendicular floating finger slips, which he estimated at approximately $500,000. Both scenarios were noted to be contingent on resolving a significant parking requirement. T. Nelson noted that with parking regulations at one (1) space per two (2) slips, any expansion would require identifying additional parking spaces—a matter that was acknowledged as likely to generate public pushback. Bristol questioned whether floating piers off the north side of the existing wall, without a breakwater, could offer adequate protection from wave action, noting that cross-ties rather than wall-ties would provide some improvement and that the shallower, more sheltered location could reduce wave exposure. T. Nelson agreed that any floating piers in that location would need to be of substantial construction, similar to those at Anderson Dock, with heavy attachment hardware and driven anchor posts, and noted that the area would never be fully calm without a breakwater. 2 The Committee discussed the possibility of pursuing a breakwater to improve conditions. B. Nelson noted that the water in that area is relatively shallow—six to eight feet (6’-8’) at most, which might make a shorter or partial breakwater more feasible and potentially more acceptable to the DNR. He emphasized that with a waiting list of forty (40) to fifty (50) seasonal slip holders, it is the Committee's responsibility to seriously investigate this option and develop realistic cost figures to potentially shorten the mairna waitlist. The Committee also discussed the parking requirements in more detail. It was noted that at the current ratio of one (1) space per two (2) slips, any new parking spaces created on the newly acquired property— estimated at approximately three (3) spaces given the roughly eighty-feet (80’) of frontage gained- would fall well short of what a significant expansion would require. Truck and trailer parking was identified as a particularly significant pressure on the existing lot, with Bristol suggesting that resolving that issue could free up considerable space for slip holders and transient boaters. T. Nelson suggested that all Committee members come to the next meeting with ideas for the property's use—covering shoreline development, potential marina expansion, walking path orientation, and related infrastructure, without feeling obligated to do extensive formal research first, so that the Committee can collectively develop a set of recommendations for the Village Board. T. Nelson noted that the property's existing natural vegetation included several ash trees, which he described as "short timers" due to the emerald ash borer, as well as at least one (1) unidentified tree of unknown species. He mentioned having asked the maintenance staff to leave that unidentified tree undisturbed until a plan could be determined, to see if it could potentially be worth preserving as part of a larger plan for the area. B. Nelson commented that the acquisition was a long-awaited and very positive step for the Village, noting that the area is heavily used during the summer months and that the new property adds picnic space, shoreline access for children, and additional area for the annual goose roundup. Bristol suggested that the property's small beach area could serve as a kayak and paddleboard launch point, offering a more natural access option than the existing dinghy dock ramp. 6. Discussion regarding Pier and Waterfront estimates for future projects: The Committee reviewed the plan to purchase two used 4-foot by 30-foot floating piers from Pier and Waterfront Solutions (P&WS). Initial confusion arose regarding available inventory due to differing information from onsite yard staff at P&WS. Bristol stepped out of the meeting to make direct contact with P&WS to clarify inventory details and confirm both 4’30’ piers were still available. Bristol was tasked with confirming pier availability, coordinating the purchase, and starting discussions on attachment and cost with P&WS. Held committed to stopping at P&WS to take pictures to determine what improvements the piers would require before delivery. Two (2) pending action items from a previous meeting in relation to additional work to be considered by P&WS were brought up: The clearing of the spur dock area and rock wall reinforcement between piers. With additional work discussed as part of the P&WS worklist, a discussion developed directing Bristol to make contact with the DNR to investigate what options are open to the Village with regard to areas that have never been dredged before, marina expansion, breakwater (or similar/different wave attenuation option). 7. Update regarding off-season work list and current projects/operations: Bristol presented a summary of current project statuses using the working to-do list included in the meeting packet. (See attached list and corresponding status of each item.) 8. New business for the next meeting: The next meeting of the Marinas and Moorings Committee will take place on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, at 8:00 AM. 9. Adjournment: Plansky moved, Thorp seconded to adjourn at 9:35 AM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk Village of Ephraim Marinas and Moorings Worklist Status Strikethrough indicates task completed FIREHOUSE MARINA: Current List: • Dredging north of north dock east to bulkhead line and finish work west of south dinghy pier. o Status: North of north dock postponed as of June 2026 meeting due to increased water levels. Anticipated Fall 2026 for cleanup of work west of south dinghy pier. • Install Water Bottle Filling Station. o Status: Complete. • Replace Exit sign at north end of the parking lot; position it for maximum visibility from the street to maintain visibility for leaving the lot when pulling onto STH 42. o Status: Arrows were repainted in the spring of 2026 (potential of purchase of sprayer to enable Maintenance to respray when fading occurs). MacDonald is working on sign options for the September meeting. Possible “Exit Only” sign at the south end of the marina lot. Move the marina sign closer to the building to open up sight lines to the north. • Weed treatment in marinas. o Status: Firehouse treated in 2026. Moving forward, both marinas should be treated. Consideration should be given to treating as early as possible in the season to effectively treat weeds. • Repair or replace the plastic chains to finger piers as needed. • Replace one of the dock boxes. o Status: Delivery should take place on 8/5 or 8/6/2026. • Replace the two westernmost finger piers on the north dock with 4’ wide finger piers. o Status: Bristol to confirm purchase with P&WS as per motion made at June 2026 meeting. • Dock Staff paint white trim on building. • Reattached all loose caps on North Dock. • Reattach loose cleat on T-Dock o Status: Possibly done. • Replace rotten deck board on T-Dock. o Status: Possibly done. • Mildew Treatment on Marina Office Building. o Status: MacDonald reported that it could be done the week of 8/5/2026 • Mooring field inventory: Stefan was to conduct an inventory of the mooring field to cross-reference boats currently present against contracted slip holders. • Jeff Long and mooring balls: The Committee had agreed to contact Jeff Long regarding why only one of the five expected mooring balls had been placed. • Meet with Jeff Long regarding channel markers for the current season. • Spud pole caps installed. o Status: Completed. FH Marina – Consider for 2026: • Moving dinghy ramp and pier closer to the ramp o Status: Leave for now. • Move large dinghies (whalers) to the south of the south dinghy pier o Status: Staff instructed to keep only one in that area. FH Marina - To consider for the future: • Reinforce rock wall o Status: P&WS estimate • Parking lot crack filling o Status: Estimate obtained from the Door County Highway Department for $5,300. Needs approval. Work could be completed in the fall of 2026 or Spring of 2027. • Replace Nork Dock ramp o Status: Noted it was flimsy and likely to remain in use until either a better option became available or it failed structurally. The dock's approximate length was discussed but not confirmed; measuring it was noted as a needed step • Fill the void under the deck on the north dock • Replace broken concrete walk areas. o Status: When the concrete path is continued from the north towards the marina building, broken areas should be taken care of at the same time. Consider thicker concrete to avoid heavy equipment damage in the future. Address the utility line running approximately six inches below the surface near the north dock's concrete walkway, which has been repeatedly damaged by heavy equipment. He recommended that when concrete replacement work is undertaken in that area, the waterline be placed in a proper utility trench with a heavy steel cover to protect it from future damage. • Redecking the T-Dock ANDERSON MARINA: • Reattach board with cleat • Check and tighten vertical bumper board as needed • Replace missing bumper boards on west end of dock (2 missing?)