Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/25 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2025 Present: John Seagle, Todd Bruce, Marcie Worrell, Mayor Collins Absent: Vera Carter, Constance Patterson Staff Present: Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Austin Painter, Project Manager, Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician, and Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Guests: Mike Reedy, One Gravy Concern and Preston Gray, Gray’s Restoration and Preservation Meeting Called to Order Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and asked for a roll call. The roll was taken by Ms. Hale and a quorum was determined with three members present at the time of the roll call. Financial Update Ms. Morris reported on the checking account at NBB, as of April 1st, there was a balance of $9,838.47. Between April 1st and July 31st, the account earned interest and had revenue from four plot sales totaling $1,600, as well as income from seven casket burials and eight monuments, bring in $2,051.76. The only expenditure during this period was $696 for traveler’s insurance, which was paid on July 1st. The checking account balance as of July 31st stood at $11,194.23. Ms. Carter joined the meeting at 6: 04 p.m. She then presented reports on two investment accounts. The first investment account, initially funded with a CD, began with $343,608.08 on April 1st. By July 31st, after earning $5,116.63 in interest, the balance had grown to $348,724.71. The second investment account began at $119,023.57 and earned $1,772.37 in interest over the same period, resulting in a balance of $120,795.94. Ms. Morris noted that both accounts were performing well in terms of interest earnings. With no questions raised, the board prepared to move to the scheduled presentation. Presentation Mr. Reedy introduced himself as the guest presenter. He explained he runs a business called One Grace Concern, specializing in cemetery headstone cleaning and restoration. Mr. Reedy shared background about himself: he grew up in the Shenandoah Valley, is a Navy veteran, and retired from the U.S. Postal Service. As a child, Mr. Reedy recalled being fascinated by funerals and cemeteries, particularly after attending one where he vividly remembered the deceased’s name decades later. His lifelong interest in graveyards deepened about five and a half years ago when he cleaned his parents’ and grandparents’ tombstones. Neighbors began asking him to clean their loved ones’ stones as well, which grew into his business. Ms. Patterson joined the meeting at 6:09 p.m. Mr. Reedy explained that in his early work, he mistakenly used bleach for cleaning, which he later learned was harmful, especially to old marble stones. After attending seminars and conducting his own research, he refined his methods and developed expertise in stone cleaning and restoration. His work expanded to repairing and straightening stones, which requires significant manual labor, often involving digging to reach the base before adjusting a marker. He emphasized that while the techniques are not overly complex, they do require specific knowledge of materials and methods. At age 67, he noted the physical demands of the work were increasingly challenging for him, but he continues out of passion. He began showing photos of his work, including his first cleaned stone from 2019 near his home. He also highlighted a cleaned monument at the entrance of Oakwood Cemetery, which he had done at the request of board member, John Seagle. Mr. Reedy shared how he came to Pulaski. As a child of deaf adults (CODA), he grew up with family friends who included Cecil and Nellie Pearlman and their daughter Lucy. After losing touch for decades, he reconnected with Lucy fifty years later, and for the past eight years has been visiting Pulaski regularly. Through this connection, he began offering his services in the area. He recounted how Mr. Seagle hired him annually to clean stones at Oakwood Cemetery, often paying out of his own pocket to maintain family and community plots. Once Mr. Reedy realized Mr. Seagle was personally funding much of this work, he reduced his rates to ease the burden. He displayed photos of work he had completed for Mr. Seagle, including leaning or deteriorating stones, family plots, and cemetery walls. He also described work done for other Pulaski residents, including cleaning the Patterson family plot. Many of the stones in these projects had been heavily darkened by mold or lichen before his cleaning process restored them. He showed images of his cleaning process and examples from his hometown cemetery as well. Mr. Reedy continued his presentation by showing before-and-after photos from his restoration projects. He described his work in Mount Solon, Virginia, where he repaired broken stones, reattached a finial that had been lying on the ground, and straightened numerous markers. He also explained the distinction he learned between cemeteries and graveyards: graveyards are attached to churches, while cemeteries are municipal or family burial grounds. He showed another project from Strasburg, Virginia, at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. Many of the stones there were stained or blackened, and he demonstrated how his cleaning process brightened them significantly. He explained that some stones retain staining that fades over time with treatment. Mr. Reedy uses a low-pressure wash for most stones but avoids using it on sandstone. After cleaning, he treats stones with a product called D/2 Biological Solution (he referred to it as “biologic”), which is widely used at Arlington National Cemetery, the White House, and other federal sites. He emphasized that the product is safe for surrounding vegetation, although it may temporarily brown grass. Mr. Reedy then described a particularly demanding project in Cloverdale, Virginia, where all the stones in a graveyard had to be removed to allow regrading. This job was stressful for him, and he even developed vertigo during the process, possibly from the pressure and physical strain. He noted that Preston Gray, who has been assisting him for three years and is now beginning his own preservation business, also worked on this project. One challenging aspect was a stone split through the middle. While Mr. Reedy initially intended to recreate it, the client preferred to keep the original look, valuing the authenticity and visible age of the piece. He completed the job by resetting all the stones after the land was regraded. He shared another case involving a very old gravestone, which he misread as dated 1885 when it was actually from 1835. He described the inscription challenges and how he restored the stone using a product called Lithomex, a specialized stone-recreation material that is superior to cement. He also uses historic mortars and, more recently, injectable grout, which he now believes offers a better solution than epoxy for repairing cracks. Mr. Reedy explained his equipment and restoration methods further. He owns a heavy-duty jack capable of lifting five-ton stones, which allows him to raise and reset leaning monuments. He mentioned an upcoming project at the University of Virginia involving a massive obelisk that may push the limits of his equipment. He described the process of resetting stones, which often involves removing unstable or deteriorated concrete foundations and rebuilding proper bases. He showed photos of a monument that had toppled, requiring him to remove nearly 25 inches of concrete before resetting it with the help of a tractor. He also emphasized the importance of safety in this work. In one case, while working near Exit 70 in Wytheville, a heavy stone nearly crushed his foot when it slipped unexpectedly. He acknowledged that such hazards come with the territory but stressed the care required to avoid serious injury. Mr. Reedy presented additional examples of his work, including projects in Wytheville and Afton, Virginia. At Afton, he corrected a tall stone that had been improperly set with Portland cement, explaining that Portland cement should never be used in tombstone applications. He carefully dismantled the monument, discovered the original base, and reset it after cutting off a damaged bottom section. Since no inscriptions were lost, this solution preserved the stone’s integrity while restoring stability. He then pointed out a project he is currently working on in Pulaski’s Oakwood Cemetery, involving a gated family plot with leaning and broken stones. He assured Mr. Seagle that he would get to those stones, showing before-and-after examples of others he had recently completed. He also demonstrated his use of injectable grout, a technique he adopted earlier this year. The material is inserted slowly into cracks with a syringe-like applicator, making it especially useful for vertical stones. He noted that it flows easily, so it must be applied carefully, but he has found it to be an effective and durable product. Mr. Reedy concluded this portion of the presentation by highlighting a recent Oakwood Cemetery project that Mr. Gray had taken on, emphasizing how he is beginning to carry forward this preservation work in the Pulaski community. The presentation continued with a discussion of repair work on cemetery plots. The speaker pointed out a sunken pillow stone that had been problematic but was later corrected. He showed “after” photos where the stones had been leveled and straightened, with a clean and orderly appearance. Attention then turned to another project involving two broken tombstones and a leaning iron fence. Mr. Reedy described how the base of one stone had snapped off, while two additional stones were displaced and needed to be reset on the foundation. The fence on the right side of the lot, though not broken, was leaning and required straightening and reinforcement. He explained how he discovered the site while driving and speaking with Justin Riggins, who mows for the town. After being directed to Chris Phillips, the matter quickly gained attention. Mr. Reedy asked whether the town could assist in the restoration by providing a weed barrier and covering it with rocks instead of mulch, which would suppress weeds permanently and prevent the need for ongoing maintenance. Mr. Reedy elaborated on the challenges of gravestone repair, noting that the weakest point of any restoration is at ground level, where the weight of the stone above transmits pressure directly to fractures. In some cases, if inscriptions do not reach the bottom, he avoids resetting the fractured base and instead repairs the stone above ground with a strong foundation. He recounted a recent example where a stone was shattered into multiple pieces. In that case, the death date could not be saved, but since the name and birth date were preserved, the family was satisfied. He reminded listeners that missing information can often be verified through online genealogical resources such as Find a Grave. The discussion then shifted to a family plot belonging to the Via family. The lot contained a tree stump, a yucca plant, and a historic iron fence manufactured locally by the Pulaski Iron Company. Mr. Reedy highlighted the historical significance of the lot and acknowledged Mr. Seagal’s role in teaching him much of the history of Oakwood Cemetery. He emphasized that although the lot currently looked unkempt, it was slated for restoration, with Mr. Gray assigned to repair it. The presentation included examples of repaired stones. One marker showed a visible white line where infill had been applied after a break. Mr. Reedy explained that when breaks are fresh, the pieces often fit back together seamlessly, but in older or more severe cases, infill is necessary. The chosen material must match the stone’s color as closely as possible. He recounted a case where he restored a broken stone shortly before a cemetery homecoming. Although the stone had not yet been cleaned, the family requested immediate reassembly so it could be presented at the event. In another case, the inscription was carefully re-carved and restored after repair. Mr. Reedy showed examples of his restoration work on larger monuments and commemorative plaques. He noted that while he continues to do plaques, he does not wish to take on many additional veterans’ markers since those require ground-level installations. One plaque he restored belonged to Joe Funk, and he expressed pride in the surrounding fencing and concrete work, which had been completed as his son’s Eagle Scout project. Mr. Reedy raised safety concerns regarding unstable monuments. He pointed out a leaning white obelisk in a local cemetery near a church, warning that if it fell, it would shatter and be much more expensive to restore than to stabilize now. He explained that cemeteries pose potential hazards for visiting families, particularly children who may run and play near heavy stones. There have been recorded incidents of children being injured by falling monuments, and he urged preventative action. He concluded his presentation by mentioning his ongoing seasonal maintenance of family plots, such as the Aust family lot, where flowers are placed in spring, summer, and fall. When asked about pricing, he explained that costs depend on the severity of damage and the complexity of restoration. Simple reassembles are straightforward, but shattered stones or those requiring custom color-matching of infill demand significant time and effort. He noted that he intends to remain active in the work for another one to three years before transitioning responsibilities fully to Mr. Gray, who operates Gray Restoration and Preservation and has begun advertising locally. He emphasized his lasting personal ties to Pulaski and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to present. The discussion turned to the entrance of one of the cemeteries, where photos had been shared showing recent cleaning, stump removal, and the resetting of a sunken gravestone. However, Mr. Seagle noted that many headstones near the entrance remain in poor condition, with at least a dozen leaning and at risk of falling. Several have already collapsed and broken. Mr. Seagle expressed a desire to focus on repairing this entrance area, emphasizing that the problem extended beyond basic cleaning. A suggestion was made to establish a $5,000 annual maintenance fund to help cover ongoing needs for both cleaning and repairs. Mr. Painter provided two recommendations for structuring such a fund. First, an annual allocation could be set and then divided proportionally between the two cemeteries based on the number of lots, similar to how governments distribute funds based on population. Second, because public money would be used, the town would need to follow procurement rules, such as requesting bids or placing ads in the paper. This process could be as simple as gathering quotes, but the rules would need to be followed to ensure proper use of government funds. Questions arose about how to fairly decide which graves or areas receive maintenance if funds are limited. Concerns were raised about how the public might respond if some families saw their requests fulfilled while others did not. The board was told it could either hold a public hearing to hear from plot owners and then vote on priorities or decide directly without public input. However, the process was described by some as unnecessarily complicated. Mr. Reedy noted that, in many cases, descendants are unlikely to come forward, particularly for older graves, since families often lose connection after several generations. Mayor Collins suggested to prioritize repairs starting with the oldest gravestones, since descendants of those individuals are least likely to request maintenance. Another natural approach could be prioritizing based on safety hazards, such as stones at risk of falling. The cemeteries are already being cataloged, with a partial list of broken, illegible, or fallen stones serving as a foundation for decision-making. While funds could technically be drawn from the cemetery accounts, officials emphasized that procurement rules would still apply, requiring at least three bids or evidence that attempts were made to obtain them. Mr. Painter reviewed how the town had previously handled similar projects. For example, when repairing the Oakwood entry gate, only one bid was received, but that was sufficient because officials documented the attempt to gather multiple quotes. The same procedures would apply to cemetery maintenance projects. Ms. Morris clarified that although the cemetery boards act as trustees, the funds legally belong to the town, so the procurement process must be followed. Board members discussed whether their oversight role could exempt them from these requirements, but it was explained that only establishing themselves as a separate legal entity could achieve that. Mr. Seagle made a comparison to the town’s tree maintenance practices in the cemeteries. He questioned why tree removal sometimes did not appear to go through the same process. Town staff clarified that tree removal is often handled by town employees, which avoids procurement issues, though outside contractors are still subject to the same bidding rules. If gravestone repairs were done directly by town staff, the same logic would apply. Attention shifted to the availability of skilled workers for gravestone restoration. Mr. Reedy explained that he operates across a wide region, from Winchester to Wytheville and Charlottesville to Danville. He noted that there is little competition in this field because the work is extremely labor-intensive, which discourages most people. He described his methods, including the use of a variance clause in contracts to account for unexpected challenges such as hitting deep stone foundations. While small jobs do not usually require such clauses, larger cemetery-wide projects do. He also noted his commitment to precision, often ensuring stones are restored to within one or two degrees of perfect alignment, something he personally insists upon despite its difficulty. Mr. Reedy emphasized that documentation is essential when unexpected complications arise and that he always provides photo records. He expressed hope that long-term relationships with municipalities would allow for flexibility and understanding when variance clauses increase costs. He concluded by stressing the importance of cemetery entrances, suggesting they should be welcoming and well-maintained to make a positive impression on visitors. As an example, he pointed to a distinctive gravestone near the entrance and noted that improving these visible areas would help set the tone for the entire cemetery. Mr. Painter explained that when setting up procurement, one option is to use a term contract, which allows the town to renew the agreement annually for up to five years. This would prevent the need to repeat the entire procurement process every year, though staff emphasized that obtaining additional quotes for price comparisons would still be possible. The immediate recommendation was for staff to pursue quotes and/or procurement for grave cleaning and repair services. Once received, these quotes would be presented back to the board for review and decision-making. It was also noted that the amount of money allocated would affect the type of procurement process and contractor selection. The motion was made by Mr. Bruce and seconded by Ms. Carter for town staff to pursue quotes and/or procurement to acquire a grave cleaning and repair service. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Painter confirmed they would also calculate the cost split between Oakwood and Pinehurst cemeteries and present repair recommendations for both locations. Mr. Seagle questioned why town funds must go through a bidding process. Mr. Painter explained that when tax dollars are involved, procurement laws and procedures must be followed to ensure proper and transparent use of public money. By contrast, tasks performed by in-house staff (e.g., mowing or tree removal) fall under management responsibility and do not require bidding. Board Comments/ Concerns No comments/concerns were made. Staff Comments/ Concerns Mr. Painter reported that volunteers have been documenting cemetery headstones to build a database for the town’s GIS system. They have already cataloged approximately 1,000 gravestones, including photographs, names, dates of birth, and dates of death. This effort focuses on the older cemetery sections, since newer sections already have records. It was clarified that while the town has documentation of lot purchases, they do not have complete burial records for older sections. Volunteers are therefore creating a record based only on visible headstones. If families have knowledge of unmarked graves, they can provide that information to the town, which will then add it to the records. Staff suggested that once cataloging is complete, they could publish a notice inviting families to share missing information. Mr. Reedy asked about the availability of grave locators. Mr. Painter responded that the town does not currently have this technology but has looked into pricing. Consent Agenda The board reviewed the minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting. Ms. Worrell requested a correction that the minutes incorrectly stated that a member had visited multiple cemeteries with Mr. Phillipi, but in fact the meeting occurred only at Oakwood Cemetery. There was also discussion about the dirt pile location at Oakwood, which has been used informally and is near a cul-de-sac. Some residents had been confused due to a “No Dumping” sign nearby. Staff indicated signage would be added to clarify the designated dumping spot. The motion was made by Mr. Bruce and seconded by Ms. Worrell to adopt the minutes with the corrections made. The motion passed unanimously with the correction. The board discussed an appropriate timeline for the next meeting, agreeing that three months would provide enough time to gather quotes and complete additional cemetery code recommendations. After considering scheduling conflicts, the board selected Thursday, November 20, 2025 as the next meeting date. With no further business, The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.