Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-26 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board of Trustees Minutes May 21, 2026 Present: Mayor Collins, Connie Patterson, John Seagle, Marcie Worrell Absent: Vera Carter, Todd Bruce Staff Present: Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician, Austin Painter, Project Manager, and Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Meeting Called to Order Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and a quorum was determined with the members present. Approval of Minutes The motion was made by Ms. Worrell and seconded by Mr. Seagle to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. RFP Bid Review Mr. Painter explained the Request for Proposals (RFP) process related to cemetery cleanup and restoration work, noting that the board had requested pricing comparisons and restoration methods from different firms. He stated that three companies would present proposals after one firm, Richard Grubb & Associates, was disqualified for failing to meet procurement compliance requirements. The board and staff will score the proposals, rank the firms, and later move into contract negotiations and legal review before any restoration work proceeds. Newbern Monument and Restoration Preston Gray of Newbern Monument Restoration introduced his company and described his experience in monument preservation, including training under another restoration professional before starting his own local business. He emphasized preserving the historic integrity of grave markers rather than performing temporary cosmetic repairs and specifically noted his respect for veterans’ headstones, stating he charges only enough to cover materials and labor for those projects. Mr. Gray discussed several damaged stones at Pinehurst Cemetery, explaining recommended restoration approaches such as resetting leaning monuments with new foundations and stabilizing damaged markers rather than replacing them and losing historical character. Mr. Gray further explained how he develops pricing estimates by evaluating foundations, weather damage, materials, labor, and equipment needs. He noted that his proposals may be lower than competitors’ because his business is local and does not require significant travel, lodging, or large crew expenses. During questioning from the board, he acknowledged that this would be his first municipal contract, although he has experience working for churches and private cemetery owners. He also responded to concerns about unforeseen conditions beneath monuments, explaining that hidden foundation issues are common and sometimes only discovered after excavation begins. The board continued with further discussion of the RFP process for cemetery monument restoration and cleanup projects at Oakwood and Pinehurst cemeteries. Mr. Gray explained that his estimates were based on visible conditions at the sites while also accounting for the possibility of hidden underground issues such as roots, sinkholes, or large buried concrete foundations beneath old headstones. He shared examples from previous restoration work, including discovering massive concrete bases beneath seemingly small monuments, and explained that such unknown conditions affect labor and pricing considerations. Board members acknowledged that both the contractor and the board were new to this procurement process and thanked him for his presentation. After Mr. Gray’s presentation concluded, board members reviewed the scoring sheets and discussed how proposals would be evaluated. Mr. Seagle commented positively on Mr. Gray’s experience working alongside Mike Reedy and described the quality of their previous restoration work as very good. Old World Masonry Mr. Painter then introduced the next proposal from Old World Masonry of Chesterfield, Virginia, and members compared pricing information between the companies. They noted that Old World Masonry’s proposal totaled approximately $92,000 for work at both cemeteries, far higher than Newbern Monument Restoration’s estimates, prompting concerns from staff and board members about rapidly exhausting cemetery funds. The board also discussed broader legal and policy questions related to restoration work, including whether the town has the authority to repair privately owned headstones without family consent. Mr. Painter explained that legal counsel was currently reviewing the town’s ordinance language regarding repair and maintenance responsibilities within the cemeteries, including safety concerns posed by unstable monuments. Members discussed the possibility that the town’s authority may extend only to town-owned cemetery assets, and staff stated that any limitations identified by legal counsel would be brought back before the board. Much of the remainder of the section involved informal discussion while the board waited for the next company to join virtually. Members reviewed scoring forms, clarified how references and evaluation categories should be recorded, and discussed various cemetery monuments. Conversations also touched briefly on whether restoration efforts should focus first on older graves whose family members are no longer involved, as well as ongoing concerns about the legality of restoring privately owned headstones. Members repeatedly noted that local contractor Mr. Gray of Newbern Monument Restoration appeared significantly less expensive than the outside firms, partly because he did not have major travel and lodging expenses. Staff explained that after scoring the proposals, the town would notify the highest-ranked consultant and begin contract negotiations while continuing to consult legal counsel about the town’s authority to restore privately owned monuments. Old World Masonry then delivered a virtual presentation describing the company’s background in historic masonry restoration. The representative explained that the company has operated since 2017, specializing in historic brick, stone, and terracotta repair, with prior experience on restoration projects in Florida, Washington D.C., Charlottesville, and Richmond. Although he acknowledged that he had not previously restored gravestones directly, he described detailed methods for resetting leaning monuments, repairing mortar joints, cleaning stones carefully without harsh chemicals, and stabilizing large obelisks using scaffolding, pulleys, epoxy, and lime-based materials intended to preserve historic integrity. He also emphasized avoiding damaging original stone surfaces and stated that some chipped marble markers would be better left untouched rather than repaired improperly. Board members questioned Old World Masonry about references, prior cemetery experience, and familiarity with the Pulaski area. The representative acknowledged having no direct gravestone restoration references but stated that he had performed masonry restoration work within cemeteries. Members noted concerns about the company’s distance from Pulaski, with the contractor explaining that the travel time would require extended work stays in town. After the presentation, several board members commented on the contractor’s lack of direct gravestone experience and continued comparing costs and proposal structures among the different firms. During breaks between presentations, the board engaged in informal discussion about cemetery monuments, restoration priorities, and the procurement process. Members discussed particularly elaborate mausoleums in Oakwood Cemetery and asked additional questions about how proposals would be scored and negotiated. Staff reiterated that the board’s current task was only to evaluate and rank the proposals, while legal and contractual questions regarding ownership, maintenance authority, and restoration responsibilities would be addressed in subsequent negotiations and legal review. Standard Restoration & Waterproofing Company Inc. The final presentation came from Standard Restoration and Waterproofing Company, a long-established restoration firm with extensive national experience on prominent historic landmarks. The company representative explained that the firm was founded in 1999 and has worked on projects including the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, Holocaust Museum, Arlington National Cemetery monuments, Georgetown University’s Holy Rood Cemetery, Princeton University, and the Ringling Museum in Florida. He described the company’s use of industry-standard restoration methods, custom mortar matching, stabilization work, new foundations, and specialized materials developed through long-term relationships with preservation suppliers. The representative explained that pricing was calculated based on crew size, labor hours, and project duration, estimating that the Pulaski cemetery work would require roughly seven weeks to complete. Board members questioned Standard Restoration about project flexibility, minimum work scopes, and the feasibility of smaller-scale projects due to the company’s travel distance from Pulaski. The representative explained that the company commonly handles traveling restoration projects and could scale work to approximately one-week minimum durations for cost efficiency. Members appeared impressed with the company’s credentials and extensive restoration portfolio, while also recognizing the significantly higher costs associated with firms operating on a regional or national level. Between presentations, the board engaged in informal discussions about cemetery monuments, maintenance needs, procurement procedures, and the next steps in the evaluation and contract negotiation process. Members repeatedly noted that nationally recognized restoration firms such as Standard Restoration and Richard Grubb & Associates possessed impressive resumes and experience on major historic landmarks, including Arlington National Cemetery, the Washington Monument, Princeton University, and other nationally significant structures, but many members felt their pricing was excessive for the scope of restoring approximately twenty local headstones. Several participants commented that the larger firms would be better suited for major monuments or large-scale historic structures rather than routine cemetery restoration work in Pulaski. Local contractor Mr. Gray continued to receive favorable discussion among board members due to his local presence, lower pricing, and practical experience with monument preservation. Mr. Gray had previously explained his methods for stabilizing leaning stones, addressing hidden underground foundation problems, and preserving historic integrity while avoiding overly aggressive repairs or harsh cleaning methods. Mr. Seagle specifically discussed the biologic cleaning products he uses, noting that they do not damage surrounding vegetation or grass. Staff clarified that future contracts would focus less on restricting specific chemicals or tools and more on requiring that restoration work not damage existing monuments or cemetery structures, with contractors being held liable for any harm caused during restoration. The board also spent considerable time discussing the legal uncertainty surrounding whether the town has the authority to repair privately owned headstones. Staff explained that although the town owns the cemeteries and the town code assigns responsibility for maintaining cemetery facilities, legal counsel was still determining whether “facilities” legally includes individual monuments and headstones or only grounds and infrastructure. Mr. Painter noted that if legal counsel ultimately determines that the town cannot directly restore headstones, the procurement process and allocated funds could instead be used for other cemetery improvements such as brick walkways, fencing, masonry repairs, or landscape features. Members referenced similar situations in other municipalities, including Winchester, Virginia, and discussed the possibility of treating monument restoration as a long-term, ongoing project rather than a one-time effort. Board Comments & Concerns Additional discussion focused on cemetery policies and future improvements. Mayor Collins presented a request from a resident seeking permission to install a memorial bench overlooking Oakwood Cemetery near her parents’ graves, despite restrictions on above-ground additions in certain cemetery sections. Staff explained that the request would likely be treated separately from monument regulations because the bench would function as a public cemetery fixture rather than a grave marker, though placement and spacing concerns would need to be evaluated further before the board considered approval. The board agreed that staff should inspect the proposed location and return with recommendations at a future meeting. Toward the end of the section, staff reviewed the next procedural steps following the proposal scoring process. Mr. Painter explained that scores would be tallied, the highest-ranked consultant identified, and contract negotiations initiated once legal counsel provides guidance regarding the town’s authority over headstone restoration. Board members discussed whether they wanted to personally review any future contract agreements before execution or allow staff to proceed administratively after consultation with legal counsel. The meeting concluded with a brief discussion about the cemetery GPS mapping project, with staff reporting that mapping work had been completed for the newer sections of both cemeteries and that they were currently organizing the collected data. Next Board Meeting June 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. With no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.