Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-26E 1 Town Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 1. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye 2. 'Modification to Closed Session- No modifications were made. 3. The Mayor asked for a motion to enter into Closed Session to discuss the following item: a. VA Code 2.2-3711 (A) 1 (1 item): Personnel i. Town Manager The motion was made by COuncikNoman Cope and seconded by Vice -Mayor Dawson. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye The following council members and staff entered into Closed Session: Councilman Clark, Councilwoman Cope, Vice -Mayor Dawson, Councilman Clontz, Councilman Erickson, Councilman Burchett, Mayor Collins, Town Manager, Todd Day, and Town Attorneys Scot Farthing and Andrew McBride. 7:02 p.m. Open Session 4. Certification of Closed Session: The Mayor asked for a motion to certify that only the following item was discussed during Closed Session: a. VA Code 2.2-3711 (A) 1 (1 item): Personnel i. Town Manager The motion was made by Councilman Clark and seconded by Councilwoman Cope. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye 5. Councilman Erickson led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 6. Councilwoman Cope gave the invocation. Page 1 of 27/ July 7, 2026 7. The Mayor welcomed all in attendance and those viewing online. 8. Modification to Public Session: The Mayor asked for a motion to remove agenda item 9- A, Ordinance 2026-03 and stated it would be revisited at a later date. The motion was made by Vice -Mayor Dawson and seconded by Councilman Clark. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye 9. Presentations G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye a. LewisGale Hospital- Sean Pressman, Chief Executive Officer, LewisGale Hospital Pulaski Mr. Pressman addressed the Town Council in response to recent public concern generated by a Virginia Joint Commission on Healthcare report regarding the hospital's future. He emphasized that he wanted residents to hear directly from hospital leadership rather than relying on media reports. Before discussing the report, Mr. Pressman recognized the dedication of the hospital's physicians, nurses, clinical staff, support personnel, volunteers, and all employees, praising their commitment to delivering compassionate, high -quality healthcare. He highlighted their service during the COVID-19 pandemic and their continued professionalism in caring for the community. Mr. Pressman detailed several national recognitions earned by LewisGale Pulaski, including: • A four -star overall hospital rating from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). • A five-star patient experience rating, the highest possible recognition. • An "A" grade from Leapfrog for patient safety. • Healthgrades recognition placing the hospital among the top 10 percent nationally for patient safety and patient experience. • Recognition as one of America's Cleanest Hospitals for three consecutive years. • The distinction of ranking first among all HCA Healthcare hospitals nationwide for employee engagement, with a 92% engagement score. He explained that these independent recognitions demonstrate the hospital's strong performance in quality, safety, patient satisfaction, and workplace culture, all of which contribute to exceptional patient care. Page 2 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Turning to the recent state report, Mr. Pressman unequivocally stated that LewisGale Hospital Pulaski is not closing. He explained that the report relied primarily on publicly available financial data and failed to account for the hospital's position within HCA Healthcare, one of the world's largest healthcare systems. Because HCA does not publicly report financial information for individual hospitals, he argued the study's methodology produced an inaccurate assessment of the hospital's financial condition and unnecessarily alarmed patients, employees, and the community. Mr. Pressman stated that LewisGale Pulaski remains operationally strong, financially secure, and positioned for continued growth through the support and resources available as part of HCA Healthcare. He highlighted the hospital's continued investments, noting: More than $8 million invested over the past three years in infi•astructure, technology, equipment, and new programs. An additional $3 million planned over the coming year to expand services. He described these expenditures as long-term investments demonstrating FICA's continued commitment to Pulaski. Mr. Pressman also emphasized the hospital's economic contributions to the community, reporting that during the previous year LewisGale Pulaski generated approximately: • $31 million in total economic impact. • More than $28 million in salaries, wages, and benefits. • $1.2 million in charity care. • Approximately $1 million in state income taxes. • Nearly $700,000 in local property taxes and business license payments supporting the Town of Pulaski. He concluded by reiterating that the hospital remains committed to providing safe, high -quality healthcare for many years to come. Following the presentation, Vice -Mayor Dawson thanked Mr. Pressman for coming before Council to address public concerns directly. He acknowledged the difficult public relations challenges created by the recent reports and praised LewisGale Hospital as a tremendous community partner for both the Town and Pulaski County. b. Virginia Brownfields Assistance Funds (VBAF)- Shannon Ainsley, Town of Pulaski Economic Development Page 3 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Ms. Ainsley updated the Council on redevelopment efforts for the former Magnox property. She explained that the site has presented redevelopment challenges for many years due to environmental concerns and difficult physical access. The property is bordered by railroad tracks, a creek, and an aging bridge of questionable structural integrity, making it difficult to bring in equipment needed for environmental assessments and redevelopment planning. Ms. Ainsley announced that the Town had received a $50,000 Virginia Brownfields Assistance Fund (VBAF) grant. She read the official award letter dated June 22, 2026, from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), which stated the funding would support: • Environmental site assessments. • Redevelopment planning. • A structural evaluation of the bridge providing access to the property. • A limited topographic site survey. She described the grant as an important milestone in the long-term effort to redevelop the Magnox site. Although much work remains, the funding will allow the Town to overcome one of its largest obstacles by evaluating access to the property. Ms. Ainsley noted that the grant performance agreement has already been signed and thanked both the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their continued partnership. Council members congratulated the Economic Development staff on securing the award. c. Building Department/Planning and Zoning Department Update- Nathan Smythers, Town of Pulaski Building Official & Zoning Administrator Mr. Smythers presented a summary of activity within the Building and Planning & Zoning Departments over approximately the previous six months. For the Building Department, Mr. Smythers reported: • 95 permits issued. • 10 permits for new single-family residential homes. • Approximately 150 inspections completed. • Two stop -work orders issued for construction that began without the required permits. Page 4 of 27/ July 7. 2026 For the Planning and Zoning Department, he reported: • Two rezoning requests processed. • One zoning ordinance amendment. • Two zoning variances for accessory structures. • One special exception permit. • Two zoning violations addressed. Mr. Smythers also discussed improvements to the business licensing process, explaining that zoning approval is now integrated into business license applications through coordination with Economic Development and Finance. During the reporting period: • 24 business licenses were approved. • Three applications were denied. • Three applications remain pending because of unresolved zoning issues. Council had no questions following the report and thanked Mr. Smythers for his presentation. 10. Discussion(s) a. Caboose Update- Manager Da ' P g Y Photographs were displayed showing the caboose before restoration and its current appearance. Manager Day praised the dramatic transformation, noting that the restored exterior closely resembles the caboose's original historic appearance. He credited the success of the project to Public Works staff, specifically recognizing Chance, Jonathan, and Nate for their efforts. Manager Day described the restoration as a significant undertaking requiring extensive work and jokingly remarked that Nate ended up with nearly as much specialized epoxy paint on himself as on the caboose during one phase of the project. Manager Day thanked the team for their dedication and noted that the quality of the restoration compares favorably with examples found online, expressing pride in the craftsmanship that had gone into preserving one of the Town's historic landmarks. He concluded the discussion on the caboose restoration by emphasizing the significance of the completed project. He noted that, based on his research using internet resources and Al, the restored caboose is the only one in the United States Page 5 of 27/ July 7, 2026 painted in its unique color scheme, specifically recognizing and celebrating the Town of Pulaski. He remarked that searches for cabooses honoring the Town of Pulaski now identify this restored landmark. helping place the community on the map. Manager Day thanked the Public Works staff once again for their outstanding craftsmanship and dedication, congratulating them on a job well done before transitioning to the public hearing portion of the meeting. 1 1. Public Hearing a. PZO-26-ZA-1 Zoning Amendment to Sections 4.1 and 5.3 to allow farm market structures in the RR District and establish related standards, including parking. Mayor Collins opened the public hearing portion of the meeting, explaining that the Council would conduct two separate public hearings. The first public hearing concerned PZO-26-ZA-1, a proposed amendment to Sections 4.1 and 5.3 of the Town Zoning Ordinance that would allow farm market structures within the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district while establishing associated development standards, including parking requirements. The second public hearing would address a request to rezone property located at 2321 Pleasant Hill Drive (Tax Map No. 63-25-24) from Single -Family Residential (R-1) to Rural Residential (RR). Mayor Collins explained that each hearing would be conducted separately. The first hearing would be opened, public comments received, then closed before Council considered Ordinance 2026-01. Only after completing that process would Council read the second advertisement, receive comments regarding the rezoning request, and later consider Ordinance 2026-02. Before opening the hearings, Mayor Collins reviewed the public hearing procedures. He instructed anyone wishing to speak on matters unrelated to the public hearings to complete a speaker slip for the later public comment period. He reminded speakers to state their name and address for the record, speak clearly into the microphone, remain respectful of others, and avoid interrupting fellow speakers. He emphasized that the purpose of the hearings was to allow citizens to present their views for Council's consideration. Council members and staff would not engage in debate or answer questions during the hearings in order to preserve each speaker's allotted time. All comments would become part of the official public record and be considered before the Council acted on the proposed Page 6 of 27/ July 7, 2026 ordinances. Each speaker would be limited to three minutes, with a visible timer available at the podium. Mayor Collins then read the official public hearing advertisement that had been published in the Patriot on June 19 and June 26, 2026, including information about the hearing date, location, public inspection of the proposed ordinance, methods for submitting written comments, and accommodations available for individuals with disabilities. After confirming that the Town Manager had no introductory remarks, he officially opened the public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The first speaker, Michele Lawton, a resident of 2413 Pleasant Hill Drive, expressed support for allowing farm market structures in the Rural Residential district. She stated that permanent farm market buildings would make it easier for local producers to sell fresh vegetables, eggs, meat, and other agricultural products without constantly moving merchandise in and out of temporary roadside stands. Ms. Lawton explained that permanent facilities would help keep produce protected from weather and damage while providing a cleaner, more organized shopping environment. As someone who enjoys purchasing locally grown food, she believed the proposed amendment would benefit the entire community. After initially forgetting to identify herself for the record, she provided her name and address before concluding her remarks. The second speaker, Eric Tyler of Cliff Street, also voiced support for the proposal. Although his remarks were brief, he stated that farm markets allow residents to see where their food comes from and how it is produced, while also attracting visitors to the area. He expressed his belief that the proposal would be beneficial for the Town. Jennifer Viers -Troy, a resident of 2125 Pleasant Hill Drive, spoke in opposition to both the proposed zoning amendment and the related rezoning request. She urged the Council to vote against allowing permanent farm market structures in the Rural Residential district and against rezoning the Pleasant Hill property. She described Pleasant Hill Drive as a quiet, established residential neighborhood where homeowners purchased property with the expectation that the surrounding area would remain single-family residential. In her view, changing the zoning of one property to permit a commercial -style use would constitute spot zoning by granting one landowner a benefit at the expense of neighboring residents. Ms. Viers -Troy argued that the proposed ordinance would permit a farm market to sell products produced within a 75-mile radius, effectively allowing what she characterized as a regional retail operation rather than a small neighborhood farm stand. She expressed concern that increased traffic, parking demands, and commercial activity would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Page 7 of 27/ July 7, 2026 She further stated that some of the activities associated with the property were already affecting nearby residents. She referenced an RV being used as a residence on the property, increased traffic on roads not designed for heavy use, reports of late -night gunfire, and wounded or dead animals found nearby. She acknowledged that the applicant had indicated permits were held for nuisance animal control but argued that such activities were incompatible with a single- family residential neighborhood. Ms. Viers -Troy recalled previous comments made by Councilman Burchett emphasizing the importance of preserving long-established residential neighborhoods. She also noted that the Town already has vacant commercial storefronts in its downtown and commercial corridors that would be more appropriate locations for retail activity. She concluded by asking Council to protect the residential character of Pleasant Hill Drive by denying both requests. Mark Weikel, who has lived at 2231 Pleasant Hill Drive for fifteen years, also opposed the proposal. Referring to an email he had previously submitted to the Council, he explained that he purchased his home believing it was located in one of the Town's most desirable neighborhoods because of the protections afforded by its R-1 zoning. Mr. Weikel stated that previous Town officials had shown foresight by zoning the surrounding property as single-family residential. He expressed concern that rezoning would undermine homeowner investments and noted that one home in the neighborhood had already been listed for sale while several other residents were considering moving because of uncertainty surrounding the proposal. According to Mr. Weikel, some neighbors had indicated they would not reinvest within the Town if they relocated. He also reviewed several other uses permitted within the Rural Residential district, including family day care homes, nursing and assisted living facilities, schools, parks, private clubs, cemeteries, and commercial livestock stables. He argued that once property is rezoned, future owners could potentially seek approvals for additional uses beyond the current proposal. Noting that the property in question had changed ownership three times within four years, Mr. Weikel questioned what future owners might attempt if the rezoning were approved. He urged the Council to reject the request in order to preserve the neighborhood's residential character. The next speaker, Robert Huttick of Hermosa Drive, began his comments by noting that he had served as Chair of the Town of Pulaski Economic Development Authority (EDA) Board from April 2024 through July 2025. He stated that, because of limited speaking time, he intended to focus his remarks on factual information. Mr. Huttick opened by asserting that the property owners and their real estate representatives had exercised due diligence regarding the property. Page 8 of 27/ July 7, 2026 He explained that they had received documentation from Pulaski County indicating the property had been classified for agricultural use since the 1960s. According to Mr. Huttick, the County had certified the property's agricultural status, and the Geographic Information System (GIS) records reflected that designation. He outlined several actions the property owners had taken with the Town's knowledge, including applying for and receiving approval for a waterline permit to provide water for livestock. He also stated that the owners had obtained approval for a temporary trailer residence while working toward obtaining the necessary county permits and had successfully secured additional state agricultural grants, including approval for electrical service to the property. Mr. Huttick argued that Town officials had been aware the property was operating as a farm since it was purchased in May 2024. If there had been concerns about the agricultural activities, he contended they should have been addressed much earlier rather than after the business had become established. He then described events surrounding a previously proposed Economic Development Authority (EDA) grant application. Mr. Huttick claimed that an EDA grant intended to assist the Homers with a farm store was withdrawn shortly before submission and replaced with a separate grant application benefiting the Town for a proposed farmers market near the former jail site. He alleged that the replacement occurred after changes in EDA leadership and suggested the decision disadvantaged the applicants. Mr. Huttick further alleged that, shortly before the Horner's grand opening, Town Economic Development Director, Shannon Ainsley, sent correspondence to Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) Commissioner, Joe Guthrie and Pulaski County Administrator, Jonathan Sweet stating that the applicants lacked the appropriate zoning and permits. According to Mr. Huttick, Commissioner Guthrie subsequently informed him that he could no longer attend the grand opening, despite previously planning to do so. He expressed frustration that Town representatives attended the ribbon -cutting ceremony after sending those communications and referenced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents, stating they supported his claims. Mr. Huttick also criticized the Town administration for its handling of the matter, encouraging the Council members to review all available facts before making a decision. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Huttick emphasized that he supported farm stores, noting that the applicants had voluntarily limited their hours of operation to Fridays through Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He also cited Page 9 of 27/ July 7, 2026 approximately 7,400 social media followers supporting the business and argued that, if the zoning remained unchanged, the property could ultimately be developed into a residential subdivision with substantially greater impacts than the proposed farm market. Cyndi Maitri, of 2240 Pleasant Hill Drive, stated that she strongly supports small- scale agriculture, explaining that she comes from a farming and fishing family and has long advocated for independent farmers. She stressed that her opposition was not directed toward farming itself, but specifically toward operating a permanent farm store within a residential neighborhood. Ms. Maitri noted that farming had existed on the property in previous years without controversy and that agriculture itself had never been the issue. Instead, she questioned why a farm store had been opened before the property was properly zoned for that use, arguing that the current hearing existed precisely because the activity was not permitted under existing zoning regulations. Living directly across the street from the property, Ms. Maitri said she had experienced significantly more gunfire since the current operations began. Although she acknowledged that nuisance animal control may be legally permitted, she questioned the necessity of shooting wildlife such as raccoons, opossums, and deer, observing that previous farmers had coexisted with those animals without similar issues. Unable to finish all of her prepared remarks within the three -minute time limit, Ms. Maitri concluded by reading part of a statement emphasizing concerns over neighborhood stability from a previous speaker. The statement referenced a nearby home currently listed for sale and argued that allowing commercial activity in the middle of an R-I residential neighborhood would affect future buyers' perceptions and potentially reduce surrounding property values. She was stopped by the timer before completing the final paragraph. After Ms. Maitri concluded, Mayor Collins prepared to close the public hearing but paused when the applicant's representative requested an opportunity to address the proposed zoning amendment. Steve Semones of Westwood Professional Services, representing the applicant, addressed the Council after explaining there had been confusion regarding his opportunity to speak. Mr. Semones clarified that the existing Rural Residential (RR) zoning district already permits temporary farm stands by right, although the ordinance does not clearly define the duration of a "season." The proposed zoning amendment, he explained, would simply allow permanent farm market structures, enabling Page 10 of 27/ July 7, 2026 1 farmers to sell products year-round from permanent facilities rather than temporary stands. He stated that permanent structures support the growing farm -to -table movement by allowing farmers to diversify income beyond limited farmers market schedules. Permanent facilities also reduce transportation costs, repeated setup and dismantling, and damage to perishable products that can occur when moving produce to off -site markets. Mr. Semones explained that the proposed ordinance language had been revised multiple times following discussions with the Planning Commission. Those revisions included: • Restricting permanent farm market structures. • Clarifying where products sold at the market may originate. • Establishing maximum building sizes. • Increasing required setbacks beyond standard R-1 requirements. • Establishing parking requirements. • Adding greater separation between parking areas and neighboring properties in response to Planning Commission recommendations. Regarding the proposed farm store on the subject property, Mr. Semones stated that the building already exceeds the setback requirements contained in the proposed ordinance. He also noted that the business voluntarily limits its operating hours to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Addressing concerns about products originating within a 75-mile radius, Mr. Semones explained that the proposed language intentionally m irrors the standards already used for the Town of Pulaski Farmers Market. Finally, Mr. Semones discussed anticipated traffic impacts. He stated that farm markets are not specifically included in the Virginia Department of Transportation's trip generation manual because they generate relatively little traffic. By comparison, he explained that the approximately 13-acre property could be developed under existing R-1 zoning into roughly 49 residential lots, generating an estimated 445 vehicle trips per day. In contrast, he estimated the current farm market attracts only 20 to 25 vehicle trips daily, arguing that the proposed use would have substantially less traffic impact than residential subdivision development. Following his remarks. Mayor Collins formally closed the public hearing. Page 11 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Councilman Erickson sought clarification regarding Mr. Semones' traffic comparison. He confirmed that the estimate of approximately 445 daily vehicle trips referred to a fully developed residential subdivision under existing R-1 zoning, not traffic generated by the proposed farm market. Councilman Burchett then explained the reasons for his opposition to the ordinance. He stated that he continued to believe approving the amendment would be detrimental to neighboring property owners. Recalling his oath of office, he emphasized his responsibility to uphold the rule of law while also protecting the rights of the Town residents. Councilman Burchett said the homeowners on Pleasant Hill Drive had purchased property in a single-family residential neighborhood with the expectation of enjoying the quiet use of their homes. In his opinion, there was no compelling reason to alter the zoning regulations in a way that could negatively affect those residents. i. Ordinance 2026-01 Authorizing Modification of Zoning Ordinance to Amend Rural Residential Categorization to Permit Farm Market Use The motion was made by Councilman Erickson and seconded by Councilman Clontz to adopt Ordinance 2026-01. Jeremy L. Clark- Nay G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Mayor Collins- Nay Sunshine N. Cope- Nay Steven W. Erickson- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Nay Joel B. Burchett- Nay b. PZA-26-RZ-1 Rezoning 2321 Pleasant Hill Dr (Tax Map No. 63-25-24) from R-1 to RR. Mayor Collins read the official public hearing advertisement published in advance of the meeting, informing the public that copies of the rezoning application were available for review in the Planning and Zoning Office and explaining how written comments could be submitted to the Clerk of Council. The announcement also reiterated the Town's commitment to providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities before the transcript segment concludes. After reading the required public hearing notice and confirming that Town Manager Day had no introductory comments, Mayor Collins officially opened the public hearing regarding Application PZA-26-RZ-1, the request to rezone 2321 Pleasant Hill Drive from Single -Family Residential (R-1) to Rural Residential (RR). He then invited speakers to address Council. Page 12 of 27/ July 7, 2026 1 Susan McAfee, of 2241 Pleasant Hill Drive, explained that she and her family purchased their home in 2017 because of the beautiful view and the character of the neighborhood. After purchasing the property, they invested further by constructing an addition in 2019, following all required permitting and inspection processes. Ms. McAfee emphasized that she has no objection to the agricultural use of the neighboring property, noting that cattle had always been present and that she had even been excited when goats were introduced. However, she explained that while she was away for several weeks, a structure appeared on the property that she initially assumed was a residence. She later learned it was a farm store. While she expressed a desire to encourage and support local farmers, Ms. McAfee said she was deeply concerned about changing the zoning classification. She explained that she purchased her property with the understanding that the surrounding land was zoned R-1 and believed that zoning protections existed to preserve the neighborhood. In her opinion, approving the rezoning would establish a dangerous precedent by allowing someone to proceed with a project first and then request that the law be changed afterward. She urged the Council to preserve the existing zoning protections and respect the residential character of Pleasant Hill Drive. Michele Lawton, of 2413 Pleasant Hill Drive, spoke in support of the rezoning request. She explained that she purchased her home in 1999 specifically because of the scenic agricultural views and appreciated that the surrounding property remained open farmland rather than being developed with houses. Ms. Lawton recalled that previous cattle operations on the property had created numerous problems for nearby residents. She described repeated incidents involving cattle wandering onto her property, including occasions when cows blocked her driveway and prevented her from leaving for work. She said the situation eventually resulted in court proceedings after repeated complaints to the Town. She also recounted other negative experiences under the previous farm operator, including dead cattle being burned near neighboring homes for weeks at a time, creating an unbearable odor that forced residents to keep their windows closed. She further described instances in which dead livestock were left to decompose on the property and alleged that the previous owner failed to maintain the land responsibly, allowing trees to be cut and creating disturbances that affected neighboring residents. Page 13 of 27/ July 7, 2026 In contrast, Ms. Lawton praised the current owners, stating that they maintain a clean, well -managed farm with healthy animals. She said she was relieved that the property was not being developed into residential lots and argued that many neighbors would be far less satisfied if multiple houses were eventually constructed on the 13-acre tract. Ms. Lawton voiced disappointment that the Council had just rejected the zoning ordinance amendment allowing permanent farm market structures, stating she believed that type of business would benefit the Town. Drawing on her experience working with municipal governments, she observed that many communities have adopted similar ordinances to encourage agricultural businesses. She concluded by expressing disappointment with neighbors who opposed the proposal and reaffirmed her support for allowing the property to remain in agricultural use through rezoning to Rural Residential. Mary Hawkins, of 2040 Pleasant Hill Drive, said her family had lived on Pleasant Hill Drive for three years and had followed the ongoing controversy surrounding the Horner Farm Store. She stated that she did not understand why the issue had developed if the Town had issued permits allowing construction of the farm store. She noted that other agricultural -related activities already exist on Pleasant Hill Drive, including a horse farm with livestock and neighboring properties with goats, none of which have caused concern for her family. Ms. Hawkins questioned why the Town had allowed the project to proceed if zoning was an issue and suggested that any conflicts should have been resolved before permits were issued. She further argued that Pulaski needs more family - oriented businesses that attract visitors and shoppers. Describing Grant and Rebecca Horner as friendly business owners who provide quality local products, she urged the Council to allow the farm store to continue operating. Jane McAdoo, of 2311 Pleasant Hill Drive, explained that she shares both a driveway and a significant property line with the applicants. She began by making clear that she was not there to criticize the Town officials or personally attack the property owners, emphasizing that her comments focused solely on actions, procedures, and adherence to the law. Ms. McAdoo stressed that she supports local agriculture and regularly purchases products from both the Horner Farm Store and other local farm businesses. She stated that her opposition was not directed toward farming or farm stores generally but toward the manner in which the current situation had unfolded. Page 14 of 27/ July 7, 2026 She urged the Council members to set aside emotions and personal opinions, reminding them that they had been entrusted by the public to uphold the Town's ordinances fairly and consistently. Referring to information already provided to Council, including the Town's timeline of events, affidavits, and statements from Town officials, Ms. McAdoo argued that repeated violations of the zoning ordinance had occurred and that the Town had provided numerous opportunities for the applicants to achieve compliance. According to Ms. McAdoo, rather than enforcing the existing ordinances through appropriate consequences, the Town was now considering changing the law to accommodate an existing noncompliant use. She warned that approving the rezoning would send the message that the Town's ordinances are flexible enough to be altered whenever a special interest requests it, undermining confidence in local government and unfairly disadvantaging neighboring property owners. Ms. McAdoo also argued that the existing R-1 zoning and grandfathering provisions did not permit construction of a new commercial structure. While acknowledging that outside grant programs may have overlooked zoning requirements, she maintained that those grants should not dictate local land use decisions. She concluded by urging the Council not to establish a harmful precedent by rezoning the property to Rural Residential. While she reiterated that she had no objection to farming itself and had lived alongside agricultural operations for decades, she expressed concern that the broader range of uses permitted in the RR district would fundamentally alter the neighborhood. Before her time expired, she noted that one nearby homeowner was already leaving the neighborhood and suggested that additional residents might follow if the rezoning were approved. Seira Reynolds, of 2400 Pleasant Hill Drive, respectfully urged the Council to deny the rezoning application. She argued that the request was intended solely to legalize a use that is currently prohibited rather than to advance the Town's long-term planning goals or serve a broader public purpose. In her view, rezoning decisions should be based on the interests of the entire community rather than the circumstances of a single property owner. Ms. Reynolds also asked the Council to consider what she described as the applicant's history of noncompliance with Town ordinances. She emphasized that residents who follow the rules deserve confidence that those rules will be enforced consistently for everyone. Page 15 of 27/ July 7, 2026 According to Ms. Reynolds, approving the rezoning would establish a troubling precedent by encouraging others to ignore zoning regulations with the expectation that the Town would later amend its ordinances to accommodate unauthorized uses. She warned that such an approach would weaken public confidence in the planning process, complicate future ordinance enforcement, and reduce consistency in land use administration. I She further argued that introducing a use she viewed as incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood would increase traffic, noise, and activity while diminishing the quiet residential character of Pleasant Hill Drive. Ms. Reynolds concluded by asking the Council to preserve the integrity of the Town's zoning ordinances, protect the neighborhood, and deny the rezoning request. Kenneth Cline of 2311 Pleasant Hill Drive addressed the Council as a neighboring property owner who shares both a common driveway and a property line with the Horner property. He emphasized that his opposition to the rezoning was not personal and was not directed at the Horner family specifically. He explained that his concerns would be the same regardless of who owned the property because he believes the issue centers on protecting the neighborhood and applying the Town's ordinances consistently. Mr. Cline stated that homeowners in the area purchased their properties with the protections afforded by the existing R-1 zoning classification. He argued that rezoning the property to Rural Residential would remove some of those protections and alter the expectations under which residents invested in their homes. He discussed the history of the property, explaining that the Horner property and the surrounding E.O. King subdivision were annexed into the Town many decades earlier at the request of previous property owners. According to Mr. Cline, historical documentation demonstrates that the intent of the annexation was to allow the existing agricultural activities to continue as legal nonconforming uses while preserving the opportunity for future residential expansion of the Town. He maintained that the original intent was not to expand agricultural operations beyond what the zoning ordinance permitted. Mr. Cline asserted that the current agricultural activities have expanded beyond what is authorized under the Town's ordinances and argued that changing the zoning now would effectively legalize activities that had exceeded those limits. He warned that rezoning the property would not only affect the current owners but could also permit future owners to establish additional agricultural operations or other Rural Residential uses that neighboring residents never anticipated. Page 16 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Referring to documentation distributed by the Town that outlined events from April 2024 forward, Mr. Cline stated that mistakes had clearly been made by both the applicants and the Town. However, he argued those mistakes should be resolved without penalizing surrounding homeowners by changing the zoning designation. He characterized the proposal as an attempt to "change the law to fit the crime," echoing comments he said had previously been made during Council discussions. Mr. Cline urged the Council to reject the rezoning request and instead pursue another solution that would resolve the situation without altering the zoning classification. Before he could finish his prepared remarks, his allotted speaking time expired. Speaking again, Robert Huttick reminded the Council that many of the concerns expressed by neighboring residents had previously been addressed during hearings before the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that the Zoning Board had professionally evaluated the allegations and concluded that many of the concerns, including claims regarding late -night parties, alcohol consumption, and other anticipated activities, were unfounded. Mr. Huttick questioned how so many neighbors had come to believe the same claims if they were unsupported. He then shifted his remarks to property values, cautioning the Council to carefully consider the long-term consequences of its decision. Drawing upon approximately twenty years of experience in land development in Pennsylvania, Mr. Huttick warned that if the property remained R-1, it could eventually be developed into a residential subdivision containing approximately 49 homes by right. In his opinion, such a development would have a far greater impact on surrounding property owners than allowing the agricultural use to continue under Rural Residential zoning. He encouraged the Council to carefully distinguish between changes that would benefit the community and those that could ultimately create greater problems. Steve Semones, representing the applicants, returned to the podium to clarify the intent of the rezoning request following Council's earlier denial of the zoning ordinance amendment that would have permitted permanent farm market structures. Mr. Semones asked the Council to temporarily set aside the issue of the farm store and instead focus solely on the property's agricultural use. He explained that historical documentation demonstrates the property has been used continuously Page 17 of 27/ July 7, 2026 for agriculture for many decades and that various agricultural activities are recognized and protected under Virginia law. He stated that, because the Council had denied the earlier ordinance amendment, the farm store would no longer be part of the discussion. The purpose of the rezoning request, he explained, was now simply to bring the property's existing agricultural activities into compliance with one of the Town's established zoning districts. According to Mr. Semones, discussions with Town Manager Day and Town staff focused on identifying a zoning classification that accurately reflected the property's long-standing agricultural use. Rezoning the property from R-1 to Rural Residential would accomplish that objective by making the existing agricultural operations a permitted use rather than relying on legal nonconforming status. He emphasized that Rural Residential zoning would not require any additional ordinance amendments because the property's current agricultural activities already fit within the RR district as permitted uses. Although approval of the earlier ordinance amendment would have also allowed the farm store to remain, Mr. Semones acknowledged that issue had now been decided by the Council and was no longer part of the request before them. Mr. Semones also stressed that the proposed rezoning represented a downzoning, not an increase in development intensity. He explained that R-1 zoning permits greater residential density, while Rural Residential zoning allows fewer homes and lower development intensity. In his view, the rezoning would therefore provide greater protection to neighboring property owners by reducing the potential for future residential subdivision while simultaneously allowing the Horner family to continue operating their first -generation family farm. He concluded by stating that the property, as currently operated, would fully comply with the Rural Residential district without any additional modifications or exceptions and offered to answer any questions from the Council. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Erickson expressed a desire to question the applicants directly regarding what he believed were inaccurate statements and misrepresentations made during the public hearing. After being advised that the public hearing was not intended to become a question -and -answer session, he instead chose to address several of the concerns raised by neighboring residents. Page 18 of 27/ July 7, 2026 I Councilman Erickson stated that many fears expressed during the hearing involved uses that the Horner family had never proposed. He referenced concerns about activities such as outdoor concerts, alcohol sales, slaughterhouses, or similar commercial operations and remarked that, based on everything presented, the applicants had indicated they intended only to continue operating a small family farm, build their home on the property, and raise their family there. He also challenged assertions that the property would experience significant changes beyond its existing agricultural setting, noting that current activities consist primarily of farming, flower picking, and opportunities for photography rather than large commercial events. Addressing concerns regarding the shared driveway, he stated that recent surveying appeared to clarify property boundaries and suggested that the issue might not be as problematic as previously described. Councilman Erickson further observed that multiple speakers had acknowledged enjoying agricultural activities on the property, including watching cattle graze and hay being harvested, for many years. In his opinion, those comments demonstrated that the land had remained continuously agricultural, supporting the argument that its character had not fundamentally changed. He also referenced concerns about the applicants living in a travel trailer, stating that his understanding was that the family had obtained permission to do so while constructing their home and therefore had not simply occupied the property without authorization. Turning to other testimony, he disputed claims regarding muddy gravel driveways and the placement of a hoop house near neighboring property lines, noting that after personally visiting the property, he observed the greenhouse to be approximately 15 to 20 feet from the property boundary and consistent with normal agricultural operations. Councilman Erickson addressed comments suggesting the Town's cease -and - desist order had not been enforced. Based on his understanding, the applicants had appealed through the Board of Zoning Appeals, and enforcement actions had effectively been paused while efforts continued to resolve the zoning issues. He concluded by reiterating that the applicants were operating a small family farm rather than a commercial agricultural enterprise and questioned claims that the existing roadway was experiencing excessive traffic, noting that any future residential subdivision permitted under the current R-I zoning would likely generate substantially more vehicle traffic than the current agricultural operation. Page 19 of 27/ July 7, 2026 He continued addressing comments about potential future development; he noted that the property consists not only of the approximately 13 acres within the Town limits but is also connected to additional acreage in Pulaski County. He suggested that if the property were ever sold to a residential developer, a substantially larger subdivision could ultimately be constructed, creating significantly more traffic and infrastructure demands than the current agricultural use. He also responded to concerns regarding gunfire associated with nuisance wildlife permits. Councilman Erickson explained that if the property owner had obtained the necessary state permits to remove nuisance animals that threatened agricultural operations, those activities were legally authorized regardless of the zoning classification. He added that, based on the owner's military background, he believed the applicant was acting responsibly and was not recklessly wounding animals or creating unnecessary public safety concerns. He further observed that denying the rezoning would not eliminate legally permitted nuisance animal control activities because those rights existed independently of the rezoning request. Turning to concerns about nearby property values, he referenced a neighboring home currently listed for sale. According to information he had reviewed, the home had sold for approximately $350,000 in 2021 and was currently listed for approximately $429,000. In his opinion, those figures did not support claims that the Horner property had negatively affected surrounding property values. He also stated that he understood the current property owners intended to assist in marketing the neighboring home despite the controversy. Councilman Erickson further stated that he had requested information regarding traffic accidents in the area and had learned there had been no reported increase in accidents since the Horner family purchased the property in 2024. Based on that information, he argued that concerns regarding traffic safety and additional law enforcement presence were unsupported. He concluded by reiterating that the property had functioned as a farm for decades and remained surrounded largely by agricultural land. In his opinion, allowing the agricultural use to continue under Rural Residential zoning was more appropriate than creating conditions that might encourage future residential subdivision. He expressed disappointment that Council had rejected the earlier farm market ordinance and warned that forcing the family to leave the property could ultimately result in more intensive residential development with greater impacts on traffic, roads, and neighboring property owners. i. Ordinance 2026-02 Rezoning 2321 Pleasant Hill Drive [Ta Map No. 63-5-241 from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Rural Residential (RR). Page 20 of 27/ July 7, 2026 The motion was made by Councilman Clontz and seconded by Councilman Erickson to adopt Ordinance 2026-02. Jeremy L. Clark- Nay G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Nay Steven W. Erickson- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Nay Joel B. Burchett- Nay 12. Public Comment Period Nicholas Donaldson, of 1008 Oak Street, addressed the Council regarding two unrelated municipal concerns. First, he reported that heavy garbage trucks were causing significant deterioration of Oak Street. He explained that although one section of the roadway had recently been patched, he believed the repairs were temporary and would likely fail after winter snowplowing. He also pointed out additional pavement deterioration near the McGill Village Soccer Field entrance and urged the Town to address the road before conditions worsened. Mr. Donaldson's second concern involved the McGill Village Soccer Field. He explained that concrete barriers had previously been installed near the field while a neighboring resident lived nearby but noted that those circumstances had since changed. Because the neighborhood has few recreational amenities and previously lost a walking track when improvements were made at Claremont, Mr. Donaldson asked the Council to preserve the soccer field as green space. He stated that he was unsure of the property's future status but hoped it would remain available for public use rather than being redeveloped. Mayor Collins thanked him and indicated the Town would look into the matter. Eric Tyler, a resident of Cliff Street, addressed the Council regarding concerns unrelated to the zoning matters discussed earlier in the meeting. Referencing comments made previously by the Council concerning the Town Manager's responsibilities, Mr. Tyler argued that Town administration ultimately answers to the Council and that the Council has a responsibility to protect the constitutional and legal rights of residents. He alleged that his wife had been denied appropriate accommodations relating to her disability and her ability to exercise her First Amendment rights during Town meetings. Mr. Tyler stated that he and his wife had filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and were awaiting a response. Mr. Tyler further claimed that Town staff should have worked with the Council to provide reasonable accommodations instead of responding inappropriately. He criticized Page 21 of 27/ July 7, 2026 the Town Manager's conduct, referenced Freedom of Information Act records concerning robe manager's previous employment, and accused the Town of showing favoritism, discrimination, and retaliation in its treatment of certain citizens. He concluded by �sserting that using municipal authority to threaten or selectively enforce regulations ggainst residents would violate both state and federal law. inda Musick, of 509 Highland Terrace, addressed Council regarding the Town's get and financial management. She alleged that the Town administration was mismanaging taxpayer funds and questioned recent budget decisions. Specifically, she criticized what she described as a substantial increase in the Town's miscellaneous budget allocation while simultaneously reducing funding for the Police Department. She also questioned the decision to install Flock safety cameras near Critzer Elementary School, arguing that those expenditures were made while staffim, reductions affected the Police Department. Ms. Musick also questioned the Town's allocation of approximately $3.1 million for street improvements, asserting that many roads remain in poor condition. As an example, she referenced previous complaints about a large pothole on State Street. According to Ms. Musick, records indicated that funding had been requested and billed as though paving work had been completed, but she believed only gravel had been placed in the hole instead. She alleged that this discrepancy suggested financial mismanagement and questioned whether public funds were being properly spent. She acknowledged receiving information from an unnamed source within the community and stated that she closely follows Town government activities. Ms. Musick warned the Council that continued dissatisfaction among residents could influence upcoming municipal elections and argued that Town leadership was failing to adequately serve the citizens of Pulaski. Concluding the portion of her remarks, Ms. Musick returned to the issue of Police Department funding, expressing concern that staffing reductions had occurred while other expenditures continued. She specifically referenced the retirement of Officer Stone and noted that Officer Hudson was now working part-time without benefits, remarking that she never expected to find herself publicly defending the Police Department. 13. Consent Agenda a. Consideration of June 16, 2026 Town Council Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Councilman Clark and seconded by Vice -Mayor Dawson to adopt the minutes as written. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Aye Mayor Collins- Aye Page 22 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye b. Consideration of June 25, 2026 Town Council Special Called Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Councilwoman Cope and seconded by Councilman Clark to adopt the minutes as written. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Abstained Mayor Collins- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Abstained Joel B. Burchett- Aye 14. Council Comments & Board Updates Councilman Clark began by thanking Town staff, particularly Jackie Reid and everyone who helped organize the Independence Day festivities. He praised the success of the parade despite the unusually cold weather and recognized the staff who worked throughout the holiday events. Councilwoman Cope stated that although she had additional thoughts, she did not believe it was appropriate to share them at that time. Instead, she focused on congratulating Town staff for organizing Pulaski's celebration of America's 250th anniversary. She remarked that a tremendous amount of work had gone into the festivities, including the parade, baseball game, and fireworks, and noted that the events attracted visitors from outside the community. She also expressed appreciation for the earlier hospital update presented during the meeting. Addressing comments made during the public comment period, Councilwoman Cope clarified that the proposed Rosie's Gaming Entertainment Center was not a finalized project. She explained that before anything could proceed, the issue would first have to qualify for a public referendum, allowing Town residents to decide through a vote. She also disputed statements that Town officials had threatened citizens or reduced funding for the Police Department, stating that no police funding had been cut and indicating that the Police Chief could verify that information. Vice -Mayor Dawson shifted the discussion toward what he described as positive developments occurring within the Town. He noted that concerns about blighted properties, zoning violations, and code enforcement are regularly raised by both residents and Council members, with many citizens questioning whether meaningful progress is being made. To illustrate the work occurring behind the scenes, he shared statistics from the Town's monthly property maintenance and code enforcement report. During the previous month alone, staff had addressed fifteen inoperable vehicle violations, resulting in three vehicles Page 23 of 27/ July 7, 2026 being towed. Fifteen high grass violations had been issued, twenty properties had been scheduled for abatement, and ten trash and debris violations had been investigated. Three cases had progressed to court, while two unsafe or vacant structures had already been demolished. Additionally, three more unsafe structures were scheduled for demolition by their respective property owners. He continued by explaining that staff had investigated twenty-seven citizen complaints and completed twenty-five follow-up inspections to ensure compliance. Vice -Mayor Dawson emphasized that these accomplishments represented only one month's work and demonstrated that Town staff were actively addressing long-standing issues throughout the community. While acknowledging that visible improvements take time, he encouraged residents to review the publicly available reports to better understand the volume of work being performed. He also thanked Code Enforcement Officer Carla Hodge and the Town staff for their continued efforts, noting that citizen complaints play an important role in identifying and resolving community issues. Councilman Erickson also revisited concerns raised earlier during public comment regarding McGill Village Park. He explained that he had previously discussed the property with Town Manager Day and expressed his desire to see the space returned to public recreational use. According to Councilman Erickson, the property remains in a form of legal limbo but must continue serving recreational purposes. He suggested that, although it may be too late for the current year, a future community garden operated by a nonprofit organization o volunteer group could be an excellent use for part of the site. He commented that it w uld be unfortunate for the property to remain unused when it could once again become a eighborhood asset. Councilman Eickson concluded by again complimenting the success of the Independence Day parade. Although he joked that the extreme heat would have discouraged him from attending had he not been participating in the parade, he was pleased to see such a large turnout from the community despite the weather. Councilman Burchett began by acknowledging that there were many things he could address but chose to limit his remarks. Responding directly to allegations made during public comment about financial misconduct, he stated that he did not believe anyone involved with the Town had "their hand in the cookie jar." He invited anyone possessing credible evidence of wrongdoing to bring that information forward, assuring the public that any legitimate concerns would be thoroughly addressed. He also clarified that the Town had no involvement in installing the Flock safety cameras located in school zones. To his understanding, that project had been initiated by Pulaski Page 24 of 27/ July 7, 2026 County rather than the Town, although he invited the Police Chief or Town Manager to correct him if necessary. Councilman Burchett concluded by providing an update on the former Deli Mart property, a long -vacant structure that many residents had criticized as an eyesore. He explained that once the required asbestos evaluation was completed, demolition of the building would proceed, removing one more blighted property from the community. Mayor Collins concluded the Council comments by addressing several topics that had surfaced during the meeting. Speaking candidly, he explained that he preferred to express his honest perspective rather than remain silent when misinformation circulated. He firmly rejected claims that the Town had reduced Police Department funding, explaining that staffing changes resulted from retirements and other personnel circumstances rather than budget cuts. Likewise, he clarified that the Town itself does not directly repair roads. Instead, roadway funding and maintenance are administered through t e Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Town does not simply spend r ad money at its own discretion. The Mayor also revisited discussion surrounding the proposed Rosie's Gaming Entertainment Center. He emphasized once again that no final decision had been made and that the project would only proceed if sufficient petition signatures resulted in a referendum. Ultimately, he explained, the decision would belong to the voters of Pulaski rather than the Town Council. While acknowledging that additional tax revenue could pide meaningful financial benefits to the Town by funding services and reducing Zovre burdens on taxpayers, he stressed that no outcome had been predetermined. Mayor Collins expressed strong confidence in Town Manager Day and the Town staff, st ting that they work diligently to serve the community despite frequent criticism. He o served that many residents rely on incomplete information found online without u derstanding the complexities of local government operations. Reflecting on his own experience since taking office six years earlier, Mayor Collins said he had not fully appreciated how complicated and time-consuming municipal government could be. He described local government as a large and intricate system involving coordination between Town, state, and federal agencies. While acknowledging that mistakes sometimes occur and that issues occasionally fall through the cracks, he emphasized that Town employees consistently work hard to improve the community. He concluded this portion of his remarks by stating that he does not want businesses to close and wishes the Town had the ability to do even more to support local businesses and economic growth, but they are ultimately obligated to follow the Town's ordinances and make decisions that serve the broader public interest. He acknowledged that Page 25 of 27/ July 7, 2026 Council's decisions will never satisfy everyone, particularly in situations where neighboring property owners have competing interests. Referring to the rezoning discussion, he described it as a "lose -lose" situation in which any decision would inevitably disappoint one group of residents. Turning to a more positive subject, Mayor Collins again praised the Town's Independence Day celebration. He noted that the Fourth of July events were well attended and remarked that he had experienced more positive interaction from residents during this year's festivities than in previous years. He thanked fellow Council members for their service, recognizing that serving in public office is often a thankless job. He also expressed appreciation for residents who attended community events, saying it gives citizens an opportunity to know the elected officials they chose to represent them. Mayor Collins concluded by reaffirming that Council's goal is to continue making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the Town and its residents. 15. Manager's Report Manager Day began by thanking the Council for its supportive comments regarding Town staff. He reiterated that the organization continues to accomplish many positive initiatives throughout the community and specifically praised Town employees for their dedication and hard work. He remarked that public criticism is an unavoidable part of local government, explaining that he has developed "broad shoulders" through years of public service and remains focused on performing his responsibilities. Manager Day addressed the allegations raised during the meeting by explaining that he has a fiduciary duty to the Town and believes that anyone making accusations against Town staff, Council members, or himself also has an obligation to pursue those allegations through the appropriate legal channels if they believe misconduct has occurred. He encouraged individuals with evidence to follow. the proper legal process. Manager Day then explained that he had received an email from a resident who believed her comments would be read during the meeting. Although the message had not specifically requested to be read during a public hearing and the Council had already received copies of the correspondence, he had personally promised the resident that he would read her letter aloud. Before doing so, Manager Day emphasized that reading letters into the record is not the Town Council's normal practice and stated that local governments generally do not conduct meetings by reading submitted correspondence aloud. He explained that adopting such a practice would quickly become unmanageable and noted that his understanding of the Freedom of Information Act and consultation with legal counsel supported that position. Page 26 of 27/ July 7, 2026 He then read a letter from Ms. Olsen, who expressed strong opposition to Resolution 2026-21, which proposed an increase in water rates. In the letter, the resident argued that families already struggling with inflation should not bear the cost of infrastructure improvements resulting from decades of deferred maintenance. She urged Council to vote against the resolution and stated that citizens would remember each member's vote during future elections. After reading the letter, Day reiterated that he had honored his commitment to the resident but stressed once more that reading correspondence during Council meetings would not become a standard practice. 16. Reminder of Future Council Meeting a. July 21, 2026 Closed Session 6:00 p.m.; Open Session 7:00 pm. 17. With no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 1 ATT ST A ) �w I -a OACJ—Z-�, Olivia C. Hale Clerk of Council 1 TOWN of PULASKI, VIRGI _ W. Shannon Collins Mayor Page 27 of 27/ July 7, 2026