Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/25 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board Minutes Thursday, February 13, 2025 Present: Constance Patterson, John Seagle, Todd Bruce, Marcie Worrell Absent: Vera Carter Staff Present: Mayor Shannon Collins, Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Austin Painter, Project Engineer, Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician, Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and asked for a roll call. The roll was taken by Ms. Hale and a quorum was determined with the four members present at the time of the roll call. Approval of Minutes Ms. Hale reported there are two sets of minutes that needed to be approved. In the October 2024 meeting, Ms. Carter recommended amendments to the July 2024 meeting minutes pertaining to Pinehurst Cemetery and the July 2024 minutes have been amended for final review. The motion was made by Mr. Bruce and seconded by Mr. Seagle to adopt both the amended July 24, 2024 and October 23, 2024 minutes. Constance Patterson- Aye Todd Bruce- Aye John Seagle-Aye Marcie Worrell- Aye Vera Carter- Absent Financial Report Ms. Morris reported at the beginning of October 2024 the balance for the checking account at National Bank was $7,135.79, the revenues earned $1.06 in interest, there were two plots sold for a total of $800.00 towards perpetual care, $75.00 for cremation, $350.00 for casket burial, and a monument at $13.00 bringing the total revenue to $1,239.06 and the total balance as of December 31, 2024 was $8,374.85. She reported the balance in the VA Investment Pool Cemetery CD was $335,705.39 with a total interest earned of $4,120.16 from October to December and the total balance as of December 31, 2024 was $339,825.55. Lastly, Ms. Morris reported the Cemetery Funds in the VA Investment Pool with the beginning balance as of October 1, 2024 was $165,472.40, a total interest earned of $2,030.88 from October to December and the total balance as of December 31, 2024 was $167,503.28. Mr. Seagle asked what the difference was in the two accounts and why aren’t they together. Ms. Morris stated they can be merged into the same account if the board wants them to be together but they were left separate because the board originally had the checking account and CD separate at National Bank and if funds needed to be transferred out it would come from the investment account rather than the CD. Mr. Painter stated the reason why it’s separated is so that you can make a direct comparison of how much you were making on the CD verses how much you’re making with the same amount of money in the new fund balance. Mr. Bruce asked about the casket burial income, how did they get an odd amount because it’s supposed to be $100 per burial. Mr. Painter stated that is the split 50-50 for perpetual care. Mr. Seagle asked why they go into the checking account, the perpetual care, cremation, casket burial, and monument rather than the investment account. Ms. Morris stated the checking account would be more like the operating fund. Mr. Painter stated an investment account like the one the board has is more difficult to have day-to-day transactions and imports and exports, so putting those day-to-day transactions in a checking account gives you almost like a well, once you hit a certain level, the board can decide to move that into the investment account. Ms. Morris stated the checking account is more for operating funds, with smaller amounts whereas the investment account, you tend to want to leave those funds alone unless you absolutely want to pull them out but if the checking account balance gets higher than what the board would like, they can transfer it over to the investment account and earn more interest that what the checking account earns. Mr. Painter stated it can be manipulated by a voted recommendation, that if the board is not satisfied with the amount that is sitting in the checking account, we can show the monthly expenses, the regular routine expenses that we need to have in the checking account and compare that to what’s actually in the account. Mr. Seagle questioned the amount of $800 in perpetual care for two plots sold, he stated he thought they were $800 apiece. Ms. Morris stated the funds are split 50-50, two plots at $400 each. Public Comments No public speakers were present. Mr. Painter introduced Doug Phillippi, Engineering Tech that is working within the Engineering Department. He stated Mr. Phillippi will be spearheading all cemetery transactions and relationships with funeral homes and families moving forward, and he will be the primary liaison for the Cemetery Board. Cemetery Code Discussion Mr. Painter stated over the course of his employment with the town, there has been continuous discussion about what is and what is not within the code sections for both Oakhurst and Pinehurst and the goal of this discussion is to lay out and show the board what is specifically in the code, have a discussion and vote on certain recommendations and items that would be amendments to the town code Ms. Worrell stated she has a photo of the sign as you go into Oakwood and it’s not being followed. Mr. Painter stated we need to have a solidified standing of what to enforce before we go and rehab any of the signs in either cemetery and staff didn’t want to proceed with any sign repairs until the board decided if there were amendments to the code. The first section Mr. Painter reviewed in the Town of Pulaski Town Code was Section 26-10 Perpetual Care. Ms. Hale stated Municode, the town’s third-party online host has not updated their language for the town code and Resolution 202-29 has changed the percentage of perpetual care from 75% to 50%. Mr. Painter referenced the 1990 code stating “further 75% of the income from the trust shall be transferred annually to the general fund for the sole purpose of maintenance and perpetual care of the cemeteries” he stated the town has historically not done this, we have done 50%, 50% goes into the spending budget, the bank account, and the other 50% goes into the town’s maintenance budget for perpetual care. Mr. Bruce asked if that includes the permit money for those. Mr. Painter stated yes, all income. Mr. Bruce stated when the board created the permits, the last town manager did not explain to them that 50% of it would only be deposited into the cemetery fund and the other would go into the general fund and the board did that for two reasons; to keep an eye on what was going on in the cemetery and to help increase the cemetery fund and when you cut it in half, you’re not making a lot of money, you’re not achieving the goal that we were hoping. Mayor Collins stated before the town would’ve taken 75% and there should be more now than before. Mr. Painter asked if there were any amendments to Section 26-10. No amendments were recommended, and the board agreed to leave the language as is. Mr. Painter moved onto Section 20-26, Trees and Shrubs. He referenced the code stating it is currently “prohibited to install or place trees, plants, and shrubs along the walks and driveways of the cemeteries or planting any shrubs without having first obtained permission from the town”. He asked the board what recommendations they had to allow trees and shrubs for not only the new sections in both cemeteries but the older sections, as the town gets regular requests to plant trees in the old sections of both cemeteries. Ms. Worrell recommended no pine trees and no evergreen, because it has destroyed Oakwood. Mr. Seagle questioned why plant anything right now when we need to take care of the boxwoods that are there currently, trim them and those pine trees that are costly to remove. Mr. Painter stated staff’s recommendation would be to either not allow trees at all or if someone does make a request, that we make it a requirement to come before the board and request the location and exactly what they’re going to do and have it approved by the cemetery board. Ms. Hale asked if the board wanted to leave the wording as is on Section 20-26 or if there were recommendations to amend that section. The board unanimously agreed to leave the wording as is. Mr. Painter stated Section 26-51Enclosure of Lots Prohibited, Lot Markers mostly discusses fencing, anything that closes in an individual or family lot and the current language does not allow any fencing or anything surrounding any lot. Mr. Bruce asked why that’s being enforced. Mr. Painter stated the goal is to solidify this and then enforce it, staff wanted to make sure the code is exactly what the board would like it to be. Mayor Collins asked about the concrete walls that are around original plots. Mr. Painter stated all the concrete structures were inherited to the town when we acquired Oakwood, and that is a historic monument within Oakwood. Mr. Painter asked the board if they approved the language as is for Section 26-51. The board agreed to leave the language as is. Mr. Painter reviewed Section 26-52 which references the material for monuments and grave makers, stating we have specifications of whether to allow granite, marble, bronze and it also states ‘other acceptable materials.’ Mr. Painter asked the board what materials would they or would they not like to see within the cemetery. Mr. Bruce stated most are made out of granite, and bronze is for military. Mr. Painter recommended to maintain the same language for this section and town staff will just enforce only those three. The board agreed to leave the language as is and enforce the three materials; granite, marble, and bronze. Mr. Painter stated there are different grave markers that the funeral home provides and based on the discussion, the board is not going to bother or disturb those markers. Mr. Bruce stated those are temporary and he would recommend to not bother or disturb those. Ms. Patterson stated if the markers are visible and readable they should stay. Mr. Painter stated it’s the nature of how those markers are made, eventually the readability of them will deteriorate but it’s still the family’s property and if the board does not recommend any specific changes about them, we will continue not to bother them. Ms. Patterson stated it’s a gesture, not to remove them, or if they could be replaced after so long when they’re not readable, then replace it. She questioned what to do if the marker that the funeral home puts down becomes unreadable, would the funeral home be contacted to make another one? Mr. Bruce stated when they’re damaged where you can’t read who it was, there is no record in the funeral home who was buried in that spot but if there’s record, Mr. Bruce stated he has replaced a number of the markers free of charge. The last section Mr. Painter reviewed was Section 26-53, regarding the foundations for monuments. He stated it mostly discusses what happens if someone installs a marker or monument and its upside down or completely sideways, he referenced code “shall be the duty of the owner, lot, or town if the grave space is in perpetual care” which is in all new portions of the cemeteries “to have it raised and reset to the perpendicular line in a neat, workmanlike manner”. He asked if the board had any recommended amendments to the language. Mr. Bruce asked who is responsible for something to be up righted to make safe. Mr. Painter stated according to the language it would be whoever does it, if the owner of the lot or the town has the ability to move it. If the town takes on the responsibility, we would take on the payment as well and assuming responsibility. Mr. Bruce reported he had a gentleman who works part-time, who uprights and cleans monuments and he would get the contact information to Mr. Painter. Mr. Seagle commented there are families in Oakwood who have all dissipated away, there are fallen monuments and gravestones that haven’t been touched and they become the town’s responsibility. Mr. Painter asked if there were other discussions or recommendations to amend the section. No other discussions were made and the board agreed to leave the language as is. Mr. Painter reported the recommendations regarding flowers and vases that the board has discussed that they would like to see in the code and regulations are not in the code and the board can openly discuss what items they’d like to see allowed and receive feedback to what they would like to be mentioned in code. The signage outside of the cemeteries do not give legal standings to enforce those prohibited items that are listed. Mr. Painter read the sign outside of Oakwood Cemetery that lists the prohibited items and recommended to determine what items are allowed and a cleanup schedule. Ms. Worrell recommended one floral arrangement in a hard vase, like metal material, no plastic, wooden, or glass vases and the vase needs to either be attached to the monument or sitting on the base because of the mowing. Ms. Patterson asked about the wire vases that they set down during Memorial Day, for example. Ms. Worrell stated they would need to be able to mow around them. Ms. Patterson recommended requiring people to put them near the tombstone where they would have to be picked up either way. Ms. Worrell stated the mowers don’t pick them up, they mow around them then someone has to weed eat it and that’s when it gets messy. She agreed they do look nice but she’s trying to help the cemetery workers. Mayor Collins recommended the only things to be allowed are the ones that are on the monument so they can mow around it but if something is put there and it disappears they can’t say anything. Ms. Hale summarized the amendment to the code stating ‘flowers in a hard vase attached to the monument is allowed’. Mr. Painter asked if a flower vase staked into the ground next to the monument would be allowed. Ms. Worrell stated there shouldn’t be any flowers sticking in the ground because the weeds grow up and they can’t be weed-eat around them. The flowers need to be off the ground in a vase. Mr. Bruce stated he wouldn’t allow a vase attached to a stake because you can see what some have done, they’ve filled up the whole grave with them. Mr. Painter asked if there needs to be a restriction on the number of items allowed. Ms. Worrell recommended one vase with one flower arrangement or bouquet and that she’s modeling her thoughts after Highland Memorial Garden, as they look nice and they’re taken care of. Mr. Bruce agreed with Ms. Worrell but addressed his concerns that not everyone will have a vase. Ms. Patterson agreed with Mr. Bruce and addressed her concerns that not everyone would be able to afford a vase and people will continue to put down what they want on the graves. Mr. Seagle commented staying then it needs to be cleaned more often. Mr. Painter stated the purpose of this discussion is that staff has gotten support based off of conversations with management to actually enforce whatever it is, maintenance wise that is occurring in these cemeteries. These are people’s jobs, this is what that they do during the summer, during those months that they need to be mowing and weed-eating and if it’s the boards decision to allow anything in the cemetery, their jobs and the number of crewmates are going to adjust to facilitate that decision. Mr. Bruce recommended the town take control of Oakwood East and every other section in Pinehurst that’s flat and the town could require that no one buy markers and vases except from the town. Mr. Seagle commented saying people are going to bring their own items to their families plots and do it, he recommended that the town maintenance clean every three to six months, when the graves are overgrown and you see a plot that’s a foot high, then take those vessels out. Ms. Patterson stated when someone passes away and you, as a family, have twenty arrangements for that loved one, in Pinehurst, all those flowers are placed on the grave and it’ll be the same practice to leave those flowers there and they be cleaned up at a later time. Mayor Collins stated to have something attached to the marker and anything else is not approved, they will still be allowed to put the flowers there and the town just clean them up. Mr. Painter commented stating the items that are excluded from the list, the code, are items that the grounds crew wouldn’t pick up, that’s what the board is agreeing upon to allow and that’s what’s going to be left. The town will never stop someone from putting something in the cemetery, but we do need language, that if you do want to do a cleanup, you don’t have to, but if you want to do a cleanup, you need language in the code that says we clean up X, Y, and Z. For instance, if the board votes on one vase, that has to be permanently attached to the monument, and whatever is in that vase stays, then we would go through, if a cleaning is scheduled, and remove everything else except for that’s in the vase. He stated staff will take the board’s feedback and draft some language to vote on at the next meeting. Mr. Seagle commented stating the language needs to only be two to three sentences. Ms. Hale stated staff can draft up a few sentences and if the board needs to add specific items that are prohibited or allowed, the board can vote on it. Mayor Collins recommended adding to the language to include ‘a complete clear out of prohibited items.’ Mr. Painter asked what the frequency of the clean up should be. Mr. Seagle suggested at least twice a year and Ms. Worrell recommended every three months. Ms. Patterson agreed with Ms. Worrell to clean every quarter. Mr. Bruce asked what could the town afford to do. Mr. Painter stated the personnel issue would be more of a discussion and a concern for Town Council, whatever the board’s recommendation is, Council will discuss the personnel of how to make it happen. The last question Mr. Painter asked was if the board wanted to town to maintain the removed items and store them as in the past, the town has taken the removed items, but them in a storage container and the public were able to come find their items if they wanted to take it back with them. Mr. Bruce recommended having the owner of the lot sign a document stating they understand prohibited items will be removed and discarded at the quarterly cleanups. Ms. Worrell suggested to clean up the woods as well as items, from the East side in Oakwood specifically, items get blown into the woods. Board Comments Mr. Bruce stated there are signs at Oakwood that say ‘no dumping’ where the funeral homes have always put excess dirt, he recommended removing that sign because the funeral homes are getting charged an extra $200 per burial to haul the dirt out of the cemetery. Mr. Painter stated he believes it was more of a stormwater concern to prevent you from creating a new waterway if there’s excess dirt that’s being laid there and he will look into a new location with staff. Mr. Phillippi asked if the board had any opinion on if someone wants to put a flagpole on the grave as he has seen graves that have permanent flagpoles. Mr. Bruce stated once the code gets changed to what is permissible, that’s not going to be permissible. Ms. Worrell agreed and stated the flag should be in the base. Mr. Painter asked if the owner of the plot wanted to use their base for something other than flowers, would it be allowed. Ms. Worrell recommended all items be contained within the vase. Mr. Painter stated at the next meeting staff will have specific language recommendations which will include dates for the cleanups and these recommendations will be presented to Town Council to then approve into the code. Mr. Painter recommended a presentation be given to Town Council since these code amendments have to deal significantly with public opinion. Mr. Painter gave a brief update for the GIS project stating staff has all the data and everything that they were hoping to achieve out of it, they have gotten from it and right now they are implementing that to make it readable into the new solution. Mr. Seagle stated it should’ve been presented to staff in a format that is already finished. Mr. Painter stated the format they presented is what we asked of them, it’s very technical and it’s not the most visually appealing of data sets right now and when the project was first presented it was more expensive for them to do the implementation but the town has the capabilities to do it in-house which reduced the cost. He stated the town has every single cornerstone in the new section of both cemeteries geolocated, and on top of that, every marker, headstone is marked with who it is and a picture of their birth and burial date. Mr. Bruce asked how to handle complaints from the public with changes to the code. Mr. Painter stated the town can’t enforce code unless it’s written and the best way to do that is to take their info and invite them to either a Town Council meeting or the next cemetery board meeting, however it is ultimately Town Council’s decision that will be making these changes to the code. Ms. Hale stated with code changes, there has to be a public hearing. The public hearing ad is advertised for two consecutive weeks, Town Council will have a public hearing, and Council would not decide on the same date as the hearing, it could be the following meeting or even pushed onto a later date if additional discussion needs to take place. Future Cemetery Board Meeting Mr. Bruce stated three months is too long and recommended meeting in April. Ms. Patterson agreed stating the sooner the board could meet, it would hopefully get the amendments to Town Council sooner. Ms. Hale stated she cannot guarantee that the board recommendations for amendments to the code will go to town Council as soon as the board votes on it, especially with the Town manager and legal counsel being involved but it should be presented to Town Council within the year. It was agreed upon to have the next board meeting on April 17th at 6pm. With no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.