Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/25 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board Minutes November 20, 2025 Present: Connie Patterson, Vera Carter, John Seagle, Marcie Worrell Absent: Todd Bruce, Mayor Collins Staff Present: Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician, and Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Meeting Called to Order Ms. Hale called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and a quorum was determined with the present members. Approval of Minutes The motion was made by Ms. Patterson and seconded by Ms. Carter to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. Financial Report Ms. Morris reported that the checking account balance beginning on August 1st was $11,194.23. Between August and October, the account earned $1.48 in interest. Revenue during the period included five perpetual care plot sales totaling $2,000, three cremation fees of $75, two casket burials totaling $100, and seven monument burials totaling $87.50. There were two expenditures, cemetery lot buybacks at $400 each. The ending balance stands at $12,658.21. The board reviews two investment pool accounts. The first account, funded by a CD, held a beginning balance of $348,724.71 on August 1st and earned $3,842.49 in interest over three months, ending at $352,567.20. The second account, funded from checking, began at $120,795.94, earned $1,331.06, and ended at $122,127. The yield has decreased somewhat but remains significantly higher than earlier levels. Grey Preservation Services Ms. Hale explained that guidance is needed from the board on how to proceed, particularly regarding funding levels and how to divide funds between the two cemeteries. Mr. Phillippi noted that procurement regulations apply, and decisions must include how much total money to allocate and how to proportion it, possibly based on plot counts or other metrics. Members discuss whether headstone stabilization, repair, and cleaning should be considered normal maintenance performed by Public Works. Ms. Hale explained that Public Works lacks both the training and proper equipment for professional restoration. Discussion clarifies that restoration includes cleaning, repairing broken stones, re-leveling stones that are leaning or about to fall, and preventing further damage. Ms. Worrell recalled that in a prior meeting someone suggested beginning with the oldest stones, but others noted that determining age would be difficult. The group considers whether priority should instead be based on the level of damage. The consensus begins forming around prioritizing the most damaged stones first, particularly those leaning or in danger of falling. Cleaning would come later in the process. Members note that the restoration company likely has its own recommended workflow, which they can detail in their proposal. Ms. Worrell asked about whether the town must seek bids. Mr. Phillippi confirmed that bidding is required so the town does not show favoritism and to give any qualified company an equal opportunity. The conversation then turns to the significant root-related shifting of stones in Oakwood Cemetery, with clarification that re-leveling would involve lifting stones and adding leveling material, not cutting roots. The motion was made by Ms. Carter and seconded by Mr. Seagle to move forward with the bidding process. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hale explained that once bids are received, the board can decide how much money to commit and how to divide it between cemeteries. Options include a fixed percentage split, alternating years, or splitting based on the number of lots or the number of headstones needing work. Mr. Seagle suggested establishing an initial set amount to begin with; Ms. Hale responded that once bids come in, those numbers will guide the final decision. Ms. Carter asked whether the bids would include estimated timeframes. Staff confirm that the town can require this. They explain that bids will likely include hourly labor rates, examples of prior work, projected timelines, and recommended maintenance routines. Ms. Worrell suggested separate quotes for each cemetery, but staff responded that most companies will quote hourly, which applies universally. The board discusses how companies might allocate crews between cemeteries. Staff explain that most restoration operations consist of one or two workers, possibly three or four at most, and that only one company may ultimately bid. Ms. Carter expressed the need for clear descriptions of crew size if labor is billed hourly. Ms. Carter asked about typical crew sizes in this kind of work, confirming that companies rarely have more than a few workers. She asked Mr. Phillippi, who is intending to bid, what his hourly rate would be; he estimated about $50 per hour, depending on the complexity of work. Mr. Seagle asked about using concrete to reattach fallen stones; he responded that such stones are intentionally constructed as separate pieces and attaching them would only cause future breakage. Ms. Carter commented that older broken stones add character, while others stress that many of the broken stones are actually newer and that numerous repairs will be needed. The board acknowledges that not all work can be done at once, and discussions begin about whether to do a limited number of stones or defined sections at a time. It is noted that Oakwood Cemetery is one of the largest cemeteries in the state, which affects planning and the scale of work required. Mr. Seagle proposed allocating $10,000 initially to cemetery revitalization, with adjustments later depending on final costs. Mr. Phillippi offered to prepare an estimate of how long full revitalization might take. The board considers whether ongoing maintenance should be scheduled or handled on a case-by-case basis as new issues arise. The board discussed whether, after initial restoration, ongoing work should be scheduled routinely or only when problems arise. Members questioned how long a contractor should remain accountable for stones they repair, wondering, for example, whether damage occurring years later would still fall under their responsibility. Ms. Hale agreed that such issues would need to be addressed in a formal contract, which cannot be established until bids are received and evaluated. She reiterated that the purpose of the current discussion was solely to decide whether to move forward with the bidding process. The board then agrees to proceed so they can at least obtain bids for review. Several members express enthusiasm about finally seeing visible progress in both cemeteries. Ms. Carter shifted to a different matter, asking whether a letter outlining cemetery rules and regulations had ever been created for people purchasing plots. This question was raised because recent burials included large monument stones, raising concerns about whether buyers had been properly informed of restrictions. Mr. Phillippi clarified that buyers do receive paperwork but that the rules have not been updated because the board’s previously discussed changes were never formally adopted by the Town Council. The board noted that despite their earlier discussions, no updates had been approved, leaving staff still distributing outdated guidelines. Ms. Carter noted that large monuments have recently been installed in the new cemetery section, contrary to what they believed the updated rules would have restricted. Ms. Hale stated that since the Town Council never formally adopted any new ordinance language, staff must continue using the preexisting rules, which do not prohibit such stones. She reminded the board that official ordinance changes require drafting by the town attorney, Scot Farthing, followed by the Town Council’s review and approval. She proposed contacting Mr. Farthing, possibly by conference call with the engineering department, to initiate the drafting process. Some members voiced confusion, believing the changes should already have gone to the council following earlier meetings. 2026 Board Positions Ms. Hale noted that the bylaws require board positions to be elected annually, such as vice-chair, secretary, or treasurer, and that she has found no record of these positions being filled in recent years. Members are surprised, stating that they have never elected officers. They clarify that Ms. Morris functions as treasurer by virtue of her role, but the board has never held formal elections as described in the bylaws. Members agree to review the bylaws before the next meeting and consult with Manager Day for further interpretation. The possibility of updating the bylaws is acknowledged, though Ms. Hale warns that doing so is a lengthy process. Several members question whether officer roles are necessary at all. She explained that the bylaws require at least three trustees to hold formal roles: chair, vice chair, and secretary/treasurer. Two trustees, including the Mayor, must also serve on the board. This prompts confusion: members ask whether the Mayor could serve as chair. Ms. Hale clarified that the Mayor serves only to preside over and conduct meetings and does not have voting power; the Mayor cannot also hold the chair position. Board members voice general agreement that they prefer the current informal structure, where the mayor presides and no additional officer roles are assigned. Ms. Hale outlined the normal duties of a chair, setting agendas, conducting meetings, and filling in for leadership when absent, but acknowledged that the board has effectively functioned without these roles. Members reiterate that since they have no power to override council decisions, assigning formal titles seems unnecessary. They emphasize that their existing system works well and has never caused issues. Members continue discussing why formal officers may not be needed, citing language in the bylaws stating that non-appointed trustees act under council direction. They view this as further evidence that the board's role is advisory, making officers unnecessary. Ms. Hale confirmed that the board’s authority is limited to recommendations, especially regarding cemetery ordinance changes. Several members point out that even their rule proposals about plot and stone regulations have not yet been acknowledged by the Town Council, reinforcing their sense that formal titles would not alter outcomes. All present agree that maintaining the existing structure is best. Ms. Hale announced that two board terms, those of Ms. Patterson and Ms. Worrell, are expiring. Both members agree to be reappointed for another four-year term, and Ms. Hale confirmed this will go to the council. Board Comments Mr. Seagle revisited the idea of allocating $10,000 toward cemetery revitalization, possibly divided evenly between the two cemeteries. Mr. Phillippi advised waiting until bid information is available because the cost of full revitalization may be much higher. He explained that accurate cost projections will require assessing damage levels and contractor rates once bids are received. Members noted that investment accounts have earned significant interest. Ms. Morris reported of a recent situation where Mr. Bruce came to pay for the cremation burial of several unclaimed individuals, who by court order must be buried in the free section at Oakwood. This was the first time she had seen such a case. Because the cremation burial fee was $50, Manager Day reduced it to $25 to assist. The board debates whether such cases should incur any fee at all, given the circumstances. Members clarify that the board does not pay anything for these cases; the fee is paid by the funeral homes, who are ordered by the court to handle the burial of unclaimed remains. The funeral homes must also cover cremation and internment costs themselves. Some members express sympathy, noting funeral homes may receive minimal compensation from the state while shouldering significant expenses. Mr. Phillippi explained that the $25-50 fee is essentially a “dig permit” covering the time required for him to mark the burial location with flags before notifying the funeral home. The board continued discussing the logistics of pauper burials. Members ask whether any free section exists in Pinehurst, and Mr. Phillippi said he is unaware of one; all unclaimed burials he handles go into the Oakwood free section. They also ask whether funeral homes themselves dig the graves. Mr. Phillippi was unsure, though Mr. Bruce reportedly said funeral homes may receive very little, perhaps only $800 or even as low as $250, from the state to cover cremation and burial expenses, which barely offsets their costs. The board discusses the process for handling individuals who die without being claimed and without insurance. Mr. Phillippi clarified that such individuals are deemed “unknown” by the state, and state law requires the funeral home to cremate them. This applies only to cremations; coffins or full burials are not part of the process for unclaimed decedents. Once the legally required waiting period has passed and cremation occurs, the funeral home assumes full responsibility for the associated costs. Members acknowledge that funeral homes may spend thousands and receive only a small reimbursement from the state, far below their actual expenditures. The board reviews how the interment permit fee works for cremated, unclaimed individuals. After cremation, funeral homes contact the cemetery board to arrange burial in the free section. The cemetery charges a $50 interment permit fee, recently reduced to $25 by Manager Day, to cover the labor required for staff to measure and mark the burial site with flags. Ms. Morris confirmed that this fee goes to the cemetery board, not the funeral home. Manager Day has proposed waiving the fee entirely for funeral homes handling unclaimed individuals because of the financial burden they already face. Mr. Phillippi reiterated that the proposed waiver concerns only the interment permit fee, not cremation or any other funeral expenses. Several board members express immediate support, noting that funeral homes should not have to pay this additional cost when they already shoulder significant financial obligations in these cases. The chair asks whether the board would like to take an official vote on the matter. The motion was made by Ms. Patterson and seconded by Ms. Carter to waive the interment permit fee for funeral homes handling unclaimed individuals. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Worrell reported receiving an email earlier in the day but being unable to open the attached file due to not having Microsoft Office. She could, however, open the bylaws because they were in PDF format. Ms. Hale offered to resend all relevant documents as PDFs to ensure everyone can access them without Word. She noted that if the PDF format still creates problems, they will find another way to distribute the materials. Schedule of Future Board Meeting The board then discusses scheduling its next meeting. Because the holidays are approaching and bid responses for cemetery revitalization are expected sometime in January, members agree that a February meeting makes sense. They tentatively select Thursday, February 19, 2026, noting that meetings can be called earlier if bids arrive before then. Adjournment With no further business, Ms. Hale adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.