Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-26 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board of Trustees Minutes February 26, 2026 Present: Mayor Collins, Connie Patterson, John Seagle, Todd Bruce, Marcie Worrell Absent: Vera Carter Staff Present: Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician, and Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Meeting Called to Order Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and a quorum was determined with the present members. Approval of Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Seagle and seconded by Ms. Worrell to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. Financial Report Ms. Morris reviewed the checking account at National Bank. The beginning balance on November 1st was $12,658.21. Revenue of $1,501.63 from interest and cemetery-related transactions was received during the reporting period. With no expenditures, the ending balance on January 31st was $14,159.84. The first investment pool account started with $352,567.20 and earned $3,532.75 in interest, ending at $356,099.95 by January 31st. The second investment pool account began with a balance of $122,127.00 on November 1st. Interest earned over the same three-month period totaled $1,223.75, resulting in an ending balance of $123,350.75. After presenting these figures, Ms. Morris noted that the numbers largely spoke for themselves and concluded the financial report. Discussions Restoration of Cemeteries- Doug Phillippi, Engineering Technician The meeting then transitioned into a discussion about the restoration of gravestones in the cemeteries. Mr. Phillippi explained that they had been working to determine an appropriate rate structure that could be used to fairly procure restoration services through the required bidding process. However, he had concluded that establishing a rate structure without specific examples of work would be difficult. To address this, Mr. Phillippi proposed that board members meet at the cemetery to physically evaluate and select a group of monuments that would serve as the initial restoration project. For each cemetery, the board could identify a set number of monuments, possibly five or ten, that would be included in the first phase. The selected monuments would then be used by contractors to evaluate the work and provide pricing. It was suggested that priority be given to gravestones requiring the most urgent restoration or preventative maintenance. For example, stones that were severely leaning or at risk of toppling would likely take precedence over those that only needed cleaning. Mr. Phillippi emphasized that the specific selection criteria would ultimately be determined by the board. He recommended that the board meet in person at the cemetery to review the monuments together. Members could either walk the grounds or drive through while evaluating the stones. Being physically present, he believed, would be the most effective way to determine which monuments should be included in the first project. Alternatively, the board could select a group of monuments located in close proximity. The primary goal of this step would be to identify specific monuments so contractors would have concrete examples of the work required when submitting bids. Mayor Collins discussed alternative approaches for selecting monuments to use as examples for contractor pricing. He suggested that instead of gathering the entire board, staff could simply select a few representative monuments, such as one that is heavily soiled and covered in moss, another that is broken, and others needing repair, and ask contractors to provide prices for those specific types of work. Another idea was to evaluate restoration work by sections of the cemetery. Under this approach, contractors could provide pricing for work within a specific section, which might include several stones needing various types of maintenance. Mr. Phillippi explained that the procurement process required fairness and transparency, which meant they could not simply meet individually with each contractor to discuss pricing without clear specifications. Contractors would need detailed information to provide accurate bids, similar to how a mechanic would require more information before quoting a repair price. Mr. Seagle emphasized that the entrance areas of the cemetery should receive priority because they are the most visible to visitors. He suggested beginning restoration work near the front gate, where many older stones are located and where deterioration is particularly noticeable. Other members pointed out that monuments could have very different restoration needs, such as cleaning, stabilizing leaning stones, or repairing broken pieces. Because of this variability, they argued that contractors would need to evaluate specific stones rather than provide generalized estimates. Mr. Phillippi reiterated that the most practical approach would be for the board to meet at the cemeteries and identify the stones that would serve as examples for the project. Contractors would then be able to visit those locations themselves to evaluate the work required. It was confirmed that this process would apply to both cemeteries under the board’s responsibility. Staff also raised concerns about compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. If three or more board members met together outside of an officially announced meeting, it could constitute an illegal meeting. Therefore, any gathering of the board for evaluation purposes would need to be properly advertised at least three business days in advance. The group clarified that two board members could meet without triggering FOIA requirements, but once three members were present, public notice would be required. Mayor Collins proposed a clearer plan moving forward: they would identify ten stones in each cemetery that would serve as the basis for establishing a rate comparison among contractors. These twenty stones total would represent the sample project used for procurement. Some board members initially believed the board would select the stones themselves, but Mr. Phillippi suggested that two knowledgeable members, who were familiar with the cemetery layout, could assist in identifying appropriate examples. The group agreed that the sample should include different types of restoration needs, such as leaning stones, broken monuments, and those requiring cleaning. By having multiple contractors bid on the same specific monuments, the board would gain a clearer understanding of typical costs and establish a baseline for future work. Once a contractor was selected based on that process, the board could proceed with additional restoration projects using the pricing information obtained. Members discussed whether previously suggested annual budgets, such as allocating $5,000 or possibly $10,000 for restoration, would affect the project. Mr. Phillippi explained that telling contractors the total available budget would not be advisable, as it could influence pricing. Instead, it would be better to receive bids based on the selected monuments and then determine how much work could be completed within the available funds. In closing this portion of the discussion, Mr. Phillippi noted that attempting to restore entire sections of the cemetery at once could quickly become very expensive due to the number of stones involved. A more manageable approach would be to begin with specific monuments and expand gradually. Mr. Seagle reiterated that the entrance area of Oakwood Cemetery was currently in the worst condition and suggested that addressing that highly visible area first would make a noticeable improvement. Mr. Bruce added that from a business perspective, it is generally unwise to tell contractors how much money is available before receiving bids, reinforcing the earlier recommendation to let contractors propose pricing based on the selected work. The discussion continued with board members refining the plan for selecting gravestones that would be used for the restoration project bidding process. Mr. Bruce suggested that a small group should go to the cemetery, identify specific stones within a section that require repair, photograph them, and then distribute those photos to potential contractors as part of the bid request. This approach would allow contractors to better understand the scope of the work before submitting pricing. He noted that the total cost could end up being lower than expected, possibly around $6,000, depending on the work required. The conversation then shifted briefly to whether previously discussed restoration funding would apply to both cemeteries, Oakwood and Pinehurst, or whether separate funds would be allocated for each. It was clarified that the board had previously discussed funding but had not actually voted to establish a specific amount. Board members discussed whether an annual budget should be formally established before moving forward with the restoration work. Ms. Patterson asked whether someone accompanying the staff to the cemetery would be responsible for taking photographs of the selected stones. Mr. Phillippi confirmed that they would attend the site visit and handle the photographs themselves. The group also considered whether it would be more appropriate to determine a spending limit first before initiating the bidding process. Mr. Phillippi advised that selecting the stones and receiving bids first might be more effective because it would reveal the actual cost of the work. Once those prices were known, the board could decide whether they were comfortable with the amount or whether the scope should be reduced. For example, if bids came back around $4,000 for the initial group of stones, the board could easily proceed. However, if bids came back significantly higher, such as $15,000, the board could scale the project back to a more comfortable price point. He emphasized that the final spending decision ultimately rested with the board. As the discussion progressed, Ms. Patterson asked whether it was time to formally establish an annual funding amount for the restoration program since that step had not yet been taken. Mr. Bruce suggested a motion to set aside funding for the first year of the project. The motion proposed allocating $10,000 for restoration work at Oakwood Cemetery and another $10,000 for Pinehurst Cemetery. Mr. Bruce explained that this amount represented a maximum allocation and that the board might not spend the full amount during the year. However, setting the amount would establish a clear funding commitment on the record. It was also suggested that the board should review the funding level annually, since financial conditions might change over time. The group agreed that revisiting the amount each year would allow them to adjust the budget if necessary while continuing restoration efforts. Board members discussed how leftover funds should be handled if the full $10,000 allocation was not spent during the year. One suggestion was that unused funds should roll over to assist with the following year’s work. Ms. Worrell clarified that there could also be situations where the original restoration work was completed but funds still remained available within the same year. In that case, the board might want to continue restoring additional stones rather than waiting until the next fiscal year. Several members agreed that it would make sense to continue work if money remained available. Mr. Phillippi noted that the board would need to decide whether leftover funds should be saved or used to extend the restoration work further during the same year. Members generally indicated that continuing work as long as funds were available would be beneficial. The conversation then shifted to determining which account the restoration funding would come from. Ms. Morris pointed out that the checking account alone did not contain enough funds to cover the full $20,000 allocation. Mr. Seagle asked whether funds could be withdrawn from the larger investment accounts and transferred to the checking account to pay invoices. Ms. Morris explained that while funds could be taken from those accounts without penalty, checks could not be written directly from the investment pool account. Therefore, the money would need to be transferred into the checking account before payments could be made. The group agreed that withdrawing the funds from the larger cemetery certificate of deposit investment account would be the most practical option, especially since it contained the largest balance and was earning interest. Before proceeding to a vote, the board worked to clarify the exact wording of the motion so that it would be clear in the official record. The proposal was restated to allocate funds from the larger cemetery investment account and transfer them into the checking account for use over the next twelve months. There was also discussion about whether the money should be treated as one combined $20,000 pool or divided into separate allocations for each cemetery. Ultimately, members agreed that the motion should specify $10,000 for Oakwood Cemetery and $10,000 for Pinehurst Cemetery in order to maintain fairness between the two locations. The funds would be transferred from the largest CD account into the checking account and used as needed over the next year to support monument restoration in both cemeteries. The motion was made by Mr. Bruce and seconded by Mr. Seagle to allocate $10,000 per cemetery, for a total of $20,000, to be transferred from the largest cemetery CD account into the checking account for restoration work over the next twelve months. The motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, Mr. Seagle raised concerns about the appearance of several gravestones near the cemetery entrance. They noted that a number of stones were severely leaning and located along the property line near the entrance gate, creating an unattractive appearance. He suggested that when contractors repair and straighten those stones, they should also clean the stones at the same time. Other members agreed that cleaning would likely be included as part of the restoration work. Mr. Phillippi explained that contractors would typically complete all necessary work on a stone once they began restoration, rather than addressing only one issue. It was estimated that approximately 14 to 16 stones near the front entrance might require work, though the exact number had not yet been counted. The board then discussed scheduling a time for the site visit to select the sample stones. Mr. Seagle expressed concern that a contractor might perform inadequate restoration work, for example, simply pressure washing the stones with a hose rather than performing proper preservation techniques. Mr. Phillippi reassured the board that the bidding process would require contractors to present more than just a price. Contractors would also provide details about their methods, qualifications, and approach to restoration. Mr. Phillippi further explained that the board would ultimately evaluate the proposals and vote on the contractor they preferred. Each bidder would likely present their company’s qualifications, experience, and proposed work methods, similar to a previous presentation the board had already seen. To ensure fairness, the board would review proposals using established evaluation criteria such as the quality of work, previous project experience, company history, proximity to the locality, whether the company had worked with the town before, and the size and capacity of the company. Mayor Collins emphasized that the lowest price would not automatically determine the winning bidder, as multiple factors would be considered during evaluation. Mr. Phillippi also noted that it was possible that fewer than three companies might submit bids. In some cases, only one contractor might be interested. However, staff could still document attempts to contact other companies and obtain formal responses declining to bid, which would still satisfy procurement requirements. Finally, it was clarified that two different preservation companies would likely be submitting bids. One company represented by Mike, who had previously given a presentation to the board, would be submitting a proposal. Another company, Gray’s Preservation, was also expected to submit a bid, ensuring that at least two proposals would likely be considered for the restoration work. The discussion resumed with clarification about the bidding process for the cemetery restoration project. Mr. Phillippi noted that securing a third bidder would be ideal because it would give the board more options when evaluating proposals. However, it was emphasized that the board would ultimately decide which contractor to select, even if a lower-priced bid was submitted by a company whose quality or qualifications the board did not feel were adequate. In other words, price alone would not determine the winner; the board could prioritize experience and quality. After confirming that the board had finished discussing the restoration procurement process, Mr. Phillippi raised a final question related to the contractor who had previously presented to the board. The contractor had asked whether, if awarded the project, he would be allowed to place signage at the cemetery indicating that the restoration work had been completed by his company. Board members briefly discussed the request for signage recognizing the restoration company’s work. Several members indicated that they would support allowing a sign acknowledging the company responsible for the restoration. It was suggested that the wording could state something such as “Restored by” or “Preserved by” followed by the company’s name. Members also discussed placing the sign near the front gate to reduce the likelihood that it might be removed or vandalized. Another idea was to include a temporary notice during the project, such as “Restoration in progress, please excuse our mess.” The board generally appeared agreeable to the idea, though the exact location and wording could be determined later. The group agreed that they would coordinate directly to determine a convenient time to tour the cemeteries. Board Comments & Concerns Mr. Seagle reported that Preston had already completed restoration work on a very old family plot near the cemetery entrance that included an iron fence. The restoration work had been done on the left side of the front entrance. He also described additional maintenance work they planned to undertake personally. This included clearing walnut trees near the entrance area because the town could not remove trees located on private property. He also mentioned removing an old stump near the stone wall and a yucca plant, commonly known as “graveyard lilies,” that had grown in the area. Mr. Seagle further suggested that the iron gate at the cemetery entrance should be painted. They recommended using a gloss black finish and asked whether the town could supply the necessary paint. Ms. Hale recalled that painting the gate had been discussed previously, possibly around the same time that work on the stone wall had been completed. It appeared that although the topic had been discussed in the past, the painting had never actually been completed. Members agreed that the gate painting, along with signage improvements near the entrance, should be addressed as part of ongoing maintenance. One additional suggestion was made regarding reflective markers that had previously been attached to the gate to help drivers see it at night. Mr. Seagle also recommended avoiding adhesive reflectors in the future and instead using removable caution markers that could be hung rather than permanently attached. Mr. Bruce raised a long-standing concern about the improper dumping of excess dirt from burial excavations at Oakwood Cemetery. He explained that the board had previously discussed installing signage directing workers where to dump excavated soil. However, despite those discussions, contractors were reportedly leaving piles of dirt along the side of the road rather than placing them in the designated dumping area. He emphasized that a sign should clearly indicate where the dirt should be deposited and that workers should place the excess soil toward the back of the cemetery rather than near the roadway. Once signage was installed, they suggested that enforcement or disciplinary action could follow if the instructions were ignored. There was also some confusion about which town staff member was responsible for overseeing this issue. Ms. Worrell thought Nathan had previously been responsible, while Mr. Phillippi indicated that cemetery-related matters could generally be directed to him. Ms. Worrell reiterated her frustration, explaining that she frequently walked through the cemetery early in the morning and had to navigate mud and dirt piles left in the road, which they described as one of the worst conditions they had seen. Mr. Bruce then raised a serious safety concern regarding cemetery access during extremely muddy conditions or severe winter weather. Drawing on decades of experience visiting the cemetery, he recalled an incident in which a vault truck had tipped over due to muddy conditions, requiring a crane to come in and recover it. He noted that recent snow and ice conditions had created similar hazards and that funeral homes were facing complaints from families when burials had to be delayed due to unsafe conditions. Because of these situations, Mr. Bruce suggested that the town should adopt a formal policy regarding cemetery access during hazardous conditions. Specifically, he proposed that the town could close and lock the cemetery gates during periods when the ground was too muddy or icy for safe operation, reopening them only once conditions improved. Mr. Phillippi responded by explaining that while the concern was understandable, implementing such a policy could create liability issues for the town. If the town formally declared that the cemetery was safe whenever the gates were open, it could expose the town to legal responsibility if an accident occurred. He explained that responsibility for operating heavy equipment safely ultimately lies with the company or individual operating the equipment. For example, if a grave-digging company brings machinery onto the site, it is the operator’s responsibility to evaluate ground conditions and determine whether it is safe to proceed. If they choose to operate equipment and damage occurs, such as tipping a vehicle or damaging tombstones, the liability rests with the operator. Ms. Hale questioned whether that meant the town should simply allow operators to make their own decisions about safety. Mr. Bruce reiterated that heavy equipment operators are legally responsible for evaluating ground stability and safety before operating their machinery. The conversation continued with questions about how graves are located during severe winter weather. Mr. Phillippi explained that they rely on known marker locations and can manually locate burial plots using shovels if necessary. There was also a discussion about snow removal in the cemetery. While snowplows may clear some roadways, conditions during the most recent winter had been particularly severe due to thick ice covering the snow. Once the ice eventually melted, the roads were cleared and became accessible again. However, Mr. Bruce confirmed that they had been forced to decline at least two burial services due to unsafe conditions during the winter, highlighting the seriousness of the problem. As the discussion concluded, Mr. Bruce suggested that the town should at least notify funeral homes and grave-digging contractors that responsibility for assessing safety conditions lies with them. By clearly communicating this policy, he believed the responsibility would shift away from town officials and onto the operators who are conducting the work. Mr. Bruce noted that several funeral homes operate in the area, each potentially using different grave-digging services, reinforcing the need for clear communication about responsibility and safety expectations. The discussion continued with concerns about multiple grave diggers working in the cemetery and the lack of clarity about who some of them were. Mr. Bruce noted that several individuals had performed digging work in the cemetery and dumped soil in incorrect locations, and in some cases, the board did not even know who those individuals were. This raised concerns about oversight and accountability. It was suggested that the matter might need to be reviewed by the town’s attorney, particularly regarding legal liability and responsibility for safety conditions in the cemetery. Mr. Bruce emphasized that this issue also affects local citizens, especially when families are told that burials must be delayed due to unsafe conditions such as mud, snow, or ice. The board asked where the discussion stood and whether the issue would be taken to the attorney for guidance. Mr. Phillippi confirmed that he would consult with the attorney and report back to the board. Mr. Seagle stated that while common sense should prevent grave diggers from working during extremely hazardous conditions, such as during severe ice storms, it would still be helpful to formally communicate expectations. Mayor Collins suggested that the town could send a written notice outlining its position and expectations regarding safety conditions and burial operations. The idea was that the town could provide this notice to local funeral homes, which would then pass the information along to the grave diggers or contractors they use. Funeral homes typically coordinate burial arrangements and permits, so they would know who was performing the digging work. The board agreed that this approach could help ensure that the message reaches all relevant contractors. There was also discussion about how burial permits work when someone dies outside the area but wishes to be buried locally. In those cases, a permit must still be obtained locally, meaning the town could likely identify the responsible funeral homes and communicate with them directly. Mr. Bruce suggested that grave-digging contractors operating in the cemetery should ideally be bonded and insured, especially since they are operating heavy equipment. While it was assumed that most contractors already carry insurance due to the nature of their work, members agreed that verifying this requirement might be worthwhile. Ms. Hale noted that these considerations, such as bonding and insurance, would likely fall under the responsibilities of the contractors themselves and the companies that employ them. However, the board acknowledged that ensuring proper coverage could help reduce risks to the town. Another concern raised by Mr. Bruce involved the way contractors transport equipment into the cemetery. Ms. Worrell observed that grave diggers often bring large trailers carrying tractors or excavation equipment directly through the cemetery grounds. These trailers can be wider than the cemetery roads and may leave deep ruts or cause damage as they pass through the grounds. The suggestion was made that contractors should instead park their trailers near the maintenance shed or another designated location and then drive the smaller equipment into the cemetery to perform the work. This would reduce damage to the grass and roadways. Mr. Worrell agreed that the large trailers frequently leave ruts when they move off the pavement and onto softer ground. Ms. Worrell then raised a smaller but persistent concern regarding routine upkeep in the cemeteries during the off-season. While mowing crews maintain the grounds during the growing season, once mowing stops in the fall there appears to be little regular maintenance. She described how debris accumulates during this period, including blown flowers, plastic bags caught in trees or bushes, fallen branches, and other litter. She suggested that someone should drive through the cemetery periodically, perhaps weekly, to pick up debris and maintain the grounds. Even simple tasks such as collecting fallen limbs and placing them in a designated pile could help keep the cemetery looking orderly. Mr. Bruce also discussed how funeral homes once removed dead flowers from graves and placed them along the roadside for town crews to collect, but it appeared that this practice was no longer occurring. Ms. Worrell noted that they occasionally pick up debris themselves while walking through the cemetery but felt that a regular maintenance schedule would be more effective. Members agreed that regular cleanup would help maintain the cemetery’s appearance, especially in Oakwood Cemetery, where debris had become noticeable. While some believed that weekly cleanup might be ideal, others suggested that even monthly maintenance could significantly improve conditions. Ms. Hale indicated that staff could email the appropriate town personnel to relay the board’s request for periodic cleanup. The idea would be to have someone drive through the cemetery with a pickup truck, collecting limbs and other debris as needed. Mr. Seagle noted that simply maintaining the grounds periodically would prevent debris from accumulating over several months. Schedule of Future Board Meeting The board then discussed scheduling future meetings. Normally, the board meets quarterly, which would place the next regular meeting approximately three months away. However, since the cemetery restoration project was beginning and bids would need to be reviewed sooner, members agreed that a special-called meeting might be necessary before the next regular meeting. The board decided to keep the normal quarterly meeting schedule while also allowing for a special meeting once bids for the restoration work were received. This would enable the board to review contractor proposals and move forward with the project without waiting several months. Members agreed to schedule the next regular meeting for June 18th. Adjournment After confirming the meeting schedule and noting that the restoration project might require a special called meeting before the next quarterly session, the board concluded that there were no further items to discuss. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.