Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-26 Cemetery Board MinutesCemetery Board of Trustees Minutes June 18, 2026 Present: Vera Carter, Connie Patterson, John Seagle, Todd Bruce, Marcie Worrell, Mayor Collins Staff Present: Jackie Morris, Finance Director, Austin Painter, Project Manager, and Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Meeting Called to Order Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and a quorum was determined with the members present. Approval of Minutes The motion was made by Ms. Carter and seconded by Mr. Seagle approve the May 21, 2026 minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. Financial Review Jackie Morris, Finance Director, presented the cemetery financial reports covering the period from February 1 through May 31. For the cemetery checking account, the beginning balance was $14,159.84. Interest earned during the reporting period totaled $7.72. Revenue included the sale of six cemetery plots totaling $2,400, one cremation fee of $100, one casket burial fee of $250, and one monument permit fee of $25, resulting in total revenue of $2,782.72. The only expenditure during the period was $1,200 for the repurchase of a cemetery lot, leaving an ending checking account balance of $15,742.56 as of May 31. She also reviewed the two investment accounts. The certificate of deposit (CD) account earned $4,458.74 in interest during the reporting period, resulting in a balance of $360,558.69. The second investment account, which had previously received transferred checking account funds, began with a balance of $123,350.75, earned $1,544.51 in interest, and ended the period with $124,895.26. RFP Bid Results and Contract Review Austin Painter, Project Engineer, presented the results of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for monument restoration services. He explained that Newbern Monuments and Restoration received the highest evaluation score by a significant margin and had been selected for contract negotiations. Mr. Painter informed the board that the Town Attorney had reviewed the proposal and the Town’s cemetery ordinances. The attorney advised that the ordinance authorizes the Town to maintain the cemeteries, but does not explicitly address monument restoration. While the attorney believed maintenance could reasonably be interpreted to include headstone restoration, he cautioned that the ordinance is not definitive and could potentially be challenged. He also emphasized that the Town should be aware of both legal and public-relations liability, noting that while many families would appreciate cleaned and repaired monuments, others could object to alterations, even something as simple as removing moss from a historic headstone. Mr. Painter clarified that the action requested from the board was not a financial commitment. Instead, approval would authorize Town staff to execute a term contract with Newbern Monuments and Restoration. Individual restoration projects would later be brought back to the board as separate task orders, each identifying specific monuments or other cemetery improvements, along with associated costs, for board approval. During discussion, Mr. Seagle suggested that the Town provide public notice before any restoration work begins. He recommended publishing notices in the local newspaper and on the Town website identifying the sections of the cemetery and specific monuments proposed for restoration, while also inviting descendants or interested family members to voice their opinions before the Cemetery Board, if they opposed the work. Mr. Painter agreed, explaining that although the Town believes it has authority to perform maintenance, extensive public notification would improve transparency and reduce potential conflict. Mr. Seagle also noted that restoring unstable monuments would improve safety for mowing crews while enhancing the appearance of the cemeteries. The board discussed how future restoration priorities should be determined. Mr. Painter suggested that board-appointed representatives inspect the cemeteries and recommend monuments based on factors such as safety and condition. He also proposed allowing lot owners to petition for restoration of their family monuments, with those requests being considered during future board meetings before restoration priorities are established. Ms. Worrell stated she anticipated that this process would naturally create a waiting list of future restoration projects extending over several years. The motion was made by Ms. Carter and seconded by Ms. Worrell to give the town staff authority to sign the agreement with Newbern Monuments and Restoration and to enter into a term contract. The motion passed unanimously. Staff Comments Mr. Painter introduced an additional agenda item regarding revisions to the cemetery regulations. He explained that, following previous board discussions about improving cemetery maintenance, staff had worked with the Town Attorney to update the regulations. The proposed revisions, shown in red on the distributed draft, were intended to give the Town clear authority to conduct routine cleanups while preserving flower vases and their contents. The first revision combined the previously separate, but identical, regulations for Oakwood Cemetery and Pinehurst Cemetery into a single unified document applicable to both cemeteries. The second major revision established scheduled cleanup periods in March and October, based on recommendations from the Public Works Department. Mr. Painter noted that the board had previously expressed concern about ensuring cemeteries were cleaned before Memorial Day, and the March cleanup schedule would satisfy that objective. He explained that these regulations would be distributed to every purchaser of a cemetery lot, as well as anyone applying for an interment permit or monument permit. Mr. Bruce sought clarification regarding how unauthorized decorations removed during cleanup would be handled. Mr. Painter stated that, under the current proposal, removed items would be discarded rather than stored for retrieval. Ms. Worrell emphasized that purchasers should receive a clear explanation of the regulations instead of simply being handed the document, noting that many individuals likely do not read the rules and therefore continue placing prohibited items such as fences, rocks, glass objects, and other decorations on graves. Ms. Patterson suggested emphasizing that families should carefully review the regulations because non-compliant items could be removed and discarded during scheduled cleanups. Mr. Painter added that one reason for updating the regulations was that, although cleanup notices had previously been posted in the cemeteries, the Town's written regulations had never formally authorized those cleanups. The revised regulations would provide the necessary legal authority and ensure lot purchasers are informed of the Town's maintenance practices. He also noted that purchasers are already required to sign documentation acknowledging receipt of the cemetery regulations when purchasing a lot. Mr. Painter agreed that communication would be critical and cautioned the board that the proposed cleanup policy would likely generate significant public opposition. He noted that previous cleanup efforts had resulted in numerous complaints to the Town Council and staff and wanted board members to understand that approving the regulations could result in considerable public criticism. The board acknowledged this possibility but agreed that proactive communication through newspaper notices, the Town website, Facebook, and other public announcements would help prepare the community for the changes. Board members discussed how other cemeteries in the region successfully conduct scheduled cleanups by giving advance notice and allowing families to temporarily remove decorations before cleanup dates. They suggested a similar approach for Oakwood and Pinehurst Cemeteries, including posting notices several weeks in advance and, where practical, setting removed items aside near cemetery entrances for a short period before disposal. Members recognized that some backlash would still occur but believed the public would eventually become accustomed to the routine if cleanup schedules were consistently followed. Mr. Painter clarified that the regulations do not prohibit families from placing seasonal decorations or other permitted items on graves. Instead, the regulations establish designated cleanup dates in March and October, when decorations and debris that interfere with maintenance will be removed so Public Works staff can safely mow and maintain the cemeteries. Ms. Worrell noted that overgrown grass around decorations creates maintenance problems because mowing crews cannot reasonably be expected to move decorations by hand before cutting the grass. The Board also discussed how members of the public should be directed if they have concerns. Mr. Painter advised that individuals seeking changes to the regulations should be encouraged to attend Cemetery Board meetings, while routine questions could be directed to the Engineering Department for assistance. The motion was made by Ms. Patterson and seconded by Ms. Carter to change the wording in the regulations. The motion passed unanimously. Board Comments and Concerns During the comments and concerns portion of the meeting, Ms. Carter proposed a formal board directive addressing mowing schedules before holidays. She expressed concern that Oakwood Cemetery had been mowed before Memorial Day while Pinehurst had not, creating unequal treatment and prompting complaints from the public. The motion was made by Ms. Carter and seconded by Mr. Bruce that if Public Works determines they cannot mow both cemeteries before a major holiday, then neither cemetery should be mowed, ensuring both facilities are treated equally. She explained that this issue had occurred repeatedly over the years and referenced Memorial Day, when Pinehurst Cemetery remained un-mowed despite Oakwood Cemetery being maintained. Although members acknowledged that heavy rainfall had contributed to the delay, they agreed that consistent treatment between the two cemeteries was important. The motion passed unanimously. Board Members also discussed the possibility of contracting with a private lawn service if Public Works is unable to complete mowing before holidays, though members felt the proposed directive would likely resolve the concern. Mr. Seagle expanded the discussion to include other holidays such as Easter and Independence Day, emphasizing that both cemeteries should always receive equal maintenance before major occasions when many families visit gravesites. Mr. Painter agreed to communicate the directive to the Public Works Department and encouraged board members to notify Engineering immediately if similar issues arise in the future. During additional Board comments, Mr. Seagle asked about the next steps for the monument restoration project following approval of the term contract with Newbern Monuments and Restoration. Mr. Painter explained that by the next board meeting the term contract should be fully executed, allowing staff to begin preparing the first task order. He anticipated requesting the appointment of two board representatives for each cemetery to inspect monuments and recommend restoration priorities, noting that limiting the inspection teams to two members would avoid creating an official meeting under public meeting requirements. Public notices would also be published encouraging citizens and lot owners to attend the next meeting and provide input on which monuments should be prioritized. Mr. Painter stated that the board had previously indicated its desire to spend approximately $10,000 annually per cemetery on restoration work. Now that a contractor had been selected, staff would work with Newbern Monuments and Restoration to determine exactly how many monuments could be restored within that budget. He clarified that the monuments used during the bid evaluation were selected only for cost comparison purposes and would not necessarily be the monuments ultimately chosen for restoration. The discussion then shifted to the long-term maintenance of the paved cemetery roads. Mr. Bruce questioned who is responsible for maintaining the roads and whether those expenses would come from Cemetery Board funds. Mr. Painter responded that the roads are not part of the Town's regular street maintenance program and, based on his understanding, future repairs would likely have to be funded through the Cemetery Board's maintenance account. Mr. Bruce expressed concern that major road repairs could quickly exhaust available cemetery funds, recognizing that although the roads are currently in good condition, significant maintenance will eventually be necessary. The Board continued discussing the public notice process for the monument restoration program, specifically the cost of publishing legal advertisements in the local newspaper. Staff confirmed that the expense of these advertisements would come from Cemetery Board funds and advised members to be mindful of the number, size, and frequency of advertisements. Depending on the size of the notice, advertisements could range from approximately $30 to $70, while larger notices could cost around $100. Staff estimated that, under the proposed restoration process, the board would likely need to publish notices approximately four times per year. Board members then returned to discussing which monuments should be selected for the initial restoration work. Mr. Painter explained that although the monuments included in the original Request for Proposals served as pricing examples, the board was not obligated to restore those specific monuments. The board would ultimately decide which monuments would be included in the first task order, though many of the monuments used in the bid process would likely remain strong candidates because of their condition. Members asked whether they should inspect and identify monuments before the next meeting. Mr. Painter explained that the process could not move forward that quickly because the board first needed to appoint representatives to inspect the cemeteries and allow sufficient time for public input. He recommended that public comments be received before representatives conducted site inspections so that any monuments requested by families could also be evaluated during the selection process. Schedule Next Board Meeting Recognizing the desire to begin restoration work during the current construction season, the board discussed holding additional meetings rather than waiting until the regularly scheduled September meeting. Mr. Painter explained that the project would require two separate meetings: one to receive public comments and appoint board representatives to inspect and prioritize monuments, and a second meeting to approve the first restoration task order after recommendations had been completed. Board members agreed that monthly meetings would allow the project to move forward without unnecessary delay. A special meeting was proposed for July, followed by another meeting in August, allowing the contractor sufficient time to begin restoration work during the summer and fall. To support the public participation process, Mr. Painter proposed publishing newspaper notices for two consecutive weeks inviting cemetery lot owners and family members to attend the July meeting and recommend monuments for restoration. Members suggested that citizens bring photographs or sufficient location information to help identify the monuments they wished to nominate. After reviewing advertising deadlines, public notice requirements, and individual scheduling conflicts, the board agreed to hold the next Cemetery Board meeting on Thursday, July 23 at 6:00 p.m. Staff explained that the additional time was necessary to satisfy public notice requirements and ensure families had an adequate opportunity to participate. Mr. Seagle expressed a desire to begin restoring a few monuments immediately, particularly those that were unstable or in danger of falling over. Mr. Painter responded that, although he understood the urgency, contract negotiations still needed to be completed and the board was required to approve the task orders through the established public process. He reiterated that waiting one additional month would provide an opportunity for public input while still allowing restoration work to begin on schedule. Adjournment With no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m.