Coppell council directs staff to prioritize residents, price changes and small expansion at Rolling Oaks Memorial Center

City staff told the Coppell City Council on April 8 that Rolling Oaks Memorial Center should be run with a “community‑focused” philosophy, with new pricing, a limit on plots sold per household and a small in‑ground expansion to sustain operations.

The presentation by city staff said Rolling Oaks operates on a special revenue fund — not property tax revenue — and that operations are funded by sales and service income at the cemetery. Staff proposed a shift from the cemetery’s more regional orientation back to a community focus, including a formal residency‑verification process and two price tiers: a resident rate and a standard (nonresident) rate. “We would require specific documentation to receive the resident pricing,” the presenter said.

Why it matters: Staff and a consultant told council the cemetery is below market on prices, has limited in‑ground inventory and has in recent years drawn purchasers from across the metro area. The recommended changes are intended to preserve capacity for Coppell residents and to create a sustainable revenue stream going forward.

Staff outlined four linked recommendations: (1) adopt a community‑focused operational philosophy, (2) raise rates and eliminate ad hoc discounts, (3) change the sale limit from the current 15 spaces per contract to a limit of six spaces per single person or household, and (4) develop a small land expansion adjacent to existing gardens to add in the order of 1,900 new single‑depth spaces (with some double‑depth options). The presenter said initial price increases could begin June 1, with operational policy changes and opening of new spaces targeted for October 1.

On privatization, staff summarized a management‑agreement option under which a private firm would operate the cemetery while the city retained ownership of the land. That option would transfer day‑to‑day operations to a contractor and allow market pricing. The presenter noted the city’s existing contract with a funeral home is a standard annual rental plus 6% of adjusted gross revenues, and that the city has limited rights over how that business operates unless written into the contract.

Council reaction was cautious but generally supportive of keeping municipal control. Several councilmembers said they had received many constituent calls and were concerned about the cemetery’s mission as a community amenity. “I would not favor privatization under any circumstances at this point,” one councilmember said. Council discussion urged higher nonresident pricing than staff’s initial proposal, and called for tools to limit speculative or bulk purchases (including a suggested right‑of‑first‑refusal on resales). Staff said the current proposed resident/nonresident price differential under consideration was roughly 25% but acknowledged council may choose a larger gap to preserve resident access.

Staff also described operational details and constraints: a typical construction lifespan of cemetery improvements is between 20 and 50 years, and the city currently requires a two‑year maintenance/warranty bond for workmanship and materials. The presenter said some buried areas may not qualify for double‑depth interment because of subsurface conditions; irrigation and lot‑pin installation associated with the expansion will allow staff to identify which new spaces can support double‑depth rights.

Next steps and direction: Council did not take a formal ordinance vote. Council direction captured by staff and reported at the meeting included: prepare resident verification procedures; implement a new pricing structure (target launch June 1); adopt a six‑spaces‑per‑person/household sales limit; develop an implementation plan for operational policies and standard operating procedures; and proceed with planning for a small expansion to add roughly 1,900 in‑ground spaces. Staff said they would also review the long‑term contract with the existing funeral home and discuss contract review and performance provisions with the city attorney.

What remains unsettled: Councilmembers asked staff to return with specific pricing proposals, an annual review process for the resident/nonresident mix, implementation details for verification and resale restrictions, and language for contracts that would allow the city greater oversight of third‑party operators. Several councilmembers urged staff to consider a temporary abeyance on nonresident sales until new rules are in place; staff warned that limiting nonresident sales could affect fund sustainability and recommended analyzing the resident/nonresident mix annually.

Staff closed the discussion saying they had sufficient guidance to move forward with drafting procedures and a pricing schedule for council review. The cemetery manager and staff will report back with timelines, definitive price levels and draft contract language for any future management or vendor agreements.

Ending: Staff asked for council guidance rather than an immediate vote and said they would return with final policy language and budgetary effects. The city manager later reported to the council that staff would proceed with the community‑focused direction, begin implementation work and seek the council’s formal approval of specific pricing and policy language in follow‑up meetings.