Council reviews amendment to cemetery rules for ancestral plots

A city staff member identified as Val presented a proposed amendment to Chapter 22 of the City Code governing cemeteries to clarify procedures for families who wish to use ancestral plots still recorded in the name of a deceased ancestor.

Val told council she removed the phrase “fee simple title” from the ordinance’s first paragraph because cemeteries are not conveyed in fee simple and the wording could create confusion. She said staff circulated the proposed ordinance and a required affidavit to several local funeral directors and received no feedback from them; the only substantive comment staff reported receiving was from a Mr. Scarborough.

Val summarized Mr. Scarborough’s suggestions and why staff did not adopt them. In particular, Mr. Scarborough proposed a rule to prohibit transfers that would create joint ownership by more than one person other than a husband and wife and a requirement that heirs use a majority-vote process for decisions. Val said she disagreed with both proposals: she said limiting transfers would be “the city telling people who they can and cannot transfer their property to,” and that requiring staff to verify genealogies or administer a one-person, one-vote process would return staff to a time-consuming genealogy review that the ordinance seeks to avoid.

Val also explained that the statute requires rules to be adopted by ordinance and that it was unnecessary to include a separate clause allowing the cemetery to adopt interpretations and applications — staff said they already follow that practice.

Val told council this cemetery matter arises regularly, roughly “not less than once a quarter,” and that the proposed affidavit and procedure are intended to simplify staff work and help families with ancestral plots. The draft ordinance and affidavit were presented for council consideration; no final council vote was recorded at the work session.