Coppell council debates whether Rolling Oaks cemetery should remain community-focused or stay regional
Loading...
Summary
Council reviewed cemetery inventory and options for prioritizing Coppell residents, possible small expansion, pricing, and the option to privatize operations; staff will return with pricing and privatization/expansion analyses.
City staff and council members spent the Jan. 14 work session discussing the future operational philosophy for Rolling Oaks Memorial Center, weighing whether the cemetery should be run primarily as a Coppell community cemetery or remain a regional facility.
City staff presented inventory and ownership figures and requested council guidance so staff can draft a policy. “Rolling Oaks has an estimated 960 burial options remaining, which include in-ground plots, mausoleums, and niches,” staff said; of those, about 200 are in-ground spaces. Staff also reported that roughly 26% of burial rights are owned by Coppell residents and 74% by nonresidents. The city''s consultant, Johnson Consulting Group, provided a working report previously distributed to council.
Council members prioritized several objectives in discussion: giving Coppell residents priority access; protecting affordability; preventing private entities from buying large blocks of plots for resale; and considering former residents or people who worship in Coppell as possible priority groups. Council Member Kevin said he "would not want to see a citizen that wants to be buried there not have the ability to be buried there. That is a and I feel very strongly about that." Several council members raised concern that the market price for burial rights in the region had undercut earlier pricing strategies intended to discourage nonresident sales.
Staff said a near-term "phase" of expansion could add about 900 in-ground spaces using infrastructure already in place; a larger master plan from 2018 showed potential for many more spaces farther into undeveloped acreage. Staff and council discussed whether structural policy changes and pricing could shift the residency ratio over time. Staff also reported an operating budget figure for cemetery operations (stated at the meeting as about $1,400,000 in current operations) and said they would provide detailed historic maintenance costs and revenue figures.
Council requested two parallel analyses for return to a future meeting: a) a policy and pricing package that would prioritize Coppell residents (including recommended limits on plots per purchaser and residency verification) and show projected revenue, and b) an option analysis on privatizing cemetery operations (including financial implications and any costs or contract terms the city would face). Staff said consultant input could be used for acquisition or privatization modeling.
Ending: Staff will prepare a follow-up report with specific policy language, pricing scenarios, maintenance-cost history, and a privatization option analysis for council consideration at a future meeting.
