Copperton council, cemetery board debate term limits, fees and equipment as volunteers flag rising costs

The Copperton Town Council and members of the town’s cemetery board discussed governance, fees and equipment policy at length on July 16, with volunteers and legal staff asking the council to clarify term limits and meeting rules while they evaluate higher interment fees and options for equipment or contracted services.

Council member Tessa (speaking as liaison to the cemetery board) told the council the existing cemetery ordinance (adopted in 2019) established staggered terms and required a council member liaison, but volunteers who staff interments have asked the council to consider removing term limits or changing the council’s participation so experienced volunteers are not forced off a board that requires significant operational knowledge. “It’s a little bit more invasive than that,” Tessa said, describing the equipment, client communications and technical skills required to perform interments.

Legal counsel Nathan responded that the Open Public Meetings Act applies to advisory and administrative bodies created by a governing body, and recommended keeping term lengths in the ordinance while removing limits on the number of consecutive terms people may serve. He also recommended adopting rules of procedure similar to the planning commission’s and publicly noticing cemetery-board meetings. Nathan noted that some interment-related conversations include sensitive personal information and that the council could use closed sessions where allowed to protect privacy.

Cemetery volunteers described practical constraints on current operations. Volunteers said equipment rentals for interments have risen substantially and that rental availability is limited; recent mini-excavator and backhoe rentals were cited at roughly $1,000 or more per use, which often negates the modest interment fees the cemetery charges. Volunteers said Copperton currently charges $500 for a plot; the board presented sample fee-adjustment scenarios (15%, 20%, 25%). Tessa said a 25% increase (to about $625 per plot) would raise revenue but that the board remains cautious about setting fees too high relative to other area cemeteries.

Volunteers and some council members discussed alternatives: (1) contracting with an independent sexton/operator (an independent contractor who owns and operates equipment and charges a flat fee for openings and closings); (2) pooling funds through a capital or endowment strategy to buy and house equipment long-term; and (3) pursuing grants for equipment or historic-preservation work. Volunteers said the cemetery’s endowment is small and that routine rentals for cleanup and interments are consuming funds. They also noted logistical problems collecting payments: volunteers currently accept checks and then rely on the MSD’s accounting cycles to deposit funds, which creates operational delays. Tessa said she would pursue a mechanism for the municipal services district (MSD) to accept credit-card payments and deposit fees directly to the cemetery account.

Council and volunteers also discussed the consequences of reclassifying the body that runs interments. Several council members asked whether removing the advisory-body designation would change public-notice obligations; Nathan summarized that advisory/administrative bodies are generally subject to the Open Public Meetings Act and that certain personnel- or privacy-sensitive discussions can occur in closed session under the Act when properly noticed.

Ending

The council asked staff and the cemetery board to produce a proposed ordinance amendment and a fee schedule for the August packet (including clearer payment routing via MSD and options to pursue grants or a contracted sexton). Legal counsel recommended retaining terms as a recurring check-in but removing a limit on consecutive terms so experienced volunteers may continue service. The council indicated it will place proposed ordinance language and a fee proposal on the August agenda for action.