Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cemeteries topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council renews Union Cemetery interment contract; staff to review vendor records on data coverage

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved the renewal of the Union Cemetery interment contract; staff said the city has not taken the service out for bid in more than five years and will meet with the contractor to reconcile cemetery records.

The Inver Grove Heights City Council approved renewal of the city’s interment contract for Union Cemetery and directed staff to follow up on record-keeping questions raised during the consent-item discussion.

A council member asked when the interment contract was last bid. A staff member responding on the record said, “I have not seen it go out for bid since I’ve been here. So it’s been more than five years. I think the last contract was done in 2021,” and noted that the contractor appears to hold the most-complete historical records for the cemetery.

Council members pressed whether the vendor’s records are proprietary and whether the city should ensure it has a separate, city-maintained dataset. A staff member said they would set up a meeting with the contractor to compare files and make sure the city’s records match what the contractor maintains.

The council asked for clarification about payment flows; staff explained there is no passthrough to the city and that funeral/interment fees are paid directly to the contractor under the current contract. The motion to renew the interment contract was made and seconded; a roll call recorded unanimous ayes among members present and the renewal was approved.

Council members expressed willingness to continue with the incumbent contractor but asked staff to be mindful of competitiveness and the city’s need to maintain its own records. The council did not direct staff to put the contract out to bid immediately but did request a follow-up meeting with the contractor to review record holdings and to report back if gaps are found.

The contract renewal was handled on the consent agenda; separate public testimony about a different agenda item was deferred until that item was discussed.