Bluff holds public hearing on possible transfer of Bluff Cemetery operations from San Juan County special service district

Bluff held a public hearing on May 12 to gather public comment about transferring control of the portion of Bluff Cemetery currently held by the San Juan County Special Service District to the Town of Bluff. Meeting hosts said the hearing focused on the one rectangular parcel where recent burials have taken place and not on the nearby Hole in the Rock Foundation historic parcel.

The hearing’s purpose, the meeting facilitator said, “is to hear public comment on the current status of the portion of the cemetery referred to as the ‘Bluff Cemetery’ and to hear public comment on the potential transfer of that section for the control and operations from San Juan County Bluff Special Service District to the Town of Bluff.” The facilitator and Mac McDonald, San Juan County administrator, described the session as a fact-finding step and said no formal decision would be made that night.

Why it matters: county staff and Bluff officials said the special service district that was set up decades ago to manage the cemetery has not operated as intended. The facilitators said the district’s three appointed board members’ terms expired and were not renewed; two residents have been performing many of the operational duties informally. County staff told the hearing that because the district lacks an active board, required state reporting has not been completed even though records and bank accounts appear to match.

At the hearing, Mac McDonald described how the San Juan County practice has generally been to create special service districts to manage county cemeteries and said the Bluff cemetery district was established by petition and later went to a local citizen vote. “When you look at Utah code, cemeteries in the county are typically run by a special service district,” McDonald said. He and Bluff officials said the transfer, if pursued, would require legal steps (including certificate steps involving the lieutenant governor’s office) and probable formation of an appropriate entity or governance structure for any transfer.

Public commenters represented a range of views. Vince DeGraff, who said he has ancestors in the cemetery, urged careful research before any changes: “There are existing legitimate claims for burial in the current historical sections of the cemetery,” he said, and recommended mapping and documentation of ownership and paid plots so descendants’ rights are preserved. Cheryl Bowers and other residents described a long-running community effort to maintain graves and raised concerns about unclear ownership of adjacent parcels held by the Southwest Heritage Foundation.

Several commenters urged local management. Marcia Haddenfeld said she and other long-term residents value the cemetery’s historic aspects but wanted a place for current and future residents: “I would like to see the town in charge,” she said, while also acknowledging a need to protect the historic portion. Other speakers suggested a hybrid approach in which the town manages newer burials while a historical or foundation group retains stewardship of pioneer graves.

Officials and residents noted technical details from a county survey: two Hole in the Rock Foundation parcels were identified at about 0.92 acres each, and the Grove Cemetery district parcel under discussion was shown as roughly 1.01 acres. County staff said the special service district never enacted a tax and that some statutory steps (including registration with the state and a certificate from the lieutenant governor’s office after a transfer vote) were incomplete or missing.

No formal action was taken. The meeting facilitator and county administrator said the hearing’s input will inform next steps; the facilitator said the town and county planned follow-up discussions among the entities involved and that “nothing’s decided tonight.” Officials also said grant funding for surveying and digital mapping could be pursued to document burials and markers.

The hearing included about a dozen public speakers and roughly an hour of discussion. County staff recommended that any next step include clearer governance (a functioning board or other named sexton), completed state reporting, and a legally documented map of grave ownership and sold plots. Bluff and county officials said they will consider the public comments and explore options — including the town taking operational responsibility for the newer burials parcel while historical stewards retain their sections — before presenting formal proposals or legal steps.

Ending: The public hearing closed with no transfer or final vote. Officials said further coordination between San Juan County, the Town of Bluff and local historical stakeholders is planned so that governance, recordkeeping and maintenance of the cemetery can be resolved with community input.