Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wallsburg council debates cemetery reversion, records and a fair-process policy for old plots
Summary
Council members reviewed a cemetery ordinance that refers to Utah code allowing plots unused for 60 years to revert to the town, and asked staff to draft a transparent policy for ownership proof, pricing and reassigning reverted plots.
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wallsburg council members spent a substantial portion of their Oct. 24 work meeting reviewing the town’s cemetery ordinance, raising questions about ownership records and how unused burial plots should be handled.
Council members noted the town ordinance refers to Utah code procedures allowing burial plots unused for long periods to revert to municipal control. Staff told the council that many old records are incomplete — some receipts and plot purchases date back to the 1940s — and that the town needs a clear procedure for verifying claimants’ proofs of ownership or lineage.
Discussion centered on fairness and transparency: several council members said they do not want officials to make ad hoc exceptions and instead prefer a written policy that treats all inquiries consistently. Options the council discussed included offering a discounted price to descendants who can document lineage, selling reverted plots at a town rate rather than market rate, or retaining plots for town use if no legitimate claimants appear.
Town staff said the practical next steps are to research the relevant Utah code sections, inventory existing records, and draft ordinance language and a process checklist for the council to review. The council asked staff to bring a draft policy and recommended pricing tiers to the November work meeting so members can consider legal review and community notification prior to any reassignments.
The council emphasized that any change should apply uniformly: “whatever we do for one, we do for all,” a member said, underscoring the motivation for a written, repeatable process rather than case‑by‑case decisions.
