Bluff weighs taking over management of Bluff Cemetery district

On Monday, May 12, 2025, Bluff held a public hearing to gather community comment on whether the Town of Bluff should assume operational and fiscal responsibility for the portion of the San Juan County Special Service District known as Bluff Cemetery. The hearing focused on a roughly 1.01‑acre section where recent burials have taken place and not on adjacent Hole In The Rock Foundation parcels, officials emphasized.

The hearing matters because the cemetery district’s appointed board has effectively been defunct for years, county staff said, leaving reporting to the state undone and everyday operational duties — including oversight by a named sexton — unclear. "This is a clean up of a huge mess," one hearing official said, describing mismatched operational practice and recordkeeping that have allowed at least one burial to be placed in the wrong location.

County administrator Mac McDonald gave historical context, saying the special service district was created after a local petition and small citizen vote around 2000 and that Utah law often leaves counties responsible for cemetery special service districts. McDonald said the county and town have been working for years to sort ownership and governance, and that if the district lacks enough board members the county commissioners serve as the district board by proxy. He told residents the county had surveyed parcels and that maps were available at the meeting so people could see where cemetery boundaries, owned parcels and historical sections lie.

Residents who spoke at the hearing described family burials in the historic sections, gaps in recorded maps and the emotional importance of preserving pioneer graves. Jared Allen and Cheryl Bowers said family plots remain important to descendants. Resident Vince DeGraff urged a methodical mapping and research project to document who has paid for and who owns plots and offered to help with that work; he also raised the possibility of applying state rules about long‑unused plots (which he described as an 80–85‑year lapse rule) to resolve abandoned parcels. "Those claims need to be researched or discovered and mapped out so that those families who do have legitimate ownership claims can … find someone there," DeGraff said.

Others urged caution about a transfer. Jed Lyman, speaking for a perspective aligned with the Hole In The Rock Foundation, said his group would oppose transferring the foundation’s portion to the town and suggested leaving existing arrangements intact. Several commenters pressed for a structure that would preserve the historic section while allowing the town to manage contemporary burial operations; Marcia Haddenfeld said she favored the town "take[ing] over the actual working aspect" while preserving historic areas.

Officials outlined legal and procedural steps that would be needed for any transfer. Moderator and county staff said deed transfers from private foundations (Southwest Heritage or Hole In The Rock Foundation) have been discussed; a transfer to town control would require additional formal steps, including a certificate from the lieutenant governor’s office, before title and operational control could change hands. County staff also said state grants are available to fund surveying and digitizing burial records and that the public hearing would inform potential grant applications.

No formal vote or action to transfer ownership was taken at the meeting. An attendee attempted an informal motion relating to the Southwest Heritage portion near the end of the hearing, but the motion received no recorded second or formal vote before the moderator adjourned the meeting at about 6:40 p.m.

Next steps outlined by officials included compiling public comments, continued discussions among the town, county and interested foundations, pursuing mapping and record‑digitization grants, and determining the legal mechanism — whether the town would form an entity to operate the cemetery or the county would reconstitute the special service district board. Officials emphasized that the hearing was a fact‑finding and input exercise, not a decision point.

Public commenters repeatedly asked that whatever outcome is chosen preserves historic graves and recognizes descendant claims while also ensuring a named sexton, accurate recorded plots and regular maintenance going forward.