Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suamico trustees review revised cemetery ordinance in first reading
Summary
Trustees conducted a detailed first reading of Ordinance 2025-1 to create chapter 14 governing the Suamico cemetery system; the draft removes pet cremation language, tightens ownership and marker rules and will return for a second reading with maps and staff recommendations.
Trustees of the Suamico Village Board held a first reading Feb. 17 of Ordinance 2025-1, a proposed chapter 14 that would clarify how the village manages cemeteries and plots.
Cemetery staff and the ordinance drafter reviewed changes made after committee review. Cemetery presenter Dan Rodin said the draft removes a pet cremation provision after finding that other local cemeteries did not permit it and because, "the state statute doesn't allow it," language he said the committee decided to eliminate. Rodin told trustees he will return for a second reading with a brief presentation and maps of recent work and lot sales.
Trustees focused on wording and operational details. Several trustees questioned redundant or confusing phrasing in the ordinance's purpose statement — for example the sentence listing "persons of all denominations, religions, sexes, creeds, and races." Some said removing extra qualifiers would simplify the text; others argued the list provides clarity for residents and nonresidents. The presenter defended the inclusive language as helpful for people reviewing the rules.
Board members also pressed staff on scope and authority. Rodin said the ordinance is intended to govern village-owned cemeteries and to provide review authority if a private cemetery or a church-owned cemetery dissolved and ownership passed to the village. Trustees sought clarity on how reconveyance, wills and ownership would be handled when records are absent; Rodin said wills and court determinations would control when present, but the ordinance sets a priority and procedure if there is no will.
The draft sets limits on memorials and markers, prompting questions about how marker allowances align with interment limits. The ordinance allows one full-body interment plus up to three cremains in one plot but generally permits one headstone and up to two flat markers; staff explained they expect to handle atypical cases individually to ensure visitors can read memorial information while preserving maintenance standards.
Trustees also raised technical edits — spelling and grammar, the definition of "domestic partner," and whether some references should be to the "village" rather than the "village board" for consistency with existing ordinances. Staff agreed to collect trustees’ markups and to return the ordinance for a second reading with suggested textual edits, a map of cemetery plots and additional context.
No vote was taken on the ordinance at the first reading; the item will return for a second reading with staff-provided clarifications and supporting materials.
