Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews cemetery-perpetual-care study; staff recommends higher plot prices, transfer fees
Summary
Staff presented a perpetual-care funding study and recommended raising resident plot prices to about $1,520 (non-resident $2,130), increase transfer fees from $25 to $100, and require transfers to non-residents to pay the resident/non-resident difference going forward. Council discussed affordability and directed staff to return with ordinance language.
Highland City staff presented a study and recommended fee and policy changes intended to build a perpetual-care endowment for the municipal cemetery and reduce long-term reliance on the general fund.
Staff proposed a preferred scenario that raises the resident plot rate to $1,520 and the non-resident rate to $2,130 (about an 18.5% increase from current levels), followed by annual increases of about 3.5% to sustain an endowment that pays future maintenance. The staff package also recommended increasing the plot-transfer fee from $25 to $100 and requiring, for transfers to non-residents after a set effective date, payment of the difference between resident and non-resident prices in order to discourage residents purchasing plots for non-resident family members at the lower resident rate.
Stephanie (cemetery records) explained operational burdens created by current practices: families sometimes buy blocks of plots in a residents name then later transfer certificates individually, which requires notarized paperwork, record updates, certificate reissuance and additional staff time. "We're recommending the transfer fee increase because it takes about an hour of my time to meet with the families, verify ownership, notarize transfers and update records," she said.
Council members expressed mixed views. Some members urged caution about a large immediate increase and recommended phased adjustments; others argued the cemetery should be financially self-sustaining and that non-residents should pay more because they have not borne local taxes funding other public services.
Staff said an effective date (staff suggested May) matters: a delay to July could trigger a run of purchases at the old rate that would reduce projected endowment funding. Council asked staff to return at the next meeting with draft ordinance language implementing the chosen scenario and with an effective date. Staff will also present buyback options (City purchase back at original purchase price, purchase at current going price, or an American Fork-style perpetual-care carveout) for council consideration.
Council did not adopt a final ordinance at the April 21 meeting but gave direction to return with specific ordinance language and an implementation schedule.
