Residents urge Lafayette council not to close historic cemetery as archaeologists warn of buried remains

Lafayette, Colo. — Dozens of residents packed the Lafayette City Council chamber on May 5, telling councilors they were not notified about a proposal to close the city’s historic cemetery to casket burials and urging officials to honor long‑held burial plots.

The most dramatic public input came from Frank Archeletta, a longtime resident who told the council many families did not receive mailed notice about the ground‑penetrating radar (GPR) study or the resolution. “Council, do not betray the citizens, the senior citizens who own these cemetery plots,” Archeletta said, adding he observed burials and GPR work in areas the city is now identifying as occupied.

City staff presented the council with the results of a SWCA ground‑penetrating radar survey and a series of field investigations that followed recent encounters with historic remains during routine interment work. Deputy City Manager Megan (first name used in testimony) summarized the record gaps and told council the cemetery, which the city acquired in 1891, contains nearly 4,735 interments in its records and roughly 270 plots that are owned but unused. She said staff’s primary goal is to protect people already buried and to avoid further inadvertent disturbance of remains.

State archaeologist Dr. Holly Norton, who led on‑site work with her office, said her team recovered human bone fragments and coffin material during monitoring earlier this year and recommended the city avoid casket burials in the old section of the cemetery. “We recovered human remains, the actual physical bones of people who have been buried in Lafayette Cemetery, as well as fragments of their coffins and other items used in the cemetery,” Norton said, describing repeated encounters and the destructive risk of mechanical excavation over previously disturbed graves.

SWCA consultant Dr. Jenny Strum explained what GPR does — it maps subsurface anomalies consistent with burials but cannot identify individuals or give perfect, pinpoint locations. She and Norton described both false positives and false negatives in GPR results where utilities or geometry interfered, and noted a recent monitored burial in what the map showed as a clear area nonetheless encountered another grave.

Residents described long family histories at Lafayette Cemetery and pushed for exceptions, dedicated ground truthing for specific purchased plots, higher appraisals if the city offers buybacks and safeguards for religious burial preferences. “I bought those plots over 26 years ago and I expect you to honor that,” said James Ortega, who said multiple generations of his family are buried at Lafayette Cemetery.

Council members pressed staff on alternatives — targeted ground‑truthing, rechecking mailing addresses for plot owners, whether roads or adjacent land could be reconfigured to create room, and who would pay for additional archaeological or engineering work. City attorneys noted that cemetery deeds in the packet reserve the city’s right to adopt rules but acknowledged the emotional and legal stakes for plot owners.

After more than three hours of presentation, public comment and council questions, the City Council voted unanimously to postpone a final decision on Resolution 2026‑13, which had proposed permanently closing the cemetery to casket interments and offering plot owners three options (cremain interment at Lafayette, exchange at Cole Creek Cemetery, or $1,500 buyback). The moratorium the city put in place last fall remains in effect while staff returns with more outreach, more precise owner contact information, and clarified options and timelines.

What happens next: Staff said they will recheck and update plot‑owner contact lists, prepare clearer materials that explain the GPR findings and their limits, and hold further community engagement (staff referenced possible facilitated sessions and targeted follow‑ups). The council asked staff to assess realistic alternatives such as focused ground‑truthing for individual plots and to return with legal and operational options. The council did not adopt the proposed resolution on May 5.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this story are taken from live council proceedings and recorded presentations. Several technical speakers involved in the GPR study appear in the transcript with variant spellings of names (for example, Dr. Jenny Strum / Sturm in different places); the article uses the spelling given during the staff presentation.