Romeo trustees weigh raising cemetery levy as expansion, engineering and funding questions linger

President Posnanski convened a special Village of Romeo meeting April 30 where residents and trustees focused early attention on the cemetery’s capacity and financing.

Danielle Lee and Andrea St. Lauren, speaking during public comment, urged more transparent planning and concrete revenue solutions from the board. Cemetery representatives and staff then described a roughly one‑acre parcel near the water tower (referred to in the meeting as “section 13”) as the leading candidate for expansion and said the village already owns the land. Staff said the parcel could add substantial capacity if engineering and access issues are resolved.

The cemetery’s representative told trustees preliminary work to clear, engineer, plot and fence that parcel could run about $200,000, a figure the presenter said was on the high end and intended to be conservative. Meeting discussion also cited industry norms — “about a thousand traditional burials per acre” — to demonstrate long‑term capacity implications.

Trustees asked for technical confirmation before moving ahead. They discussed stormwater and access questions tied to a retention pond and historical easement language reportedly granted to the local school district; staff said they have minutes that reference an easement from the 1960s but that a contemporaneous written agreement describing its scope was not found in village records. The board asked staff to obtain any relevant school‑district documents and to verify legal implications before any severance, conveyance or construction.

On funding, cemetery leadership asked the trustees to consider increasing the cemetery millage to the maximum number recorded in the meeting materials as “7174.” Staff noted that moving levy rates requires meeting newspaper‑advertisement deadlines for a public hearing (a six‑day ad as statutorily required was discussed) and that tax‑bill production timelines make May and June critical. Staff also presented fund projections showing a modest projected ending balance rolling into the next fiscal year under current assumptions and described the cemetery’s invested balances and earmarked cash (including an equipment placeholder for a skid steer that was discussed separately).

Trustees debated timing and priorities: some favored proceeding now to secure plots and start engineering; others urged waiting for supporting documents, formal engineering estimates and confirmation of levy mechanics from the township/county before changing millage. Trustees directed staff to return with clarified documentation, precise bid estimates for the 13th‑section work, and the cemetery budget line itemized for the May follow‑up meeting.

The board scheduled a special budget meeting for May 6 to finalize levy decisions, review the DDA budget and revisit cemetery millage and spending requests.