Memorandum 16-097 Hickerson Memorial Cemetery

Memorandum 16-097

TO:                       Mayor Wythe and Homer City Council

THROUGH:       Rick Abboud, City Planner

FROM:                 Homer Advisory Planning Commission

DATE:                  May 20, 2016

SUBJECT:         Hickerson Memorial Cemetery

The Commission held a work session on Wednesday May 4th, and invited neighboring property owners to comment. Part of the work session included a presentation about Soldotna’s recent cemetery expansion and cemetery policy updates.

Lessons learned:

Homer needs to update its cemetery policies to reflect modern cemetery practices.
Homer should provide a range of burial options, not just gravesites.
Cemetery fees should be increased as needed to cover future expansion costs.
Future expansions should be phased, and internment options adjusted to reflect market forces.
Market demand for plot reservations is greater than the number of people actually being buried. When new plots are available for purchase, they will sell relatively quickly.

Questions Considered:

1.Should the city expand the cemetery?

Commission Consensus: Yes. City and area residents do not have an alternative burial site in the community. It is not reasonable to suddenly stop providing this service with no notice or time for the community to find an alternative. Further, the City has been planning this project for some time, including the land purchase in 2010. Cemetery fees should be increased as needed to cover the costs.

2.Should the phase 1 expansion as designed be carried out?

Commission Consensus: Phase one should be reduced, and somewhat redesigned. There are several internment options that do not require as much land that should be included in the design. Cremains plots, a Columbarium (niche wall for urns), more compact grave layout and possibly a memorial plaque area could all be explored to make better use of the land. This would delay the need for future expansions, as well as better reflect market forces. Many people are cremated, but the current design has no cremains plots (which are smaller than a traditional gravesite); a full size grave is the only option in the current design.

3.What can be done to work with the neighbors?

The Commission held a work session and heard from a few neighbors. There was consensus that a more attractive cemetery, with updated and enforced policies is preferred over the current phase 1 design.

The current cemetery design is thought to have as much as a 50 year lifespan. Rather than look at a full build out, phase 1 should reflect current burial practices. When space starts to run out again in 5-10 years, the next phase of expansion can be adjusted to reflect market forces.

4.Long term, say in the next 10 years, would the City want another organization, private or non-profit, to run the cemetery? What partnership opportunities are there?

Commission Comments:  Soldotna has several public/private/non-profit partnerships. These avenues can be explored, but the facility we build today needs to be something that another entity would reasonably want to be part of. For example, most cemeteries have amenities such as benches, some trees, etc. If the phase 1 design can incorporate these ideas, other entities can purchase the amenities over time. Memorial benches purchased by loved ones or nonprofit groups are common at other cemeteries. Further, staff explored how the City of Soldotna manages their recent cemetery expansion. Their adopted policy manual provides explicit rules that Homer lacks. Homer’s policies should be updated in conjunction with the cemetery expansion.

5.Planning for the future?

Commission Comment: The City got into the business in 1970. Perhaps in the future another organization will have the desire and capacity to take over some of the operational responsibilities. But the facility needs to be functional and of good design for that to occur. No one will want to take over a cemetery that is inefficient in its use of space, policies or operations.

Recommendations:

1.Direct the Planning Commission to continue to work with the neighborhood and public works to research and propose a reduced scale phase one project, to include a mix of burial options, preferably in time for fall construction of phase 1 road, parking and initial gravesites.

2.Delay reserving any new plots in phase 1 until city policies are updated (plots would be sold on the basis of immediate need, but would not be available for pre-purchase).

3.Work with the City Clerk’s Office to update City cemetery polices to reflect modern cemetery practices (deliverable by December 2016). Allow pre-purchase of internments immediately after new policies are adopted.

Attachment: HAPC Unapproved Minutes from 5/18/2016 Meeting

HAPC Unapproved Minutes Excerpt 5/18/2016

New Business

A.           Staff Report 16-27 Hickerson Memorial Cemetery

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

Commissioner Highland said she spoke to Grant at Peninsula Memorial Funeral Home who explained that about 70% of bodies in Homer are cremated and 30% buried. Of that 30%, half are embalmed. He said a niche wall would run about $25,000. In relation to vaults, he suggested either require them or don’t because if you only require bodies that are embalmed to be vaulted, there may be people who try to get around it.  She also talked about working with volunteer groups to help clean up and maintain the cemetery.

The Commission addressed the benefits of a niche wall and agreed that when considering the number of urns it could hold and minimization of space use and environmental impact, $25,000 doesn’t seem like an unreasonable expense.

STROOZAS/BRADLEY MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN STAFF REPORT 16-27 FOR THE HICKERSON MEMORIAL CEMETERY AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.        

Brief discussion ensued regarding question five in the staff report and considered if putting out do we want to be in the cemetery business was the best way to phrase it. Commissioners felt that the City has been maintaining it since 1970 and it wouldn’t be appropriate to just let it go.  If someone did decide they wanted to take it over and manage it, it could be risky given the financial climate and the amount of work needed at the cemetery. If it is the direction the city wants to go, a better strategy would be to take care of the improvements first for nicer exit from the responsibility.

HIGHLAND/BRADLEY MOVED TO AMEND NUMBER FIVE AND CHANGE THE TITLE TO “PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE?”.

There was brief discussion.

VOTE (Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.