Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2001 - Regular Minutes - Cemetery Advisory Committee City of College Station Cemetery Committee Thursday, April 26, 2001 Parks Conference Room 10:00 a.m. Staff Present: Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Delmer Charanza, Cemetery Sexton; Ann Marie Hazlett, Committee Secretary; Mark McAuliffe, Land Agent; Charles Cryan, Director of Fiscal Services. Members Present: Katherine Edwards, Chairman; Ed Burns; Mary Lind Bryan; David Chester; Sarah Adams; Joe Wallace; Mary Bingamon, Alternate; Gregory Anderson, Alternate. 1.Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. 2. Hear Visitors: There were no visitors present at the meeting. 3. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of January minutes: David Chester made a motion to approve the minutes from January 18, 2001. Sarah Adams seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of absentee requests: There were no requests for absences. 5.Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding an update from Mark McAuliffe on new site identification: Mark McAuliffe, Land Agent for the City of College Station, had searched for property for the new Cemetery. He came up with 218 possible properties in his first search. Mr. McAuliffe wanted the Committee to narrow down this property list by establishing the characteristics that would be best suitable for the new Cemetery. He passed out a survey sheet which listed different characteristics, and asked the Committee to go through each one, and determine how important each characteristic was. The first criteria discussed was the size of the property. The Committee agreed that the preferred size would have an absolute minimum of 30 acres and a maximum size of about 50 acres. In regards to obtaining additional land, Mr. McAuliffe reported that he understood that this was not a priority, but it was a consideration. Joe Wallace stated that he believes this relates to the possibility of an Aggie section in the Cemetery. It was also stated, that there was a possibility of incorporating the Cemetery with parkland. Ross asked Page 1 of 4 Cemetery Committee Meeting Thursday, April 26, 2001 that if the money appropriated to purchase land was only enough to get 20 acres, would there be an additional contiguous parcel that the Committee could have the "Right of First Refusal" if more money was allotted at a later time? These three reasons combined, contributed to the concern regarding the ability to purchase additional land. Secondly, the Committee did not want to restrict the search by frontage type. It was not a necessity that the frontage be paved at this time, however it is important that the Cemetery be easy to get to. It was also suggested that the frontage to depth ratio be about 1:1 (square). The next criteria discussed was the central location of the Cemetery. It was stated that they would like to stay east of the railroad, unless the land was along the Highway 60 corridor. They would also like to stay south of Highway 60, but north of Peach Creek. In addition, they would like to stay west of Highway 30, however that was not of high importance. Regarding zoning and land use conflicts, the Committee agreed that they did not want the Cemetery adjacent to any businesses such as Silk Stockings or the Motor Speedway. Furthermore, the Committee would like water and electric utilities on the property. Sewer was mentioned that it would be nice to have, however, it is the least restrictive of the three utilities. The Committee also discussed vegetation, soil characteristics, topography, removal of infrastructure, and price range. The Committee would like the land to have some trees, but not heavily wooded. They would also consider prairie land with no trees at all. They also stated that the soil should not contain shallow rock. Topography is not of high concern, as long as the property drains well and does not flood. In addition, the Committee would consider a piece of land with existing infrastructure on the land. This would be dependant upon how expensive it would be to remove the infrastructure. Finally, the budget for obtaining this piece of land has been set at $275,000.00. Ms. Bryan asked about properties where the owner has surface control. She is concerned that without surface control, oil companies could come onto the land and build a sludge pit, an oil well, or even a truck depot on the property. Mr. McAuliffe answered by saying that the City might have to ask the oil companies to sign a waiver relinquishing their surface rights, but he would like to find a property that the seller could give the City control of the surface. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding an update from Charles Cryan on the sales price of spaces: Mr. Cryan started by explaining the cost recovery policy that the City Council has adopted. The Cemetery falls Page 2 of 4 Cemetery Committee Meeting Thursday, April 26, 2001 into the category of full cost recovery, which means that it should be able to cover 80% to 100% of its operating cost. Currently the Cemetery is operating at about 50% cost recovery if the money were all going into the general fund. In 1996, when the prices of spaces were increased, it was agreed by the Committee and the Council that all of those dollars would be put into a trust fund for the Cemetery. The intent of the trust fund is to build it up to the point that it would pick up a significant portion of the cost of perpetual care. Mr. Cryan reported that as of now the trust fund is at about $500,000.00. Mr. Cryan suggested raising the price of adult spaces from $400 to $600, and cremate and baby spaces from $100 to $200. He reported that at these rates, if staying at the same operating cost, and having the same amount of sales, the Cemetery would raise an additional $35,000 to $40,000 dollars, which would bring the Cemetery up to 80% cost recovery. Sarah asked, if the goal of 80%- 100% cost recovery was achieved if that would affect the Committee from going through the bond process to get more money. Mr. Cryan answered that it would not affect the ability to get the bonds, but hopefully they would not have to. The Committee expressed some concerns regarding being placed in the category of full cost recovery. As requested by Katherine Edwards, Chairman of the Committee, the following discussion has been transcribed verbatim: Ms. Bryan stated: "I agree that the City talks in terms of enormous amounts of money for Conference Centers and subsidizing industries moving into the area, some of which may be worth having and some of it might not. Then we are talking about little tiny amounts of money like the cost of registering a softball team, the softball registration as I understand it fell off dramatically when those fees were raised and it was somewhat of a trauma to people who have been using those fields. You're comparing us to electricity, you can live without electricity, but every culture has dead bodies and the way they conduct their public services and their cemetery is a reflection of the kind of community it is. I just see this as a completely different category than providing electricity or paving roads. This is a fundamental cultural issue as to how you treat your living and treat your dead. You're talking about averages, what you need to collect per space. I don't really care what you charge per space, be it $200, $400 or $600 dollars, but what are you going to do to meet that average with your bodies that don't have $400 or $600 dollars? The Cemetery is like a church, it's a community and how they function with respect to each other, and how they respect each other. It's not a cost effective function." Page 3 of 4 Cemetery Committee Meeting Thursday, April 26, 2001 Mr. Wallace asked what was currently done with indigent people who cannot afford to buy a space in the cemetery. No one was able to come up with an answer to that question. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding an update from Laura Norman or Sarah Adams on Section "M": Sarah asked that the Committee send Ms. Norman a letter asking her to clarify in writing what the intent of the family is for the use of Section "M". The Committee agreed that this was not a pressing matter, but they do want some sort of clarification. 8. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda: The next meeting will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at the Central Park Conference Room at 10:00 a.m. The Committee decided that they would put on the agenda for the next meeting, recommend actions to City Council for the price of adult, baby, and cremate spaces. Sarah Adams also suggested that the Committee discuss what they would like to do with those people who cannot afford a space in the cemetery. The Committee asked Ross to try and find out from the county what is done with indigent people now. In addition, Sarah asked to put on the next agenda a variance request from Charlotte Dansizer who wants to place an angel on a gravesite. 9.Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. Page 4 of 4 Cemetery Committee Meeting Thursday, April 26, 2001