Fee hikes, burial rules proposed

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Mountain Home City Council held a public hearing last week on proposed increases for cemetery fees, a new additional fee and language amendments, all matters that haven't been addressed since Novermber of 2000.

Jerry Rost, owner of Rost Funeral Homes, addressed the council on his suggestion that instead of addressing the fees every eight years, that they should be addressed every four years so that if an adjustment is to be made, it's not a major adjustment.

On the rates, Rost felt that they were too high and made a request to the Council to make them more reasonable to the citizens of Mountain Home.

"We are not a huge city like Boise that has private cemeteries which have huge fees," Rost added, "I would like to see Mountain Home get in line with some of the smaller surrounding communities with what their cemetery prices are."

City Councilwoman Alain Isaac asked Rost about what the new proposed fees for the additional right of burial was ($100--city resident; $200--non city resident).

Rost said that was for putting a second set of ashes in a grave or a body if there is a set of ashes there already. The cemetery could put one body and one set of ashes in an adult grave or they can put up to three sets of ashes in one adult grave. According to Rost, the additional right of burial cost provides revenue.

On the subject of holidays, Isaac asked how Rost felt in regards to funerals open during the holidays.

Rost replied that it depends on the holiday and felt the council needs to determine what holidays the city was not going to allow a funeral on.

Mayor Tom Rist addressed the matter of individuals who want to bury remains in their own yards and asked Rost for his view.

Rost felt that the city of Mountain Home and the county would have to come up with a document stating that no one can bury someone in their backyard. Rost felt that the city should say any burials in the city limits have to be in a dedicated registered cemetery.

When City Councilman Geoff Schroeder asked why this is prohibited, Rost replied. "It would be a way to prevent anybody from bypassing the cemetery."

Rist spoke to Rost about several of the proposed amendments, which have caused some concern and conversation among the council members

First, Rist asked about adding language requiring that a body be in a rigid casket or container.

According to Rost, a ruling came down from the Federal Trade Commission stating that a body has to be in a rigid container to be placed in a grave.

Rist asked Rost about adding language requiring markers at the cemetery being set by a marker company or installed by an approved cemetery, plus asking if there was a problem with people setting their own markers.

Rost said that there was no problem because the rule states that it has to be done by a marker company or by someone designated by the city.

Another matter concerned the hours of burial, the proposal stating that burials can take place between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Rist asked if those hours were reasonable.

Rost said, "these rates are reasonable. I wouldn't have it go much past 3:30 so as to be able to get the workers out on time so overtime is not incurred."

Isaac asked Rost about the rule that a family member may not help or watch a family member be lowered into the ground. Currently family members must be out of the cemetery by 3 p.m. to allow for burial closure to be completed.

"I could understand the not being able to help out but I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to watch."

Rost said that he doesn't have any problem with the family being there when they lower the casket and he said it has not happened while he has been here but someone in the past had fallen into a grave.

Isaac also addressed the rule that there may be only two burials per day. Rost stated that time permitting, they would be able to do a maximum of three.

Rist gave Parks and Recreation director Stan Franks an opportunity to address the matters discussed in the meeting.

Franks said that no more than two funerals a day could be justified by not wanting to have equipment operating during a funeral service.

In regards to not having family members there when the casket being lowered, Franks said that if a piece of equipment broke and the casket fell into the bottom of the vault, "it could cause a real issue."

Also, if moving equipment around while people were still in the cemetery, it would be difficult to know what they're doing or be able to watch everything at the same time, he said.

"I think the city is asking for a problem by allowing people to be there when they are closing up the grave," said Franks.

The council agreed to table the motion on the fees and cemetery regulations until the next scheduled city council meeting on April 28.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Rost felt that the city of Mountain Home and the county would have to come up with a document stating that no one can bury someone in their backyard. Rost felt that the city should say any burials in the city limits have to be in a dedicated registered cemetery.

    Yes Great Idea

    -- Posted by Freedom on Fri, Apr 25, 2008, at 9:09 AM
  • family member may not help or watch a family member be lowered into the ground.

    Bad Idea

    -- Posted by Freedom on Fri, Apr 25, 2008, at 9:11 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: