City council leans toward prohibiting backyard burials

Thursday, May 8, 2008

The increase in cemetery fees and amending of language in the city's cemetery ordinance were discussed in depth during the recent meeting of the Mountain Home City Council, as the council moved toward raising most of the cemetery fees.

But council also touched on the issue of "backyard burials," which the lack of city ordinances currently allow, with most of the council leaning toward essentially prohibiting them.

Even Councilmen Geoff Schroeder, who had questioned the need to such an ordinance initially, appeared to be leaning toward some form of a more restrictive language.

Mayor Tom Rist felt that the council needed to acquire more information in regards to an ordinance that would satisfy the city's needs.

"What the council did not want to do was to stop a private cemetery from coming in to the city" but council did want language in the city ordinances that would prohibit backyard burials, the mayor said.

Schroeder noted that originally he didn't see any reason for that being in the language since no one had done it previously, but within the last two weeks, there had been "quite a bit of interesting dialogue that came up" about the issue.

"If you live somewhere that isn't near a cemetery and your neighbor buried someone in their yard, now you're living next to a cemetery when you did not intend to," added Schroeder.

Schroeder said another reason that he came up with revolved around the potential for somebody's property to go into foreclosure and then the bank, loan company, or the subsequent owner would have to deal with a disinternment.

Schroeder felt that the city should abide by the tradition of burying deceased persons in the city cemetery, but felt that a provision for a private cemetery would be good to add to the ordinance.

Rist also discussed the land transfer issue if the property was to be sold.

"The council saw that there was no ordinance, state or federal code that would take care of this, so the city is taking care of it now."

Rist asked city attorney Jay Friedly to draft the ordinance for the city on the matter.

In other language changes, a concrete box or vault will not be required for burial of ashes.

This was determined after Schroeder stated his belief that it wasn't necessary. "It adds unnecessarily to the cost of a burial" of cremated ashes, he noted.

In the previous City Council meeting, Jerry Rost, funeral director of Rost Funeral Home, stated the disinterment of cremated remains does not happen often enough to warrant the extra burden placed upon the people.

Involving the stipulation that, "no family member should be allowed to watch or help lower the casket into the vault," Schroeder made a recommendation to add the provision allowing those who wish to do so to ceremoniously throw a shovel or a handful of dirt into the gravesite.

When Rist discussed the stipulation that there "shall only be two burials per day," Councilwoman Alain Isaac agreed with that but said she would like to see something added whereby the mayor could overrule that regulation based on extenuating circumstances.

Council also addressed the proposed increases in the various cemetery fees, which haven't been raised in 15 years.

The following are the revised fee proposals. They have yet to be finalized pending final approval of the ordinance.

The cost for adult lot fees for city residents would be $325. The current price is $275. The cost for non-city residents would be $450. The current price is $375.

The cost of infant lot fees for city residents would be $200. The current price is $175. The cost for non-city residents to acquire an infant lot would be $250. The current price is $225.

The cost for crematory lot fees for city residents would be $175. The current price is $125. The cost for non-city residents would be $225. The current price is $175.

The cost for the niche wall for city residents would be $250. The current price is $350. The cost for non-city residents would be $300. The current price is $375.

The cost for adult internment fees for city residents would be $275. The current price is $250. The cost for non-city residents would be $300, the current price is $250.

The cost for infant interment fees for city residents as decided by the council would be $150. The current price is $125. The cost for non-city residents would be $175. The current price is $125.

The cost for internment/ashes fees for city residents would be $150. The current price is $125. The cost for non-city residents would be $175, up from $125 currently.

The cost for internment/ashes "no set up" fees for city residents would be $100. The current price is $75. The cost for non-city residents would be $125, up from $75.

The cost for adult disinterment fees for city residents would be $1,000, up from the current cost of $350. The cost for non-city residents would be $1,500. The current price is $350.

The cost for infant disinterment fees for city residents awould be $500. The current price is $250. The cost for non-city residents would be $750, up from $250.

The cost for disinterment/ashes fees for city residents would be $200. The current price is $75. The cost for non-city residents would be $300, The current price is $75.

The fees for additional opening/closing on Saturdays and holidays for city residents would be $300. The current price is $200. The cost for non-city residents would be $500, up from $200.

The fees involving additional right of burial (a second grave in the same plot) for city residents, would be $100 and the fees for non-city residents would be $200.

Comments
View 1 comment
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.
  • "If you live somewhere that isn't near a cemetery and your neighbor buried someone in their yard, now you're living next to a cemetery when you did not intend to."

    So?

    "Schroeder said another reason that he came up with revolved around the potential for somebody's property to go into foreclosure and then the bank, loan company, or the subsequent owner would have to deal with a disinternment."

    So make it a requirement that if you bury someone in your backyard you have to file something with the city within 30 days so it is a matter of record that anyone can see.

    This is just another example of the government trying to cash in on whatever they can and not allowing any other options for people. Funerals are expensive. If people want to spend all that money to bury someone then I am happy for them. But I don't want my family to have to go into debt and spend thousands of dollars to put me in the ground when I die. My body is a vessel and when I die it is just an empty husk. My family knows what I want done to my body when I die and I can assure you it isn't going to cost much of anything.

    And the government certainly isn't going to profit from my death.

    -- Posted by mattnielsen on Thu, May 8, 2008, at 9:56 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: