Mayor Salga and residents press Lafayette leaders for answers on century‑old cemetery burials

Mayor Salga opened a packed listening session on the Lafayette Cemetery by thanking residents and saying the subcommittee of city council—he and Councilor Bolier—had convened to listen, not to decide, on the complex issue of unmarked and potentially overlapping burials.

“My name is Salga, and I’m proud and honored to serve as mayor for the city of Lafayette,” he said, noting Spanish interpretation was available and promising the subcommittee would seek solutions rather than immediate action.

Facilitator Jonathan Barge, who identified himself as principal of nonprofit CDR Associates, framed the meeting as a listening and intake session and explained ground rules: one person speaks at a time, plot owners will be prioritized, and no council decisions would be made that night because only the full council may take action.

Residents who own plots said the city’s handling has left families anxious and unclear about next steps. Several speakers cited the SWCA ground‑penetrating‑radar (GPR) study and the city’s memo that a moratorium on casket burials was enacted in October 2025. Frank, a long‑time resident, told the meeting the consultant did not recommend a full shutdown and noted the city paid $83,000 for the work.

“We were not given that documentation,” said Jill Ortega, who said she and other plot owners did not receive the packet of study results. Residents repeatedly requested plot‑specific confirmation—“probe the damn plot,” as one speaker put it—so they could decide whether to seek relocation, cremation, or burial under “extreme care.”

Families described financial and emotional costs. One speaker said moving a flat headstone runs about $500 while upright monuments can cost $3,000–$4,000 to relocate; another said the city told a mortuary a mausoleum opening could add about $3,200 to burial costs. Several asked who would pay those expenses if remains must be moved.

Residents pressed for clearer communication after some received a letter implying a June 30 deadline while other materials said a later meeting would follow; city staff acknowledged the mixed messages and said the date in the letter was intended to encourage responses, not to force an immediate decision.

Speakers offered alternatives and volunteer assistance: funeral‑industry options such as mausoleums, smaller caskets, natural burial, monument markers for unmarked remains, and citizen‑led outreach teams to help identify and contact deed holders. Volunteer groups and several residents offered to walk plots with owners to compare three data layers—GPR, historic records and deed information—to verify individual plot status.

City staff and councilors acknowledged shortcomings in notification and recordkeeping and promised follow‑up. Melissa Heel, the city’s director of community services, said the city will meet one‑on‑one with plot owners who request it and will work to clean up communications and mailing lists. The subcommittee committed to a follow‑up session on June 29 at 6:30 p.m., to post the previously skipped slide presentation online, and to distribute FAQs and mailed notices to addresses collected at the meeting.

No formal policy or vote occurred at the session. Mayor Salga said the subcommittee and city staff would aim to bring tangible proposals or answers back to the community at the June 29 meeting and to provide individual plot information where available.

What happens next: the subcommittee said it will (1) publish the presentation and FAQs online, (2) hold the June 29 follow‑up meeting to present proposals and more data, and (3) offer one‑on‑one briefings for plot owners to review deed records and any available GPR findings.

The meeting closed after more than two hours of testimony. Council leaders said they would “own” past mistakes in notification and recordkeeping and attempt to provide as many concrete answers as possible at the next meeting.