Vice Mayor Mimi May and commissioners spent a prolonged portion of the July 31 pre-agenda meeting considering proposed changes to municipal cemetery regulations that, as drafted, might prevent the city from performing some headstone maintenance.
The discussion began when commissioners raised a potential conflict between a sentence in the draft ordinance and the city's existing perpetual-care policy. One commissioner said the draft language, as written, “in no case mean the maintenance, repair or replacement of any monument,” which could be read to bar city cleaning or re‑erection of monuments. Commissioner Anthony Segrech warned the wording “would explicitly preclude us from doing that.”
Staff and other commissioners sought a narrower approach. Mr. Perry, speaking for staff, told the commission that the city attorney’s current interpretation is that the city is allowed to perform certain cleaning and that staff has been researching products and a test case to ensure safe, practical methods. “We've been looking at it… staff has been taking a look at it and looking at different products and trying to come up with a plan to do some type of test case,” Mr. Perry said.
Commissioners debated how much the city should be obligated to do versus what it may elect to do. One participant suggested clarifying the ordinance so the city “may” take steps to address safety and security and to remove irrigation or iron stains; another warned against obligating staff to expensive monument re‑erections for 19th‑century stones where families cannot be found.
The commission asked legal to review and reconcile the ordinance language with the fee schedule so that perpetual‑care fees and the ordinance are not in conflict. Staff also committed to return with proposed language or options after meeting with legal and testing cleaning products. The commission did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; it asked staff and legal to provide clarified wording ahead of a future meeting.