Missoula Cemetery Board Agenda Date: February 4, 2021, 12:00 PM Location: ZOOM Webinar Attend by computer: Join the meeting Attend by phone: Cell phone users: 1-253-215-8782, 1-213-338-8477, or 1-267-831-0333; Landline users: 1-888-475-4499 or 1-877- 853-5257 Webinar ID: 889 3631 1539 Password: 848984, Press *9 to raise your hand to be recognized for public comment, *6 to mute and unmute Watch the meeting: Web stream (live or on demand), YouTube, or Spectrum Cable Channel 190 For more ways to watch the meeting and submit public comment, see the Citizen Participation Guide. Issues? Call the City Clerk 406-552-6078. If anyone attending this meeting needs special assistance, please provide 48 hours advance notice by calling Public Works and Mobility at 406-552-6359. Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. Cemetery Board Minutes from 1/7/2021 1 4. Public Comment on Items Not Listed on the Agenda 5. Staff Report 6. Financials 6.1. Budget update 4 7. New Business 7.1. Cemetery Cleaning Contract 6 Recommended motion: Approve the Cemetery to hire a cleaning crew. 7.2. New Niche Wall name The Niche wall in the columbarium, installed in May still does not have a name. 8. Continuing Business 8.1. Strategic Plan 12 Approve the Cemetery Strategic Plan 8.2. Ordinance Review 77 9. Informational Items 10. Communication 11. Adjournment Missoula City Cemetery Board Minutes January 7, 2021, 12:00 PM ZOOM Webinar Board members present: Pat McHugh, Neil Carson, Paul Filicetti, Kim Seeberger Board member(s) absent: Mary Lou Cordis 1. Call to Order (insert name) called the meeting to order at X:XX p.m. 2. Roll Call (insert name) called the roll. 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Comment on Items Not Listed on the Agenda There was no public comment. 5. Staff Report 6. Financials 6.1 Budget update 7. New Business 8. Continuing Business 8.1 Strategic Plan Jeremy Keene Director of Public Works presenting. Mr. Keene explained he would like the Cemetery Board to focus on the Cemetery Strategic Plan today and provide any comments they may have to pass on to the Consultants. The Cemetery Strategic Plan timeline would be to approve the plan in January in preparation of the next budget season. Once the Board has approved the plan it can go before City Council. The Strategic Plan suggests some ordinances updates to be reviewed by the Board. The next step would be to set up priorities for Cemetery improvements to put in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. The budget presentations are in July, so the Board would want to have recommendations decided by May or June. Mr. Filicetti asked if the land would have to be sold before the budget deadline? Mr. Keene replied that it is not possible to sell the land before the next budget. Mr. Keene explained to the Board that they would go through the plan together and asked the Board to comment, and he will take notes. Then they can send the document back to the consultants to make the changes. The land recommendations are one of the most significant recommendations in this plan. 1 Page 1 of 83 The Strategic Plan shows the land that the Cemetery could sell and provided recommendations on improvements that could be made in the Cemetery. Mr. Carson explained the consultants talked about having enough room for 200 years of interments. However, if the Cemetery were to sell some land, they would have to move buildings and other items onto that land, which would decrease the amount of space left for interments. He would like to see this explained in the plan. Ms. Seaberger had a concern that relocating the shop and office as suggested in the plan, would be in the area used for parking for stories and stones. She wondered if they would have enough overflow parking for large events. Mr. Carson said the Board would prefer residential community vs. industrial business on the property the Cemetery sells. The plan includes a map from the North Reserve Scott Street (NRSS) Master Plan that was finalized in 2016, showing a recommendation of the surrounding area. The Board would like this map taken out of the Cemetery plan. Someone reading the Cemetery Plan may not have the background of the NRSS plan. The plan suggests partnering with the Parks Department to build a shared maintenance facility. Mr. Filicetti questioned why they would include share equipment between departments in this plan. When he joined the Board, that was not what the Board had wanted, and he does not see it as a short term or long term option. Mr. Keene added that showing efficiency and sharing equipment appeals to the council when they are struggling with the budget. Ms. Seaberger asked if the shop would be shared with another department and if so, would that leave the Cemetery enough room? Mr. Keene said it would be more if they were to build something, then maybe they would share space. The other piece is equipment duplication that may not be utilized all the time. Mr. Hensel, Deputy of Public Works Streets, added that equipment sharing is being done on a small scale now. Mr. Carson said we should look at this topic at another time and move forward. The Summary of Recommendations for the land proceeds list a few recommendations from the consultants. Mr. McHugh explained that is very limited in what they suggest. He would like to see some other projects as there is more work to be done than just the listed four. The word ideally indicates that these are the only projects needed or that they are the priority. The plan suggests several options of fencing for the Cemetery. Ms. Seaberger believes removing the front fence would increase theft. In addition to that, cars running off the road may then go into the Cemetery. Mr. Carson says the Board would not support removing or taking down any fencing but would not be opposed to beautifying the fencing. Mr. Mc said he feels the suggestion of softening the fence is a good idea and would be interested in learning what other cemeteries have experienced with this. He says it's not very attractive, and a different fence may be more inviting. Mr. Gilman Cemetery Supervisor suggested the plan remove the sentence where it lists a fence would be $100,000. He said we don't even know what that fence would look like. Mr. Filicetti agreed and added it leads the reader to believe someone has done the research on fencing, and they have not. The cost implies they are aware of the particular design, and they are not. The Board would like to engage with other property owners to share fencing costs between property owners. The Board moved onto the Structures recommendations section of the Strategic Plan. The plan suggests designing and build a new facility that consolidates the restrooms, meeting area, and administration. The Board members would have liked to see an option of remodeling the current office building in the plan rather than just building a new 2 Page 2 of 83 structure. Mr. Filicetti says it can be remodeled, and it has sufficient space and makes sense to repurpose. Mr. Carson mentioned the plan does not recommend moving records to electronic records management to utilize space. Mr. Keene added if a water pipe were to break then, many forms would be lost. The board members believe we will need more restrooms as the facility grows and wants to keep existing restrooms. Mr. Carson was also unsure about the recommendation of getting rid of the chapel. He would like to see a suggestion of what they would need to do to improve it. The board would like to see the restroom update as a higher priority than the chapel. Mr. Carson mentions the apartment is not included in this plan. If the office is rebuilt, would it have living quarters? Mr. Gliman asked if they removed the residence then was there a cost analysis for security. The next section of the plan that was discussed is irrigation. The plan recommends keeping the current irrigation system in place, but the staff would have liked to see some improvement recommendations. Ms. Seeberger explained that automation would free up time and one full-time person. Mr. Carson said the system is aging and what happens if something breaks. The Board would like to know if we need to update pipes or fully automate the costs. In the Above Ground Burial Structures section, the plan recommends removing the old columbarium and relocating the cremated remains. The Board agrees with this recommendation and feels this would be immediate. Mr. Keene said we should have someone look at them and see what our options are. In the Marketing section of the plan, it talks about pursuing an arboretum certification. This is all that is mentioned about the trees. The Board would like to have some recommendations on replacing some trees that have died. They would like to know what type of trees are best suited for cemeteries. Mr. Keene said that we could get some recommendations from the City of Missoula Parks Department. The plan recommends monitoring other cemeteries' prices and evaluate based on the market. Mr. Keene commented on the prices and said he would like to keep this affordable, so we may not want to price as other cemeteries do. The Board is in favor of offering some pre-pay options.