SR 06:049 - Laserfiche WebLink

headstones or markers ~ badly deteriorated, illegible, stolen or vandalized. Although the V A provides headstones and markers, it docs nol provide funds to maintain the gra...esites of veterans. The ...eterans' gra...esites in the PleasanlOD Memorial Gardens are dispersed throughout the Cemelc:ry. It docs not appear that the mainlenance standards oftlle veterans' gravesites differ from those of the Cemetery's other gravesites. That is. no special consideration is given to veterans. Because the City does not regulate the mainte1lllIlCe standards of any gravesites in the Memorial Gardens, including veterans' graves, in order to improve the appearance of the veterans' gravesites, the City could encourage VeterllllS' groups to work with the Memorial Gardens to enhance and maintain the gra~ites of veteraDS. (5) Municipal Ordinance: The City could adopt an ordinance that prescribes maintenance standards for pubtic and private cemeteries. In this case, however, the City couId not enforce a cemeterY maintellllrlce ordinance thaI forces the CemeterY to increase its standard of maintenance beyond what is required by a non~dowment care cemetery (which is basically weed abatement) bcc;ause non- endowment care cemeteries are permitted under state law. Because the condition of the CemeterY is consistent with what ODe would expect at a non-endowmcnt care cemetery, the ordinance would not be effective. (6) Municinal Cemetery: The City could pursue acquiring the Memorial Gardens. Of all the options described in this report regarding the CemeterY, this option provides the City with its greatest contrOl over the Cemetery. If the City acquired the Cemetery and operated it as a municipal ccmetety, the City could adDpt its own regulations and maintenance standards br:cause the Slate does not regulate cemeteries owned and operated by municipalities.. However, if Lbo: City we.e to in<;1Ca3C tit<> ~ of maintenance throughout the Cemetery, the City would be responsible for the associatc:d costS (with the possible exception of any funds from future intcnnents and any maintenance funds held for gravesite5 sold between 1992 and 2002) because no funds are held in truSt fi)r maintenance. Atthough the City's acquisition of the Cemetery would provide the City with the greatest control oYer the Cemetery's operations and maintenance, it also exposes the City to its greatest liability of all of the options discussed in this report. The City would be responsible for meeting the Cemetery's existing obligations, contraCtUlll or otherwise. The City would assume the Cemetery's contractwl1 obligations, whateVer they may be, that call for perpetual care of the gra...esites sold bClWCen 1992 and 2002. As discusSed earlier, ~ cemetery's manager is still determining the amount of funds held for burial and maintenllDce purposes and the number of gravesi~es thaI were sold conditioned with these obtigations- The City might be subject to further obligations and Iiabitities depending tlJlOn what is learned from the records and other investigations into the Cemetery. Learning what are these obligations, however, might prove difficult due to the absence and disorganization ofrecords. In addition, the City's ownership and operation of the Cemetery would subject the City to liability for claims for damages (for exllI1lple, actions based on contract or personal injury), just as claim; could be brought against the City that relate to any othcrr city facitity or service. Ple;;u.;mlon Mt'!morial Gardens Cemdery R~por1 Page 10 of 16