My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
121608
>
16 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2009 11:48:58 AM
Creation date
12/10/2008 4:55:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/16/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
16 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
She continued by indicating her interest in the fund that staff talked about that would <br />take around 525,000 to maintain ft at its currently level. <br />Stall noted their profk and loss statement shows total expenses between 520,000 and <br />528,000, which covers other costs associated with maintaining it, such as health <br />insurance for the caretaker. <br />Councilmember fulcGovem asked, of the four cities staff contacted which curcently <br />have cemeteries, did they recommend that we purchase this cemeteryT <br />Staff responded no, that they strongly recommended that we do not purchase it. The <br />reasons expressed were everything from disconnect between the city providing <br />cemetery services because, again, both the cemeteries are active and are still selling <br />plots. In Benicia the issue was poor recordkeeping. There have been a number of <br />times where a family has come to them, they have gone out to host the burial, and <br />there's a body in the spot that has been designated for their family. For this reason <br />staff would want to do the mapping and get a better handle on what is in our cemetery. <br />Councilmember McGovern expressed concern about unknown liabilities, specifically <br />draining problems and creek contaminations. <br />Ma Tinfow advised that the current operator has stated that every grave he digs tends <br />to fill up with water and he has to pump the water out. Other sources Indicate that this <br />is not that unusual. Staff would want to look at that and get a better handle on it. She <br />clarified that the city >s not currently paying for weed abatement on the property. <br />Councilmember Mct3ovem asked if the City hae funds set aside to apply towards <br />supporting the cemetery. Staff responded the cemetery created a maintenance care <br />fund in 2003. <br />Mr. Flalho indicated there was another fund that the City has on record that has about <br />$45,000 in it. That was supposed to be used to help us wfth this analysis. We have <br />only spent about 55,000. The remaining could be applied to capital improvements. <br />Councilmember McGovern noted that the City would assume any liabilities on the <br />cemetery ff ft takes it over. <br />Ms Tinfow felt the City would have the opportunity to negotiate something with the <br />Oddfellows. But, they are probably not in a position financially to shoulder that. She <br />noted that the City should expect to assume the liabilities associated with it. <br />Mr. Fialho advised that part of the needed capital improvements pertain to safety <br />issues and the improvement would need to be performed immediately. <br />Councilmember McGovern inquired about the possibility of the City maintaining graves <br />without purchasing the property. She believed the curcent fund could be used in <br />perpetuity to support historic gravesites. <br />Ms. Tinfow responded the City could offer a grant to the Oddfellow's to help offset <br />some of the costs; however, the City would not want to invest funds to improve the site <br />only to have it sold. <br />City Council Minutes 6 September 5, 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.