Loading...
Minutes 03-11-10 MINUTES OF THE CEMETERY BOARD MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010 AT 6:00 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Bonnie Glinski, Acting Chair Tom Balfe, Parks Manager Janet Prainito Kari Norem Hohner ABSENT: Harry “Dale” Hatch 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. 2. Attendance Secretary Prainito called the roll. She noted Leah Krasnoff, Cemetery Clerk, was also present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes of December 10, 2009 Motion Ms. Hohner moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Prainito seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Receipt of Revenue/Expense Sheets – December 2009, January and February 2010. Motion Ms. Glinski moved to accept the report. Ms. Prainito seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11, 2010 6. Receipt of Sales Reports – December 2009, January and February 2010 Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 7. Unfinished Business A. Parks Division Reports – December 2009, January and February 2010 Mr. Balfe read the reports for the above listed months as contained in the meeting materials. Motion Ms. Prainito moved to accept the reports. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously 8. New Business 1. Discuss and approve implementation of late fee at the Mausoleum Tom Balfe, Parks Manager, explained the late funeral fee policy at the cemetery did not apply to the mausoleum. The fee was $200. He inquired if the same policy should apply to the mausoleum. Motion Ms. Hohner moved the late fees for funerals at the mausoleum be the same as the cemetery. Ms. Prainito seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 2. Discuss proposed Ordinance providing for review of extenuating circumstances by the Cemetery Board. Ms. Prainito explained the draft Ordinance was unexpected. The office received many questions staff was unable to make a decision on because staff felt the questions were legal in nature. Those questions were posed to the Attorney’s office and their opinion was the questions were not legal decisions. As a result, Leah Krasnoff, Cemetery Clerk, was invited to the meeting to explain some of the situations that had arisen. The Ordinance indicated those decisions should be brought before the Cemetery Board for resolution. Ms. Krasnoff provided the following examples of the situations that arose: 2 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11, 2010 1. In November 2008, a question arose regarding a family member being interred in one of two lots, both of which were purchased by a married couple (the parents) who are now both deceased. Before the mother died, permission was given for a family member to be buried in one of the lots. The lots, however, were not left to anyone in the Will. It was clear the intention was for the recently deceased party to be buried next to the deceased father. In this instance, it was determined a probate order was needed. There was discussion staff would not know this. In light of the proposed Ordinance, the responsibility for those decisions would be shifted to the Cemetery Board. 2. In February 2009, a question arose regarding Power of Attorney of an individual wanting to sign an Affidavit of Lost Cemetery Deed on behalf of her father. The outcome of this instance was legal counsel approved the power of attorney as acceptable. Ms. Prainito explained she felt this item needed to be decided on by the attorney as it was known some Powers of Attorney were limited and that Power of Attorney was only in effect during the person’s lifetime. It was noted the request only pertained to a refund. The Board discussed there are times when the individual with Power of Attorney makes arrangements for others and in those instances a copy of the document is put in the folder. The purpose of the document was to give a specified individual the authority to make arrangements on another’s behalf because they are unable to do so on their own. As long as Power of Attorney is given, it would be sufficient. 3. In February 2010, an inquiry arose about placing an individual’s mother’s cremains in her father’s crypt. The father was not embalmed. The mother had remarried and the second husband was alive. There were two siblings, and the Certificate of Ownership was in the deceased father’s name. It did not show urn privileges. The individual inquiring stated the mother purchased the crypt when the father passed away in 1996; however, a contract was unable to be found showing who signed it. The questions were whether this was permissible, what documentation was needed and what fees were involved. In this instance if a single crypt was sold, the urn would not fit next to a single casket and legal staff advised it would not be permissible. Mr. Balfe explained the only way to place the urn there was to either put it in the casket, or if ia small cube urn, similar to those used for shipping, was used, it might fit in the corner contingent on the shape of the casket. There would be an opening and closing fee. The Board had adopted an opening and closing fee for the mausoleum, but it was put on hold due to issues occurring with the prior mausoleum operator. The discussion was the fee was intended to be all inclusive (fees for opening and closings, the tray, inscriptions etc.) but they were not broken down. 3 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11, 2010 The cemetery opening and closing fees were $400 during the week and $500 on weekends, provided the funeral party left the cemetery by 3:00 p.m. It was discussed it was not as much work to open a crypt and half the amount charged at the Cemetery would be appropriate. There was agreement this fee would be put on the next agenda. The transfer fee for a Cemetery deed was $25 and there was agreement the transfer fee for the mausoleum should be the same. Establishing a fee before and after a date certain was discussed with the City Attorney, but because of the issue at hand a fee was not charged or established for this instance. There was agreement this item would be put on the next agenda. 4. In March 2009, an inquiry was made by a family member regarding the disinurnment of their father. The grandson was the executor of a Will which specified all was to be divided between the son and daughter. There was no estate to be probated. The death of the mother prompted the disinurnment request so the father and mother could be placed in another location together. The son disowned the family years ago, but not the daughter. The question pertained to who was required to sign the authorization of the disinurnment. With cremations, all next of kin were supposed to sign the form so that no one can could come back and contest the disinurnment. Ms. Hohner explained in situations where there are estranged family members, it was noted a funeral home was covered if they made an attempt to locate someone - even if the effort was unsuccessful. Cremation could not be reversed, but a crypt could always be opened and the remains removed. It was not a permanent action. In some instances the family puts it in writing for the funeral home. In other instances, all of the siblings were required to sign their approval, but in two instances the outcomes were different and all signatures were not required. The Ordinance spoke to the transfer of lots, "Special circumstances” and the authority of the Cemetery Board to make determinations. There was discussion what prompted the Ordinance and Ms. Prainito agreed to obtain further information and bring it back to the Board. It was unknown when the Ordinance would be put on the Commission agenda, or if it was sent for feedback or as an FYI. Mr. Balfe thought the procedure should go through the City Attorney's office. When circumstances involved a family member that was estranged, there would be no way for the Board to know whether it should be approved or not. The Board was going out on a limb making decisions under unusual circumstances. If each circumstance was presented to the attorney and they determined if certain criteria was met it should go to the Board, that would be different. Ms. Prainito agreed to obtain a copy of the entire Ordinance. 4 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11, 2010 Ms. Hohner expressed for her personally, she was comfortable with making most of the determinations. If the staff found something questionable, they could go to the Board. It was, however, thought that the Cemetery staff should not be making those decisions. It was also noted one of the incidents referenced held up the burial and another was denied. 5. A crypt was purchased by a family member when her mother passed but the Certificate of Ownership was made out in the name of the deceased party. The issue arose because the daughter wanted to place half her son’s cremains with her mother, and the other half with her son’s wife. The questions were whether an urn would fit next to a casket in the crypt, and whether charges would apply since urn privileges were not purchased. In this instance, the Board discussed they had to follow the rules of the Cemetery whether it allowed for it. The requesting party was the daughter, but it was questioned whether the deceased would have allowed it because her name was on the crypt. Moreso, If in the future the son’s wife wanted the ashes back, she would be the legal next of kin to the ashes which would require the daughter’s permission to open the crypt to remove him. The concern was not putting the son in, it was taking him out and ensuring the wife was agreeable with the provision. If that intention was put in writing, it could be permissible. The Certificate of Ownership listed urn privileges but it did not name who the privilege was for. It was also noted this individual called a Cemetery Board member indicating she paid the former mausoleum operator $1,000 and was told that he would take care of everything. The question was, what was he would taking care of? It was known the former operator did provide a copy of the contract to City Hall. The other issue was the Certificate of Ownership was in the mother’s name, and she had to show the City proof that she paid for it. Further dialogue questioned whether the woman paid $1,000 to receive a copy of the contract. The woman also spoke with legal staff and was asked about stopping payment on the check. Legal staff advised the individual she spoke with and sent the $1,000 to was not the operator of the mausoleum. The decision was made to change the Certificate of Ownership over to the woman, once they had a copy of the contract. Once the original Certificate of Ownership was received, staff would issue a new Certificate of Ownership in the new name. It appeared to the Board member who was contacted by the individual that the former mausoleum operator would ensure the son’s ashes would be placed in the crypt and he would have the son’s name inscribed on the crypt front. Mr. Balfe explained this was not the first instance he encountered of this nature. Discussion followed again that the City does not have a transfer fee in place. In the original situation, legal advised in order fulfill her request, a new certificate had to be issued. Years ago, when a Certificate of Ownership request was received, it was always requested the certificate be made in the deceased’s name. That action caused 5 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11, 2010 problems. Legally, only the owner of the crypt could make the decision of who would be placed in the crypt, but they are now deceased. In this one situation staff was directed how to proceed, but in order to start transferring ownership, the transfer fee was needed. It was also suggested adding a line to future contracts listing the individuals who could be placed there. 3. Approve the request from Donald R. Shelhamer for a refund on lots 212, 213, 214 & 215, Block M, Boynton Beach Memorial Park Addition #1 in the amount of $400. (Original purchase price was $500 less 20% ($100) for a total refund of $400) Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approve the request for a transfer of deed in the amount of $25 for James Robert Patterson for Lots 654 A&B and 655 A&B, Block O, Boynton Beach Memorial Park. Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed 5. Approve the request from Petyer Zarcadoolas for disinterment of Dorothy Zarcadoolas from Lot 18-A, Block Y and reinterment to 296-A, Replat J. (All paperwork is in order.) Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed 6. Approve the request from Angela Anagnostopoulos for disinterment of Tessie Anagnostopoulas from Lot 84-A, Block O to Lot 297-B, Replat J. (All paperwork is in order.) Motion Ms. Prainito moved to approve. Ms. Hohner seconded the motion that unanimously passed 6 Meeting Minutes Cemetery Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 11,2010 7. Discuss changing Board meetings from monthly meetings to quarterly meetings. Motion Ms. Hohner moved to approve. Ms. Prainito seconded the motion that unanimously passed. This item had been discussed in the past; however, with the transition of the mausoleum, the matter was set aside. 9. Other None. 10. Future Agenda Items A. City Attorney to review Code section on the Cemetery for the purpose of updating archaic language, and add definitions. B. Discuss and make recommendation to the City Commission regarding a transfer fee for crypts and niches at Boynton Beach Mausoleum. 11. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 6:46 p.m. .' Glwf ~ Clt:iuJLL1l/lL. . Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 032310 7