Neighbors of the city’s wastewater treatment plant don’t want to see a new city cemetery located in their backyard.

Residents along JP Road and Monegan Road, as well as those across the Whitefish River, told City Council on June 15 they have concerns about suggestions to create a cemetery south of the treatment plant. They say foul odors and the potential for contamination leaking into the river or groundwater make the site unsuitable.

Wendy Coyne rides her bike on the city path along the river during the summer. She says the smell from the wastewater treatment plant is present every day.

“To visit someone in the cemetery with that smell is degrading,” she said. “It’s an obnoxious odor — like standing in a latrine.”

Chad Silliker said the city should learn from past mistakes, pointing to the Whitefish River cleanup of historical petroleum spills.

“The elephant in the room is the river,” he said. “This is one mistake we don’t have to make.”

The city’s cemetery committee has recommended setting aside about 7 acres of property south of the city’s wastewater treatment plant near the Whitefish River for a second city cemetery. The committee would like to see the site developed for traditional burial, natural burial and with columbariums.

Steve Thompson, who serves on the cemetery committee, said the site is the best the committee has found and would like it designated for a future cemetery. He noted that he lives on Ramsey Avenue near the current cemetery.

“It takes me about 90 seconds to walk to the cemetery,” he said. “It’s a special place and it’s a beautiful place. For me, it was nothing but an asset to live next to.”

Established in 1917, the current Whitefish Cemetery has reached capacity and no new lots are available for sale. Last year a columbium with 40 vaults was installed and a memorial wall was also added.

Ole Netteburg, who serves on the cemetery committee, spoke about what a new cemetery could mean to those who want to be buried in Whitefish. He said he married into the roots of Whitefish, but was raised to be dedicated to his community.

“For a town of this size to not have a cemetery, that is borderline shameful,” he said. “Think about future generations — people live here their whole lives and then they have to be buried in Kalispell.”

Charles McCarty said there is no need to develop a new city cemetery because most people are being cremated instead of buried.

“A century ago people needed a place to be buried,” he said. “Why should taxpayers support a new cemetery now?”

Council voted to extend the cemetery committee until 2016 to give it time to explore other properties and directed the city real estate committee to search for potential sites. Council also OK’d setting aside $20,000 in the cemetery fund in fiscal year 2017 to explore development options on potential sites.

Councilor Jen Frandsen advocated against the site near the wastewater plant.

“We can find another spot where we won’t have to worry about water concerns, where we won’t have to worry about the wastewater treatment plant,” she said. “There has to be something else out there.”

Andy Feury said neighbors will have concerns no matter where a new cemetery is located.

“I’m sympathetic to the neighborhood, but it is a nice piece of property,” he said. “Keeping it as a viable option is in the best interest of our city. We know we all want a new cemetery.”

Since 2011, the committee has researched both city-owned and privately-owned properties for a possible second cemetery. One of the private properties turned out to have high groundwater and was deemed too expensive for the city to purchase. Most of the city-owned properties have been found to have too high groundwater.

Cemetery committee chair Necile Lorang said the search has led the committee to recommending the property near the plant.

“The city property south of the wastewater treatment plant is the one city property that tested favorably for water table, and is a large enough piece of property that would lend itself to be used for a cemetery,” she said.

In a letter to Council, Bonnie Leahy, who serves on the committee, said it would be a mistake to locate a cemetery on the property. She noted the site falls short of the committee’s goal of finding a site at least 10 acres in size and also claims that the proximity to the river creates a potential to pollute the waterway.

“Because this land can be used as a cemetery does not mean that it should be used for a cemetery,” she said.

Groundwater testing was completed on about 3 acres north of the plant and the 7 acres that was recommended south of the plant.

City Manager Chuck Stearns said the northern section was too wet, but the southern site was drier. The area farther to the west and closer to the river was drier, he noted.

“This site was the most viable,” he said. “Some people have expressed concerns about the cemetery affecting the Whitefish River. We will want to be careful of the river. The traditional burial is sealed in concrete and so is the columbarium, so we don’t see that as any potential issue. The green burial sites we will have to be more careful with and make sure they are away from the river.”

Stearns noted that the city likely has plenty of land to expand the wastewater treatment without using the southern 7 acres.

The sale of burial plots would pay for the development of the cemetery.

Councilor Richard Hildner said he would like to begin planning for the site or another site.

“We’ve been at this since 2011 without resolution,” he said. “The committee has come up with a viable option. Extend the committee and it starts to put people’s feet to the fire — see if people come up with another site.”

Stearns said the $20,000 would likely go toward initial design for the cemetery and cost estimates for development of the site.

Council did not specifically designate the property adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant to be used as a future cemetery.