Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Okay, we're going to call the meeting to order. We are meeting this morning. First of all, thank you to my colleagues for being here. If you are on Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development, and you are near the State Capitol, please make your way to room 112. We do need one more Member for a quorum.

However, we have our author here so we can get started. The item on our agenda today is SB777 by Senator Richardson. So, Senator, if you'd like to come forward and present your bill, we'd love to have you get us going. Welcome and good morning.

Good morning. Well, first of all, let me say thank you with all that we have going on this week. I know it's been long and for you guys to get up so early. Thank you for considering this bill so we can move forward.

My staff prepared some statements, but she said, I like what I wrote, but I said, well, I'm going to speak from the heart to you today. A couple years ago, I started learning about abandoned cemeteries. And there are two in my district currently in the State of California. There are six abandoned cemeteries.

When I say abandoned, I mean it's not a resting place. There are weeds up to your hip. There are markers that you can't see. People are coming in and actually stealing markers off the ground. I have pictures here for you where you can see crypts that are opened and coffins that have been taken out to take jewelry.

This is abandoned cemeteries is not what people intended for their final resting place. So a couple years ago, since two of them are in my district, legislation was brought forward by Mr. Berman. He wanted to create a study group so the various stakeholders could meet and discuss what should happen. I came in.

That report is not due until 2027. Well, even though this has really come forward in the last couple years, just a couple weeks ago, the cemetery in my district was vandalized again, and markers were taken off. People take the markers so they can melt the metal.

And so we have come to an agreement that this meeting is going to be accelerated. We will receive the report in March so we can move forward with legislation, ideally in the June time frame.

I'm asking for your support on this bill because I believe the people who paid into the endowments, typically, when you pay for a service, in addition to the prices included money that goes to an endowment fund. And that endowment fund is intended to pay into perpetuity that the cemetery will be cared for.

The problem is we have cemeteries that were built in the 1920s and the 1800s. And so what was a sufficient endowment in 1950 is no longer sufficient today. And so once the cemetery gets full, unfortunately, it is no longer profitable. And that's why people walk away. We have six abandoned cemeteries, as I said.

Four more are on the list to be abandoned within the 12 months. And. And then there are more to come. So the state must have a policy to deal with this. So we look forward to bringing the stakeholders together to agree who will be responsible.

What was originally in my bill that's not moving forward today, but I hope you'll see coming in January, is that we're creating a grant abandonment program fund. And that way there will be resources in addition to the endowment to pay for what needs to be done to bring a cemetery up to at least operational standards.

Finally, when I say abandoned, I mean literally. People cannot, and oftentimes there are gates, so people can't come see their loved ones. And even if you can, it's almost impossible to find them. So with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And I ask you, even though it's Friday morning and it's cold, quite disturbing, I ask you to look at these photos and you'll see what I mean by abandoned. So I. I ask for your help and your vote.

All right. Thank you for that presentation. Do you have folks with you to present in. In support or. No, it doesn't.

Unfortunately, with this time frame, they weren't able to. But throughout the whole process, we had witnesses testifying. The City of Compton, some of the city organizations were also very supportive.

All right. I don't see anyone in the room that isn't staffed, so I don't believe there's anyone here to present on either side. If there is, please come forward to the mic, seeing no one. And we'll bring it back to the dais. Colleagues Senator Archuleta and Arreguin.

Thank you. Thank you for presenting this to us. My question is, I know it's a district thing for you, especially in the Compton area, and I've heard about it on the radio. They are publicizing it in Los Angeles County that how devastating this is to families. Families, because we have veterans that have chosen to be buried there.

We have families, and they're just afraid to go in because perpetrators would still be lingering. So my question is, is this for this particular cemetery, or is it going to be for the two or four that you're mentioning, or are we accelerating the timeline for you?

Because I'm supporting the bill and I'll move it when it's appropriate, but narrow it down. To that, please.

Well, the policy we're moving forward is statewide policy, because even though two of the abandoned cemeteries are in my district today, four others are in other Members in your districts as well.

So they'll be taken care of as well.

All of any abandoned cemetery eventually will be able to take advantage of this program. Yes. Okay. And it will come back to you because we're going to be looking at a fee source in how to provide that program. But I don't want to get too far ahead of myself since that's not germane to the bill.

So obviously, we're also talking about reconstruction, we're talking about planting, we're talking about security. And so it. To bring the dignity back, what was originally done back in the 40s and 50s and so on.

Yes.

So I definitely will support the bill. And again, I move it.

And you would be one to know that many veterans are in these cemeteries.

Yes.

As well. Senator Arreguin.

I just want to acknowledge that this bill has changed substantially from its original version, which came to us several months ago when it came to the local government Committee. At that time, you were requiring that LAFCO would be responsible for the maintenance of the cemeteries.

And I just, I want to acknowledge all the hard work you've done on trying to move this Bill forward. And it's unfortunate in the course of the process that that piece, you had to take amendments to remove that piece.

But I know that by creating, you know, by expediting the working group process and getting a report and having a policy framework and kind of bringing the counties and the stakeholders together, that we can actually ultimately have legislation, have a path forward.

But I just wanted to acknowledge your tenacious leadership on this issue, which I know is so important to your district. And I think this is a real issue that doesn't just impact your district, but communities throughout California. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. To speak to that point, when it's all said and done, which is why this Committee is so important, we're going to have to pay for it. And no one wants to take the responsibility, meaning counties, cities, lafco, whoever, because they're like, we don't have the money to pay for this. So I'll be coming back.

Once we get agreement from the stakeholders of how is it best to do, we will certainly be back to you. Because it's going to cost money. To give you an example, I got a proposal of how to bring Lincoln up to speed. $6 million. $6 million. So it's. It's not going to be cheap.

Fortunately, there's only six right now and four more coming. But it would be better if we could stop this from happening, from being abandoned. And so that's one of the other things I learned as I was doing the Bill, is that this grant abandonment program would be available to existing cemeteries.

So if they have a major issue, rather than going belly up because they can't afford to fix their irrigation or fix a public works part on their road, they would have access to those resources so they can continue to provide a resting place and not walk away from their property. But I look forward to coming back.

In fact, during the break, I look forward to working with the Committee staff to understand what would be some of the things to make the bill best that we could bring forward and get done for Californians.

Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me preface what I'm saying by saying that I do not like gut and amend bills at the very end of a year or end of a session. I don't like them at all, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss. And we've had some bad experiences in the last couple of years with that.

And I certainly understand the points that you're making, but we have no testimony from anybody that is either in favor or opposed to the specific approach that you've recommended. On the surface, it seems reasonable, but do we really have the detail here to really truly understand what is going to happen next? I would suggest perhaps not.

Now, this has been a problem for a long time and you had this build was of a different form and it was something to try to get at a solution to this. You've now come up at the last minute for us, perhaps not for you, with a different approach.

But we've all known that the existing charge to the cemetery and funeral bureau has been, in your opinion, too lengthy and you're trying to speed it up. That's not new information. Your previous Bill could have moved forward and I supported that.

And then you could have introduced this in January and perhaps even and made it an urgency Bill. I would think if, with what I would imagine, the support and probably lack of opposition, but I don't know that it could prevail as an urgency message measure at the beginning of next year. But we don't know all this.

That's the problem I have with gut and amend bills. So I'll allow you to answer my concerns. I'm not indicating which way I'm going to vote, but I'm just very uncomfortable.

I almost am to the point where I will oppose last minute gut and amend bills, whether I agree with the policy or not because of the unintended consequences that are highly more likely with last minute gut and amend bills. Again, I don't like them at all.

Well, permission to respond? Sure. And I'll be brief. Mr. Niello, you're a very thoughtful Member and that's one of the things I like about you. And I guess I'll have to remember that staff is always right because I think probably had I read a paragraph that my staff had written, it would have helped to answer this question.

This is, I would venture to say this is not a gut and amend this bill.

Much to my chagrin and my very frustration with the Assembly. This bill, it was the Assembly Chair who insisted that we keep his original bill, which is 3254, keep his original bill and just move up the time frame of getting the information so then we can in turn hopefully see if everyone agrees with our ideas of how we could have implemented it.

So I don't see it as a gut and amend. I actually see it, it as preserving original legislation and not having one thing, do one thing, something, does something else. The next thing we know we got 10 bills all trying to do the same thing. This is actually the Assembly's Chair saying timeout. I worked on this.

Let's finish what we started before we go to step B. So back in 2024, the Chair of Business and Professions authored AB3254 in 2024, which created a work group to convene interest interested stakeholders to make recommendations related to abandoned cemeteries and provide a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. So that was already done in 2024.

The reason why this isn't a gut and amend and how they work together is we're now saying since 2024 it's getting worse and we can't wait till July of 2027 to finally start talking about what we're doing. So I don't see it as a gut and amend.

I actually see it as a joint partnership in that we all agree something needs to be done in 2024. They said let's get everyone together. And I'm simply saying we need to walk a little faster because meanwhile people are being horribly mistreated. So I respectfully ask for your reconsideration.

And I don't see this as a gut and amend. I see it as adhering to existing policy and then pushing forward. And I look forward to coming back next year with that even big beautiful bill that will address this issue.

Let me say I hate that title.

I do too.

By the way. That title works with me, not Roger.

They call it the one BBB, by the way back there. You make a good point. This is essentially the same working group that was established by that Assembly Bill. And you're just saying hurry up.

Yes, sir. That's all correct? Yes, sir.

Okay. Under that circumstance, I will support the bill. But just generally speaking, yes, we should not. And I understand why you're. You're rational as to. It's not really a gut and amend. I get that, but I just have to repeat, we should not be doing major legislation. This isn't that. I get it.

With gut and amend bills at the last minute. We need to stop doing that.

Okay, thank you very much. I have a couple of comments too, and then we'll give you an opportunity to close briefly. We're coming up on 9:30 and I want to make sure none of us are late for whatever things we need to do before the floor. Did you have a quick comment, Senator Choi? Go ahead.

I appreciate for bringing this important measure until you introduced this bill and identifying the problem. I didn't realize that was that serious. I think through this bill we need to not only solve the problem that we are facing for the abandoned cemeteries, but your study by passing this one.

I guess I'm making my comments along with my questions. So maybe you can answer by passing this bill, what exactly this bill will do will solve the problem. My understanding is that the feasibility study, how we can solve the problem for the abandoned cemeteries. Is that true?

The essence of the bill is to have someone be responsible. So right now with an abandoned cemetery, the cities just kind of. Some cities, I can't speak to every city, but some cities just. It's kind of there and you see people drive by and brown grass, you know, not looking particularly nice.

I know that's your problem. So your bill will solve. How will it solve the problem?

Who will be responsible? And then once we know who's responsible responsible, we can say this is the policy we would like you to implement. But right now cities and counties don't want to. And what happens is the consumer bureau has a division of funerals and cemeteries, which I had no idea of.

That bureau is the one that holds the endowment funds. So for example, with Lincoln, it has a $1 million endowment fund. But you can't use the endowment Fund just all at once. So all you can use is the principal interest. The principal interest is $3,000 per month. That's not sufficient. To fix this.

So that's why we need a policy that says because dca, which is consumer affairs, isn't going to manage cemeteries all across the state.

We need someone, you will initiate the one time study how to solve the find the solution.

Okay, so while you are doing that, I hope that rather than one time study, this is a very important issue because we all face somewhere to be buried and the cemetery site will be buried, will be abandoned years later, later. And that's terrible story.

Yes, sir.

So I think this is important problem that we need to prevent because cemetery management companies, what I understand is that when you buy the site, you do pay the maintenance fee in perpetuity. And then I think that that's the company's claim.

But obviously all these abandoned cemeteries have said the same thing to the people who were buying the grave sites in the beginning. But at the end, 100 years later, I guess nobody can trace back their promises what documents may be lost.

So I think my thinking is that there has to be major that annually or biannually or every five years, consumer affairs Department or real estate Department, some agencies through this study, which agency will be the best, will have to review their financial status or whether they can sustain next 20 years, next 50 years by doing so every 2 years, every 5 years study will study that feasibility.

So the management can change the graveside price for the future buyers. You cannot go back to the previous ones. Hey, we are out of money, you pay more. It's not going to work. So future buyers will have to subsidize pay.

If I paid $100 or more on top of the real estate price for the management of the future side, future ones can be increased to 150200 by annually. They can increase and they can see no problem in maintaining the park itself. The cemetery park itself. I think that has to be embedded in there.

So I don't know whether it might be a better idea to make a two year Bill and study more or pass this one and let them include that topic. As I suggest.

Sir. And I will be as brief as possible and what I'll do for anyone who would like. I'd be happy to have an offline convergence on all the things I've learned in this process. But really briefly to answer and in defense of the Administration who's not present, the Department of Consumer affairs does do an annual audit.

They do that. They actually the bank or the trustee has to submit how much money they have in that account. So there are some things, but there are some loopholes for example, they submit a map to the recorder. zero, we have X amount of plots, but they don't say who's in them.

And so what happens is, if a cemetery is abandoned and now the markers are gone, how do you know who's in that number? So these are the things that we learn through the process. And I promise you, I'm going to be very diligent. I heard the things that you said.

I will follow up with you of any other ideas, and we certainly will work to incorporate them in forward policy. But I don't want to give the impression that the Administration does review annually records, all of that.

But we could certainly do it better to avoid this problem, which is why I'll be coming back to you next year, because there is not sufficient amount of money being charged right now, now to ensure that these cemeteries can be cared for into perpetuity. And that's why we're here today.

Okay, thank you. We need to wrap up, so I'll be as quick as I can here. First of all, this is a study bill. She is studying it. So for those of you who your comments were, we need more information. It's exactly what she's asking for. It's not a gutting amendment. She made amendments in July. She's dogged.

This is an important issue. We have to figure out what we're doing with abandoned cemeteries. They're bad for communities. They're bad for the families. Thank you for your tenacity, Senator. We're going to get a quorum established here, and then I believe you have a motion incoming from Senator Archuleta.

I'm grateful to you for your willingness to work on this very tough issue. Please establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right. Senator Archuleta, does your motion stand? Motion stand. All right. Very good. Thank you everyone, for your comments and input. I'm sure she'll take them to heart as she starts up with the study effort. Let's call the roll motion is that.

The Assembly amendments be concurred in. [Roll Call]

All right. To my colleagues who are here. Thank you very much. I think we'll leave the roll open. No, we're not leaving the roll open. All right, that's it. You are on 8 to 0. Thank you so much. Thank you to my colleagues who came in this morning. Appreciate you so much.