Committee advances SB 777 to address abandoned endowment‑care cemeteries, establish working group and funding program

The Assembly Business and Professions Committee heard SB 777 (Richardson), legislation aimed at speeding up the state response to abandoned privately owned cemeteries that hold endowment care funds. The bill, as presented to the committee, would require the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau (CFB) to notify the city, county, or city and county with jurisdiction when a cemetery becomes abandoned and to convene a working group of stakeholders before March 1, 2026. The author described the bill as accelerating a process created by AB 3254 (Berman) and said the measure would also create an abandonment grant funding program supported by increases to fees under the bureau’s authority.

Senator Richardson explained the problem: some private cemeteries become financially insolvent after they reach capacity, owners may walk away, and existing endowment funds—sometimes established decades earlier—are insufficient to maintain grounds or pay for irrigation and mowing. He cited an example in his district, Lincoln Memorial Park in Carson, which he said the owner abandoned in 2023. "When a private individual walks away from a cemetery, what that means is the gates are locked. No one can come in and see their loved ones," Richardson said.

Local governments, cemetery industry representatives, counties, the League of California Cities, and other stakeholders testified. Carrie West of the City of Compton urged the committee to provide a statutory process to transfer responsibility and to fund costs such as CEQA compliance and LAFCO fees so public entities could assume stewardship. Jerry Desmond of the Cemetery and Mortuary Association of California said his group removed its opposition after committee amendments and supported the stakeholder process. Marin County representatives urged stronger early‑intervention tools, secure low‑risk investments for endowment funds, and authority for the bureau and attorney general to intervene earlier in suspected mismanagement.

Committee members repeatedly described the issue as urgent. The author accepted committee amendments converting aspects of the proposal into a study and clarifying notification and funding mechanics; several witnesses said the amended bill was an improvement. The author asked for an "I" vote when the committee took the bill, and committee leadership indicated support; the bill was moved out of committee as amended to Local Government for further work.