Hello all, I want to thank everyone who has responded to my prior requests to send messages opposing SB 341 because of the effect of Section 9055. The response has been terrific! I was contacted again today by the Committee's consultant, Peter Detwiler. Mr. Detwiler and I discussed this matter a little more, and it became apparent to me that he felt the committee would vote to approve SB 341 as written. He pointed out that the proposed language is superior in placing requirements on the public cemetery district's over that which is presently on the books (Health and Safety Code section 8963.5). He is correct in that assessment. Mr. Detwiler said that if the committee struck the proposed section 9055, that would leave section 8963.5 in place. In a question recently posed to the Working Group and Advisors, Mr. Detwiler asked "Should the Committee Adopt More Reforms?" (related to Section 9055). I have again reviewed the list of potential additional restrictions and believe that if we were to request the Committee to add them, this will be the best we can hope for at this time. They are: 1. Require a district to prepare a public report on the assets and liabilities of the cemetery it proposes to sell. 2. Expand the public notice for the county supervisors' hearing: publish the newspaper notice once a week for four weeks; post the notices for four weeks; and mail individual notices to the owners of the cemetery plots. 3. Require the county supervisors to either turn down the proposed sale or call an election of the district's voters, if the protests reach 25% of either the district's voters or landowners. 4. Increase the county supervisors' approval from a 4/5-vote to a unanimous vote. 5. Require the district to impose a deed restriction on the sale that would allow the district to reassert control if the new owner failed to properly maintain the cemetery. I feel these provisions would help strengthen the proposed section 9055 and place tighter restrictions on district's that might wish to sell (convey) a cemetery to another cemetery authority. With the above five items, I think the district's will be less likely to consider this option in the first place. I am recommending that we change our course at this time and seek the addition of the five items above. If you concur, please cut and paste the following text and send it to Peter Detwiler at Peter.Detwiler@SEN.CA.GOV, also copying me at ssilver1951@jps.net. Should you have any questions, please contact me direct. I will be attending the hearing this coming Wednesday and would be happy to express any additional concerns you might send to me. Thank you for your continuing support on this issue. Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves Email: ssilver1951@jps.net TEXT FOLLOWS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chair Senate Local Government Committee Re: SB 341 - Request for Consideration re: Section 9055 Dear Chair Torlakson and Honorable Committee Members: I understand the Committee's consultant, Peter Detwiler, has formulated additional reforms related to the proposed Section 9055 for the Committee's consideration. I have reviewed the list contained in Mr. Detwiler's memorandum dated March 24, 2003, and believe Detwiler's list would place adequate additional requirements upon the public cemetery district's which might consider selling a district's cemetery. These suggested reforms would help ensure that a district's decision would be adequately reviewed by both the board of supervisors and the residents of the district. Provided the following are added to the proposed Section 9055, I would SUPPORT SB 341: 1. Require a district to prepare a public report on the assets and liabilities of the cemetery it proposes to sell. 2. Expand the public notice for the county supervisors' hearing: publish the newspaper notice once a week for four weeks; post the notices for four weeks; and mail individual notices to the owners of the cemetery plots. 3. Require the county supervisors to either turn down the proposed sale or call an election of the district's voters, if the protests reach 25% of either the district's voters or landowners. 4. Increase the county supervisors' approval from a 4/5-vote to a unanimous vote. 5. Require the district to impose a deed restriction on the sale that would allow the district to reassert control if the new owner failed to properly maintain the cemetery. I hope you will consider adding these items to Section 9055. Respectfully, YOUR NAME YOUR ADDRESS