(1) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the issuance of a caterer's permit, upon application to the department, to a licensee under an on-sale general license, an on-sale beer and wine license, a club license, or a veterans' club license, that authorizes the holder of the permit to sell alcoholic beverages at specified locations and events, including, among others, conventions, sporting events, and trade exhibits. Under existing law, licensees are required to first obtain consent from the department for sales of alcoholic beverages at each event in the form of a catering or event authorization. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, has prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a catering authorization for use at any one premises for more than 36 events in one calendar year, except as specified. This bill would authorize the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to extend the period of time during which the COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization is valid beyond 365 days if the licensee has filed a pending application with the department for the permanent expansion of their premises before the 365-day time period expires. The bill would make these provisions effective only until July 1, 2024, and repeal them as of that date. (2) Existing law, with exceptions, prohibits a licensee from having, upon the licensed premises, any alcoholic beverages other than the alcoholic beverage that the licensee is authorized to sell at the premises under their license, and makes a violation of this prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would, as an exception to that prohibition, authorize a licensed manufacturer to share a common licensed area with multiple licensed retailers, subject to specified provisions, including, but not limited to, that (A) a licensee sharing the common licensed area with a licensed manufacturer is prohibited from selling or serving any alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, produced, bottled, processed, imported, rectified, distributed, represented, or sold by the manufacturer, as provided, (B) the licensed manufacturer may, in connection with the operation of the shared common area only, advertise or promote the common licensed area, provided that each retailer pays its pro rata share of the costs of such advertising or promotion, as specified, (C) no thing of value may be given or furnished by the manufacturer to the retailers, except as specified, (D) the manufacturer may have on the area of its licensed premises that encompass the shared common licensed area alcoholic beverages that would not otherwise be permitted on the manufacturer's licensed premises, as provided, (E) all licensees sharing the common licensed area are required to hold the same license type retailers, (F) all licensees holding licenses within the shared common licensed area are jointly responsible for compliance with all laws that may subject their license to discipline, and (G) the manufacturer maintains records necessary to establish its compliance, as specified. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect and makes a willful and knowing violation of a protective order a crime. Existing law requires the court, when issuing the order with both parties present, to inform the parties of this information and to order the restrained person to relinquish any firearm in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to their immediate possession or control. Existing law specifies the means of relinquishment if the law enforcement officer serving the protective order does not request the immediate surrender of the firearm, including, surrender to law enforcement, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer. This bill would require a court to order the restrained person to relinquish ammunition and to notify the parties of how any firearms or ammunition still in the restrained party's possession are to be relinquished and how to submit a receipt to the court. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. The bill would authorize the relinquishment to occur by transferring the firearm or ammunition or relinquishing them for storage if the firearm or ammunition is not immediately surrendered to law enforcement upon service of the protective order. This bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to a domestic violence protective order in family court or juvenile court, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires a court, prior to a hearing on the issuance or denial of a protective order, to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine if the subject of the order has been convicted of a serious or violent felony, a misdemeanor conviction involving domestic violence, weapons, or other violence, has an outstanding warrant, is currently on parole or probation, has a registered firearm, or has a prior restraining order or a violation of a restraining order. Existing law requires the court to notify law enforcement officials if some of those conditions exist, including the person being on parole or probation or having an outstanding warrant. This bill, as part of the search, would require the court to make a written record as to whether the subject has relinquished the firearm. If evidence of compliance with the prohibition on firearms or ammunition is not provided, the bill would require the clerk of the court to notify law enforcement officials and would require those law enforcement officials to take all actions necessary to obtain any firearms or ammunition owned, possessed, or controlled and to address any violation of the order with respect to firearms or ammunition, as specified. By requiring additional duties of local law enforcement officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. This bill, for purposes of rebutting the presumption, would require the court to also consider whether the person is a restrained person in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the law. Existing law authorizes the court to issue an ex parte order determining the temporary custody and visitation of a minor child, on the conditions the court determines, to a party who has established a parent and child relationship with the child, based on the best interest of the child. Existing law authorizes the court to suspend or deny custody or visitation or to limit visitation or custody only to situations in which a 3rd person is present. This bill would require the court, in making that determination, to consider whether the party is a restrained person in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. (2) Existing law requires a law enforcement agency to enter all firearms that have been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, or under observation into the Automated Firearms System (AFS) . This bill would also require law enforcement to enter in all firearms that are relinquished as part of a domestic violence protective order. (3) Existing law specifies how firearms and ammunition may be transported and prohibits open or concealed carry in specified circumstances. Existing law requires a license to sell, lease, or transfer firearms. Existing law, the Safety for All Act of 2016, enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, General Election, requires a valid ammunition vendor license to sell more than 500 rounds of ammunition in any 30-day period. Proposition 63 authorizes amendments of its provisions by a vote of 55% of both houses of the Legislature if the amendments are consistent with, and further the purposes of, the act. This bill would exempt people who are complying with the firearms provisions of a protective order from those provisions, including amending Proposition 63 to exempt a person from the limitation on the sale of over 500 rounds of ammunition in a 30-day period in order to comply with the protective order. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3044 of the Family Code proposed by AB 1579 and AB 1171, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1579, AB 1171, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 11108.2 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 715, to be operative only if this bill and SB 715 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law directs law enforcement agencies, as defined, to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law also requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to maintain this data for at least 10 years and make it available, as specified, for academic and research purposes. This bill would require the department to analyze the data as specified and, by no later than July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, submit a report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, and make the report available to the public.
Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to administratively approve an application to install an electric vehicle charging station through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit subject to a limited review by the building official of that city, county, or city and county. Existing law allows the building official to require the applicant to apply for a use permit if the official finds that the station could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety and prohibits the city, county, or city and county from denying the application for a use permit to install an electric vehicle charging station unless it makes written findings that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. Existing law requires every city, county, and city and county to create an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations and to adopt a checklist pursuant to which an application that satisfies the information requirements in that checklist shall be deemed complete and therefore eligible for expedited review. This bill would clarify that these provisions apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would require an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed complete if, either 5 business days or 10 business days after the application was submitted, depending on the number of electric vehicle charging stations proposed in the application, the city, county, or city and county has not deemed the application to be incomplete or issued a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application, as specified. The bill would require an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed approved if 20 business days or 40 business days after the application was deemed complete, depending on the number of electric vehicle charging stations proposed in the application, (1) the city, county, or city and county has not approved the application, (2) the building official has not made a finding that the proposed installation could have an adverse impact upon the public health or safety or required the applicant to apply for a use permit, (3) the building official has not denied the permit, and (4) an appeal has not been made to the planning commission of the city, county, or city and county, as specified. The bill would provide that these requirements do not expand or restrict the role or responsibility of a local publicly owned electric utility in providing new electric service to an electric vehicle charging station in a manner consistent with safety, reliability, and engineering requirements. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to reduce the number of required parking spaces to accommodate the electric vehicle charging station, as specified. This bill's provisions would become operative on January 1, 2022, but for every city, county, or city and county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, the bill's provisions would apply beginning on January 1, 2023. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Existing law establishes the State Department of Social Services in the Health and Welfare Agency and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the administration of various programs relating to public social services. This bill would enact the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen Emergency Systems Act, or the C.R.I.S.E.S. Act, for purposes of creating, implementing, and evaluating the C.R.I.S.E.S. Grant Pilot Program, which the act would establish. The bill would require the department to administer the program if appropriate funding is made available to the department. The bill would require the department to award grants to qualified grantees, which include city, county, and tribal departments of social services, disability services, health services, public health, or behavioral health, based on grant eligibility criteria developed in partnership with a stakeholder workgroup. This bill would require each grantee to receive a minimum award of $250,000 per year under the program. The bill would require a grantee to award at least 90% of grant funds received to one or more qualifying community-based organizations, as defined. The bill would require funds awarded under the program to be utilized to create and strengthen community-based alternatives to law enforcement to lessen the reliance on law enforcement agencies as first responders to crisis situations unrelated to a fire department or emergency medical service response. This bill would require a grantee to report at least annually to the department on the use of funding awarded under the program. The bill would require the department to convene a stakeholder workgroup consisting of specified individuals to make recommendations to the department regarding the implementation of the program, as specified. This bill would establish the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen Emergency Systems Program Fund within the State Treasury, and would provide that, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the moneys may be expended by the department for purposes of the program. The bill would prohibit the department from expending more than 5% of appropriated funds on administrative costs, as specified. The bill would require the department to award all grants by January 1, 2023. This bill would authorize the department to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the program without taking regulatory action, as specified. The bill would grant immunity to the state from liability resulting from the activities of a grantee or community-based organization under the program. This bill would repeal these provisions on June 30, 2026.
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and regulates the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act requires the department to make and prescribe rules to carry out the purposes and intent of existing state constitutional provisions on the regulation of alcoholic beverages, and to enable the department to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon it by the state constitution and the act, not inconsistent with any statute of this state. The act makes it unlawful for any person other than a licensee of the department to sell, manufacture, or import alcoholic beverages in this state, with exceptions. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, has established prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. This bill would authorize the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to extend the period of time during which the COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization is valid beyond 365 days if the licensee has filed a pending application with the department for the permanent expansion of their premises before the 365-day time period expires. The bill would make these provisions effective only until July 1, 2024, and repeal them as of that date. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances that regulate zoning within its jurisdiction, as specified. Under that law, variances and conditional use permits may be granted if provided for by the zoning ordinance. This bill would, to the extent that an outdoor expansion of a business to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on indoor dining interferes with, reduces, eliminates, or impacts required parking for existing uses, require a local jurisdiction that has not adopted an ordinance that provides relief from parking restrictions for expanded outdoor dining areas to reduce the number of required parking spaces for existing uses by the number of spaces that the local jurisdiction determines are needed to accommodate an expanded outdoor dining area. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2022, and repeal them on July 1, 2024. (3) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities. Existing law restricts satellite food service to limited food preparation in a fully enclosed permanent food facility that meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a permanent food facility, prior to conducting satellite food service, to submit to the enforcement agency written operating standards. This bill would, for a period of one year after the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic, or until January 1, 2024, whichever occurs first, authorize a permitted food facility within any local jurisdiction that is subject to retail food operation restrictions related to a COVID-19 public health response to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service without obtaining a separate satellite food service permit or submitting written operating procedures. This bill would require the written operating procedures to be maintained onsite for review, upon request, by the local jurisdiction. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes state and local authorities to adjust these default speed limits, as specified, based upon certain findings determined by an engineering and traffic survey. Existing law defines an engineering and traffic survey and prescribes specified factors that must be included in the survey, including prevailing speeds and road conditions. Existing law authorizes local authorities to consider additional factors, including pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This bill would authorize local authorities to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any highway, other than a state highway, located in any business or residence district, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local authority to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. This bill would establish a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on state highways located in any business or residence district and would authorize the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. (3) Existing law establishes a speed limit of 65 miles per hour on state highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes Caltrans to declare a speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, or 25 miles per hour, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. Existing law also authorizes a local authority, on a section of highway, other than a state highway, where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour to declare a lower speed limit, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize Caltrans and a local authority to declare a speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, as specified, on these highways. (4) Existing law authorizes a local authority, without an engineering and traffic survey, to declare a lowered speed limit on portions of highway, as specified, approaching a school building or school grounds. Existing law limits this authority to sections of highway meeting specified requirements relating to the number of lanes and the speed limit of the highway before the school zone. This bill would similarly authorize a lowered speed limit on a section of highway contiguous to a business activity district, as defined, and would require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. (5) Existing law requires Caltrans, by regulation, to provide for the rounding up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic on a portion of highway as determined by a traffic and engineering survey. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to create and implement an online tool by June 30, 2024, for the adjudication of traffic infractions, among other things. This bill would authorize a local authority to further reduce the speed limit, as specified, and require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. The bill would, in some circumstances, authorize the reduction of a speed limit beginning June 30, 2024, or when the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating traffic infraction violations, whichever is sooner. The bill would require Caltrans to accordingly revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as specified. (6) Existing law defines a speed trap and prohibits evidence of a driver's speed obtained through a speed trap from being admissible in court in any prosecution against a driver for a speed-related offense. Existing law deems a road where the speed limit is not justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted within the previous 7 years to be a speed trap, unless the roadway has been evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, in which case the speed limit remains enforceable for a period of 10 years. Existing law exempts a school zone, as defined, from certain provisions relating to defining a speed trap. This bill would extend the period that a speed limit justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted more the 7 years ago remains valid, for purposes of speed enforcement, if evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, to 14 years. This bill would also exempt a senior zone and business activity district, as defined, from those provisions.
Existing law defines a "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers addressing hate crimes. Existing law requires state law enforcement agencies to adopt a framework or other formal policy created by POST regarding hate crimes. Existing law requires any local law enforcement agency that adopts or updates a hate crime policy to include specified information in that policy, including information on bias motivation. This bill would include a statement of legislative findings and declarations and require the basic course curriculum on the topic of hate crimes to be developed in consultation with subject matter experts, as specified. The bill would, subject to an appropriation of funds for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other statute, require POST to update the basic course to include the viewing of a specified video course developed by POST. The bill would also require POST to make the video available via the online learning portal, and would require all peace officers to complete specified training materials no later than one year after the commission makes the updated course available. The bill would require POST to develop and periodically update an interactive course on hate crimes for in-service peace officers, and require officers to take the course every 6 years. This bill would also require any local law enforcement agency that adopts or updates a hate crime policy to include specified information on recognizing religion-bias hate crimes, and would require those policies to include the discriminatory selection of victims as a form of bias motivation.
Existing law establishes various social services and programs to address the needs of young people in this state including the California Youth Leadership Project to support and promote civic engagement through scholarships to disconnected and disadvantaged youth. This bill would create the California Youth Empowerment Act to address, among other issues, the growing need to engage youth directly with policymakers. The bill would establish the California Youth Empowerment Commission in state government consisting of 13 voting commissioners between 14 and 25 years of age and meeting specified requirements, with 11 members appointed by the Governor, one at-large member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and one at-large member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, along with several ex officio, nonvoting members from various geographic regions of the state. The bill would establish the commission to be advisory in nature, for the main purpose of providing meaningful opportunities for civic engagement to improve the quality of life for California's disconnected and disadvantaged youth. The bill would require the commission to conduct regular meetings, in accordance with specified timeframes and procedures, and, among other duties, formally advise and make recommendations to the Legislature, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Governor, on various legislative and fiscal issues affecting youth. The bill would also authorize the commission to draft and approve resolutions, draft model legislation, provide testimony during legislative committee meetings, conduct public hearings, and award prizes or direct grants to organizations. The bill would require the Governor to appoint an executive director of the California Youth Empowerment Commission to assist the commission in carrying out its work, would authorize the commission to accept gifts and grants, and would create the Youth Commission Fund in the State Treasury, with moneys deposited in the fund available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to carry out the duties of the commission. The bill would require that its provisions be implemented only if funds are made available in the budget or through gifts and grants. The bill would require the Department of Finance to determine if sufficient funds have been provided and would require the department to publish notice of this determination on its website.
(1) Existing law requires a pupil to complete designated coursework while in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in order to receive a diploma of graduation from high school. These graduation requirements include, among others, the completion of 3 years of courses in English and 3 years of courses in social studies, including one-year courses in United States history and geography and world history, culture, and geography, a one-semester course in American government and civics, and a one-semester course in economics. Existing law requires the Instructional Quality Commission to develop, and the State Board of Education to adopt, modify, or revise, a model curriculum in ethnic studies. Existing law also encourages each school district and charter school that maintains any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, and that does not otherwise offer a standards-based ethnic studies curriculum to offer, beginning in the school year following the adoption of the model curriculum, a course of study in ethnic studies based on the model curriculum. This bill would add the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies, meeting specified requirements, to the graduation requirements commencing with pupils graduating in the 2029–30 school year, including for pupils enrolled in a charter school. The bill would expressly authorize local educational agencies, including charter schools, to require a full-year course in ethnic studies at their discretion. The bill would require local educational agencies, including charter schools, to offer an ethnic studies course commencing with the 2025–26 school year, as specified. The bill would authorize, subject to the course offerings of a local educational agency, including a charter school, a pupil to satisfy the ethnic studies course requirement by completing either (A) a course based on the model curriculum in ethnic studies developed by the commission, (B) an existing ethnic studies course, (C) an ethnic studies course taught as part of a course that has been approved as meeting the A–G requirements of the University of California and the California State University, or (D) a locally developed ethnic studies course approved by the governing board of the school district or the governing body of the charter school. The bill would prohibit a course that does not use ethnic studies content as the primary content through which the subject is taught from being used to satisfy the ethnic studies course requirement. The bill would require a pupil who completes a course described above to also accrue credit for coursework in the subject that the course is offered, including, if applicable, credit towards satisfying a course required for a diploma of graduation from high school. These provisions would become operative only upon an appropriation of funds by the Legislature for these purposes in the annual Budget Act or another statute. Because the bill would add new duties to local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.