(1) Existing law relating to elementary and secondary education instruction prohibits the administration, as specified, of a test, questionnaire, survey, or examination that contains any questions about a pupil's personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, or any questions about the pupils parents' or guardians' beliefs and practices in those areas unless the pupil's parent or guardian gives written permission. Existing law authorizes local educational agencies granted specific funding to submit pupil data to an operator of an after school program or summer program regarding the results of certain survey information in aggregate form. This bill would prohibit a local educational agency that chooses to administer a voluntary survey already including questions pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity from removing those questions. (2) The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act requires specific state departments, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity, except as specified. Existing law prohibits these state departments from reporting demographic data that would permit identification of individuals or would result in statistical unreliability and limits the use of the collected data by these state departments, as specified. Existing law requires these state departments to comply with these provisions as early as possible, but no later than July 1, 2018. This bill would expand the list of state entities that must comply with these reporting requirements, and would require those entities to comply as early as possible, but no later than July 1, 2019. Existing law requires those state entities, during the regular process of reporting demographic data to the Legislature, to also report data collected with respect to sexual orientation and gender discrimination and the method used to collect that data, except for confidential personal identifying information. Existing law authorizes those state entities to collect demographic information from other entities, under specified circumstances. This bill would instead make these separate reporting requirements. The bill would also authorize those state entities to collect aggregated data provided to a state department by a 3rd-party entity, including, but not limited to, a private employer. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law requires, as a condition for receiving Student Success and Support Program funding, that the governing board of each community college district maintain a student equity plan, as specified, and requires the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to make an annual report related to those plans. This bill would add homeless, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students to the categories of students required to be addressed in the student equity plans. The bill would also add any additional categories of students determined by the governing board of the community college. To the extent that these provisions would impose new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the chancellor to establish a list of eligible and ineligible expenditures and activities to ensure that Student Success and Support Program funding is used to support evidence-based practices to implement student equity plan goals and coordinate services for the targeted student populations. This bill would, instead of the list, require the chancellor to provide guidance to community college districts regarding expenditures and activities to ensure that Student Success and Support Program funding is used to support these purposes. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 78220 and 78221 of the Education Code proposed by AB 504 to be operative only if this bill and AB 504 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law requires community college district governing boards to charge students an enrollment fee of $46 per unit per semester. Existing law requires the board of governors to waive this fee for students meeting prescribed requirements. This bill would establish the California College Promise, to be administered by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, which shall distribute funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to each community college meeting prescribed requirements to be used to, among other things, accomplish specified policy goals and waive fees for one academic year for first-time students who are enrolled in 12 or more semester units or the equivalent at the college and complete and submit either a Free Application for Federal Student Aid or a California Dream Act application.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires every public and private school, as provided, to have restroom facilities that are open as prescribed during school hours, and at all times to keep every restroom maintained and cleaned regularly, fully operational, and stocked with soap and paper supplies. This bill would require a public school maintaining any combination of classes from grade 6 to grade 12, inclusive, that meets a 40% pupil poverty threshold specified in federal law to stock 50% of the school's restrooms with feminine hygiene products, as defined. The bill would prohibit a public school from charging for any menstrual products, including feminine hygiene products, provided to pupils. By imposing additional duties on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 establishes the Sexual Assault Victims' DNA Bill of Rights, which, among other things, encourages a law enforcement agency assigned to investigate specified sexual assault offenses to perform DNA testing of rape kit evidence or other crime scene evidence in a timely manner to ensure the longest possible statute of limitations. Existing law also requires a law enforcement agency to inform victims of certain unsolved sexual assault offenses if the law enforcement agency elects not to analyze DNA evidence within certain time limits. This bill would require law enforcement agencies to report information regarding rape kit evidence, within 120 days of the collection of the kit, to the Department of Justice through a database established by the department. The bill would require that information to include, among other things, whether biological evidence samples were submitted to a DNA laboratory for analysis and if a probative DNA profile was generated. The bill would additionally require a public DNA laboratory, or a law enforcement agency contracting with a private laboratory, to provide a reason for not testing a sample every 120 days the sample is untested, except as specified. The bill would only impose these requirements for a kit collected on or after January 1, 2018. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require that money received by the Office of Emergency Services from the federal Office on Violence Against Women be used before appropriating money from the General Fund for purposes of reimbursing any costs determined by the Commission on State Mandates to be mandated by the state to a local law enforcement agency by the bill. This bill would require the department to file a report to the Legislature on an annual basis summarizing the information in its database. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies or laboratories from being compelled to provide any contents of the database in a civil or criminal case, except as required by a law enforcement agency's duty to produce exculpatory evidence to a defendant in a criminal case. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) , makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, as defined, to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period (1) for reason of a child born to, adopted by, or placed for foster care with, the employee, (2) to care for the employee's parent or spouse who has a serious health condition, as defined, or (3) because the employee is suffering from a serious health condition rendering him or her unable to perform the functions of the job. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The bill would allow the employer to recover coverage costs under specific circumstances. The bill would provide that it would not apply to an employee who is subject to both specified state law regarding family care and medical leave, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Under the bill, if the employer employs both parents and they are entitled to leave pursuant to this bill for the same birth, adoption, or foster care placement, the parents' mandated parental leave would be capped at the amount granted to an employee by the bill. The bill would authorize the employer to grant simultaneous leave to these parents. This bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an individual for exercising the right to parental leave provided by this bill or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person's parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill. The bill would additionally prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill. The bill would require the Fair Employment and Housing Council, to the extent that state regulations interpreting CFRA are within the scope of, and not inconsistent with the bill or with other state law, to incorporate those regulations by reference to govern leave under the bill. Under existing law, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is authorized to provide mediation services to parties involved in actions under its jurisdiction. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon receiving funding from the Legislature, to create a parental leave mediation pilot program, as specified. Under the pilot program, within 60 days of receipt of a right-to-sue notice, an employer may request all parties to participate in the department's Mediation Division Program. If the employer makes such a request, the bill would prohibit an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions until the mediation is complete, as defined, which would include an employee's election not to participate in mediation. The bill would provide that the employee's statute of limitations would be tolled during the course of the mediation, as specified.
Existing law regulates the sale or offer to sell by a dealer to a consumer of a collectible in or from this state, as specified. Existing law defines the term "collectible" to mean any autographed item, as specified, sold or offered for sale in or from this state by a dealer, to a consumer for $5 or more. Existing law defines the term "autographed" to mean bearing the actual signature of a personality signed by that individual's own hand. Existing law defines a "dealer," among other things, as a person who is principally in the business of selling or offering for sale collectibles in or from this state or a person who by his or her occupation holds himself or herself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to collectibles. Existing law includes a person engaged in a cable television business for the sale of collectibles in the definition of dealer. Existing law excludes, among other persons, the personality who signs the memorabilia from the definition of dealer. Existing law also excludes from the definition of dealer a provider or operator of an online marketplace, provided that the marketplace provider or operator is not principally in the business of selling, or offering for sale, collectibles, in or from the state, exclusively or nonexclusively, or does not hold itself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to collectibles. This bill would instead define "autographed collectible" to mean an autographed sports or entertainment media item, as specified, sold or offered for sale by a dealer to a consumer for $50 or more, bearing the signature of a particular person that increases the sale value of the item over that of a comparable item without the actual signature. The bill would exclude, among other items, works of fine art, signed books, furniture, and decorative objects, from the definition of an autographed collectible. The bill would amend the definition of a dealer to be, among other things, a person who is in the business of selling autographed collectibles and who sells 3 or more autographed collectibles in a period of 12 months. The bill would include a person engaged in any television business for the sale of autographed collectibles and an auctioneer or auction company in the definition of dealer. The bill would delete the exclusion of a provider or operator of an online marketplace from the definition of dealer. Existing law requires a dealer to provide a certificate of authenticity, as specified, for each collectible to, among other things, indicate to a buyer whether a collectible item was purchased from a 3rd party and if so, the name and address of the 3rd party. This bill instead would require a dealer to provide an express warranty, as specified. The bill also would require a dealer, for items obtained on and after January 1, 2018, separate from the express warranty, to maintain a record stating whether the autographed collectible was purchased by the dealer from a 3rd party and the name and address of the 3rd party. The bill would permit discovery of this information in a civil dispute, as specified. The bill would require the dealer to keep the 3rd-party information on file for 7 years. Existing law requires a dealer displaying or offering for sale a collectible in this state to have at the location and in close proximity to the collectible merchandise a conspicuous sign that informs consumers of the written certificate of authenticity requirement, as specified. Existing law exempts auctioneers selling collectibles from this requirement. Existing law also requires a dealer engaged in a mail-order, telephone-order, or online business for the sale of collectibles in or from this state to, among other things, include in each television or online advertisement a similar disclosure in an onscreen message, as specified. This bill would require an auctioneer, auction company, and a vendor at a trade show to display specified signage regarding the express warranty requirements for autographed collectibles. Existing law grants certain individuals the right to cancel or to rescind certain contracts within a specified number of business days. Existing law requires a retail seller that sells goods to the public in this state that has a policy as to any of those goods of not giving full refunds, or of not allowing equal exchanges, or any combination thereof, for at least 7 days following purchase of the goods, as specified, to conspicuously display that policy, as specified. The bill would grant a consumer the right to cancel the contract for the purchase of an autographed collectible represented by a dealer as authentic until at least midnight of the 3rd day after the day on which the consumer purchased the autographed collectible, except when the autographed collectible is purchased at a public auction or trade show, or as part of a trade or barter, as specified. The bill would specify procedures and conditions of the cancellation. The bill would require the 3-day right of return, except as specified, to be included in the sign and the onscreen message a dealer is required to display. Existing law prohibits a dealer from displaying or offering for sale a collectible in this state at any trade show or similar event primarily featuring sales of collectibles or other memorabilia that offers onsite admission ticket sales, except as provided. Existing law requires a promoter who arranges or organizes a trade show featuring collectibles and autograph signings to provide a specified notification to any dealer who agrees to purchase or rent space in the trade show. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that a consumer who is injured by a failure of the dealer to provide a certificate of authenticity is entitled to recover from that dealer, among other things, 10 times his or her actual damages. Existing law also authorizes the court to award additional damages based on the egregiousness of the dealer's conduct. This bill instead would provide for specified civil penalties in a civil action against the dealer for failure to comply with the provisions regarding express warranties. The bill would provide for separate specified civil penalties for providing a false warranty, providing a false warranty as the result of gross negligence, and knowingly providing a false warranty, as well as attorney's fees and other costs to be paid to the consumer. The bill would authorize the court to award punitive damages based on the egregiousness of the dealer's conduct. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the correctional administrator to offer a program under which inmates committed to a county jail or other county correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates participating in a work furlough program, may voluntarily participate or involuntarily be placed in a home detention program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in a county jail or other county correctional facility or program. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to prescribe a program administrative fee and an application fee for this program. This bill would make those fees payable only by adult participants of that home detention program who are over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. (2) Existing law provides that upon conviction of certain offenses involving controlled substances, or upon a finding that a minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of committing one of those certain offenses, the court, when recommended by the probation officer, shall require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant or the minor not use or be under the influence of any controlled substance and submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the probation officer, unless the court makes a finding that this condition would not serve the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to order the defendant or the minor to pay a reasonable fee, not to exceed the actual cost of the testing, if the defendant or the minor is required to submit to testing and has the financial ability to pay all or part of those costs. This bill would instead require the court to order a defendant to pay that reasonable fee only if the defendant is an adult who is over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The bill would also delete the provision requiring the court to charge the minor that reasonable fee. (3) Existing law requires specified orders providing for the care and custody of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as specified, to direct that the whole expense of support and maintenance of the minor, up to the amount of $20 per month, be paid from the county treasury. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of each county to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay for that support and maintenance and authorizes the court to direct that an amount up to that maximum amount be paid. This bill, for purposes of a ward, a minor person concerning whom a petition has been filed to declare the person a ward of the juvenile court, or a minor who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department and who is temporarily placed out of his or her home, as specified, would delete the $20 maximum on support and maintenance payments and delete the authorization of the county board of supervisors to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay. (4) Existing law generally imposes liability on a parent, spouse, or other person liable for the support of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as applicable, for certain costs, including the reasonable costs of transporting the minor to a juvenile facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and care at the juvenile facility when the minor has been held in temporary custody, as specified, and certain other circumstances are applicable; the reasonable costs of supporting the minor when he or she is placed, detained in, or committed to, any institution or other place pursuant to specified provisions of law or pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of an alcohol or drug education program as designated by the court; the cost, to the county or the court, of the legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of probation supervision, home supervision, or electronic surveillance of the minor, pursuant to the order of the juvenile court; the cost of a service program administered by an agency upon delivery or referral of the minor by an officer; the cost of specified services rendered to the minor in lieu of a petition being filed to adjudge the minor a ward of the juvenile court; and other related costs. Existing law authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services department in a county to create a jointly written protocol, as specified, to allow the 2 departments to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be designated as a dual status child, allowing the child to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. This bill, for purposes of a minor who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, who is placed on probation without being adjudged a ward, who is the subject of a petition that has been filed to adjudge the minor a ward, or who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department, as applicable, would repeal the above-described provisions imposing liability for the specified costs and would make other conforming changes. The bill would specify that those provisions apply to a minor who is designated as a dual status child, for purposes of the dependency jurisdiction only and not for purposes of the delinquency jurisdiction. (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a minor who, while under the supervision of a probation officer, removes his or her electronic monitor without authority and who, for more than 48 hours, violates the terms and conditions of his or her probation relating to the proper use of the electronic monitor. Existing law provides, if an electronic monitor is damaged or discarded while in the possession of the minor, that restitution for the cost of replacing the unit may be ordered as part of the punishment. Existing law requires that this liability be limited by the financial ability of the person or persons ordered to pay the restitution and requires that the person or persons, upon request, be entitled to an evaluation and determination of ability to pay under specified provisions. This bill would remove the requirement that a request be made in order for the person or persons to be entitled to the evaluation and determination described above. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 903.45 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy transactions and use taxes for general purposes in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, by a resolution approved by 23 of the board and with the approval of specified entities, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.125%, with net revenues from the tax to be used by the board for operating and capital purposes of the Caltrain rail service, subject to 23 voter approval of a regional measure submitted by the board to voters of the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. The bill would authorize the board to exceed the 2% limit described above to impose the retail transactions and use tax. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and makes BATA responsible for the programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates for certain purposes, including to meet its bond obligations, provide funding for certain costs associated with the bay area state-owned toll bridges, including for the seismic retrofit of those bridges, and provide funding to meet the requirements of certain voter-approved regional measures. Existing law provided for submission of 2 regional measures to the voters of 7 bay area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a majority of the voters. This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco and the other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to conduct a special election, to be known as Regional Measure 3, on a proposed increase in the amount of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be used for specified projects and programs. The bill would require BATA to select the amount of the proposed increase, not to exceed $3, to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. If approved by the voters, the bill would authorize BATA, beginning 6 months after the election approving the toll increase, to phase in the toll increase over a period of time and to adjust the toll increase for inflation after the toll increase is phased in completely. The bill would specify that, except for the inflation adjustment, providing funding to meet the requirements of voter approved regional measures, and as otherwise specified in statute, the toll increase adopted pursuant to the results of this election may not be changed without the statutory authorization of the Legislature. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require BATA to reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters. This bill would require BATA to establish an independent oversight committee within 6 months of the effective date of the Regional Measure 3 toll increase with a specified membership, to ensure the toll revenues generated by the toll increase are expended consistent with a specified expenditure plan. The bill would require BATA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the status of the projects and programs funded by the toll increase. (2) Existing law authorizes BATA to vary the toll structure on each of the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles. This bill would additionally authorize BATA to provide discounts for vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method. This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would require BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle, who pay tolls electronically or through other noncash methods and who cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified. Existing law, if BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, requires BATA to collaborate with the Department of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge. This bill would instead require BATA to establish those occupancy requirements in consultation with the department. (3) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , governed by a board of directors, with specified powers and duties relative to the construction and operation of a rapid transit system. This bill would create the Independent Office of the BART Inspector General within BART. The bill would provide for the board of directors to nominate 3 persons to the Governor and for the Governor to appoint one of those nominees to serve as the Inspector General for a 4-year term. The bill would require the Inspector General to be removed from office by the board of directors, subject to the approval of the Governor, under certain circumstances. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General and would require the Inspector General to submit an annual report to the board of directors and the Legislature. The bill would provide for the office to receive $1,000,000 from an allocation of bridge toll revenue from BATA and, in the second and subsequent years of operation of the office, would authorize BATA to increase that amount, as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative upon an affirmative vote to increase tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges pursuant to Regional Measure 3 or related provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1, 2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend into the specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value pricing program established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The bill would instead authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, as prescribed. (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.