Rep. Ash Kalra

Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, and taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) . Under existing law, a violation of the Fee Collection Procedures Law is a crime. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2028, establish the Private Detention Facility Tax Law, which would impose an annual tax on each private detention facility operator, as defined, equal to 25% of the operator's gross income, as defined, for the prior fiscal year, as defined. The bill would establish the Due Process for All Fund in the State Treasury, except as provided, and would require all revenues collected, less refunds and reimbursement to the CDTFA, be deposited into the fund. In the event that Assembly Bill 2465 is enacted, the bill would instead require all revenues be deposited into the Due Process for All Fund as established by that bill. The bill would direct moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, be used for immigration-related services. The bill would require the CDTFA to administer and collect the tax pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. By expanding the application of the crimes associated with the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Existing law establishes the California Housing Finance Agency for the primary purpose of meeting the housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income, and sets forth various programs administered by the agency to fulfill that purpose. This bill would require the agency to conduct a comprehensive assessment of potential credit enhancement mechanisms designed to reduce borrowing costs for housing projects receiving state financial assistance that includes specified evaluations. The bill would require the agency to submit an interim report by January 1, 2028, and a final report by July 1, 2028, as specified.

Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child daycare facilities, including daycare centers and family daycare homes, by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law imposes various training requirements on child daycare facilities, including, among others, at least 15 hours of specified health and safety training that includes pediatric first aid, pediatric CPR, and preventive health practices, and mandated reporter training. A person who willfully or repeatedly violates any provision of the act or any rule or regulation promulgated under the act is guilty of a crime. Existing law prohibits licensed child daycare facilities, employees of licensed child daycare facilities, and license-exempt California state preschool program facilities from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of children or their family members. Existing law also requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2026, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at child daycare facilities, as specified, and requires the State Department of Social Services to inform licensed daycare facilities of the model policies. This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to notify all licensed and license-exempt family daycare home providers of a person's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specified, and would also require the department to designate a statewide entity to develop and provide a training program about those rights. The bill would require the designated statewide entity to offer the training program commencing 60 days after the effective date of the bill, and would require licensed family daycare home providers to complete the training within specified timeframes. The bill would specify that a violation of these requirements is not subject to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, and does not subject a licensee to citation under the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, establishes the Veterinary Medical Board for the licensure and regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine and makes a violation of those provisions a crime. Existing law creates various exemptions from the act. Among those exemptions, existing law exempts practicing veterinary medicine as a bona fide owner of one's own animal, as specified. This bill would exclude a surgical or dental operation, as defined, from this exemption. The bill would also, except as specified, exempt from the act an organization accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or a university, college, or governmental research agency practicing veterinary medicine on an animal owned by that entity. The bill would also exempt from the act an unlicensed person who provides teleconsultation to a California-licensed veterinarian, as specified. Existing law generally prohibits a veterinarian from treating an animal unless a veterinarian-client-patient relationship exists, except when the animal patient is a wild animal or the owner of the animal patient is unknown. This bill would create an additional exception for when a rabies vaccination is prophylactically administered to the animal patient to prevent disease or loss of life. Under existing law, a veterinarian-client-patient relationship exists if certain conditions are met, including that the veterinarian possesses sufficient knowledge of the animal patient and has communicated with the client a medical, treatment, diagnostic, or therapeutic plan, as specified. Existing law places limits on the duration of a veterinarian's prescription of a drug that varies depending on how the veterinarian-client-patient relationship was established. If the veterinarian established the relationship by examining the animal patient in person or by making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal patient is kept, existing law prohibits the veterinarian from prescribing a drug for a duration that is longer than one year from the date that the veterinarian examined the animal patient in person or visited the premises and prescribed the drug. If the veterinarian established the relationship using synchronous audio-video communication, existing law limits the duration of the prescription to 6 months from the date that the veterinarian examined the animal patient or prescribed the drug. This bill would revise and recast provisions regulating the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. In this regard, the bill, among other revisions, would remove the requirement that the veterinarian has communicated with the client a medical, treatment, diagnostic, or therapeutic plan to establish the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Instead, the bill would make that communication a requirement for each medical condition for which the veterinarian may prescribe, dispense, or administer treatment. Additionally, the bill would delete the above-described time limitation on the duration of a veterinarian prescription of a drug, and would instead impose similar time limitations on the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Specifically, the bill would make the veterinarian-client-patient relationship expire one year after examining the animal patient in person, one year after making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal patient is kept, or 6 months after examining the animal patient by use of synchronous audio-video communication. Additionally, the bill would authorize a veterinarian-client-patient relationship to continue in the absence of the veterinarian if, among other things, the subsequent veterinarian has assumed responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of the animal patient. The bill would also authorize a subsequent veterinarian, in the absence of the originally prescribing veterinarian, to prescribe, dispense, or furnish a refill of drugs for use on the animal patient on an emergency basis for a traveling animal patient or if the subsequent veterinarian serves at the same location as the originally prescribing veterinarian, as specified. Existing law creates various exceptions under, and exemptions from, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act related to the practice of veterinary medicine in the context of animal shelters. This bill would create a new veterinarian license category referred to as a "shelter veterinarian license" under which the holder would be allowed to practice veterinary medicine solely for an animal shelter or under certain emergency circumstances, as specified. The shelter veterinarian license would be available to the holder of a veterinarian license from any state, a United States territory, or a Canadian province if they meet certain continuing education, examination, criminal background check, and other requirements, as applicable. Among the requirements for a shelter veterinarian license, the bill would require the applicant to certify that the sole purpose of the license is to practice veterinary medicine for an animal shelter. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a licensee, registrant, or permitholder to apply for their license, registration, or permit to be placed in inactive status, as specified. Existing law prohibits the holder of an inactive license, registration, or permit from engaging in any activity for which an active license, registration, or permit is required. Existing law subjects the holder to the normal renewal fee, but exempts the holder from any continuing education requirements for renewal. This bill would create 2 new status categories referred to as "retired status" and "retired volunteer status," respectively. The retired status would be available to a veterinarian or registered veterinary technician who meets specified requirements, including completing an application and paying a specified fee. A licensee or registrant with a retired status would be prohibited from practicing veterinary medicine, and would be exempt from renewal requirements, as specified. The 2nd status category, the retired volunteer status, would allow the holder to practice veterinary medicine only for an animal shelter or under emergency circumstances, as specified. The retired volunteer status would be available to the holder of a veterinarian license or veterinary technician registration from any state, a United States territory, or a Canadian province if they meet certain continuing education, criminal background check, examination, and other requirements, as applicable. Among the requirements for a retired volunteer status, the bill would require the applicant to certify that the sole purpose of the retired volunteer status is to provide voluntary, unpaid, veterinary medical services to an animal shelter. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes a license, registration, or permit expire within a specified period of time if it is not renewed, as specified. Existing law authorizes a licensee, registrant, or permitholder to renew an expired license, registration, or permit within 5 years of its expiration if certain delinquency fees are paid. If 5 years or longer have elapsed since the expiration, existing law prohibits the license, registration, or permit from being restored, reissued, or reinstated, but authorizes the person to apply for and obtain a new license, registration, or permit. This bill, instead, would allow restoration of a license, registration, or permit that has been expired or assigned retired status for 5 years or longer if the licensee, registrant, or permitholder meets the requirements for initial issuance of the license, registration, or permit. The bill would prohibit the restoration of an out-of-state veterinarian license or veterinary technician registration with retired volunteer status. Existing law requires all veterinary premises to be registered with the board. To register a veterinary premises, existing law requires the owner or operator of the veterinary premises to submit an application that includes, among other information, the name of the responsible licensee manager. Existing law authorizes substitution of the responsible licensee manager by application to the board, as specified. If the owner or operator of a veterinary premises is a corporation or other artificial legal entity, existing law requires certain changes in the owners, officers, directors, shareholders, general partners, or agent for service of process, as specified, to be reported to the board within 30 days. This bill would require the premises registration holder to satisfy the above-described requirements and confirm that the information provided to the board is current and valid to renew the premises registration. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 4858.1 and 4858.2 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 1733 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1733 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. Because this bill would create new requirements within the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, the violation of which would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The bill would make related and conforming changes.

Maddy summaryThis bill designates September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. It directly affects state agencies and organizations by encouraging them to recognize this specific month for awareness activities. The measure does not change laws or allocate funding but serves as a formal commemorative resolution.

Existing law makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts certain land uses, including the installation or use of a solar energy system or construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on certain lots. Existing law authorizes a person who holds or is acquiring an ownership interest of record in property that the person believes is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant, as specified, to record a restrictive covenant modification document. Before recording the document, existing law requires the county recorder to submit the modification document and the original document to the county counsel, who is required to determine whether the original document contains an unlawful restriction. This bill would make void and unenforceable against an interested party any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket, as defined, if a grocery store or supermarket either previously operated on the property and has ceased operations or is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center and an approved restrictive covenant modification document has been recorded in the public record. The bill would entitle an interested party, as defined, to establish that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable by submitting a restrictive covenant modification document to the county recorder, in accordance with certain procedures, to allow the grocery store or supermarket development to proceed. The bill would prohibit a person or entity, beginning on January 1, 2027, from creating or recording any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket if a grocery store or supermarket either previously operated on the property and has ceased operations or is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center, except as prescribed. By imposing additional duties on county officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings and declarations relating to these provisions. 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.

Existing law establishes the California Interagency Council on Homelessness and requires the council to take various actions to prevent and end homelessness in California. Existing law establishes various programs to prevent homelessness or assist persons experiencing homelessness, including the No Place Like Home Program and the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program. This bill would require the council, by July 1, 2028, to develop a statewide homelessness prevention strategy in the council's publicly available Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. The bill would require the strategy to include specified elements, including a homelessness prevention action plan for certain state agencies and evidence-based model homeless prevention practices, as specified. The bill would require the council to review and update the strategy in the Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would limit each state agency's participation to its existing statutory authority, activities, data, and subject-matter responsibilities.

This measure would recognize and affirm the important role of artists, arts organizations, creative arts therapists, and arts for health initiatives in supporting behavioral health, promoting recovery, strengthening community resilience, and contributing to public safety. The measure would encourage and recognize exploration, support, and integration of arts and behavioral health within California's health care, behavioral health, and community-based systems.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments, and requires a common interest development to be managed by an association, as specified. Existing law includes provisions that limit the authority of an association or the governing documents, as defined, to regulate the use of a member's separate interest, as defined. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs tenancies in mobilehome parks and includes provisions that are applicable to those who have an ownership interest in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident-owned mobilehome park, as specified. Existing law makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any rental agreement or other instrument affecting the tenancy of a homeowner or resident that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system in a mobilehome void and unenforceable. Existing law provides that a "cooling system" includes a portable air-conditioning unit, a window air-conditioning unit, a swamp cooler or any evaporative cooler, a cooling fan system, a heat pump, or any other technology that reasonably creates an internal temperature cooling benefit, and meets applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by law. This bill would, under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, make any provision of the governing documents or architectural guidelines void and unenforceable if the provision prohibits or restricts the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system that complies with all applicable state and local building codes. The bill would also make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any, among other specified agreements, deed that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system, void and unenforceable. The bill would make it unlawful for an association to prohibit or restrict a member from installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a cooling system in the member's separate interest, or to take other specified actions in connection with the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system, subject to specified exceptions. This bill would make an association that willfully violates these provisions liable to the member for actual damages occasioned thereby, for a civil penalty paid to the member in an amount not to exceed $2,000, and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, as provided.

(1) Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions. Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order, existing law requires the court to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine, among other things, if the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. If after the search, the court finds that the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm, existing law requires the court to make a written record as to whether the subject has relinquished the firearm and provided proof of the required storage, sale, or relinquishment of the firearm. Upon a court's issuance of such a protective order, existing law requires the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures. Existing law prescribes procedures by which the restrained person must certify compliance with the court, and for the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person has a firearm in violation of the order. This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require courts to permit a party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on their internet websites. The bill would also, commencing on January 1, 2028, require courts to allow filings related to those protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits court from granting a temporary restraining order without notice to the respondent, except as specified. Existing law requires a peace officer, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve any civil harassment restraining order, domestic violence restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order on the respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. Existing law prescribes procedures that a sheriff or marshal must follow when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court in a civil action or proceeding. Existing law requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2024, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would prohibit a court from requiring notice to be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order, as specified, if the applicant or the applicant's attorney certifies to the court under oath that providing notice to the party to be restrained in advance of filing the petition would likely endanger the safety of the petitioner or other persons. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require a peace officer, as defined, to follow the procedures that apply to a sheriff or marshal when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court, as described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff, or by a peace officer serving any of the restraining or protective orders described above. By expanding the duties of peace officers, which include officers of local law enforcement agencies, and expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires, on any charge involving acts of domestic violence, that the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney conduct a search of certain databases for protective or restraining orders, as specified. This bill would additionally require the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. By expanding the duties of the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order, the court must ensure that a search is or has been conducted to determine if the subject of the proposed order has, among other things, a prior criminal conviction for a violent or serious felony, owns or possesses a firearm, as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System, or has a prior restraining order or violation thereof. Existing law requires this search to be conducted of specified records and databases readily available and reasonably accessible to the court. Existing law requires the court, after issuing its ruling, to advise the parties that they may request the information upon which the court relied to conduct the search and information obtained as a result of the search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. This bill would authorize a court to order any of the searches described above to be conducted before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a civil harassment restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order. The bill would require the court, after issuing its ruling, to provide the advisement to the parties described above, and to keep the information obtained as a result of any search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. (4) Existing law requires a court, when issuing a gun violence restraining order, to notify the Department of Justice regarding the order. Existing law requires the court, when issuing protective orders and firearm or ammunition relinquishment orders, to notify the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials, as specified, in order, to enable the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials to take necessary actions to obtain any firearms or ammunition owned, possessed, or controlled by the subject of the order. This bill would require local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, as defined, to designate a person responsible for accessing or receiving notifications from the superior court indicating that a person has violated a protective or restraining orders' firearm relinquishment requirement and to regularly ensure that the clerk of the court has updated contact information for the person designated to receive those notifications on behalf of the agency. This bill would also require each prosecuting agency to ensure that a protected person or protected people named in the order are notified about the issuance, terms, and duration of the protective order, except as specified. The bill would require each prosecuting agency to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards regarding notification to protected parties on or before January 1, 2028, as specified. By placing new requirements on local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would authorize a law enforcement agency or officer to seek enforcement of a valid extreme risk protection order issued by another state or jurisdiction. The bill would define an extreme risk protection order as an injunction, restraining order, or other civil or criminal court order issued by another state or jurisdiction that does not name a protected individual, but prohibits the subject of the order from possessing, owning, controlling, purchasing, or receiving firearms for the duration of the order based on evidence that the subject of the order poses a danger to themselves or others. The bill would require a valid extreme risk protection order to be registered with a court in this state if requested by a law enforcement officer or other petitioner. (5) Existing law requires each county to electronically transmit data regarding protective orders through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System of the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the California Restraining and Protective Order System that contains detailed information regarding protective and restraining orders and injunctions, as specified, and to make that information available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill would extend these reporting requirements to include any protective order or restraining orders issued pursuant to specified sections, including a gun violence restraining order or an extreme risk protection order. (6) Existing law, the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, authorizes the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order in a tribunal of this state under certain conditions. The bill would expand the definition of a protection order to include any injunction or order under the federal Violence Against Women Act and would extend these provisions to orders issued by any state or other jurisdiction. The bill would make conforming changes. (7) Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, to establish or contract with a vendor to establish an automated protected person information and notification system, as specified. This bill would authorize the department to establish or contract with a vendor to create the above-described notification system through the availability of necessary funding through grants or other sources. (8) Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would prohibit a person, who is convicted on or after January 1, 2027, of specified offenses, including misdemeanor violations of a gun violence restraining order or other protective orders, or violations that constitute a hate crime, from owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their possession or under their custody or control any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and would make conforming changes. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (9) Existing law requires a peace officer who is at the scene of a domestic violence incident or enforcing a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order to take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or otherwise lawful search, as specified. This bill would additionally require a peace officer to take temporary custody of any ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to such a search. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (10) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (11) This bill would provide that if AB 2179 is enacted, then the changes made to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this bill would not be operative. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1961 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1961 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1374 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1374 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6383 of the Family Code proposed by SB 99 and SB 1395, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 29805 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1220 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1220 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (12) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.