COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:3146S.03C Bill No.:SCS for HB 1541 Subject:State Auditor; Attorney General; Counties; County Government; County Officials;
Political Subdivisions; Department of Revenue
Type:Original Date:May 5, 2022Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to finances of political
subdivisions.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025
General Revenue*
$0 to (Unknown,
could exceed
$1,834,605)
$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue
$0 to (Unknown,
could exceed
$1,834,605)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
* The fiscal impact to the state in FY 2023 is the potential loss of the Department of Revenue’s
2% collection fee (§105.145). Oversight has ranged the impact from $0 (debt is already
considered uncollectible and DOR would not have received the 2% fee even without this
proposal) to $1,834,605 (which represents if DOR would have collected 100% of the $91 million
of outstanding debt allowed to be reduced by this proposal). Oversight assumes the actual loss to
the state is on the very low end of this range.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0$0$0
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 2 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Total Estimated Net
Effect on FTE 000
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025
Local Government*
(Unknown, could
exceed $555,241)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,353,692)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,353,692)
* Part of the net fiscal impact to the local political subdivision is the potential loss of the
Department of Revenue’s 2% collection fee (§105.145). Oversight has ranged the impact from
$0 (debt is already considered uncollectible and DOR would not have received the 2% fee even
without this proposal) to $1,834,605 (which represents if DOR would have collected 100% of the
$91 million of outstanding debt allowed to be reduced by this proposal). Oversight assumes the
actual impact is on the very low end of this range. Additional fiscal impact is reflected for
potential pay increases for various local public officials
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§§50.327 & 58.095 – Compensation for County Coroners and Salary Schedules for 3
rd
Class
Counties L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 3 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, officials from
various counties did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact regarding this proposal.
Oversight assumes §§50.327 & 58.095 state the county commission is responsible for
determining the salary for the county coroner in non-charter counties. Section 58.095 contains
the base schedule of salaries as determined by the assessed valuation of the county. Section
50.327 adds an additional salary increase of up to $14,000 on top of the base schedule if
approved by the county commission. Oversight is unclear of how much each county coroner
receives in salary. However, there are 109 non-charter counties that could be considered for the
additional funds in section 58.095 (if approved by the appropriate county commission).
Oversight assumes if all of these counties approved the $14,000 increase, this could be up to
$1,526,000 in increased salaries for coroners. However, Oversight assumes no increase coroner’s
salaries would take place without the approval by the county commission. Therefore, Oversight
will assume a cost of $0 (no salary increases) or up to $1,526,000 (salary increases approved in
every non-charter county) for coroners for this proposal.
Oversight also notes in similar legislation from this year, SB 704, §50.327.4 relates to the
following 3
rd
class counties and their assessed valuations as of the 2020 census that are greater
than the three hundred million dollars: L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 4 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes the proposal does not specify how the base schedules should be amended for the
computation of salaries for 3
rd
class county positions. Currently, the base salary for each of the
positions in this section are as follows:
C
ounty
2
020
C
lassification
A
ssessed Valuation
A
dair
3
415,860,739
A
ndrew
3
309,826,694
A
udrain
3
416,179,373
B
arry
3
578,441,026
B
enton
3
307,087,967
B
utler
3
667,507,793
C
linton
3
353,505,104
C
rawford
3
368,867,929
D
unklin
3
314,994,430
H
enry
3
435,915,841
H
owell
3
534,978,779
L
aclede
3
490,308,053
L
awrence
3
546,241,819
M
arion
3
519,654,554
M
cDonald
3
315,078,544
M
iller
3
492,134,546
M
organ
3
572,600,385
N
ew Madrid
3
455,255,626
N
odaway
3
399,126,552
P
erry
3
404,312,108
P
helps
3
687,863,962
P
ike
3
307,484,509
P
olk
3
397,316,316
P
ulaski
3
553,132,765
R
andolph
3
526,364,813
R
ay
3
393,522,956
S
cott
3
536,493,885
S
te. Genevieve
3
891,214,089
S
toddard
3
522,288,378
S
tone
3
749,458,097
W
arren
3
674,203,668
W
ebster
3
508,888,557 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 5 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Therefore, Oversight will also assume a $0 (no adjustment to salaries) or unknown additional
costs to 3
rd
class county salaries for this section of the proposal.
§§50.815 & 50.820 – County Financial Statements
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume the provisions from RSMo 50.815.2.8
to include salary information in the annual financial statement will cost Clay County
approximately another $161 to publish more information in the newspaper--based on recent costs
for publication.
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Henry County assumed a
savings of $1,800 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
Oversight inquired with Henry County regarding this proposal. The County currently submits a
14 page document to the newspaper which lists out every dollar by vendor. Since this proposal
requires a summary of data to be published in the newspaper, Henry County’s publishing costs
would be reduced as the number of pages would be reduced that would be submitted to the
newspaper.
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Lincoln County assumed a
savings of $2,000 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Livingston County assumed a
savings of $2,500 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
Oversight assumes using the counties above as an example, if the average savings of the three
counties publication costs is $2,100 and 96 counties (2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
class counties) in Missouri
B
ase Salary
a
t $300,000,000
S
ection
A
ssessed Valuation
4
9.082
C
ounty Commissioners
2
9,700
$
5
0.334
R
ecorder of Deeds
4
5,000
$
5
1.281
C
ounty Clerks
4
5,000
$
5
1.282
C
ounty Clerk (Clay)
3
4,500
$
5
2.269
C
ounty Collectors
4
5,000
$
5
3.082
A
ssessors
4
5,000
$
5
3.083
A
ssessor (Clay)
N
/A
5
4.261
T
reasurers
4
5,000
$
5
4.320
C
ollector/Treasurer (Townships)
4
5,000
$
5
5.091
A
uditor
4
5,000
$
5
6.265
P
rosecuting Attorneys
5
5,000
$
5
8.095
C
oroners
1
6,000
$
4
73.742
P
ublic Administrators
4
5,000
$
L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 6 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
published their financials in the newspaper, the potential savings could be up to $201,600
($2,100 * 96) per year. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a potential savings in publication costs
for counties to post their financials through a newspaper of general circulation in their county
that could exceed $100,000 annually from this proposal.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, officials from
Boone County and Greene County each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on
their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for these
sections.
§58.200 – Vacancy in Sheriff’s position
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary in §58.200. Should the sheriff’s
position become vacant and the county coroner becomes acting sheriff until the position is filled,
the salary of the coroner should be increased by the difference between the sheriff’s salary and
the coroner’s salary. Oversight assumes this would occur on an infrequent basis and would have
a minimal fiscal impact on counties. Therefore, Oversight will not reflect a fiscal impact for this
section.
§70.631 – Public Safety Personnel retirement
Officials from the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement (JCPER) assume the
proposal has no direct fiscal impact to the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement. The
JCPER’s review of this legislation indicates it would not create a “substantial proposed change”
in future plan benefits as defined in Section 105.660(10).
Current Status of the LAGERS as of February 28, 2021 (most recent actuarial valuation):
Number of participating employers as of February 28, 2021: 801
Active Members:
General: 25,974
Police: 6,591
Fire: 2,715
Public Safety: 100
Total Actives: 35,380
Inactive Members: 16,413
Total membership: 51,793 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 7 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Funded Ratio
Market Value of Assets: $9,246,453,190 100.7%
Actuarial Value of Assets: $8,777,019,738 95.6%
Liabilities:
Oversight notes this proposal removes language that limits the provisions in section 70.631 to
specific local political subdivisions.
Oversight notes the minimum retirement age for general employees is 60 years of age.
Oversight assumes this proposal lowers the minimum retirement age to 55 years of age for
certain employees defined as public safety personnel. Oversight assumes there could be an
increase in employer contributions for local political subdivisions for employees they elect to
cover under the retirement system as public safety personnel who retire at the age of 55 instead
of 60.
Oversight notes each individual employer electing to add certain employees as public safety
personnel would have an actuarial cost statement done to determine if the change would require
an increase in the employers’ contribution rate.
Oversight notes the limitation on increases in employer contribution rates does not appear to
apply to any contribution increase resulting from this proposal. Additionally, Oversight notes the
board can set different rates of contributions employers having policeman members or having
fireman members (70.730.4, RSMo). Oversight is uncertain if “public safety personnel” would
qualify as policeman members or fireman members which would allow for a different
contribution rate than general employees.
Oversight will show a range of $0 (no local political subdivisions elect to cover additional
employees as public safety personnel) to an unknown cost to local political subdivisions if an
increase in employer contributions were needed. Oversight assumes this proposal is discretionary
and would have no fiscal impact without action by the governing body.
§105.145 – Financial statements of political subdivisions
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state the proposal
excludes the fine for failure to submit annual financial statements for political subdivisions with
gross revenues of less than $5,000, or for political subdivisions that have not levied or collected
sales or use taxes in the fiscal year. This may result in a revenue loss for both the state and
schools.
It also provides grace from fines if the failure to timely submit the annual financial statement is
the result of fraud or other illegal conduct and allows a refund by DOR of any fines already paid
under these circumstances. The 90% downward adjustment DOR is allowed to make on L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 8 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
outstanding fine or penalty balances after January 1, 2023 results in the amount of collections
being reduced for both the state and DOR collection fees. A similar downward adjustment may
be made by DOR if the outstanding fines are deemed uncollectable. These downward
adjustments will likewise result in a revenue loss for both the state and schools.
The SCS contains the disincorporation provisions that were included in subsections 105.145.16
through 105.145.20 in the earlier political subdivision bills as a consequence for noncompliance.
Based on information from DOR, the department started imposing this fine in August 2017. B&P
defers to DOR for more specific estimates of fines and actual collection costs.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) state §105.145- Annual Financial Statement
(Effective August 28, 2022) provides that currently, local political subdivisions are required to
file annual financial statements with the State Auditor’s Office. Failure to file those statements
results in the political subdivision being assessed a fine of $500 per day per statutes, which is
deposited into local school district funds. DOR notes that the Department started imposing this
fine in August 2017. DOR receives notice from the State Auditor’s Office if a political
subdivision does not file their annual financial statement. At that time, the DOR sends a notice to
the political subdivision and thirty days later the fee starts to accumulate.
DOR collects the fine by offsetting any sales or use tax distributions due to the political
subdivisions. In essence, the DOR only gets to collect the fee if the political subdivision has a
sales or use tax. Most of these political subdivisions do not have a sales or use tax for the
Department to collect, so the DOR assumes much of what is owed is uncollectable. This is not
state money but local political subdivision funds.
Currently, a transportation development district that has gross revenues of less than $5,000 in a
fiscal year is not subject to this fine. This proposal adds language that any political subdivision
with less than $5,000 in revenue or has not levied or collected sales or use taxes in the fiscal year
in which the report is due is not subject to the fine. This will change how the Department
determines the fine.
This proposal also adds a provision that if failure to file the report is a result of fraud or other
illegal conduct by an employee of the political subdivision, they will not be subject to the fine.
The DOR notes that per statute, the Department is allowed to retain 2% of the amount collected
for administration. Since the program began, DOR has collected $66,621 (rounded) which has
been deposited into General Revenue. All DOR collection fees are deposited into General
Revenue and are not retained by the Department.
Current records of the Department show total fines assessed of $105,253,522 and that
$3,331,032 (rounded) has been collected. The DOR is showing the assessment of the fines by the
county in which the district that owes the fine is located. L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 9 of
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
County
Total Fine
Imposed
Total Fine
Collected
Adair$751,000.00$1,500.00Andrew$63,500.00$0.00Atchison$855,000.00$0.00Audrain$1,014,500.00$0.00Barry$1,863,500.00$16,202.57Barton $0.00$0.00Bates$944,000.00$30,500.00Benton$236,500.00$0.00Bollinger$1,682,500.00$0.00Boone$259,000.00$24,588.62Buchanan$1,100,000.00$53,342.38Butler$1,624,000.00$35,414.25Caldwell$100,000.00$15,312.17Callaway$493,000.00$2,635.05Camden$1,002,000.00$22,360.55Cape Girardeau$280,000.00$0.00Carroll$3,127,000.00$0.00Carter$1,908,000.00$103,500.00Cass$4,128,500.00$5,184.54Cedar$221,000.00$28,500.00Chariton$659,500.00$39,500.00Christian$2,219,500.00$0.00Clark$652,000.00$37,500.00Clay$1,211,000.00$14,500.00Clinton$982,000.00$16,500.00Cole$633,000.00$5,097.95Cooper$1,220,000.00$17,500.00Crawford$1,335,500.00$15,500.00Dade$211,500.00$0.00Dallas$1,202,500.00$0.00Daviess$623,500.00$0.00DeKalb$643,500.00$0.00Dent$194,500.00$0.00Douglas$0.00$0.00Dunklin$1,790,000.00$14,131.34Franklin$1,357,000.00$1,064.01 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 10 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Gasconade$65,500.00$5,036.88Gentry$1,372,000.00$26.98Greene$705,500.00$0.00Grundy$847,500.00$0.00Harrison$588,000.00$0.00Henry$786,000.00$77,296.43Hickory$614,500.00$0.00Holt$1,701,000.00$10,500.00Howard$888,000.00$147,500.00Howell$642,500.00$11,000.00Iron$29,500.00$12,000.00Jackson$2,060,500.00$297,846.94Jasper$327,500.00$101,100.62Jefferson$1,203,000.00$19,301.01Johnson$589,500.00$1,500.00Knox$1,168,500.00$0.00Laclede$240,000.00$12,000.00Lafayette$283,500.00$34,028.54Lawrence$2,699,500.00$0.00Lewis$1,583,000.00$0.00Lincoln$1,051,500.00$31,000.00Linn$795,500.00$15,000.00Livingston$1,158,000.00$0.00Macon$236,500.00$0.00Madison$1,777,500.00$79,389.02Maries$118,000.00$0.00Marion$55,500.00$0.00McDonald$161,500.00$0.00Mercer$439,000.00$0.00Miller$801,500.00$4,598.44Mississippi$101,000.00$4,977.98Moniteau$0.00$0.00Monroe$42,000.00$10,000.00Montgomery$311,000.00$3,500.00Morgan $0.00$0.00New Madrid$1,631,500.00$122,693.96Newton$440,500.00$25,500.00 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 11 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Nodaway$2,637,000.00$19,500.00Oregon $0.00$0.00Osage$610,500.00$12,104.21Ozark$43,000.00$43,000.00Pemiscot$2,513,000.00$6,500.00Perry$1,613,500.00$0.00Pettis$599,000.00$0.00Phelps$333,500.00$50,000.00Pike$19,500.00$0.00Platte$890,000.00$22,500.00Polk$507,500.00$0.00Pulaski$1,327,500.00$17,000.00Putnam$3,000.00$0.00Ralls$177,500.00$38,326.99Randolph$1,177,000.00$10,500.00Ray$2,211,500.00$0.00Reynolds$595,500.00$1,184.60Ripley$342,500.00$0.00Saline$849,500.00$0.00Schuyler$449,000.00$18,500.00Scotland$757,500.00$0.00Scott$1,853,000.00$620.44Shannon$287,000.00$135,998.71Shelby$6,500.00$6,500.00St. Charles$1,361,500.00$67,084.06St. Clair$2,012,500.00$265.88St. Francois$294,000.00$0.00St. Louis$3,260,500.00$895,058.73St. Louis City$5,548,000.00$149,299.59Ste. Genevieve$0.00$0.00Stoddard$1,346,500.00$136,084.38Stone$886,022.00$88,521.99Sullivan$695,500.00$0.00Taney$1,453,500.00$8,500.00Texas$1,096,500.00$42,500.00Vernon$1,227,000.00$12,000.00Warren$10,500.00$10,500.00 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 12 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Washington$680,500.00$12,000.00Wayne$1,026,000.00$852.29Webster$429,000.00$0.00Worth$19,000.00$0.00Wright $0.00$0.00Grand Total$105,253,522.00$3,331,032.10
This proposal would result in fewer fines being assessed in the future. As stated previously,
many of these current political subdivisions do not have any sales or use tax collected, so they
may be able to avoid future penalties.
This proposal also allows for a one-time reduction of a political subdivisions current outstanding
balance. Should a political subdivision file its reports by January 1, 2023, they will be entitled to
a one-time downward adjustment of their existing fine by 90%.
The current outstanding balance is $101,922,490 ($105,253,522 owed - $3,331,032.10
collected). This is money the Department notes is owed, but most likely uncollectable. Should it
be collected, it would be forwarded to the local school district funds. If all the fine money is
eligible for the one-time reduction, this would result in $94,728,170 ($105,253,522 * .90,
rounded) no longer being owed.
Oversight notes if all political subdivisions file their report and receive the reduction, it would
be a loss of $89,895,636 to the local school districts from not receiving the fine money, a loss to
the state of $1,834,605 in collection fees and a gain to the local political subdivisions of
$91,730,241($101,922,490 * 90%).
Reducing the future fines would help save the local political subdivisions money; however, due
to the uncollectability of most of this money, the DOR assumes no additional impact to the state.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a
potential loss of fine revenue stated by DOR to the General Revenue Fund for this proposal.
Also, Oversight notes that because of the new language for certain local political subdivisions if
failure to file a financial statement is the result of fraud or illegal conduct by an employee or
officer of the political subdivision and the political subdivision complies with filing the financial
statement within thirty days of the discovery of the fraud or illegal conduct, then the fine shall
not be assessed. Oversight assumes the new language could result in a savings to local political
subdivisions on fine fees. Therefore, Oversight will also reflect a savings to local political
subdivisions of $0 to unknown for this proposal.
Oversight also notes this proposal is allowing a political subdivision that files its financial
statement after January 1, 2023, to receive a one-time 90% reduction of their outstanding balance
of their fines owed. L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 13 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight also notes that the loss in fine revenue collected by DOR would result in a savings to
the local political subdivisions who would no longer need to pay the fine revenue. It would also
result in a loss of revenue to School Districts on these fines no longer being collected.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a savings to local political subdivisions on the fines no longer
being collected and a loss of 98% of the fine revenue no longer going to the school districts for
this proposal. Oversight notes that the DOR is allowed to retain two percent of the fine revenue
collected (per §105.145.11). Oversight assumes a large majority of the $101,922,490 of
outstanding fines to be uncollectible. Therefore, Oversight will range the fiscal impact from this
proposal from $0 to DOR’s estimates.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2220, officials from the Platte
County Board of Elections stated that a vote to disincorporate a small political subdivision may
cost $6,000 if the LPS is the only entity holding an election.
Oversight also notes 105.145.18(4) states any costs of submitting the question shall be paid by
the political subdivisions. Oversight will reflect a $0 or (Unknown) cost to local political
subdivisions for such election costs.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2220, officials from the cities of
Kansas City, O’Fallon and SpringfieldOffice of the State Courts Administrator
each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for this section.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2220, officials from the Jackson
County Board of Elections assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2220, officials from the Attorney
General’s Office (AGO) assumed any additional litigation costs arising from this proposal can
be absorbed with existing personnel and resources, however, the AGO may seek additional
appropriations if there is a significant increase in litigation.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2220, officials from the Cities of:
Claycomo and the St. Louis City and the Greene County each assumed the proposal will have
no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to
the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§233.095 – Finances of Special Road Districts
In response to a previous version, officials from the City of Springfield and the City of St.
Louis each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organizations. Oversight L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 14 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in
the fiscal note for this section.
§473.742 – Salaries of Public Administrators
In response to similar legislation from this year, SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, officials from
Clinton County assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for this agency.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2450, officials from the Public
Administrator’s Office for the City of St. Louis assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact
on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for this agency.
Oversight notes each county has a public administrator, including the City of St. Louis.
Oversight also notes that, currently, an incoming public administrator may elect to receive a
salary or receive fees as may be allowed by law. Under terms of this proposal every public
administrator beginning a first term on or after January 1, 2023, shall be deemed to have elected
to receive a salary as provided in this section. Oversight assumes this proposal would potentially
increase the salaries in 2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
class counties based on assessed valuation. Oversight took
the highest salary cap at 39 letters opened of $25,000 and calculated the difference in salary that
would be increased based on the assessed valuation in the chart below. Using the Total Assessed
Valuation by County in the 76
th
Annual Report from the State Tax Commission, Oversight also
organized the 2
nd
, 3
rd
, and 4
th
class counties into salary classifications based on the assessed
valuation. From this chart, Oversight assumes there could be salary increases collectively
exceeding $1,721,000. Adding additional payroll taxes and workers’ compensation would yield
a potential cost that could exceed $1,927,692 and Oversight will reflect this amount in the fiscal
note for this proposal. L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 15 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
SEQ CHAPTER \h 1
Bill as a Whole
Officials from the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Economic
Development, the Department of Social Services, the Missouri Department of
Transportation, the City of Kansas City, the Platte County Board of Elections, the St. Louis
County Board of Elections, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Office, the Local Government
Employees Retirement System, the Office of the State Auditor, the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules and the State Tax Commission each assume the proposal will have no
fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the
A
ssessed Valuation
C
ounty
C
lass
N
umber of
C
ounties*
H
ighest
S
alary
A
ssessed
S
alary
D
ifference
i
n Salary
P
otential
A
djusted Salary
$
8,000,000 to $40,999,999
3 1 2
5,000
$ 2
9,000
$
4
,000
$
4
,000
$
$
41,000,000 to $53,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$ 3
0,000
$
5
,000
$
-$
$
54,000,000 to $65,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$ 3
2,000
$
7
,000
$
-$
$
66,000,000 to $85,999,999
3 2 2
5,000
$ 3
4,000
$
9
,000
$
1
8,000
$
$
86,000,000 to $99,999,999
3 2 2
5,000
$ 3
6,000
$
1
1,000
$
2
2,000
$
$
100,000,000 to $130,999,999
3 1
0
2
5,000
$ 3
8,000
$
1
3,000
$
1
30,000
$
$
131,000,000 to $159,999,999
3 1
3
2
5,000
$ 4
0,000
$
1
5,000
$
1
95,000
$
$
160,000,000 to $189,999,999
3 8 2
5,000
$ 4
1,000
$
1
6,000
$
1
28,000
$
$
190,000,000 to $249,999,999
3 1
2
2
5,000
$ 4
1,500
$
1
6,500
$
1
98,000
$
$
250,000,000 to $299,999,999
3 9 2
5,000
$ 4
3,000
$
1
8,000
$
1
62,000
$
$
300,000,000 to $449,999,999
3
, 4
1
5
2
5,000
$ 4
5,000
$
2
0,000
$
3
00,000
$
$
450,000,000 to $599,999,999
3
, 4
1
4
2
5,000
$ 4
7,000
$
2
2,000
$
3
08,000
$
$
600,000,000 to $749,999,999
3
, 4
6 2
5,000
$ 4
9,000
$
2
4,000
$
1
44,000
$
$
750,000,000 to $899,999,999
3 1 2
5,000
$ 5
1,000
$
2
6,000
$
2
6,000
$
$
900,000,000 to $1,049,999,999
2 2 2
5,000
$ 5
3,000
$
2
8,000
$
5
6,000
$
$
1,050,000,000 to $1,199,999,999
2 1 2
5,000
$ 5
5,000
$
3
0,000
$
3
0,000
$
$
1,200,000,000 to $1,349,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$ 5
7,000
$
3
2,000
$
-$
$
1,350,000,000 and over
0 0 2
5,000
$ 5
9,000
$
3
4,000
$
-$
9
6
1
,721,000
$
P
ayroll taxes
7
.65%
1
31,657
$
W
ork Comp
4
.36%
7
5,036
$
G
rand Total
1
,927,692
$
*
Number of Counties were based off of the Total Assessed Valuation by County in the 76th Annual Report from the State Tax
C
ommission L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 16 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the
office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding
for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a
review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations
related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of
regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriation process.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities, local election authorities, counties, recorder of deeds, auditors, collectors,
treasurers, public administrators and sheriff offices were requested to respond to this proposed
legislation but did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative
Information System (MOLIS) database is available upon request.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025GENERAL REVENUELoss – DOR – 2% of collection fee on
future potential fines no longer assessed
because LPS no longer required to file
due to changes in the bill (§105.145)
p. 7 - 13
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Loss – DOR – 2% collection fee that
may have been collected if not for the
one-time decrease of 90% of the
outstanding balance from the local
political subdivision if they submit a
timely financial statement by 1/1/23
(§105.145) p. 7 -13
$0 or up to
($1,834,605)$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE
$0 or
(Unknown,
could exceed
$1,834,605)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 17 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Savings – in publication costs on
financials posted in a newspaper of
general circulation (§§50.815 &
50.820) p. 5 - 6
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Cost – potential salary increases for
county coroners (§§50.327 & 58.095) p.
3
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
Costs – adjustment on base schedules
for county officials (§50.327.4) p. 3
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Cost – potential increase in employer
contribution rates for employers who
elect to cover certain positions as public
safety personnel – (§70.631) p. 6-7
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Savings – on potential fines for certain
LPS (§105.145) p. 7$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
Loss – School districts receiving less
fine revenue (from savings above)
(§105.145) p. 13
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Costs – Election costs to
disincorporation (§105.145) p. 13
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Savings – on fine revenue that is
reduced with a one-time reduction of
90% on the outstanding balance due if
they submit a timely financial statement
by 1/1/23 (§105.145) p. 7 - 13
$0 or up to
$91,730,241$0$0
Loss – School Districts – reduction in
fine revenue from one-time adjustment
of fine revenue (§105.145) p. 7 - 13
$0 or up to
($89,895,636)$0$0 L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 18 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Cost – Potential salary increases for
public administrators (§473.742) p. 14-
15
$0 to (Could
exceed
$963,846)
$0 to (Could
exceed
$1,927,692)
$0 to (Could
exceed
$1,927,692)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
(Unknown,
could exceed
$555,241)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$3,353,692)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$3,353,692)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This proposal modifies provisions relating to finances of political subdivisions.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Missouri Department of Transportation
City of Springfield
City of St. Louis
Office of Administration – Budget and Planning
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Revenue
Attorney General’s Office
Office of the Secretary of State
City of Claycomo
City of Kansas City
City of O’Fallon
Jackson County Board of Elections
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Greene County
Office of the State Auditor
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Department of Economic Development
Department of Social Services L.R. No. 3146S.03C
Bill No. SCS for HB 1541
Page 19 of 19
May 5, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Phelps County Sheriff’s Office
Local Government Employees Retirement System
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
State Tax Commission
Clay County Auditor
Henry County
Lincoln County
Livingston County
Boone County
Clinton County
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorMay 5, 2022May 5, 2022