Missouri House Bill HB1606 Introduced / Fiscal Note

                    COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:3703H.08S Bill No.:CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  Subject:Political Subdivisions; Counties Type:Original  Date:May 11, 2022Bill Summary:This proposal changes the law regarding political subdivisions. 
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully Implemented 
(FY 2026)
General 
Revenue*/**/
***
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,944,498)
 (Unknown, could 
exceed $155,989)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$158,519)
(Unknown, could 
exceed $399,229 
to $2,680,247)
Total 
Estimated 
Net Effect on 
General 
Revenue
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,944,498)
 (Unknown, could 
exceed $155,989)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$158,519)
(Unknown, could 
exceed $399,229 
to $2,680,247)
*Part of the fiscal impact to the state is the potential loss of the Department of Revenue’s 2% 
collection fee.  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 for these provisions 
is on the very low end of this range.
**The fiscal impact (per match) for §144.051 is ranged from $0 (Kansas City is not selected to 
host a FIFA World Cup Match) OR a range of roughly $105 per ticket (assuming seating 
capacity will remain at 76,416 as currently configured for American football) to $1,100 per 
ticket. If Kansas City were selected to host more than one match, the negative fiscal impact 
would exceed the impact estimated above.
***Oversight notes the lower range simply represents the cost of the estimated FTE needed by 
the Department of Economic Development (DED) and Department of Mental Health (DMH). 
Additional costs (unknown) would include construction of short-term housing, grants to local 
political subdivisions to construct short-term housing. FY 2023 estimated costs represents 6 Mo 
in expenses for DED and DMH organizations as the proposal delays the implementation until 
January 1, 2023. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 2 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
Parks, Soil, Water 
Fund $0$0$0
$0 or ($8,024 
to $84,058)
Conservation 
Commission Fund$0$0$0
$0 or 
($10,030 to 
$105,072)
School District 
Trust Fund $0$0$0
$0 or 
($80,237 to 
$840,576)
State Road Fund*
$0 or Unknown$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
Truman State 
University
Unknown to 
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
Other State 
Funds
Unknown to 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
($98,291 to 
$1,029,706)
*Officials from the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assume, depending upon 
the condemnation proceedings, the savings, if any, could be up to $1 million per year. 
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
All Federal 
Funds $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 3 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
General Revenue
2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
FTE 2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
☒ 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 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
Local 
Government*
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$555,241)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$3,353,692)
(Unknown, could 
exceed $3,353,692)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$3,724,787 to  
$7,241,356)
*(§105.145) Part of the net fiscal impact to the local political subdivision is the potential loss of 
the Department of Revenue’s 2% collection fee.  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.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Due to time constraints, Oversight was unable to receive some agency responses in a timely 
manner and performed limited analysis. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best 
current information that we have or on information regarding a similar bill(s). Upon the receipt  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 4 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
of agency responses, Oversight will review to determine if an updated fiscal note should be 
prepared and seek approval to publish a new fiscal note.
§§50.327 & 58.095 – Compensation for County Coroners and Salary Schedules for 3
rd
 Class 
Counties
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 1128, 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 5 of 
May 11, 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 6 of 
May 11, 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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office
provisions from RSMo 50.815.2.8 to include salary information in the annual financial statement 
will cost Clay County approximately another $161.00 to publish more information in the 
newspaper--based on recent costs for publication. 
Oversight assumes the Clay County Auditor’s Office is provided with core funding to handle a 
certain amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes the Clay County Auditor’s Office could 
absorb the costs related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing 
and duties at substantial costs, the Auditor’s Office could request funding through the 
appropriation process. 
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.
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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 7 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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 
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, SB 845, 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.  
§55.160 – Positions of County Auditors
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 889, officials from the Christian County 
Auditor’s Office 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 section.  
§473.742 – Salaries of Public Administrators
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 1088, 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  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 8 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.
SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  
1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  
1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1 HYPERLINK 
"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm" \h 6.8%§105.145 – Financial statements of 
political subdivisions 
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for SS for SCS for SB 724, officials from 
the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §105.145 of 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.
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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 9 of 
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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 the Department of Revenue 
(DOR) of any fines already paid under these circumstances. The one-time 90% downward 
adjustment DOR is allowed to make on 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.
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 DOR 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 10 of 43
May 11, 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 11 of 43
May 11, 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 12 of 43
May 11, 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. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 13 of 43
May 11, 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, 
rounded). 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 
who have gross revenues of less than $5,000 or who have not levied or collected a sales and use 
tax in the fiscal year or if the 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 and 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 before January 1, 2023 to receive a one-time 90% reduction of their outstanding 
balance of their fines owed.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 14 of 43
May 11, 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 Department of Revenue 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 2021, SB 547, officials from the City of Corder, the City 
of HughesvilleCity of O’Fallon each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact 
on their organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these cities.  
SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1
§304.022 – Emergency Vehicles for Park Rangers
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1637, officials from the Attorney 
General’s Office, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of 
Economic Development the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the 
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, the Department of Mental 
Health, the Department of Public Safety – (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Fire 
Safety, Office of the Director, Missouri Gaming Commission, State Emergency 
Management Agency, Missouri Veterans Commission), the Missouri Department of 
AgricultureMissouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri Department of Transportation, 
the Missouri Lottery, the Department of Transportation - Patrol Employees’ Retirement 
System, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Administration - Administrative 
Hearing Commission, the Office of the Governor the Missouri House of Representatives, 
the Joint Committee On Education the Oversight Division, the Missouri Senate
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, 
the Missouri State Employees Retirement System, the State Tax Commission, the 
Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the 
Department of Social Services, the Office of the State Auditor, the City of Claycomo, the 
City of HughesvilleCity of Kansas City, the City of Springfield, the City of St. Louis, 
the Kansas City Police Department, the St. Joseph Police DepartmentPhelps County 
Sheriff’s Department, Gordon Parks ElementaryUniversity of Missouri, and the 
Hermann Area Hospital District assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their 
respective organizations.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 15 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes no fiscal impact on state or local governments for this section of the 
proposal.
§§67.457, 67.461, 67.1421, 67.1431, 67.1471, 99.825, 99.830, 99.865, 238.212 & 238.222 – 
Special Taxing Districts
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assumed 
this proposal requires that neighborhood improvement districts, community improvement 
districts, redevelopment districts and transportation authority districts send certain specified 
documents to the DOR. The required information includes:
Updated boundary information
Description of the boundaries and the average assessment
Copies of the establishment of the district paperwork
Copies of dissolution paperwork should a district be dissolved
Copies of all meeting notices, hearing and ordinances.
Information received by the DOR is to be posted on the website. DOR notes collecting this 
information is outside the scope of DOR’s work. DOR notes this would require the creation of a 
webpage that citizens could use to view these documents. DOR staff would create and maintain 
the webpage. DOR would establish an email address for the acceptance of the documents. The 
creation of the webpage and setting up of the email will be done with existing DOR resources.
From working with numerous special districts around the state DOR knows that many of these 
required notices will be sent via paper instead of email. Based on the number of documents filed, 
DOR will need 1 FTE Public Relations Specialist FTE to handle these duties. Should additional 
paperwork be sent justifying additional FTE, DOR will seek those FTE through the appropriation 
process.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimated FTE costs s as provided by the DOR.
For informational purposes, Oversight notes the following number of taxing authorities for the 
last 5 years from the State Auditor Property Tax Rate Report. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 16 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for SCS for SB 908, officials from the 
Office of the State Auditor, the City of Springfield, the City of Hughesville and the City of 
O’Fallon 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.  
§57.317 – Sheriff Salaries – Boone County
Oversight notes in similar legislation to SB 1036 from this year, county commissions were 
asked to respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact, but did not provide any information. 
Oversight notes this amendment pertains to the Boone County Sheriff’s salary. Oversight 
assumes this amendment does not place a limitation on the salary of the Boone County Sheriff 
and, therefore, there could be a potential increase from the in salary that would be higher than 
F
Y21
F
Y20
F
Y19
F
Y18
F
Y17
A
mbulance Districts
1
06
1
06
1
06
1
06
1
05
H
ospitals
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
N
ursing Home Districts
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
P
ublic Water Supply Districts
1 1 1 1 1
S
oil & Water Conservation Subdistricts
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
D
rainage and Levee Districts
2 2 2 2 2
S
pecial Road Districts
2
06
2
07
2
08
2
06
2
08
M
unicipalities
7
57
7
56
7
57
7
54
7
53
T
ax Supported Public Libraries
7
9
7
9
7
9
7
9
7
9
T
ownships
2
83
2
83
2
83
2
83
2
83
F
ire Protection Districts
3
91
3
88
3
84
3
80
3
76
S
ewer Districts
7 7 7 7 7
S
pecial Business Districts
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
2
0
R
egional Recreational Districts
1 1 1 1 1
C
ommunity Improvement Districts
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
8
H
ealth Centers
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
S
pecial Road District Subdistrict
1 1 1 1 1
E
xtension Districts
2 1 1 1 1
T
ransportation Development District
1 1 1 1 1
D
evelopmental Disabilities
0 0 0 0 4
J
unior Colleges
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
M
useum District
1 1 1 1 1
S
chool Districts
4
95
4
95
4
95
4
95
4
95
S
pecial School Districts
2 2 2 2 2
C
ounties
1
14
1
14
1
14
1
14
1
14
T
otal Types of Taxing Authorities
2
647
2
643
2
644
2
635
2
634
S
ource: State Auditor Property Tax Rate Report L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 17 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
what current statute dictates. Because Oversight is unclear on how much of an increase could be 
received by the Boone County Sheriff, Oversight will assume a $0 or unknown cost to the Boone 
County Sheriff’s Office for this section. 
SEQ CHAPTER \h  1§144.051 – 2026 FIFA World Cup Tickets Sales Tax Exemption
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and 
Planning (B&P) noted this proposal may impact the calculation under Article X, Section 18(e).
B&P states this proposal would exempt all tickets sold to the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Jackson 
County between 6/1/2026 and 7/31/2026 from sales and use taxes.
B&P notes that Kansas City, MO is currently in the host city selection for the 2026 FIFA World 
Cup.  B&P further notes that the final U.S. host cities have not yet been determined.  As of 
12/19/2021, there are currently 17 cities competing to host 11 U.S. FIFA World Cup Games.
B&P further notes that, if selected, Kansas City would host a 2026 FIFA World Cup game at 
Arrowhead Stadium, which has a capacity of 76,416.  Therefore, B&P will assume that 76,416 
tickets would be sold and qualify under this exemption.
In addition, the 2026 game ticket prices are still unknown.  However, tickets for the 2022 FIFA 
World cup ranged from $105 to $210 for regular group matches and $455 to $1,100 for the 
finals.  It is currently unknown which game would be hosted in Kansas City.  Table 1 shows the 
estimated ticket sales under both game hosting scenarios.
Table 1: Estimated Total Ticket SalesTotal Estimated Ticket 
SalesLowHigh
Group Match$8,023,680 $16,047,360 Finals$34,769,280 $84,057,600 *Site selection is still occurring.  It is unknown if 
Kansas City will be selected or what game may be 
hosted in the city.
B&P notes that while the exemption would cover both FY26 (6/2026) and FY27 (7/2026), ticket 
sales for the 2022 games typically sold out within hours of release.  Therefore, B&P will reflect 
the total potential loss as occurring in FY26 (6/2026).
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P will reflect three potential impacts.  First, that Kansas 
City is not selected.  Second, that Kansas City is selected to host a group match.  Third, that 
Kansas City is selected to host the finals.  Table 2 shows the potential revenue impact under all 
three scenarios. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 18 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FY 2026
State Funds
Low PriceHigh PriceNot Selected$0 ORGroup Match General Revenue($240,710)($481,421)Education($80,237)($160,474)Conservation($10,030)($20,059)DNR($8,024)($16,047)Total State 
Revenues($339,000)($678,001)
ORFinals Match General Revenue($1,043,078)($2,521,728)Education($347,693)($840,576)Conservation($43,462)($105,072)DNR($34,769)($84,058)Total State 
Revenues($1,469,002)($3,551,434)
Therefore, B&P estimates that if Kansas City is not selected to host a 2026 FIFA World Cup 
game, there will be no TSR or local sales tax impact.  If Kansas City is selected to host a group 
match, GR could be reduced by ($240,710 to $481,421) and TSR could be reduced by ($339,000 
to $678,001).  If Kansas City is selected to host a final match, GR could be reduced by 
($1,043,078 to $2,521,728) and TSR could be reduced by ($1,469,002 to $3,551,434).   L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 19 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Table 3: Estimated Local Sales Tax ImpactFY 2026
Local Sales Tax
Low PriceHigh PriceNot Selected$0 $0 ORGroup Match • Jackson County($100,296)($200,592)• Kansas City($260,770)($521,539)• Kansas City Zoological 
District($10,030)($20,059)
Group Match Total($371,095)($742,190)
ORFinals • Jackson County($434,616)($1,050,720)• Kansas City($1,130,002)($2,731,872)• Kansas City Zoological 
District($43,462)($105,072)
Finals Total($1,608,079)($3,887,664)
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P assumes that the sales tax rate for the Arrowhead 
Stadium would be applied to all ticket sales (in-person and online).  B&P notes that the sales tax 
rate for the Arrowhead Stadium is 4.625%, with 1.25% for Jackson County, 3.25% for Kansas 
City, and 0.125% for the Kansas City Zoological District.  
Therefore, B&P estimates that local sales tax could be reduced by ($371,095 to $742,190) if 
Kansas City hosts a group match game or by ($1,608,079 to $3,887,664) if Kansas City hosts a 
final match.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) stated this 
proposal grants a state and local sales and use tax exemption for admission tickets to the 2026 
FIFA World Cup soccer tournament. The tournament is scheduled to be played in July 2026. 
Historically tickets go on sale the month before and are sold out within hours. The FIFA 
association is in the process of choosing a site. The City of Kansas City is under consideration as 
one of the sites. It is unknown if they will get chosen and if chosen whether they would host a 
group match or final match.
This sales tax exemption would be limited to June 1, 2026- July 31, 2026 in Kansas City for the 
tickets sales of the event. If Kansas City is not chosen then this proposal will not have a fiscal 
impact. If Kansas City is chosen, they are expected to play at Arrowhead Stadium; which has a 
seating capacity of 76,416. The average ticket prices for the 2022 World Cup show that group 
match tickets are between $105- $210, while final matches sell for $455-$1,100. Using this 
information they calculated: L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 20 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Total Estimated Ticket SalesLowHighGroup Match$8,023,680 $16,047,360 Finals$34,769,280 $84,057,600 
The state sales and use tax rate is 4.225% broken down:
General Revenue 3%
School District Trust 1%
Conservation Commission .125%
Park, Soil & Water .1%
The impact will be either $0 (not selected as a site) or the amounts projected below:
Estimated Impact by State Fund
Group MatchFY 2026State FundLow PriceHigh PriceGeneral Revenue($240,710.00)($481,421.00)Education($80,237.00)($160,474.00)Conservation($10,030.00)($20,059.00)DNR($8,024.00)($16,047.00)Total State 
Revenues
($339,000.00)($678,001.00)
OR
Estimated Impact by State Fund
Finals MatchFY 2026State FundLow PriceHigh PriceGeneral Revenue($1,043,078.00)($2,521,728.00)Education($347,693.00)($840,576.00)Conservation($43,462.00)($105,072.00)DNR($34,769.00)($84,058.00)Total State 
Revenues
($1,469,002.00)($3,551,434.00)
Arrowhead Stadium is in the following taxing jurisdictions. Jackson County has a local sales tax 
rate of 1.25%, Kansas City has a 3.25% rate and the Kansas City Zoological District has a 
.0125% rate for a total of 4.625%. We will use the 4.625% for the fiscal note. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 21 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Estimated Local Sales Tax Impact 
FY 2026
Local Sales Tax Group MatchLow PriceHigh PriceJackson County($100,296.00)($200,592.00)Kansas City($260,770.00)($521,539.00)Kansas City Zoological District($10,030.00)($20,059.00)Group Match Total($371,095.00)($742,190.00)
OR
Estimated Local Sales Tax Impact 
FY 2026
Local Sales Tax Final MatchLow PriceHigh PriceJackson County($434,616.00)($1,050,720.00)Kansas City($1,130,002.00)($2,731,872.00)Kansas City Zoological District($43,462.00)($105,072.00)Final Match Total($1,608,079.00)($3,887,664.00)
DOR assumes this proposal will require programming changes estimated to be $3,596.
Oversight notes that DOR assumes this proposal will require programming changes with an 
estimated cost of $3,596. OversightDepartment of Revenue is provided with core 
funding to handle a certain amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes DOR could absorb 
the costs related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and 
duties at substantial costs, DOR could request funding through the appropriation process. 
Officials from the DOR assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. 
Oversight notes that both B&P andassume the proposal will have a negative fiscal impact 
on state revenue and local funds. Therefore, Oversight will reflect B&P’s and the DOR’s 
estimates and range their high and low impacts per match on the fiscal note as summarized in 
table below.  
Estimated Fiscal Impact to General Revenue
FY 2023 FY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Low HighLow HighLow HighLow HighNo Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Group Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($240,710)($481,421)Final Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  ($1,043,078) ($2,521,728)
In response to a previous version, officials from the City of Kansas City
would have a negative fiscal impact on Kansas City as a result of lost sales tax revenue. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 22 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes the above local political subdivision stated this proposal would have negative 
fiscal impact on their respective local subdivision of an indeterminate amount. Therefore, 
Oversight will note B&P and DOR’s estimates for impact to local political subdivisions on the 
fiscal note.
Oversight notes Arrowhead stadium is not configured for soccer and assume adjustments will 
need to be made regarding the width of the field to accommodate a FIFA match.  Oversight is 
unsure if this will impact seating capacity.  Oversight will range the fiscal impact per match from 
$0 (Kansas City not selected) OR a range from $105 per ticket to $1,100 per ticket.
§260.295 – Regulating of Refrigerants
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 2593, officials from the City of 
Springfield and City of St. Louis 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 on the fiscal note for this section.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 2593, officials from the 
Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Natural Resources, the 
Department of Public Safety’s Office of the Director, the Department of Health and Senior 
ServicesDepartment of Revenue, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, the 
City of Claycomo, the City of O’Fallon and the Newton County Health Department 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.  
SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  1SEQ CHAPTER \h  
1§§59.310, 92.720, 92.740, 92.750, 92.760, 92.765, 92.770, 92.775, 92.810, 92.815, 92.817, 
92.825, 92.835, 92.840, 92.852, 92.855, & 442.130 – Certain Property Regulations
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 2218, officials from the 
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of RevenueOffice of 
the State Courts AdministratorSt. Louis County Police Department and the 
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 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.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 2218, officials from the 
Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Economic Development, the 
Missouri Department of Transportation, the State Tax Commission, the City of Kansas City 
and the  each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 23 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.  
Officials from the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not 
respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact for this proposal.
§67.2300 – Homelessness
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Economic Development 
(DED) assumed §67.2300 creates a short-term housing construction program for the homeless to 
be funded from state funds. The DED is required to provide bonuses of up to ten percent for such 
programs that meet guidelines as established by the DED. Also requires the DED to promulgate 
rules and regulations. The fiscal impact is unknown at this time.
However, DED will require one FTE (Economic Development Specialist at $53,447 annually) to 
administer the program.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) 
assumed this amendment authorizes use of state funds to particular homelessness programs, but 
excludes funds that cannot be directed to those programs based on state or federal restrictions or 
regulations. While many DMH funds are restricted and would be unaffected by this legislation.  
DMH still has funds not subject to these restrictions; therefore, this would direct funds away 
from best practice services such as permanent supportive housing and into surveys and 
performance incentives to subdivisions. This would have a detrimental effect for the individuals 
in need of services and reducing DMH's ability to provide effective services. This would 
negative effect individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health disorders, and substance 
use disorders.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding a federal vaccination mandate, DMH cannot calculate a fiscal 
impact on the DMH at this stage. 
Oversight notes Section 67.2300. 4. notes “The department shall provide up to twenty-five 
percent of the base allocation of such funds as performance payments to political subdivisions or 
not-for-profit organizations providing such services as rewards for meeting predetermined goals 
on reductions of:
(a)  Days unhoused;
(b)  Days in jail or prison; and
(c)  Days hospitalized, with the weights of such days to be determined by the              
department.”
Additionally, 67.2300 1. (1), notes the term "Department", any department authorized to allocate 
funds raised by the state or federal funds received by the state for housing or homelessness.
Oversight notes the DED, Missouri Housing Development Commission, is currently responsible 
for issuing tax credits for Low Income Housing.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 24 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes DED request for additional FTE is probable, providing the Department must 
access and compile all necessary data from various institution within state and outside of the 
agency to ensure compliance within the proposal. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect DED’s estimated impact in the fiscal note.  
Oversight notes the proposal states that any construction of short-term housing for the homeless 
that is funded using state funds, including parking areas, camping facilities, and shelters, shall 
comply with certain requirements as specified in the proposal. 
Oversight notes that the Missouri Housing Trust Fund, currently maintains a grant program 
helping the homeless, or the near homeless population in the State. Oversight notes the Trust 
Fund provided disbursement as follows:  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 25 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Total Funded by Grant Type  201920202021
Housing Assistance  $     988,313 
 $      
917,767  $   934,302 Emergency Assistance $  1,069,520 
 $   
1,097,248  $1,206,525 Operating Funds $     633,267 
 $      
497,004  $   416,877 
Home Repair/ 
Modification $     410,400 
 $      
430,950  $   325,000 
Construction / 
Rehabilitation $       97,500 
 $      
126,121  $   103,000 Administration $               -   
 $                
-    $   242,781 Total $  3,199,000 
 $   
3,069,087  $3,228,485 Total Funded By Regions 
 201920202021
North $     543,830 
 $      
521,745  $   516,558 Central $     639,800 
 $      
613,817  $   613,412 South $     895,720 
 $      
859,344  $   903,975 Kansas City $     447,860 
 $      
460,364  $   516,558 St. Louis  $     671,790 
 $      
613,817  $   677,982 Total $  3,199,000 
 $   
3,069,087  $3,228,485 
Source: http://mhdc.com/housing_trust_fund/documents/FY2021/2021%20MHTF%20Funding%20Approvals.pdf
Oversight notes that the Missouri Housing Trust Fund distributes $3.165M, on average, in grant 
funds annually to combat homelessness. Additionally, there are 40 to 45 non-profit companies 
receiving funds annually to assist the affected population.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 26 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Allocation Area of Grant Money
Distribution 
Percentage
St. Louis Metropolitan Area:  Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, St. Charles, St. Louis City, St. 
Louis County, and Warren Counties20%
South  Region: Barry, Barton, Butler, Carter, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, 
Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Greene, Hickory, Howell, Jasper, 
Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Mississippi, New Madrid, 
Newton, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Polk, Reynolds, Ripley, 
Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Stone, Taney, Texas, Vernon, 
Wayne, Webster, and Wright Counties28%
Kansas City Metropolitan Area: 
Caldwell, Cass, Clay, Clinton, Jackson, Lafayette, Platte, and 
Ray Counties15%
Central Region: Audrain, Bates, Benton, Bollinger, Boone, Callaway, Camden, 
Cape Girardeau, Cole, Cooper, Crawford, Gasconade, Henry, 
Howard, Iron, Johnson, Madison, Maries, Miller, Moniteau, 
Montgomery, Morgan, Osage, Perry, Pettis, Phelps, Pulaski, 
Saline, St. Clair, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Washington 
Counties20%
North Region: Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Carroll, Chariton, Clark, 
Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Holt, Knox, 
Lewis, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Marion, Mercer, Monroe, 
Nodaway, Pike, Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Schuyler, Scotland, 
Shelby, Sullivan, and Worth Counties17%
Oversight notes the above table provides a regional breakdown of the funds.
Oversight notes that DED currently does not provide any guidance or tax credit affecting the 
overall funding above. The proposal suggest a new program funded by State or Federal moneys 
that are not currently associated with any particular funding of any agency in Missouri.
For informational purposes, Oversight will show the United States Interagency on Homelessness 
(USICH) statistics of the Missouri homeless population in 2016-2019 period as shown below in 
the Table 1: 
Table 1. Homeless statistics L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 27 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Homeless Statistics Missouri State 201720182019
3 Year   
Average
Total Homeless Population6,0375,8836,1796,033Total Family Households Experiencing 
Homelessness765706707726
Veterans 538507488511Chronic Homeless Persons1,0871,0431,0621,064Unaccompanied Young Adults (age 18-
24) 548534477520
 Students/FY201720182019AverageTotal # of Homeless Students32,13336,00634,02934,056Total # of Unaccompanied Students3,9444,2544,2414,146
Nighttime Residence - Unsheltered578611643611Nighttime Residence - Sheltered2,8272,7522,3962,658Nighttime Residence - Hotels/motels 2,0212,4091,9212,117Nighttime Residence Doubled up26,70730,23426,06927,670
Source: https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-
statistics/mo/#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202020%2C%20Missouri,and%20Urban%20Development
%20(HUD)
Oversight notes that Table 1 shows there are on average 1,064 chronically homeless persons and 
34,056 homeless students at any given time throughout the 2017-2019 period and prior 2020 
Census. The proposal allows for individuals experiencing homelessness access to Missouri 
campgrounds and their respective facilities. 
Oversight notes according to the Department of Natural Resources website, Missouri State 
Parks, there are 39 State Parks throughout Missouri which have running water, showers, 
bathroom, and access to electricity and, therefore, possibly able to support the homeless. The 
proposal also allows for such an individual to use the sites for a maximum of six months at a 
time and excludes the owners, or people who maintain the sites, from various regulations.  
Oversight notes the HCS removes the requirement where DED is not allowed to disburse any 
funds to local political subdivisions or non-profit companies constructing any short-term housing 
that costs more than fifty-five thousand dollars per bed to construct, excluding the price of land, 
or that costs more than twenty thousand dollars a year to maintain at a basic level of habitability. 
Oversight notes there are currently an estimated 1,064 chronic homeless persons, on average, in 
any given year in need of sustainable and habitable housing. By taking the population and 
multiplying it by the allowable maximum level of funding of previous bill ($55,000) to construct 
such a housing, DED would need $58.52M to construct temporary housing just for the chronic 
homeless population. However, the HCS removes the $55,000 cap; therefore, the cost could be  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 28 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
higher just to house the chronically homeless. Consequently, Oversight will note an Unknown 
negative cost to the general revenues. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the 
Department of Mental Health (DMH) assumed this proposal creates provisions relating to 
homelessness. Section 67.2300 adds requirements for state funded construction of short-term 
housing for the homeless. It includes guidelines for parking areas, camping facilities, individual 
shelters, and congregate shelters. This bill makes engaging in "unauthorized sleeping" on state-
owned land a class C misdemeanor.  The proposal also adds a requirement for the Department of 
Mental Health (DMH) to maintain a homelessness management information system.  
This proposal requires mental health and substance use evaluation only apply to individuals in 
camping settings, not the other living circumstances.  If the assessments are going to be required, 
DMH recommends the evaluation should apply to the entire population, not just a subset based 
on location. While there is no indication who is responsible for developing or following up on 
the evaluation, DMH assumes the department would be involved in the development of an 
evaluation tool and follow up services through community providers.  
Currently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates the 
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) be managed by Continuums of Care (CoCs) 
throughout the state. If DMH is to maintain the HMIS, it may conflict with the federal mandate 
in place. DMH Housing Unit staff have access to HMIS and use it routinely for data entry for all 
of HUD Continuum of Care participants and coordinated entry. Coordinated Entry includes the 
assessment process for all individuals experiencing homelessness who “touch” the system.  
There are numerous agencies which use this coordinated entry assessment around the state 
outside of DMH and their providers.  This assessment process is also governed by the CoCs. 
DMH assumes this language requires the department to maintain a separate homelessness 
management system for the various agencies which may result in creating a homeless 
management system and continued maintenance. Total cost would be unknown as it would be 
based on how many new users would be needed.
DMH anticipates a fiscal impact of $0 to Unknown for the proposed legislation.
Oversight notes the proposal, Section 67.2300 2. (4), requires that the DMH maintain a 
homelessness management information system and Section 67.2300 2. (2) (b), requires that the 
Department potentially provides the homeless population with mental health and substance use 
evaluations.  
Oversight notes the DMH assumes the proposal will have a direct fiscal impact on their 
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will 
reflect a range from zero to Unknown impact in the fiscal note.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 29 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the 
of Corrections (DOC) 
will not have a fiscal impact on the department.
Oversight notes that any violation of this subsection is a class C misdemeanor; however, for the 
first offense such individual shall be given a warning, and no citation shall be issued unless that 
individual refuses to move to any offered services or shelter. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a 
zero impact in the fiscal note to DOC for these provisions.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the Attorney 
General’s Office, the, the
Services Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, the Office of the State Courts 
Administrator, the Department of Public Safety – Fire Safety, and the Missouri Department 
of Conservation each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their 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 2614, officials from the City of 
Kansas City and the City of O’Fallon both 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 these agencies for this section. 
Oversight notes the HCS for HB 2614 removed the requirement, from previous version of the 
bill, that local police departments and Department of Social Services personal create homeless 
outreach teams to deal with homeless enforcement. Therefore, Oversight will not note reduction 
in local political revenues for this section.
 
§523.061 – Condemnation Proceedings
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Missouri 
Department of Transportation (MoDOT) stated any condemnator, MoDOT included, has the 
potential to see a cost savings if the property that otherwise would have been subject to heritage 
value no longer qualifies because it falls within one of the listed exceptions in this proposal. 
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 to 
unknown savings for this proposal.
Oversight inquired MoDOT regarding the cost savings to property that no longer qualifies as an 
exception for heritage value. MoDOT states the cost savings could be up to $1 million per year. 
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by the MoDOT.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the 
Department of Economic DevelopmentDepartment of Natural Resources, the Office of 
Administration, the State Tax Commission, the City of Claycomo, the L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 30 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
of Conservation and the City of Kansas City each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal 
impact on their respective organizations. 
Oversight assumes this could result in savings to cities and/or counties involved in 
condemnation proceedings.   
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Office of 
the State Courts AdministratorCity of Springfield
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.  
§70.631 – Public Safety Personnel
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1473, 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
Funded Ratio
Market Value of Assets: $9,246,453,190  100.7%
Actuarial Value of Assets: $8,777,019,738 95.6%
Liabilities: L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 31 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1473, officials from the Local 
Government Employees Retirement System (LAGERS) assume this proposal will have no 
fiscal impact on their organization. 
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.
§1 – Property Conveyance for City of Kirksville to Kirksville R-III School District
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction stated they do 
not make public the appraisal values for property that may be sold or conveyed because public 
knowledge of such information may hinder the State’s ability to gain the best value for the 
property.  Additionally, since the terms of conveyances are yet to be determined, the fiscal 
impact, if any, cannot be calculated.  Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
the Governor and the Attorney General’s Office each assumed the proposal would not fiscally 
impact their respective offices. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 32 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the 
Department of Public Safety – Missouri National Guard (MONG) assumed the proposal 
would not fiscally impact their organization.
Officials from the City of Kirksville did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.
As this parcel appears to be material in size (square city block contained by West Scott Street, 
West Fillmore Street, South Main Street and South Elson Street; which currently contains the 
Missouri National Guard Armory building), Oversight will reflect the transaction of the 
conveyance of state property in Adair County to the Kirksville R-III school district as 1) a loss of 
the value of the state property, 2) the proceeds (if any) of the sale/conveyance, and 3) the annual 
savings (if any) to the state no longer maintaining the property.  Oversight will assume a fiscal 
impact of less than $250,000. 
§2 – Property Conveyance for City of Kirksville to Truman State University
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction (FMDC) 
stated they do not make public the appraisal values for property that may be sold or conveyed 
because public knowledge of such information may hinder the State’s ability to gain the best 
value for the property.  Additionally, since the terms of conveyances are yet to be determined, 
the fiscal impact, if any, cannot be calculated.  Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
the Governor and the Attorney General’s Office each assumed the proposal would not fiscally 
impact their respective offices.
Officials from Truman State University did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.
§§3, 4, 5 – Property Conveyance for City of Rolla to Edgewood Investments, the City of St. 
Louis and St. Louis County
Oversight is unclear how the sections in this amendment will impact state and local 
governments but assumes there will be a similar impact as stated in §1 & §2 above. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a similar fiscal impact to what was stated in §1 & §2 above.
§6 – COVID-19 Vaccinations
Oversight assumes this section will have no fiscal impact on state or local government.
Bill as a Whole
Officials from the Department of Public Safety (Fire Safety, Missouri Highway Patrol), the 
Kansas City Health Department, the Newton County Health Department, the Camden  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 33 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
County Auditor’s Office, 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.  
SEQ CHAPTER \h  1
In response to a previous version, officials from the Attorney General’s Office, the 
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Department of Commerce and 
Insurance, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Public Safety (Office 
of the Director, Missouri National Guard, State Emergency Management Agency, Missouri 
Veterans Commission), the Department of Social Services, the Missouri Ethics Commission, 
the Missouri Department of TransportationOffice of the State Public Defender, the 
University of Missouri Systems, the City of ClaycomoCity of O’Fallon, the Kansas City 
Board of Elections, the Platte County Board of Elections, the Kansas City Health 
Department, the Newton County Health Department, the St. Louis County Health 
Department, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Office, the Kansas City Police Department, the St. 
Joseph Police DepartmentSt. Louis County Police Department, the Cole Camp 
Ambulance District, the Crawford County 911 Board, the Lake West Ambulance District, 
the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the South River Drainage District, the Viburnum 
Water/WastewaterOffice of the Governor, Department of Commerce and Insurance, 
the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Office of the State Auditor
Department of Economic DevelopmentDepartment of Social Services, the State Tax 
Commission, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Department of Health and 
Senior Services and the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services each assumed the proposal, as 
amended, will have no fiscal impact on their organizations.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) 
noted 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 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. 
In response to a previous version, officials from the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department 
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization.  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 34 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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 reflect a zero impact in the fiscal 
note for this agency.  
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions; 
however, other cities, counties, county recorders, auditors, collectors, treasurers, public 
administrators and sheriffs were requested to respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A 
listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information System database 
is available upon request. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 35 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
GENERAL REVENUECosts – DOR (§§67.457, 
67.461,  67.1431, 67.1471, 
99.825, 99.830, 99.865, 
238.212 & 238.222) p. 15-16
Could Exceed
   Personal Service($29,008)($35,505)($36,215)($36,215)  Fringe Benefits($22,054)($26,698)($26,936)($26,936)  Equipment and Expense($9,711)($491)($503)($503)Total Costs – DOR($60,773)($62,694)($63,654)($63,654)          FTE Change - DOR1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTELoss – 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 8-14
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$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 1/01/23 
(§105.145) p. 8-14
$0 or up to 
($1,834,605)$0$0$0
Sale Proceeds – conveyance 
proceeds of properties (if any) 
§§1,2,3,4,5 p. 30-31
$0 or 
Unknown
$0$0$0
Property value – loss of FMV 
of properties §§1,2,3,4,5 p. 30-
31
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Savings – for annual 
maintenance / upkeep of 
properties §§1,2,3,4,5 p. 30-31
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 36 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission p. 18-21
$0$0$0$0 or 
($240,710) to 
($2,521,728)
Cost – DED – Section 67.2300 
Homeless Program 
Implementation p. 22-28
   Salary($26,724)($54,516)($55,607)($55,607)  Fringe Benefits($16,356)($33,071)($33,436)($33,436)  Equipment & Expense($6,040)($5,708)($5,822)($5,822)Total Cost - DED($49,120)($93,295)($94.865)($94,865)  FTE change - DED1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTECost – DMH – Section 
67.2300 – FTE - requires 
mental health and substance 
use evaluations p. 22-28
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
Cost – funds for construction 
of housing for homeless 
population §67.2300 p. 22-28
(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,944,498)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$155,989)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$158,519)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$399,229 to 
$2,680,247)
Estimated Net FTE Change to 
the General Revenue Fund2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 37 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
PARK, SOIL, WATER FUNDS 
(0614)
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission p. 17-21
$0$0$0
$0 or ($8,024) 
to ($84,058)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON PARK , SOIL AND 
WATER FUNDS
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($8,024) to 
($84,058)
CONSERVATION 
COMMISSION FUNDS (0609)
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission p. 17-21
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($10,030) to 
($105,072)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON CONSERVATION 
COMMISSION FUNDS
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($10,030) to 
($105,072)
SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUST 
FUND (0688)
Revenue loss - §144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission p. 17-21
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($80,237) to 
($840,576)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON SCHOOL DISTRICT 
TRUST FUND 
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($80,237) to 
($840,576)
STATE ROAD FUNDSavings – MODOT – potential 
cost savings to property that no 
longer qualifies as an 
exception for heritage value 
(§523.061) p. 28
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 38 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON THE STATE ROAD 
FUND
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
TRUMAN STATE 
UNIVERSITY
Cost -  of acquiring the 
property from the state (§2) p. 
30-31
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0Property increase – acquired 
property’s value (§2) p. 30-31Unknown$0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
TO TRUMAN STATE 
UNIVERSITY
Unknown to 
(Unknown) 
$0 $0 $0  L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 39 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local 
Government
FY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
LOCAL POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
Savings – in publication costs 
on financials posted in a 
newspaper of general 
circulation (§§50.815 & 
50.820) p. 6-7
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could 
exceed 
$100,000
Cost – potential salary 
increases for county coroners 
(§§50.327 & 58.095) p. 4-5 
$0 or up to 
($1,526,000) 
$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. 4-5
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
Savings – on potential fines for 
certain LPS (§105.145) p. 8-14
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to Unknown$0 to 
Unknown
Savings –potential cost savings 
to property that no longer 
qualifies as an exception for 
heritage value (§523.061) p. 28
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
Loss – School districts 
receiving less fine revenue 
(from savings above) 
(§105.145) p. 8-14
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(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. 8-14 
$0 or up to 
$91,730,241$0$0$0
Loss – School Districts – 
reduction in fine revenue from 
$0$0$0 L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 40 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
one-time adjustment of fine 
revenue (§105.145) p. 8-14
$0 or up to 
($89,895,636
)
Costs – Boone County Sheriff 
– potential increase in salary. 
§57.317 p. 16-17
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
Cost – Kirksville R-III School 
District -of acquiring the 
property from the state (§1) p. 
30
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0
Property increase – Kirksville 
R-III School District - acquired 
property’s value (§1)  p. 30
Unknown$0$0$0Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission  p. 17-21
$0$0$0$0 or 
($371,095) to 
($3,887,664)
Cost – potential increase in 
employer contribution rates for 
employers who elect to cover 
certain positions as public 
safety personnel - §70.631 p. 
28-30
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
Cost – Potential salary 
increases for public 
administrators (§473.742) p. 7-
8
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$963,846)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,927,692)
$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)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$3,724,787 
to  
$7,241,356)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Various sections of this proposal could impact small businesses. L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 41 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This proposal modifies provisions relating to local 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
Office of the State Auditor
Boone County
Greene County
Henry County
Lincoln County
Livingston County
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Christian County Auditor’s Office
Clinton County
City of St. Louis 
Department of Economic Development
Department of Social Services
State Tax Commission
Phelps County Sheriff’s Department
Department of Revenue
Office of Administration
Budget and Planning
Administrative Hearing Commission
FMDC
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Mental Health
Department of Public Safety
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Fire Safety
Office of the Director
Missouri Gaming Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Missouri Veterans Commission
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri Department of Transportation L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 42 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Missouri Lottery Commission
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Office of the State Treasurer
Office of the Governor
Missouri House of Representatives
Joint Committee on Education
Missouri Senate
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Natural Resources
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Missouri Department of Conservation
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Office of the Secretary of State
Department of Corrections
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Local Government Employees Retirement System
Howell County Assessor’s Office
St. Francois County Assessor’s Office
Pattonville R-III School District
Newton County Health Department
St. Louis County Health Department
Jackson County Board of Elections
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis City Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
City of Corder
City of Hughesville
City of O’Fallon
St. Charles Community College
City of Claycomo
Kansas City
City of Springfield
Kansas City Police Department
St. Joseph Police Department
Gordon Parks Elementary School
University of Missouri System
Hermann Area Hospital District
City of Sikeston
Northwest Missouri State University
University of Central Missouri L.R. No. 3703H.08S 
Bill No. CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606  
Page 43 of 43
May 11, 2022
NM:LR:OD
St. Louis County Police Department
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
St. Louis County Police Department
Cole Camp Ambulance District
Crawford County 911 Board
Lake West Ambulance District
South River Drainage District
Viburnum Water/Wastewater
Clay County Auditor’s Office
Missouri Highway Patrol
Kansas City Health Department
Camden County Auditor’s Office
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorMay 11, 2022May 11, 2022