COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:3703H.08T Bill No.:Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606 Subject:Political Subdivisions; Counties Type:Original Date:June 3, 2022Bill Summary:This proposal changes laws 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
$1,980,010)
(Unknown, could
exceed $153,665)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$156,149)
(Unknown, could
exceed $396,859
to $2,677,877)
Total
Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
(Unknown,
could exceed
$1,980,010)
(Unknown, could
exceed $153,665)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$156,149)
(Unknown, could
exceed $396,859
to $2,677,877)
*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).
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 2 of
June 3, 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)
Truman State
University
Unknown to
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
Other State
Funds
Unknown to
(Unknown)$0 $0
$0 or
($98,291 to
$1,029,706)
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 3 of
June 3, 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. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 4 of
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
SEQ CHAPTER \h 1§§50.327 & 58.095 – Compensation for County Coroners and Salary
Schedules for 3
rd
Class Counties
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state these
provisions address the salaries of county officials, including county coroners. B&P defers to the
counties for the fiscal impact of these provisions.
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 5 of
June 3, 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 6 of
June 3, 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 Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state these
provisions modify the requirements associated with the publishing of political subdivision
financial statements. B&P defers to the county governments for the fiscal impact of these
provisions.
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 $161.00 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
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 7 of
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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
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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
states that the auditor shall have access to and the ability to audit and examine all claims for
which a county officer has fiduciary responsibility. B&P defers to the county governments for
the fiscal impact of these provisions.
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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
addresses the salaries of county public administrators. B&P defers to the counties for the fiscal
impact of this provision.
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. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 8 of
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 9 of
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
§105.145 – Financial statements of political subdivisions
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.
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 provision will be expanded to any political
subdivisions that does not levy or collect tax will be exempt from the penalty.
The DOR notes that per statute, the DOR 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 DOR. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 10 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In regards to the $500 per day fine, this proposal would not allow for the assessment of the fine if
a district does not have gross revenue over $5,000 or has not levied or collected taxes.
Current records of the DOR 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 11 of 38
June 3, 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 12 of 38
June 3, 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 13 of 38
June 3, 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 14 of 38
June 3, 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 the current large 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 15 of 38
June 3, 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 from 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.
§304.022 – Emergency Vehicles for Park Rangers
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1637, officials from the City of
Hughesville, the City of Springfield, the City of St. Louis, the Kansas City Police
Department, Gordon Parks Elementary, the University of Missouri, and the Hermann Area
Hospital District assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations.
Oversight assumes no fiscal impact on state or local governments for this section of the
proposal.
§§67.457, 67.461, 67.1421, 67.1431, 99.825, 99.830, 99.865, 238.212 & 238.222 – Special
Taxing Districts
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state these
provisions set information submission and website posting requirements for cities or counties
establishing a neighborhood or community improvement, and transportation development
districts to the State Auditor and DOR. It also prohibits any real property assessment within a
planned neighborhood improvement district until the information submission is complete. B&P
defers to the local government and DOR for the fiscal impact.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume 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: L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 16 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 17 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for SCS for SB 908, officials from 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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this section
excludes the Boone County Sheriff from the salary schedule established in this section. Which
means the salary decision becomes the responsibility of the Boone County Commission. B&P
defers to Boone County for the fiscal impact of this provision.
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 18 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes in similar legislation, 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
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.
§144.051 – 2026 FIFA World Cup Tickets Sales Tax Exemption
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note this provision
provides a two-month sales tax exemption for the 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer tournament to
be held in Jackson County. B&P defers to DOR and Jackson County for the fiscal impact of this
tax provision, may impact the calculation under Article X, Section 18(e).
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:
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 L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 19 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.
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 L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 20 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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. OversightDOR 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
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the proposal creating a sales tax exemption for
the World Cup tickets could have a negative fiscal impact on Kansas City in lost sales tax
revenue.
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, the City of O’Fallon and the City of St. Louis each assumed the proposal will have L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 21 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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 Revenue 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.
§§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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §§59.310 &
442.130 require the marital status of all grantors be reflected on every document presented to the
Recorder of Deeds and all parties conveying real estate. The changes to §§92.720 to 92.855
relate to the Municipal Land Reutilization Law for St. Louis City. B&P defers to the City of St.
Louis for the fiscal impact of these provisions.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume 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 DOR for these sections.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 2218, officials from the
City of O’Fallon
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for this agency 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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this section
establishes policies to address homelessness using the existing resources of state government
housing programs. B&P defers to DED on the fiscal impact of these provisions. This proposal
states that no person shall be permitted to use state-owned lands for unauthorized sleeping,
camping, or long-term shelters. Any violation of this subsection is a class C misdemeanor. It is
unknown how many violations may occur annually under this statute or the fines that may be
imposed per occurrence. Therefore, this proposal could increase TSR by an unknown amount
beginning January 1, 2023 if any of those fees are deposited in the state treasury.
Officials from the Department of Economic Development (DED) assume §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 L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 22 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
as established by the DED. It 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) to administer the
program.
SEQ CHAPTER \h 1Oversight 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.
Oversight assumes DED’s 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 23 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 24 of 38
June 3, 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 suggests 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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 25 of 38
June 3, 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 Persons1,0871,0431,0621,064 Total # of Homeless Students32,13336,00634,02934,056Total # of Unaccompanied Students3,9444,2544,2414,146
Nighttime Residence - Unsheltered578611643611Nighttime Residence - Hotels/motels 2,0212,4091,9212,117
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 to the
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 CCS 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 versions of the 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 CCS removes the $55,000 cap;
therefore, the cost could be higher just to house the chronically homeless. Consequently,
Oversight will note an Unknown negative cost to General Revenue.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the City of
O’Fallon assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. Oversight does L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 26 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the
fiscal note.
This section has a delayed effective date of January 1, 2023.
§70.631 – Public Safety Personnel
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
removes the demographic subsection language limiting this section’s provisions to third class
counties and Cape Girardeau County. By removal of the demographic limitation, all political
subdivisions may cover public safety job classes in the retirement system. B&P defers to the
retirement systems for the fiscal impact of this provision.
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 affect retirement plan benefits as
defined in Section 105.660(9).
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:
Oversight notes this proposal removes language that limits the provisions in section 70.631 to
specific local political subdivisions. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 27 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.
§§140.170 & 140.190 – Public Auctions by Electronic Media
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state these
provisions allow the county collector to conduct public auctions by electronic media, including
the internet. B&P defers to the counties for the fiscal impact of these provisions.
Oversight assumes County Collectors would exercise the option to conduct auctions by
electronic media only if the option would be to the economic benefit of the office.
§523.061 – Condemnation Proceedings
Officials from the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) note §523.061 would
apply only if the plaintiff is a city, town, or village. MoDOT condemns few properties likely to
be considered abandoned. Therefore, MoDOT assumes a minimal impact from this proposal.
(Oversight notes that earlier versions of this section would have applied to almost all properties
subject to heritage value and that MoDOT estimated significant possible savings to the State
Road Fund.) L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 28 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state the provision
addresses condemnation property actions involving homestead taking and heritage value
determination by the circuit court. B&P defers to local governments on the fiscal impact.
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 City of
Springfield 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 for this section.
§1 – Property Conveyance for City of Kirksville to Kirksville R-III School District
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
adds land conveyances in Kirksville, Adair County. B&P defers to OA on the fiscal impact of
these sections.
Officials from the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and
Construction (FMDC) state they do not make public information about the value of property
that may be sold or conveyed in order to ensure that the state receives the best value for the
property. Moreover, the fiscal impact of these conveyances will depend upon the terms
negotiated by the parties. Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
adds land conveyances in Kirksville, Adair County. B&P defers to OA on the fiscal impact of
these sections.
Officials from the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and
Construction (FMDC) state they do not make public information about the value of property
that may be sold or conveyed in order to ensure that the state receives the best value for the L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 29 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
property. Moreover, the fiscal impact of these conveyances will depend upon the terms
negotiated by the parties. Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state these provisions
add land conveyances in Rolla, Phelps County, St. Louis City, and St. Louis County. B&P
defers to OA on the fiscal impact of these sections.
Officials from the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and
Construction (FMDC) state they do not make public information about the value of property
that may be sold or conveyed in order to ensure that the state receives the best value for the
property. Moreover, the fiscal impact of these conveyances will depend upon the terms
negotiated by the parties. Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
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
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this provision
prohibits political subdivisions from requiring a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of
commencing or continuing employment. B&P defers to local governments on the fiscal impact.
SEQ CHAPTER \h 1Oversight assumes this section will have no fiscal impact on state or
local government.
Bill as a Whole
SEQ CHAPTER \h 1Officials from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
additional litigation costs arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing personnel and
resources. The AGO may seek additional appropriations if there is a significant increase in
litigation.
Officials from the Department of Corrections, the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development,
the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations,
the Department of Public Safety (Fire Safety, Office of the Director, Missouri National
Guard, Missouri Highway Patrol, State Emergency Management Agency, Missouri
Veterans Commission), the Department of Social Services, the Missouri Ethics Commission, L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 30 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
the Missouri Department of TransportationOffice of the State Public Defender, the
University of Missouri Systems, the City of ClaycomoSt. Louis County Board of
Elections, the Kansas City Health Department, the Newton County Health Department
St. Louis County Health Department, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Office, the St. Joseph
Police Department, the St. Louis County Police Department, the Crawford County 911
Board, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the South River Drainage District, the
Wayne County PWSD #2, the University of Central Missouri, the Office of the Governor
the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Missouri Department of Conservation
Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Office of the State Auditor, the State Tax
Commission, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Department of Health and
Senior Services and the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services each assume the proposal will
have no fiscal impact on their organizations.
In response to previous versions, officials from the Kansas City Board of Elections, the Platte
County Board of Elections, the Camden County Auditor’s OfficeCole Camp
Ambulance District, the Lake West Ambulance District and the Viburnum
Water/Wastewater
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
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 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 section. L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 31 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 32 of 38
June 3, 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, 99.825,
99.830, 99.865, 238.212 &
238.222) p. 15
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 9-14
$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. 9-14
$0 or up to
($1,834,605)$0$0$0
Sale Proceeds – conveyance
proceeds of properties (if any)
§§1,2,3,4,5 p. 26-27
$0 or
Unknown
$0$0$0
Property value – loss of FMV
of properties §§1,2,3,4,5 p. 26-
27
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Savings – for annual
maintenance / upkeep of
properties §§1,2,3,4,5 p. 26-27
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 33 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Revenue loss - § 144.051
exemption of sales tax for FIFA
World Cup Admission p. 17-19
$0$0$0$0 or
($240,710) to
($2,521,728)
Cost – DED – §67.2300
Homeless Program
Implementation p. 20-24Could Exceed
Salary($43,118)($52,776)($53,831)($53,831) Fringe Benefits($26,784)($32,487)($32,841)($32,841) Equipment & Expense($14,730)($5,708)($5,822)($5,822)Total Cost - DED($84,632)($90,971)($92,495)($92,495) FTE change - DED1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTECost – DED – §67.2300
Homeless Program p. 20-24(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown,
could exceed
$1,980,010)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$153,665)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$156,149)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$396,859 to
$2,677,877)
Estimated Net FTE Change to
the General Revenue Fund2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
PARK, SOIL, WATER FUNDS
(0614)
Revenue loss - § 144.051
exemption of sales tax for FIFA
World Cup Admission p. 17-19
$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. 17-19
$0$0$0
$0 or
($10,030) to
($105,072) L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 34 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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. 17-19
$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)
TRUMAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
Cost - of acquiring the
property from the state (§2) p.
26-27
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0Property increase – acquired
property’s value (§2) p. 26-27Unknown$0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
TO TRUMAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
Unknown to
(Unknown)
$0 $0 $0 L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 35 of 38
June 3, 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. 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
$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. 6
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Savings – on potential fines for
certain LPS (§105.145) p. 9-14
$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. 26
$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. 9-14
$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. 9-14
$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.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 36 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
one-time adjustment of fine
revenue (§105.145) p. 9-14
$0 or up to
($89,895,636
)
Costs – Boone County Sheriff
– potential increase in salary.
§57.317 p. 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.
26-27
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0
Property increase – Kirksville
R-III School District - acquired
property’s value (§1) p. 26-27
Unknown$0$0$0Revenue loss - § 144.051
exemption of sales tax for FIFA
World Cup Admission p. 17-19
$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.25
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Cost – Potential salary
increases for public
administrators (§473.742) p.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.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 37 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
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
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
Fire Safety
Office of the Director
Missouri National Guard
Missouri Highway Patrol
State Emergency Management Agency
Missouri Veterans Commission
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri Department of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Natural Resources
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Missouri Department of Conservation L.R. No. 3703H.08T
Bill No. Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606
Page 38 of 38
June 3, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Office of the Secretary of State
Department of Corrections
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Newton County Health Department
St. Louis County Health Department
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
City of Corder
City of Hughesville
City of O’Fallon
City of Claycomo
Kansas City
City of Springfield
Kansas City Police Department
Kansas City Board of Elections
St. Joseph Police Department
Gordon Parks Elementary School
University of Missouri System
Hermann Area Hospital District
University of Central Missouri
St. Louis County Police Department
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Cole Camp Ambulance District
Crawford County 911 Board
Lake West Ambulance District
South River Drainage District
Viburnum Water/Wastewater
Clay County Auditor’s Office
Kansas City Health Department
Camden County Auditor’s Office
Wayne County PWSD #2
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorJune 3, 2022June 3, 2022