COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:4622S.02P Bill No.:Perfected SB 984 Subject:Lakes, Rivers, and Waterways; Department of Natural Resources; Political
Subdivisions; Water Resources and Water Districts
Type:Original Date:April 21, 2022Bill Summary:This proposal creates provisions relating to environmental protection.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025
General Revenue*
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,603,821)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,672,943)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,684,330)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,603,821)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,672,943)
(Unknown, could
exceed $3,684,330)
*§256.800 - Subject to appropriation. Oversight assumes an appropriation from General
Revenue to the new Flood Resiliency Improvement Fund, if any, would exceed the $250,000
threshold.
*§166.070 - Subject to appropriation. Oversight notes this total does not include any
remediation costs (filtration, replace drinking water outlets, replace pipes, etc.). Also, Oversight
assumes some of the testing & remediation efforts could potentially utilize federal funding.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Flood Resiliency
Improvement Fund*
$0$0$0Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0$0$0
*Transfer in and costs net to zero.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 2 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Federal Funds$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025General RevenueCould exceed 7 FTECould exceed 7 FTECould exceed 7 FTETotal Estimated Net
Effect on FTECould exceed 7 FTECould exceed 7 FTECould exceed 7 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 AFFECTEDFY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Local Government(Unknown, could be
substantial)
(Unknown, could be
substantial)
(Unknown, could be
substantial) L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 3 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
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
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.
§256.800 – Flood Resiliency
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)Office of the State
Treasurer (STO) 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 for this provision.
Officials from the City of Kansas City, City of O’Fallon and City of Springfield
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.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities were requested to respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A
general listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information System
database is available upon request.
Oversight notes a new fund has been established, the “Flood Resiliency Improvement Fund” as
a result of this proposal. This fund could issue grants or offer financial assistance to entities for
the development, construction or renovation of a flood resiliency project. The DNR could also
develop its own plans with the funds.
Oversight notes this fund is subject to appropriation by the General Assembly; therefore,
Oversight will range the revenue from “$0” (the General Assembly does not appropriate funds to
the new program) to an “Unknown” amount (the General Assembly appropriates funds to the
new program). Oversight will also reflect an “Unknown” amount of costs in the form of
grants/financial assistance.
§99.847 – TIF Projects and Flood Plains (SA 1)
Oversight assumes this amendment will not have a direct fiscal impact on the state. L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 4 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
§§260.221 & 644.060 – Asphalt Shingles Recycling (SA 2)
In response to a similar proposal from 2022 (SB 910), officials from the Department of Natural
Resources assumed the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their organization.
Oversight notes that the above mentioned agency has stated the proposal would not have a direct
fiscal impact on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact on the fiscal note for this section.
§160.077 – Get the Lead Out of School Drinking Water Act (SA 3)
In response to a similar proposal from 2022 (HCS for HB 2532), officials from the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) stated the following:
Section 160.077.6 will authorize the DNR, subject to appropriation, to provide funding to
schools for the filtration, testing, and other remediation techniques to remove lead from school
drinking water systems.
Section 160.077.7 will require the Safe Drinking Water Commission, through the DNR to work
in conjunction with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to develop and
publish a biennial report based on the findings from water testing conducted under 160.077.4(5).
Section 160.077.8 will require the Safe Drinking Water Commission, through the DNR to
provide guidance to schools regarding the maintenance of filters and filtration systems and the
development and implementation of flushing plans.
Section 160.077.9 will require the Safe Drinking Water Commission, through the DNR to ensure
compliance with provisions of 160.077. 160.077.9(2) specifically states “[t]he commission shall
take enforcement action authorized by law including, but not limited to, issuing administrative
orders and assessing penalties in accordance with sections 640.100 to 640.140.”
The DNR estimates the need for one additional FTE in the Public Drinking Water Branch to
meet the requirements of 160.077.7, 160.077.8 and 160.077.9. This position will be needed to
develop guidance, coordinate the biennial report, and provide case management for any
enforcement cases as a result of noncompliance with the law. In addition, the DNR will need one
FTE in each of the five Department Regional Offices and the Central Field Operations to meet
the requirements of 160.077.9. These staff would be needed to perform inspections of schools to
ensure compliance, provide compliance assistance, and respond to complaints or concerns from
the public. To meet the requirements of 160.077.6, additional FTEs are anticipated in the
Financial Assistance Center. However, without knowing the size of the appropriation or how
many schools would require funding, the DNR is unable to estimate the exact number of FTEs
that will be needed at this time and currently have no established funding for these activities.
Positions will be needed to develop a new grant program, solicit and review applications, oversee L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 5 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
the award of grant funds to recipients, issue grant payments, and to coordinate with staff in the
Public Drinking Water Branch and regional offices who handle monitoring, compliance and field
responses related to the law.
In summary
At this time, the DNR can identify a need for seven (7) Environmental Program Analysts at
$57,768* (7 x $57,768 = $404,376). *Using midpoint salary from OA Uniform Classification
and Pay System Basic Compensation Plan. The DNR will not be able to absorb the costs related
to this proposed legislation with the current level of budget authority and funding sources,
therefore, the DNR is reflecting a need for General Revenue.
Oversight will show the costs as estimated by DNR.
In response to a similar proposal from 2022 (HCS for HB 2532), officials from the Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Administration - Administrative
Hearing Commission and Department of Health and Senior Services each assumed the
proposal would 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.
In response to a similar proposal from 2022 (HCS for HB 2532), officials from the Kansas City
Public Schools (KCPS) indicated they did 290 samples over 38 sites at a cost of $133 per
sample last year. This was for lead and copper. This was doing an average of 7.6 tests at 38
locations. Not every outlet was tested. KCPS paid an average of approximately $1,025 per
location for the testing only. To test every outlet the cost per location would be about $2,700 per
location. For all locations for KCPS that would cost $102,500 each testing round.
Remediation costs will vary by building with older/larger buildings coming at a higher cost.
Replacement of lines is one remediation. There will not be issues in buildings constructed after
1986. That is when the mandate for lead free solder was put in place. If the lines are too costly
to replace, a school district could filter at that line.
Oversight assumes this proposal requires school districts to test drinking water outlets for lead
levels and to engage in remediation efforts if elevated lead levels are discovered. Oversight
assumes this proposal provides additional funding for school districts to fund the filtration,
testing, and remediation of drinking water systems, subject to appropriation.
In addition, this proposal allows school districts to seek federal funds for reimbursement for
compliance incurred under this proposal. Oversight will show a range of impact to Federal
Funds of $0 (none available) to an unknown negative transfer from Federal Funds to school
districts.
Oversight notes, per a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled Lead
Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit from Improved Federal Guidance: L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 6 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
“In our survey, the median amount spent by school districts to test for lead in
school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially,
depending on the number of schools in which tests were conducted (see table
1). School districts may have paid for services such as collecting water
samples, analyzing and reporting results, and consultants. For example, an
official in a small, rural school district—with three schools housed in one
building—told us his district spent $180 to test all eight fixtures. In contrast,
officials in a large, urban school district told us they spent about $2.1 million
to test over 11,000 fixtures in over 500 schools. Some school districts,
especially larger ones, incurred costs to hire consultants to advise them and
help design a plan to take samples, among other things.”
Based on this information, Oversight
per fixture. There are 518 school districts in Missouri with 2,357 public and charter school
buildings, plus an estimated 650 private schools. Assuming a cost of $100 per test x 10 drinking
water outlets per building x 3,007 school buildings total testing costs would be over $3 million
per year.
Oversight notes, per a local news report, a school district in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
“installed around 100 filters throughout the school, which cost about $200,000.” Based on this,
Oversight estimates the cost per filter at approximately $2,000.
Per the GAO report, approximately 37% of school districts tested found elevated lead levels.
Oversight assumes if 37% of school buildings in Missouri were required to install three filters
the cost is estimated at $4,735,260. In addition, Oversight assumes there would be annual
maintenance costs.
Ultimately, Oversight is uncertain how many school districts currently test for lead levels or
how many would have elevated lead levels. Additionally, Oversight is uncertain what type of
remediation efforts would be used to address elevated lead levels.
Oversight will show an unknown cost to school districts that could be substantial.
In addition, per section 160.077.9 (2), Oversight assumes school districts could incur penalties
for non-compliance.
Oversight received a limited number of responses from school districts related to the fiscal
impact of this proposal. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best current information
available. Upon the receipt of additional responses, Oversight will review to determine if an
updated fiscal note should be prepared and seek the necessary approval to publish a new fiscal
note. L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 7 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, school districts 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.
Rule Promulgation
Officials from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules assume this proposal is not
anticipated to cause a fiscal impact beyond its current appropriation.
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. L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 8 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025GENERAL REVENUE FUNDTransfer Out – to the Flood Resiliency
Improvement Fund §256.800 (p. 1)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Costs - DNR - §160.077 (p. 4-5)Could
exceed…
Could
exceed…
Could
exceed…
Personnel Service($336,980)($412,464)($420,713) Fringe Benefits($199,272)($241,837)($244,602) Expense & Equipment($15,231)($18,643)($19,015)Total Costs - DNR($603,821)($672,943)($684,330)FTE Change7 FTE7 FTE7 FTECosts – reimburse public and private
schools to test water (roughly 3,000
school buildings x 10 water sources
each x $100 per test) annually §160.077
(p. 6)
(Could exceed
$3,000,000)
(Could exceed
$3,000,000)
(Could exceed
$3,000,000)
Costs – to school districts for funding
for filtration and other remediation
efforts - §160.077.6 (1) (p. 5)
(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND
(Unknown,
could exceed
$3,603,821)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$3,672,943)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$3,684,330)
Estimated Net FTE Change on General
Revenue
Could exceed
7 FTE
Could exceed
7 FTE
Could exceed
7 FTE
FLOOD RESILIENCY
IMPROVEMENT FUND
Transfer In – from General Revenue
§256.800 (p. 1)
$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or UnknownCost – DNR – grants and/or financial
assistance for flood resiliency plans
§256.800 (p. 1)
(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown) L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 9 of
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE FLOOD RESILIENCY
IMPROVEMENT FUND
$0$0$0FEDERAL FUNDSTransfer Out - to school districts for
funding for filtration, testing, and other
remediation efforts - §160.077.6 (2) (p.
5)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
FEDERAL FUNDS
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown) L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 10 of 11
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025SCHOOL DISTRICTSTransfer In - from General Revenue
§166.070 (p. 5)
$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or UnknownTransfer In - from Federal Funds
§166.070 (p. 5)
$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or UnknownCosts - penalties for non-compliance -
§160.077.9 (2) (p. 6)$0
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Costs - to school districts for lead
filtration, testing, and other remediation
efforts - §160.077 (p. 6)
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
(Unknown,
could be
substantial)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
§256.800 - Small business contractors of flood improvement plans could be impacted as a result
of this proposal.
§§260.221 & 644.060 - Small businesses that recycle asphalt shingles could be affected by this
proposal.
§166.070 - Oversight assumes this proposal would require private schools to test drinking water
outlets for lead levels and to engage in remediation efforts if elevated lead levels are discovered.
Oversight assumes this could result in additional costs for small businesses.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This proposal creates provisions relating to environmental protection.
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 L.R. No. 4622S.02P
Bill No. Perfected SB 984
Page 11 of 11
April 21, 2022
KB:LR:OD
Department of Natural Resources
Office of the Secretary of State
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Office of the State Treasurer
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Health and Senior Services
Kansas City Public Schools
City of Kansas City
City of O’Fallon
City of Springfield
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 21, 2022April 21, 2022