COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1937H.02P Bill No.:Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081 Subject:State Employees; Public Officers; Science and Technology; Crimes and
Punishment; Criminal Procedure; Motor Vehicles; Search and Seizure
Type:Original Date:March 9, 2023Bill Summary:This proposal modifies privacy protections.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Various State FundsLess than $250,000Less than $250,000Less than $250,000Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
FundsLess than $250,000Less than $250,000Less than $250,000
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 2 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Total Estimated Net
Effect on FTE 000
☐ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Local GovernmentLess than $250,000Less than $250,000Less than $250,000 L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 3 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§565.260 – Protecting a person’s privacy
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1081), officials from the Office of the State
Public Defender (SPD) stated the proposed legislation creates new offenses under sections
542.402 and 565.260 which could result in additional cases eligible for SPD representation. The
number of additional cases is unknown and as a result the fiscal impact is unknown. However, if
the offenses, which are classified as misdemeanors, were class D misdemeanors, jail time would
not be a possible sentence and the offense, therefore, would not be eligible for SPD
representation.
Oversight notes in FY22 the SPD was appropriated moneys for 53 additional FTE. Oversight
assumes this proposal will create a minimal number of new cases and that the SPD can absorb
the additional caseload required by this proposal with current staff and resources. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect no fiscal impact to the SPD for fiscal note purposes. However, if multiple
bills pass which require additional staffing and duties, the SPD may request funding through the
appropriation process.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1081), officials from the from the Kansas
City Police Department, the St. Joseph Police DepartmentSt. Louis County Police
Department, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department, the Fruitland Area Fire Protection
District, and the Cole Camp Ambulance District assumed the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their respective organizations.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1081), officials from the Branson Police
Department stated as for the vehicle tracking changes, there are no anticipated negative impacts
and are in line with applicable case law.
Oversight also notes a violation of the provisions of section 565.260 is a class A misdemeanor
which carries a fine not to exceed $2,000 in addition to any individual county/municipal fees and
court costs. The fine revenue for the ticket goes to local school funds and court costs go to
various state and local funds. Oversight assumes there will be some (less than $250,000) fine
revenue from violations of the statute. Therefore, the impact to various state funds and local
governments will be presented as less than $250,000. For simplicity, Oversight will not reflect
the possibility that fine revenue paid to school districts may act as a subtraction in the foundation
formula.
Below are examples of some of the state and local funds which court costs are distributed: L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 4 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
Fee/Fund NameFee AmountBasic Civil Legal Services Fund$8.00Clerk Fee$15.00 ($12 State/$3 County)County Fee$25.00State Court Automation Fund$7.00Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund$7.50DNA Profiling Analysis Fund$15.00Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) Fund
$1.00Sheriff’s Retirement Fund$3.00Motorcycle Safety Trust Fund$1.00Brain Injury Fund$2.00Independent Living Center Fund$1.00Sheriff’s Fee$10.00 (County)Prosecuting Attorney and Circuit Attorney
Training Fund
$4.00Prosecuting Attorney Training Fund$1.00 ($0.50 State/$0.50 County)Spinal Cord Injury Fund$2.00
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other ambulance/EMS, fire protection districts, and local law enforcement were
requested to respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A listing of political subdivisions
included in the Missouri Legislative Information System (MOLIS) database is available upon
request.
§105.1675 – Anti-Surveillance and Foreign Intervention Act
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Commerce and Insurance,
Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Corrections, the Department
of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Office of Administration the Attorney General’s
Office the Department of Economic Development the Department of Natural Resources,
the Department of Public Safety (Capitol Police Alcohol & Tobacco Control, Gaming
Commission, Missouri Highway Patrol, Missouri National Guard the Office of the
GovernorMissouri Ethics Commission, the Office of the State Courts Administrator,
the Office of the State Auditor the Office of the State Public Defender, the Office of the
State Treasurer each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations.
Oversight notes that the above mentioned agencies have 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. L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 5 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
House Amendment 1
§105.1500 – Personal Privacy Protection Act
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1064), officials from the Office of
Administration (OA) assumed the proposed legislation would have a positive impact on OA
Division of Purchasing as it would allow for the public to once again access needed procurement
records on the Awarded Bid and Contract Document Search Website and MissouriBUYS
Contract Board rather than having to submit an open records request to OA Purchasing in order
to gain access to do so. This would reduce the number of open record requests received and
reduce the number of hours needed by OA Purchasing to review bid and contract files for any
personal Information of a 501(c) entity in the requested records and in bid files prior to award
and in prior bid and contract files prior to the new solicitation’s issuance and to redact such
before providing the bid and contract documents to the public in order to maintain compliance
with the provisions of section 105.1500, RSMo.
While there would not be a direct monetary savings to OA Purchasing, the proposed legislation
would avoid Purchasing having to divert resources to completing the records reviews and
redactions.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, 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 require additional resources.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, officials from the Department of
Revenue, the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Office of the State Public Defender
Department of Health and Senior ServicesDepartment of Corrections, the Department
of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Public Safety (Capitol Police, Alcohol
& Tobacco Control, Gaming Commission, Missouri National Guard, and Veterans
Commission), the Department of Social Services, the Office of the Governor, Office of the
Lieutenant GovernorMissouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri House of
Representatives, the Office of Administration (Budget and Planning), the Office of the State L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 6 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
Courts Administrator the Office of the State Auditor the Office of the State Treasurer and
University of Missouri each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, officials from the City of Kansas City,
City of O’FallonCity of Springfield each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their respective organizations.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, officials from the Jackson County Board
of Elections, Platte County Board of Elections, and the St. Louis County Board of Elections
each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, officials from the University of Central
Missouri assumed the proposal will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on their organization.
In response to similar legislation, HB 667 from 2023, officials from the St. Charles Community
College
Oversight notes that the Personal Privacy Protection Act was passed on HB 2400 in 2022. This
legislation is making amendments to include exemptions from the Act. The above mentioned
agencies have stated the proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on their organizations.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact on the fiscal note for this section of the proposal.
Bill as a whole:
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning, 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 Natural
Resources, the Department of Public Safety – Fire Safety, Directors Office, Missouri
Highway Patrol, State Emergency Management Agency, the Missouri Department of
AgricultureMissouri Department of Transportation, the MoDOT & Patrol Employees’
Retirement System, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, the Oversight Division
the Missouri SenateMissouri Lottery Commission, the Missouri Consolidated Health
Care Plan, the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, 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. L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 7 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2024
(10 Mo.)
FY 2025FY 2026VARIOUS STATE FUNDSRevenue – (§565.260) Court costs paid
in p. 3-4
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
VARIOUS STATE FUNDS
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2024
(10 Mo.)
FY 2025FY 2026LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Revenue – (§565.260) Court costs
p. 3-4
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Revenue - (§565.260) Fine revenue
p. 3-4
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
Less than
$250,000
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This bill creates the offense of unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle, which a person commits if
he or she knowingly installs, conceals, or otherwise places an electronic tracking device in or on
a motor vehicle without the consent of all owners of the vehicle for the purpose of monitoring or
following an occupant of the vehicle. The bill provides exceptions to the offense. The offense of
unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle is a class A misdemeanor.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space. L.R. No. 1937H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 919 & 1081
Page 8 of
March 9, 2023
KC:LR:OD
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Economic Development
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Mental Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Corrections
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Revenue
Department of Public Safety
Department of Social Services
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri House of Representatives
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of Administration – Budget and Planning
Facilities Management, Design and Construction
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office of the State Auditor
Missouri Senate
Office of the Secretary of State
State Tax Commission
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 9, 2023March 9, 2023