COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:4623H.06P Bill No.:Perfected HCS for HB 2064 Subject:Courts; Mental Health; Civil Procedure; Guardians; Juries; Workers
Compensation; Elections; Crimes and Punishment; Business and Commerce
Type:Original Date:April 10, 2024Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to civil proceedings.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027
General Revenue*
(Unknown, could
exceed $1,600,000)
(Unknown, could
exceed $600,000)
(Unknown, could
exceed $600,000)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue
(Unknown, could
exceed $1,600,000)
(Unknown, could
exceed $600,000)
(Unknown, could
exceed $600,000)
*Includes §454.1050 for a new child support module that could cost between $500,000 to
$1 million in FY25. Also includes §478.001 that has an unknown cost that could exceed
$600,000 per year to establish mental health treatment courts. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 2 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027Public Defender-
Federal and Other
Fund (0112)**$0 to Unknown $0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
State Highway Funds
(0644)($177,151)($216,833)($221,170)
Treatment Court
Resources Fund
(0733)* $0$0$0
Basic Civil Legal
Services Fund (0757)$0$346,217$692,434
Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds(Less than $177,151)More than $129,384More than $471,264
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
*Transfer-ins less expenditures will net to zero.
** Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume having a dedicated fund
for donations (instead of to the General Revenue Fund) will allow them to solicit and collect
donations and/or grants. Oversight assumes since a minimal amount of donations have
historically been made to the General Revenue Fund for the SPD, this proposal will have no
direct fiscal impact on the General Revenue Fund.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027State Highway Fund1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEBasic Civil Legal
Services Fund***0 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
Total Estimated Net
Effect on FTE1 FTE3 FTE3 FTE
*** a continuation of existing FTE by removing the December 31, 2025 expiration date. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 3 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
☒ 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 2025FY 2026FY 2027
Local Government
(More or Less than
$99,168)
(More or Less than
$99,168)
(More or Less than
$99,168)
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§193.265 – Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates for Public Attorneys
Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) assume §193.265.7 of
this proposal states no fee shall be required or collected for a certification of a birth, death, or
marriage if the request for certification is made by a prosecuting attorney, a circuit attorney, or
the attorney general. Currently, these entities are charged the statutorily required search fee for a
vital record of $15.00 per birth and marriage certification and $14.00 per death certification. This
proposed language would remove the ability for the DHSS to collect these fees for services
provided.
According to a Missouri survey conducted by the National Prosecutors’ Consortium
(https://www.prosecutors.mo.gov/files/Missouri%20Survey%20Report.pdf), in 2018, 41 percent
of Missouri prosecuting offices responded, and on average, each office reviewed 1,219 felony
cases and 1,845 misdemeanor cases. For an estimated average total cases of 3,064 per office, per
annum. Missouri has 115 elected prosecutors from each of the 114 counties and the City of St.
Louis. Combined, this is an average of 352,360 cases reviewed each year across the state. Not all
prosecuting offices responded to the Consortium survey, so exact metrics were not available for
all local offices. It is also not known how many of these cases would result in a request for a
copy of a vital record. Therefore, up to 352,360 requests could be possible. Moreover, this
proposed language does not limit the number of certificate requests that could be made, nor does
it limit the purpose for which the certificates may be requested for free nor specify or require that
the requestor be an official from Missouri. As a result, the number of certificates requested could
exceed 352,360.
Since requests from the Missouri Attorney General (AGO) are also included in this proposed
legislation, the estimated 700 criminal appeals (https://ago.mo.gov/criminal-division/criminal-
appeals) that are handled by the AGO each year are factored into these calculations. This L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 4 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
estimate does not include any other appeals or cases that may be handled by the AGO. This
would bring the estimated total of potential requests to 353,060 (352,360 cases reviewed each
year plus 700 criminal appeals handled by AGO each year). For the purposes of this fiscal note,
DCPH assumes only 25 percent of the possible requests for free vital records will be made, for a
total of 88,265 (353,060 times 25 percent) requests per year. Based on what vital records has
experienced when records are provided for free, this fiscal note also assumes that the 88,265
requests are new requests that are above the total volume of certificates issued each year. The
Department's Bureau of Vital Records and the 115 local public health agencies (LPHAs), in
total, currently issue approximately 827,695 birth, death, and marriage certificates each year.
The additional FTE needed comes from the calculation of a 10 minute application review,
processing, and issuance time average with 2,080 working hours per annum which equals 12,480
applications processed per FTE. Most applications take 15 minutes, but a shorter time of 10
minutes per application was used in this calculation, as requests from “agencies”, such as
prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Office, can usually be done slightly faster due to
typically less documentation to review per request. As a result, a total of 7.00 Administrative
Support Assistant FTE, each with an annual salary of $36,979, would be needed if 88,265
certificates are requested. Additionally, one Senior Accounts Assistant, with an annual salary of
$51,064, would be needed to process payments that result.
While this proposed legislation references birth, death, and marriage certificates, the cheapest
and typically most requested certification, death certificates (a fee of $14.00 per certificate), will
be used to make estimated calculations on lost revenues and other costs other than FTE to
produce a free death certificate. Estimated 88,265 certificates requested times $14.00 per
certification equals a loss of certificate revenue of $1,235,710 per year. Certificate paper and
printing is approximately $0.25 per sheet times 88,265 certificates requested equals $22,066.25
in paper and ink costs.
Death certificates have a current fee split of $5.00 per certificate to the Children’s Trust Fund;
$3.00 to the Missouri Public Health Fund; $4.00 to General Revenue; $1.00 to Endowed Care
Cemetery; and $1.00 to the Coroner’s Training fund. This is assuming all certificate requests
come to the state office. Any requests completed at the local level by local public health agencies
(LPHAs), would impact local public health funding.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume §193.265.7
creates a new exemption from vital record request fees and may impact state and/or local
revenues derived from such fees. The state and local government entities responsible for the
collection and administration of those fees may be able to estimate the impact of this change. A
decrease in such fee revenues will impact both TSR and 18e calculations.
Oversight inquired the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services (MOPS) regarding the number
of vital records that they may request annually. MOPS conducted a survey on each of their 114
county prosecutors on how many vital records are requested from their offices on an annual
basis. Of the 114 prosecutors, 47 responded with a total of 173 vital records requested from the L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 5 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
DHSS within the past year. MOPS believes the actual vital records request for those prosecution
authorities to be under 1,000 per year.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the MOPS. Using MOPS’s estimate of 1,000 vital records request per
year times $15 (the highest rate charged for vital records) per record would total $15,000
annually. Oversight will assume a potential loss in fees from these records request for DHSS of
less than $15,000 on an annual basis.
DHSS also requested FTEs for this proposal and supply costs associated with the printing of
these certificates. Oversight assumes DHSS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes DHSS could absorb the costs related to this
proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial costs,
DHSS could request funding through the appropriation process.
Oversight notes with the no charge being applied to certain public attorneys, state and local
agencies would see a savings for the same amount. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a savings to
GR of an unknown could exceed $15,000 and also to local political subdivisions of an unknown
savings.
§§287.615 & 287.835 – Administrative Law Judges
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume
§287.615.1(2) provides that administrative law judge salaries are set by statute and not subject to
increase when pay raises for executive employees are appropriated. This change could result in
potential future cost avoidance that might otherwise be budgeted. §287.835 could result in future
potential benefit costs not being avoided but any such impact would depend on the described
hypothetical conditions and may not be subject to estimation.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 or
Unknown cost avoidance to GR as provided by the B&P.
Officials from the Missouri State Employee's Retirement System (MOSERS) state this
proposal, if enacted, would remove §287.835.1 and allow an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
and the ALJ’s beneficiary to remain entitled to ALJ plan retirement benefits if the ALJ were
removed from office by impeachment or for misconduct, or disbarred from the practice of law.
This proposal would result in an unknown cost as it would allow the ALJ and the ALJ’s
beneficiary to receive a benefit that they would not otherwise receive under the current plan
provisions.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
potential impact as provided by the MOSERS. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 6 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
§347.143 – Court Ordered Dissolutions of LLC’s
In response to similar legislation, CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), officials from the Office of
the State Courts Administrator
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§§435.300, 435.303, 435.306, 435.309 & 435.312 – Alternative Dispute Resolution
Officials from the Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) assume this proposal authorizes an
alternative dispute resolution program, similar to federal court, and creates a Uniform
Depositions and Discovery Act. With this proposed legislation the MHP anticipates an increased
workload related to foreign subpoenas and/or discovery requests. There may also be increased
litigation costs associated with non-party subpoena and discovery responses. These increased
costs would likely cause a direct impact on the MHP because the Missouri Attorney General's
Office does not normally represent the MHP in such cases. Many of these non-party legal
matters would likely involve some of the over 30,000 motor vehicle crashes the MHP
investigates each year. As a result of the expected workload increase, the MHP forecasts the
need to add one (1) FTE Legal Counsel.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the MHP.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume §435.306.9
authorizes the courts to order parties seeking alternative dispute resolution to pay fees for the
costs of securing a neutral party. In the event that the state is such a party, this provision could
result in additional state costs. Such costs do not appear to be subject to a reasonable estimation.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state there may be some
impact but there is no way to quantify that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in
future budget requests.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 7 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§454.1050 - "Bentley's Law" – Adds child maintenance provisions for certain children
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1958, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator (OSCA) state this proposal would have an impact in Show-Me Courts
and possibly others systems. As regarding a budgetary impact, the estimate would be $500,000
to $1,000,000 to develop a new Child Support module.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by OSCA.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume this section stipulates that the
court shall order a defendant convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated to pay
restitution for a child whose parent or guardian died as a result of such offense. The order of
restitution under this section shall require the defendant to make restitution directly to the person
or agency that will accept and forward restitution payments to the victim or other person eligible
for restitution under this section; or deliver payment for restitution to the Division of Probation
and Parole or to the DOC for transfer to the victim or person or state as appropriate.
Currently the Division of Probation and Parole does not accept payment for any form of
restitution. The DOC collects restitution from incarcerated individuals when it receives an order
from the prosecuting attorney and then remits payment to the prosecuting attorney in accordance
with RSMO 559.105.
There would be an unknown fiscal impact to update DOC’s offender management system in
order to send payments directly to individual victims. It is unclear the amount of additional staff
that would be necessary to process and remit these additional payments. It is also unclear if the
DOC would be required to continue receiving and issuing payments to the victims after the
defendant has been released from the department’s supervision.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the DOC.
§§474.540, 474.542, 474.544, 474.546, 474.548, 474.550, 474.552, 474.554, 474.556, 474.558,
474.560, 474.562, 474.564, 474.600 – Electronic Estate Planning Documents
In response to similar legislation from 2023, CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72, officials from the Office
of the State Courts Administrator L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 8 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note.
Oversight notes that according to https://trustandwill.com/learn/e-will, electronic wills are only
accepted in a few states currently. Some states have updated their statutes to allow e-wills.
Electronic wills are now legal in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, and Arizona. Utah and Colorado have
also recently adopted the Uniform Electronic Wills Act, which is a model law created by the
Uniform Laws Commission. In other instances, some state courts have accepted e-wills on a
case-by-case basis. COVID-19 also caused some courts to temporarily allow remote witnessing
as an emergency measure.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§§475.063 & 488.2300 – Guardianships/Conservatorships & the Family Services and Justice
Fund
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state there may be some
impact but there is no way to quantify that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in
future budget requests.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume §475.063.4
requires the courts to accept certain filings without charging a fee. This provision could result in
a decrease of state and/or local revenues and impact both TSR and 18e calculations. §488.2300.4
provides that the section does not prohibit appropriations by the state legislature to support
certain county funds. This change may result in additional state costs in the event of such
appropriations.
Oversight notes §475.063 specifies what assistance a court clerk must provide or make available
for a petitioner filing for emergency or full orders regarding a minor entering adult guardianship
or conservatorship. The duties of the court clerk will be performed without cost to the petitioner.
No filing fees, court costs, or bond will be assessed to the petitioner as well. The clerk may be
reimbursed from the Family Services and Justice Fund for expenses incurred under this section.
Oversight notes §488.2300 allows fees incurred for guardianship or conservatorship proceedings
by court-appointed attorneys, physicians, or other professionals, as well as fees incurred by court
clerks providing assistance, to be given priority for payment from the "Family Services and
Justice Fund". This section also doesn’t prohibit the appropriation of funds by the general L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 9 of
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
assembly to the various county family services and justice funds of the family courts of the
counties.
Oversight assumes the various county circuits are provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes the county circuits could absorb the costs
related to this proposal. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 fiscal impact for these sections of
this proposal.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§476.1025 – Removal of Court Records from the Automated Case Management System
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state there may be some
impact but there is no way to quantify that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in
future budget requests.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0
fiscal impact for this proposal. Oversight assumes OSCA will be able to administer these
requests within existing resources or request additional appropriations in future budget requests.
§477.650 – Basic Civil Legal Services Fund
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) assume this proposal
would repeal the expiration date of the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund. The Basic Civil Legal
Services Fund annual appropriations are approximately $5.1 million and 2 FTE.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) §477.650.7’s repeal
eliminates the current December 31, 2025 sunset date for the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund.
Because the elimination of this sunset will preserve the status quo, it will have no impact on state
revenues, TSR or 18e.
Oversight notes the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund (BCLS) is a statutorily created fund (SB
447 in 2003) and was created to fund the work of Missouri’s four Legal Aid programs, which
provide access to the civil justice system to low-income Missourians (who live at or below 125%
of the Federal Poverty Level) to protect their fundamental legal rights. The fund is set to expire
December 31, 2025. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 10 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
One of the focuses of the Legal Aid programs is to ensure that adults and children have access to
medical care through the MoHealthNet system.
Legal Aid staff bring cases to obtain access to medical care for their clients. There are four
regional Legal Aid offices: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia and Springfield. In FY22, over
$125 million from punitive damages awarded in talc litigation in Missouri was transferred from
the Tort Victims Compensation Fund into the BCLS. This represents the largest single payment
into the BCLS, and this funding was paid to legal service organizations.
Below is a chart of the number of cases closed during CY 2022 representing the BCLS Fund:
The fund has a court filing fee on certain civil and criminal actions of $20 in the Missouri
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, $10 in the circuit courts and $8 in the associate circuit
courts. The fund has received the following receipts during FY 2019 to FY 2023: L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 11 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Below is a history of the expended funds for the last 5 years:
Oversight notes this proposal removes the expiration date of these provisions. If the proposal is
extended, Oversight assumes revenue and expenditure activity will continue for the fund. Since
the fund does not expire until December 31, 2025, Oversight assumes only half of the average
receipts and expenditures would be shown for FY26. Therefore, Oversight will use the average
amounts from the table above to reflect the fiscal impact.
The appropriations for the BCLS Fund includes 2 FTEs according to OSCA. Oversight assumes
should this proposal be extended, the 2 FTEs will also continue to be funded through the BCLS
Fund.
R
eceipts
F
Y 19
4,417,206$
F
Y 20
4,290,667$
F
Y 21
3,868,347$
F
Y 22
3,865,619$
F
Y 23
4,047,390$
T
otal
20,489,229$
5
year average
4,097,846$
B
asic Civil Legal Services
F
und (0757)
S
ource: State Treasurer Fund
A
ctivity Reports
A
ppropriation
A
ctual
E
xpenditures
U
nexpended
F
unds
F
Y 20
5,099,958$ 4,467,368$ 632,590$
F
Y 21
7,701,418$ 7,559,124$ 142,294$
F
Y 22
5,102,383$ 2,813,393$ 2,288,990$
F
Y 23
5,108,764$ 3,997,430$ 1,111,334$
F
Y 24
5,117,803$ N
/A
N
/A
L
ast 3 yr avg.
5,109,650$ 3,405,412$ 1,700,162$
S
ource: OSCA Budget Requests Books
B
asic Civil Legal Services Fund (0757) L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 12 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1838, officials from the Attorney General’s
Office
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Oversight notes the balance of the BCLS (0757) at December 31, 2023 was $510,360.
§478.001 – Mental Health Courts
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the potential
budgetary impact could initially be $600,000 and continue to increase due to the growth in
mental health courts. There may be additional impact but there is no way to quantify that
currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Attorney General’s Office 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.
Oversight assumes this proposal establishes mental health courts within the treatment court
division and specifies that a mental health court may be established by any circuit court.
Currently all 46 circuits provide treatment court services with an estimated 6,341 participants for
CY 2022. The Treatment Court Division has 143 programs representing services for adult drugs,
DWI, veterans, families and juveniles. Oversight assumes this proposal will add mental health to
the services as an alternative to incarceration/probation.
Based upon FY 2023 expenditures for treatment courts using the Treatment Court Resources
Fund, cost per participant is $1,521 ($9,642,143/6,341). There are many other factors that affect
the operating costs associated with establishing and maintaining treatment courts which vary
from county to county throughout the state.
OSCA’s budget book presented the following information:
CY 2022 participants CY 2022 Programs
Adult Drug Treatment Court 4,470 82
DWI Treatment Court 985 25
Veterans Treatment Court 362 16
Family Treatment Court 498 16
Juvenile Treatment Court 26 4
Officials from the Christian County Auditor’s Office state creation of a "Mental Health Court"
amounts to an unfunded mandate by the state for the burden to be placed onto counties under
476.270 which requires all expenses of circuit courts to be paid by the county. Currently, the cost L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 13 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
for DWI, Drug and Veteran's Courts to Christian County is $38,600 per year. It is expected that
an additional administrator would be needed for this which would be an additional $25-
30,000/year.
Oversight is unaware of the number of mental health treatment courts that could be established,
when those services would be needed and/or where those services would be located. Oversight
assumes when the mental health treatment court services are needed within a certain circuit,
OSCA would request the proper appropriation authority for those expenditures through the
budget appropriation process. Therefore Oversight will reflect a $0 or the estimated amount from
OSCA that could continue to increase because of the potential growth in mental health courts.
Oversight will reflect this as a transfer out of the General Revenue Fund and transferred into the
Treatment Court Resources Fund for this proposal. Oversight will also reflect a potential costs to
counties to help administer the mental health treatment courts.
§§488.040 & 494.455 – Compensation of Jurors
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) assume this proposal
states that in any county, or city not within a county, upon adoption by the governing body, no
grand or petit juror shall receive compensation for the first two days of service but shall receive
fifty dollars per day for the third day and each subsequent day he or she may serve. These funds
are to be paid by the county. It is unknown how many counties will participate and the increase
may result in an unknown cost or savings to the state or county. Section 494.455 also ties the
juror mileage rate to the mileage rate as provided by law for state employees (rather than seven
cents per mile).
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume §488.040 revises
current juror compensation requirements and may result in a change to the costs incurred by state
and local courts for such compensation.
Oversight notes this section states the court of a judicial circuit may, by a majority vote, vote to
restructure juror compensation so that grand and petit jurors do not get paid for the first two days
of service but thereafter will receive $50 per day, as well as mileage reimbursement at the rate
provided by law for state employees for necessary travel from the juror's residence to the
courthouse and back, to be paid by the county. Using information from the 2018 – 2022 Annual
Supplemental Reports for Jury Trial Information (Table 57) from OSCA, there were 5 circuit
who had averaged 3 or more days of service. These circuits were Platte (6), Clay (7), Jackson
(16), Cole (19) and St. Louis County (21). Oversight notes current statute already requires the
Greene County Circuit (31) to restructure juror compensation for this proposal.
Oversight notes according to information from the 2018 – 2022 Annual Supplemental Reports
for Jury Trial Information (Table 57) from OSCA, there was an average of 897 days and 235
cases where jurors were in session for both civil and criminal cases for these 5 circuits. On
average between these circuits, 3.8 days (897/235) were spent for each case. Using the chart
below, Oversight assumes if the court votes to adopt this restructure of juror compensation L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 14 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
within these 5 circuits, there could be an additional cost of up to $191,904 each year. If the rest
of the circuits were to adopt this restructuring plan, then there could also be a savings of up to
$92,736 each year. This would be the minimum payout and does not include mileage
reimbursement to jurors, since Oversight does not have that information available. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect an unknown cost to pay jurors that could exceed $99,168 ($191,904 –
92,736) annually.
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume a cost of $1,000 per year for the
increase in mileage reimbursement for jurors.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§494.430 – Serving on a Petit and Grand Jury
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1736, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note.
§509.520 – Court Pleadings, Attachments, and Exhibits
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 994, 52 & 984, officials
from Department of Corrections (DOC) assumed this section prohibits the court from
including some personal identifying information in judgments or orders, therefore, making it
difficult for staff to verify identity before individual can be accepted for incarceration. This could
have an unknown impact.
Oversight assumes because the potential for impact is speculative, the DOC will not incur
significant cost related to this proposal. If a fiscal impact were to result, the DOC may request
additional funding through the appropriation process.
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 994, 52 & 984, officials
from the , Putnam County, the Attorney General’s Office and the St.
Joseph Police Department
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. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 15 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
§§510.500, 510.503, 510.506, 510.509, 510.512, 510.515, 510.518, 510.521 – Uniform Interstate
Depositions and Discovery Act
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state there may be some
impact but there is no way to quantify that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in
future budget requests.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1886, officials from the
Office of the State Treasurer, the cities of St. Louis & O’Fallon, the Jackson County Board
of Elections, the Christian County Auditor’s Office, the Local Government Employees
Retirement System, the Morgan County PWSD #2, the Attorney General’s OfficeCity
of Osceola, the Eureka Fire Protection District and the Osceola Water/Wastewater District
each assumed the proposal would not change their fiscal impact estimates on the underlying
proposal. Oversight
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§537.106 – Civil Liability for Publishing or Distributing Material Harmful to Minors on the
Internet
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1855, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§537.580 – Civil Liability for Employers Hiring Ex-Offenders Act
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1969, officials from the Office of the State
Courts AdministratorAttorney General’s Office 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.
§600.042 – State Public Defender funding
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume the modification of this
section would authorize SPD to receive and accept gifts. The fiscal impact is unknown.
SPD knows of no donations that have been made to General Revenue (GR) under the current
statute. SPD has solicited grants from Americorp Vista for in-kind donations and would like to
solicit grants from the DOJ if the Quality Defense Act is passed. That legislation authorizes
substantial grants for public defender organizations that have completed workload studies and
are working to establish appropriate workloads. SPD would also investigate other grant funding
available. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 16 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes since no material amount of donations have been received by General
Revenue through this statute, changing the designation to the new Public Defender – Federal and
Other Fund would not create a material direct fiscal impact to the state.
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 994, 52 & 984, officials
from theassumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their
organization.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for this section.
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB Nos. 994, 52 & 984, officials
from the , Putnam County, the Attorney General’s Office and the St.
Joseph Police Department
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.
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Officials from the Office of Administration - Administrative Hearing Commission, 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 Revenue, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations,
the Department of Public Safety (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco ControlCapitol Police
Office of the Director, Fire Safety, Missouri Gaming Commission, Missouri Veterans
Commission, State Emergency Management Agency), the Department of Social Services
the Office of the Governor, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the Missouri Department
of AgricultureMissouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Ethics Commission,
the Missouri Department of TransportationMissouri National Guard, the MoDOT &
Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the Office of Administration, the Petroleum Storage
Tank Insurance Fund, the University of Missouri System, Kansas City, the Platte County
Board of Elections, the St. Louis City Board of Elections, the St. Louis County Board of
Elections, the Newton County Health Department, the Lincoln County Assessor’s Office,
the Phelps County Sheriff’s OfficeBranson Police Department, the Kansas City Police
Department, the St. Louis County Police Department, the County Employees Retirement
Fund, the Kansas City Civilian Police Employees’ Retirement, the Kansas City Police
Retirement System, the Kansas City Public School Retirement System, the Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer District Employees Pension Plan, the Public Education Employees’ Retirement
System, the Sheriff’s Retirement System, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the
Pulaski County Sewer District #1, the South River Drainage District, the St. Charles
County PWSD #2, the Wayne County PWSD #2, Missouri State University, Northwest
Missouri State University, the University of Central Missouri, the Office of the State
Auditor, the Missouri House of RepresentativesJoint Committee on Administrative L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 17 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Rules, the Joint Committee on Education, the Joint Committee on Public Employee
Retirement, Legislative Research, the Oversight Division, the Missouri Senate, the Missouri
Lottery Commission, the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, the Missouri Higher
Education Loan Authority, the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services and the State Tax
Commission each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the
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 only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities, counties, local election authorities, county health departments, county
recorders, nursing homes, county assessors, county auditors, county circuit clerks, county
collectors, county prosecutors, county treasurers, county public administrators, local law
enforcement agencies, fire protection districts, ambulance districts, retirement agencies, schools,
utility districts, hospitals and colleges were requested to respond to this proposed legislation but
did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information
System (MOLIS) database is available upon request.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027GENERAL REVENUESavings – for state attorneys not being
charges for death certificates §193.265
p. 4-5
Unknown, less
than $15,000
Unknown, less
than $15,000
Unknown, less
than $15,000
Cost Avoidance – ALJ’s – potential
savings in pay raises §§287.615 &
287.835 p. 5$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 18 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027Cost – ALJ’s/MOSERS – beneficiaries
to receive benefit that they would not
otherwise receive §287.835 p. 5
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Loss of Revenue – DHSS – no fees
charged to certain attorneys for death
certificates §193.265 p. 4-5
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
Costs – OSCA (§454.1050) New child
support module p. 7
($500,000 to
$1,000,000)$0$0
Cost – DOC (§454.1050) – to update
offender management system and
possible staff needed to process & remit
payments p. 7(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Transfer Out - §478.001 – to establish
mental health treatment courts p. 12-13
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown,
could exceed
$1,600,000)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$600,000)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$600,000)
PUBLIC DEFENDER – FEDERAL
AND OTHER FUND (0112)
Income - (§600.042) Government
grants, private gifts, donations, and
bequests made to the Office of the
Public Defender p. 15-16
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER –
FEDERAL AND OTHER FUND
(0112)
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 19 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS (0644)Costs – MHP §§435.300, 435.303,
435.306, 435.309 & 435.312 p. 6
Personnel Service($94,380)($115,521)($117,832) Fringe Benefits($82,771)($101,312)($103,338) Expense & Equipment$0$0$0Total Costs - ($177,151)($216,833)($221,170)FTE Change1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS (0644) ($177,151) ($216,833) ($221,170)
Estimated Net FTE Change on State
Highway Funds1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE
TREATMENT COURT
RESOURCES FUND (0733)Transfer In – funds from GR §478.001
p. 12-13
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
Cost – program expenditures §478.001
p. 12-13
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
TREATMENT COURT
RESOURCES FUND$0$0$0
BASIC CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
FUND (0757)
Revenue – OSCA – continuation of
receipts received from $8 court fee
(§477.650) p. 9-12$0$2,048,923$4,097,846 L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 20 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027Cost – OSCA – continuation of
expenditures (§477.650) p. 9-12$0($1,702,706)($3,405,412)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE BASIC CIVIL LEGAL
SERVICES FUND$0$346,217$692,434
Estimated Net FTE Change for the
Basic Civil Legal Services Fund0 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Savings – Prosecutors/Circuit Attorneys
– no charges for death certificates
§193.265 p. 4-5$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
Costs – counties – potential additional
costs to house/administer mental health
treatment courts §478.001
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Potential Revenue Loss – LPHA – no
fees charged to certain attorneys for
death certificates §193.265 p. 4-5
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Cost – potential increase compensation
in certain circuits for jurors (§494.455)
p. 13-14
(Unknown,
could exceed
$99,168)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$99,168)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$99,168)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
(More or Less
than $99,168)
(More or Less
than $99,168)
(More or Less
than $99,168)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Small business employers who hire ex-offenders could be impacted by this proposal. L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 21 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
§§435.300, 435.303, 435.306, 435.309 & 435.312 – Alternative Dispute Resolution
The bill also establishes an alternative dispute resolution process to which a court may refer, by
rule or court order, a single case or a category of cases. The parties themselves may enter into a
written agreement to resolve their differences through an alternative dispute resolution process
and may agree that the provisions of this bill will apply to the process. The process, whether
referred by the court or agreed to by the parties, is nonbinding unless the parties agree in writing
to it being binding. In an action referred to an alternative dispute resolution process, discovery
may proceed as in any other action, except that alternative dispute resolution communications
will not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding or subject to discovery. Similarly, evidence
or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery will not become inadmissible
or protected from discovery solely because of its disclosure or use in an alternative dispute
resolution process. Any participant in an alternative dispute resolution process has standing to
intervene in any proceeding to object to the admissibility of an alternative dispute resolution
communication made by that person during or relating to that process.
If the court has not referred a case to a non-binding alternative dispute resolution process and the
parties do not themselves enter into a written agreement to resolve their differences using the
process in this bill, the process the parties use will be considered settlement negotiations and will
be subject to rules of confidentiality that generally apply to such negotiations.
§454.1050 - "Bentley's Law" – Adds child maintenance provisions for certain children
This bill establishes "Bentley's Law", which requires a person convicted of an offense of driving
while intoxicated where the death of a parent or parents results to pay, upon petition by the
surviving parent or the legal guardian, child maintenance to the child's or children's surviving
parent or to the legal guardian until the child: dies; marries; enters active military duty; turns 18
or, if the child is 18 and enrolls in college, until completion of a degree or until the child reaches
the age of 21, whichever occurs first.
The bill specifies how the amount of maintenance to be paid is determined and how the
maintenance is to be paid. If the surviving parent or the guardian brings a civil action against the
person prior to any maintenance being ordered and the parent or guardian receives a judgment in
his or her favor, no maintenance will be ordered. Alternatively, if the court orders maintenance to
be paid and the parent or guardian later brings a civil action and obtains a judgment in his or her
favor, the amount awarded will be offset by the amount of maintenance ordered. (§454.1050)
§477.650 – Basic Civil Legal Services Fund
Currently, the "Basic Civil Legal Services Fund" is set to expire on December 31, 2025. This bill
repeals that expiration date. It also corrects an incorrect reference to a provision in the Missouri
Constitution.
§478.001 – Mental Health Courts L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 22 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
This bill adds mental health courts to the list of treatment court divisions, defined as a court
focused on addressing the mental health disorder or co-occurring disorder of defendants charged
with a criminal offense. The bill specifies that a mental health court may be established by any
circuit court to provide an alternative for the judicial system to dispose of cases that stem from a
mental health disorder or co-occurring disorder.
§§488.040 & 494.455 – Compensation of Jurors
This bill specifies that each grand and petit juror will receive at least $6 per day for every day the
juror actually serves and a mileage reimbursement rate as provided by law for state employees.
Each county and the City of St. Louis may authorize additional compensation for its jurors.
Alternatively, the court of a judicial circuit may, by a majority vote, vote to restructure juror
compensation so that grand and petit jurors do not get paid for the first two days of service but
thereafter will receive $50 per day, as well as mileage reimbursement at the rate provided by law
for state employees for necessary travel from the juror's residence to the courthouse and back, to
be paid by the county.
§600.042 – State Public Defender funding
Currently, any funds available from government grants, private gifts, donations, bequests, or
other sources made to the Office of the Public Defender are deposited into the General Revenue
Fund. This bill creates the "Public Defender - Federal and Other Fund" and provides that funding
from any government grants, private gifts, donations, bequests, or other sources shall be
deposited into such fund.
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 Courts Administrator
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Mental Health
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the Secretary of State
Jackson County Board of Elections
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis City Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Greene County
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Revenue
Missouri Department of Transportation
Phelps County Sheriff’s Office
Kansas City Police Department L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 23 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
St. Louis County Police Department
Office of Administration
Budget and Planning
Administrative Hearing Commission
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Safety
Fire Safety
Office of the Director
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Capitol Police
Missouri Gaming Commission
Missouri Veterans Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Missouri Highway Patrol
Missouri Department of Agriculture
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Newton County Health Department
County Employees Retirement Fund
Sheriff’s Retirement System
South River Drainage District
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Legislative Research
Oversight Division
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Kansas City
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Missouri House of Representatives
Joint Committee on Education
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Economic Development
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Missouri Department of Conservation
Office of the Governor
Department of Social Services
Missouri Lottery Commission
State Tax Commission
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Branson Police Department
Kansas City Public School Retirement System
University of Central Missouri
Department of Health and Senior Services L.R. No. 4623H.06P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 2064
Page 24 of 24
April 10, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri National Guard
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund
Office of the State Treasurer
St. Louis City
O’Fallon
Christian County Auditor’s Office
Lincoln County Assessor’s Office
Kansas City Civilian Police Employee Retirement
Kansas City Police Retirement System
Local Government Employees Retirement System
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Employees Pension Plan
Public Education Employees’ Retirement System
Morgan County PWSD #2
Wayne County PWSD #2
Northwest Missouri State University
Office of the State Auditor
Missouri Senate
University of Missouri System
Osceola
Eureka Fire Protection District
Osceola Water/Wastewater District
St. Charles County PWSD #2
Clay County Auditor’s Office
Department of Corrections
Springfield
Putnam County
St. Joseph Police Department
Pulaski County Sewer District #1
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Missouri State University
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 10, 2024April 10, 2024