COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:4623S.08C Bill No.:SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886 Subject:Administrative Law; Attorney General; Business and Commerce; Children and
Minors; Civil Procedure; Corporations; Courts; Crimes and Punishment; Criminal
Procedure; Disabilities; Emergencies; Employees - Employers; Estates, Wills and
Trusts; Family Law; Fees; Guardians; Juries; Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations; Liability; Mental Health; Probation and Parole; Property, Real and
Personal; Saint Louis City; Workers' Compensation; Uniform Laws
Type:Original Date:May 6, 2024Bill Summary:This proposal establishes and 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. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 2 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027Crime Victims
Compensation Fund
(0681)
Unknown, greater
than $250,000
Unknown, greater
than $250,000
Unknown, greater
than $250,000
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
Unknown, greater
than $72,849
Unknown, greater
than $379,384
Unknown, greater
than $721,264
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
*Transfer-ins less expenditures will net to zero.
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 Fund
(MHP)
1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEBasic Civil Legal
Services Fund
(OSCA)**
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.
☒ 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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 3 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2025FY 2026FY 2027
Local Government
More or Less than
$42,307
More or Less than
$70,602
More or Less than
$70,602
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Oversight was unable to receive some of the agency responses in a timely manner due to the
short fiscal note request time. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best current
information that we have or on prior year information regarding a similar bill. Upon the receipt
of agency 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.
§193.265 – Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates for Public Attorneys
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services
(DHSS) assumed §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- L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 4 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
appeals) that are handled by the AGO each year are factored into these calculations. This
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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning (B&P) assumed §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 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 5 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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
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.
§214.330 – Endowed Care Trust Fund
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1987, officials from the Office of
the State Treasurer 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.
In response to a similar proposal from last year (HB 968), officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator (OSCA) stated there may be some impact but there is no way to quantify
that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Without additional information, Oversight will assume the proposal will not create a material
fiscal impact to OSCA.
§§287.615 & 287.835 – Administrative Law Judges
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning (B&P) assumed §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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 6 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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) states 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.
§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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 7 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the MHP.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning (B&P) assumed §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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) stated 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.
§452.355 – Costs and Fees in Divorce Proceedings
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 864, officials from the Office of State
Courts Administrator (OSCA
that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 864, officials from the Department of
Social Services 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.
§§453.700 - 453.742 - Uniform Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Office of the State
Public Defender (SPD) stated per the recently released National Public Defense Workload
Study, the new charge contemplated by this change to Section 453.710, which will impact SPD’s
child clients, would take approximately fourteen hours of SPD work for reasonably effective
representation. If one hundred cases were filed under this section in a fiscal year, representation
would result in a need for an additional attorney. Because the number of cases that will be filed
under this statute is unknown, the exact additional number of attorneys necessary is unknown.
Each case would also result in unknown increased costs in the need for core staff, travel, and L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 8 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
litigation expenses. However, if the charge was classified as a class D misdemeanor no jail time
would be authorized and the cases would not qualify for SPD representation.
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 similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Missouri Office of
Prosecution Services (MOPS) stated no measurable fiscal impact to MOPS. The enactment of
a new crime creates additional responsibilities for county prosecutors and the circuit attorney
which may in turn result in additional costs which are difficult to determine.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes MOPS
will be able to perform any additional duties required by this proposal with current staff and
resources and will reflect no fiscal impact to the MOPS for fiscal note purposes.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Department of
Social Services, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of
Mental Health, the Department of Public Safety, Missouri Highway Patrol, the Office of
Administration (OA), the OA, Administrative Hearing CommissionOffice of the State
Courts AdministratorBranson Police Department, the Kansas City Police Department,
the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department and the St. Louis County Police Department each
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight
does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in
the fiscal note for these agencies.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Attorney General’s
OfficeOversight’s request for fiscal impact for this proposal.
Rule Promulgation
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules assumed this proposal is not anticipated to cause a fiscal impact
beyond its current appropriation.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 2631, officials from the Office of the
Secretary of State noted many bills considered by the General Assembly include provisions
allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and regulations to implement the act. The
Secretary of State's office 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
Secretary of State's office for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The Secretary of State's
office recognizes that this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 9 of
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
be required to meet these costs. However, they also recognize 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 their office can sustain with their core budget. Therefore, they reserve 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.
§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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 10 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
§§455.010, 455.035 & 455.513 – Orders of Protection
In response to similar legislation from 2023, CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72, 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.
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume a cost of $5,000 per year due to the
increase in age for appointing a Guardian ad Litem from 17 to 18.
§456.950 – Qualified Spousal Trust
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 988, officials from the Department of
Social Services 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.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1782, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator 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.
§§469.399 to 469.487 – “Missouri Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act”
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1987, officials from the Office of
the State Treasurer 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.
In response to a similar proposal from last year (HB 968), officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator (OSCA) stated there may be some impact but there is no way to quantify
that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Without additional information, Oversight will assume the proposal will not create a material
fiscal impact to OSCA.
§§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
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 11 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) stated 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 a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning assumed §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
assembly to the various county family services and justice funds of the family courts of the
counties. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 12 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) stated 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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) assumed 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.
In response to a previous version, 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.
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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 13 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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 $8 in the associate circuit
courts. The fund has received the following receipts during FY 2019 to FY 2023: L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 14 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Below is a history of the expended funds for the last 5 years:
Oversight notes this proposal removes the expiration date of these provisions. If the proposal is
extended, Oversight assumes revenue and expenditure activity will continue for the fund. Since
the fund does not expire until December 31, 2025, Oversight assumes only half of the average
receipts and expenditures would be shown for FY26. Therefore, Oversight will use the average
amounts from the table above to reflect the fiscal impact.
The appropriations for the BCLS Fund includes 2 FTEs according to OSCA. Oversight assumes
should this proposal be extended, the 2 FTEs will also continue to be funded through the BCLS
Fund.
R
eceipts
F
Y 19
4,417,206$
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. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 15 of 29
May 6, 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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) stated 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
In response to a previous version, officials from the Christian County Auditor’s Office
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 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 16 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
by the county. Currently, the cost 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.
§487.110 – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Office of State
Courts Administrator (OSCA
that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
§§488.040 & 494.455 – Compensation of Jurors
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) assumed 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).
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning assumed §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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 17 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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
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.
§488.426 – St. Louis City Circuit Court Civil Case Filing Fee
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Office of
Administration - Budget and Planning assumed this section appears to alter the scope of
circuits to which certain surcharge authorizations apply, potentially impacting TSR.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator (OSCA) assumed this proposal allows the circuit court in St. Louis City
to collect a fee not to exceed twenty dollars, rather than fifteen, to go toward the law library.
During the past five years there was an average of 12,933 circuit civil case filings, 5,399
domestic relations civil case filings and 15,361 associate civil and small claims civil case filings,
a total of 33,693. Based upon the increase in the collection fee not to exceed $20.00, rather than
$15.00, to go toward the library, OSCA estimates the increase to be $0 to $168,465 ($5 x
33,693). L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 18 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes using information on the City of St. Louis from OSCA’s Judicial Report
Supplement for FY12 thru FY22, Oversight projects the follow:
Circuit Civil 10,668
Domestic Relations 6,488
Associate Civil and Small Claims 16,798
Civil Circuit Total 33,954
Oversight estimates the increase to be $169,770 ($5 * 33,954).
Oversight assumes the provisions of this section will not create a material fiscal impact to local
political subdivisions other than St. Louis City Circuit Court.
§§491.075, 492.304– Judicial Proceedings
In response to similar legislation from this year, HB 1706, officials from the Office of State
Courts Administrator (OSCA
that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
§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.
§§510.500, 510.503, 510.506, 510.509, 510.512, 510.515, 510.518, 510.521 – Uniform Interstate
Depositions and Discovery Act
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) stated there may be some impact but there is no way to quantify that currently. Any
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 19 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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.
§534.157 – Rental Properties Transfers of Titles
Oversight assumes this section will have no fiscal impact.
§537.529 – Uniform Public Expression Protection Act
In response to similar legislation from 2022, HB 2624, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator 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.
§§566.151 and 567.030 – Criminal offenses involving a child
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Department of
Corrections (DOC) stated this proposal modifies provisions relating to judicial proceedings.
Section 566.151 changes the age of the victim from any person who is less than fifteen to less
than seventeen years of age. Section 567.030 changes the age of the victim from less than
eighteen years of age but older than fourteen to older than fifteen years of age. The bill changes
the existing class D felony to a class B felony.
Regarding section 566.151, the increase in the minimum age under which a person can be
considered enticed as a child could create additional instances in which a person could be
charged with a crime under this section. However, there is no available data to determine the
number of 16 and 17 year olds to whom this could have potentially applied. Therefore, the
impact is an unknown cost.
Regarding section 567.030, there were three new court commitments to prison and five new
probation cases under this section during FY 2023. These offenses would be changed from class
D felonies to class B felonies. The average sentence length for a class D felony sex and child
abuse offense is 6.6 years, with 5.3 years spent in prison. Changing this to a class B felony would
extend the sentence length to 9.0 years, with 7.2 years spent in prison.
The estimated cumulative impact on the DOC would be 0 additional offenders in prison and 0
additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2027. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 20 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
# to
prison
Cost per
year
Total Costs for
prison
Change in
probation
& parole
officers
Total cost
for
probation
and
parole
# to
probation
& parole
Grand Total -
Prison and
Probation
(includes 2%
inflation)
Year 10($9,689)$00$00$0Year 20($9,689)$00$00$0Year 30($9,689)$00$00$0Year 40($9,689)$00$00$0Year 50($9,689)$00$00$0Year 66($9,689)($64,185)0$0-6($64,185)Year 714($9,689)($152,759)0$0-10($152,759)Year 815($9,689)($166,944)0$0-4($166,944)Year 915($9,689)($170,283)0$04($170,283)Year 1015($9,689)($173,689)0$04($173,689)
* If this impact statement has changed from statements submitted in previous years, it could be
due to an increase/decrease in the number of offenders, a change in the cost per day for
institutional offenders, and/or an increase in staff salaries.
If the projected impact of legislation is less than 1,500 offenders added to or subtracted from the
department’s institutional caseload, the marginal cost of incarceration will be utilized. This cost
of incarceration is $26.545 per day or an annual cost of $9,689 per offender and includes such
costs as medical, food, and operational E&E. However, if the projected impact of legislation is
1,500 or more offenders added or removed to the department’s institutional caseload, the full
cost of incarceration will be used, which includes fixed costs. This cost is $99.90 per day or an
annual cost of $36,464 per offender and includes personal services, all institutional E&E,
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation-Class B Felony
F
Y2025
F
Y2026
F
Y2027
F
Y2028
F
Y2029
F
Y2030
F
Y2031
F
Y2032
F
Y2033
F
Y2034
N
ew Admissions
C
urrent Law
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
A
fter Legislation
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P
robations
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
0 0 0 0 0 6 1
4
1
5
1
5
1
5
P
arole
0 0 0 0 0 -
6
-
10
-
4
4 4
P
robation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
mpact
P
rison Population
0 0 0 0 0 6 1
4
1
5
1
5
1
5
F
ield Population
0 0 0 0 0 -
6
-
10
-
4
4 4
P
opulation Change
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1
1
1
9
1
9 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 21 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
medical and mental health, fringe, and miscellaneous expenses. None of these costs include
construction to increase institutional capacity.
DOC’s cost of probation or parole is determined by the number of P&P Officer II positions that
are needed to cover its caseload. The DOC average district caseload across the state is 51
offender cases per officer. An increase/decrease of 51 cases would result in a cost/cost avoidance
equal to the salary, fringe, and equipment and expenses of one P&P Officer II.
Increases/decreases smaller than 51 offender cases are assumed to be absorbable.
In instances where the proposed legislation would only affect a specific caseload, such as sex
offenders, the DOC will use the average caseload figure for that specific type of offender to
calculate cost increases/decreases.
Oversight notes, from information provided by the State Courts Administrator, the following
number of felony convictions under §566.151 and §567.030:
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
§566.151 felonies 19 25 22 23
§567.030 felonies 0 2 3 2
Oversight notes the felony convictions under §566.151 are a class F felony. Oversight will
reflect DOC’s impact as an unknown impact to the General Revenue Fund. Oversight notes it
would take roughly 26 additional prisoners to reach the $250,000 cost threshold. Oversight will
assume a fiscal impact of less than $250,000
§595.045 – Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Department of
Public Safety - Office of the Director (DPS) stated in CY 2022, there were 10,822 class E
felony convictions. This data was pulled using charge level felony E with a charge disposition of
Guilty Plea, Guilty Plea Written, Tried by Court- Guilty, Jury Verdict - Guilty, Alford Plea and a
Charge Disposition Date within CY2022. It does not include juvenile cases.
DPS assumes this will bring in an estimated $500,000 ($46 x 10,822 = $497,812) into the Crime
Victims’ Compensation Fund.
Oversight notes the provisions of this section state the court shall enter a judgment payable to
the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund of $46 for a class E felony. Oversight also notes, from
information provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the following number of E
felony convictions from FY 2019 through FY 2022:
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
8,677 7,545 8,407 10,575 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 22 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
The average number of E felonies over this four-year period is 8,801 (8,677 + 7,545 + 8,407 +
10,575). However, as the exact number of E felony convictions could vary substantially from
year to year, Oversight will reflect an Unknown, greater than $250,000 to the Crime
Victims’ Compensation Fund. Oversight notes the ending balance in the Crime Victims’
Compensation Fund as of January 31, 2024, is $2,080,937.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Office of
Administration - Budget and Planning assumed §595.045.8 expands the application of a
current court cost surcharge that generates revenues for the state’s Crime Victim Compensation
Fund, potentially impacting TSR.
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 Natural Resources, the Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Public Safety (Fire Safety), Department
of Social Services, Missouri Department of AgricultureUniversity of Missouri System,
the St. Louis County Board of Elections, the County Employees Retirement Fund, the
Public Education Employees’ Retirement System, the South River Drainage District, the St.
Charles County PWSD #2, the Missouri House of Representatives, the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules, the Joint Committee on Education, Legislative Research, the
Oversight DivisionMissouri Lottery 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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Administrative
Hearing Commission, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Revenue
Department of Public Safety (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Capitol Police,
Office of the Director, Missouri Gaming Commission, Missouri Veterans Commission,
State Emergency Management Agency), the the Office of the Governor, the Office of the
Lieutenant GovernorMissouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Ethics
Commission, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Missouri National Guard, the
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the Office of Administration, the
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund, Kansas City, the Platte County Board of
Elections, the St. Louis City Board of Elections, the Newton County Health Department
Lincoln County Assessor’s OfficePhelps County Sheriff’s Office, the Branson Police
Department, the Kansas City Police Department, the St. Louis County Police Department,
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 Sheriff’s Retirement System, the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District, the Pulaski County Sewer District #1, the Wayne County PWSD
#2, Missouri State University, Northwest Missouri State University, the University of L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 23 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Central Missouri, the Office of the State Auditor, the Joint Committee on Public Employee
Retirement, Missouri SenateMissouri Consolidated Health Care PlanMissouri
Higher Education Loan Authority, the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services and the State
Tax Commission 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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS)
noted many bills considered by the General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring
agencies to submit rules and regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core
funding to handle a certain amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative
session. The fiscal impact for this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than
$5,000. The SOS recognizes that this is a small amount and does not expect that additional
funding would be required to meet these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many
such bills may be passed by the General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs
may be in excess of what the office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves
the right to request funding for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should
the need arise based on a review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Oversight 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. L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 24 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027GENERAL REVENUESavings – for state attorneys not being
charges for death certificates §193.265
p. 3-5
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. 5-6$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Cost – ALJ’s/MOSERS – beneficiaries
to receive benefit that they would not
otherwise receive §287.835 p. 5-6
$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. 3-5
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
(Unknown, less
than $15,000)
Costs – OSCA (§454.1050) New child
support module p. 9
($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. 9(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Transfer Out - §478.001 – to establish
mental health treatment courts p. 15-16
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
Cost – DOC (§§566.151 and 567.030)
Increased incarceration costs p. 19-21(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown,
could exceed
$1,600,000)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$600,000)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$600,000) L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 25 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027CRIME VICTIMS’
COMPENSATION FUND (0681)Revenue – DPS (§595.045) Class E
felony fee ($46 per) p. 21-22
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE CRIME VICTIMS’
COMPENSATION FUND
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
Unknown,
Greater than
$250,000
STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS (0644)Costs – MHP §§435.300, 435.303,
435.306, 435.309 & 435.312 p. 6-7
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. 15-16
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
$0 or could
exceed
$600,000
Cost – program expenditures §478.001
p. 15-16
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000)
$0 or (could
exceed
$600,000) L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 26 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027ESTIMATED 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. 12-15$0$2,048,923$4,097,846
Cost – OSCA – continuation of
expenditures (§477.650) p. 12-15$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
Revenue – St. Louis City Circuit - on
filing fees to go towards law library
§488.426 – from $15 to $20 – to
beyond p. 17-18Up to $141,475 Up to $169,770 Up to $169,770
Savings – Prosecutors/Circuit Attorneys
– no charges for death certificates
§193.265 p. 3-5$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
Costs – counties - potential increase in
costs for Guardians Ad Litem §455.010
p. 10
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown) L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 27 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2025
(10 Mo.)
FY 2026FY 2027Costs – counties – potential additional
costs to house/administer mental health
treatment courts §478.001 p. 15-16
$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. 3-5
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Cost – potential increase compensation
in certain circuits for jurors (§494.455)
p. 16-17
(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 $42,307
More or Less
than $70,602
More or Less
than $70,602
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Small business employers who hire ex-offenders could be impacted by this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This act modifies provisions relating to judicial proceedings.
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 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 28 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
Missouri Department of Transportation
Phelps County Sheriff’s Office
Kansas City Police Department
St. Louis County Police Department
Office of Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Safety
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
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 L.R. No. 4623S.08C
Bill No. SCS for HCS for HB 2064 and HCS No. 2 for HB 1886
Page 29 of 29
May 6, 2024
NM:LR:OD
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 DirectorMay 6, 2024May 6, 2024