COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0985H.01I Bill No.:HB 210 Subject:Transportation; Homeland Security; Interstate Cooperation; Cities, Towns, and
Villages; Department of Public Safety; Department of Transportation
Type:Original Date:March 3, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal establishes the Unmanned Aerial Systems Security Act of
2025.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue*$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
*Based on department responses, Oversight assumes potential reimbursement costs will be less
than $250,000.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Various State Funds*$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
College and
University**$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
*Oversight assumes fine revenue will not exceed $250,000 per fiscal year.
**Oversight assumes unknown costs to replace unmanned aircraft could exceed $250,000
annually.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 2 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on FTE 000
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Local
Government*/**$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
*Oversight assumes fine revenue will not exceed $250,000 per fiscal year.
**Oversight assumes increase in costs incurred by local governments could exceed $250,000
annually. L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 3 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Missouri Department of Transportation, Office of Administration -
Administrative Hearing Commission, Department of Commerce and Insurance,
Department of Economic DevelopmentDepartment of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, Department of
Mental Health, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Corrections, Department
of Labor and Industrial Relations, Department of Revenue, Department of Public Safety –
Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Department of Public Safety – Capitol Police, Department of
Public Safety – Fire Safety, Department of Public Safety – Director’s Office, Department of
Public Safety – Gaming Commission, Missouri Highway Patrol, Missouri Veterans
Commission, State Emergency Management Agency, Department of Social Services, Office
of the GovernorMissouri Department of Agriculture, Missouri Department of
Conservation, Missouri Ethics Commission, Missouri National Guard, MoDOT & Patrol
Employees’ Retirement System, Office of Administration, Petroleum Storage Tank
Insurance Fund Office of the State Public Defender Missouri Lottery, Missouri
Consolidated Health Care Plan, Missouri State Employee's Retirement System and 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 Administration - Budget and Planning assume Section 542.566
states any department currently using a drone that does not meet the minimum requirements for
that drone's usage tier, outlined in Section 542.556, may request a reimbursement up to the cost
of acquiring a drone that meets the minimum requirements for that drone's usage tier from the
state treasurer. While this reimbursement is conditioned on a designated appropriation being
passed into law, this may result in increased costs to the state of an unknown amount.
Oversight assumes there could be potential reimbursements for drones that do not currently
meet the requirements of this proposal; subject to appropriation. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a fiscal impact of $0 (no agencies request reimbursement and/or appropriations are not
given) to an “Unknown” fiscal impact (agencies request reimbursement and appropriations are
given). Oversight assumes potential reimbursements will not exceed $250,000.
Oversight is uncertain which department would administer the classification of drones or the
allowable exemptions from the requirements.
Oversight also notes the proposal includes penalties for violations of §542.568 (class B
misdemeanor). A portion of the fine goes to local schools as fine revenue and the remaining
goes to various state and local funds for court costs. Oversight will reflect a potential impact to
the state and local political subdivisions of “$0 or Unknown" in additional fine revenue and court L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 4 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
cost revenue per year from this charge. Oversight assumes the increase in revenue will not
exceed $250,000.
Additional fine revenue received by local school districts may count as a deduction in the
following year in determining their state aid apportionment, if the district is not a 'hold harmless'
district. For simplicity, Oversight will only reflect the increase in fine revenue as a positive
impact to local political subdivisions.
Below are examples of some of the state and local funds to which court costs are distributed.
Fee/Fund NameFee AmountBasic Civil Legal Services Fund$8.00Clerk Fee$15.00 ($12 State/$3 County)County Fee$25.00State Court Automation Fund$7.00Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund$7.50DNA Profiling Analysis Fund$15.00Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Fund$1.00Sheriff’s Retirement Fund$3.00Motorcycle Safety Trust Fund$1.00Brain Injury Fund$2.00Independent Living Center Fund$1.00Sheriff’s Fee$10.00 (County)Prosecuting Attorney and Circuit Attorney Training Fund$4.00Prosecuting Attorney Training Fund$1.00 ($0.50 State/$0.50 County)Spinal Cord Injury Fund$2.00
Officials from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) assume any potential litigation costs
arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources. The AGO may seek
additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or
investigation costs.
Oversight assumes AGO is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of activity
each year. Oversight assumes AGO could absorb the costs related to this proposal. If multiple
bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial costs, AGO could request
funding through the appropriation process.Officials from the AGO assume the proposal will
have no fiscal impact on their organization. L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 5 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of the State Treasurer (STO) assume Section 542.566 states, “Subject
to appropriation, any department …may request a reimbursement …from the state treasurer.”
The State Treasurer does not have a mechanism in place, nor the personnel to administer such a
reimbursement. This would require an NDI to request funds for the reimbursements, along with a
new fund & appropriation to issue the reimbursements from. Additionally, this will require at
least 1 FTE to review and process the requests.
Oversight assumes any reimbursements to departments to replace existing drones will be
minimal; therefore, Oversight will not reflect the FTE costs as indicated by STO. Oversight
assumes STO is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of activity each year.
Oversight assumes STO could absorb the costs related to this proposal.
Officials from the University of Missouri (UM) assume the bill creates the potential for fiscal
costs by establishing a new source of potential liability, but it is not possible to estimate the
amount of such costs with any certainty.
Oversight assumes any costs to UM are indirect; therefore, Oversight will not reflect a fiscal
impact to UM.
Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services defer to the Office of
Administration for the potential fiscal impact of this proposal.
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) assume 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 notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to
(Unknown) cost to the General Revenue Fund. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight also assumes
the impact will be under $250,000 annually. If this assumption is incorrect, this would alter the
fiscal impact as presented in this fiscal note. If additional information is received, Oversight will
review it to determine if an updated fiscal note should be prepared and seek approval to publish a
new fiscal note.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 751 (2025), officials from Southeast Missouri State
University (SEMO) stated there is a potential negative impact of an undetermined amount,
likely to exceed $250,000. This impact is based on the assumptions that the number of students
enrolled in SEMO's Bachelor of Science in Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Minor in Unmanned
Aircraft Systems may decline and the estimated cost to replace SEMO's current fleet of
unmanned aircraft systems that it may no longer be able to support. L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 6 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
Officials from the University of Central Missouri (UCM) state this proposal will have an
indeterminate fiscal impact on UCM.
Oversight has no information to the contrary. Oversight will present a $0 to (Unknown) cost to
College and University funds for replacing unmanned aircraft that no longer comply with the
provisions of the legislation. Oversight assumes the universities will replace the drones and there
will be no impact on the number of students enrolled in the programs offered by the institutions.
Oversight assumes the unknown impact could exceed $250,000 annually.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 751 (2025), officials from the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District (MSD) stated this bill will impact MSD to the extent MSD can’t find unmanned
aircraft (drones) that comply with this legislation and must contract with private companies at
higher costs to provide services that are currently done in-house.
MSD has purchased three drones manufactured by DJI, a Chinese company, to date. MSD uses
these drones to get photos and videos of its assets for publication, educational content, and
condition inspection. It is estimated these drones will save MSD between $250,000 -
$500,000. One example is when $15,000 was saved by not hiring someone to do a confined
space entry to the subterranean Bates Pump Station to inspect it. It was possible to do it with a
drone instead. Of the three drones already purchased, one is no longer in service. It is difficult to
say how many additional drones will be needed, but as the existing drones are broken or lost they
will need to be replaced.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 751 (2025), officials from the City of O’Fallon (City)
stated, based on research conducted by the O’Fallon Police Department (PD), it appears that
small American drones are $15,000-$17,000 each and the larger foreign drone is $24,000. The
PD has a total of 13 drones. If the City replaced all of the drones with only American made, the
total cost for the police department would exceed $200,000.
According to the City’s Public Relations Division, anything USA made is going to be
significantly over-engineered for the City’s purposes. This would require the City to use the
Parrot ANAFI USA at $7,000 each. The Parrott ANAFI USA comes with a controller that
requires another device, such as an iPad Mini ($500) to operate, so the total cost would be
$7,500.
The City’s Engineering Department states that the DJI mini 4 Pro with combo Plus purchased in
2024 cost approximately $1,300. The American made replacement would cost around $1,600.
In total, the provisions of this proposal would cost the City of O’Fallon approximately $209,100
($200,000 + $7,500 + $1,600) to replace the drones currently in use.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 751 (2025), officials from the Branson Police
Department (Department or PD) stated this legislation will directly and negatively impact the
Branson Police Department, as it has invested $45,000 and over a hundred hours of training and L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 7 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
licensing time to create the PD’s Drone Unit. This bill would cause the Department to lose the
use of the two drones already purchased (one large and one small for SWAT operations).
Currently, no domestic company offers comparable drones, with the number of uses the PD
needs to protect life, for reasonable costs. The available domestic drones would cost this agency
over $100,000 for the same capabilities the Department currently has with its DJI drones.
Oversight notes the definition of government agency includes “any state, county, local, or
municipal government entity or any unit of government created or established by law”.
Oversight assumes there could be costs to local to replace non-conforming drones. Oversight
will range costs from $0 to (Unknown) for local governments. Oversight assumes the unknown
costs could exceed $250,000 annually.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUE FUNDCost – STO – potential reimbursement
of drones
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)Cost – OSCA – increased caseload
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
FUNDS**
Costs – College and Universities –
replacement of non-conforming drones
(§542.558)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
FUNDS
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 8 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028VARIOUS STATE FUNDS*Revenue – potential increase due to
fines for violations of §542.568
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
ESTIMATED NET EFFECTON
VARIOUS STATE FUNDS
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
*Oversight assumes fine revenue will not exceed $250,000 per fiscal year.
**Oversight assumes unknown costs to replace unmanned aircraft could exceed $250,000
annually.
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS*
Costs – Local governments –
replacement of non-conforming drones
(§542.558)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Revenue – School Districts - potential
increase due to fines for violations of
§542.568
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
*Oversight assumes fine revenue will not exceed $250,000 per fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This bill establishes the "Unmanned Aerial Systems Security Act of 2025." L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 9 of
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
This bill prohibits the purchase or use by a government agency of a drone or any related service
or equipment produced by a manufacturer domiciled in a country of concern, as defined in the
bill.
This bill establishes three tiers of drone classifications based on a drone's capabilities and
functions to collect, transmit, or receive data, such as, only flight control data, visual data, or
auditory data. The security requirements for the use of each tier varies, as specified in the bill.
Drones in use by a government agency are prohibited from being connected to the internet for
any reason other than command, control, coordination, or communication to ground control
stations.
The bill specifies security precautions government agencies must use when connecting a drone
or its software to a computer or network of a government agency. Drones and their software are
prohibited from connecting with any phone or other mobile device owned by a government
agency that connects to a government agency network.
All communications from and to a drone shall utilize a federally compliant encryption algorithm.
The Missouri Department of Transportation shall identify sensitive installations within the state
of Missouri for the purpose of prohibiting drone usage over those locations. Flight mapping
software providers shall geo-fence the state's sensitive locations. Law enforcement agencies shall
have access to geo-fenced locations.
It shall be a class B misdemeanor for a provider of flight mapping software to allow a user to fly
a drone over a sensitive location unless the user is a law enforcement officer. It shall be a class B
misdemeanor to fly a drone over a sensitive location unless the user is a law enforcement officer.
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
Missouri Department of Transportation
Office of Administration - Administrative Hearing Commission
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Economic Development
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Mental Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Corrections, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Revenue
Department of Public Safety – Alcohol and Tobacco Control L.R. No. 0985H.01I
Bill No. HB 210
Page 10 of 10
March 3, 2025
KB:LR:OD
Department of Public Safety – Capitol Police
Department of Public Safety – Fire Safety
Department of Public Safety – Director’s Office
Department of Public Safety – Gaming Commission
Missouri Highway Patrol
Missouri Veterans Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Department of Social Services
Office of the Governor
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri National Guard
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Office of Administration
Office of the State Treasurer
University of Missouri
Missouri Lottery
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System and State Tax Commission
Department of Health and Senior Services
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office of Administration - Budget and Planning
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 3, 2025March 3, 2025