COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1185H.01I Bill No.:HB 489 Subject:Agriculture; Animals; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies Type:Original Date:February 9, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to the confiscation of animals.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue*(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes MHP and OSCA could experience increased duties. Oversight assumes the
costs would be less than $250,000.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0$0$0
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 2 of
February 9, 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* (Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes law enforcement agencies could incur some costs related to the care of
confiscated animals. L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 3 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§578.018 – Confiscation of Animals
Officials from the Missouri Department of Agriculture
impact on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note.
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.
Officials from the Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) assume the proposal as outlined in Section
578.018.1 and Section 578.018.5, the Highway Patrol, could be liable for costs related to the care
of confiscated animals in connection with a criminal investigation. The fiscal impact to the Patrol
could range from zero to unknown due to the many variables associated with the proposed
legislation, such as the number and type of animals and the length of time for adjudication of a
case, or cases.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect an
“Unknown” cost to MHP on the fiscal note. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight will assume the
unknown fiscal impact will be less than $250,000.
Officials from Missouri Office of Prosecution Services (MOPS) assume there is no measurable
fiscal impact to MOPS. The enactment of a new crime [578.018.7] creates additional
responsibilities for county prosecutors and the circuit attorney which may in turn result in
additional costs which are difficult to determine.
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 L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 4 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
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.
Officials from the St. Louis County Police Department assume if passed, this bill would allow
for animal control officers or law enforcement officers to apply for animal confiscation warrants,
however service of the actual warrant would require the response of a police officer. While the
Police Department currently assists the health department with these cases, the animal control
officers would no longer be able to solely function without Police involvement.
The proposed bill would change the usual disposition hearing following an animal confiscation
from thirty days to ten days. There are serious implications of moving the hearing to ten days
rather than thirty. For example, many tests completed by the veterinarian and lab will not be
completed within ten days. If the tests are completed in the rushed time frame, the case may be
found in favor of the pet owner and the police would have wasted time and man power.
The increase in man hours, paperwork, and overtime are difficult to estimate. The police officers
process, if involved in an animal confiscation case would be as follows:
The officer would have to compile evidence and apply for a warrant (in some situations). After
approval, the officer would then have to respond to the location where the animal is being
maintained with the health department and animal control to serve the warrant. If the owner of
the animal is not on-scene, the officer must locate a resident of the property and serve them in
person, which may be impossible. After completing all necessary reports and having them
approved, the officer would have to respond to a disposition hearing within ten days. During this
process, the officer involved would no longer be able to respond to other calls and additional
officers would have to complete the work the missing officer would generally complete,
generating overtime costs.
Oversight assumes any confiscated animal care costs, should the animal owner be acquitted, has
an inability to pay before the initial disposition hearing, or upon conviction, would be incurred
by veterinarians, local government dog pounds, animal shelters, animal rescue facilities, or
another third party with existing animal care facilities approved by the court.
Officials from the Phelps County Sheriff and Kansas City Police Department 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.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other sheriffs, police departments and local political subdivisions were requested to L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 5 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A general listing of political subdivisions
included in Oversight’s database is available upon request.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUE FUND*Cost – MHP – Increased duties in the
animal confiscation process(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Cost – OSCA – Increased duties related
to the animal confiscation procedures
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes MHP and OSCA could experience increased duties. Oversight assumes the
costs would be less than $250,000.
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS*
$0$0$0Revenue - Animal Rescue Facilities -
Bond or security for animal care costs
from the animal ownerUnknownUnknownUnknown
Cost - Animal Rescue Facilities - Care
of animals held until final disposition of
charges and acquittal or inability to pay(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Cost - Law Enforcement Agencies -
Increased duties in the animal
confiscation process(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes law enforcement agencies could incur some costs related to the care of
confiscated animals. Oversight assumes the costs would be less than $250,000. Oversight also L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 6 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
assumes any bond/security amounts and costs to animal rescue facilities due to confiscated
animals will be less than $250,000.
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Small business animal shelters and veterinary facilities might incur additional costs as a result of
this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This bill changes the laws regarding the confiscation of animals. In its main provisions, the bill:
(1) Specifies that a warrant issued under the bill must be served in the presence of a law
enforcement official;
(2) Requires a person acting under the authority of a warrant to appear at a disposition hearing
before the court through which the warrant was issued within 10 days of the confiscation, instead
of being given a disposition hearing within 30 days of the filing of the request, for the purpose of
granting immediate disposition of the animals. An animal cannot be sterilized before the
completion of the disposition hearing unless it is necessary to save life or relieve suffering;
(3) Allows a third party approved by the court to care for confiscated animals;
(4) Specifies that the owner of any animal that has been confiscated cannot be responsible for the
animal’s care and keeping prior to a disposition hearing if at the hearing, there is no finding of
abuse by the court and the court orders the animals returned to the owner;
(5) Requires a reasonable bond or security to be posted within 72 hours of the disposition hearing
in an amount sufficient to provide for the care of the animal and consistent with the fair market
cost of boarding the animal in an appropriate retail boarding facility if the owner, custodian, or
any person claiming an interest in an animal that has been confiscated because of neglect or
abuse would like to prevent disposition of the animal after the disposition hearing and while the
criminal case proceeds. Currently, the owner, custodian, or any person claiming an interest in an
animal that has been impounded because of neglect or abuse may prevent disposition of the
animal by posting bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for at
least 30 days, inclusive of the date on which the animal was taken into custody;
(6) Specifies that all animals confiscated must receive proper care as determined by state law and
regulations. Any facility or organization must be liable to the owner for damages for any
negligent act or abuse of the animal which occurs while the animal is in its care, custody, and
control; L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 7 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
(7) Specifies that in the event that an animal owner is not liable for the costs incurred while the
charges were pending, the costs of care and the liability for the life or death of the animal and
medical procedures performed are the responsibility of the confiscating agency;
(8) Allows an owner to demand the return of the animal held in custody if he or she posted a
sufficient bond and is acquitted or there is a final discharge without a conviction unless there is a
settlement agreement, consent judgment, or a suspended imposition of sentence. Any entity with
care, custody, and control of the animal must immediately return it to the owner upon demand
and proof of the acquittal or final discharge without conviction.
The animal owner must not be liable for any costs incurred relating to the placement or care of
the animal while the charges were pending unless there is a settlement agreement, consent
judgment, or a suspended imposition of sentence;
(9) Specifies that any person or entity that intentionally euthanizes, other than as permissible
under the provisions of the bill, or intentionally sterilizes an animal prior to a disposition hearing
or during any period for which a reasonable bond was secured for the animal’s care will be guilty
of a class B misdemeanor and is liable to the owner for damages including the actual value of the
animal. Each individual animal for which a violation occurs is a separate offense. Any second or
subsequent violation is a class A misdemeanor, and any entity licensed under state law must be
subject to licensure sanction by its governing body; and
(10) Requires, in the event that the animal owner is not liable for the costs incurred, the
confiscating agency to be responsible for the usual and customary veterinary costs and fair
market boarding fees and be liable for the life or death of the animal and for medical procedures
performed while the charges were pending.
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
Department of Agriculture
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office of Prosecution Services
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Public Safety - Missouri Highway Patrol L.R. No. 1185H.01I
Bill No. HB 489
Page 8 of
February 9, 2025
KB:LR:OD
Phelps County Sheriff
Kansas City Police Department
St. Louis County Police Department
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 9, 2025February 9, 2025