COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1185H.03C Bill No.:HCS for HB 489 Subject:Agriculture; Animals; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies Type:Original Date:February 26, 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.03C
Bill No. HCS for HB 489
Page 2 of
February 26, 2025
MR: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.03C
Bill No. HCS for HB 489
Page 3 of
February 26, 2025
MR: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.
In response to a previous version, officials from Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
(MOPS) assumed 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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator
(OSCA) assumed 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 L.R. No. 1185H.03C
Bill No. HCS for HB 489
Page 4 of
February 26, 2025
MR:LR:OD
(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 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. 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, Kansas City Police Department, and the Newton
County Health 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
respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A general listing of political subdivisions
included in Oversight’s database is available upon request. L.R. No. 1185H.03C
Bill No. HCS for HB 489
Page 5 of
February 26, 2025
MR:LR:OD
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*
Revenue - 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. L.R. No. 1185H.03C
Bill No. HCS for HB 489
Page 6 of
February 26, 2025
MR:LR:OD
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.
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
Phelps County Sheriff
Kansas City Police Department
St. Louis County Police Department
Newton County Health Department
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 26, 2025February 26, 2025