COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1623H.01I Bill No.:HB 495 Subject:Saint Louis City; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Councils; Crimes and Punishment; Children and Minors
Type:Original Date:January 22, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to public safety.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
General
Revenue*
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$222,923)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$256,673)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$455,089)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$3,758,224)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$222,923)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$256,673)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$455,089)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$3,758,224)
*Oversight notes the impact of this proposal includes implementation cost to DOR for updates
to the Driver’s License Bureau, DOC incarceration costs and changes to liability claims eligible
for payment under §105.711 paid by such boards on an equal share basis per claim, as well as the
State taking ownership of contractual obligations of the SLPD (including liability). L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 2 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Highway Fund
(0644)**$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
Legal Expense
Fund (0692)*$0$0$0$0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
Other State
Funds$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
*Cost avoidance and reduction in contributions net to zero.
**Oversight does not anticipate the reinstatement fees to exceed $250,000.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
All Federal
Funds $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 3 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
General Revenue
0 FTE0 FTE1 FTE(4 FTE)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTE 0 FTE0 FTE1 FTE(4 FTE)
☒ 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
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Local
Government*
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
*Oversight notes $8,500,000 represents an additional 121 uniformed patrol officers needed to
reach the 1,313 uniformed patrol officers per §§84.100 & 84.150 of this proposal. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 4 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Due to time constraints, Oversight was unable to receive some agency responses in a timely
manner and performed limited analysis. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best
current information that we have or on information regarding a similar bill(s). 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.
§§84.012, 84.020, 84.030, 84.100, 84.150, 84.160, 84.170, 84.225, 84.325 & 105.726 – Board of
Police Commissioners (St. Louis City Police Department)
Officials from the Office of Administration (OA) assume §84.325 makes provisions for a board
of police commissioners assuming control of a municipal police force. This bill contains
language about the state taking responsibility and ownership of contractual and other lawful
obligations of the municipal police department. This could have some fiscal impact for the State,
but would be subject to judicial construction, so the impact is unknown.
OA also assumes §105.726.3 adds the provision that reimbursement from the Legal Expense
Fund (LEF) is on an equal share basis per claim up to a maximum of one million dollars per
fiscal year. This change has the potential to avoid costs to the LEF. The maximum amount to be
reimbursed remains unchanged with this legislation. The number of successful claims is
unknown; therefore, the potential cost avoidance is also unknown.
Oversight does not have any information contrary to that provided by OA. Therefore, Oversight
will reflect OA’s potential unknown impact to the State Legal Expense Fund. Oversight notes the
Legal Expense Fund is funded by the General Revenue Fund as well as other state funds. For
simplicity, Oversight will show the cost avoidance to General Revenue.
Oversight also assumes, if the state takes responsibility and ownership of contractual and other
lawful obligations of the municipal police department, there could be an impact to the state.
Oversight will reflect a potential unknown cost starting in FY 2027 assuming control is taken
some time in FY 2026.
Officials from the City of St. Louis assume the proposed legislation would seek to reverse the
assumption of local control of the City Police department that became effective on September 1,
2013. Aside from various operational considerations, the proposed legislation contains several
provisions that would increase the cost of operations of the department and thus have a negative
fiscal impact on the City and its ability to fund the department. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 5 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
The legislation is unclear as to a proposed increase in staffing levels of the department. In one
provision, the bill states that the number of patrolmen to be appointed shall not be less than
1,313. In a subsequent provision in the bill, the language establishes a maximum number of
officers in the police force as follows: 76 commissioned officers at lieutenant and above; 200
commissioned officers at rank of sergeant; and 1,037 commissioned officers at the rank of
patrolman (total of 1,313). This language appears to be in direct conflict with the forementioned
requirement of no less than 1,313 patrolmen shall be appointed. (Oversight notes this is per
§§84.100 & 84.150.)
In the FY25 budget, the number of authorized uniformed positions (excluding trainees and grant
funded positions) totaled 1,192. Assuming the 1,313 requirement total, this would be an increase
of 121 in authorized uniformed positions. An increase of this level would cost approximately
$8.5 million per year including pay and benefits. Despite the proposed legislation’s use of the
words “shall employ” or “to be appointed”, the ability to actually fill such positions would
remain questionable.
The proposed legislation is also uncertain as to the impact of the assignment of debt and assets of
the department. It proposes to “convey, assign and otherwise transfer to the board title and
ownership of all indebtedness and assets ...held in the name of or controlled by the municipal
police department.” Through the City’s Municipal Finance Corporation the City has existing
debt in the form of Leasehold Revenue and Improvement Bonds for facilities of the Police
Department. Assignment of these assets which serve as the security for these bonds may be a
violation of the existing indenture agreement.
In addition, the proposed legislation would also remove existing civilian and uniform employees
of the Police Department from the City’s civil service system. Under the civil service system
these employees have certain rights of employment which would be no longer guaranteed under
a state controlled board. The costs of any litigation stemming from this abrogation of
employment rights cannot be determined.
While the legislation proposes returning control of the Police Department to a state controlled
Board of Police Commissioners, the legal liability coverage provided by the State remains
limited and in no event would exceed $1 million per year in the aggregate. This is far less than
the additional costs to be incurred as a result of other provisions in the bill.
If this proposal is enacted and the State mandates that the City provide funding for a newly
constituted police department operated under a state controlled board of police commissioners, it
is possible court may find the law falls under the police funding exemption under Missouri
Constitution, Article X, Section 21, commonly referred to as the Hancock Amendment. While
the Hancock Amendment prevents the state from compelling municipalities to fund new or
increased activities or services, in November 2022 voters approved a ballot initiative allowing
the Missouri legislature to force municipalities to fund increases in police funding through
December 31, 2026. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 6 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Article I, Section 21, currently states the following:
1. A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that
required by existing law shall not be required by the general assembly or any state agency
of counties or other political subdivisions, unless a state appropriation is made and
disbursed to pay the county or other political subdivision for any increased costs.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing prohibitions, before December 31, 2026, the general
assembly may by law increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state
board of police commissioners to ensure such police force has additional resources to
serve its communities.
It is possible that a Missouri court in 2023 or beyond would find that this language does compel
the City of St. Louis to fund new activities or services pertaining to a newly constituted police
department, at least through December 31, 2026. Litigation would determine the outcome of this
expense and if the City or the State would need to absorb this cost.
Oversight also assumes per §84.100 that the number of patrolmen to be appointed shall not be
less than 1,313. St. Louis City states according to the FY25 budget, there are a total of 1,192
uniformed positions budgeted. St. Louis City states to meet the required 1,313 patrolmen
positions, another 121 positions at a cost of $8.5 million would need to be added. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect an additional cost to St. Louis City that is up to $8.5 million per fiscal year
including pay and benefits for this proposal.
In response to similar legislation, SB 52 (2025), officials from the Office of Administration -
Budget and Planning (B&P) assumed §84.225 creates a $1,000 penalty for any mayor or city
official who attempts to impede or hinder the Board of Commissioners. To the extent any related
fines or penalties are deposited in the state treasury, TSR may be impacted.
Section 84.325.2 and .3 l transfers certain assets, contractual obligations, indebtedness, and other
lawful obligations from the St. Louis Police Department to the state. This expressly excludes any
funds held by the city in the name of, for the benefit of, or for future contribution to any police
pension system created under chapter 86. B&P does not have any information on what, if any,
assets or obligations might be transferred. The state could risk picking up significant debt
obligations.
Oversight notes in §84.325, subdivisions 1 through 3, state on August 28, 2025, the Board of
Police Commissioners shall assume control of any municipal police force established in any city
not within a county, which, at this time, is only St. Louis City. Upon such assumption, any
municipal police force within St. Louis City shall transfer to the Board title and ownership of all
debts and assets, and the state shall accept responsibility, ownership, and liability as successor-
in-interest for contractual obligations, debts, and other lawful obligations of the municipal police
forces established in St. Louis City. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 7 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO)
arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources. However, the AGO may seek
additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or
investigation.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes the
AGO 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 AGO for fiscal note purposes.
§§304.012, 304.145, 556.061, 568.045, 574.050, 575.150 & 590.208 – Crimes Involving Stunt
Driving, Endangering the Welfare of a Child in the First Degree and Rioting
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state the following:
§§304.012 & 304.145 – Stunt Driving
Section 304.145 creates definitions and penalties relating to street racing. Violation of this
section is a class A misdemeanor for the first offense, a class E felony for a second offense, and a
class D felony for a third or subsequent offense.
As misdemeanors fall outside the purview of DOC, there is no impact to DOC for the offense
resulting in the class A misdemeanor. The offense resulting in a class E and D felony would be
considered a new crime. As there is little direct data on which to base an estimate, the
department estimates an impact comparable to the creation of a new class E and D felony for this
section.
For each new nonviolent class E felony, the department estimates one person could be sentenced
to prison and two to probation. The average sentence for a nonviolent class E felony offense is
3.4 years, of which 2.1 years could be served in prison with 1.4 years to first release. The
remaining 1.3 years could be on parole. Probation sentences could be 3 years.
The cumulative impact on the department is estimated to be 2 additional offenders in prison and
7 additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2028. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 8 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
For each new nonviolent class D felony, the department estimates three people could be
sentenced to prison and five to probation. The average sentence for a nonviolent class D felony
offense is 5 years, of which 2.8 years could be served in prison with 1.7 years to first release.
The remaining 2.2 years could be on parole. Probation sentences could be 3 years.
The cumulative impact on the department is estimated to be 8 additional offenders in prison and
22 additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2030.
§§556.061 & 568.045 – Endangering the Welfare of a Child in the First Degree
The bill adds “endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree” to the list of sentences
defined as dangerous felonies in section 556.061. This introduces the requirement that any new
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation-Class E Felony (nonviolent)
F
Y2026
F
Y2027
F
Y2028
F
Y2029
F
Y2030
F
Y2031
F
Y2032
F
Y2033
F
Y2034
F
Y2035
N
ew Admissions
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P
robations
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
P
arole
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P
robation
2 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
I
mpact
P
rison Population
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
F
ield Population
2 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
P
opulation Change
3 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation-Class D Felony (nonviolent)
F
Y2026
F
Y2027
F
Y2028
F
Y2029
F
Y2030
F
Y2031
F
Y2032
F
Y2033
F
Y2034
F
Y2035
N
ew Admissions
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
P
robations
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
3 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
P
arole
0 0 1 4 7 7 7 7 7 7
P
robation
5 1
0
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
I
mpact
P
rison Population
3 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
F
ield Population
5 1
0
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P
opulation Change
8 1
6
2
4
2
7
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0 L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 9 of
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
court commitment or probation revocation to prison on a sentence under section 568.045 could
serve at least 85% of the term of those sentences in prison prior to release.
There were 101 new court commitments and 54 probation revocations to prison under section
568.045 in FY 2024. The average length of the sentence cycles for these offenders (after taking
into account designations of concurrent and consecutive terms) was 11.1 years, with the expected
average time to first release from prison being 4.6 years under current legislation and 7.3 years
under the proposed legislation. The cumulative estimated impact is an additional 295 people in
prison and 295 fewer people on community supervision by FY 2034.
The bill adds language in section 568.045 specific to the involvement of fentanyl or carfentanil
in an offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree. The penalty for this
offense is considered as a new class B felony without the possibility of probation and a minimum
prison term requirement of 85% of the length the sentence.
As these are new crimes, there is little direct data on which to base an estimate, and as such, the
department estimates an impact comparable to the creation of a new class B felony.
Given the seriousness of class B felony offenses and that the introduction of a completely new
class B felony offense is a rare event, the department assumes the admission of one person per
year to prison following the passage of the legislative proposal.
Offenders committed to prison with a class B felony as their most serious sentence, have an
average sentence length of 9.0 years. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 10 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§574.050 - Rioting
Section 574.050 modifies the definition of rioting and modifies the penalty for rioting from a
class A misdemeanor to a class D felony and makes a second or subsequent conviction of rioting
a class C felony.
As misdemeanors fall outside the purview of DOC, there is no impact to DOC for the offense
resulting in the class A misdemeanor. The offense resulting in a class D and C felony would be
considered a new crime. As there is little direct data on which to base an estimate, the
department estimates an impact comparable to the creation of a new class D and C felony for this
section.
For each new nonviolent class D felony, the department estimates three people could be
sentenced to prison and five to probation. The average sentence for a nonviolent class D felony
offense is 5 years, of which 2.8 years could be served in prison with 1.7 years to first release.
The remaining 2.2 years could be on parole. Probation sentences could be 3 years.
The cumulative impact on the department is estimated to be 8 additional offenders in prison and
22 additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2030. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 11 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
For each new class C felony, the department estimates four people could be sentenced to prison
and six to probation. The average sentence for a class C felony offense is 6.9 years, of which 3.7
years could be served in prison with 2.1 years to first release. The remaining 3.2 years could be
on parole. Probation sentences could be 3 years.
The cumulative impact on the department is estimated to be 15 additional offenders in prison and
31 additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2032.
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation-Class C Felony
F
Y2026
F
Y2027
F
Y2028
F
Y2029
F
Y2030
F
Y2031
F
Y2032
F
Y2033
F
Y2034
F
Y2035
N
ew Admissions
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
P
robations
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
4 8 1
2
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
P
arole
0 0 0 1 5 9 1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
P
robation
6 1
2
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
I
mpact
P
rison Population
4 8 1
2
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
F
ield Population
6 1
2
1
8
1
9
2
3
2
7
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
P
opulation Change
1
0
2
0
3
0
3
4
3
8
4
2
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6 L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 12 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Combined Cumulative Estimated Impact of HB 495 (1623H.01I)
The combined cumulative estimated impact on the department is 336 additional offenders in
prison and 212 fewer offenders on field supervision by FY 2034. # 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 112($10,485)($104,850)0$018($104,850)Year 224($10,485)($256,673)0$036($256,673)Year 333($10,485)($359,983)1($95,106)57($455,089)Year 437($10,485)($411,690)1($87,602)64($499,292)Year 538($10,485)($431,273)1($88,533)74($519,807)Year 639($10,485)($451,475)1($89,477)78($540,952)Year 787($10,485)($1,027,279)0$035($1,027,279)Year 8243($10,485)($2,926,682)(2)$182,789(120)($2,743,893)Year 9336($10,485)($4,127,705)(4)$369,481(212)($3,758,225)Year 10336($10,485)($4,210,259)(2)$191,552(212)($3,836,831)
* 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
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation
F
Y2026
F
Y2027
F
Y2028
F
Y2029
F
Y2030
F
Y2031
F
Y2032
F
Y2033
F
Y2034
F
Y2035
N
ew Admissions
C
urrent Law
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
1
55
A
fter Legislation
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
1
67
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
P
robations
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
1
2
2
4
3
3
3
7
3
8
3
9
8
7
2
43
3
36
3
36
P
arole
0 0 3 1
0
2
0
2
4
-
19
-
174
-
266
-
266
P
robation
1
8
3
6
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
I
mpact
P
rison Population
1
2
2
4
3
3
3
7
3
8
3
9
8
7
2
43
3
36
3
36
F
ield Population
1
8
3
6
5
7
6
4
7
4
7
8
3
5
-
120
-
212
-
212
P
opulation Change
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
01
1
12
1
17
1
22
1
23
1
24
1
24 L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 13 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
of incarceration is $28.73 per day or an annual cost of $10,485 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 $100.25 per day or an
annual cost of $36,591 per offender and includes personal services, all institutional E&E,
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.
Officials from the DOC assume §575.150 for the Offense of Resisting Arrest to 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.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assumes the following:
Administrative Impact
DOR anticipates convictions received under these new violations would be considered moving
violations and assess points. The proposed language does not define points to be applied to the
driver record, so DOR anticipates assessing based on prior standards, which is two points for any
misdemeanor conviction, and twelve points for any felony conviction.
To implement the proposed legislation, DOR will be required to:
• Complete programming and user acceptance testing of FUSION to develop new
conviction codes and map the new codes to charge codes and AAMVA ACD codes;
• Work with the Office of State Court Administrators (OSCA) to develop new charge
codes to correspond with the new violations;
• Update FUSION point suspension and revocation evaluation routines;
• Test programs for inbound and outbound conviction processing and driver history
eligibility evaluations;
• Update interactive applications for automated responses to customers through telephone
system (current vendor Genesys) or online (DORA);
• Update the Department website;
• Update forms, letters and procedures; and
• Update the Missouri Driver Guide. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 14 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FY 2026 – Driver License Bureau
Research/Data Analyst 400 hrs. x $28.75 per hr. = $11,500
Research/Data Assistant 400 hrs. x $19.29 per hr. = $ 7,716
Administrative Manager 200 hrs. x $31.21 per hr. = $ 6,242
Total = $25,458
FY2026- Strategy and Communications Office
Associate Research/Data Analyst 80 hrs. x $23.04 per hr. = $1,843
Research/Data Assistant 40 hrs. x $19.29 per hr. = $ 772
Total = $2,615
FY 2026 – System Impact
FUSION programming 400 hrs. x $225.00 per hr. = $90,000
Total: $118,073
Revenue Impact
The proposed legislation may result in an unknown increase of reinstatement fees associated
with the point accumulation actions added to records. DOR is unable to estimate the amount of
potential revenue increase. Reinstatement Fees collected are distributed 75% Highway Fund,
15% Cities, and 10% Counties.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the DOR. Oversight assumes the additional hours needed in DOR’s
response is for existing staff.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) state according to the National
Public Defense Workload Study, the new charge contemplated by the change to Section 304.145
would take approximately thirty-five 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 one to two attorneys. 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
litigation expenses.
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. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 15 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 Health and Senior Services, the
Department of Mental Health, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Public Safety (Division of Alcohol and
Tobacco Control, Capitol Police, Fire Safety, Office of the Director, Missouri Gaming
Commission, Missouri Highway Patrol, Missouri Veterans Commission, State Emergency
Management Agency), the Department of Social Services, the Office of the Governor, the
Missouri Department of Agriculture, the Missouri Department of Conservation, the
Missouri Ethics Commission, the MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the
Missouri Department of Transportation, the Missouri National Guard, the Petroleum
Storage Tank Insurance Fund, the University of Missouri System, Kansas City, Phelps
County Sheriff’s Office, the Kansas City Police Department, the Office of the State
Auditor, the Missouri House of Representatives, the Joint Committee on Education, the
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, Legislative Research, the Oversight
Division, the Missouri Senate, Missouri Lottery Commission, the Missouri Consolidated
Health Care Plan, the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, the Missouri State
Employee's Retirement System, the State Tax Commission and Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the
General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the
office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding
for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a
review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities, counties, local law enforcement agencies, the St. Louis Police Retirement
System and school districts 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. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 16 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
GENERAL REVENUECosts – DOC (§§304.145,
556.061, 568.045 & 574.050) –
increase in incarcerations pg. 12($104,850)($256,673)($359,983)($4,127,705)
Costs/Savings – DOC
(§§304.145, 556.061, 568.045 &
574.050) pg. 12
Personnel Service$0$0($47,776)$202,860 Fringe Benefits$0$0($35,258)$149,708 Expense & Equipment$0$0($12,072)$16,913Total Costs - DOC$0$0($95,106)$369,481FTE Change0 FTE0 FTE1 FTE(4 FTE)Costs – DOR §§304.012 &
304.145 – various updates pg. 14
Driver License Bureau
Personnel Service($25,458)$0$0$0
Strategy & Communications
Office Personnel Service($2,615)$0$0$0
FUSION programming($90,000)$0$0$0Total Costs - DOR($118,073)$0$0$0Cost Avoidance – OA
(§105.726) Reduction in the
amount of claims paid (equal
share basis compared to current
law) pg. 4
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
Costs – OA (§84.325) taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability) pg. 4
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON GENERAL REVENUE
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$222,923)
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$256,673)
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$455,089)
Unknown to
(Could
exceed
$3,758,224) L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 17 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Estimated Net FTE Change on
General Revenue0 FTE0 FTE1 FTE(4 FTE)
HIGHWAY FUND (0644)Revenue – DOR – increase in
reinstatement fees associated
with point accumulation actions
added to records at 75%
§§304.012 & 304.145 pg. 14
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON HIGHWAY FUNDS
(0644)
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
LEGAL EXPENSE FUND
(0692)
Costs - (§84.325) taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Transfer In – (§84.325) from
General Revenue - taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability)
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
Cost Avoidance – OA
(§105.726) Reduction in the
amount of claims paid (equal
share basis compared to current
law) pg. 4
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 18 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Loss - (§105.726) Reduction in
the amount of funds received by
General Revenue due to reduced
claims costs pg. 4
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON THE LEGAL EXPENSE
FUND $0$0$0$0
FISCAL IMPACT – Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Revenue - DOR - increase in
reinstatement fees associated
with point accumulation actions
added to records at 25% (15%
Cities/10% Counties) §§304.012
& 304.145 pg. 14
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
Cost Avoidance – (§84.325) St.
Louis City - from the State
taking ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability) pg. 6
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
Cost – (§84.100) – increase in
salary and benefits to add 121
additional patrolmen pg. 6
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
Cost – (§105.726) St. Louis City
– cost increase due to the
reduction in the amount of
claims paid by the State LEF
(equal share basis compared to
current law) pg. 6
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 19 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
More or
Less than
($8,500,000)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This act modifies provisions relating to public safety.
SAINT LOUIS CITY POLICE FORCE (Sections 84.012 to 84.347 and Section 105.726)
Beginning August 28, 2025, the Board shall assume control of the municipal police department
of St. Louis and no later than September 28, 2025, the Governor shall appoint four
commissioners to the Board who shall serve together with the president of the board of aldermen.
The municipal police department shall transfer title and ownership of all indebtedness and assets
and accept liability as successor-in-interest for contractual obligations of the police department.
The Board shall initially employ, without reduction in rank, salary, or benefits, all commissioned
and civilian personnel of the municipal police department.
This act provides that the city of St. Louis may pass ordinances, including ordinances for
preserving order and protecting the public; but no ordinances shall, in any manner, conflict or
interfere with the powers or the exercise of the powers of the Board of Police Commissioners.
Additionally, the mayor or any city officer shall not impede or hinder the Board of Police
Commissioners. The mayor or any city officer shall be liable for a penalty of $1,000 for each and
every offense to hinder the Board and shall forever be disqualified from holding or exercising
any office of the city.
The Board is required to appoint and employ a permanent police force consisting of not less than
1,313 members. The Board may continue to employ as many non-commissioned police civilians
as it deems necessary in order to perform the duties imposed on them, which shall include city
marshals and park rangers.
The maximum number of officers of the police force in each rank shall be as follows:
• 76 officers at the rank of lieutenant and above;
• 200 officers at the rank of sergeant; and L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 20 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
• 1,037 officers at the rank of patrolman.
The salaries paid as of August 28, 2025, shall not be less than the annual salaries paid to each
member before the enactment of this act. No additional compensation shall be given to any
officer of the rank of lieutenant or above for overtime, court time, or stand-by court time.
Probationary patrolmen, patrolmen, and sergeants shall receive compensation for all hours of
service in excess of the established regular working period, for all authorized overtime, and for
employees who complete academic work at an accredited college or university up to a certain
amount as provided in the act. Additionally, certain officers may receive up to 10% of their
salary in additional compensation for hours worked between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
This act provides that until the Board adopts other investigative and disciplinary procedures, the
police force shall follow the disciplinary and investigative procedures established by the Police
Manual of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department which are consistent with law. The
Board shall not adopt any disciplinary procedures that do not include the summary hearing Board
procedures provided for currently in the Police Manual.
This act provides that reimbursements from the Legal Expense Fund to the Board for liability
claims shall be on a equal share basis per claim up to a maximum of one million dollars per
fiscal year.
This act repeals all provisions relating to the municipal police force established by the city of St.
Louis.
STUNT DRIVING (Sections 304.012 & 304.145)
This act prohibits stunt driving and participation in street takeovers, as such terms are defined in
the act. The act specifies criminal penalties and sentencing requirements, with enhanced
penalties and sentencing requirements for repeat offenders.
OFFENSE OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD IN THE FIRST DEGREE
(Sections 556.061 & 568.045)
Under current law, a person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first
degree if he or she unlawfully manufactures or possesses amphetamine, methamphetamine, or
any of their analogues. This act adds fentanyl and carfentanil.
Additionally, this act provides that if a person is found guilty of the offense of endangering the
welfare of a child in the first degree involving fentanyl or carfentail then the person shall serve a
term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than ten years. Such person shall
not receive a suspended imposition or execution of sentence from the court and shall not pay a
fine in lieu of a term of imprisonment. Finally, such person shall not be eligible for conditional
release or parole until he or she has served at least five years of imprisonment. L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 21 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
This act also adds the offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree to the
definition of "dangerous felony."
OFFENSE OF RIOTING (Section 574.050)
This act modifies the offense of rioting to provide that a person commits the offense if a person
knowingly assembles with six or more people and violates any criminal laws. This offense shall
be a class D felony, rather than a class A misdemeanor, for the first offense and a class C felony
for subsequent offenses.
OFFENSE OF RESISTING ARREST (Section 575.150)
This act provides that any person guilty of a class E felony of resisting or interfering with arrest
shall have his or her vehicle impounded and forfeited pursuant to law.
COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY (Section 590.208)
This act establishes the "Committee on School Safety" within the Department of Public Safety
with membership as provided in the act. The Committee shall at least quarterly evaluate and
establish guidelines for school safety concerns, including plans to prevent school firearm
violence. The Committee shall submit a report in writing to the Governor, the President Pro
Tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives after every meeting of
the committee.
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
St. Louis City
Office of Administration
Administrative Hearing Commission
Office of the Commissioner
Budget and Planning
Department of Corrections
Office of the State Public Defender
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Public Safety
Office of the Director
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Capitol Police
Fire Safety
Missouri Gaming Commission
Missouri Highway Patrol
Missouri Veterans Commission L.R. No. 1623H.01I
Bill No. HB 495
Page 22 of 22
January 22, 2025
NM:LR:OD
State Emergency Management Agency
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Economic Development
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Mental Health
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Department of Social Services
Office of the Governor
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Ethics Commission
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri National Guard
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund
University of Missouri System
Kansas City
Phelps County Sheriff’s Office
Kansas City Police Department
Office of the State Auditor
Missouri House of Representatives
Joint Committee on Education
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Legislative Research
Oversight Division
Missouri Senate
Missouri Lottery Commission
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
State Tax Commission
Office of the Secretary of State
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorJanuary 22, 2025January 22, 2025