COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1623H.08C Bill No.:HCS #2 for 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:February 11, 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
$554,335)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$826,135)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$1,263,394)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$4,830,322)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$554,335)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$826,135)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$1,263,394)
Unknown to
(Could exceed
$4,830,322)
*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). Oversight
anticipates the positive unknown could exceed the $250,000 threshold. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 2 of
February 11, 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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 3 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
General Revenue
1 FTE2 FTE4 FTE0 FTE
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTE 1 FTE2 FTE4 FTE0 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.
**Offsetting loss to the City of St. Louis and an increase in funding to the St. Louis Police
Department. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 4 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§43.505 – Reporting of Immigration Status of Criminal Offenders
Officials from the Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) state the proposed changes to Section
43.505.3(2) would require modifications to the Crime Insight website that accepts and stores
Missouri Incident Based Reporting System (MIBRS) information, in addition to updates to the
MIBRS technical specifications for the system to accept the new data elements outlined in this
proposal. To implement this type of data collection immediately, a manual entry option will need
to be established. The Patrol MIBRS system is a vendor supported system and the estimated one
time cost for these modifications is between $30,000-$40,000. The vendor cost is an estimate
and may be adjusted based on the final scope of the project.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the MHP.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume from this proposal that law
enforcement agencies does not include the DOC, as DOC is noted separately in other sections of
chapter 43. If it does include DOC, there will be an operational impact with providing this
information to the Department of Public Safety. DOC anticipates this proposal will be no impact,
as DOC has approximately 487 foreign born offenders.
§§44.087, 300.100 & 304.022 - Law Enforcement Assistance from Another Jurisdiction & Siren
Use for Emergency Vehicles
In response to similar legislation from 2024, Perfected HB 1707, officials from the Department
of Revenue, the Office of the State Courts Administrator 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 2023, Perfected HCS for HB 1015, officials from the St.
Joseph Police Department
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will
reflect a zero impact in the 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)
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration (OA) assume
§84.325 makes provisions for a board of police commissioners assuming control of a municipal L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 5 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
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. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 6 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
In the latest version of the bill (08), the legislation would require the City to appropriate a
minimum sum equal to 25% of the City’s general revenue to fund the police force governed by
the Board of Police Commissioners with “pension and retirement costs” to be excluded from this
calculation. Historically, while pension costs have always been appropriated to a separate police
retirement board and therefore would not fall under the purview of a Board of Police
Commissioners, health insurance costs for both active and retired employees have always been a
part of the operating budget of the Department. This new language would seem to be excluding
the retiree portion of health insurance payments from this calculation. There are other
“retirement” related costs such as FICA and contributions to the civilian employee retirement
system which are also part of the Police operating budget and could also be excluded under this
proposed language.
For the current FY25, the City of St. Louis’s general revenue budget is: $580,799,177
25% of this total would be: $145,199,794
The City’s total FY25 General Revenue appropriation for the police
Department including City Marshals and Park Rangers is: $131,901,775
Less portion of operating budget for retiree health (and life) insurance ($14,176,904)
Less portion of operating budget for FICA ($2,452,101)
Less portion of operating budget for civilian pension contribution ($3,517,624)
Net total operating budget $111,755,146
Difference between 25% total and Net total Operating budget: $ 33,444,648
Based upon FY25 figures, under this scenario, the City would be required to appropriate an
additional $33,444,648 in order to satisfy the statutory requirement. These figures are based upon
the current fiscal year’s budget and appropriation levels. Future increases may be substantially
higher.
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. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 7 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
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 assumes the $33,444,648 represents additional funding that St. Louis City would
transfer from their budget to the St. Louis City Metro Police Department (SLPD) to compile with
the proposed 25% of St. Louis City’s GR to fund the police force governed by the board of
police commissioners. Oversight assumes there would be a redistribution between St. Louis City
and the SLPD from the additional funding that would net to zero. This redistribution could result
in a loss to other services within St. Louis City’s budget. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a gain
of funds to SLPD of the $33,444,648 and a loss of funds to St. Louis City that net to zero for this
proposal.
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, L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 8 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume §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.
§191.1005 – Property Owned and Used for the Possession or Control of a Controlled Substance
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state if an individual or entity shall
knowingly open, lease, rent, own a facility that allowing other people to self-administer pre-
obtained controlled substances; He/she could be guilty of violating statue 579.015 as well.
Violation of Statue 579.015 is class D felony for the offense of possession on any controlled
substance except thirty-five grams or less of marijuana or any synthetic cannabinoid;
It is a Class A misdemeanor if the possession is more than ten grams but less than thirty-five
grams. It is a Class D misdemeanor if the possession is not more than ten grams.
As misdemeanors fall outside the purview of DOC, there is no impact to DOC for the offense
resulting in the class A and D misdemeanor. The offense resulting in a class 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 D felony.
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. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 9 of
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
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
§211.141 – Point System for Detaining a Child
In response to similar legislation from 2024, SB 1115, 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 2024, SB 1115, officials from the Department of Public
Safety - Missouri Highway PatrolDepartment of Revenue, the Department of Social
ServicesMissouri National Guard, the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, the City
of Kansas City, the Phelps County Sheriff’s DepartmentKansas City Police
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.
§§302.304, 302.440, 302.525 & 302.574 – Intoxication-Related Traffic Offenses
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning state these sections add
additional language pertaining to ignition interlock devices. Failure to install these devices as
ordered could result in penalties and/or fees as described in statute. Article IX, Section 7 of the
Missouri Constitution requires that penalties, forfeitures, and fines collected for violations of
state law be distributed to the schools. To the extent any additional such revenues are deposited
into the state treasury, TSR may increase.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume the following regarding this
proposal: L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 10 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Administrative Impact
Driver License Bureau
The Department currently requires the ignition interlock for any second or subsequent
intoxicated-related enforcement contact (administrative and point accumulation actions) added to
a driver’s record. This includes Administrative Alcohol suspensions and revocations; chemical
refusals; point suspensions, and revocations; and any limited or restricted driving privileges
granted to these offenders.
This legislation is requiring the Department to add the ignition interlock device (IID)
requirement to any person with a blood alcohol content .15% or more for a first time offense.
This proposed legislation would require programming to the current Missouri driver license
system, internally referred to as FUSION, to evaluate both administrative actions and convictions
processed by the department and add the ignition interlock requirement to those actions even if
there is not a prior alcohol-related enforcement contact to the drivers’ record if the blood alcohol
content is .15% or more.
This language is changing requirements for all restricted driving privileges (RDP) to have the
ignition interlock installed before these privileges are issued. Currently, a sixty-day restricted
privilege is issued without the ignition interlock requirement for first time offenders and are
automatically generated systematically without the driver having to request one from the
department. This would require multiple additions to existing MODL evaluation routines that
exist today. This would also require the Department to revise all correspondence that is
generated to the driver and notices issued roadside by law enforcement.
In FY 2024, the department issued 2,553 sixty-day RDP’s for first time offenders.
DOR records indicate that 13,125 records currently require the installation of an ignition
interlock device for reinstatement monitoring or to comply with a court order.
In FY 2024, DOR received 4,747 administrative alcohol cases that showed a blood alcohol
content (BAC) of .15% or more as a first-time offense.
Passage of this bill will add IID requirements and monitoring to approximately 7,300 additional
records.
Ignition interlock manufacturers are required by State Code of Regulations, 7 CSR 60-2, to
submit all device status’ (installs, de-installs, and failure to maintain) and certification of
completion of the monitoring period. The Department anticipates an increase of telephone
inquiries, correspondence, and additional communications required between their office and the
ignition interlock manufacturers to ensure the integrity of the data and meet the current
department auditing processes. The department already answers approximately 32,000 calls a L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 11 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
year regarding reinstatement requirements. The Department anticipates a significant increase in
calls due to this proposed language.
The impact to the Department is estimating a 50% increase in call volume; therefore, DOR is
requesting one FTE to answer these additional telephone inquiries. If the increase is more
significant than anticipated, additional FTE may be requested through the appropriations process.
Telephone Inquiries
A telephone operator is expected to process 60 telephone inquiries daily.
32,000 Current call volume for reinstatement requirements
x 50% Percent which will generate telephone inquiries
16,000 Telephone inquiries received per year
/ 252 Work days per year
63 Telephone inquiries received per day
/ 60 Telephone inquiries processed per day
1.05 1 FTE needed to answer telephone inquiries
Total of 1 Customer Service Representative ($3,536 month)
FY2026: $35,360 (10 months)
FY2027: $42,432 yearly salary
FY2028: $42,432 yearly salary
To implement the proposed legislation, the Department will:
• Complete programming and user acceptance testing of FUSION for the new evaluation for
ignition interlock requirement for first time offenders based on .15% BAC or higher;
• Evaluate conviction routines;
• Update interactive applications for automated responses to customers through telephone system
(current vendor Genesys) or online (DORA);
• Update the Department website;
• Update forms, correspondence and procedures;
• Update the Missouri Driver Guide; and
• Provide training to team members
FY 2026 – Driver License Bureau (testing of forms and website updates)
Research/Data Analyst 1,300 hrs. @ $28.75 per hr. = $37,375
Research/Data Assistant 1,300 hrs. @ $19.29 per hr. = $25,077
Administrative Manager 1,000 hrs. @ $31.21 per hr. = $31,210
Total = $93,662
FY 2026 – Personnel Services Bureau (forms and website updates)
Associate Research/Data Analyst 336 hrs. @ $23.04 per hr. = $7,741 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 12 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes DOR will use existing staff and will only hire the one additional FTE to
conduct these activities; therefore, Oversight will only reflect the cost for the additional FTE as
DOR has indicated on the fiscal note.
FUSION Impact
Implementation Consultant 300 hrs. @ $225 per hr. = $67,500
Total= $168,903 §304.012.2
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
implementation consultant costs as provided by DOR.
§§304.012, 304.145, 556.061, 566.210, 566.211, 568.045, 569.151, 569.170, 569.175, 570.030,
574.045, 574.050, 575.133, 575.150 & 576.030 – Various Crimes
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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 13 of 38
February 11, 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.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume these sections
create new penalties for certain dangerous maneuvers performed while operating a vehicle. To
the extent any related fines or penalties are deposited into the state treasury, total state revenue
could increase.
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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 14 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§§556.061 & 568.045 – Endangering the Welfare of a Child in the First Degree
DOC states the bill adds “endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, rioting when
punished as a class A or B felony, bus hijacking when punished as a class A felony, planting a
bomb or explosive in or near a bus or terminal” to the list of sentences defined as dangerous
felonies in section 556.061. This introduces the requirement that any new court commitment or
probation revocation to prison on a sentence under sections 568.045, 574.050, 577.703, 577.706,
578.305 and 578.310 will serve at least 85% of the term of those sentences in prison prior to
release when sentenced as described above.
From FY2022 to FY2024, there have been no new court commitments or probation revocations
under sections 574.050, 577.703, 577.706 and 578.305.
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.
§566.210 – Sexual Trafficking of a Child in the First Degree
DOC states the bill changes language in section 566.210 to extend the term of imprisonment
prior to parole eligibility from 25 to 30 years for sentences on the offense of sexual trafficking of
a child in the first degree. There was one person admitted to prison as a new court commitment
under section 566.210 in FY 2024. Given the minimum prison term for these sentences are
already set at 25 years, this change would not start to have an impact on the department for 25 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 15 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
years from the effective date. Therefore, given the 10-year time frame for this response, DOC
assumes no impact for this reporting period.
§566.211 – Sexual Trafficking of a Child in the Second Degree
DOC states the bill changes language in section 566.211 to extend minimum prison term from
10 to 25 years for sentences on the offense of sexual trafficking of a child in the second degree,
and extend the term of imprisonment prior to parole eligibility from 25 to 30 years when it
involves the use of force, abduction, or coercion. There were eight people sentenced under
section 566.211 in FY 2024. Given the minimum prison term for these sentences are already set
at 10 years, this change would not start to have an impact on the department for 10 years from
the effective date. Therefore, given the 10-year time frame for this response, DOC assumes no
impact for this reporting period.
Oversight notes OSCA reported the following number of guilty convictions in 2020 – 2024:
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
§566.210 0 0 1 0 0
§566.211 1 1 2 3 9
§568.045 – Fentanyl or Carfentanil with Endangering the Welfare of a Child
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 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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 16 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§569.151 – Trespassing in the Third Degree
DOC states as misdemeanors fall outside the purview of DOC, this section will have no impact
on the DOC.
§§569.170 and 569.175 – Offenses involving motor vehicles
569.170
The bill creates a new class D felony when a person unlawfully enters into a motor vehicle with
the intent to commit any felony or theft, and a class C felony when the burglary is committed
with the possession of a firearm.
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. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 17 of 38
February 11, 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.
569.175
The bill creates a new non-violent class E felony when unlawfully gaining entry into a motor
vehicle.
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
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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 18 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 DOC is estimated to be 2 additional offenders in prison and 7 additional offenders on
field supervision by FY 2028.
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
§570.030 - Stealing
DOC states this section expands the criteria of committing the offense of stealing, It adds a new
class B felony for a person whom appropriates property is part of organized retail theft, and the
value of the property taken, combined with any property damage inflicted in such theft, more
than ten thousand dollars.
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 and serve, on average, 3.4 years in prison prior to first
release. The department assumes one third of the remaining sentence length could be served in
prison as a parole return, and the rest of the sentence could be served on supervision in the
community. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 19 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
C
hange in prison admissions and probation openings with legislation-Class B 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
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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P
robations
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
P
arole
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 4
P
robation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
mpact
P
rison Population
1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
F
ield Population
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 4
P
opulation Change
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9
It also added a new Class C felony for a person whom appropriates property is part of organized
retail theft, and the value of the property taken, combined with any property damage inflicted in
such theft, is seven hundred fifty dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.
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.
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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 20 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume §§569.151,
569.170, 569.175 & 570.030 establish new penalties for theft, crimes in or against retail
establishments, and tampering with vehicles. Article IX, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution
requires that penalties, forfeitures, and fines collected for violations of state law be distributed to
the schools. To the extent any additional such revenues are deposited into the state treasury, TSR
may increase.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 318, officials from the Missouri Office of
Prosecution Services (MOPS) assumed the proposal will have no measurable fiscal impact on
MOPS. The enactment of a new crime (304.012.2, 304.145.3, 569.170.2 and 569.175) 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 similar legislation from 2024, HB 1510, 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 the changes to Sections 569.170 and 569.175 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 not create the number of new cases required to request
additional FTE for the SPD 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 2024, HB 1510, officials from the Office of the State
Courts Administrator
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note.
§574.045 – Unlawful Traffic Interference
DOC states this section creates the offense of unlawful traffic interference. Unlawful traffic
interference is an infraction, unless it is a second offense, in which case it is a class A
misdemeanor. Any third or subsequent offense is a class E 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 E 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 felony. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 21 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
§574.050 - Rioting
DOC states 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.
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 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 22 of 38
February 11, 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.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (BAP) assumes §574.050
modifies the offense of rioting by changing the definition and increasing the penalty from a Class
A misdemeanor to a Class D felony. Subsequent convictions would be Class C felonies. A Class
A misdemeanor carries a prison term of up to one year and a fine of $2,000 while a Class D
felony carries a prison term of up to seven years and a fine up to $10,000. A Class C felony
confers a 3-10 year prison sentence and a fine of up to $10,000. To the extent additional fines are
deposited into the state treasury, total state revenue could increase.
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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 23 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§575.133 – Nonconsensual Common Law Lien
DOC states this section enhances the offense of filing a nonconsensual common law lien to a
class A misdemeanor for second offenses. Any third or subsequent offense of filing a
nonconsensual common law lien is a class E 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 E 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 felony.
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.
BAP assumes §575.133 enhances the penalties for filing a nonconsensual common law lien for
repeat offenders. Article IX, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution requires that penalties,
forfeitures, and fines collected for violations of state law be distributed to the schools. To the
extent any additional such revenues are deposited into the state treasury, TSR may increase.
§575.150 – Impounding Vehicles upon resisting arrest or fleeing a stop
BAP assumes §575.150 requires vehicles to be impounded if they were used to resist arrest or to
flee a stop. Article IX, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution requires that penalties, forfeitures,
and fines collected for violations of state law be distributed to the schools. To the extent any
additional such revenues are deposited into the state treasury, TSR may increase.
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 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 24 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§576.030 – Obstructing Government Operations
DOC states this section enhances the offense of obstructing government operations from a class
B misdemeanor to a class A misdemeanor, and a class E felony if the person uses violence, force,
or other physical interference or obstacle.
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 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 felony.
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.
BAP assumes §576.030 enhances the penalties for obstructing government operations. Article
IX, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution requires that penalties, forfeitures, and fines collected
for violations of state law be distributed to the schools. To the extent any additional such
revenues are deposited into the state treasury, TSR may increase.
§577.150 – Tampering with a Water Supply
DOC states this section enhances the offense of tampering with a water supply to a class E
felony. Given there have been no convictions under either subdivision (1) or (2) in this section
from FY2022 to FY2024, DOC estimates no impact from this section. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 25 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Combined Cumulative Estimated Impact of HB 495 (1623H.08C)
The combined cumulative estimated impact on the department is 395 additional offenders in
prison and 74 fewer offenders on field supervision by FY 2034.
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
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
1
86
P
robation
C
urrent Law
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
P
robations
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
3
1
6
2
8
4
9
5
9
7
9
8
1
46
3
02
3
95
3
95
P
arole
0 0 9 2
4
4
8
6
1
2
7
-
127
-
218
-
218
P
robation
4
8
9
6
1
44
1
44
1
44
1
44
1
44
1
44
1
44
1
44
I
mpact
P
rison Population
3
1
6
2
8
4
9
5
9
7
9
8
1
46
3
02
3
95
3
95
F
ield Population
4
8
9
6
1
53
1
68
1
92
2
05
1
71
1
7
-
74
-
74
P
opulation Change
7
9
1
58
2
37
2
63
2
89
3
03
3
17
3
19
3
21
3
21
# 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 131($10,485)($270,862)0$048($270,862)Year 262($10,485)($663,071)1($93,950)96($757,020)Year 384($10,485)($916,321)3($276,892)153($1,193,213)Year 495($10,485)($1,057,042)3($262,805)168($1,319,847)Year 597($10,485)($1,100,881)3($265,599)192($1,366,481)Year 698($10,485)($1,134,475)4($367,114)205($1,501,589)Year 7146($10,485)($1,723,939)3($271,290)171($1,995,229)Year 8302($10,485)($3,637,275)0$017($3,637,275)Year 9395($10,485)($4,852,511)(1)$92,370(74)($4,760,140)Year 10395($10,485)($4,949,561)(1)$93,357(74)($4,856,204)
* 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. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 26 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 $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.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the DOC.
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 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 27 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
• Update the Missouri Driver Guide.
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 DOR. Oversight assumes the additional hours needed in DOR’s
response is for existing staff.
In response to a previous version, 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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 28 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§455.095 – Repeals Sunset Regarding Electronic Monitoring
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 603, officials from the Department of
Corrections and the Missouri Highway Patrol 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.
§513.605 – Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act
Oversight assumes this section is codifying section 577.690 in statute. In response to similar
legislation from this year, SB 137, Oversight assumes no fiscal impact from this proposal.
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Officials from the Department of Social Services (DSS) state any creation of a crime or
modification of offense provisions in this legislation would potentially increase the number of
youth committed to the Division of Youth Services. It is difficult to predict whether that number
will be minimal or substantial and what fiscal impact may occur. Juvenile Office and judicial
discretion would play into each individual youth’s case, making the impact more difficult to
calculate. The fiscal impact is unknown but potential significant.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO)
assumed any potential litigation costs 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.
Officials from the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, the Department of Higher Education and Workforce
Development, thethe Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Natural
Resources, the Department of Public Safety (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control,
Capitol Police, Office of the Director, Fire Safety, Missouri Gaming Commission, State
Emergency Management Agency), the Missouri Department of Agriculture Missouri
Department of Conservation, the MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the
Missouri Department of Transportation, Kansas City, O’Fallon, the Phelps County
Sheriff’s Office the Branson Police Department the Kansas City Police Department, the
Oversightassumes the Department of Social Services could absorb any increase with current staff and funding levels. However, if additional duties require increased staffing, the DSS may request additional funding through the appropriations process. L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 29 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 State Employee's Retirement System, the
State Tax Commission and the 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.
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Administrative
Hearing Commission, the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri National Guard, the
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund, the University of Missouri System, the
Department of Economic DevelopmentMissouri Veterans Commission and the Office
of the Governor 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.
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, nursing homes, hospitals, 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.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 30 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
GENERAL REVENUECosts – MHP – modifications to
website and updates to system
§43.505 p. 4
Less than
($40,000)$0$0$0
Costs – DOR §§302.304,
302.440, 302.525 & 302.574
p. 11-12
Could
exceed
Personnel Service($29,467)($36,067)($36,789)($36,789) Fringe Benefits($24,970)($30,248)($30,537)($30,537) Expense & Equipment($3,463)($2,799)($2,855)($2,855)Total Costs - DOR($57,900)($69,114)($70,181)($70,181)FTE Change1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTECost – DOR – Fusion
implementation consultant p. 12($67,500)$0$0$0
Costs – DOC (various sections)
– increase in incarcerations p. 25($270,862)($663,071)($916,321)($4,852,511)
Costs/Savings – DOC (various
sections) p. 25
Personnel Service$0($47,303)($143,328)$50,715 Fringe Benefits$0($34,909)($105,774)$37,427 Expense & Equipment$0($11,738)($27,790)$4,228Total Costs - DOC$0($93,950)($276,892)$92,370FTE Change0 FTE1 FTE3 FTE(1 FTE)Costs – DOR §§304.012 &
304.145 – various updates pg. 27
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$0 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 31 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Cost Avoidance – OA
(§105.726) Reduction in the
amount of claims paid (equal
share basis compared to current
law) pg. 5
$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. 5
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON GENERAL REVENUE
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$554,335)
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$826,135)
Unknown
to (Could
exceed
$1,263,394)
Unknown to
(Could
exceed
$4,830,322)
Estimated Net FTE Change on
General Revenue1 FTE2 FTE4 FTE0 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. 27
$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) L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 32 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Costs - (§84.325) taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability) p. 5-8
$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) p. 5-8
$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. 5-8
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
Loss - (§105.726) Reduction in
the amount of funds received by
General Revenue due to reduced
claims costs pg. 5-8
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON THE LEGAL EXPENSE
FUND $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 33 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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. 27
$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. 5-8
$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.
5-8
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
(Up to
$8,500,000)
Gain – SLPD – additional
funding of 25% of City’s GR
to police force governed by
Board of Police §84.160 p. 6
More or Less
than
$33,444,648
More or Less
than
$33,444,648
More or Less
than
$33,444,648
More or Less
than
$33,444,648
Loss – St. Louis City –
(§84.160) additional funding
needed to fund 25% of the
SLPD p. 6
(More or Less
than
$33,444,648)
(More or Less
than
$33,444,648)
(More or Less
than
$33,444,648)
(More or
Less than
$33,444,648)
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.5-8
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 34 of 38
February 11, 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
Small ignition interlock manufacturers and installers could be impacted as a result of this
proposal due to the potential increase in ignition interlocks required for §§302.304, 302.440,
302.525 & 302.574.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The following is a summary of the House Committee Substitute for HB 495.
This bill allows the chief law enforcement executive for any law enforcement agency to request
assistance from a law enforcement agency in another jurisdiction, including from outside the
State but within the United States. The bill creates provisions for how arrests are handled if
executed by an officer outside of his or her jurisdiction. This bill specifies that, for benefits and
other employment-related matters, law enforcement officers remain employees of their
respective law enforcement agencies throughout any request for assistance.
Currently, the driver of an emergency vehicle can park or stand, regardless of the normal rules of
the road; proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign after slowing down as necessary for safe
operation; exceed the speed limit as long as the driver does not endanger life or property; and
disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions. These
exemptions apply only to emergency vehicles that, while in motion, sound audible signals by
bell, siren, or exhaust whistle as reasonably necessary, and when the vehicle is equipped with at
least one lighted lamp displaying a red light or blue light visible under normal atmospheric
conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the front of such vehicle.
The bill provides that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle is not
required to use an audible signal or display a visual signal when the vehicle is being used to get
evidence of a speeding violation; respond to a suspected crime in progress when use of an
audible or visual signal, or both, could reasonably result in the destruction of evidence or escape
of a suspect; or conduct surveillance of a vehicle or the passengers of a vehicle who are
suspected of involvement in a crime.
Beginning August 28, 2025, the Board of Police Commissioners will assume control of the
municipal police department of St. Louis and, no later than September 28, 2025, four citizen L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 35 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
commissioners will be appointed to the Board, as provided in the bill, to serve with the mayor as
the governing body of the police force. The Board will have the power to appoint the chief of
police, determine appeals from the decisions of the chief of police, and to promulgate rules for
the department.
Additionally, until the Board adopts other investigative and disciplinary procedures, the police
force will follow the disciplinary and investigative procedures established by the Police Manual
of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department that are consistent with law.
This bill provides that the city of St. Louis can pass ordinances, including ordinances for
preserving order and protecting the public, but no ordinance, charter provision, or initiative
petition can 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 must not impede or hinder the
Board of Police Commissioners. The mayor or any city officer will be liable for a penalty of
$1,000 for each offense to hinder the Board and will forever be disqualified from holding or
exercising any office of the city.
The salaries paid as of August 28, 2025, will not be less than the annual salaries paid to each
member before the enactment of this bill. No additional compensation will be given to any
officer of the rank of lieutenant or above for overtime, court time, or standby court time. The bill
specifies provisions related to compensation and other employment benefits for all positions on
the police force. This bill provides that reimbursements from the Legal Expense Fund to the
Board for liability claims will be on a equal share basis per claim up to a maximum of $1 million
per fiscal year.
This bill repeals provisions relating to the municipal police force established by the city of St.
Louis and other provisions relating to procedures of the Board.
The bill prohibits stunt driving, as defined in the bill, on the roads and highways of this State. A
violation of this provision is a class B misdemeanor unless an accident is involved, in which case
it is a class A misdemeanor. The bill also prohibits stunt driving in connection with a street
takeover or performing or participating in a street takeover, as defined in the bill. A violation of
this provision is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense, a class E felony for a second offense,
and a class D felony for a third or subsequent offense. The bill also prohibits a suspended
imposition of sentence or a fine in lieu of imprisonment for a defendant who is proven to be a
prior, persistent, aggravated, chronic, or habitual offender. The bill also specifies minimum
prison terms for such a defendant. The bill provides exceptions for events sanctioned by a
political subdivision or private entity with responsibility for maintenance and control of the
portion of highway or private property on which the motor vehicle operation occurs.
The bill adds the offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree to the definition
of "dangerous felony" in the criminal code. The bill also amends the offense of endangering the
welfare of a child to include when a person, in the presence of a child or in a residence where a
child resides, unlawfully manufactures or attempts to manufacture, compounds, possesses, L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 36 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
produces, prepares, sells, transports, tests, or analyzes fentanyl or carfentanil. The offense in
such circumstances carries a sentence of five to 10 years of imprisonment and is not eligible for
suspended execution of sentence, for a fine in lieu of imprisonment, or for conditional release or
parole until the person serves at least five years of imprisonment.
This bill adds to the offense of burglary in the second degree when a person unlawfully enters a
motor vehicle or any part of a motor vehicle with the intent to commit a theft or any felony. The
bill defines "enters" as a person intruding with any part of the body or any physical object
connected with the body. If a person who commits a violation under this provision was in
possession of a firearm at the time or stole a firearm from the motor vehicle during the violation,
he or she is guilty of a class C felony.
The bill also creates the offense of unlawfully gaining entry into a motor vehicle, which a person
commits if he or she lifts the door handles or otherwise tries the doors and locks of successive
vehicles in an attempt to gain entry. A violation of this section is a class E felony. A person does
not commit the offense of unlawfully gaining entry into a motor vehicle if the person is the
owner of the vehicle or has the owner's permission to enter the vehicle.
Currently, the offense of rioting is committed when a person knowingly assembles and conspires
with six or more individuals to violate the criminal laws of this state or of the United States, and
the offense is a class A misdemeanor. This bill removes the requirement for a conspiracy and it
involves a person assembling with six or more persons and thereafter violating any of the
criminal laws of this sState or the United States. It also increases the penalty to a class D felony
for a first offense and a class C felony for a second or subsequent offense.
The bill specifies that any vehicle involved in the commission of the offense of resisting an
arrest, detention, or stop when the offense is a class E felony will be impounded and forfeited.
This bill establishes the "Committee on School Safety" within the Department of Public Safety
with membership as provided in the bill. The Committee will at least quarterly evaluate and
establish guidelines for school safety concerns, including plans to prevent school firearm
violence. The Committee must submit a report to the Governor, the President Pro Tem 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 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 37 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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
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
O’Fallon
Phelps County Sheriff’s Office
Branson Police Department
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 L.R. No. 1623H.08C
Bill No. HCS #2 for HB 495
Page 38 of 38
February 11, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Department of Revenue
St. Louis County Police Department
St. Joseph Police Department
Office of the Secretary of State
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 11, 2025February 11, 2025