COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1623S.12A Bill No.:SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA1Subject:Children And Minors; Cities, Towns, And Villages; Crimes and Punishment;
Criminal Procedure; Drugs and Controlled Substances; Education, Elementary and
Secondary; Immigration; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; Motor
Vehicles; Public Safety, Department Of; Saint Louis City
Type:Original Date:March 10, 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
(Unknown, could
exceed
$543,047)
Unknown to
(Unknown, could
exceed
$550,471)
Unknown to
(Unknown, could
exceed
$645,574)
Unknown to
(Unknown, could
exceed
$786,535)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
Unknown to
(Unknown,
could exceed
$543,047)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
could exceed
$550,471)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
could exceed
$645,574)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
could exceed
$786,535)
*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. Includes additional
liability claims from raising the cap in §105.726.3 from $1 million to $2 million. Without
additional information, Oversight cannot estimate the net impact to General Revenue. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 2 of
March 10, 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
Inmate
Incarceration
Reimbursement
Act Revolving
Fund (0828)*$0$0$0$0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
Other State
Funds$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
*Transfers and distributions 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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 3 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
General RevenueCould exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 FTE
Could exceed
2 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
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 4 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Oversight was unable to receive some of the agency responses in a timely manner due to the
short fiscal note request time. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best current
information that we have or on prior year information regarding a similar bill. 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.
§43.503, 56.365 and 56.750 – Prosecuting and Circuit Attorneys
Officials from the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services (MOPS) state sections 43.503,
56.265 & 56.750 were drafted by MOPS and have been accurately put in the bill. There is no
measurable fiscal impact to MOPS since there is a statewide case management system and staff
capable of producing the annual required report.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the MOPS.
In response to similar legislation from 2024, HCS for HB 1763, officials from the Office of the
Governor
Individually, additional requirements should not fiscally impact the Office of the Governor.
However, the cumulative impact of additional appointment duties across all enacted legislation
may require additional resources for the Office of the Governor.
In response to similar legislation from 2024, HCS for HB 1763, officials from the Department
of Public Safety – Office of the DirectorMissouri Highway PatrolSt. Louis
County Police Department each assumed the provision would not create a fiscal impact to their
respective departments.
Oversight notes that the above mentioned agencies have stated the proposal would not have a
direct fiscal impact on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact on the fiscal note.
Oversight received a limited number of responses from county prosecutors, sheriffs and police
departments related to the fiscal impact of this proposal. Oversight has presented this fiscal note
on the best current information available. Upon the receipt of additional 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. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 5 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§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 Section 43.505 requires every
law enforcement agency in the state to submit information pertaining to the immigration status of
any criminal offender, indicating whether the offender is a citizen of the United States, is a
lawfully present immigrant, or does not possess the information to show that he or she is a
citizen of the United States or a lawfully present immigrant. It is assumed law enforcement
agency does not include the department as DOC is noted separately in other sections of chapter
43. If it does include DOC, there could be an operational impact with providing this information
to the Department of Public Safety. DOC anticipates this will be no impact, as they have
approximately 487 foreign born offenders.
§44.087- Law Enforcement Assistance from Another Jurisdiction
In response to similar legislation from 2024, Perfected HB 1707, officials from the Department
of Revenue and the St. Louis County Police Department
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.
§57.010 – Peace Officer License
Oversight does not anticipate a fiscal impact from this provision.
§82.1000 – Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles in Springfield
In response to similar language from this year, SCS for SB Nos. 52 &44, officials from the
Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) stated this section allows certain L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 6 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
localities to enact ordinances allowing civil forfeiture for stunt driving. 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.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary. Oversight assumes if the local political
subdivision (LPS) adopts the new language into their ordinance, additional revenues may
increase fine revenue for school districts. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the a $0 (LPS don’t
enact new language into their ordinance) or unknown revenue for school districts as provided by
the B&P.
§§84.012, 84.020, 84.030, 84.100, 84.150, 84.160 as amended, 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 notes in §105.726.3 raises the legal liability coverage provided by the State from $1
million to $2 million per fiscal year for this version of the proposal.
Oversight has requested additional information from the OA regarding the legal liability
coverage of going from $1 million to $2 million as noted above. Upon the receipt of this
information, Oversight will review to determine if an updated fiscal note should be prepared and
seek the necessary approval to publish a new fiscal note if needed.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 7 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
The legislation is unclear as to a proposed increase in staffing levels of the department. Chapter
84, RSMo, and local ordinance establish parameters relative to the size of the police force in the
City. In particular, how many patrolmen and lieutenant colonels can be hired. Under this
proposal, the newly created Board would operate with no such parameters. In other words, the
Board would be authorized to budget and hire as many police officers/patrolmen as they see fit.
In the FY25 budget, the number of authorized uniformed positions (excluding trainees and grant
funded positions) totaled 1,192. Any increase in uniformed positions beyond this figure would
lead to an increase in costs placed upon the City. Given that no such parameters, or limits, exist
in this legislation, the estimated increase is unknown.
In the latest version of SS HCS HB 495 (version 12), the legislation would require the City to
appropriate a minimum sum starting at 22% and increasing 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. What’s more, 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.
In attempting to estimate what the potential impact of the proposal would be, it is necessary to
establish what the current base budget of the department might be considering all the exclusions
discussed above. This base calculation which excludes the additional “retirement” costs is
illustrated below.
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 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 8 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
The table above uses the FY25 general revenue budget and FY25 net total operating budget of
the police department to calculate the increase in costs required of the City of St. Louis. The
formula used in the table above assumes a base increase of 2% in both general revenue and
Police Department budgets.
Provisions in SS HB 495 require the City to increase its general revenue contribution percentage
by 1% each year beginning in FY26 and ending in FY29 when the total contribution percentage
will be 25% of general revenue.
Beginning in FY26, the City of St. Louis estimates appropriating an additional $16.3 million to
the police department’s budget. In the FY29 estimate, when the full 25% requirement of general
revenue is realized, the City will be required to appropriate an additional $36.2 million to the
police department to satisfy statutory obligations.
In addition, the language found in SS HB 495 requires annual increases in police funding based
upon calendar years and not fiscal years. The City’s fiscal year starts on July 1 and ends on June
30. For the purpose of this fiscal note, the City is presenting the increase in costs based upon
fiscal years and not calendar years.
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
2
%
2
%
G
eneral Rev Est.
%
of General Revenue
S
LMPD Budget
D
ifference
F
iscal Year 2025
$
580,799,177
(
Current)
$
111,755,146
(
Base from
n
/a
a
bove)
F
iscal Year 2026
$
592,415,161
2
2%
$
130,331,335
$
113,990,249
$
16,341,086
F
iscal Year 2027
$
604,263,464
2
3%
$
138,980,597
$
116,270,054
$
22,710,543
F
iscal Year 2028
$
616,348,733
2
4%
$
147,923,696
$
118,595,455
$
29,328,241
F
iscal Year 2029
$
628,675,708
2
5%
$
157,168,927
$
120,967,364
$
36,201,563
T
otal Increase
$
104,581,433 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 9 of
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 $2 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 additional funding requirement represents what St. Louis City would
transfer from their budget to the St. Louis City Metro Police Department (SLPD) to compile with
the proposed 25% (by FY 2029) of St. Louis City’s GR to fund the police force governed by the
board of police commissioners. This section of this proposal changes the percentage of
appropriation to be distributed to SLPD to compile with the provisions of this proposal.
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
and a loss of funds to St. Louis City that net to zero for this proposal. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 10 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 11 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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
§§217.451 and 221.108 – Telephones in correctional facilities
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their organization. The DOC states the current phone services contract charges
offenders $0.05 per minute. The Federal Communication Commission capped phone call rates at
$0.06 per minute effective January 1, 2025, under regulation § 64.6010.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 301, officials from the St. Louis County
Police Department assumed the proposal will 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.
§§217.825, 217.827, 217.829, 217.831,2 217.833, 217.835, 217.837, 217.839, 217.841
DOC notes the proposed legislation appears to repeal Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement
Act. The department is appropriated $750,000 for institutional EE from the Missouri
Incarceration Reimbursement Act fund each year. This would have a fiscal impact on the
Department of Corrections.
Officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO)
arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources. The AGO may seek
additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or
investigation costs.
Oversight notes the AGO is also appropriated money from the Inmate Incarceration
Reimbursement Act Revolving Fund. In FY 2025, the AGO received $170,305. For purposes of
this fiscal note, Oversight will reflect this amount in addition to the loss provided by the DOC,
for an anticipated annual loss of $920,305 ($750,000 + $170,305). L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 12 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes the Inmate Incarceration Reimbursement Act Revolving Fund (0828) had a fund
balance of $492,699 on December 31, 2024.
§§221.520 and 221.523 – Protection of Vulnerable Persons
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 916, officials from the City of
Kansas City stated the proposed legislation has a negative fiscal because it may increase the cost
of incarceration.
Officials from the Branson Police Department
requirements will add costs to the county jails. The department is unsure how much these
treatments cost nor how many pregnant offenders will be arrested in the future.
Oversight notes the unknown impact for the City of Kansas City and the Branson Police
Department and is unable to project a statewide cost; therefore, the impact to local political
subdivisions will be presented as $0 to (Unknown).
§§304.012, 304.145, 556.061, 566.210, 566.211, 568.045, 570.030, 575.133, 575.150 & 576.030
– Various Crimes
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated 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 B misdemeanor for the first offense, a class A misdemeanor for a second
offense, and a class E 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.
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. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 13 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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.
§§556.061 – Bus Hijacking
The bill adds 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 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. Therefore, no impact from this section of
the bill.
§566.210 – Sexual Trafficking of a Child in the First Degree
Officials from DOC
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 years from the effective date. Therefore, given the 10-year time frame for this
response, DOC assumes no impact for this reporting period.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 14 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§566.211 – Sexual Trafficking of a Child in the Second Degree
Officials from DOC state 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
Officials from DOC
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.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 15 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§570.030 - Stealing
Officials from DOC
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 16 of 34
March 10, 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.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume §570.030 modifies
the offense of stealing. 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 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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 17 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
In response to a previous version, 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.
§574.050 – Repealed
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state this bill would
remove Section 574.050, which establishes the offense of rioting as a class A misdemeanor.
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 such revenues
would no longer be deposited into the state treasury, TSR may decrease.
Oversight notes the following charges under section 574.050:
FY 2024 – 2
FY 2023 – 1
FY 2022 – 5
Oversight assumes the impact from this provision would be immaterial.
§575.133 – Nonconsensual Common Law Lien
Officials from DOC state 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. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 18 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Officials from BAP assume §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
Officials from BAP assume §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.
§576.030 – Obstructing Government Operations
As misdemeanors fall outside the purview of DOC, there is no impact to DOC for the offense
resulting in the class A misdemeanor.
Officials from BAP assume §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.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 19 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§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.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume 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.
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 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 20 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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)
stated according to the National Public Defense Workload Study, each of the new charges
contemplated by the changes to Sections 191.1005, 304.012, 304.145, 568.045, 570.020,
575.133, 575.150, and 577.150 could take up to take approximately ninety-nine 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 four to five 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 will show an unknown cost for the SPD for additional FTE to handle the increased
caseload.
§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 provision 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.
§§491.065 & 595.209 – Information Regarding Informants
Officials from the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services assume the proposal would 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.
§513.605 – Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act
Oversight assumes this section is codifying section 577.690 in statute. Oversight assumes no
fiscal impact from this proposal. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 21 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
§590.040 – Peace Officer Training
Oversight assumes this section adds additional language to include training concerning the
prohibition against racial profiling through the POST commission. Oversight assumes the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of
activity each year. Oversight assumes DPS could absorb the costs related to this proposal. If
multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial costs, DPS could
request funding through the appropriation process.
§590.208 – Committee on School Safety
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Office of the Director (DPS/DO) state 1 FTE
is needed to provide support to the committee for §590.208.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimates as provided by the DPS/DO.
§595.325 – Missing and Murdered African American Women and Girls Task Force
Officials from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) – Director’s Office (DO) state one FTE
(Program Specialist, $68,712 annually) is needed to provide support to the task force.
DPS estimates a total fiscal impact to the General Revenue Fund of $96,796 for FY 2026;
$113,572 for FY 2027; and $115,544 for FY 2028.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary and will present costs as provided by
DPS. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight assumes the task force will be extended until December
31, 2029.
Officials from the Missouri Senate (SEN) state the SEN anticipates a negative fiscal impact to
reimburse 2 Senators for travel to Missing and Murdered African American Women and Girls
Task Force meetings. It is assumed meetings will be held in Jefferson City during the interim. It
is further assumed it will cost approximately $334.05 per meeting.
The SEN assumes no fiscal responsibility for the other committee members.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. However, Oversight assumes the SEN
can absorb the minimal fiscal impact for this proposal within existing funding levels and will
reflect no fiscal impact for this agency.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 40, officials from the DPS - Missouri
Highway Patrol L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 22 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
§650.058 – Restitution for individuals found actually innocent
Officials from DOC allows individuals who have been found guilty of a
felony and later determined to be innocent of the crime, through a method other than DNA
profiling analysis to receive restitution. It also increases the amount of restitution from $100 per
day to $179 per day.
The fiscal impact to the department is an unknown cost, as there is no way to determine how
many offenders will be found innocent of their crime and will further petition for restitution.
Oversight notes the following expenditures for restitution payments:
Actual Expenditures - Restitution PaymentsFY 2020 $56,900FY 2021 $36,500FY 2022 $71,905FY 2023 $73,000FY 2024 $62,600Average $60,181
Source: Department of Corrections FY 2026 Appropriations Book
Oversight notes this section is raising the amount that an individual can receive under this
section from $100 per day to $179 per day and also capping the restitution award per fiscal year
from $36,500 to $65,000. Oversight assumes the changes in this statute would also increase the
cost to DOC. Oversight assumes 601.81 days ($60,181/100 = 601.81 days) were used to pay out
the restitution payments under current law. If the rate increases to $179 per day, then the new
amount would be $107,724 (601.81 * $179). Taking the difference would result in $47,543 in
additional restitution payments paid out. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a cost that could
exceed $47,543 annually or unknown.
§1 – Severability
Oversight assumes no fiscal impact from this section of the proposal. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 23 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Combined Cumulative Estimated Impact to DOC
The combined cumulative estimated impact on the department is 40 additional offenders in
prison and 72 additional 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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
fter Legislation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
C
hange (After Legislation - Current Law)
A
dmissions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
robations
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
C
umulative Populations
P
rison
1
1
2
2
3
0
3
5
3
7
3
8
3
9
4
0
4
0
4
0
P
arole
0 0 3 7 1
4
1
9
2
4
2
5
2
7
2
7
P
robation
1
5
3
0
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
I
mpact
P
rison Population
1
1
2
2
3
0
3
5
3
7
3
8
3
9
4
0
4
0
4
0
F
ield Population
1
5
3
0
4
8
5
2
5
9
6
4
6
9
7
0
7
2
7
2
P
opulation Change
2
6
5
2
7
8
8
7
9
6
1
02
1
08
1
10
1
12
1
12 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 24 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
* 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.
#
t
o/from
P
rison
C
ost per
y
ear
T
otal Cost of
P
rison
(
includes 2%
i
nflation per
y
ear starting in
y
ear 2)
C
hange in
n
umber of
P
robation
a
nd Parole
O
fficers
P
robation and
P
arole Officer II
C
ost per year
(
includes PS,
f
ringe, E&E and
i
nflation)
G
rand Total
P
rison and
P
robation
#
of
O
ffenders
t
o/from
P
robation
&
Parole
Y
ear 1
(10 months)
11(
$10,485)
(
$96,112)
0 $0 (
$96,112)
15
Y
ear 2
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
22(
$10,485)
(
$235,283)
0 $0 (
$235,283)
30
Y
ear 3
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
30(
$10,485)
(
$327,258)
0 $0 (
$327,258)
48
Y
ear 4
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
35(
$10,485)
(
$389,436)
1 (
$96,281)
(
$485,717)
52
Y
ear 5
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
37(
$10,485)
(
$419,924)
1 (
$88,533)
(
$508,457)
59
Y
ear 6
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
38(
$10,485)
(
$439,898)
1 (
$89,477)
(
$529,376)
64
Y
ear 7
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
39(
$10,485)
(
$460,504)
1 (
$90,430)
(
$550,935)
69
(
$583,764)
72
Y
ear 8
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
40(
$10,485)
(
$481,758)
1 (
$91,395)
1 (
$93,357)
(
$573,153)
70
Y
ear 9
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
40(
$10,485)
(
$491,393)
1 (
$92,370)
(
$594,578)
72
Y
ear 10
(
includes 2%
i
nflation)
40(
$10,485)
(
$501,221) L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 25 of 34
March 10, 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.
If the incarcerated population impact of any one piece of legislation, or combined impact of
multiple pieces of legislation, results in a prison population that exceeds the current physical
capacity of 26,835, the state would need to construct additional capacity. Based on current
construction projects in other Midwest states, the department estimates the cost of constructing a
new 1,500-bed maximum security prison at approximately $825 million to $900 million.
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
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state there may be some
impact on the OSCA, but there is no way to quantify that amount at the present time. Any
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to
(Unknown) cost to the General Revenue Fund. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight also assumes
the impact will be under $250,000 annually. If this assumption is incorrect, this would alter the
fiscal impact as presented in this fiscal note. If additional information is received, Oversight will
review it to determine if an updated fiscal note should be prepared and seek approval to publish a
new fiscal note.
Officials from the Phelps County Sheriff’s Office, the Kansas City Police Department and the
Missouri House of Representatives 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 Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Public Safety (Fire
Safety, Missouri Veterans Commission, State Emergency Management Agency), the Office
a cost/cost avoidance equal to the salary, fringe, and equipment and expenses of one P&P Officer II. Increases/decreases smaller than 51 offendercases are assumed to be absorbable. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 26 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
of the State Treasurer, the University of Missouri System, Legislative Research, the
Oversight DivisionMissouri Lottery Commission, Office of Administration -
Administrative Hearing Commission, Department of Commerce and Insurance, the
Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Mental Health, the
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Public Safety (Gaming
Commission), the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri Department of
Transportation, the Office of the State Auditor, the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules, the Joint Committee on Education, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri
Department of Agriculture Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, the
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System, Department of Economic Development, the
Department of Public Safety (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Capitol Police), the
Missouri National Guard, the MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund, Kansas City, O’Fallon, the Branson Police
Department and the State Tax Commission each assume the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Officials from the 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 the Governor stated this bill adds
to the Governor’s current load of appointment duties. Individually, additional requirements
should not fiscally impact the Office of the Governor. However, the cumulative impact of
additional appointment duties across all enacted legislation may require additional resources for
the Office of the Governor.
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.
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. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 27 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
In response to a previous version, 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.
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. 5
Less than
($40,000)$0$0$0
Costs – SPD – additional FTE(s)
for increased caseload (various
sections) p. 20(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
FTE ChangeUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
Costs – DOC (various sections)
– increase in incarcerations p. 24($96,112)($235,283)($327,258)
More or Less
than
($491,393)
Costs– DOC (various sections)
p. 24
Personnel Service$0$0$0($50,715) Fringe Benefits$0$0$0($37,427) Expense & Equipment$0$0$0($4,228)Total Costs - DOC$0$0$0($92,370)FTE Change0 FTE0 FTE0 FTE1 FTE L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 28 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Costs – DOR §§304.012 &
304.145 – various updates pg. 19
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
Costs – DPS/DO §590.208 p. 21
Could
Exceed
Personal service($33,938)($41,540)($42,371)($42,371) Fringe Benefits($27,113)($32,838)($33,163)($33,163) Equipment and expense($3,777)$0$0$0Total Costs – DPS/DO($64,828)($74,378)($75,534)($75,534) FTE Change1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTECosts – DPS §595.325 p. 21
(FTE til Dec. 31, 2029)
Personal service($57,260)($70,086)($71,488)$0 Fringe Benefits($35,759)($43,486)($44,056)$0 Equipment and expense($3,777)$0$0$0Total Costs – DPS($96,796)($113,572)($115,544)$0 FTE Change - DPS1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE0 FTECosts – OSCA – potential
additional duties or increased
caseload p. 25
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Cost – DOC §650.058 –
Restitution to individuals
wrongfully convicted p. 22
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$47,543)
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$47,543)
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$47,543)
(Unknown,
could exceed
$47,543)
Cost Avoidance – OA
(§105.726) Reduction in the
amount of claims paid (equal
share basis compared to current
law) pg. 6
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown
$0 to
Unknown L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 29 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Savings – DOC & AGO
(repealed §§217.825 to 217.841)
no longer performing duties$920,305$920,305$920,305$920,305
Costs – (§105.726.3) – potential
additional claims with cap raised
from $1 million to $2 million$0 to
($1,000,000)
$0 to
($1,000,000)
$0 to
($1,000,000)
$0 to
($1,000,000)
Costs – OA (§84.325) taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability) pg. 6
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON GENERAL REVENUE
Unknown
to
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$543,047)
Unknown
to
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$550,471)
Unknown
to
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$645,574)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
could
exceed
$786,535)
Estimated Net FTE Change on
General Revenue
Could
exceed
2 FTE
Could
exceed
2 FTE
Could
exceed
2 FTE
Could
exceed
2 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. 20
$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 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 30 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
LEGAL EXPENSE FUND
(0692)
Costs - (§84.325) taking
ownership of contractual
obligations of the SLPD
(including liability) p. 6
$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. 6
$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. 6
$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. 6
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON THE LEGAL EXPENSE
FUND $0$0$0$0
INMATE INCARCERATION
REIMBURSEMENT ACT
REVOLVING FUND (0828)
Reduced Transfer - from GR ($920,305)($920,305)($920,305)($920,305)Savings – DOC & AGO
(§§217.825 to 217.841) No
longer performing duties p. 11-
12$920,305$920,305$920,305$920,305 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 31 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON THE INMATE
INCARCERATION
REIMBURSEMENT ACT
REVOLVING FUND$0$0$0$0
FISCAL IMPACT – Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Revenue – B&P – increase in
fine revenue to school districts
§82.1000 p. 6
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
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. 20
$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
Gain – SLPD – additional
funding 22% to 25% of City’s
GR to police force governed by
Board of Police §84.160 p. 8
More or Less
than
$16,341,086
More or Less
than
$22,710,543
More or Less
than
$29,328,241
More or Less
than
$36,201,563 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 32 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2034)
Loss – St. Louis City –
(§84.160) additional funding
needed to fund 22% to 25% of
the SLPD p. 8
(More or
Less than
$16,341,086)
(More or
Less than
$22,710,543)
(More or
Less than
$29,328,241)
(More or
Less than
$36,201,563)
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. 9
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Cost – (§§221.520 and 221.523)
Potential increase in
incarceration costs p. 12
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown)
Unknown to
(Unknown)
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
This proposal modifies provisions relating to public safety.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space. L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 33 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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
State Emergency Management Agency
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Economic Development
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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 L.R. No. 1623S.12A
Bill No. SS No.2 for SCS for HCS No.2 for HB 495 with SA 1
Page 34 of 34
March 10, 2025
NM:LR:OD
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 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 State Treasurer
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 10, 2025March 10, 2025