COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0996H.03P Bill No.:Perfected HCS for HB 507 Subject:Elections; County Officials Type:Original Date:April 2, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to elections.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
General Revenue
($8,737)($21,389)($32,276)($56,746)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue($8,737)($21,389)($32,276)($56,746)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
Other State
Funds $0$0$0$0
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 2 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
All Federal
Funds $0$0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTE 0000
☐ 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 2030)
Local
Government$0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 3 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Due to time constraints, Oversight was unable to receive some agency responses in a timely
manner and performed limited analysis. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best
current information that we have or on information regarding a similar bill(s). Upon the receipt
of agency responses, Oversight will review to determine if an updated fiscal note should be
prepared and seek the necessary approval to publish a new fiscal note.
Sections 115.125, 115.127, 115.277, 115.284, 115.430, 115.453 and 115.635-
Modifies provisions relating to elections
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state this bill adds 3 class three election
offenses in section 115.635. These offenses are equivalent to misdemeanors. As misdemeanors
fall outside the purview of the Department of Corrections, the legislation in this section will have
no impact on the department.
The bill also specifies that if a violation of the three more offenses in section 115.635 results in
death or bodily injury to an election official or a member of the official's family, the offense shall
be a 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 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.
The cumulative impact on the department is estimated to be 5 additional offenders in prison and
4 additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2034. L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 4 of
April 2, 2025
BR: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
All other amendments have no impact.
* If this impact statement has changed from statements submitted in previous years, it could be
due to an increase/decrease in the number of offenders, a change in the cost per day for
institutional offenders, and/or an increase in staff salaries.
If the projected impact of legislation is less than 1,500 offenders added to or subtracted from the
department’s institutional caseload, the marginal cost of incarceration will be utilized. This cost
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 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. L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 5 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
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.
# 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 11($10,485)($8,737)0$00($8,737)Year 22($10,485)($21,389)0$00($21,389)Year 32($10,485)($32,726)0$00($32,726)Year 42($10,485)($44,507)0$00($44,507)Year 52($10,485)($56,746)0$00($56,746)Year 62($10,485)($57,881)0$01($57,881)Year 72($10,485)($59,039)0$02($59,039)Year 82($10,485)($60,220)0$03($60,220)Year 92($10,485)($61,424)0$04($61,424)Year 102($10,485)($62,653)0$04($62,653)
In response to the 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. The AGO may seek additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant
increase in litigation or investigation costs.
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.
In response to the previous version, officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator
and the
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 the previous version, officials from the Kansas City Election Board stated if this
legislation passes there could be a cost savings in security that they are required to have during
every election.
Oversight will not reflect the savings in the fiscal note because we do not know how many
Election Authorities have security.
In response to the previous version, officials from the Jackson County Election Board assumed
no fiscal impact from this legislation. L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 6 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
House Amendment 2
§§115.105 and 115.107 – Election Challengers
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State assume the provision will have no fiscal
impact on their organization.
In response to similar legislation, HCS for HB 638 (2025), officials from the Kansas City
Election Board, the Jackson County Election Board the St. Louis City Board of
Elections each assumed this proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organizations.
Oversight notes that the above mentioned agency has 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.
House Amendment 3
§§115.306 – Candidate No-Tax-Due Statements
In response to a similar proposal, HB 1005 (2025), officials from the Department of Revenue
and theboth assumed the proposal would have no fiscal impact
on their respective organizations.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 1005 (2025), officials from the Jackson County Election
Board and the Kansas City Election Board each assumed the proposal would have no fiscal
impact on their respective organizations.
In response to a similar proposal, HB 1005 (2025), officials from the St. Louis City Board of
Elections stated this legislation requires the election authority to make a determination that a
candidate is not delinquent in any tax. Election authorities serve a clerical function (Vowell v
Kander) and thus aren’t configured to be arbiters of the merits of a candidate’s qualifications. It
is unclear what negative impact this legislation could have on their organization or whether they
could legally comply with its demands.
Oversight assumes, currently candidates for public office are required to attest on their
declaration of candidacy form, filed with their local election authority, a statement saying they
are not delinquent in the payment of any state income taxes, personal property taxes, municipal
taxes, and real property taxes on their place of residence. This proposal appears to require that
candidates for public office in the City of St. Louis must provide proof of the taxes paid or no-
tax-due statements for each tax listed in addition to the attestation on the declaration of
candidacy form.
Oversight notes that Section 115.306.2 (4) states that this subdivision shall only apply to a city
not within a county’s offices that perform county functions (City of St. Louis). Oversight L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 7 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
assumes that any costs arising as a result of this proposal can be absorbed by City of St. Louis
with current resources; therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact on the fiscal note.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other local political subdivisions were requested to respond to this proposed legislation
but did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the MOLIS database is available upon
request.
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Officials from the Platte County Board of Elections and the St. Louis County Board of
Elections each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organizations. Oversight
does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in
the fiscal note for these agencies.
Rule Promulgation
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. L.R. No. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 8 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT
– State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
GENERAL
REVENUE
Cost – DOC
(§115.635)
Increased
Incarceration
Costs($8,737)($21,389)($32,276)($56,746)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL NET
EFFECT TO
GENERAL
REVENUE($8,737)($21,389)($32,276)($56,746)
FISCAL IMPACT
– Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2030)
$0$0$0$0
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This proposal modifies provisions relating to elections.
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. 0996H.03P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 507
Page 9 of
April 2, 2025
BR:LR:OD
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary of State
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office of the State Public Defender
Jackson County Election Board
Platte County Board of Elections
Kansas City Election Board
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 2, 2025April 2, 2025