Missouri House Bill HB83 Introduced / Fiscal Note

                    COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0789H.03I Bill No.:HB 83  Subject:Administrative Law; Attorney General; Business and Commerce; Children and 
Minors; Civil Procedure; Courts; Crimes and Punishment; Criminal Procedure; 
Liability; Uniform Laws 
Type:Original  Date:February 19, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to civil proceedings. 
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
General 
Revenue*/**
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$1,600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$623,616)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
General 
Revenue
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$1,600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could exceed 
$623,616)
*Includes §454.1050 for a new child support module that could cost between $500,000 to 
$1 million in FY2026.
**§478.001 that has an unknown cost that could exceed $600,000 per year to establish mental 
health treatment courts Cost for mental health treatment courts transferred to Treatment Court 
Resources Fund and unknown savings for the DOC assumed to be greater than $250,000 per 
year. Without additional information, Oversight cannot estimate the net effect. 
 
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 2 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Road (0644)($186,357)($223,817)($228,294)
More than 
($228,294)
Crime Victims’ 
Compensation 
(0681)
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Treatment Court 
Resources Fund 
(0733)* $0$0$0$0
Basic Civil Legal 
Services Fund 
(0757)($424,221)($848,441)($848,441)($848,441)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
Other State 
Funds
Unknown, (Less 
than $360,578)
Unknown, (Less 
than $826,735)
Unknown, (Less 
than $826,735)
Unknown, (Less 
than $826,735)
*Transfer-ins less expenditures net to zero. 
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
All Federal 
Funds $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 3 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Road  (MHP)1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEBasic Civil Legal 
Services Fund 
(OSCA)**2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
FTE 3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE
** a continuation of existing FTE by removing the December 31, 2025 expiration date.
☒ 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 2032)
Local 
Government
More or Less 
than $130,117
More or Less 
than $156,140
More or Less 
than $156,140
More or Less 
than $156,140 L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 4 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§193.265 – Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates for Public Attorneys
Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) assume §193.265.7 of 
this proposal states no fee shall be required or collected for a certification of a birth, death, or 
marriage if the request for certification is made by a prosecuting attorney, a circuit attorney, or 
the attorney general. Currently, these entities are charged the statutorily required search fee for a 
vital record of $15.00 per birth and marriage certification and $14.00 per death certification. This 
proposed language would remove the ability for the DHSS to collect these fees for services 
provided.
According to a Missouri survey conducted by the National Prosecutors’ Consortium 
(https://www.prosecutors.mo.gov/files/Missouri%20Survey%20Report.pdf), in 2018, 41 percent 
of Missouri prosecuting offices responded, and on average, each office reviewed 1,219 felony 
cases and 1,845 misdemeanor cases. For an estimated average total cases of 3,064 per office, per 
annum. Missouri has 115 elected prosecutors from each of the 114 counties and the City of St. 
Louis. Combined, this is an average of 352,360 cases reviewed each year across the state. Not all 
prosecuting offices responded to the Consortium survey, so exact metrics were not available for 
all local offices. It is also not known how many of these cases would result in a request for a 
copy of a vital record. Therefore, up to 352,360 requests could be possible. Moreover, this 
proposed language does not limit the number of certificate requests that could be made, nor does 
it limit the purpose for which the certificates may be requested for free nor specify or require that 
the requestor be an official from Missouri. As a result, the number of certificates requested could 
exceed 352,360.
Since requests from the Missouri Attorney General (AGO) are also included in this proposed 
legislation, the estimated 447 criminal appeals (https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-andrew-
bailey-recaps-first-year-in-office/) that are handled by the AGO each year are factored into these 
calculations. This estimate does not include any other appeals or cases that may be handled by 
the AGO. This would bring the estimated total of potential requests to 352,807 (352,360 cases 
reviewed each year plus 447 criminal appeals handled by AGO each year). For the purposes of 
this fiscal note, the Division of Community and Public Heath (DCPH) assumes only 25 percent 
of the possible requests for free vital records will be made, for a total of 88,202 (352,807 times 
25 percent) requests per year. Based on what vital records has experienced in the past when 
records are provided for free, this fiscal note also assumes that the 88,202 requests are new 
requests that are above the total volume of certificates issued each year. The DHSS's Bureau of 
Vital Records and the 115 local public health agencies (LPHAs), in total, currently issue 
approximately 827,695 birth, death, and marriage certificates each year. L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 5 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
The additional FTE needed comes from the calculation of a 10-minute application review, 
processing, and issuance time average with 2,080 working hours per annum which equals 12,480 
applications processed per FTE. Most applications take 15 minutes, but a shorter time of 10 
minutes per application was used in this calculation, as requests from “agencies”, such as 
prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Office, can usually be done slightly faster due to 
typically less documentation to review per request. As a result, a total of 7.00 Administrative 
Support Assistant FTE, each with an annual salary of $42,432, would be needed if 88,202 
certificates are requested. Space for the seven additional staff located in Jefferson City will be 
required at a cost of $28,890 annually ($18 x 230 sq.ft. x 7 FTE).
While this proposed legislation references birth, death, and marriage certificates, the cheapest 
and typically most requested certification, death certificates (a fee of $14.00 per certificate), will 
be used to make estimated calculations on lost revenues and other costs other than FTE to 
produce a free death certificate. An estimate of 88,202 certificates times $14.00 equals an 
estimated loss of certificate revenue of $1,234,828 per year. Certificate paper and printing is 
approximately $0.25 per sheet times 88,202 certificates requested equals $22,050 in paper and 
ink costs.
Death certificates have a current fee split of $5.00 per certificate to the Children’s Trust Fund; 
$3.00 to the Missouri Public Health Fund; $4.00 to General Revenue; $1.00 to Endowed Care 
Cemetery; and $1.00 to the Coroner’s Training fund. This response assumes all certificate 
requests come to the state office. Any requests completed at the local level by local public health 
agencies (LPHAs), would impact local public health funding.
Oversight notes the DHSS has indicated §193.265.7 of this proposed legislation will negatively 
impact total state revenue. 
Lost certificate fees are estimated as follows:
  FY 2026  FY 2027  FY 2028
General Revenue ($294,007) ($352,808) ($352,808)
Children’s Trust Fund (0694) ($367,508) ($441,010) ($411,010)
MoPHS Fund (0298) ($220,505) ($264,606) ($264,606)
Endowed Care Cemetery (0562)  ($73,502)  ($88,202)  ($88,202)
MO Coroners Training (0846)  ($73,502)  ($88,202)  ($88,202)
Total Lost Revenue ($1,029,024) ($1,234,828) ($1,234,828)
DHSS estimates this proposal will have a negative fiscal impact on the General Revenue (GR) 
Fund of $911,779 for FY 2026 (including lost certificate fees to GR); a negative impact of 
$625,565 for FY 2027 (including lost certificate fees to GR); and a negative impact of $636,149 
for FY 2028 (including lost certificate fees to GR). L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 6 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
DHSS requested FTEs for this proposal and supply costs associated with the printing of the 
certificates. Oversight assumes DHSS is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount 
of activity each year. Oversight assumes DHSS could absorb the personnel and related costs for 
this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial 
costs, DHSS could request funding through the appropriation process.
Oversight inquired the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services (MOPS) regarding the number 
of vital records that they may request annually. MOPS conducted a survey on each of their 114 
county prosecutors on how many vital records are requested from their offices on an annual 
basis. Of the 114 prosecutors, 47 responded with a total of 173 vital records requested from 
DHSS in 2023. MOPS believes the actual vital records request for those prosecution authorities 
to be under 1,000 per year.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary. Using MOPS’s estimate of 1,000 vital 
records requests per year times $14 per record, the total savings would likely be less than 
$14,000 annually. Oversight will assume a potential loss in fees from these records request for 
DHSS of less than $14,000 on an annual basis.
As provided by DHSS, death certificates have a current fee split of $5.00 per certificate to the 
Children’s Trust Fund; $3.00 to the Missouri Public Health Fund; $4.00 to General Revenue; 
$1.00 to Endowed Care Cemetery; and $1.00 to the Coroner’s Training fund. 
Lost certificate fees for 1,000 free certificates are estimated as follows:
  FY 2026  FY 2027  FY 2028
General Revenue   ($3,333)  ($4,000)  ($4,000)
Children’s Trust Fund (0694)   ($4,167)  ($5,000)  ($5,000)
MoPHS Fund (0298)   ($2,500)  ($3,000)  ($3,000)
Endowed Care Cemetery (0562)      ($833)  ($1,000)  ($1,000)
MO Coroners Training (0846)      ($833)  ($1,000)  ($1,000)
Total Lost Revenue  ($11,666) ($14,000) ($14,000)
Therefore, based on the above information, Oversight assumes the DHSS could absorb the 
potential loss of fees resulting from providing vital records at no cost to state and local agencies 
and will not present this loss for fiscal note purposes.
Oversight also notes with the no charge being applied to certain public attorneys, it is assumed 
state and local agencies would see a savings of approximately the same amount. Oversight 
further assumes these savings are minimal and will not present the savings to local governments 
for fiscal note purposes.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume §193.265.7 
creates a new exemption from vital record request fees and may impact state and/or local 
revenues derived from such fees. The state and local government entities responsible for the  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 7 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
collection and administration of those fees may be able to estimate the impact of this change. A 
decrease in such fee revenues will impact both TSR and 18e calculations.
Oversight has no information to the contrary. However, it is assumed the loss of vital records 
fees will be minimal and will not have a significant fiscal impact on state funds.
§287.200 – Modifications to permanent total disability
Officials from the Office of Administration (OA) state §287.200.3.(2) adds a provision for an 
award of permanent total disability to suspend the lifetime payment when the employee is 
restored to his or her regular work or its equivalent. This provision could potentially decrease the 
cost of a workers’ compensation claim. The potential costs are unknown. The amount of cost 
decrease, if any, cannot be estimated as it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each 
case and judicial interpretation of the changes.
Oversight contacted the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DOLIR) for more 
information on the potential fiscal impact of §287.200 to the State of Missouri. DOLIR states 
that Workers’ Compensation Benefits are paid to the injured employee(s) by the employer’s 
insurance company (in this case the State of Missouri). DOLIR believes the amount of the cost 
decrease associated with this bill, if any, cannot be estimated as it would depend on the facts and 
circumstances of each case and judicial interpretation of the changes. DOLIR states1) there 
aren’t many permanent and total disability (PTD) awards and 2) the person would have to be 
restored back by the use of glasses, prosthetic appliances or physical rehabilitation. Therefore, 
the number of cases would be very, very low and any impact on premiums would likely be 
quantifiably immeasurable.
Oversight will present a $0 to Unknown savings to the General Revenue Fund for fiscal note 
purposes. Oversight assumes, based on the information from DOLIR, that the potential impact 
would be less than $250,000 annually.
§287.610 – Administrative Law Judges
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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.  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 8 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
§§287.615 & 287.835 – Administrative Law Judges
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assumed 
§287.615.1(2) provides that administrative law judge salaries are set by statute and not subject to 
increase when pay raises for executive employees are appropriated. This change could result in 
potential future cost avoidance that might otherwise be budgeted. §287.835 could result in future 
potential benefit costs not being avoided but any such impact would depend on the described 
hypothetical conditions and may not be subject to estimation.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 or 
Unknown cost avoidance to GR as provided by the B&P.
Officials from the Missouri State Employee's Retirement System (MOSERS) states as it 
relates to MOSERS, this proposal, if enacted, would remove §287.835.1 and allow an 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the ALJ’s beneficiary to remain entitled to ALJ plan 
retirement benefits if the ALJ were removed from office by impeachment or for misconduct, or 
disbarred from the practice of law.
This proposal would result in an unknown cost as it would allow the ALJ and the ALJ’s 
beneficiary to receive a benefit that they would not otherwise receive under the current plan 
provisions.
Officials from the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement (JCPER) state the 
JCPER’s review of HB 83 indicates that its provisions may constitute a “substantial proposed 
change” in future plan benefits as defined in §105.660(10). It is impossible to accurately 
determine the fiscal impact of this legislation without an actuarial cost statement prepared in 
accordance with §105.665. Pursuant to §105.670, an actuarial cost statement must be filed with 
the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Joint 
Committee on Public Employee Retirement as public information for at least five legislative 
days prior to final passage.
Oversight contacted JCPER for clarification on the impact changes to the provisions of 
§287.835 would have on retirement disbursements. JCPER officials stated there would be an 
unknown negative fiscal impact on the General Revenue Fund. At this time, there is no way to 
estimate the fiscal impact since it is unknown how many Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) or 
their beneficiaries might continue to receive benefits in spite of the ALJ being removed from 
office.
Oversight assumes this would impact a minimal number of ALJs. Therefore, Oversight assumes 
this would not result in an increase in employer contributions.  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 9 of 
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
§452.355 – Costs and Fees in Divorce Proceedings
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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.
§§453.700 - 453.742 - Uniform Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act
 
Officials from the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services (MOPS) assume no measurable 
fiscal impact to MOPS.  The enactment of a new crime (§453.710.4) creates additional 
responsibilities for county prosecutors and the circuit attorney which may in turn result in 
additional costs which are difficult to determine.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes MOPS 
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 MOPS for fiscal note purposes.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §453.710.4 
states any person violating the provisions of §453.710 regarding transfer of child custody may be 
charged with a class B misdemeanor. In so far as class B misdemeanor fines may be deposited 
into the State Treasury, total state revenue could increase. In addition, §453.714.1 states a person 
shall not solicit or advertise to identify a person to which to make a transfer of custody in 
violation of subsection 1 of §453.710, nor identify a child for a transfer of custody in violation of 
subsection 3 of §453.710, nor act as an intermediary in a transfer of custody in violation of 
subsection 3 of §453.710. Any person in violation of these provisions can be charged with a class 
B misdemeanor. In so far as class B misdemeanor fines may be deposited into the State Treasury, 
total state revenue could increase.
Oversight notes the provisions of §§453.710 and 453.714 provide for the charge of class B 
misdemeanors which can result in up to six months in jail and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000 for 
each offense in addition to any individual county/municipal fees and court costs. The fine 
revenue for the offense goes to local school funds and court costs go to various state and local 
funds. Oversight assumes there will be some (less than $250,000) amount of fine revenue from 
violations of the statute. Therefore, the impact to various state funds and local governments will  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 10 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
be presented as less than $250,000. For simplicity, Oversight will not reflect the possibility that 
fine revenue paid to school districts may act as a subtraction in the foundation formula.
Below are examples of some of the state and local funds which court costs are distributed:
Fee/Fund NameFee AmountBasic Civil Legal Services Fund$8.00Clerk Fee$15.00 ($12 State/$3 County)County Fee$25.00State Court Automation Fund$7.00Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund$7.50DNA Profiling Analysis Fund$15.00Peace Officer Standards and Training 
(POST) Fund
$1.00Motorcycle Safety Trust Fund$1.00Brain Injury Fund$2.00Independent Living Center Fund$1.00Sheriff’s Fee$10.00 (County)Prosecuting Attorney and Circuit Attorney 
Training Fund
$4.00Prosecuting Attorney Training Fund$1.00 ($0.50 State/$0.50 County)Spinal Cord Injury Fund$2.00
§454.1050 - "Bentley's Law" – Adds child maintenance provisions for certain children 
In response to similar legislation from the prior year (HB 1958), officials from the Office of the 
State Courts Administrator(OSCA) stated this proposal would have an impact in Show-Me 
Courts and possibly others systems. As regarding a budgetary impact, the estimate would be 
$500,000 to $1,000,000 to develop a new Child Support module.  
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by OSCA.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume this section stipulates that the 
court shall order a defendant convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated to pay 
restitution for a child whose parent or guardian died as a result of such offense.  The order of 
restitution under this section shall require the defendant to make restitution directly to the person 
or agency that will accept and forward restitution payments to the victim or other person eligible 
for restitution under this section; or deliver payment for restitution to the Division of Probation 
and Parole or to the DOC for transfer to the victim or person or state as appropriate. 
Currently the Division of Probation and Parole does not accept payment for any form of 
restitution. The DOC collects restitution from incarcerated individuals when it receives an order  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 11 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
from the prosecuting attorney and then remits payment to the prosecuting attorney in accordance 
with RSMO 559.105. 
There would be an unknown fiscal impact to update DOC’s offender management system in 
order to send payments directly to individual victims. It is unclear the amount of additional staff 
that would be necessary to process and remit these additional payments.  It is also unclear if the 
DOC would be required to continue receiving and issuing payments to the victims after the 
defendant has been released from the department’s supervision.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by the DOC.
§§455.010, 455.035 & 455.513 – Orders of Protection
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume a cost of $5,000 per year due to the 
increase in age for appointing a Guardian ad Litem from 17 to 18.
Oversight has no information to the contrary. Oversight assumes the Clay County Auditor’s 
Office will be able to absorb this minimal expense and will present no fiscal impact for this 
agency for fiscal note purposes.
§§469.399 to 469.487 – “Missouri Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act”
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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. 
§476.1025 – Removal of Court Records from the Automated Case Management System
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 12 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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. 
§477.650 – Basic Civil Legal Services Fund
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) assume this proposal 
would repeal the expiration date of the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund. The Basic Civil Legal 
Services Fund annual appropriations are approximately $5.1 million and 2 FTE.   
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §477.650.7’s 
repeal eliminates the current December 31, 2025, sunset date for the Basic Civil Legal Services 
Fund. Because the elimination of this sunset will preserve the status quo, it will have no impact 
on state revenues, TSR or 18e.
Oversight notes the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund (BCLS) is a statutorily created fund
(SB 447 in 2003) and was created to fund the work of Missouri’s four Legal Aid programs, 
which provide access to the civil justice system to low-income Missourians (who live at or below 
125% of the Federal Poverty Level) to protect their fundamental legal rights. The fund is set to 
expire December 31, 2025. 
One of the focuses of the Legal Aid programs is to ensure that adults and children have access to 
medical care through the MoHealthNet system. 
Legal Aid staff bring cases to obtain access to medical care for their clients. There are four 
regional Legal Aid offices: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia and Springfield. In FY22, over 
$125 million from punitive damages awarded in talc litigation in Missouri was transferred from 
the Tort Victims Compensation Fund into the BCLS. This represents the largest single payment 
into the BCLS, and this funding was paid to legal service organizations.
Below is a chart of the number of cases closed during CY 2023 representing the BCLS Fund: L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 13 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
The fund has a court filing fee on certain civil and criminal actions of $20 in the Missouri 
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, $10 in the circuit courts and $8 in the associate circuit 
courts. The fund has received the following receipts during FY 2020 to FY 2024:
Basic Civil Legal Services  Fund (0757)FY 20$ 4,290,667FY 21$ 3,868,347FY 22$ 3,865,619FY 23$ 4,047,390FY 24$ 4,281,742Total$20,353,7655 year avg $  4,070,753Source: State Treasurer Fund Activity Reports
Below is a history of the expended funds for the last 5 years:
Basic Civil Legal Services Fund (0757) L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 14 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
    Actual UnexpendedAppropriation Expenditures                  FundsFY 20 $5,099,958 $4,467,368             $    632,590FY 21 $7,701,418 $7,559,124             $   142,294FY 22 $5,102,383 $3,903,651             $1,198,732FY 23 $5,108,764 $3,997,430             $1,111,334FY 24 $5,117,803 $4,668,397             $   449,406FY 25 $5,127,681      N/A         N/ALast 5 yr avg. $5,626,065 $4,919,194             $    706,871
Source: OSCA Budget Requests Books
Oversight notes the balance of the BCLS (0757) at December 31, 2024 was $264,070.
Oversight notes this proposal removes the expiration date of these provisions. If the proposal is 
extended, Oversight assumes revenue and expenditure activity will continue for the fund. Since 
the fund does not expire until December 31, 2025, Oversight assumes only half of the average 
receipts and expenditures would be shown for FY26. Therefore, Oversight will use the average 
amounts from the table above to reflect the fiscal impact. 
The appropriations for the BCLS Fund includes 2 FTEs according to OSCA. Oversight assumes 
should this proposal be extended, the 2 FTEs will also continue to be funded through the BCLS 
Fund.
§478.001 – Mental Health Courts
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) stated the potential 
budgetary impact could initially be $600,000 and continue to increase due to the growth in 
mental health courts. 
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state §478.001 adds that a mental health 
treatment court may be established by any circuit court to provide an alternative for the judicial 
system to dispose of cases that stem from a mental health disorder or co-occurring disorder. The 
DOC uses a classification system (1-5) that correlates an offender’s mental health impairment 
with the necessary services and/or interventions for treatment of the disorder. It is unknown how 
many of the offenders with applicable mental health concerns that would typically be sentenced 
to the Department of Corrections would instead be diverted by the court to a mental health 
treatment court. Therefore, the department assumes an unknown fiscal impact.  
Oversight notes the provisions of this section provide for the establishment of a mental health 
court as an alternative for the disposal of cases that typically are sentenced to the DOC. In 
response to similar legislation from the current session (SB 143), DOC stated the department is 
unable to project a savings amount and assumes an unknown fiscal impact. Oversight notes if  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 15 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
only 24 people are diverted away from DOC as a result of the mental health treatment courts, the 
savings would exceed $250,000 annually ($10,485 annual incarceration costs *24 = $251,640). 
Therefore, for fiscal note purposes, Oversight will present a $0 to unknown savings to the 
General Revenue Fund.
Oversight assumes this proposal establishes mental health courts within the treatment court 
division and specifies that a mental health court may be established by any circuit court. 
Currently all 46 circuits provide treatment court services with an estimated 6,092 participants for 
CY 2023. The Treatment Court Division has 147 programs representing services for adult drugs, 
DWI, veterans, families and juveniles. Oversight assumes this proposal will add mental health to 
the services as an alternative to incarceration/probation. 
Based upon FY 2023 expenditures for treatment courts using the Treatment Court Resources 
Fund, cost per participant is $1,521 ($9,642,143/6,092). There are many other factors that affect 
the operating costs associated with establishing and maintaining treatment courts which vary 
from county to county throughout the state.
OSCA’s budget book presented the following information:
CY 2023 participants CY 2023 Programs
Adult Drug Treatment Court 4,245 82
DWI Treatment Court 1,016 27
Veterans Treatment Court 369 17
Family Treatment Court 429 17
Juvenile Treatment Court 33 4
Oversight is unaware of the number of mental health treatment courts that could be established, 
when those services would be needed and/or where those services would be located. Oversight 
assumes when the mental health treatment court services are needed within a certain circuit, 
OSCA would request the proper appropriation authority for those expenditures through the 
budget appropriation process. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 or (Could exceed $600,000) 
in costs because of the potential growth in mental health courts. Oversight will reflect this as a 
transfer out of the General Revenue Fund and transferred into the Treatment Court Resources 
Fund for this proposal.  
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §478.001(9) 
creates a statutory definition for a "mental health treatment court" and §478.001.8 provides a 
mental health treatment court may be established by any circuit court. While this section's 
provisions will not impact TSR, the establishment of additional treatment courts may create a 
need for additional state resources for such courts through the treatment court resources fund, 
which is funded by a general revenue transfer. Treatment court resources funds are subject to 
appropriation.
§487.110 – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 16 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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. 
§§488.040 & 494.455 – Compensation of Jurors
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) provide that §494.455 
states that in any county, or city not within a county, upon adoption by a majority vote of the 
governing body, no grand or petit juror shall receive compensation for the first two days of 
service but shall receive fifty dollars per day for the third day and each subsequent day he or she 
may serve. These funds are to be paid by the county. It is unknown how many counties will 
participate and the increase may result in an unknown cost or savings to the state or county.  
Section 494.455 also ties the juror mileage rate to the mileage rate as provided by law for state 
employees (rather than seven cents per mile).  
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume §488.040 revises 
current juror compensation requirements and may result in a change to the costs incurred by state 
and local courts for such compensation.
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume a cost of $1,000 per year for the 
increase in mileage reimbursement for jurors.
Oversight notes §488.040 is removing language and clarifying the statute to follow the language 
in §494.455. Oversight notes the compensation for jurors will remain the same as outlined in 
§494.455, however, this proposal is increasing the mileage compensation from 7 cents per mile 
to the state employee rate as outlined in §33.095. Because of the increased rate, Oversight will, 
therefore, reflect an unknown cost to circuit funds. 
Oversight also notes subsection 3 is being removed in §494.455 and is adding clarifying 
language stating, “by majority vote, the governing body of a county or a city not within a county 
may adopt a system for juror compensation in a city not within a county  may adopt a system for 
juror compensation”, where a petit or grand juror can receive $50 per day starting on the third 
day and each subsequent day of actual service plus the mileage rate per §33.095 for a state 
employee provided that no compensation for the first two days is received. Oversight is unsure  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 17 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
how many county circuits would participate and if the increase in compensation would result in 
an unknown cost or savings to the state or county. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no 
adoption) or unknown cost or savings to General Revenue and county circuits for this proposal.
§488.426 – St. Louis City Circuit Court Civil Case Filing Fee 
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning state this section appears to 
alter the scope of circuits to which certain surcharge authorizations apply, potentially impacting 
TSR.
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the proposed 
legislation allows the circuit court in St. Louis City to collect a fee not to exceed twenty dollars, 
rather than fifteen, to go toward the law library.  
During the past five years there was an average of 11,031 circuit civil case filings, 5,021 
domestic relations civil case filings and 15,176 associate civil and small claims civil case filings 
for a total of 31,228 case filings.
Based upon the increase in the collection fee not to exceed $20.00, rather than $15.00, to go 
toward the library, OSCA estimates the increase to be $0 to $156,140 ($5 x 31,228).
Oversight assumes fees collected would go directly to the St. Louis City Circuit Court and will 
present a positive fiscal impact of $0 to $156,140 ($5 x 31,228) annually. Oversight also assumes 
the provisions of this section will not create a material fiscal impact to local political 
subdivisions other than St. Louis City Circuit Court.
§§491.075 and 492.304– Judicial Proceedings
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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. 
§509.520 – Court Pleadings, Attachments, and Exhibits L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 18 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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. 
§§510.500, 510.503, 510.506, 510.509, 510.512, 510.515, 510.518, 510.521 – Uniform Interstate 
Depositions and Discovery Act
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the provisions of 
this section may have some impact but there is no way to quantify that amount currently. Any 
significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(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 DOC state §510.506 provides a mechanism by which a foreign subpoena 
could be issued, served, and enforced on a person or entity in Missouri. It is unknown if and 
when any of the Department of Corrections’ offenders or staff would be subpoenaed.  Therefore, 
the department is unable to project a fiscal cost and assumes a ($0 – Unknown) fiscal impact.
Oversight has no information to the contrary.  Therefore, Oversight will range the potential cost 
of this proposal on the General Revenue Fund as presented by the DOC.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP or Patrol) 
state this proposal authorizes an alternative dispute resolution program, similar to federal court, 
and creates a Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act in §§510.500 to 510.521. With 
this proposed legislation the MHP anticipates an increased workload related to foreign subpoenas 
and/or discovery requests. There may also be increased litigation costs associated with non-party 
subpoena and discovery responses. These increased costs would likely cause a direct impact on  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 19 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
the Patrol because the Missouri Attorney General's Office does not normally represent the Patrol 
in such cases. Many of these non-party legal matters would likely involve some of the over 
30,000 motor vehicle crashes the Patrol investigates each year. As a result of the expected 
workload increase, the Patrol forecasts the need to add one Legal Counsel FTE.
The DPS estimates a fiscal impact to the Highway Fund (0644) of $186,357 for FY26; $223,817 
for FY27; and $228,294 FY28.
Oversight has no information to the contrary.  Therefore, Oversight will present the fiscal 
impact for these sections of this proposal as provided by the Patrol.
§559.125 – Privileged information
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) states this section adds “except in 
criminal proceedings” as an exception to the requirement that information and data obtained by a 
probation or parole officer shall be privileged information and shall not be receivable in any 
court. It is unknown how many will motion to file subpoenas and court orders that the DOC will 
receive for the disclosure of probation and parole information, as well as appearing in court on 
those motions, due to the modified provisions relating to certain privileged information. 
Therefore, the department anticipates a ($0-Unknown) cost.  
Oversight does not have any information contrary to that provided by DOC. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect DOC’s impact for fiscal note purposes. 
§§566.151 and 567.030 – Criminal offenses involving a child
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state §566.151 changes the age of the 
victim from any person who is less than fifteen to seventeen years of age. From FY 2022 to FY 
2024, the department totaled 59 new prison admissions and 3 new probation cases for sentences 
of enticement of a child. The increase in the minimum age under which a person can be 
considered to be enticed as a child could create additional instances in which a person could be 
charged with a crime under this section. However, there is no available data to determine the 
number of 16 and 17 year olds to whom this could have potentially applied.  Therefore the 
impact is an unknown cost.
Section 567.030 changes the age of the victim from less than eighteen years of age but older than 
fourteen to older than fifteen years of age. The bill changes the existing class D felony to a class 
B felony.
There were three new court commitments to prison and one new probation cases under section 
567.030 from FY 2022 through FY 2024 that were class D felonies. Given there have been years 
in which there were no new court commitments and/or probation cases under this section, the 
DOC will use the averages of one new court commitment and no new probation cases annually 
over this three-year period to estimate the impact. The average sentence length for a class D  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 20 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
felony sex and child abuse offense is 6.6 years, with 5.3 years spent in prison. Changing this to a 
class B felony would extend the sentence length to 9.0 years, with 7.3 years spent in prison.
The estimated cumulative impact on the department would be an additional 2 offenders in prison 
and no additional offenders on field supervision by FY 2034.
* 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 $26.545 per day or an annual cost of $9,689 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 $99.90 per day or an 
annual cost of $36,464 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.
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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
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
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
P
robations
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
C
umulative Populations
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
P
rison
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1 2 2 2 2
P
arole
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
-
1
-
1
-
1
0
.00
0
.00
P
robation
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
I
mpact
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
P
rison Population
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1 2 2 2 2
F
ield Population
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
-
1
-
1
-
1
0
.00
0
.00
P
opulation Change
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1 2 2 L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 21 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC: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 10($10,485)$00$00$0Year 20($10,485)$00$00$0Year 30($10,485)$00$00$0Year 40($10,485)$00$00$0Year 50($10,485)$00$00$0Year 61($10,485)($11,576)0$0(1)($11,576)Year 72($10,485)($23,616)0$0(1)($23,616)Year 82($10,485)($24,088)0$0(1)($24,088)Year 92($10,485)($24,570)0$00($24,570)Year 102($10,485)($25,061)0$00($25,061)
Oversight notes, from information provided by the State Courts Administrator, the following 
number of felony convictions under §566.151 and §567.030:
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
§566.151 felonies    19    25    22    24    24
§567.030 felonies      0     2      1      2       0
Oversight will reflect DOC’s impact as an unknown impact to the General Revenue Fund.  
Oversight notes it would take roughly 26 additional prisoners to reach the $250,000 cost 
threshold. Oversight will assume a fiscal impact of less than $250,000.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning state §567.030 creates a 
new crime regarding underage prostitution. This could impact the Missouri Department of 
Corrections.
§595.045 – Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state §595.045 expands the offenses for 
which Crime Victims Compensation can be collected for from class C or D felonies, to include 
class E felonies as well.  As this fine is manually entered into the Offender Finance System, it is 
unknown the additional staff time which will be required to enter the fines, as there is no way to 
know how many people found guilty of an E felony would be sentenced and incarcerated to the 
department.  Therefore, the impact to this legislation is an unknown cost. L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 22 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Oversight does not have any information contrary to that provided by DOC. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect DOC’s impact for fiscal note purposes. 
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state §595.045 includes 
Class E felonies to the collection of monetary fees to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund. 
Based on recent case data, the inclusion of Class E felonies will result in additional judgments of 
approximately $279,000 per year, with an estimated collection of 35% to 60% over three years.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Office of the Director (DPS) state in CY 
2022, there were 10,822 class E felony convictions. This data was pulled using charge level 
felony E with a charge disposition of Guilty Plea, Guilty Plea Written, Tried by Court- Guilty, 
Jury Verdict - Guilty, Alford Plea and a Charge Disposition Date within CY2022. It does not 
include juvenile cases.
DPS assumes this will bring in an estimated $500,000 ($46 x 10,822 = $497,812) into the Crime 
Victims’ Compensation Fund. 
Oversight notes the provisions of this section state the court shall enter a judgment payable to 
the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund of $46 for a class E felony. Oversight also notes, from 
information provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the following number of E 
felony convictions from FY 2020 through FY 2024:
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
     7,545  8,407 10,575 10,838 10,708
The average number of E felonies over this five-year period is 9,615 (7,545 + 8,407 + 10,575, 
10,838 + 10,708).  However, as the exact number of E felony convictions could vary 
substantially from year to year, Oversight will reflect an Unknown, greater than $250,000 to 
the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund. Oversight notes the ending balance in the Crime 
Victims’ Compensation Fund as of December 31, 2024, is $2,040,252.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning state §595.045.8 expands 
the application of a current court cost surcharge that generates revenues for the state’s Crime 
Victim Compensation Fund, potentially impacting TSR.
Rule Promulgation
Officials from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules assume this proposal is not 
anticipated to cause a fiscal impact beyond its current appropriation. 
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  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 23 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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.
Bill as a whole
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.
Officials from the University of Missouri System (UM) state the proposal will not have any 
significant cost increase for their organization. Oversight has no information to the contrary.  
Therefore, Oversight will present no fiscal impact for this proposal to UM.
Officials from the Morgan County Public Water Supply District #2 submitted a response 
indicating this proposal would have a fiscal impact on their organization. However, no 
information was provided to support the fiscal impact statement. Therefore, Oversight assumes 
any impact to be minimal and absorbable.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Administrative Hearing Commission, the 
Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Economic Development, the 
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Department of Higher Education 
and Workforce Development, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Natural 
Resources, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Revenue, 
the Department of Public Safety, Divisions of: Alcohol and Tobacco ControlCapitol Police, 
Fire Safety, Missouri Gaming Commission, Missouri Veterans CommissionState 
Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Social Services, the Office of the 
GovernorMissouri Department of AgricultureMissouri Department of 
Conservation, the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri Department of 
Transportation, the Missouri National GuardMoDOT & Patrol Employees’ 
Retirement System, the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance FundOffice of the State 
Public Defender, the City of Kansas City, the Jackson County Board of Election 
Commissioners, the Platte County Board of Elections, the St. Louis City Board of Elections, 
the St. Louis County Board of Elections, the Newton County Health Department, the 
Lincoln County Assessor, the Phelps County Sheriff, the County Employees’ Retirement 
Fund, the Kansas City Civilian Police Employees’ Retirement, the Kansas City Police 
Retirement System, the Kansas City Public School Retirement System, the Public 
Education Employees’ Retirement System, the Sheriff’s Retirement System, the  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 24 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the South River Drainage District, the St. Charles 
County Public Water Supply District #2, the Wayne County Public Water Supply District 
#2, Northwest Missouri State University, the University of Central Missouri, the Office of 
the State Auditor, the Missouri House of RepresentativesJoint Committee on 
Education, the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, Legislative Research, the 
Oversight DivisionMissouri Senate, the Missouri Lottery, the Missouri Consolidated 
Health Care Plan, 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.  
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions; 
however, other cities, counties, local election authorities, county health departments, county 
recorders, nursing homes, county assessors, county auditors, county circuit clerks, county 
collectors, county prosecutors, county treasurers, county public administrators, local law 
enforcement agencies, fire protection districts, ambulance districts, retirement agencies, schools, 
utility districts, hospitals and colleges 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. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 25 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
GENERAL REVENUESavings – OA (§287.200) – 
reduction in worker’s 
compensation claims benefits 
paid p.7
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
Savings – DOC (§478.001) – 
reduction in costs resulting from 
diversions to mental health 
treatment courts p.14
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
Cost Avoidance – ALJ’s – 
potential savings in pay raises 
(§§287.615 & 287.835) p. 5-6
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
Costs – OSCA (§287.610) – 
increase in expenses related to 
ALJS
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Costs – OSCA various 
provisions
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Costs – OSCA (§454.1050) New 
child support module p. 10
($500,000 to 
$1,000,000)$0$0$0
Costs – DOC (§454.1050) – to 
update offender management 
system and possible staff needed 
to process & remit payments p. (Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Costs – DOC (§510.506) – 
foreign subpoena costs p.18
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
Costs – DOC (§559.125) – 
privileged information requests 
p.19
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown) L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 26 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Costs – DOC (§§566.151 and 
567.030) - increased 
incarceration costs p. 19-21(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Could 
exceed 
($23,616)
Costs – DOC (§595.045) – 
possible staff needed to enter 
fines p.21-22(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Transfer Out – (§478.001) – to 
establish mental health treatment 
courts p.15-16
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown, 
Could 
exceed 
$1,600,000)
(Unknown, 
could 
exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could 
exceed 
$600,000)
(Unknown, 
Could 
exceed 
$623,616)
ROAD FUND (0644)Costs – DPS-MHP (§§510.500 – 
510.521) p.18-19More than…
   Personal service($97,420)($119,242)($121,627)($121,627)  Fringe benefits($85,437)($104,575)($106,667)($106,667)  Equipment and expense($3,500)$0$0$0Total Costs – DPS-MHP($186,357)($223,817)($228,294)($228,294)    FTE Change – MHP1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON THE ROAD FUND($186,357)($223,817)($228,294)
More than 
($228,294)
Estimated Net FTE Change on 
the Road Fund1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 27 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
CRIME VICTIMS’ 
COMPENSATION FUND 
(0681)
Revenue – DPS (§595.045) 
Class E felony fee ($46 per) p. 
22
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater than 
$250,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON THE CRIME VICTIMS’ 
COMPENSATION FUND
Unknown, 
Greater 
than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater 
than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater 
than 
$250,000
Unknown, 
Greater 
than 
$250,000
TREATMENT COURT 
RESOURCES FUND (0733)Transfer In – funds from GR 
(§478.001) p. 15
$0 or could 
exceed 
$600,000
$0 or could 
exceed 
$600,000
$0 or could 
exceed 
$600,000
$0 or could 
exceed 
$600,000
Cost – program expenditures 
(§478.001) p. 15
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
$0 or (could 
exceed 
$600,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON TREATMENT COURT 
RESOURCES FUND$0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 28 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
BASIC CIVIL LEGAL 
SERVICES FUND (0757)
Revenue – OSCA – continuation 
of receipts received from $8 
court fee (§477.650) p. 12-14$2,035,376$4,070,753$4,070,753$4,070,753
Cost – OSCA – continuation of 
expenditures (§477.650) p. 12-14($2,459,597)($4,919,194)($4,919,194)($4,919,194)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON THE BASIC CIVIL 
LEGAL SERVICES FUND($424,221)($848,441)($848,441)($848,441)
Estimated Net FTE Change for 
the Basic Civil Legal Services 
Fund2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 29 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
LOCAL POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
Revenue – (§§453.710 & 
453.714) – court costs p.9
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Revenue – Schools (§§453.710 
& 453.714) – fine revenue p.9
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Less than 
$250,000
Revenue – St. Louis Court 
(§488.426) – $5 increase in fee 
for law library p.17
$0 to 
$130,117
$0 to 
$156,140
$0 to 
$156,140
$0 to 
$156,140
Cost – increased mileage rate for 
jurors following §33.095 for 
state employees (§494.455)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON LOCAL POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
More or 
Less than 
$130,117
More or 
Less than 
$156,140
More or 
Less than 
$156,140
More or 
Less than 
$156,140
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Small business limited liability companies may be negatively impacted if dissolved involuntarily 
by a circuit court. (§347.143).
Small business adoption agencies/child-placing agencies may be negatively impacted by the 
provisions of this proposal (§§453.700 to 453.742)
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This bill modifies provisions relating to civil proceedings.
BIRTH, DEATH, AND MARRIAGE RECORDS (Section 193.265, RSMo) 
The bill waives any required fees for the issuance or copy of a birth certificate if the request is 
made by a prosecuting or circuit attorney or the Attorney General. 
MISSOURI UNIFORM FIDUCIARY INCOME AND PRINCIPAL ACT (Sections 214.330 and 
469.399 to 469.487)  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 30 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
This bill specifies that the income and principal of the Endowed Care Trust Fund is determined 
under the laws applicable to trusts with an exception that the trustee has no power: of adjustment; 
of conversion; to determine or modify the unitrust rate or to determine applicable value to 
compute the unitrust amount beyond that granted by law. A unitrust definition of income must be 
determined by the cemetery operator in the terms of the Endowed Care Trust Fund Agreement 
and not by the trustee. Further, no principal from the Trust Fund will be distributed except if a 
unitrust amount is required under the Agreement. The cemetery operator may instruct by record 
for the trustee to distribute less than all the income distributable for the year if the cemetery 
operator determines that the money is not needed. 
The bill establishes the "Missouri Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act" (MUFIPA). 
Certain provisions of the current Principal and Income Act (PIA) are updated to achieve 
compliance with the MUFIPA. This bill modifies certain definitions and adds definitions. It also 
removes reference to current definitions of "income beneficiary", "qualified beneficiary", and 
"remainder beneficiary". 
The bill provides that the MUFIPA applies to a trust or estate and a life estate or other term 
interest in which the interest of one or more persons will be succeeded by the interest of one or 
more other persons, except as otherwise provided in the terms of a trust or in MUFIPA. In 
addition, the MUFIPA applies when Missouri is the principal place of administration of a trust or 
estate or the situs of property that is not held in a trust or estate and is subject to a life estate or 
other term interest. 
This bill details the fiduciary's duties including the power to adjust or convert an income trust to 
a unitrust and vice versa. In addition, the bill specifies the business or other activity conducted by 
the fiduciary that the fiduciary may account separately, as specified in the bill. This bill calls for 
the application of MUFIPA to a trust or estate existing or created on or after August 28, 2025, 
with exceptions. 
The bill defines "unitrust" to mean a trust for which net income is an amount computed by 
multiplying a determined value of a trust by a determined percentage, including a trust for which 
under the terms the income or net income must or can be calculated in such way. 
The provisions that apply to unitrusts do not create a duty to take or consider action or to inform 
a beneficiary about the applicability of the provisions. A fiduciary that in good faith takes or fails 
to take an action under the unitrust provisions is not liable to a person affected by the action or 
inaction. The bill details the actions that the fiduciary can take without court approval. The bill 
specifies determinations, considerations, and procedures required of a fiduciary in taking actions. 
The requirements include sending a notice in a record, describing and proposing to take the 
action, to certain persons all as detailed in the bill. The MUFIPA includes provisions allowing 
these persons to object to a proposed action, where the fiduciary or a beneficiary may request the 
court to have the proposed action taken as proposed, taken with modifications, or prevented. The 
bill contains requirements relating to the unitrust policy and unitrust rate. This bill provides for 
uniformity in the interpretation and application of the MUFIPA; contains a severability clause;  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 31 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
and explains MUFIPA's interaction with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7001 et Seq. 
CHANGES OF ATTORNEYS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES (Sections 287.200 
and 287.470) 
The bill permits the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to change the name, 
information, or fee arrangement of the attorney or law firm representing a claimant upon the 
filing of a written agreement, signed by both the claimant and the attorney, with the Commission. 
Additionally, a lifetime payment for permanent total disability will be suspended during the time 
in which an employee is restored to his or her regular work or its equivalent through the use of 
glasses, prosthetic appliances, or physical rehabilitation. 
COMPLAINTS, DISCIPLINE, AND REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 
(Sections 287.610 and 621.045) 
Current law requires a retention vote be taken by the Administrative Law Judge Review 
Committee with respect to each workers' compensation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 
Additionally, the Committee is required to conduct performance audits periodically and make 
recommendations of confidence or no confidence with respect to each ALJ. This bill repeals 
these requirements and instead creates new provisions for filing complaints against and removing 
ALJs. Prior to filing a complaint, the Director must notify the ALJ in writing of the reasons for 
the complaint. Special provisions are included if the reason for the complaint is willful neglect of 
duty or incompetency. Upon a finding by the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) that 
the grounds for disciplinary action are met, the Director may, singly or in combination, issue the 
disciplinary actions against the ALJ, as specified in the bill, including removal or suspension 
from office. If there are no grounds for disciplinary action, the ALJ will immediately resume 
duties and receive any attorneys' fees due under current law. The bill repeals a requirement that 
the Committee's members not have any direct or indirect employment or financial connection 
with a workers' compensation insurance company, claims adjustment company, health care 
provider nor be a practicing workers' compensation attorney. The bill additionally repeals a 
requirement that all members of the Committee have a working knowledge of workers' 
compensation. 
PAYMENT AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 
(Sections 287.615, 287.812, and 287.835) 
The bill provides that the compensation for an ALJ and chief administrative law judges will be 
determined solely by the rate outlined in law and will not increase when pay raises for executive 
employees are appropriated. The bill furthermore repeals reference to the position of Chief Legal 
Counsel. The bill repeals a prohibition on the payment of any retirement benefits under workers' 
compensation law to any administrative law judge who has been removed from office by 
impeachment or for misconduct, or to any person who has been disbarred from the practice of 
law, or to the beneficiary of any such persons.  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 32 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
COURT DISSOLUTION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (Section 347.143) 
Currently, a limited liability company (LLC) may be dissolved involuntarily by a decree of the 
circuit court located in the county of the registered office of the LLC upon application by or for a 
member of the LLC when it is not reasonably practicable to carry on business in conformity with 
the operating agreement. This bill expands the circumstances under which an LLC may be 
dissolved to include when a court determines that: (1) Dissolution is reasonably necessary for the 
protection of the rights or interests of complaining members; (2) The business of the LLC has 
been abandoned; (3) The management of the LLC is deadlocked or subject to internal dissension, 
or (4) Those in control of the LLC have been found guilty of, or have knowingly allowed 
persistent and pervasive fraud, mismanagement, or abuse of authority. 
COSTS & FEES IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS (Section 452.355) 
Currently, a court may order a party in a divorce proceeding to pay a reasonable amount of court 
costs and attorneys' fees to the other party. This bill allows a court in an action to enforce a 
temporary order or final judgment in a divorce proceeding to order court costs and fees to be 
paid to the party seeking enforcement by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 
UNIFORM UNREGULATED CHILD CUSTODY TRANSFER ACT (Sections 453.700 to 
453.742) 
The bill establishes the "Uniform Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act", which specifies that 
a parent or guardian of a child or an individual with whom a child has been placed for adoption 
may not transfer custody of the child to another person with the intent, at the time of the transfer, 
to abandon the rights and responsibilities concerning the child. That type of transfer is only 
allowed through the methods specified in the bill. A person may not receive custody of a child, 
or act as an intermediary in a transfer of custody of a child, if the person knows or reasonably 
should know the transfer violates any provision in the bill. The person must notify Children's 
Division within the Department of Social Services of the transfer violation as soon as 
practicable. A violation of this matter is a class B misdemeanor. If the Children's Division has a 
reasonable basis to believe that a person has transferred or will transfer custody of a child in 
violation of the provisions in this bill, the Children's Division may conduct a home visit as 
provided by law and take appropriate action to protect the welfare of the child. Law enforcement 
agencies may also investigate a possible violation of the provisions in this bill. If the Children's 
Division conducts a home visit for a child adopted or placed through an inter-country adoption, 
the Children's Divisions must: (1) Prepare a report on the welfare and plan for permanent 
placement of the child; and (2) Provide a copy to the United States Department of State. A 
person may not solicit or advertise to find a person or child in violation of the provisions in the 
bill nor to act as an intermediary in violation of the provisions in this bill. A violation of this 
matter is as class B misdemeanor. 
Within a reasonable time before a child-placing agency places a child for adoption with a 
prospective adoptive parent, the agency must provide or have provided to the prospective  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 33 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
adoptive parent general adoption information, which should address the information as described 
in the bill, as well as information specific to the child that is known to or reasonably obtainable 
by the agency and material to the prospective adoptive parent’s informed decision to adopt the 
child, which must include information as specified in the bill. Also, a child-placing agency must 
provide or have provided to the prospective adoptive parent guidance and instruction specific to 
the child to help prepare the parent to respond effectively to needs of the child, which must 
address issues as specified in the bill. If new information is discovered by the child-placing 
agency at any point in the adoption process, it must provide that information to the prospective 
parent. Upon request from the child or the adoptive parent, the child-placing agency or the 
Children's Division will provide information about how to obtain financial assistance or support 
services: (1) To assist the child or parent to respond effectively to adjustment, behavioral health, 
and other challenges; and (2) To help preserve the placement or adoption. The Children's 
Division and law enforcement can initiate proceedings to determine whether a child-placing 
agency has failed to comply with the provisions in the bill, which can result in either law 
enforcement filing for injunctive relief or initiating an administrative proceeding, or Children's 
Division suspending or revoking the agency's license. 
BENTLEY AND MASON'S LAW (Section 454.1050) 
This bill establishes "Bentley and Mason's Law", which provides that, if a person is convicted of 
the offense of driving while intoxicated and the offense caused the death of a parent or guardian, 
the person must pay, pursuant to a court order, a monthly restitution to the child of the deceased 
parent or guardian until the child reaches 18 years of age or has graduated from high school. 
Monthly restitution will be determined and remitted as specified in the bill. If the person ordered 
to pay restitution is unable to make required monthly payments because the person is imprisoned 
or otherwise confined, the person must begin making the payments no later than the first 
anniversary of the date of the defendant's release from the correctional facility and must pay all 
arrearages, regardless of whether the payments were due to be terminated while the person was 
imprisoned or otherwise confined. The amount of restitution paid under this bill will be deducted 
from any civil judgment against the defendant. The Attorney General or a person, parent, or 
guardian of a child due restitution under the bill may enforce a restitution order issued in the 
same manner as a judgment in a civil action. 
CLASSIFICATION OF MINORS FOR ORDERS OF PROTECTION (Sections 455.010, 
455.035, and 455.513) 
This bill modifies the definitions of "adult" and "child" in provisions relating to orders of 
protection. An "adult" is any person 18, instead of 17, years of age or older and a "child" is any 
person under 18, instead of 17, years of age unless he or she is otherwise emancipated. 
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN CASES IN COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 
(Section 476.1025)  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 34 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
This bill provides that a parent, spouse, child, or personal representative of a person who was 
convicted of a misdemeanor offense may file a motion with a copy of the death certificate in the 
court of conviction to have the record made confidential on any automated case management 
system if the person has been deceased for six months or more. Prior to making the conviction 
confidential, the court must determine whether any person would be unfairly prejudiced by the 
confidentiality of the conviction. 
FUNDING OF BASIC CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PERSONS (Section 
477.650) 
Currently, the provision of law establishing the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund, which provides 
funding to legal services organizations in this state to provide civil legal services and 
representation to eligible low-income persons, is set to expire on December 31, 2025. This bill 
repeals the expiration date. 
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT COURTS (Section 478.001) 
The bill adds mental health courts to the list of treatment court divisions, defined as a court 
focused on addressing the mental health disorder or co-occurring disorder of defendants charged 
with a criminal offense. This bill specifies that a mental health treatment court may be 
established by any circuit court to provide an alternative for the judicial system to dispose of 
cases that stem from a mental health disorder or co-occurring disorder. 
REFERENCES TO THE CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 
(Section 487.110) 
The bill modifies references to the title and sections of law of Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction Act, which was repealed in 2009, to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Act for the provision relating to child custody proceedings in family courts. 
COMPENSATION OF JURORS (Sections 488.040 and 494.455) 
This bill specifies that each grand and petit juror will receive at least $6 per day for every day the 
juror actually serves and a mileage reimbursement rate as provided by law for State employees. 
Each county and the City of St. Louis may authorize additional compensation for its jurors. 
Alternatively, the court of a judicial circuit may, by a majority vote, vote to restructure juror 
compensation so that grand and petit jurors do not get paid for the first two days of service but 
thereafter will receive $50 per day, as well as mileage reimbursement at the rate provided by law 
for State employees for necessary travel from the juror's residence to the courthouse and back, to 
be paid by the county. 
CIVIL CASE FILING SURCHARGE (Section 488.426)  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 35 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Currently, any circuit court may collect a civil case filing surcharge of an amount not to exceed 
$15 for the maintenance of a law library, the county's or circuit's family services and justice 
fund, or courtroom renovation and technology enhancement. If the circuit court reimburses the 
state for salaries of family court commissioners or is the circuit court in Jackson County, the 
surcharge may be up to $20. The bill provides that the circuit court in the City of St. Louis may 
charge a filing surcharge up to $20. 
ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS OF CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PERSONS IN 
CRIMINAL CASES (Sections 491.075 and 492.304) 
Currently, a statement made by a child under 14 years of age may be admissible in criminal 
proceedings under certain circumstances. This bill changes the age to a child under the age of 18 
years of age. Additionally, the bill provides that visual or audio recordings of a child under 18 
years of age or a vulnerable person, as defined in the bill, relating to certain criminal offenses 
shall be admissible in criminal proceedings under certain circumstances. 
EXCLUSION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN COURT DOCUMENTS (Section 509.520) 
Currently, certain information must be excluded from pleadings, attachments, exhibits, 
judgments, orders, or other records of the court but must be included in a confidential 
information sheet filed with the court, which will not be subject to public inspection or 
availability. This bill modifies the provision to include information concerning a witness in a 
criminal case that is confidential as otherwise provided by law or rule and any other information 
redacted for good cause by order of the court. 
UNIFORM INTERSTATE DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY ACT (Sections 510.500 to 
510.521) 
The bill establishes the "Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act". This bill provides 
procedures and processes for when a subpoena for discovery or a deposition is submitted in 
Missouri by a party in a foreign jurisdiction. 
INFORMATION RECEIVED BY PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS (Section 559.125)
This bill modifies provisions relating to privileged information received by probation or parole 
officers which must not be receivable in any court except for criminal proceedings. 
OFFENSE OF ENTICEMENT OF A CHILD AND OFFENSE OF PATRONIZING 
PROSTITUTION (Sections 566.151 and 567.030) 
Currently, a person over 21 years old commits the offense of enticement of a child if he or she 
persuades any person less than 15 years old to engage in sexual conduct. This bill changes the 
age to less than 17 years old. Additionally, the bill modifies the offense of patronizing  L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 36 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
prostitution. If the person patronized for prostitution is over 15 years old but under 18 years old it 
is a class E felony and if the person is 15 years old or younger it is a class B felony. 
CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND (Section 595.045)
This bill adds that a person who pleads guilty to a class E felony must pay a fee of $46 payable 
to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund
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
Attorney General’s Office
Office of Administration – 
Administrative Hearing Commission
Budget and Planning
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
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Corrections
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Revenue
Department of Public Safety –
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Capitol Police
Fire Safety
Director’s Office
Missouri Gaming Commission
Missouri Highway Patrol
Missouri Veterans Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Department of Social Services
Office of the Governor
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri National Guard
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Office of Administration L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 37 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund
Office of the Secretary of State
Office of the State Treasurer
Office of the State Public Defender
University of Missouri System
City of Kansas City
Jackson County Board of Election Commissioners
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis City Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Newton County Health Department
Lincoln County Assessor
Clay County Auditor
Phelps County Sheriff
County Employees Retirement Fund
Kansas City Civilian Policer Employees’ Retirement
Kansas City Police Retirement System
Kansas City Public School Retirement System
Public Education Employees’ Retirement System
Sheriff’s Retirement System
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Morgan County Public Water Supply District #2
South River Drainage District
St. Charles County Public Water Supply District #2
Wayne County Public Water Supply District #2
Northwest Missouri State University
University of Central Missouri
Office of the State Auditor
Missouri House of Representatives
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Joint Committee on Education
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Legislative Research
Oversight Division
Missouri Senate
Missouri Lottery Commission
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan L.R. No. 0789H.03I 
Bill No. HB 83  
Page 38 of 38
February 19, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Courts Administrator
State Tax Commission
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 19, 2025February 19, 2025