COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0789H.05C Bill No.:HCS for 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:March 7, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to civil jurisprudence.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2032)
General
Revenue*
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$623,616)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could exceed
$623,616)
*§478.001 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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 2 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2032)
State Highway
&Transportation
Dept. Fund
(0644)($189,484)($227,657)($232,210)
(More than
$232,210)
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 $363,705)
Unknown, (Less
than $826,098)
Unknown, (Less
than $830,651)
Unknown, (Less
than $830,651)
*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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 3 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2032)
State Highway
&Transportation
Dept. Fund
(MHP) 1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE
Basic Civil Legal
Services Fund
(OSCA)**2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTE 3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE
** 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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 4 of
March 7, 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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 5 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Vital Records and the 115 local public health agencies (LPHAs), in total, currently issue
approximately 827,695 birth, death, and marriage certificates each year.
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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 6 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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.
MOPS officials state this provision would provide for a positive fiscal impact to prosecuting
attorneys and the circuit attorney since they will not have to pay for birth, death, or marriage
certificates. The amount of that positive fiscal impact is unknown.
Oversight assumes, based on the information provided by MOPS above (less than 1,000 vital
records per year * $14/record = < $14,000), that the unknown impact to locals is minimal and
will present no fiscal impact to local governments for this provision.
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.
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 7 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial
costs, DHSS could request funding through the appropriation process.
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
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 states 1) 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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 8 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
§287.610 – Administrative Law Judges
Officials from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DOLIR) state there would
an impact if paying attorney fees on a complaint made against an ALJ by the Director to the
AHC that was found to be invalid. However, the impact is unknown and incalculable because
DOLIR doesn't know how much an attorney fee would be.
Oversight assumes attorney fees related to a complaint filed would be minimal and absorbable
by DOLIR and will present no fiscal impact for this agency. Oversight further assumes, if fees
were significant, DOLIR could request additional funding through the appropriations process.
§§287.615 & 287.835 – Administrative Law Judges
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume
§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. Section 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 it will not affect retirement plan benefits as defined in
Section 105.660(9).
§§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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 9 of
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 10 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
§§455.010, 455.035 & 455.513 – Orders of Protection
Oversight notes officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office
have no fiscal impact on their organization. However, in response to the previous version of this
legislation, the Clay County Auditor indicated a cost of $5,000 per year due to the increase in
age for appointing a Guardian ad Litem from 17 to 18. In the previous fiscal note, Oversight
assumed the Clay County Auditor’s Office would be able to absorb this minimal expense and
presented no fiscal impact for the agency.
§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 11 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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:
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 $8 in the associate circuit
courts. The fund has received the following receipts during FY 2020 to FY 2024: L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 12 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Basic Civil Legal Services Fund (0757)FY 20$ 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) 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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 13 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
§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
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 14 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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.
§§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.
Oversight notes officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office
have no fiscal impact on their organization. However, in response to the previous version of this
legislation, the Clay County Auditor indicated 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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 15 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
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.
§509.520 – Court Pleadings, Attachments, and Exhibits
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 16 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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 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
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 $189,494 for FY26; $227,657
for FY27; and $232,210 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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 17 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
§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.
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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 18 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
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 the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the following
sections may have some fiscal impact on their organization, but the impact is unknown that this
time. If additional resources are needed, they will be requested during the appropriations process.
Sections with an unknown impact: §287.610, §§469.399-469.487, §476.1025, §487.110 and
§§510.500-510.521.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes the above sections 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 impact of the above proposed sections 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 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.
In response to the previous version of this proposal, officials from the University of Missouri
System (UM) stated 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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 19 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of Administration - Administrative Hearing Commission, the
Department of Commerce and Insurance, 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
Public Safety, Divisions of: Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Capitol Police, Fire Safety,
Missouri Gaming Commission, Missouri Veterans Commission and the State Emergency
Management Agency, the Department of Social Services, the Office of the Governor, the
Missouri Department of AgricultureMissouri Department of Conservation, the
Missouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Missouri
National Guard, the MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System, the Petroleum
Storage Tank Insurance Fund, the City of Kansas City, the Platte County Board of
Elections, the St. Louis City Board of Elections, the St. Louis County Board of Elections
Newton County Health DepartmentPhelps County SheriffCounty 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
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the South River Drainage District, the Wayne
County Public Water Supply District #2, 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.
In response to the previous version of this proposal, officials from the Department of Economic
Development, the Department of RevenueOffice of the State Public Defender, the
Jackson County Board of Election CommissionersLincoln County Assessor, the St.
Charles County Public Water Supply District #2 and Northwest Missouri State University
each assumed the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their organizations.
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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 20 of 31
March 7, 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.12-13
$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. 8
$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 – DOC (§510.506) –
foreign subpoena costs p.15
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Costs – DOC (§559.125) –
privileged information requests
p.16
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Costs – DOC (§595.045) –
possible staff needed to enter
fines p.16(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Transfer Out – (§478.001) – to
establish mental health treatment
courts p.12-13
$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 to
(Unknown,
Could
exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could
exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown
Could
exceed
$600,000)
Unknown to
(Unknown,
Could
exceed
$623,616) L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 21 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2032)
State Highway
&Transportation Dept. Fund
(0644)
Costs – DPS-MHP (§§510.500 –
510.521) p.16More than…
Personal service($97,420)($119,242)($121,627)($121,627) Fringe benefits($88,574)($108,415)($110,583)($110,583) Equipment and expense($3,500)$0$0$0Total Costs – DPS-MHP($189,484)($227,657)($232,210)($232,210) FTE Change – MHP1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTEESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON THE ROAD FUND($189,484)($227,657)($232,210)
More than
($232,210)
Estimated Net FTE Change on
the Road Fund1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE
CRIME VICTIMS’
COMPENSATION FUND
(0681)
Revenue – DPS (§595.045)
Class E felony fee ($46 per) p.
17
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 22 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2032)
TREATMENT COURT
RESOURCES FUND (0733)Transfer In – funds from GR
(§478.001) p. 12-13
$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. 12-13
$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
BASIC CIVIL LEGAL
SERVICES FUND (0757)
Revenue – OSCA – continuation
of receipts received from $8
court fee (§477.650) p. 10-12$2,035,376$4,070,753$4,070,753$4,070,753
Cost – OSCA – continuation of
expenditures (§477.650) p. 10-12($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.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 23 of 31
March 7, 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.8-9
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.8-9
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.15
$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) p.14(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 (§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 24 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
MISSOURI UNIFORM FIDUCIARY INCOME AND PRINCIPAL ACT (§§214.330 and
469.399 to 469.487)
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 25 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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;
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 (§§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
(§§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 26 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
PAYMENT AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
(§§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.
COURT DISSOLUTION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (§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.
UNIFORM UNREGULATED CHILD CUSTODY TRANSFER ACT (§§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 27 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
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.
CLASSIFICATION OF MINORS FOR ORDERS OF PROTECTION (§§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
(§476.1025)
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 (§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 28 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT COURTS (§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 (§
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 (§§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 (§488.426)
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.
EXCLUSION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN COURT DOCUMENTS (§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. L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 29 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
UNIFORM INTERSTATE DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY ACT (§§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 (§ 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.
CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND (§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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 30 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
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
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
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 L.R. No. 0789H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 83
Page 31 of 31
March 7, 2025
HWC:LR:OD
Missouri Lottery Commission
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Courts Administrator
State Tax Commission
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 7, 2025March 7, 2025