COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0162H.05C Bill No.:HCS for HB 953 Subject:Courts; Crimes and Punishment; Criminal Procedure Type:Original Date:March 10, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to proceedings resulting from
criminal conduct.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
General RevenueUp to
($29,472,343)
Up to
($57,525,110)
Could exceed
($86,043,006)
Likely to exceed
($85,343,006)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
General
Revenue
Up to
($29,472,343)
Up to
($57,525,110)
Could exceed
($86,043,006)
Likely to exceed
($85,343,006)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
Missouri
Expungement
Fund* $0$0$0$0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
Other State
Funds $0$0$0$0
*Transfer-In and expenses net to zero.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 2 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
All Federal
Funds $0$0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
Missouri
Expungement
FundUp to 268 FTEUp to 536 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE
Total Estimated
Net Effect on
FTEUp to 268 FTEUp to 536 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
Local
Government$0$0$0(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes the fiscal impact could reach the $250,000 threshold. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 3 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§§565.030, 610.141, 610.142, 610.143, and 610.144 – Proceedings from criminal conduct
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP)
currently, there are approximately 10,750,000 conviction records in the Traffic Arrest
System/Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (TAS/DWITS) that could possibly meet the
criteria of this proposed legislation. This does not include driving while intoxicated-related
offenses as these are excluded from expungement pursuant to Section 610.140. These
expungements are processed by the Patrol Records Division. In addition, the Patrol anticipates
receiving over 380,000 Criminal History Records System expungement requests per year. These
requests are processed within the Patrol by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division.
Once the court expungement order is received by the Patrol, the Patrol Records Division and the
Criminal Justice Information Services Division personnel would be required to make certain the
individual(s) meets the criteria for expungement noted in this legislation. There are not enough
existing Patrol personnel to handle the potential increased volume of expungement requests
resulting from this proposed legislation. The Patrol is factoring a range as far as the number of
personnel needed in order to provide an idea of what the costs may be. In addition, there is an
average of 300,000 court dispositions with the offense class of misdemeanor, infraction, or local
ordinance and a finding of guilty or guilty-SIS added to TAS/DWITS each year.
The Patrol anticipates the need to begin the design and build process for the technical interface
with the courts in FY 2026. Due to the complexity of the new criminal history system build
project, it is anticipated the project could take at least three (3) years to build to be ready for the
August 28, 2030 implementation, with an estimated appropriated need of between $500,000 and
$750,000 for each of the three (3) fiscal years and an ongoing maintenance cost of $50,000
beginning in FY 2029. This would include the extensive testing needed for the interface and
training of new Patrol personnel on the system. Due to the large volume of records, the Patrol
will also need to start the process of hiring and training personnel in FY 2026 in an effort to be
prepared for the implementation as required in Sections 610.141.2(1) and 610.141.3(2). Included
within the costs would be leased space, a computer system software upgrade, and expense and
equipment such as office equipment and computers.
The Patrol will process the requested expungements within two separate divisions. Those
divisions are identified as the Patrol Records Divisions (PRD) and the Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) Division. Each division is tasked with varying processes for each
expungement type.
The MHP calculates that one (1) Patrol Records Division (PRD) FTE can process approximately
3,728 expungements per year. Considering this bill automates the expungement process and
excludes the filing of a petition for expungement, a 15% or more expungement of records is
realistic. With the current 10,750,000 records possibly eligible for expungement, the following L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 4 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
percentages of persons actually receiving an expungement will directly relate to the number of
Patrol Records Division FTEs required:
1% = 10,750,000 x .01 = 107,500 / 3,728 = 29 FTEs
5% = 10,750,000 x .05 = 537,500 / 3,728 = 144 FTEs
10% = 10,750,000 x .10 = 1,075,000 / 3,728 = 288 FTEs
15% = 10,750,000 x .15 = 1,612,500 / 3,728 = 432 FTEs
One (1) Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) FTE can process approximately
1,920 expungement orders per month. Based upon recent data, the CJIS Division estimates
receiving 32,000 expungement orders per month (32,000/1,920 = 16.67 FTE). With this data, the
MHP anticipates needing seventeen (17) additional FTE within the CJIS Division Technicians to
process the potential expungements along with two (2) CJIS Supervisors and one (1) Program
Manager for a total of 20 FTE.
The MHP states that without space available for the additional personnel needed to fulfill the
requirements of this legislation, the Patrol would need leased space for the additional employees.
A cost range is based on existing leased space in Cole County. In looking at existing leased
space, the range would be from $9.11/square foot to $11.50/square foot. For 175 employees,
approximately 37,188 square feet would be needed (175 employees x 212.5 square feet) and for
502 employees, approximately 106,463 square feet would be needed (502 employees x 212.5
square feet). Therefore, total estimated annual leasing costs in Cole County for 175 FTE would
be between $338,783 and $427,662. The estimated annual leasing costs for 502 FTE would be
between $969,878 and $1,224,325.
MHP states the total number of FTE will be hired over a three (3) year period. The only
exception to this will be the title 'CJIS Program Coordinator'. There is only one needed and the
plan will be to hire that person in the first year. Appropriation for these costs would either come
from the newly created Missouri Expungement Fund, as identified in Section 610.144.1(1) or
from General Revenue, if there is no appropriation in the Missouri Expungement Fund.
Oversight notes the MHP assumes it could hire up to 505 FTE in total (432 PRD FTE + 43 PRD
Supervisor FTE + 20 CJIS FTE + 7 program manager/supervisor/assistant director and 3
maintenance FTE = 505 FTE) and will range associated costs as “up to” the estimates provided.
However, Oversight assumes the MHP would not hire up to 505 FTE in the first year of the
proposal. Oversight assumes, instead, that the MHP will hire up to one-third or 168 FTE in
FY 2026 to train and begin the process of identifying records eligible for expungement on/before
August 28, 2025, and further assumes MHP will hire up to an additional 168 FTE in FY 2027
and the remaining FTE in FY 2028 for a total of 505 FTE. Oversight also assumes leased space
for 502 of the 505 FTE (no office space for maintenance staff) will be needed as well as
equipment and expense and will present approximately one-third of the costs estimated by MHP
for each year. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 5 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
Oversight notes the provisions of this bill state beginning August 28, 2030, all electronic records
and files pertaining to clean slate eligible offenses shall be closed in the manner established
under §610.120 without filing of a petition. In addition, beginning August 28, 2030, on a
monthly basis, the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) is to identify and transmit
eligible expungements to the Central Repository within 30 days of the record becoming eligible
for expungement. Digital records that are eligible for expungement on or before August 28,
2025, shall be identified and expunged by August 28, 2030. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a
cost of up to $750,000 annually from FY 2026 through FY 2028 for this technical interface and
an ongoing maintenance cost of $50,000 beginning in FY 2029.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) state the fiscal impact on
Show-Me Courts and possibly other systems would be approximately $3,000,000 to $5,000,000
to develop with an annual cost of approximately $1,000,000 to manage the system.
OSCA notes the proposed legislation includes directives to the State Courts Administrator that
would require no less than 13 FTE with a personal services cost of $903,148, fringe benefit costs
of $557,062 and expense and equipment costs of $263,548 ($136,006 one-time cost), for a total
cost of approximately $1,723,758.
Additionally, a minimum of $12,710,174 personal service costs for 287 FTE court clerks or
equivalent at OSCA plus $854,686 ($607,579 one-time cost) E&E totaling $13,564,860 would
be needed to process the approximate electronic expungement cases, to an unknown amount of
FTE. (Oversight calculated fringe benefit costs for 287 FTE.)
Oversight has no information to the contrary. Oversight assumes OSCA would hire the 13 FTE
needed to create and establish the program as well as the $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 to develop
the program in FY2026.
Oversight assumes OSCA would not hire 287 court clerk FTE in FY 2026. For consistency
purposes, Oversight will present OSCA’s cost similar to the MHP, hiring up to one-third (100
FTE) for FY 2026 (13 FTE and 87 court clerks) and an additional 100 FTE (court clerks) in FY
2027 and FY 2028 for a total of 300 FTE. FTE and costs for FY2028 will be presented as “Could
exceed…” as OSCA states the court clerk FTE are considered a minimum.
Oversight notes §610.144 establishes a new fund which consists of moneys appropriated by the
General Assembly to the fund or any gifts, bequests, or grants. The Department of Public Safety,
the Information Services Division within the Office of Administration and Office of the State
Courts Administrator will be able to expend moneys from this fund, upon appropriation, for
implementation costs, system upgrades or staffing needs incurred under §§610.141 to 610.143.
For fiscal note purposes, Oversight will reflect the cost for this program as Up to ($29,472,343)
for FY 2026; Up to ($57,525,110) for FY 2027; Could exceed ($86,043,066) for FY 2028;
and Likely to exceed ($85,343,006) for FY 2031 to the General Revenue Fund. Additionally,
Oversight also assumes an unknown income to the Missouri Expungement Fund from gifts,
grants, or donations. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 6 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
For fiscal note purposes, Oversight assumes services provided under this proposal will equal
income and net to zero.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state this proposal modifies provisions
relating to proceedings resulting from criminal conduct.
Expunging these records for the specified offenses in section 610.141, through destruction or
removal will result in an increase in workload for their Institutional Records Officers, as they are
the custodian of records for their offender files. This may also affect records kept at Probation
and Parole Offices.
While the department assumes a $0 to Unknown impact, there is some concern for tracking
previous medical, mental health, substance use treatment, and education records should the
offender return to supervision by the department.
If there should be a significant number of additional requests for expungement or a significant
expansion in the number of offenses that could be expunged, it could result in additional costs to
the DOC.
Oversight does not have any information contrary to that provided by DOC. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect a $0 (can absorb) to DOC’s (unknown) impact to the General Revenue
Fund. Oversight assumes DOC could have an impact for record review prior to the
implementation date.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) state §610.141.2(2) provides that records
pertaining to juvenile adjudications or offenses involving the operation of a motor vehicle are not
eligible for automated expungement. The department anticipates that it would continue to receive
court orders of expungement for any conviction or action related to these sections to be reviewed
and processed manually by the DOR; §610.141.3(10) states the DOR has thirty (30) days to
expunge the records once the order is received from the court; and §610.141.6 states that the
provisions of this section shall apply retroactively.
Administrative Impact
With the statutory requirement of thirty (30) days to process the expungement, and the
provisions applying retroactively, the department is concerned that its existing staff may not be
able to process the volume of orders in the mandated timeframe. There is no data to assist in
determining the volume of orders the department will receive but anticipate it will not cause
additional FTE. If the increase is more significant than anticipated, and unable to be absorbed by
existing staff, additional FTE may be requested through the routine appropriations process.
Section 610.141(3) allows the State Court Administrator to request an income tax offset for any
delinquent court costs, fines, fees or other court related costs. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 7 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
The Department is required by statute to have a program that allows us to redirect a refund
payment owed to a taxpayer to an approved organization that the taxpayer owes an outstanding
debt (debt offset program). Currently, per statute the program collects for the IRS, Missouri state
agencies, Missouri housing authorities and community college districts. This proposal will
expand the Department’s program to require they add municipalities (cities and counties) with
populations over 250,000. This would add the counties and the city of St. Louis and Kansas City
to their program.
This will require DOR to update the individual income tax computer system with new codes for
these organizations. This is estimated to cost $15,000.
The way the program works currently is before DOR issues a refund to a taxpayer, DOR checks
their name against the debt offset list. Approved organizations send us the name and amounts
they are owed. If a refund is owed to a taxpayer who is on an approved organizations list, the
refund is redirected to the approved organization. A notice is emailed to the approved
organization alerting them that the refund will be redirected to them, and they are provided with
a copy of a notice to the taxpayer for them to send. The approved organization then mails the
taxpayer the notice of the tax refund being redirected and lets them know their remaining
balance.
If a taxpayer owes to more than one approved organization, the refund is applied in the following
order until their debt with that organization is paid off. DOR has also included the amount DOR
collected in calendar year 2024:
MO Department of Revenue Income Tax Debts - $32,106,328
MO State Agencies - $17,280,956
MO College (including community colleges) - $5,230,443
MO Housing Authorities - $132,326
Kansas Dept. of Revenue – Department has a reciprocal agreement - $570,571
Counties and Cities would be added to the end of the list.
During 2022 – 2024, the IRS asked DOR not to do debt offsets on their behalf. DOR will be
restarting those collections in 2025. They will receive their amounts after the DOR Income Tax
Debts and before other state agencies.
The Department notes that most refund payments do not make it very far down the list of
approved organizations.
Oversight assumes DOR is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of computer
programming activity each year. Oversight assumes DOR could absorb the programming costs
related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at
substantial costs, DOR could request funding through the appropriation process. L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 8 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
Officials from the Office of Administration (OA) assume the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their organization. OA states from the plain language of this bill, it appears that a state
agency obtaining a credit report could be a “user of information”. However, the violation
identified in section 610.144 for which a penalty could be assessed is only for improperly
“reporting” an arrest, indictment or conviction. A state agency using information from a credit
agency would not appear to be “reporting” that information. Therefore, OA assumes that there
would be no impact from this bill. If OA’s interpretation of this provision is incorrect, fiscal
impact to the LEF could result.
Officials from the Branson Police Department
an additional Records Clerk to research and complete all automatic expungement orders. With
salary and benefits, this will cost the agency over $70,000 and does not factor in the additional
time of a Records Supervisor or PD Command level officer to review and make final
determinations on the expungement orders.
Officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO)
arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources. The AGO may seek
additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or
investigation costs.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes the
AGO will be able to perform any additional duties required by this proposal with current staff
and resources and will reflect no fiscal impact to the AGO for fiscal note purposes.
Officials from the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations, the Department of Social Services, the Missouri Department of
Transportation, the Missouri Lottery Commission, the Missouri Office of Prosecution
ServicesOffice of the Governor, the Office of the State Public DefenderOffice of
the State Treasurer, the City of Kansas City, the City of Osceola, the Phelps County
Sheriff’s Department, the Kansas City Police Department, and the St. Louis County Police
Department each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Office of the Director
Department of Public Safety - Missouri Highway Patrol for the potential fiscal impact of this
proposal.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities, circuit clerks, county prosecutors, and local law enforcement 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. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 9 of
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT
– State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
GENERAL
REVENUE
Cost – DOC
(§610.141)
Expungement of
records p. 6
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Transfer Out – To
the Missouri
Expungement Fund
p. 5
Up to
($29,472,343)
Up to
($57,525,110)
Could exceed
($86,043,006)
Likely to
exceed
($85,343,006)
ESTIMATED
NET EFFECT
ON GENERAL
REVENUE
Up to
($29,472,343)
Up to
($57,525,110)
Could exceed
($86,043,006)
Likely to
exceed
($85,343,006)
MISSOURI
EXPUNGEMENT
FUND
Income – Gifts,
grants, donations
(§610.144) p. 5$0$0$0$0 to Unknown
Transfer In – from
General Revenue
(§§610.141 –
610.144) p. 5
Up to
$29,472,343
Up to
$57,525,110
Could exceed
$86,043,006
Likely to
exceed
$85,343,006
Cost – MHP
(§§610.141 to
610.144) p. 3-5Up to…Up to…Could exceed…
Likely to
exceed…
Personal Service($8,073,273)($19,763,373)($30,237,961)($30,237,961) Fringe Benefits($7,340,220)($17,968,859)($27,492,354)($27,492,354) Exp. & Equip. ($124,500)($249,000)($373,500)($373,500) L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 10 of 12
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT
– State
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
Leased office
space
Up to
($1,020,267)($1,224,325)($1,224,325)($1,224,325)
Total Cost – MHP($16,558,260) ($39,205,557) ($59,328,140)($59,328,140) FTE Change –
MHPUp to 168 FTE Up to 336 FTEUp to 505 FTEUp to 505 FTE
Cost – MHP p. 3-5
Criminal Records
System Updates
Up to
($750,000)
Up to
($750,000)
Up to
($750,000)($50,000)
Cost – OSCA
(§§610.141 to
610.144) p. 5 Up to…Up to…Could exceed…
Likely to
exceed…
Personal Service($3,963,358)($9,368,323)($14,163,204)($14,163,204) Fringe Benefits($2,896,001)($6,906,910)($10,411,877)($10,411,877) Exp. & Equip.($304,714)($294,320)($389,785)($389,785)Total Cost - OSCA($7,164,083)($16,569,553)($24,964,866)($24,964,866) FTE Change -
OSCAUp to 100 FTEUp to 200 FTE
Could exceed
300 FTE
Could exceed
300 FTE
Cost - OSCA –
Show-Me Courts &
Other System
updates and
maintenance p. 5
($3,000,000 to
$5,000,000)($1,000,000)($1,000,000)($1,000,000)
ESTIMATED
NET EFFECT
ON THE
MISSOURI
EXPUNGEMENT
FUND $0$0$0$0
Estimated Net FTE
Change on the
Missouri
Expungement Fund Up to 268 FTEUp to 536 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE
Could exceed
805 FTE L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 11 of 12
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT
– Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully
Implemented
(FY 2031)
LOCAL
POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Cost – (§610.141)
Increase in claims
and/or costs to
expunge records
p. 8 $0$0$0(Unknown)
ESTIMATED
NET EFFECT
ON LOCAL
POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS$0$0$0(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation modifies provisions relating to proceedings resulting from criminal
conduct.
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
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Department of Corrections
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Public Safety
Department of Revenue
Department of Social Services
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri Lottery Commission L.R. No. 0162H.05C
Bill No. HCS for HB 953
Page 12 of 12
March 10, 2025
DD:LR:OD
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Office of Administration
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the State Treasurer
City of Kansas City
City of Osceola
Phelps County Sheriff’s Department
Branson Police Department
Kansas City Police Department
St. Louis County Police Department
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 10, 2025March 10, 2025