COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1249S.01I Bill No.:SB 350 Subject:Administrative Law; General Assembly Type:Original Date:February 23, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal requires the General Assembly to approve proposed
administrative rules with a fiscal note over $250,000.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
*Oversight assumes the unknown impact could exceed $250,000 annually.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Various State Funds*$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
*Oversight assumes the unknown impact could exceed $250,000 annually. L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 2 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Federal Funds$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)
*Oversight assumes the unknown impact could exceed $250,000 annually.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue0 or Unknown FTE0 or Unknown FTE0 or Unknown FTETotal Estimated Net
Effect on FTE0 or Unknown FTE0 or Unknown FTE0 or Unknown 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 AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Local Government$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown)$0 to (Unknown) L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 3 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) state this proposal adds section
536.180, requiring ratification by concurrent resolution by the general assembly of any state
rulemaking with an expenditure of public funds more than $250,000. The governor also must
sign this concurrent resolution before the secretary of state may publish an order of rulemaking.
The Department of Mental Health (DMH) has several concerns with this proposal. First, this
ratification process will prolong an already lengthy process for promulgation of Code of State
Regulations (CSRs). This process is lengthy for both new rules and amendment of existing rules,
and the review and ratification process would apply to both types of promulgation. This would
affect DMH's ability to administer existing programs as well as initiate new ones. Failure to
ratify could require restarting the process of promulgation, including public comment and
response, delaying service delivery. Typically funding for a program has already been
appropriated prior to CSR promulgation, and adding this delay to the CSR process will delay the
delivery of services as directed by the general assembly. Because the legislature must pass a
concurrent resolution, such rulemaking could only take place during legislative session, or
potentially a special session, for which the governor must set the agenda. Additionally, there
does not appear to be a process to enact emergency rulemaking should such emergency rule be
required. Finally, the department risks the loss of federal funding due to delay in implementation
of required programs.
The potential impact for this legislation could be between $0 and up to $2.7 billion in FY26,
FY27 and FY28. The impact may increase depending on if funding for a program was already
appropriated prior to CSR promulgation and adding this delay to the CSR process will delay the
delivery of services to their consumers as directed by the general assembly.
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources state 536.180 states, "Any state agency
filing a notice of proposed rulemaking, as required by section 536.021, wherein the adoption,
amendment, or rescission of the rule would require or result in an expenditure of public funds by
or a reduction in public revenues for that agency or any other state agency in excess of two
hundred fifty thousand dollars shall, in addition to the requirements of section 536.200, file
notification with the joint committee on administrative rules of such proposed rule. A proposed
rule subject to the provisions of this section shall not become effective unless and until the
general assembly adopts a concurrent resolution in accordance with the provisions of Article IV,
Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution to approve such proposed rule." This proposed legislation
could have potentially adverse fiscal impacts to the department if rules necessary to maintain
federal delegations of authority are delayed or not adopted by a concurrent resolution by the
General Assembly to proceed. L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 4 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
Because state rules are largely based on federal regulations and cannot be less stringent than
federal requirements, the proposed language may make it more difficult to fulfill federal
obligations for state review and revision of the state environmental rules pursuant to the Clean
Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water
Act. If the department is unable to meet federal regulatory requirements to maintain delegated
authority, the state could lose the associated federal funding.
State revenue could be impacted if the state were to lose delegated authorities to implement
federal environmental laws, such as drinking water primacy, clean water act, clean air act,
hazardous waste management, solid waste management, and scrap tire, etc. The EPA would
implement the federal regulations tied to the various federal environmental laws. The state would
then lose the associated federal funding tied to the programs and related state fee revenues.
Although the bill language would not result in the immediate loss of federal delegated authority
for the Air Pollution Control Program, over time the inability to promulgate new rules or amend
existing rules without rescinding two existing rules at the same time could have this impact.
As such, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown but could range as high as all the fees and federal
funds which would be received in the future.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) state this proposal attempts to modify the
existing rule-making process that agencies must follow in order to create an administrative rule
(a CSR). This proposal is requiring approval from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
for any rule that would require or result in an expenditure of public funds by or a reduction in
public revenue of more than $250,000. It also says that the rule cannot become effective until
approval is received from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
The current rule-making authority in statutes prohibits an agency from promulgating a rule
unless they are expressly given authority by the General Assembly. Currently, DOR must be
given express direction from the General Assembly in a piece of legislation in order for rules to
be created on legislation. The General Assembly gives that authority when creating a bill that
requires DOR to implement. If the General Assembly wishes to allow DOR to figure out the
details of implementation, they add language to the bill that DOR SHALL promulgate rules. L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 5 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
Additionally, the General Assembly adds that DOR MAY promulgate rules when they have
given basic instructions on the program but know that more detailed instructions may be needed.
The MAY allows DOR to work out procedures with or without going through the rule-making
process.
The current rule-making process is tedious and generally takes more than six months from the
first filing of the rule until it becomes law. DOR only implements rules when required or when
they believe it is necessary to answer questions arising from taxpayers.
DOR notes that requiring approval of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules prior to
implementing a rule would leave many of their rules in limbo awaiting approval and could put
them in jeopardy of not complying with statutes or not implementing legislation that is passed.
DOR just completed their five- year review of their rules and reviewing/updating the
approximately 290 of them. They are continuing to make updates that could be slowed down by
this process.
DOR is unable to predict which rules would not be implemented or which laws in the future will
not be implemented pending approval by the Committee.
Additionally, this proposal makes all proposed rules null, void and unenforceable unless refiled
and receive the approval of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. DOR notes that if all
the Department’s rules are unenforceable under this provision, this could remove people’s ability
to claim certain tax credits, take certain tax deductions and make it harder for people to file
individual and corporate taxes. Additionally, without many of their rules, taxpayers wishing to
register their motor vehicles and receive their driver licenses may have a more difficult time.
The fiscal impact to this provision is unknown.
Having to resubmit all rules with new paperwork may require DOR to need an additional FTE to
handle the processing, filing and tracking of the rules.
Oversight contacted DOR officials and determined the fiscal impact for their agency would be a
$0 to (unknown) amount to General Revenue. Oversight assumes unknown costs will exceed
$250,000 annually.
Officials from the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) state the fiscal impact of this
legislation is unknown. With the legislature only available certain times of the year, this process
could hinder state agencies from being able to act quickly enough to protect the public. For
example, within MDA this could be in the instance of animal disease outbreak or an unforeseen
fuel safety issue.
Oversight contacted MDA officials and determined the fiscal impact for their agency would be
$0 to (unknown). MDA indicated the impact would effect general revenue, various MDA fee L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 6 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
funds and potential federal funds. Oversight will present the $0 to (unknown) impact to these
funds. Oversight assumes the impact is greater than $250,000 annually to each fund.
Oversight assumes there could be costs to state agencies to promulgate rules in a shorter time
frame (rulemaking could only take place during legislative session). Therefore, Oversight
assumes an unknown cost to state agencies for additional staff.
Additionally, Oversight assumes there could be an impact to general revenue, various state
funds, federal funds and local political subdivisions if rules are not passed timely due to the
shorter timeframe (or as a result of emergency events occurring outside of the legislative
session).
Rule Promulgation
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the
General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the
office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding
for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a
review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Officials from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, the Missouri House of
Representatives, the Missouri Senate, the Office of Administration (Administrative Hearing
Commission, and Budget and Planning), thethe
Department of Economic Development, the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, the
Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Corrections, the
of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of Public Safety (Office of the Director,
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Capitol Police, Fire Safety, Missouri Gaming
Commission, Missouri Highway Patrol, Missouri Veterans Commission and State
Emergency Management Agency), the Department of Social Services, the Office of the
Governor, Missouri 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
Office of the State Public Defender, the Office of the State Treasurer and the University of
Missouri System each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective
organizations. L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 7 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUECosts – (§536.180) – reduced
rulemaking timeframe requiring
additional FTE
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Loss of funds – (§536.180) – reduced
rulemaking timeframe
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
VARIOUS STATE FUNDSLoss of funds – (§536.180) – reduced
rulemaking timeframe
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
VARIOUS STATE FUNDS
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
FEDERAL FUNDSLoss of funds – (§536.180) – reduced
rulemaking timeframe
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
FEDERAL FUNDS
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown) L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 8 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
$0$0$0Loss of funds – (§536.180) – reduced
rulemaking timeframe
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(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 states for any proposed administrative rule submitted by a state agency
that will result in the expenditure of public funds or a reduction in state revenues greater than
$250,000, this act provides that such proposed rule shall not become effective until approved by
the General Assembly through passage of a concurrent resolution.
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
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Missouri House of Representatives
Missouri Senate
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 L.R. No. 1249S.01I
Bill No. SB 350
Page 9 of
February 23, 2025
BR:LR:OD
Department of Public Safety
Office of the Director
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Capitol Police
Fire Safety
Missouri Gaming Commission
Missouri Veterans Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Department of Social Services
Office of the Governor
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri National Guard
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund
Office of the Secretary of State
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the State Treasurer
University of Missouri System
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 23, 2025February 23, 2025