COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 0086-09
Bill No.: SS for SCS for HB 69 w/ SA 1
Subject: Political Subdivisions
Type: Original
Date: May 17, 2007
Bill Summary: Modifies laws relating to political subdivisions.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
General Revenue |
(More than $18,349,205) |
(more than $13,300,518) |
(more than $9,873,894) |
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
(More than $18,396,074) |
(more than $13,300,518) |
(more than $9,873,894) |
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
Board of Fund Commissioners |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
State School Monies |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Highway |
($8,400 to Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
School District Trust |
($5,945,500 to Unknown) |
($4,290,000 to Unknown) |
($3,144,500 to Unknown) |
Parks and Soil |
($594,550 to Unknown) |
($429,000 to Unknown) |
($314,450 to Unknown) |
Conservation |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
Road |
At Least $33,610,738 |
More than $26,805,250 |
More than $19,674,512 |
Blind Pension Trust |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
Bingo Proceeds for Education Fund |
($1,658,000) |
($1,990,000) |
($1,990,000) |
Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds |
$25,404,288 to (Unknown) |
$20,096,250 to (Unknown) |
$14,225,562 to (Unknown) |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 27 pages.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
General Revenue |
3 FTE |
3 FTE |
3 FTE |
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE |
3 FTE |
3 FTE |
3 FTE |
☒ Estimated Total Net Effect on All funds expected to exceed $100,000 savings or (cost).
☐ Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund expected to exceed $100,000 (cost).
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
Local Government |
($11,604,396 to Unknown) |
($8,426,742 to Unknown) |
($6,138,343 to Unknown) |
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
JACKSON COUNTY - TAX MAINTENANCE FUND: (Section 52.290 and 52.312)
Officials of the Office of the State Auditor assume no fiscal impact.
Officials of the State Tax Commission and the Department of Revenue assume no fiscal impact to their agencies.
Oversight assumes that the changes made in Sections 52.290 and 52.312 would require the Jackson County Collector to charge a fee of three percent on delinquent and back tax statements, for the collection of such taxes, rather than the two percent currently allowed.
Oversight assumes this proposal would require Jackson County to establish a Tax Maintenance Fund as required in Section 52.312, and to deposit one-third of the three percent collected on delinquent taxes into that fund. The remaining two-thirds of the three percent collected would continue being deposited into the County General Revenue Fund. Jackson County currently collects two percent which all goes to the County’s General Revenue Fund. Oversight assumes no fiscal impact to the County’s General Revenue Fund.
Oversight will show fiscal impact to Jackson County’s Tax Maintenance Fund as a positive unknown.
Oversight notes there would be some insignificant savings from not having to send out tax sale notices as certified mail.
Oversight sent response request to Jackson County and they did not respond.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
JEFFERSON COUNTY : ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT: (Section 67.320)
Oversight assumes that currently, Jefferson County may adopt orders consistent with state law with penal provisions in the areas of traffic violations, solid waste management, and animal control. Under this section the county would be able to adopt such orders in any area covered by the county’s ordinances.
Oversight assumes that Jefferson County could expect an increase in fine revenue. In fiscal note 5300-01 of last session Jefferson County officials estimated an increase in revenue of $20,000 to $40,000 annually.
Officials of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education assume the school districts in Jefferson County could realize a reduction in the amount of fine revenue. Officials did not estimate the amount of expected loss.
Oversight assumes any loss would be minimal, and less than $100,000 annually. Oversight assumes any loss to schools would be made up from the State’s School Monies Fund resulting in no fiscal impact to Jefferson County Schools.
LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX:
Oversight assumes the following sections have the potential to impact the State’s General Revenue Fund. Sections 67.997, 67.2040, 67.2510, 92.500, and 94.950 are considered to be permissive and as written does not require certain defined local governments to initiate sales taxes for certain purposes.
Before there would be fiscal impact, the governing body would have to place the question of imposing a sales tax to the voters of the defined district. Oversight is showing this because the Department of Revenue- Sales Tax Division would collect the tax, and would retain a 1% collection fee which would go into the State’s General Revenue Fund. Fiscal impact will be shown as $0 or a positive unknown. If none of the political subdivisions would impose a sales tax there would be no fiscal impact to the General Revenue Fund. If a tax were approved, the 1% collection fee would go into the General Revenue Fund. The amount is unknown.
Officials of the Department of Revenue assumes any costs could be handled with existing resources and assume no fiscal impact.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials of the Office of Administration - Information Technology stated that any cost could be handled with existing resources and assume no fiscal impact.
LOCAL OPTION TRANSIENT GUEST TAX:
Oversight assumes Sections 67.1003, 67.1016, and 67.1360 allows cities to impose, with voter approval, a transient guest tax. Section 67.1016 allows any county of the second, third or fourth classification, with voter approval, to impose a transient guest tax. Oversight assumes the taxes to be permissive. Both would require action by the governing body with voter approval.
Oversight will show income and costs to tourism funds as unknow. Oversight assumes costs would not exceed income resulting in a zero annual fund balance or an annual positive fund balance. For purposes of this fiscal note fiscal impact will be shown as $0.
Oversight
assumes any action would require approval of the governing body with voter approval. Oversight assumes no fiscal impact from this section.LOCAL OPTION TOURISM TAXES: AUDIT
Section 67.1181 requires political subdivisions that collect and expend tax revenues for advertising and tourism promotion to perform an audit at least every 5 years provided no other statutory auditing requirement exists. Cost of the audit would be paid from revenues for operating costs. The first audit would be completed by January 1, 2009.
Oversight will show costs to the County’s Tourism Fund as unknown. Oversight assumes costs would be minimal.
KANSAS AND MISSOURI INVESTMENT DISTRICT COMPACT: (Section 70.515)
Section 70.515 this section changes provisions of the Kansas and Missouri Regional Investment District Compact.
In response to identical legislation fiscal note 2520-01 SB 671, the following fiscal impact statements were made:
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the proposal would have no adverse or beneficial impact on their city.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the City of St. Joseph and the counties of Jackson, Platte and Buchanan did not respond to our request for fiscal impact.
Oversight assumes this proposal is permissive in nature and requires voter approval for such district compact to be enacted. In the fiscal note for the enabling legislation (SB 825 in 2006), Oversight reflected a $0 to potential unknown amount of revenue that would be collected by the state’s Department of Revenue for the 1% collection fee of the sales tax that could be generated for such a district. Oversight also reflected a $0 to Unknown amount of sales tax revenue to local political subdivisions as well as an offsetting $0 to (Unknown) cost for funding the operation of the regional projects and commission. Therefore, Oversight assumes the fiscal impact of this proposal has already been reflected in the fiscal note for the truly agreed to and finally passed SB 825 in 2006, and will not reflect additional fiscal impact from the changes contained in this proposal.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR FIREFIGHTERS: (Section 87.006:
Officials of the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement stated that their review of this legislation would indicate that such legislation would not create a “substantial proposed change” in future plan benefits as defined in Section 105.660(5). Therefore, an actuarial cost statement is not required.
Officials of the Missouri Local Government Employees’ Retirement System (LAGERS) stated that “more fire members of LAGERS are classified as duty disabilities as opposed to non-duty disabilities due to House Bill 375, benefits paid out of the retirement system would increase. Depending upon the level of increase in disability and death-in-service benefits due to the reclassification from non-duty to duty, an increase in computed employer contribution rates may be required in the future”.
CITIES OF THE THIRD CLASS - STORM WATER USER FEES: (Section 88.832)
Section 88.832 exempts churches, public schools, nonprofit organizations, and political subdivisions located in any city of the third classification that imposes a storm water user fee from paying the fee.
Oversight assumes there would be a loss of revenue to certain cities that impose a user fee on storm water programs. Oversight assumes loss of revenue would not be significant and will show loss of revenue as minimal.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY AND CITY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (Section 94.660)
This amendment removes the coupling provision in Section 94.660 which requires both the city and the county to approve a transportation sales tax before the tax could go into effect in either jurisdiction. Oversight assumes no fiscal impact.
Section 144.030 (House Amendment 45) SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR COMMON CARRIERS:
Officials of the Missouri Department of Transportation stated this amendment expands the sales tax exemption for common carriers which would lead to a reduction in sales tax revenue. MoDOT has no basis for estimating the negative impact therefore, there is a substantial negative unknown fiscal impact to the Highway Fund from this proposal. Section 144.030 - SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON TEXTBOOKS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 170.051, RSMo.
Provides for a sales tax exemption on textbooks when purchased by a person at any Missouri public or private university, college, or other postsecondary institution of higher learning. The exemption is from state and local sales taxes and use taxes.
Sections 144.030 and 144.062 - SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SPORTS AUTHORITIES:
Officials of the Department of Revenue assume no fiscal impact to their department. Officials did not submit an estimate of sales tax revenues that would be lost.
Section 144.062.6 - SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS, AND OTHER DHT PROJECTS:
In response to almost identical legislation, fiscal note 0175-01 HB 248, the following fiscal impact statements were made:
Officials at the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assume this legislation exempts contractors from paying sales tax on materials used in MoDOT projects. Section 144.062, RSMo., currently exempts sales of personal property and materials used for the purpose of constructing, repairing, or remodeling facilities for counties, other political subdivisions and certain exempt entities from the state sales tax. This bill would add the Department of Transportation as an exempt entity. Therefore, materials could be purchased by a contractor for
ASSUMPTION (continued)
a MoDOT project on a tax-exempt basis.
The sales tax which contractors currently pay on materials purchased for MoDOT projects is included in the project cost which is paid by MoDOT. Assuming that contractors would reduce their project costs due to the ability to purchase materials on a tax-exempt basis, this bill would result in a cost savings for MoDOT.
Based on 2007-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); 50 percent of construction contracts is labor, 50 percent is materials; July 1, 2008 effective date; sales tax rate of 4.225%. The cost savings were calculated as follows:
Fiscal Year |
STIP Awards |
% Materials |
Material Cost |
Sales Tax Rate |
Cost Savings |
2008 |
$1,189,100,000 |
50% |
$594,550,000 |
4.225% |
$25,119,738 |
2009 |
$858,000,000 |
50% |
$429,000,000 |
4.225% |
$18,125,250 |
2010 |
$628,900,000 |
50% |
$314,450,000 |
4.225% |
$13,285,513 |
2011 |
$490,000,000 |
50% |
$245,000,000 |
4.225% |
$10,351,250 |
2012 |
$490,000,000 |
50% |
$245,000,000 |
4.225% |
$10,351,250 |
MoDOT assumes there would be an additional amount of cost savings for the local sales tax, however the amount would vary by city/county. Therefore the additional savings is unknown.
Officials at the Office of Administration's Budget and Planning assume this bill would exempt contractors from paying sales tax on Missouri Department of Transportation, and the State Highways and Transportation Commission projects. This proposal will decrease General and Total State Revenues. The Department of Transportation should provide the estimate of
possible increased costs and revenues to the state as a result of this proposal.
Oversight calculated the revenue impact to include a tax loss impact to local government with a sales tax rate of 2%. The chart below shows the breakdown of the tax impact on the projected materials cost.
Oversight assumes this proposal would create a savings for the Road Fund of $37.0 million in FY 08; $26.7 million for FY2009; and $19.5 million for FY2010. This savings is passed on to
ASSUMPTION (continued)
MoDOT as it is calculated into the materials cost submitted by the vendors. Combined gains in the Road Fund equal the losses to the General Revenue Fund, School District Trust Fund, Conservation Fund, Parks and Soils Fund and local city/county funds from this proposal.
Oversight assumes that a reduction in the federal reimbursement may occur as a result of the tax loss. The federal impact is unknown.
|
Fiscal Year 2009 |
Fiscal Year 2010 |
Materials Cost |
$429,000,000 |
$314,450,000 |
GR Fund 3% |
$12,870,000 |
$9,433,500 |
School Fund 1% |
$4,290,000 |
$3,144,500 |
Conservation Fund .125% |
$536,000 |
$393,063 |
Parks and Soil Fund .1% |
$429,000 |
$314,450 |
Local 2% |
$8,580,000 |
$6,289,000 |
Total Savings to Road Fund |
$26,705,250 |
$19,574,512 |
Officials at the Department of Revenue assume no fiscal impact for their department for this proposal.
Officials at the Department of Conservation (MDC) state this legislation would appear to have a negative fiscal impact on MDC funds since it appears to exempt highway construction materials and other MoDOT projects from sales tax. However, MDC is unable to provide the estimated amount and will rely on DOR for the fiscal impact of this legislation.
Officials at the City of Centralia, and St. Louis County each assume no fiscal impact from this proposal.
Officials at the Taney County and Greene County assume an unknown loss of revenue.
No other Cities or Counties responded to Oversight's request for information.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT MODIFIER - (Section 163.016):
Section 163.016 provides that any school district located in more than one county and whose headquarters are located within Monroe City and located in more than one county, the county signified in the school district number shall be the county in the district with the highest dollar value modifier.
Officials of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education assume estimate the cost of providing additional state aid would be $33,707 in FY 2008; $50,657 in FY 2009; and $50,657 in FY 2010. Officials assume costs would affect the State General Revenue Fund.
AMBULANCE DISTRICTS - BOARD MEMBERS: TRAINING
Section 190.053 requires ambulance board members first elected after January 1, 2008 to complete educational training.
Officials of the Department of Health and Senior Services stated this proposal would have no fiscal impact on their department’s appropriations. Officials assume ambulance districts would have some costs. Officials could not estimate cost.
Oversight assumes the amount of cost per ambulance district would depend upon the number of members requiring training, location of training, and whether board members would have to travel, require lodging, and meals. Oversight will show costs as $0 to (unknown).
Sections 644.597, 644.598, and 644.599 STORM WATER CONTROL:
Officials from the Office of Administration - Division of Accounting assume, although there would be no fiscal impact relating to this authorization increase, there would be a fiscal impact if any of the currently outstanding authorization is actually issued. There would need to be approximately $700,000 for principal and interest for every $10 million dollars issued and one time costs of approximately $192,509 for each issuance.
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources assume the proposal would authorize the Board of Fund Commissioners to sell $40 million in bonds for stormwater control plans, studies and projects under Article III, Sections 37(h), (g), and (e).
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Bonds are sold on as-needed basis.
37(e) money is approved for $10 million to be spend as follows:
$7 Million for the 40% State Construction Grant Programs
$3 Million for the Rural Water and Sewer grants
37(g) money is approved for $10 Million to be spent as follows:
$5 Million for Rural Water grants and loans
$5 Million for Rural Sewer grants and loans
47(h) money is approved for $20 Million to be spent as follows:
$10 Million for stormwater grants
$10 Million for stormwater loans
Oversight is unable to determine when bonds would be sold and has ranged the sale from $0 to $40 million. Oversight has ranged the annual income and annual repayment of bonds sold from $0 to $3,570,033.
HIGHWAYS IN ST. CHARLES COUNTY:
Officials of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) made the following fiscal impact statement:
Restricts truck travel in the far left lane on an interstate highway at a specific location on I-70 within 3 miles of MO 340. MoDOT would have to install 16 total traffic signs to alert drivers of this change. The department would need to install 8 signs in each direction. This would include, in each direction, 1 set of advance notice signs prior to the restricted zone, 2 sets of regulatory signs within the zone & 1 set of signs indicating the end of the zone. The total cost for the 16 signs is approximately $8,400. This cost reflects the cost of materials needed to fabricate the signs and does not inclue any labor or maintenance cost.
CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY IN CITY OF KANSAS CITY :
House Amendment 8 authorizes the Governor to convey certain state property located in Jackson County to the City of Kansas City.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
In response to fiscal note 2107-01 SB 469 of this session, the following fiscal impact statements were made:
Officials from the Office of Administration - Division of Facilities Management, Design & Construction assume no fiscal impact to their agency.
Officials from the Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assume the conveyance of property in Section 1, consists of property owned or leased by MoDOT. MoDOT estimated a negative fiscal impact up to $3.5 million to relocate our maintenance facility.
The exact dollar can not be determined at this time. Further, the bill does not specify where any revenue received from the Governor’s conveyance of the property will be deposited.
Oversight assumes this conveyance would occur in FY08 and has estimated a range of cost for that fiscal year.
Officials from the City of Kansas City and Jackson County did not respond to our request for a fiscal impact.
Officials of the Office of Secretary of State - Rules Division assume this proposal provides for rulemaking authority in various sections. Officials stated that many bills considered by the General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and regulations to implement the act. The Secretary of State’s office 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 Secretary of State’s office for Administrative Rules is less than $2,500. The Secretary of State’s office recognizes that this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet these costs. However, we also recognize 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 our office can sustain with our core budget. Therefore, we reserve 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.
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriation process. Any decisions to raise fees to defray costs would likely be made in subsequent fiscal years
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The following list of respondents stated there would be no fiscal impact to their agencies:
Department of Health and Senior Services, Department of Economic Development- Tourism Division, Department of Revenue, Office of the State Auditor, Office of the State Treasurer, Office of State Courts Administrator, Missouri Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, Department of Public Safety - Fire Safety Division, Department of Corrections, Little Blue Valley Sewer District, Office of Prosecution Services, Local Government Employees Retirement System, Office of Administration - Admin. Hearing Commission, Office of the Secretary of State- State Librarian, Department of Agriculture, Department of Economic Development - Public Service Commission, State Tax Commission, Police Retirement System of St. Louis, Police Retirement System of Kansas City, Civilian Employees’ Retirement System of the Kansas City Police Department,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES:
Oversight sent response request to many local governments and only a few responded.
Officials of the Texas County Clerk’s Office assume no fiscal impact.
Officials of the Boone County Collector’s Office assume no fiscal impact.
Officials of the Taney County Ambulance District assume no fiscal impact.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
GENERAL REVENUE FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - From 1% collection fee on sales tax |
|
|
|
(Sections 67.997, 67.2040, and 67.2510, 92.500, 94.950), and (Section 3 HA 36) |
$0 or Unknown |
$0 or Unknown |
$0 or Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Cost - Department of Social Services |
|
|
|
Program Costs (DMS) (HA 30) |
($221,101) |
($277,260) |
($289,737) |
|
|
|
|
Cost to Department of Elementary and Secondary Education - Additional payment to certain districts. |
|
|
|
(Section 163.011 and 163.038) |
($152,897) |
($2,601) |
|
(Section 163.016 and Section 2) |
($33,707) |
($50,657) |
($50,657) |
Total Cost to DESE |
($186,604) |
($53,258) |
($50,657) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - General Revenue Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Sections 144.030 and 144.062) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Loss - General Revenue Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Section 144.062 - HA # 18) |
($17,836,500) |
($12,870,000) |
($9,433,500) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer of Revenue - To State School Monies Fund |
|
|
|
Offset loss of school fine monies in Jefferson County. (Section 67.320) |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO STATE GENERAL REVENUE FUND |
(More than $18,349,205) |
(more than $13,300,518) |
(more than $9,873,894) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
HIGHWAY FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost - Department of Transportation |
|
|
|
posting signs, (Section 304.105) |
($8,400) |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Loss - Department of Transportation |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO HIGHWAY FUND |
($8,400 to Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUST FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - School District Trust Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Sections 144.030 & 144.062) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Loss - School District Trust Fund |
|
|
|
Exemption for MoDOT projects. (Section 144.062) |
($5,945,500) |
($4,290,000) |
($3,144,500) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUST FUND |
($5,945,500 to Unknown) |
($4,290,000 to Unknown) |
($3,144,500 to Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
STATE SCHOOL MONIES FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer In - From General Revenue |
|
|
|
To pay increase in state aid (Section 163.016) |
$33,707 |
$50,657 |
$50,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer In - From General Revenue |
|
|
|
To offset loss in fine revenue in Jefferson County. (Section 67.320) |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer Out - to Monroe City R-II School District Modifier Change in Formula. (Section 163.016) |
($33,707) |
($50,657) |
($50,657) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer Out - Distribution to School Districts in Jefferson County. (Section 67.320) |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO STATE SCHOOL MONIES FUND |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARKS AND SOIL FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss -Parks and Soil Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Sections 144.030 & 144.062) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Loss - Parks and Soil Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Sections 144.062) |
($594,550) |
($429,000) |
($314,450) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO PARKS AND SOIL FUND |
($594,550 to Unknown) |
($429,000 to Unknown) |
($314,450 to Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSERVATION FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings - Department of Conservation |
|
|
|
Reduced Liability (HA 40) |
More than $100,000 |
More than $100,000 |
More than $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
Loss - Conservation Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Sections 144.030 & 144.062) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Loss - Conservation Fund |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption (Section 144.062) |
($743,188) |
($536,250) |
($393,063) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO CONSERVATION FUND |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
BINGO PROCEEDS FOR EDUCATION FUND (Section 313.057 and 313.055) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - Missouri Gaming Commission |
|
|
|
Loss of revenue from exemption of not-for profit organizations |
($1,658,000) |
($1,990,000) |
($1,990,000) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON BINGO PROCEEDS FOR EDUCATION FUND |
($1,658,000) |
($1,990,000) |
($1,990,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD OF FUND COMMISSIONERS (Sections 644.597, 644.598, and 644.599) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - Board of Fund Commissioners |
|
|
|
Sale of Bonds |
$0 to $40,000,000 |
$0 to $40,000,000 |
$0 to $40,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
Income - Fees for Storm Water Control |
$0 to $3,570,033 |
$0 to $3,570,033 |
$0 to $3,570,033 |
|
|
|
|
Cost - Local Revenue Backed by Storm Water Control Fees |
$0 to ($40,000,000) |
$0 to ($40,000,000) |
$0 to ($40,000,000) |
|
|
|
|
Cost - Payment of Bonds |
$0 to ($3,570,033) |
$0 to ($3,570,033) |
$0 to ($3,570,033) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON BOARD OF FUND COMMISSIONERS |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROAD FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings - Road Fund |
|
|
|
Exemption for MoDOT projects (Section 144.062.6) |
$37,010,738 |
$26,705,250 |
$19,574,512 |
|
|
|
|
Cost - Relocation of Maintenance Facility |
Up to ($3,500,000) |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO ROAD FUND |
At Least $33,610,738 |
More than $26,805,250 |
More than $19,674,512 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLIND PENSION TRUST FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - Blind Pension Trust Fund |
|
|
|
Tax Exemption (Section 137.100) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO BLIND PENSION TRUST FUND |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
JACKSON COUNTY - TAX MAINTENANCE FUND (Sections 52.290 and 52.312) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - Tax Maintenance Fund |
|
|
|
From one-third of penalty fee of 3%. |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Total Effect to Jackson County Tax Maintenance Fund |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JEFFERSON COUNTY (Section 67.320) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - Jefferson County |
|
|
|
From increase in fines and fees |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Effect to Jefferson County (Section 67.320) |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (Section 67.320) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer In - From State School Monies Fund |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
Less than $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
Losses - School Districts in Jefferson County |
|
|
|
From redistribution of court fines to local government. |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
(Less than $100,000) |
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Effect to Jefferson County School Districts (Section 67.320) |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY TOURISM FUND (Section 67.1181) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost - From conducting audit of fund. |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Total Cost to County Tourism Fund |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CERTAIN THIRD CLASS CITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of Revenue - Certain Third Class Cities. (Section 88.832) |
|
|
|
From exemption provided on certain entities from paying storm water user fees. |
Minimal |
Minimal |
Minimal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ST. CHARLES SCHOOL DISTRICTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - St Charles School Districts - Fine loss reimbursement (Section 163.011 & Section 163.038) |
$152,897 |
$2,601 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON ST. CHARLES SCHOOL DISTRICTS |
$152,897 |
$2,601 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings - Election costs due to changes in director’s terms. |
Minimal |
Minimal |
Minimal |
|
|
|
|
Estimated Net Effect to Public Water Supply Districts (Section 247.060) |
Minimal |
Minimal |
Minimal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITIES, COUNTIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS SALES TAX FUNDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - From voter approved sales tax. |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Costs - From administering defined purpose of sales tax. |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Estimated Net Effect to Cities, Counties, Special Districts (Sections 67.997, 67.2040, 67.2510, 92.500, 94.950, and (Section 3 HA 36) * |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITIES OF SULLIVAN, HOLLISTER, AND GLADSTONE, CITIES OF PEMISCOT COUNTY, and COUNTIES OF 2, 3, and 4 Classification, TOURISM FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income - From voter approved transient guest tax. |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Cost - From promotion of tourism. |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Estimated Net Effect to Counties and Cities of Sullivan, Hollister and Gladstone Tourism Fund. (Sections 67.1003, 67.1016, 94.870, and 67.1360) * |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
Transfer In - Monroe County R-II School District Modifier Change increase in state (Section 163.016) |
$33,707 |
$50,657 |
$50,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITIES AND COUNTIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - Cities and Counties |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption on MoDOT projects, (Section 144.062 - HA 18) |
($11,891,000) |
($8,580,000) |
($6,289,000) |
|
|
|
|
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss - Local Sales Taxing Districts |
|
|
|
Sales Tax Exemption - Textbooks for Schools (Section 144.030 HA 20) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
Loss - Cities and other taxing districts |
|
|
|
Exemption of taxes (Section 137.100 HA # 43) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT |
($11,604,396 to Unknown) |
($8,426,742to Unknown) |
($6,138,343 to Unknown) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government (continued) |
FY 2008 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
|
|
|
|
* Oversight assume costs of providing defined services would not exceed income, resulting in either a $0 or positive annual fund balance. Oversight assumes for purposes of this fiscal note a $0 annual fund balance.
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
Small business located within districts that impose voter approved sales taxes or certain businesses that would be required to collect a transient guest tax would have to collect and administer the tax.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal modifies the laws regarding political subdivisions.
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
Office of the Secretary of State - Rules and State Librarian
Office of the State Auditor
Office of the State Treasurer
Office of State Courts Administrator
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri Department of Corrections
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Administration - Commissioner
Office of Administration - Information Technology
Office of Administration - Budget and Planning
Department of Public Safety - Fire Safety Division
Department of Agriculture
State Tax Commission
Department of Social Services
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Revenue
Department of Economic Development - All Divisions
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Office of Prosecution Services
Local Government Employees Retirement System
St. Louis County Director of Administration
Kansas City - Office of the City Attorney
Boone County Collector
Jefferson County Counselor
Texas County Clerk
Police Retirement System of St. Louis
DeSoto Fire Protection District
St. Charles County
Pulaski County
City of West Plains
City of Poplar Bluff
City of Centralia
City of Raytown
Missouri County Employees’ Retirement Fund
Police Retirement System of Kansas City
Civilian Employees’ Retirement System of the Police Department of Kansas City
Taney County Ambulance District
NOT RESPONDING
The County Commissions of:
Clay County
Johnson County
Jackson County Executive
Franklin County
City Clerk/Administrators of:
Knob Knoster
Warrensburg
Gladstone
Joplin
St. Louis City
Boone County Fire Protection District
NOT RESPONDING (continued)
Central Co. Fire Protection District
Creve Coeur Fire Protection District
Hawk Point Fire Protection District
Hillsboro Fire Protection District
Lake St. Louis Fire Protection District
St. Charles County Ambulance District
Valle Ambulance District
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
May 17, 2007