Subject: Victims of Crime, State Attorney General; Highway Patrol; Crimes and Punishment; Department of Corrections; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010
General Revenue	(More than $1,496,540 to More than $3,648,560)	(More than $1,068,436 to More than $3,728,333)	(More than $1,187,894 to More than $3,827,588)

Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund	(More than $1,496,540 to More than $3,648,560)	(More than $1,068,436 to More than $3,728,333)	(More than $1,187,894 to More than $3,827,588)

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010
State School Moneys	$0	$0	$0
Criminal Records	$2,868,333	$3,442,000	$3,787,500
Crime Victims’ Compensation	$0 to (More than $2,152,020)	$0 to (More than $2,659,897)	$0 to (More than $2,739,694)
Department of Health and Senior Services Document Services	$3,605	$3,713	$3,824
Reverend Nathaniel Cole Memorial Pursuit Reduction Grant	$0	$0	$0
Various State Funds	$0 to (36,720)	$0 to (36,720)	$0 to (36,720)
Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds	Less than $683,198 to $2,871,938	Less than $749,096 to $3,445,713	Less than $1,014,910 to $3,791,324

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010


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	9	9	9

Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE	9	9	9

☒ 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	Unknown to (Unknown)	Unknown to (Unknown)	Unknown to (Unknown)

Officials from the Office of Administration – Administrative Hearing Commission, Coordinating Board for Higher Education, Department of Transportation, Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions, and Professional Registration, Department of Public Safety – Missouri State Water Patrol, – Division of Fire Safety, – Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Department of Conservation, Springfield Police Department, University of Central Missouri, and the Police Retirement System of St. Louis assume the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.

Officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume the costs of these new duties can be absorbed within existing resources. The AGO may also update its publications relating to crime victims rights should this proposal be adopted. AGO assumes it could absorb the costs of any additional criminal appeals generated from the other criminal law proposals. To the extent the implementation of the prescription monitoring program results in a significant number of new referrals to the AGO in the areas of Medicaid fraud or other possible criminal activity, AGO may seek necessary appropriations to handle the increase in workload.

Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) assume there is no state cost to the foundation formula associated with this proposal. Should the new crimes and amendments to current law result in additional fines or penalties, DESE cannot know how much additional money might be collected by local governments or the DOR to distribute to schools. To the extent fine revenues exceed 2004-2005 collections, any increase in this money distributed to schools increases the deduction in the foundation formula the following year. Therefore, the affected districts will see an equal decrease in the amount of funding received through the formula the following year; unless the affected districts are hold-harmless, in which case the districts will not see a decrease in the amount of funding received through the formula (any increase in fine money distributed to the hold-harmless districts will simply be additional money). An increase in the deduction (all other factors remaining constant) reduces the cost to the state of funding the formula.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume this proposed legislation modifies various crime provisions. The penalty provision component of the bill resulting in potential fiscal impact for the DOC, is for both enhancements of existing crimes and creations of new crimes.

Currently, the DOC cannot predict the number of new commitments which may result from the creation of the offense(s) outlined in this proposal. An increase in commitments depends on the utilization by prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the court.

If additional persons are sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this legislation, the DOC will incur a corresponding increase in operational cost either through incarceration (FY06 average of $39.43 per inmate, per day or an annual cost of $14,394 per inmate) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY06 average of $2.52 per offender, per day or an annual cost of $920 per offender).

In summary, supervision by the DOC through incarceration or probation would result in additional costs and although the exact fiscal impact is unknown, it is estimated that potential costs will be in excess of $100,000 per year.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) assume the proposal requires the Department of Transportation, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Department of Higher Education, Department of Social Services, Department of Health and Senior Services, Office of the Secretary of State, Department of Public Safety, and POST to promulgate rules. These rules will be published by the Administrative Rules Division in the Missouri Register and the Code of State Regulations. Based on experience with other divisions, the rules, regulations and forms issued by the various agencies could require as many as 94 pages in the Code of State Regulations. For any given rule, roughly half again as many pages are published in the Missouri Register as in the Code because cost statements, fiscal notes and the like are not repeated in the Code. These costs are estimated. The estimated cost of a page in the Missouri Register is $23.00. The estimated cost of a page in the Code of State Regulations is $27.00. The actual cost could be more or less than the numbers given. The impact of this legislation in future years is unknown and depends upon the frequency and length of rules filed. SOS – Administrative Rules estimates the total cost of the proposal to be $5,781 in FY 08 and Unknown in subsequent years.

Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) assume the following fiscal impact from this part of the proposal:

Assuming the level of background checks and fingerprint searches remains level, and assuming the fee increases by $1 per annum as allowed in the proposal, the fiscal impact may be computed as follows:

In summary, DESE assumes in increase in cost to local school districts of $288,305 in FY 2008, $348,563 in FY 2009 and $408,821 in FY 2010.

Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) assume a “requesting entity” could include DMH community providers which would result in an increased cost to those providers.

Officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) assume this proposal does not specifically speak to who would be responsible for costs of the background checks. Therefore, for purposes of this fiscal note, DNR assumes this proposal would not result in a significant direct fiscal impact to the department.

Officials from the Department of Social Services – Division of Youth Services estimated that at least 500 background checks will be required to fill vacancies. The division assumes an average of 25% due to job offers declined, disqualifying findings, and need to conduct multiple checks prior to making an offer.

Based on the provision that fingerprinting would be $20 per applicant, the division assumed the cost of fingerprint checks for its new hires to be between $8,330 and $10,000 during the first three years.

Officials from the Department of Social Services – Human Resource Center stated the language appears to make conducting fingerprint background checks an option, rather than mandatory. It also appears that we could require the applicant/employee to pay the cost for the check. For those reasons, a fiscal impact could not be determined at this time.

Officials from the Department of Social Services – Children’s Division (CD) stated they now perform name checks for all employees. Should CD opt to require fingerprint checks, the cost would be $7,340 based on the turnover rate in these positions. However, since the fingerprint check is optional, CD showed the cost as a range from $0 to $7,340.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety – Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) state the proposed legislation would modify the fees and requirements for receipt of a criminal history record information from the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Based on the average number of record checks in the last two years, the increase of $1 per name check starting in 2010 will increase the yearly income into the Criminal Records Fund by an additional $691,000 each year until the $15 maximum is reached in 2015.

The Criminal Records and Identification Division of the Missouri State Highway Patrol estimate that there are approximately 60,000 state employees with an approximate turnover rate of 17% per year. 60,000 x 17% = 10,200 employees.

It is estimated that 15% or less, of those 10,200 employees would be in occupations that would require fingerprint checks. 10,200 x 15% = 1,530 employees.

The FBI processing fingerprint fees are $24, however $2 is retained in the Criminal Records Fund as administrative fee.

1,530 employees x $2 = $3,060 (retained in the Criminal Records System Fund as administrative fee).

The average number of fingerprint checks for the prior two fiscal years is 113,000

Because the rate will increase from $9 to $10 on 1/1/10, the fee for half the fiscal year will be at $9 and the other half at $10. MSHP assumes that the checks will be spread evenly throughout the year, so they are using $9.50 as an average for the year.

The Highway Patrol assumes no more than 50 gubernatorial appointees during an election year and less during off years.

State processing fingerprint fees are $14 (waived at the current time for state employees). FBI processing fingerprint fees are $24 (pass-through fees to the FBI).

50 appointees x $24 = $1,200 (pass-through fees to the FBI , i.e., not retained in the Criminal Records System fund). Because this amount is so small, this section of the proposed legislation is being treated as “no impact.”

The MSHP assumes an unknown to under $100,000 fiscal impact on this proposed legislation. The MSHP does not currently track, nor do they have a way to track how many retired employees perform as witnesses in official court proceedings. The MSHP assumes the new appropriation will be General Revenue funds.

Oversight assumes the provisions allowing state agencies to require fingerprinting of applicants and criminal history records checks are permissive. Therefore, Oversight has ranged the cost from $0 to $36,720 per fiscal year to various state funds.

Oversight assumes the MHP will continue to waive the name background check fees to state agencies.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume this section would allow the court to order a person to pay into the county law enforcement restitution fund for a moving violation. Traffic cases are technically misdemeanors, and if as an alternative to a traffic conviction, a defendant can get a suspended sentence for payment into the county law enforcement restitution fund, the potential volume could be in the thousands of cases.

If cases that would otherwise have resulted in a conviction are shifted to a suspended imposition or execution of sentence, it is likely to result in the loss of revenue from fines to the schools, crime victims’ compensation, law enforcement training, and other earmarked funds. Currently, the total cost for a traffic ticket stands at $56.50. This proposal would significantly increase the cost of those tickets where the fee was assessed.

§84.160 – Compensation for Certain St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Officers

In response to a similar proposal from the current session (HB 556, LR # 1187-01), officials of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department – Director of Budget and Finance stated at the minimum this proposal would cost the department another $500,000 annually.

Officials from the St. Louis Police Retirement System stated that overtime is not a part of pension wages and this proposal would not impact the retirement system.

Oversight assumes the allowed compensation for overtime is mandatory and will show fiscal impact as $500,000. Oversight assumes the $500,000 estimate was the minimum costs estimated.

Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a previous version of the proposal (SS for SCS for SB 429, LR # 0635-07), officials assumed DHSS shall pay the appropriate charges for forensic examinations. DHSS will no longer pay for medical examinations for victims of sexual assault, but will pay for the costs associated with a forensic exam regardless of private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare.

DHSS will pay for forensic examinations of all persons who may be victims of a sexual offense at the average cost of the exam rather than the Medicaid reimbursement rate for the exam. Forensic examinations will be needed for all emergency room patients with ICD-9-CM codes for rape, observation for possible rape, child sexual abuse or suspected abuse. To determine the estimated number of examinations that would be reimbursed, DHSS used emergency room data to estimate the annual number of sexual assault forensic examinations. In 2005, there were 2,314 emergency room reports of rape, possible rape, child sexual abuse or suspected abuse (last available MICA data). According to the Department of Justice, the average cost of a SAFE exam is $1,116. 2,314 emergency room examinations X $1,116 per exam = $2,582,424. Current funding ($72,675) will pay for approximately 65 exams. DHSS will need $2,509,739 in additional funding to pay for an additional 2,249 exams ($2,582,424 - $72,675 = $2,509,739).

In addition to costs for forensic examinations, DHSS will also pay for printing the rape checklist. The Missouri State Highway Patrol orders approximately 4,500 rape kits a year. Therefore, DHSS would need to supply 4,500 copies of the rape checklist per year. The cost to print rape checklist on a 8 x 11.5 document (4,500 copies, 1 for each rape kit) is $113.

DHSS will also need one additional FTE (Health Program Representative I-HPR I) to carry out the daily administration of the examination payments.

This legislation also specifies, “if the victim is an eligible claimant under the crime victims’ compensation fund, the appropriate medical provider shall seek compensation under sections 595.010 to 595.075, RSMo.” According to Chapter 595, RSMo, in order for a victim to be eligible for compensation from the crime victims’ compensation fund, the victim must:

• Report the crime to the proper law enforcement agency within 48 hours after the occurrence or with minors, within 48 hours of the discovery of the crime; there is a delayed for good cause clause;

• have no more than one felony conviction involving drugs and violence within the last ten years.

The Crime Victims’ Compensation fund administered by the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations will pay for medical services and any other related services (such as time off from work for court time, counseling fees, etc.) if the victim has applied for the fund and is found to be eligible.

Oversight has, for fiscal note purposes only, changed the starting salary for the Health Program Representative I to correspond to the second step above minimum for comparable positions in the state’s merit system pay grid. This decision reflects a study of actual starting salaries for new state employees for a six month period and the policy of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Legislative Research.

Oversight assumes the FTE Health Program Representative will be housed in existing Department of Health and Senior Services facilities. Therefore, Oversight has eliminated the rent and other facilities costs from the DHSS estimates.

Oversight assumes medical providers could receive compensation under the crime victims’ compensation fund if the victim is an eligible claimant. Oversight has ranged the cost of forensic examinations for the general revenue and crime victims’ compensation funds as $0 to $2,582,424 per fiscal year, as Oversight has no data to indicate the number of victims that would be eligible claimants under the crime victims’ compensation fund.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety – Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) assume, based on the number of sexual assault incidents that are reported annually, they would provide 5,000 kits per year. MHP estimates the cost of a sexual assault kit to be $3.72, for a total cost of approximately $18,600 per year.

In response to a similar proposal from the 2005 Session (Perfected HCS for HB 1317, LR # 3678-04), MHP officials stated they presently purchase 4,154 sexual assault evidentiary collection kits annually.

Oversight assumes the Missouri State Highway Patrol would continue to purchase approximately 4,154 sexual assault evidentiary collection kits annually.

Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a similar proposal (HCS #2 for HB 406 & 726, LR # 0998-06), officials assumed this part of the bill will create a prescription drug monitoring program for controlled substances. The program will establish a database for controlled substance prescription information submitted by licensed pharmacies and dispensing practitioners in the department of health and senior services. Using this database, requests for reports will be submitted to the DHSS by practitioners, pharmacies, state regulatory agencies and law enforcement. Patients will also be able to request a report of their own controlled substance use. In addition, this database will be used to support activities in enforcement of state controlled substance laws by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, where the program will be housed.

Past fiscal note estimates for proposed legislation filed in previous legislative sessions to create a prescription monitoring program were based upon the experience of other states. Over the past several years, there have been an increasing number of states either with enabling legislation in place to create a prescription monitoring program or with active prescription monitoring programs in place. As a result, there is also increased competition among vendors providing services and support.

Information related to prescription monitoring program vendor contract information was sought and obtained related to other states with active prescription monitoring programs. The information obtained reflects costs associated with contracts with one vendor. Based upon the competitive nature of these contracts, it is assumed for the purposes of this fiscal note that costs for implementing such a program in Missouri would be similar to the cost information obtained.

Vendor Cost Information for Implementation of a Prescription Monitoring Program:

3 Servers, MSSQL Server License (database), SSL Certificate (for encryption), Staff time, and Crystal Decisions Crystal Reports - Developer Edition V9.0 for a cost of $62,000.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance has announced the availability of implementation grants to assist states in implementing prescription monitoring programs. An application will be submitted for a maximum of $400,000 in one time grant monies in response to this competitive grant announcement. Subsequent grant monies may be available for enhancements to the program. Since we are not assured of receiving these grant funds, this amount has not been included in the fiscal note worksheet.

Approximately 20% of the $491,000 vendor implementation costs, plus $120,000 annual cost for collection of data from dispensers, or

Approximately one-third of the initial cost of ITSD hardware and software needs, or

One Health and Senior Services Manager (1) will be needed to perform the following duties:

• Develop grant requests for DEA funds and prepare required reporting based on the conditions of any grant received;

• Draft a Request for Proposal to solicit bids for the required database. Once the contract is awarded, this individual will be needed on an ongoing basis to monitor the database contract and program, maintain ongoing communication with professional organizations regarding compliance with reporting requirements, and other state and local agencies and the public regarding the program;

• Coordinate with investigative management of the BNDD for enforcement activities and with law enforcement and regulatory agencies of this and other states for sharing data and tracking outcomes;

• Develop policies and procedures for reporting by dispensers, access to data by authorized parties; provide technical assistance to program participants on matters relating to the program;

• Design and prepare reports of program data; and review data collected to determine trends.

It may be possible to include many of these functions in the vendor contract, or to require the vendor to provide staffing for those functions as part of the vendor contract. This would increase initial and ongoing costs related to this contract. The salary included for the broad-band manager position is equivalent to entry level plus two steps.

One Office Support Assistant (keyboarding), would be necessary to provide clerical support to the program and to respond to inquiries and requests for database reports received. This individual will perform coordination of communication with other agencies and the public and maintenance of memoranda of understanding for data sharing; assist practitioners in obtaining access to the reporting subsystem of the program and generate and e-mail, or generate, print and fax reports as requested by authorized individuals and agencies that cannot access this information via the internet. This individual will also be responsible for responding to routine telephone inquiries regarding the program. A New Decision Item has been submitted for an on-line registration process for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Should this request be funded, a portion of the duties of existing staff might be shifted to eliminate the need for one new FTE. The salary included for the Office Support Assistant is two-steps above entry level.

§§302.311, 302.750 – Prosecutor Can No Longer Appear for Department of Revenue

Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume they would require three FTE Legal Counsels (each at $41,424 per year) and one FTE Office Support Assistant (at $22,428 per year). The Legal Counsels will be responsible for appearing in court on chemical refusals. DOR estimates the total cost of these sections to be $206,662 in FY 08, $236,992 in FY 09, and $244,102 in FY 10.

Oversight assumes the Department of Revenue would house the four FTE within existing facilities. Therefore, Oversight has reduced the DOR’s cost estimates to eliminate the cost of floor space for the FTE.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume these sections would increase the jurisdiction of the Water Patrol to include any water of the state, rather than only the Mississippi River, Missouri River, or the lakes of this state. In addition, a person commits the crime of operating a vessel with excessive blood alcohol content (BAC) if such person operates a vessel with a BAC of .08 rather than .10.

CTS assumes some cases may become protracted. Depending on the degree of enforcement, there could be a significant increase in the number of cases filed. However, CTS has no way of estimating that increase. Any significant increase would be reflected in future budget requests.

In response to a similar proposal (HCS # 2 for HB 406 & 726, LR # 0998-06), officials from the Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assumed there will be no fiscal impact to MoDOT. MoDOT assumes that all cost to administer the program will be paid from the General Revenue Fund. MoDOT concurs with Department of Health and Senior Services on the fiscal impact to General Revenue.

Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a similar proposal (HCS # 2 for HB 406 & 726, LR # 0998-06), officials assumed a savings of $108,748 General Revenue and $3,500 from the DHSS Document Services Fund with the program transferred to MoDOT. DHSS is assuming that MoDOT will be showing this transfer as a cost in their response to this fiscal note, resulting in an overall zero impact on revenues and expenditures.

Oversight assumes the savings realized by DHSS will be a cost realized by MoDOT since the program is being transferred from one agency to another.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume this section would require information that could be used to locate or identify a victim be redacted from court records. There will be some, unknown impact on the workload of the courts. Any significant increase would be reflected in future budget requests.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume this section would allow the court to impound the vehicle driven by a person convicted of driving while intoxicated or excessive BAC. Because of omissions in the bill (nowhere does it provide for who will actually process and facilitate the impoundment), CTS is unable to provide a fiscal analysis on this section at this time.

Oversight assumes Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) could absorb the cost of this section within existing resources. Any significant increase would be reflected in future budget requests.

Officials of the Office of Secretary of State - Business Services Division (SOS) state this proposal creates an address confidentiality program to protect victims of domestic violence by authorizing the use of designated addresses for such victims and their minor children. The

program would be administered by the SOS. For approved applicants the SOS would forward first-class mail, legal documents, and certified mail to the appropriate program participants. Participants must apply for renewal every four years.

The SOS estimate they would need a program manager, and computer equipment and office furniture for the manager. Travel and training resources would be required to travel to and train personnel in the various counties throughout the state on the proper procedures for certifying someone for the program. Postage and envelopes would be required to forward the mail to the participants. A database to track and maintain renewal information would be required.

The SOS contacted other states (Washington, Nebraska, Montana, & Maine) who indicated a range of start up costs consistent with the costs required to implement this program in Missouri. The number of participants is unknown.

SOS estimates that they would need 1 FTE, a Program Manager (at $48,000 per year), and would need other equipment and expense. SOS estimates the cost to be $180,952 in FY 08, $168,386 in FY 09, and $174,593 in FY 10.

Officials from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DOLIR) assume the proposal gives the responsibility to the Crime Victims’ Compensation program to pay benefits for academic tutoring for persons who have been kidnapped. The current statutory sections governing Crime Victims’ Compensation place a limit of $25,000 on reimbursement to any eligible crime victim. This new proposal states that the benefit in the case of a kidnapping would be “in an amount equal to the actual loss sustained.” The DOLIR is unable to determine how many cases there will be as a result of this proposal and what the cost of each case will be. The loss for some cases could be could be greater than the $25,000 limit currently in force and could create a significant financial burden on the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety – Director’s Office (DPS) assume the addition of this grant program adds administrative costs which DPS is unable to determine at this time as they cannot determine the amount of the appropriation, the number of grants to be processed, and the costs associated with real-time tagging and tracking pursuit management systems.

Officials from the Office of the State Treasurer (STO) state their agency only ensures the disbursements are made from a lawful appropriation and don’t exceed the amount of the appropriation. The STO suggest the following wording change: “The state treasurer shall be custodian of the fund. In accordance with Sections 30.170 and 30.180 RSMo, the state treasurer may approve disbursements.”

If the wording isn’t changed, the STO will need an FTE (Accounting Specialist I - $39,324 plus $17,762 fringe = $57,086) to monitor these disbursements. (This will be allocated proportionately as a retention of interest earnings on state funds in accordance with Section 30.605 RSMo).

Officials from the Department of Health and Senior Services, Office of Prosecution Services, and the Office of the State Public Defender did not respond to Oversight.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 2008 (10 Mo.)	FY 2009	FY 2010
GENERAL REVENUE FUND

Savings – Reduced appropriation to the State School Moneys Fund – reduction in next year from increase in fine revenue to local school districts (various sections)	$0	Unknown	Unknown

Savings – Department of Health and Senior Services (§§306.114, 306.117, 577.020, 577.026, 577.037 & 577.208)
Personal Services	$61,775	$63,629	$65,537
Fringe Benefits	$27,959	$28,798	$29,662
Expense and Equipment	$17,844	$18,379	$18,930
Total Savings – DHSS	$107,578	$110,806	$114,129
FTE Change – DHSS	(2 FTE)	(2 FTE)	(2 FTE)

Costs – MoDOT (§§306.114, 306.117, 577.020, 577.026, 577.037 & 577.208)
Personal Service	($61,775)	($63,629)	($65,537)
Fringe Benefits	($27,959)	($28,798)	($29,662)
Expense and Equipment	($17,844)	($18,379)	($18,930)
Total Costs – MoDOT	($107,578)	($110,806)	($114,129)
FTE Change – MoDOT	2 FTE	2 FTE	2 FTE

Costs – Department of Corrections (various sections)
Incarceration/probation costs	(More than $100,000)	(More than $100,000)	(More than $100,000)

Costs – Missouri State Highway Patrol
<