Bill Summary: The proposal expands the No-Call List to include cell phone numbers, prohibits sending unsolicited faxes and text messages, and prohibits using automated dialing announcing devices in certain situations. The proposal also creates the crime of caller identification spoofing.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE	0	0	0

☐ 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 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Officials from the Department of Public Safety – Director’s Office and the Office of the State Public Defender assume the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.

In response to a similar proposal from the current session (HB 1963, LR # 4206-01), officials from the Department of Public Safety – Missouri State Highway Patrol assumed the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agency.

Officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume any costs associated with this proposal can be absorbed within existing resources.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on the courts.

In response to a similar proposal from the current session (HB 1963, LR # 4206-01), officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assumed they cannot currently 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 (FY07 average of $41.21 per inmate per day, or an annual cost of $15,040 per inmate) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY07 average of $2.43 per offender per day, or an annual cost of $887 per offender).

• DOC assumes the narrow scope of the crime will not encompass a large number of offenders;

• The low felony status of the crime enhances the possibility of plea-bargaining or imposition of a probation sentence; and

• The probability exists that offenders would be charged with a similar but more serious offense or that sentences may run concurrent to one another.

In summary, supervision by the DOC through probation or incarceration would result in some additional costs, but it is assumed the impact would be $0 or a minimal amount that could be absorbed within existing resources.

In response to a previous version of the proposal (HB 1582, LR # 3895-04), officials from the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assumed this legislation would not have any significant fiscal impact on the OPS. Because the enforcement provisions of this proposed legislation apparently apply to the Attorney General and not to county prosecutors, the OPS assumes this proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on county prosecutors from an increase in the number of cases referred for prosecution.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) assume 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 proposal for Administrative Rules is less than $2,500. The SOS recognizes this is a small amount and does not expect additional funding would be required to meet these costs. However, SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the SOS can sustain with their core budget. Any additional required funding would be handled through the budget process.

The proposed legislation could have a fiscal impact on small businesses who utilize automatic dialing announcing devices.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.