This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0675 - Certain Retired Officials May Carry Firearms
L.R. NO.  2181-02
BILL NO.  SCS for SB 675
SUBJECT:  Weapons: Law Enforcement
TYPE:     Original
DATE:     March 28, 1996

                              FISCAL SUMMARY


FUND AFFECTED               FY 1997         FY 1998         FY 1999

General Revenue           ($43,748)      ($378,820)      ($412,780)

Peace Officer
Standards and
Training Commission      $6,200,000      $4,000,000      $4,000,000

Partial Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds              $6,156,252      $3,621,180      $3,587,220


FUND AFFECTED               FY 1997         FY 1998         FY 1999


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


FUND AFFECTED               FY 1997         FY 1998         FY 1999

Local Government                 $0              $0              $0

                             FISCAL ANALYSIS


Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume they
would need an additional 2.5 FTE, plus related equipment and expenses, to
implement the additional duties outlined in this proposal.

Oversight assumes that the only effect of this proposal would be that cases
would become more protracted, because SPD would already be defending the
people affected by this legislation on other charges.  Oversight assumes for
purposes of this fiscal note that one (1) FTE, plus related equipment and
expenses, would be sufficient to implement the duties of this proposal.  One
Assistant Public Defender ($31,620) would represent the indigent accused of
carrying a firearm or weapon into a school or onto a school bus.  Equipment
would include office furniture.  Expenses would include travel, office
supplies and communications expenses.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume that the
principal impact to the judiciary would be in the potential appeals of permit
denials.  CTS officials would not expect the number of appeals to be large
based on the current volume of such cases.  Therefore, after a period of
adjustment, CTS officials assume that there would be minimal fiscal impact on
their agency.

Officials of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume that they would
request one (1) Assistant Attorney General I ($30,000 per year) to provide
legal interpretation to the Missouri State Highway Patrol pursuant to Section
571.091.11.  The AGO would anticipate in excess of 100 cases based on
historical data.

Officials of the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) stated that Texas
passed a similar proposal last year.  Texas has an estimated population of
18,000,000, and received approximately 200,000 applications in the first
year.  Missouri has a population of 5,500,000; therefore, applying the same
ratio, MSHP officials assumed there would be approximately 62,000
applications in the first year.  The total fee for processing a permit is
$150, with $100 of that going to the Peace Officers Service and Training
(POST) Commission Fund and $50 going to the MSHP.  MSHP officials estimate
their revenue in the first year at $3,100,000 (62,000 permits times $50).
After the initial rush, MSHP officials assumed the number of new applicants
would drop to 40,000 annually for the second and third years.  Revenue in
each of those years would therefore be $2,000,000 (40,000 permits times $50).

MSHP officials stated that the cost to train and equip a new patrolman is
$35,882.57 for the first year and $1,896.83 each year thereafter.  The cost
to equip a new civilian is $1,660 the first year, and $600 each year
thereafter.  Annual maintenance for computer system upgrades is 18%.

MSHP officials assumed the number of revocations and suspensions would be
approximately 5% of the total permits processed annually, which would amount
to 3,100 the first year and 2,000 in each of the second and third years.
This proposal would also require that revocations and suspensions be sent to
the permit holder by certified letter which is a cost of $2.20 per mailing.

MSHP officials assume they would request the following seventy-four (74)
total FTE to implement this proposal:  thirty-three (33) Patrolmen ($25,956
per year) to replace experienced officers who would be assigned to handle the
caseload associated with background investigations, perform follow-up on
investigations and pickup orders on revoked permits, act as a Carrying
Concealed Weapons (CCW) manager for the program and supervise new officers
and act as instructors for the required training of new employees; four (4)
Data Entry Operator I's ($14,808 per year) to process initial fingerprint
cards; four (4) Terminal Technician I's ($14,316 per year) to enter and
process fingerprint cards through AFIS system; two (2) Quality Control Clerk
I's ($15,900 per year) to verify criminal records information; two (2) Clerk
I's to prepare and retrieve CCW records; one (1) Data Entry Operator
Supervisor ($18,228 per year) to oversee the CCW records process; two (2)
Account Clerk I's ($14,808 per year) to handle and process registration fees;
twenty (20) Clerk Typist I's ($14,316 per year) to process notification
notices, appeal requests, and responses for Criminal Records Division,
process and fingerprint applicants at troop level for Field Operations and
Criminal Investigations Bureaus (2 Clerk Typist I's at each of the 9 troops
and 2 Clerk Typist I's at headquarters); five (5) Computer Information
Specialist I's ($22,704 per year) for application, design development, and
maintenance of interface support, to run image system dedicated to
implementation, development, and work flow of system; and one (1) Auditor I
($23,616 per year) to audit funds and accounts associated with the program.

MSHP officials requested expense and equipment and capital improvements of
$5,184,140 in FY97, $1,368,667 in FY98 and $1,371,488 in FY99.

MSHP officials assume that this proposal would result in the need for a total
of $802,175 in capital improvements which include:  5,400 sq. ft. accessible
to the public at troop headquarters  (30 ft. x 30 ft. at six of nine troops);
892.5 sq. ft. in the Criminal Records Division for 17 new FTEs ; another
1,000 sq. ft. for files, storage, etc.  Total square footage would equal
7,292.5.  MSHP officials stated that COMAP recommends $110 per sq. ft.

MSHP officials stated that all projections were made for the first three
years.  After five years, MSHP officials assume that the individuals from the
first year would return for renewal in addition to new applicants resulting
in long-term fiscal impact.

For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight assumes that the same ratio MSHP
used to project the anticipated number of permits to be processed should be
applied to the number of FTEs requested.  Texas officials requested 116 FTEs
to implement a "concealed weapons" proposal.  They estimate that they will
process 200,000 permit applications the first year.  200,000 divided by 116
equals 1724.14 applications processed per FTE.  MSHP anticipated  62,000
permit applications divided by 1724 applications equals 36 FTEs.  Oversight
used MSHP's projections for the number of permit applications for the next
three fiscal years.

Oversight assumes that MSHP could implement this proposal with the following
FTEs:  Seventeen (17) Patrolmen ($25,956); two (2) Data Entry Operator I's
($14,808); two (2) Terminal Technician I's ($14,316); one (1) Data Entry
Operator Supervisor ($18,228); two (2) Account Clerk I's ($14,808); eleven
(11) Clerk Typist I's ($14,316); and one (1) Computer Information Specialist
I ($22,704).  Oversight assumed that the patrolmen's duties would mainly be
associated with background investigations and follow-up investigations as
MSHP stated and would therefore not require the purchase of a new
fully-equipped vehicle for each new patrolman.  In response to another
proposal, MSHP outlined costs for a new car and standard equipment that goes
with each car for patrolmen which equalled $25,829 per car.  The MSHP
equipment request to "train/equip a patrolman" was $35,883 per patrolman.
$35,883 minus $25,829 equals $10,054 per FTE to train/equip 17 patrolmen, or
$170,918 one-time costs associated with the patrolmen FTEs.  Equipment for
the additional personnel would be a  one-time cost of $250,153 in FY97.
MSHP officials requested nine Livescan computers @ $50,000, or $450,000, and
one Store/Forward computer @ $50,000.  Oversight has not reflected these
costs in equipment costs because it is assumed that all information necessary
to process a permit application is currently available through existing
police information systems.  On-going expenses would include supplies/costs
for producing permits, FBI card processing, an Imaging System Upgrade, paper
and postage expenses associated with permits, patrolmen's uniform allowance
and certified mailings of  revoked/suspended permits and capital
improvements.  Oversight estimated total MSHP costs associated with this
proposal to be $3,050,356 in FY97, $2,278,461 in FY98, and $2,309,828 in
FY99.  MSHP officials assumed that the Criminal Records Division would need
892.5 sq. ft. for 17 new FTEs and COMAP recommends $110 per square foot
(892.5 x $110 = $98,175).  Oversight has shown $98,175 in capital
improvements costs.  Oversight assumes that the other FTEs would be in the
nine troop headquarters and could be located in existing facilities.

Oversight assumes that there would be a $150 revenue for each permit
processed.  Fifty dollars of the $150 permit application fee would be paid to
the MSHP to offset the cost of processing the application and permit.  One
hundred dollars for each permit application processed would be deposited into
the POST Commission Fund, which would be used to defray the costs charged to
peace officers for their own training pursuant to Section 590.115, RSMo.
Based on MSHP's estimate of 62,000 applications, Oversight assumes that there
would be $6,200,000 deposited in the POST Commission Fund in FY97, $4,000,000
in FY98 and $4,000,000 in FY99.

Oversight assumes that long-term revenues would drop dramatically to both the
General Revenue Fund and POST Commission Fund when the majority of permit
applications processed would be renewals at $20 each.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume it is possible that
the cumulative effect of this proposal could result in additional
incarceration costs and/or probation and parole supervision costs.  If this
proposal results in more than 500 additional offenders in any fiscal year,
additional capital improvements funding for this increase in beds would be
necessary.  The possibility also exists that if the number of new offenders
exceeds current planned capacity that additional beds would need to be rented
until sufficient new beds could be constructed.

No data is available in the DOC research data base from which to reach a
conclusion on the amount of new incarcerates passage of this proposal could
result in.  DOC reports that 22% of their current offender population have
weapons sentence offenses, or about 4,254 total offenders.  The annual per
diem is about $10,286 for each inmate.  DOC assumes that no estimates of new
incarcerates due to passage of this proposal can be predicted.

Oversight assumes that the majority of offenders would still be incarcerated
for charges other than those new charges outlined in this proposal.  Although
there could be an increase in prison populations resulting in additional
incarceration costs, Oversight assumes that the penalty provisions outlined
in this proposal would be charges in addition to other existing crimes.
Therefore, Oversight assumes that the overall impact on DOC would be minimal
and could be absorbed with existing appropriations or requested through
normal and customary budget means.

Officials from the Department of Revenue, the Department of Social Services,
the Department of Corrections, the Department of Mental Health, the Office of
Administration, the Office of Prosecution Services, the Department of Public
Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol, the Missouri Sheriffs' Association, and
the Missouri Police Chiefs' Association assume this proposal would have no
fiscal impact on their agencies.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government       FY 1997       FY 1998       FY 1999
                                      (10 Mo.)

Income-Missouri State Highway Patrol
  Permit application fees           $3,100,000    $2,000,000    $2,000,000

Cost-Missouri State Highway Patrol
  Personal Service (36 FTE)         ($621,178)    ($764,355)    ($783,464)
  Fringe Benefits                    (329,174)     (405,046)     (415,172)
  Expense and Equipment            (2,100,004)   (1,109,060)   (1,111,192)
Total Cost-MSHP                   ($3,050,356)  ($2,278,461)  ($2,309,828)

Cost-State Public Defender (SPD)
  Personal Service (1 FTE)           ($26,998)     ($33,221)     ($34,051)
  Fringe Benefits                      (8,299)      (10,212)      (10,467)
  Expense and Equipment                (8,668)       (4,312)       (4,441)
Total Cost-SPD                       ($43,965)     ($47,745)     ($48,961)

Cost-Office of the Attorney General (AGO)
  Personal Service (1 FTE)           ($25,000)     ($30,750)     ($31,519)
  Fringe Benefits                      (7,685)       (9,453)       (9,689)
  Expense and Equipment               (16,742)      (12,411)      (12,783)
Total Cost-AGO                       ($49,427)     ($52,614)     ($53,991)

TO GENERAL REVENUE FUND              ($43,748)    ($378,820)    ($412,780)


Income-Missouri State Highway Patrol
  Permit fees                       $6,200,000    $4,000,000    $4,000,000

COMMISSION FUND                     $6,200,000    $4,000,000    $4,000,000

FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government       FY 1997       FY 1998       FY 1999
                                      (10 Mo.)

                                            $0            $0            $0


This proposal would establish an application procedure to obtain a permit to
carry concealed firearms and would allow retired prosecuting attorneys,
circuit attorneys, peace officers and Missouri state court judges to carry
concealed weapons without a permit.

This legislation would make the carrying of any firearm or other weapon into
any school or onto any school bus without written permission from the
supervising official of the school, an unlawful use of a weapon.  It would
also be unlawful to carry a concealed firearm, unless that  person had a
valid permit.  A person who possessed a concealed firearm and had been
formally adjudicated in juvenile court for an offense that would be a
dangerous felony if committed by an adult, would be guilty of unlawful
possession of a concealable firearm.  This offense would be a Class C felony.

This proposal would prohibit the forging, transferring, altering or changing
of a permit or making a false notation on the permit or obtaining a permit
under false representation or use or attempt to use a permit issued to
another.  Violations would be a Class A misdemeanor.

This proposal would allow the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) access to
the juvenile records of any applicant for a concealable firearm permit.  MSHP
would issue a permit if the applicant had met the specific requirements
outlined in this proposal.  The MSHP would be allowed to deny, suspend or
revoke a permit if any of the requirements had not been met, or if it was
believed the applicant had made a false statement.  Refusal would be required
to be put in writing  and could be appealed.  Revocation or suspension would
have to be mailed by certified mail to the permit holder.  The permit holder
would have ten days to surrender the permit to the MSHP troop headquarters
where the permit had been issued.  When the ten day period had expired, a
highway patrol officer would be required to report the revocation or
suspension to the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES).  If the
permit holder failed to surrender the permit, MSHP officer could request the
court to order the surrender of the permit.  Once issued, a permit would be
valid for five years and could be renewed.  MSHP would keep a record of all
applications for permits, and would report the issuance of permits to the
MULES.  The MSHP would submit a copy of the permit along with fingerprints of
the applicant for filing in the central repository.

For processing of the permit, a fee of $150 would be assessed by MSHP.  Fifty
dollars of the fee would be paid to General Revenue for use by MSHP for the
cost of processing the application and permit and $100 would be placed in the
Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission Fund.   Monies placed
in the POST Commission Fund would be used to defray the costs charged to
peace officers for their own training pursuant to Section 590.115, RSMo.  The
permittee would pay a fee of $20 to MSHP to renew a permit.

Any successful claim made against the MSHP or any patrol officer for
wrongfully issuing, failing to issue, or revoking or suspending a permit to
carry a concealed firearm would be paid out of the State Legal Expense Fund.
No permit issued would authorize any person to carry a concealed firearm or
any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where
people had assembled for worship, or into any school, or into any election
precinct on any  election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any
agency of the federal government, state government or political subdivision
thereof.  MSHP would have access to any juvenile court records of any person
who had applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.  Any information
obtained pursuant to this subsection could be shared with the applicant, but
could not be disclosed to others without court authorization.

This proposal would require MSHP to submit to MULES by the twenty-fifth day
of the months of April, July, October and January, reports on the number of
concealed carry permits processed, denied, suspended or revoked as well as
the number of permit appeals filed from the previous calendar year quarter
information relating to permits to carry concealed firearms.  MSHP would also
be required to compile information as to the number of permittees who are
convicted of crimes.  An annual report of this information would be presented
to the Governor and the General Assembly  each year.

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


Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of State Courts Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Social Service
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol
Department of Revenue
Department of Mental Health
Missouri Sheriffs' Association
Police Chiefs' Association
Department of Corrections