SB 0571 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0571 - Allows public records to be kept on cd-rom

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 2267-02

BILL NO. Perfected SCS for SB 571

SUBJECT: Public Records: Political Subdivisions

TYPE: Original

DATE: March 12, 1998

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
General Revenue	$0 to (Unknown)	$0 to (Unknown)	$0 to (Unknown)
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds*	$0 to (Unknown)	$0 to (Unknown)	$0 to (Unknown)

Costs are estimated to exceed $100,000 annually if 3 FTE were required.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 4 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials of the Department of Social Services (DOS), Department of Revenue (DOR), Department of Health (DOH), Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) and the Office of Attorney General (AGO) assume no fiscal impact to their office, department or agencies.

Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated they cannot predict the number of new commitments due to the felony provision of this proposal. DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average of $30.37 per inmate per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (average $2.47 per offender per day). Officials assume impact if any to be minimal.

Oversight assumes there would be substantial compliance therefore, fiscal impact would be zero. Oversight assumes any additional offenders could be handled with existing staff and appropriation.

Officials of the Office of Secretary of State (SOS) assume there could be fiscal impact to their office. Officials stated that costs would be dependent upon the standards established by the State Records Commission. Officials stated that State Archives could be required to alter storage space. Officials assume that at least 3 new Electronic Records Archivists (FTE) could be required, however, that would also be dependent upon the nature of the standards established by the State Records Commission. The record archivist would train and advise government officials in the special handling of electronic records and would provide value-added services for records stored.

Oversight for purposes of this fiscal note will show costs for the Office of Secretary of State as $0 to (Unknown) costs. Oversight assumes costs would be dependent upon the number of entities that would use electronic technology and the nature of the standards established. Secretary of State officials assume unknown costs could exceed $100,000 annually.

Oversight assumes this proposal provides the option to County Recorder of Deeds to use electronic technology for the purpose of record retention and preservation provided standards promulgated by Local Records Boards are met. Oversight assumes this proposal is permissive and would have no local fiscal impact unless the Recorder of Deeds would elect to use electronic technology for record keeping purposes.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost to Secretary of State
Electronic Record Storage*, FTE,
Equipment and Expense	$0 to	$0 to	$0 to
	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
*Costs are estimated to exceed $100,000 annually if 3 FTE would be required.
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
	$0	$0	$0

FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

DESCRIPTION

To ensure the proper retention and integrity of records this proposal would require all state and local departments, commissions, bureaus, boards, and the judiciary to preserve records in accordance with standards established by the State Records Commission.

This proposal clarifies that the Recorder of Deeds would be allowed to use an electronic process for the purpose of record preservation. The reproductions could be used as permanent records of the original provided they meet the standards for permanent retention and integrity as promulgated by the local records boards.

This proposal provides that any civil officer who knowingly fails to deliver to their successor all documents as required in section 109.010, RSMo; or any private person having or obtaining possession of any documents appertaining to any public office and knowingly fails to deliver such documents to the successor as required by section 109.080, RSMo, would be committing the crime of tampering with a public record.

DESCRIPTION (continued)

Currently tampering with a public record is a class A misdemeanor. This proposal makes tampering with a public record a class D felony.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Office of the Attorney General

Secretary of State

Department of Revenue

Department of Health

Office of State Courts Administrator

Department of Social Services

Department of Corrections

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

March 12, 1998