SB 0863 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0863 - Creates various criminal provisions and requirements regarding concealed weapons

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 3174-01

BILL NO. SB 863

SUBJECT: Crimes and Punishment; Weapons; Licenses - misc.

TYPE: Original

DATE: February 24, 1998

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
General Revenue	($1,721,617)	($79,754)	($81,782)
POST Commission	$368,900	$2,170,000	$1,400,000
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds	($1,352,717)	$2,090,246	$1,318,218

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
None
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	$218,856	$1,245,516	$334,654

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 9 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials of the Departments of Social Services, Missouri Police Chiefs' Association, Office of the Attorney General, and Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol assume this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their agencies.

Officials of the Department of Revenue (DOR) stated that this proposal would require that $35 of the original fee of $75 collected by a county sheriff is to be sent to the DOR for deposit in the Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission Fund. It is not known at present how many persons would apply for, receive, and pay their money for this permit. DOR officials assume at present there would be no fiscal impact to their agency due to this proposal. However, if this proposal resulted in large quantities applying for, receiving, and paying the proper amount of money, DOR could find it necessary to request FTE in a future budget.

Officials of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) have not responded to the request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a similar proposal in a previous legislative session the DMH assumed there would be no fiscal impact to their agency.

Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that they could not predict the number of new commitments which could result from the creation of the offense(s) outlined in this proposal. An increase in commitments would depend on the utilization by prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the court. If additional persons were sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this legislation, the DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average $30.37 per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (average of $2.47 per offender, per day). Supervision by the DOC through probation or incarceration would result in some additional costs but DOC officials assume that the impact would be minimal.

DOC officials did not anticipate the need for capital improvements or rental space due to this proposal; however, the cumulative effect of various new proposals, if adopted, could result in the need for additional capital improvements funding if the total number of new offenders exceed current planned capacity.

Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume that this proposal may lead to prosecutions for the violations of permit laws. Although it could impact the caseloads of prosecutors, OPS staff assume the impact to a given office would be minimal.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Officials of the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume they would request a total additional 3.25 FTE, plus related equipment and expenses, to implement the additional duties outlined in this proposal. SPD staff assume 250 new C/D felonies for carrying weapons onto school grounds and 250 new cases from lying on an application to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Because of the referendum clause, SPD costs would be for 2 months in FY99.

Oversight assumes that this proposal could result in cases becoming 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 ($32,850) would represent the indigent accused of carrying a firearm or weapon into a school, onto a school bus or lying on their permit application. Equipment would include office furniture. Expenses would include travel, office supplies and communications expenses.

Officials of the State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume that the principal impact to the judiciary as a result of this proposal would be in the potential appeals of permit denials. While CTS staff could not predict the number of appeals, they would not expect the number to be large. Present law provides for such an appeal for denial of a permit to purchase a concealable weapon, and there does not appear to be a significant volume of those cases.

CTS officials would expect a few cases to be appealed through small claims court, trial de novo and go to appellate review regarding the standards used for denial. After a period of adjustment, CTS officials would expect the ongoing volume of appeals of permit denials would be relatively small.

Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP)

stated that their Information Systems Division (ISD) assumed that this proposal would cause the

creation of a new system to maintain concealed weapon permit and revocation information, creation of a new system to record individuals qualifying as juvenile offenders, creation of new system to track training and approval of instructors as described in the proposal. Additionally, this proposal would require the installation of circuits and terminal devices in all county sheriffs' offices as the proposal mandated the use of Missouri uniform law enforcement system (MULES) for the reporting of concealed weapon permits and revocation information. The circuit cost estimates reflect actual costs currently paid for circuits and equipment. ISD officials also assumed that the application design, development, and support for the proposed Training Tracking System would become the responsibility of the MSHP.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

MSHP's Criminal Records Division (CRD) stated that the total impact on MSHP would vary depending on how the proposal would be implemented. MSHP could have to establish and maintain the guidelines for the firearms course. MSHP would have to support the records in MULES for the list of applicants for permits. If a central database of juvenile records was established for the sheriffs to check, the MSHP would have to provide access to the database through MULES. Upon the request of the sheriff processing a permit application, the CRD would have to run a criminal record check. To handle these increases in workload, the CRD would request one Fingerprint Technician, two Data Entry Operators, one AFIS operator, one Quality Control Clerk, and one Clerk Typist. MSHP would also request one Computer Information Specialist I to design the application; development, maintenance, training, and support for Permit, Juvenile and Training systems; interface support; and Circuit Implementation Support.

Due to the election clause, MSHP assumed the fiscal impact of this proposal would not be realized until May, 1999 and full costs in FY's 00 and 01.

Oversight assumes that there would some duplication in doing background checks for permits to purchase handguns and other background checks requested by local law enforcement agencies currently being performed and those that would be required in relation to the concealed firearms permitting process. Oversight therefore assumes that MSHP would require one Data Entry Operator to review the fingerprints of applicants received, obtain any information needed which is not submitted, search the criminal records database for a criminal history, and process the applications. Some overtime could be required to manage the initial flow of applications. Oversight also assumes that connecting the Sheriffs' to the MULES system would not be required, as all information necessary to process a permit application should be available through existing police information systems. The proposal only requires the sheriff to report the issuance of permits and any revocation/suspensions to MULES.

Officials of the Missouri Sheriffs' Association assume county sheriffs' departments would request 150 new FTE ($22,000 each), plus fringe benefits, to process concealed weapons permits for a cost of $3,750,000. They also assumed they would also incur administrative costs of paying for the criminal background checks at approximately $20 each. Assuming there would be 100,000 applicants annually, the administrative costs for criminal background checks alone would be $2,000,000. Missouri Sheriffs' Association assumed the combined fiscal impact would be $5,750,000 annually to implement this proposal.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Texas passed concealed firearms legislation which went into effect January 1, 1996. 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, Oversight assumed that Missouri would have 62,000 applications in the first year. After the initial rush, Oversight assumed the number of new applications would drop to approximately 40,000 annually. Because this proposal contains an election clause and assuming the proposal was passed by a vote of the people, Oversight estimated that there would be 10,540 applications in FY99. Oversight assumed that since, FY00 would be the first full fiscal year, Missouri would have 62,000 in that year and 40,000 applications in subsequent years. This proposal sets the fee for a concealed weapons permit at $75; $40 of the $75 fee would be paid to the treasury of the county or City of St. Louis while $35 would go to the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission Fund. For the two months following the election, Oversight estimated the permit fees should generate an estimated $790,500 in FY99, $4,650,000 in both FY00 (the first full fiscal year) and $3,000,000 in FY01. Of the revenue generated, the county treasuries and the City of St. Louis would receive $421,600 in FY99, $2,480,000 in FY00 and $1,600,000 in FY01 and the POST Commission Fund would receive $368,900 in FY99, $2,170,000 in FY00 and $1,400,000 in FY01. When preparing the fiscal note for a nearly identical proposal in the previous legislative session, Oversight officials spoke with MSHP staff to confirm that local law enforcement agencies are not charged a fee for running criminal background checks. Therefore, Oversight assumes that local law enforcement agencies would not incur $2,000,000 in administrative costs to pay for background checks.

Oversight assumes that there would be long-term impact to the state as well as to local law enforcement agencies as the new concealed firearm permit applications diminished and those permitted individuals renewed their permit every three year. Renewed permit fees would be $35 and would go to the POST Commission Fund as outlined in this proposal. Ongoing costs to the local law enforcement agencies to process permit applications and renewals could exceed revenue generated from new permit applications.

Oversight officials spoke with a Public Information Officer (PIO) from the Texas Department of Public Safety regarding their concealed firearms legislation. The PIO stated that initially there was a glut of applications which resulted in some backlogs. As of 5:00 p.m. on December 30, 1996, the Texas Department of Public Safety had issued 114,717 licenses, had denied 1,321 applications and had less than 4,000 pending applications. Officials from the Texas DPS expect that their concealed firearm program will fund itself.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Oversight assumes that local law enforcement agencies could streamline the concealed firearms permitting process by following those procedures used to issue a permit to own a handgun in Missouri. Because the anticipated 62,000 applications in Missouri would be distributed over the entire state, Oversight assumes that most third and fourth class county law enforcement agencies would be able to handle any additional duties which resulted from this proposal with existing staff. Oversight further assumes that first class counties and the City of St. Louis could have a more concentrated number of concealed firearms applications and would therefore need an additional 3 FTEs in each county and the City of St. Louis or 39 FTEs. Oversight assumes that second class counties would also need an additional two FTEs in each county or 8 FTEs. Oversight assumes that local law enforcement agencies would need a total of 47 FTEs at $22,000, plus $3,000 each for fringe benefits, as estimated by Missouri Sheriffs' Association due to this proposal.

Officials of the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) stated that statewide public notice of the proposed ballot issue would be published in selected newspapers throughout the state at a cost of approximately $598,500. (Costs estimated at $3,990 per newspaper column inch is based on actual publication costs incurred for the November, 1996 election. $1,330 per inch x 3 for multiple publications as required by Section 116.260, RSMo Supp. 1997. $3,990 x 150 inches for the 22 page bill = $598,500.)

SOS officials stated that this proposal calls for an April, 1999 special election and pursuant to Section 115.063, local election authorities would be reimbursed for election costs. The April, 1996 special election cost $1,079,361. An estimate of $1,100,000 was used to calculate fiscal impact. Total fiscal impact to the state for the special election was estimated to be $1,698,500 in FY99.

This proposal would affect Total State Revenues.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(2 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost-Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP)
Personal Service (1 FTE)	($3,293)	($19,853)	($20,349)
Fringe Benefits	(1,479)	(8,916)	(9,139)
Expense and Equipment	(4,817)	(618)	(637)
Total Cost-MSHP	($9,589)	($29,387)	($30,125)
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(2 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND (continued)
Cost-State Public Defender (SPD)
Personal Service (1 FTE)	($5,724)	($34,513)	($35.376)
Fringe Benefits	(1,604)	(9,674)	(9,916)
Expense and Equipment	(6,200)	(6,180)	(6,365)
Total Cost-SPD	($13,528)	($50,367)	($51,657)
Cost-Secretary of State (SOS)
Publications	($598,500)	0	0
Election cost reimbursement	(1,100,000)	0	0
Total Cost-SOS	($1,698,500)	0	0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
GENERAL REVENUE FUND	($1,721,617)	($79,754)	($81,782)
PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND
TRAINING (POST) COMMISSION FUND
Income-Department of Public Safety
Permit fees	$368,900	$2,170,000	$1,400,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
POST COMMISSION FUND	$368,900	$2,170,000	$1,400,000
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(2 Mo.)
Income-Counties and City of St. Louis
Permit fees	$421,600	$2,480,000	$1,600,000
Cost-Counties and City of St. Louis
Personal services/fringe benefits (47 FTE)	($202,744)	($1,234,484)	($1,265,346)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
COUNTIES AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS	$218,856	$1,245,516	$334,654

FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

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

DESCRIPTION

This proposal would allow a person to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm if he met certain requirements. The county sheriff would be the permitting agency. Retired judges, police officers, and prosecutors would be allowed to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

A person who: 1) possessed and discharged; or 2) brandished a firearm while intoxicated would be guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Under current law, possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a crime. A person who carried a firearm onto school property or carried a concealed firearm without a permit would commit a class D felony.

A person who was adjudicated in juvenile court of any offense constituting a dangerous felony, where a concealable firearm was used in the crime, and who later carried a concealable firearm would commit a class C felony. A person who had been adjudicated of such offense could not obtain a permit to carry a concealable firearm.

A section parallel to Section 571.090, RSMo, is created for obtaining a permit to carry

concealed (571.091). The requirements to obtain a permit are the same as those for obtaining a permit to carry a concealable firearm (571.090) and the following requirements would be added: 1) the applicant had not exhibited violent behavior in the past five years; and 2) the applicant had taken at least sixteen hours of firearms training. Applications would be made to the sheriff

where the applicant resides. Any person who forged or altered a permit or obtained a permit by

false representation would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A permit would cost $75 and would be valid for three years. Of the $75 fee, $40 would be paid to the county treasury or the treasury of the City of St. Louis to the credit of the general revenue fund and $35 would be paid to the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) fund. If a permit application was denied, a person could appeal such denial to the small claims court.

This proposal contains an election clause.

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

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Corrections

Department of Mental Health

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Revenue

Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol

State Courts Administrator

Office of Prosecution Services

State Public Defender

Missouri Sheriffs' Association

Missouri Police Chiefs' Association

Secretary of State

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

February 24, 1998