COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 0448-07
Bill No.: HS for HCS for SB 72 with HSA 1 for HA 1, Part I of HA 2, HA 4, HSA 1 for HA 5, HA's 6 - 15, and HA 17
Subject: Public Records: Science and Technology
Type: Original
Date: May 16, 2001
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| General Revenue | ($27,731) | ($29,130) | ($4,000) |
| Secretary of State's Technology Trust Fund Account | $1,150,000 | $2,300,000 | $2,300,000 |
| Highway | ($39,600) | $0 | $0 |
| State Document Preservation | $3,333 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
$1,086,002 | $2,274,870 | $2,300,000 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| Local Government | (Unknown) | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 9 pages.
ASSUMPTION
Officials of most agencies contacted concerning the reproduction of official documents using computer-generated electronic or digital retrieval systems and concerning the Open Meetings Law revisions (see Sources of Information) stated that either the proposal would not affect their agencies or that the proposal would offer but not require additional methods of reproducing documents.
Officials of the University of Missouri, the Division of Workers' Compensation and the Department of Corrections (in response to similar proposals from previous years) noted that the proposal might provide a cause of action for additional litigation, which could have a fiscal impact depending on the amount and outcome of that litigation. For fiscal note purposes it is assumed that this would not be a direct impact of the proposal.
Officials of the Secretary of State stated that the parts of the proposal concerning the Document Services Fund would not affect their agency, administratively. They noted that the amounts of money collected by the Archives Division varies from year to year and that there were about $4,000 collected during FY 2000. These monies were deposited to the General Revenue Fund.
These fees would, under terms of the proposal, be credited to the Document Services Fund.
Office of Administration - Division of Budget and Planning (BAP) officials state the proposal would create a Commission on Health Information Privacy to make recommendations to the General Assembly for additional legislative measures needed to protect the privacy of nonpublic health information. BAP states the members would be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses. Since the department responsible for paying these expenses is not specified, BAP assumes the following costs for the thirteen public members of the commission: Mileage - estimate 240 miles round trip x $0.295 mileage reimbursement rate x 13 members = $920.40 per meeting; Lodging - $75 hotel cost per night x 2 nights per meeting x 13 members = $1,950 per meeting; Meals - $35 per day x 2 days per meeting x 13 members = $910 per meeting; Meals the evening before the meeting $22 x 13 members = $286 per meeting. Cost per meeting for the 13 public members = $4,066.40. BAP assumes the meetings would be held in Jefferson City and the two state officials on the Commission would be reimbursed through their respective offices/departments. BAP assumes the Commission would no longer meet after its recommendations are presented to the General Assembly (by January 1, 2003) and there would be no cost in FY 2004.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Oversight assumes the Commission would meet once a month from January of 2002 through December of 2002 (12 meetings).
Certificate of Need
Officials from the Department of Health (DOH) state they would be required to have a representative serve as a member of the Health Facilities Review Committee and that this responsibility would be performed by existing administrative staff. Officials state the proposal would make changes to an already existing program and procedure and estimate this would have very little fiscal impact on their agency.
Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee (MHFRC) officials state that based on their review, they have made the assumption that the workload would remain close to current levels; therefore, there would be no need for additional staff. They based their assumptions on a review of the Committee's decisions for the past three calendar years (1998, 1999, and 2000). They also examined those projects which had previously been determined to be non-applicable because they were under an expenditure minimum, but would now be reviewable as a result of this proposal. They also calculated the impact to General Revenue Fund. MHFRC states that from 1998-2000, the Committee reviewed 210 non-applicability requests. These proposals did not require an application fee. As a result of this proposal, 69 of the requests would have required review; therefore, officials anticipate 24 additional applications, annually. The minimum application fee is $1,000. Proceed to general revenue would be at least $24,000 per year.
MHFRC officials state that in this proposal, replacement and renovation projects costing less than $7.5 million would not be reviewable. MHFRC examined the proposal reviewed during the 1998 - 2000 period to determine how many of those would not be reviewable as a result of this proposal. None of the 76 applications reviewed under the current statute would be reviewed under this proposal. Using the actual amount of application fees associated with these projects, the result would be an annual loss to General Revenue of approximately $64,000.
Officials not there the proposal could have indirect effects. If applicants know that a project is reviewable, regardless of cost, they may decide to go with high-end equipment and construction. In the past, in order to stay below the expenditure minimum, often times applicants would use minimum construction standards. As a result of this proposal, quality of care may be enhanced because minimum standards would no longer be used for construction. Many applicants who had received a Non-Applicability CON letter in the past would have difficulty proving a need for the service under the proposal. This could result in a higher level of debate and competition among proposed services in major metropolitan areas, but restrain increases to Medicaid funds and already-strained employee insurance premiums.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the Department of Social Services (DOS) - Division of Medical Services (DMS) state that changing the dollar cap on nonreviewable projects from $1 million to $7.5 million could have an impact on DMS, however it is believed the impact would be minimal. Under current regulation, a non-state inpatient hospital must have a CON in order to request a rate adjustment for a new or expanded service. Increasing the threshold for a CON from $1 million to $7.5 million would reduce the number of projects that qualify for a rate adjustment thus reducing rate adjustment requests. This would delay recognition of those costs by three years when they would be included in the base year cost report. The annual impact of this change would be $12,435 beginning in FY 2005. This was based on a review of the rate requests received that are under $7.5 million.
DOS - Division of Aging (DA) officials state the division assumes there would be a minimal fiscal impact associated with this proposal.
Campaign Finance and Ethics
Officials of the Missouri Ethics Commission stated, in response to a similar proposal (HB 678 from the current legislative session), this proposal clarifies certain parts of the law and would have no fiscal impact.
In response to similar legislation, officials of the Office of Attorney General assumed any fiscal impact can be absorbed with existing resources.
In response to similar legislation from this year, officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that the DOC could not predict the number of new cases which may result from the creation of the offenses(s) outlined in this proposal. An increase in cases 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 would incur a corresponding increase in costs through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY99 average of $2.47 per offender, per day).
In summary, supervision by the DOC through probation 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.
Secretary of State's Technology Trust Fund Account
Officials from the Secretary of State's Office, responded in a similar proposal (HB 938), that
ASSUMPTION (continued)
without the continuance of collecting fees for the Technology Trust Fund, the Secretary of State would need annual budget expenditures for technology for the offices of the Secretary of State. SOS did not estimate the amount of revenue that would be recognized into the fund resulting from passage of this proposal.
Oversight notes that based on information obtained from the Office of Administration - Division of Accounting's Financial Summaries for FY's 1998 through FY 2000, the receipts for the Secretary of State's Technology Trust Fund Account for FY 1998 were $2,300,375, for FY 1999 were $2,243,058 and for FY 2000 were $2,332,062. Averaging the receipts for the noted fiscal years, the fund is averaging fiscal year receipts of approximately $2,291,832 or approximately $2,300,000. Using this $2,300,000, Oversight assumes the receipts for this fund for FY 2002 will be $1,150,000 and for FY 2003 and FY 2004 will be $2,300,000. In FY 2002 the receipts are prorated at six (6) months due to the fact that per current law the fees would expire on December 31, 2001. Therefore, the fiscal impact in FY 2002 is only six (6) months.
Retention of Law Enforcement Agency Video Tapes
Officials of the Missouri Highway Patrol note that some law enforcement agencies have video cameras in patrol cars which record all activities of patrolmen and women. Currently, the practice is to keep tapes of routine days only a few days and then reuse the tapes. This proposal would require all of these tapes (as well as tapes of interrogations and confessions) be kept for 365 days. They anticipate costs for purchasing more tapes and for storage of existing tapes.
Field Operations Bureau officials note that 60 road officers have video cameras in their cars, that they use one video tape per shift and that they work 20 shifts per month. 60 x 20 x 12 months equals 14,400 that would be in storage and 14,400 tapes would need to be on hand for use. Using an average cost of $5 for 120 minute tapes, the cost for video tapes would be $72,000. Each Patrol troop would need a file cabinet to store tapes. 9 file cabinets x $400 per cabinet = $3,600. One-time costs would be to the Highway Fund.
Oversight notes that the volume of video tapes the Patrol would be buying would allow purchasers to take advantage of discounts for large purchases and assumes an average price of $2.50 per tape. Oversight also assumes some political subdivision law enforcement agencies would incur one-time costs due to this provision of the proposal.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2002
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| DOCUMENT SERVICES FUND | |||
| Income - Archive Division Fees | $3,333 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON DOCUMENT SERVICES FUND | $3,333 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | |||
| Cost - Office of Administration: Commission on Health Information Privacy | ($24,398) | ($25,130) | $0 |
| Loss - Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee - Fewer Applications | ($40,000) | ($40,000) | ($40,000) |
| Loss - Archive Division Fees | ($3,333) | ($4,000) | ($4,000) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND | ($67,731) | ($69,130) | ($44,000) |
| SECRETARY OF STATE'S TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND ACCOUNT | |||
| Income - Continuation of fees | $1,150,000 | $2,300,000 | $2,300,000 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON SECRETARY OF STATE'S TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND ACCOUNT | $1,150,000 | $2,300,000 | $2,300,000 |
| HIGHWAY FUND | |||
| Costs - Video Tapes and Storage | ($39,600) | $0 | $0 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON HIGHWAY FUND | ($39,600) | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2002
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
| LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES | |||
| Cost - Additional Video Tapes and Storage of Video Tapes | (Unknown) | $0 | $0 |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES | (Unknown) | $0 | $0 |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would:
1) allow government agencies to reproduce official documents using computer-generated electronic or digital retrieval records systems. Under current law, public records may be created and stored by electronic processes;
2) allow the Secretary of State to adopt rules authorizing and prescribing formats for electronic facsimile filing of all documents filed with the Secretary;
3) direct all fees from services performed by the Secretary of State's Archive Division to the Document Services Fund.
4) require law enforcement agencies to retain recorded video tapes for three hundred and sixty-five days.
5) require that roll call votes be taken and made public on matters where meetings themselves could be closed under the open meetings law. It would also: allow penalties to be assessed for any violation of the open meetings law (currently, penalties are only allowed if the violation is "purposeful"); increase possible penalties for violations of the law from $500 to $2,500 but not more than five percent (5%) of the total annual budget of a public body. Awards of costs and attorney fees of parties bringing suit under the Open Meetings law would only be allowed if the court found there was "a knowing violation" of the law;
6) allow the governing body of a public hospital or a related organization of the hospital to close portions of records and meetings that it manages or controls which relate to: (1) the payment amounts and payment methodologies of its contract proposals to and contracts with a health carrier or a self-insured health plan; (2) the discussion and analysis related to the development and expansion of new or existing facilities or entering into service arrangements or other agreements; and (3) the amount of compensation that would be paid to a physician under the public hospital's or related organization's contract proposals to and contracts with physicians.
All records closed according to the proposal would be disclosed pursuant to a lawful subpoena. All other public hospital records are governed by public record laws;
7) extend the sunset date on the Open Meetings law exception for the disclosure of municipal utility records from December 31, 2001, to December 31, 2003, if legislation authorizing electric utility restructuring is not enacted;
8) prohibit, with some exceptions, the selling of personal health information to a third party or the disclosure of information to a third party if the purpose of the disclosure is for: (1) marketing DESCRIPTION (continued)
a product or service; (2) employment decisions; (3) credit worthiness; or (4) unrelated to the business, practice or service offered by the disclosing entity. The proposal would also establish a Commission on Health Information Privacy, to be comprised of 15 people from various health care industry, governmental, and consumer groups. The commission would make recommendations to the General Assembly by January 1, 2003, regarding any additional legislation needed to protect the privacy of personal health information;
9) rewrite the state's Certificate of Need Law;
10) make several changes to the laws governing lobbyists, the Missouri Ethics Commission, and campaign finance disclosure;
11) extend the collection of additional $5 fees by the Secretary of State's Office for the Technology Trust Fund;
12) increase from 10 to 15 days the period of time within which a person performing a marriage must certify that fact and return the marriage license to the issuer; and,
13) remove the requirement that Social Security Numbers be on applications for marriage licenses if an applicant does not have a Social Security Number.
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 Revenue.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Administration
Department of Agriculture
Department of Conservation
Department of Corrections
Department of Economic Development - Division of Professional Registration
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Health
Department of Higher Education
Department of Transportation
Department of Insurance
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Mental Health
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (Continued)
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Safety
Department of Revenue
Department of Social Services
State Courts Administrator
State Gaming Commission
State Lottery Commission
State Tax Commission
Chief Clerk - House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
State Auditor
Attorney General
Governor
Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
State Treasurer
Central Missouri State University
Harris-Stowe State College
Missouri Western State College
Truman State University
Missouri Southern State College
University of Missouri
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
May 16, 2001