COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. No.: 0981-08

Bill No.: Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed CCS for HS for HCS for SS for SCS for SB 267

Subject: Criminal Procedures; Courts; Department of Revenue; Fees; St. Louis County; Libraries and Archives; Landlords and Tenants; Civil Procedure

Type: Original

Date: June 26, 2001

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
General Revenue	($536,970 to Unknown)	($395,956 to Unknown)	($424,858 to Unknown)
Crime Victims' Compensation	($521,180) to $1,761,090	($372,708) to $2,008,591	($372,708) to $2,001,003
Independent Living Center	$226,596	$226,596	$226,596
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds	(Greater than $1,058,150) to $1,987,686	(Greater than $768,664) to $2,235,187	(Greater than $797,566) to $2,227,599

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Victims of Crime Act Grant*	$0	$0	$0
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

* Unknown offsetting revenues and expenditures

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.

This fiscal note contains 18 pages.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Local Government	$210,840	$217,165	$223,680

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials from the Department of Social Services, Department of Public Safety - Police Officer Standards and Training Commission, Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Office of State Treasurer, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Revenue, Department of Economic Development - Division of Professional Registration, and the Department of Insurance assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) assume the Department of Corrections, Department of Mental Health, or Attorney General might promulgate rules to implement this bill. Based on experience with other divisions, the rules, regulations, and forms issued by the Department of Corrections, Department of Mental Health, or Attorney General could require as many as 28 pages in the Code of State Regulations. For any given rule, roughly half again as many pages are published in the Missouri Register as in the Code because cost statements, fiscal notes and the like are not repeated in Code. The estimated cost in the Missouri Register is $23.00/page x 42 pages = $966. The estimated cost in the Code of State Regulations is $27.00/page x 28 pages = $756. The total estimated cost to the SOS is $1,722 in FY02. The actual costs could be more or less than the numbers given. The impact of this legislation in future years is unknown and depends upon the frequency and length of rules filed, amended, rescinded, or withdrawn.

Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriations process.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Allows staff positions for Office of Prosecution Services to be funded by General Revenue - Section 56.765

Oversight assumes that the fiscal impact of this provision would be unknown, and could exceed $100,000 annually.

Bail bond agents and surety recovery agents notify local law enforcement when intending to apprehend - Sections 374.700 and 374.757

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state 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 proposal, DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average $35.61 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 $0 or a minimal amount that could be absorbed with existing resources.

The following factors contribute to the DOC's minimal assumption:

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

Oversight assumes this proposal would have minimal impact on the prison or probation populations. The exact cost cannot be determined, but is expected to be less than $100,000 annually.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Orders of Protection may be entered in MULES System - Section 455.040

Officials from the Department of Public Safety - State Highway Patrol (MHP)'s Information System Division assume interface requirements include FTP, LU 6.2, and RJE. The MHP currently has no knowledge base in any of these areas and would require consulting services to build the actual interface, test the interface and application, and document and monitor the procedures. This would require a total of 330 hours at a contract rate of $94.53 (based upon the statewide contract for middleware consulting services) which is a total for the services of $31,194.90.

Oversight assumes these costs to the State Highway Patrol will be incurred in FY 02; however, this could vary depending on when the State Courts Automated System is capable of transferring data. The language of the proposal is permissive and would be subject to available funding.

Court Reporters - Section 476.365

Officials from the Office of State Public Defender assume the language regarding official court reporters and depositions is unclear as to how it will affect the State Public Defender System.

Raises surcharge for civil case filings in St. Louis City Circuit Court - Section 488.447

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator responded that the St. Louis City circuit clerk's office reported an income of $737,940 from the current fee of $35 in FY 2000, and a projected income of approximately $900,000 in FY 2001. Projecting this to a $45 fee, the increased income to the fund could range from $210,840 to $257,130.

In response to a similar proposal, officials from the City of St. Louis responded that the current surcharge brings in about $700,000 per year. That figure divided by the current surcharge is 20,000. An additional $10 surcharge multiplied by those 20,000 cases results in an impact of an additional $200,000 in revenue.

Oversight assumes the increased revenue would be approximately $210,840 per year and has adjusted this estimate for an annual increases in cases filed.

Increases the Independent Living Center surcharge - Section 488.5332

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator stated that the Independent Living Center fund reported income of $226,596 in FY 2000; the proposal would double that amount.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Amount of damages for right of a trial de novo reduced - Section 512.180

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) is unable to estimate how many more cases would have to be sound recorded because they do not have data on the amount of damages in these cases. However, CTS does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact on the courts from this provision.

Post-conviction motion seeking DNA testing - Section 547.035

Officials from the Office of State Public Defender (SPD) assume the DNA testing of persons residing in the DOC will require additional staff for the State Public Defender System. It is unclear what the total impact will be. Assuming the intention is to apply the law as written and not frivolously, public defenders should not be appointed until after prosecutors (the state) fails to show cause as to why a hearing should not be granted. It is further assumed that the cost of the DNA testing will not be the responsibility of the defendant, but rather taxed as court costs. The SPD assumes they will need 2 FTE Assistant Public Defenders III (each at $39,876 per year), 1 FTE Paralegal Investigator ($23,712 per year), and 1 FTE Secretary ($19,344 per year), and the related equipment and expenses for each position. The estimated cost for 4 FTE and related equipment and expense is $111,687 for FY 2002, $124,694 for FY 2003, and $127,875 for FY 2004. Oversight has reduced the amounts estimated for office rent, assuming the relatively limited number of new staff can be located in existing facilities.

Officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO) assume two FTE Assistant Attorneys General II (each at $36,750 per year) would be needed to carry out the provisions of this section. The estimated cost for 2 FTE and related equipment and expense is $118,165 for FY 2002, $124,240 for FY 2003, and $127,465 for FY 2004. In addition, the AGO assumes that the state will rely on experts in the area of DNA when hearings are held to determine whether DNA evidence establishes the innocense of the inmate. Assuming 10 such hearings per year at a cost of $2,500 per case, the AGO anticipates a cost of $25,000 per year in additional equipment and expense.

Based on the AGO's assumptions from a previous version of this proposal, Oversight assumes the AGO could absorb the costs of the proposal with existing resources.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume it is not possible for the DOC to estimate the number of cases that would occur in a year where this proposed DNA procedure would apply. Potentially, there are many thousands of offenders who could have an interest in pursuing a DNA evidence defense as the DNA analysis technology progresses over time. An estimated minimum cost for DNA forensic testing is $450. It is unclear who is required to pay for the testing. If the DOC were required to pay these testing costs, it is impossible to predict how many cases would be brought forward within a given year. There might be a need for additional COs to supervise movement of the inmate within a correctional facility or to another location for a blood or other test to be taken. The potential fiscal impact is unknown, but is estimated to be a significant amount or in excess of $100,000 annually.

Oversight assumes the costs for DNA testing will be incurred by the State Highway Patrol (MHP). These costs are reflected in MHP's response.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety -- Missouri State Highway Patrol assume additional equipment would be required as a result of this legislation:

Equipment:

Computer Hardware/Software and equipment for DNA PCR

technologies compatible with the FBI National Program $300,607 (one-time)

Supplies and kits for collection and DNA analysis of

felony conviction -- 21,000 samples $480,690 (first year)

Additional funding for proficiency tests and continuing

education as mandated by FBI QA Standards $21,500 (recurring)

TOTAL -- first year costs $802,797

Supplies and kits for collection and DNA analysis of

felony conviction -- 2,000 samples $45,780

Additional funding for proficiency tests and continuing

education as mandated by the FBI QA Standards $21,500

TOTAL -- second year/recurring costs $67,280

The MHP's Crime Lab indicated that the proposal does not specify how much responsibility or participation the MHP would have in Section 547.035. MHP assumes that there would be some involvement, but there is no way to determine an exact number of cases that the Crime Lab would handle. Therefore, the fiscal impact is unknown.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Oversight assumes, based on recent Missouri Supreme Court Rule (Rule 29.17), the post-conviction forensic DNA testing would occur, effective September 1, 2001. Therefore, Oversight assumes any cost associated with post-conviction DNA testing would be a result of the Supreme Court Rule..

Mentally retarded individuals excluded from receiving the death penalty - Section 565.030

Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume the costs to prosecutors is unknown due to increased hearings and caseload, but is not expected to exceed $100,000.

Oversight assumes the increased costs to prosecutors can be absorbed within existing resources of the respective counties.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that 12% of the inmate population in CY 2000 had an IQ of 75 or lower, but not all inmates convicted of Murder 1 receive the death penalty. It is unknown how many offenders the court would determine to be mentally retarded and that could possibly have received the death penalty, but the DOC assumes it would be a small percentage. However, fiscal impact due to passage of this proposal would occur after the average ten-year-plus time served by death-row inmates prior to execution, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of this fiscal note. The DOC does not anticipate the need for additional capital improvements at this time. It must be noted that the cumulative effect of various new legislation, if passed into law, could result in the need for additional capital improvements funding if the total number of new offenders exceeds current planned capacity.

Crime victims' compensation awards - Sections 595.030 and 595.035

The Department of Labor - Division of Workers' Compensation (DOL) assumes this legislation increases the maximum compensation amount to crime victims for loss of earnings or support from gainful employment from $15,000 to $25,000. This proposal also removes life insurance proceeds from consideration as a collateral source in determining victim eligibility for compensation from the fund and eliminates the $50 deductible applied against claimant awards. In addition, this legislation increases the criminal court proceeding surcharge earmarked for the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund in an effort to provide adequate funding for the proposed "Office of Victims' of Crime" in the Department of Public Safety. Finally, this legislation caps the reserve in the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund at 200 percent of the previous year's expenditures by diverting excess revenues into the Tort Victims' Compensation Fund.

The DOL believes that there will be a fiscal impact from the increase in the maximum compensation level. The removal of life insurance as a collateral source of compensation will have no fiscal impact because the DOL made this change by rule in October 1999.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

In aggregate for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the Division awarded $14,764,090 in claims for crime victims' compensation. The elimination of the $50 deductible would have increased the total claim award during this three-year period to $14,969,019 - representing an increase of $204,929. For these years, the average annual increase equals $68,310. This represents less than a 1 percent increase.

To determine the fiscal impact to the fund if the maximum amount recoverable for loss of earnings or support was increased from $15,000 to $25,000, the total award amount for only those cases where the maximum was awarded in FY 1996 through FY 2001 was analyzed. Accordingly, during these fiscal years, 554 claims were granted the maximum award amount of $15,000. This equals 92 claims per year. If the maximum award amount equaled $25,000, and all award recipients who received the maximum award amount in the previous two fiscal years received the maximum award under the new cap, the fiscal impact to the fund would be an additional $1,502,729 annually. However, in 93 of the cases, the total amount of bills submitted to the DOL equaled either $15,000 or $14,950. This leads the DOL to believe that many award recipients were aware of the award ceiling and the $50 deductible and therefore quit submitting reimbursable expenses to the DOL. Thus, the fiscal estimate by including these cases will be less than the expected annual expenditure to the fund. Also, the cases where the total reimbursable expenses submitted would not exceed the $25,000 ceiling needs to be considered. Taking these cases into consideration, the fiscal impact to the fund would be an additional $552,870 annually.

While the annual expenditure from the fund equals $552,870 annually, this aggregate expenditure represents a combination of state and federal matching dollars. The federal match equals 40 percent of the previous fiscal years of expenditure of state funds only. Consequently, the state has the ability to separate and closely monitor award payments from state funds and award payments from its federal funding source. The DOL has made a conscientious effort to spend down its state appropriation each fiscal year in order to receive a greater dollar amount in federal matching funds. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the 40 percent will be deducted from the entire annual increase of $552,870 (state plus federal funds) to arrive at an estimated cost to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. By doing so, this will skew the cost estimate toward a higher dollar amount of state fund annual expenditures since, in reality, the state is actually collecting more federal dollars by spending its state appropriation first. The DOL believes that this overestimate coupled with the aforementioned underestimate in state expenditures will balance one another and, therefore, the overall estimate should be accurate.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Presently, the DOL pays out approximately $5 million in monetary awards to crime victims. The DOL assumes that this trend will continue over the next three years. Based on the figures above, the DOL assumes that an additional $552,870 (average increase based on previous years) will be awarded if the ceiling increases to $25,000 and an additional $68,310 (average increase based on previous years) will be awarded annually if the $50 deductible is eliminated. Combined, this represents an additional annual total cost to the fund of $621,180. When the federal match is applied to FY 2003 and FY 2004, the aggregate annual expenditure equals $372,708 in state funds and $248,472 in federal funds.

The DOL believes that the additional surcharge for criminal court proceedings will provide enough additional funding to adequately fund administrative and operational expenses for the Office of Crime Victims as well as the costs associated with the administration of the proposed crime victim notification system.

Office for Victims of Crime/automated crime victim notification system - Sections 595.045, 650.300, and 650.310

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assume the available data on collections into the Crime Victims' Compensation fund will not permit a precise estimate of potential increased revenues. In FY 2000, the crime victims' compensation fund had revenues of $5,362,831. Since some of the higher surcharges on lower-volume cases are not changed, it is not feasible to make a precise estimate of increased revenues. As there is only a modest change

in the amount of an existing surcharge, there would be no appreciable change in the administrative cost of collection within the judiciary.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) - Director's Office assume the Victim Information and Notification System (VINES) will be developed. The expenses related to the implementation of the VINES system will need to be determined by DPS. Federal funds from the Victims of Crime Act may be utilized for implementation and startup costs of VINES. Without a formal plan and agreement, the implementation and startup costs for VINES cannot be estimated with accuracy. Ongoing personnel costs, computer maintenance and upgrade costs, etc., for the VINES system would have to be supported by the revenue collected from the $7.50 court cost.

REVENUES

DPS estimated that the current $5 fee results in approximately $3 Million in annual revenue. Therefore, the $2.50 increase in court costs could result in potentially similar revenue collections. These funds would be used to support the Office of the Victims of Crime.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Oversight assumes the DPS estimate of receipts is based on their part of total court costs distributed, and has used the Office of State Courts Administrator estimate of revenues for this fiscal note.

EXPENDITURES

DPS estimates it would require 5 FTE plus equipment and expenses, as follows:

Category	FY 2002 (10 months)	FY 2003	FY 2004
Salaries (5 FTE)	$172,620	$212,323	$217,631
Benefits	$57,534	$70,767	$72,536
Equipment	$58,963	$8,325	$8,325
Expense	$104,310	$43,760	$43,760
Total	$393,427	$335,175	$342,252

Oversight has reduced these estimates in accordance with OA guidelines for equipment and expense, and has reduced the amounts estimated for office rent, renovations, offsite computer connections, copier, fax, and utilities assuming the relatively limited number of new staff can be located in existing facilities.

Oversight assumes the costs and benefits of the proposed VINES system would be investigated and the system established only if the benefits justify the costs and the system is considered economically and operationally feasible. Oversight assumes the court cost increase proposed, supplemented by any federal funding which would be available, would be adequate to fund the VINES system. Therefore, Oversight has shown the cost of the system as unknown but assumed to be less than funding available from the court fee increase.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Definition of "predatory" in evaluating sexually violent predators - Section 632.480

Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) stated the Department of Corrections estimates the change in the definition of "predatory" will result in an increase of 2-3 referrals per year. These referrals will result in increased variable costs (food, medical, etc.), of $45 per day per person for 365 days or $16,425 annual cost per individual. $16,425 annual cost times 3 individuals equals an annual cost of $49,275 total annual cost. The FY 02 cost for a 10-month period is $41,063. The FY 03 cost is estimated to be $50,753 and the FY 04 cost is estimated to be $52,276. However, once the number of additional referrals has reached 25 on the ward, the opening of a new ward will be required, necessitating additional costs (staffing, etc.) of $180 per day per person (for a total of $225 per day per person).

Preservation of DNA evidence - Section 1

Officials from the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MHP) assume the MHP's crime lab is affected by the proposed legislation. In order for the MHP to acquire and store all the biological case evidence specimens, they would require a secure storage facility. In 1999, Missouri circuit court trials resulted in approximately 3,000 felony convictions. This could result in storing an additional 30,000 specimens per year. The current evidence locker in the Crime Lab is 230 square feet and stores approximately 5,000 specimens. Storing 30,000 would require 6 times more space, or approximately 1,400 square feet. The cost of leasing a new storage facility would be $13.50 x 1,400 square feet per year. Since there is no specified time frame on how long the evidence will be dept, the storage facility would need to be increased 1,400 square feet per year.

The MHP's Crime Lab would also require an Evidence Tracking System, which is required for the accountability of specimens and tracks where and when evidence came in. The cost of this

system is approximately $200,000. Per recommendation from OIT, MHP is using a 15% figure for maintenance on the Evidence Tracking Computer.

The MHP's Crime Lab would require 5 additional FTE: 3 Laboratory Evidence Technicians (each at $21,720 per year) and 2 Laboratory Records and Evidence Control Clerks. The Laboratory Evidence Technicians would be responsible for tracking all Missouri circuit courts for convictions, working to determine the status of cases, and determining what evidence needs to be secured. The Laboratory Records and Evidence Control Clerks would be responsible for maintaining all paperwork and documentation required for chain of custody transfer and storing evidence in the lab.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Increased court costs in St. Louis City - Sections 2 and 3

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) do not have data on St. Louis City municipal violations. Therefore, CTS is unable to estimate the amount of revenue generated by this provision.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 2002 (10 Mo.)	FY 2003	FY 2004
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Costs - Office of Prosecution Services
Salaries/Fringe Benefits (§56.765)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Costs - Department of Mental Health
Inpatient Treatment costs (§632.480)	($41,063)	($50,753)	($52,276)
Costs - Office of State Public Defender (SPD) (§547.035)
Salaries (4 FTE)	($68,122)	($83,789)	($85,884)
Fringe Benefits	($22,705)	($27,927)	($28,625)
Equipment and Expense	($17,693)	($9,064)	($9,335)
Total Costs - SPD	($108,520)	($120,780)	($123,844)
Costs - State Highway Patrol (MHP)
Salaries (5 FTE) (Section 1)	($86,633)	($106,559)	($109,223)
Fringe Benefits (Section 1)	($35,321)	($43,444)	($44,530)
Equipment and Expense (Section 1)	($18,488)	($5,153)	($5,307)
DNA evidence storage (Section 1)	($15,750)	($38,367)	($57,851)
Evidence Tracking System (Section 1)	($200,000)	($30,900)	($31,827)
Order of protection program (§455.040)	($31,195)	$0	$0
Total Costs - MHP	($387,387)	($224,423)	($248,738)
Costs - Department of Corrections Incarceration/Probation costs (§374.757)	(Less than $100,000)	(Less than $100,000)	(Less than $100,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND	($536,970 to Unknown)	($395,956 to Unknown)	($424,858 to Unknown)
CRIME VICTIMS'
COMPENSATION FUND
Revenue - DPS (§§595.045, 650.300, and 650.310)
Court cost increase	$2,681,415	$2,681,415	$2,681,415
Transfer in - DOL
From Federal funds - federal matching		$248,472	$248,472
Cost - DPS (§§595.045, 650.300, and 650.310)
Personal Service* (5 FTE)	($172,620)	($212,323)	($217,631)
Fringe Benefits*	($57,534)	($70,767)	($72,536)
Equipment*	($52,461)	$0	$0
Expense*	($16,530)	($17,026)	($17,537)
Statewide victim notification system**	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Total cost **	($299,145 to $2,681,415)	($300,116 to $2,681,415)	($307,704 to $2,681,415)
Cost - Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation (§§595.030 and 595.035)
Increased claim amounts	($621,180)	($621,180)	($621,180)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND	($621,180) to $1,761,090	($372,708) to $2,008,591	($372,708) to $2,001,003
* subject to appropriation ** assumed to be less than court fee funding available
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER FUND
Income - increased surcharge (§488.5332)	$226,596	$226,596	$226,596
FEDERAL FUNDS
Revenue - DPS
Victims of Crime Act Grant	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Revenue - DOL
Federal match of crime victim expenses		$248,472	$248,472
Expenditures - DPS
Statewide victim notification system	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Transfer out - DOL
To Crime Victims' Compensation Fund		($248,472)	($248,472)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
FEDERAL FUNDS	$0	$0	$0

FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 2002 (10 Mo.)	FY 2003	FY 2004
CITIES
Income - City of St. Louis Filing fees (§488.447)	$210,840	$217,165	$223,680

FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

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

DESCRIPTION

The proposed legislation would revise various court procedures in the following manner:

• •Following sentencing, courts shall order fingerprinting of convicted persons; deletes the requirement that prosecutors file motions for such fingerprinting(43.503.6);
• •Allows Associate Circuit Judges to issue criminal investigative subpoenas in the same manner as Circuit Court Judges (56.085);
• •Removes the provision that no moneys from General Revenue shall be used to fund staff positions for the Office of Prosecution Services (56.765);

• •Court costs ($10) shall be assessed upon nonfelony traffic convictions (67.133);
• •A licensed physician or surgeon may perform an autopsy upon order of a court or record; any autopsy report shall be available to the surviving family or personal representative or administrator of the estate (194.115);

• •Adds communications made to a minister or clergy person as an exception to legally recognized privileged communication that would not apply to situations involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect (210.140);
• •A cause of action is created for circumstances where a municipality annexes or acquires territory within a water district and an agreement on water service for the annexed or acquired territory cannot be reached (247.165)(247.171);
• •An unsatisfactory evaluation of any administrative law judge, associate administrative law judge, or legal advisor shall be referred to the committee (287.610);
• •Record of conviction for failure to maintain financial responsibility by owner of a motor vehicle shall be forwarded to the State Highway Patrol or Department of Revenue (303.025)(303.041);
• •Bail bond agents and surety recovery agents to notify local law enforcement agencies before apprehending a person.(374.700)(374.757);
• •The review procedure for Public Service Commission cases in Section 386.510 is the exclusive procedure; a copy of the writ of review shall be provided to each party (386.515);
• •Copy of handbook outlining description of a parenting plan, child custody issues, and child support issues may be provided to the petitioner at the time a separation action is filed. The court may also direct that a copy of the handbook be served along with the petition and summons upon the respondent (452.556);

• •Information regarding adult abuse orders may be entered in the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) using computer links between the court automation system and MULES (455.040);
• •Defines courts of record in Missouri (476.010);
• •Requires official court reporter to be certified by board of certified court reporter examiners, as provided in Supreme Court Rule 14; depositions must be taken by certified court reporters to be admissible (476.365);
• •As of August 28, 2001, there shall be one additional associate circuit judge position in Boone County (478.610);

DESCRIPTION (continued)

• •Certain municipal judges, unless licensed to practice law in Missouri, shall have served as a municipal judge of that same municipality for at least two years, prior to January 2, 1979. Current legislation requires at least three years of service (479.020);

• •Deletes reference to repealed section (479.150);
• •Limits number of small claims court actions to 8 per year (482.330);
• •Costs for filing notice of appeal shall be paid to circuit court where notice is filed, and shall be payable to Department of Revenue (483.500);

• •Modifies provisions on surcharges for parties filing civil cases.(488.426) Such fees shall be used for law libraries. In Green County such fees may also be used for that county's or circuit's family services and justice fund (488.429);

• •Raises surcharge for civil case filings in St. Louis City Circuit Court to $45 (488.447);
• •Increases the Independent Living Center surcharge from $0.50 to $1.00 (488.5332);
• •Deletes requirement that $2 surcharge in criminal cases be reported to the Supreme Court (488.5336);
• •Removes effective date for additional surcharges on criminal cases (488.607);
• •Allows automated court records to be accepted as evidence, provided that the source of such records is disclosed to the opposing party (490.130);
• •The state shall pay the fee for a translator or interpreter if the person requiring such service is a party to or witness in the proceeding (491.300);
• •The losing party in a civil case tried before an associate circuit judge shall have the right of trial de novo if the petition claims damages do not exceed $3,000 (512.180);
• •Costs of jury selection and service shall be paid y the county in which the case was originally instituted to the county in which the case is actually tried (508.190);
• •Circuit clerks to issue summons in landlord-tenant cases (534.070);
• •Allows refund of funds to parties ordered by a reviewing court to pay such funds when, on remand, a state agency determines that such payment was improper (536.160);
• •Department of Corrections inmates may file a post-conviction motion seeking DNA testing if DNA evidence exists which may be exculpatory (547.035);
• •Allows for a motion for release when DNA evidence demonstrates a person's innocence (547.037);
• •In a civil case in which a change of venue is taken from one county to any other county, the costs of confining a prisoner in the jail shall be paid by the county in which the case was originally instituted (550.120);
• •Excludes mentally retarded individuals convicted of murder in the first degree from receiving the death penalty and establishes the procedure for a hearing to determine mental retardation if so alleged (565.030);
• •Law library associations can be authorized by local rule to conduct social events after business hours in any courthouse ((574.075);

DESCRIPTION (continued)

• •Removes the provision requiring that $50 be deducted from most crime victims' compensation awards; raises the cap on such awards from $15,000 to $25,000; such awards shall not be reduced by the amount of any life insurance proceeds (595.030) (595.035);
• •Increases the surcharge for the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund from $5 to $7.50. Allows moneys from the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund to finance operation costs of the office for victims of crime and a statewide automated crime victim notification system (595.045);

• •Clarifies which portion of record of final disposition that shall remain accessible in a criminal proceeding in which the records are ordered expunged (610.105);

• •Expands definition of "predatory" in evaluating sexually violent predators to specifically include acts directed towards family members for the primary purpose of victimization (632.480);
• •Written notice advising the Attorney General and the multi disciplinary team that an inmate may meet the criteria of a sexually violent predator shall be given three hundred and sixty days prior to such inmate's anticipated release date. Current law requires one hundred eighty days notice (632.483);
• •At any jury trial to determine whether a person is a sexually violent predator, the judge shall instruct the jury that if it finds that the criteria are met, the person will be committed to the Department of Mental Health for control, care and treatment. All such trials shall be tried in open court (632.492);
• •Any determination on whether or not a person is a sexually violent predator may be appealed (632.495);
• •Creates the office for victims of crime and authorizes the creation of a statewide automated crime victim notification system (650.300);
• •Judge shall instruct a jury that if the jury finds that a person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health (632.492);
• •Establishes the office of victims of crime (650.300)(650.310);
• •The State Highway Patrol shall preserve any evidence leading to a felony conviction which has been or can be tested for DNA (Section 1);
• •Certain cities may provide for additional court costs, up to $20 per case, for each municipal ordinance violation (Section 2); and
• •Certain cities may provide for additional court costs, not to exceed $5 per case, for each municipal ordinance violation. The costs shall be used for the restoration, maintenance, and upkeep of the municipal courthouses (Section 3).

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

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Public Safety

- Office of the Director

- Police Officer Standards and Training Commission

- State Highway Patrol

Department of Social Services

Department of Transportation

Department of Natural Resources

Office of State Treasurer

Office of Secretary of State

Department of Mental Health

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Department of Revenue

Office of Prosecution Services

Department of Insurance

Office of State Courts Administrator

Department of Corrections

Office of Attorney General

Office of State Public Defender

Department of Economic Development

- Division of Professional Registration

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

June 26, 2001