Fiscal Note - SB 0142 - Revises Missouri's Pawnbroker Laws
L.R. NO. 0580-03
BILL NO. HS for HCS for SB 142 with HA's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
SUBJECT: Court Proceedings
TYPE: Original
DATE: May 2, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
General Revenue Exceeds ($100,000) Exceeds ($100,000)Exceeds ($100,000)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds Exceeds ($100,000) Exceeds ($100,000)Exceeds ($100,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None $0 $0 $0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Greene County $0 or ($34,416) $0 or ($32,695) $0 or ($34,068)
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the following agencies assume that there would be no fiscal
impact as a result of the proposal: Department of Economic Development -
Division of Finance, Office of the Secretary of State, Missouri Ethics
Commission, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the State Public
Defender, and the Department of Social Services-Division of Youth Services.
Officials of the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume that the
following provisions in this proposal could impact the judiciary: 1) small
claims court case filings to claim pawned property, 2) appellate judge travel
to and from the court from their official station, and 3) the jury fee in St.
Louis City.
CTS officials indicate they have no basis on which to estimate the number of
small claims filings to recover stolen property from pawnbrokers there may be
in a typical year, although they indicate that small claims filings are very
time-consuming. Oversight assumes that the number of filings in any one year
would not likely be significant.
For the provision allowing reimbursements to Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals judges for official travel and mileage to or from their official
station and the court on which they sit, CTS officials indicate that of the
seven Supreme Court judges and 32 Court of Appeals judges, only five have
official stations currently. However, officials indicate that the number of
judges can vary, as would the frequency and duration of the trips. Any costs
would be state expenses charged to the individual courts' budgets and would
depend on which judges have official stations in any year, how often they
travel, and applicable mileage and related costs. Officials assume it is
likely that costs would not exceed $50,000 in any one year. Automation could
also replace the need for travel in future years.
As a result of the provision for an additional $200 fee in the 22nd judicial
circuit (City of St. Louis) for the purpose of supplementing juror
transportation costs, CTS officials assume the proposed legislation could
offset some local expenses if the City of St. Louis is currently paying
public transportation costs for jurors. CTS reports that the circuit clerk
for the City of St. Louis conducted 199 civil jury trials in St. Louis during
FY 1996. Assuming none of these trials involved circumstances where the
costs would be waived, then it could be estimated that as much as $39,800
could be collected from litigants to pay for public transportation for
jurors. CTS officials assume the provision adding a probate commissioner in
the 31st judicial circuit would have no fiscal impact on the budget of the
judiciary, as it would merely correct an error in the HCS for SCS for SB 869
from last session, wherein the probate commissioner intended for Greene
County (the 31st Circuit) was referred to as the 30th Circuit (Benton
County).
CTS officials assume the provision that would require all witness testimony
before a grand jury to be recorded would result in costs that would be borne
by the prosecuting attorney presenting the case to the grand jury.
After discussions with officials from the City of St. Louis - Budget
Division, Oversight and the City of St. Louis agree that the provision for an
additional $200 fee for supplementing juror transportation costs could result
in an annual increase in income in the approximate amount of $39,800. The
City of St. Louis would establish an agreement with the Bi-State Development
Agency to provide transportation for all jurors at no cost to the jurors.
The City of St. Louis estimates that the transportation costs would be
approximately $35,000 to $45,000 annually and assumes that they would
establish an agreement with Bi-State to provide the transportation in
exchange for the monies collected. Therefore, the City of St. Louis assumes
that this proposal would have no fiscal impact on their budget.
Officials from the Greene County Commission assume the proposed legislation
would require them to employ one bailiff at an annual salary of $21,674, plus
fringe benefits ($6,425 annually) and related equipment and expenses ($11,000
during FY 98 and $3,800 annually thereafter ) to maintain order in the
courtroom and to ensure the safety of the new commissioner of the probate
division. Greene County assumes this proposal would be a violation of
Article X, Section 21 of the State Constitution by compelling them to assume
additional costs and that the state should reimburse them.
Oversight assumes that Greene County would be responsible for the costs of
adding the new bailiff, if any, as this cost has always been provided by
local government and the proposal does not require the hiring of a bailiff.
Therefore, Oversight assumes the local costs to Greene County would be zero
or $34,416 for FY 1998, depending on whether or not a bailiff is hired.
Officials from the Office of the Benton County Circuit Clerk did not respond
to our fiscal impact request.
Oversight assumes this proposal would have no fiscal impact on the Benton
County Circuit Clerk, as it corrects an error in a proposal from last session
and the probate commissioner has not been added to Benton County. The Benton
County Circuit Clerk did not report a fiscal impact for the prior legislation
which erroneously allows them to add one commissioner to the probate court
effective on January 2, 1997.
Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume the proposal would
have no fiscal impact on their budget; however, there would be significant
local costs for many of the county prosecutors. Many counties utilize the
services of a grand jury on a regular basis and this proposal would require
all witness testimony in grand jury proceedings to be recorded.
Officials from the Office of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney assume
the proposal would have a significant fiscal impact on their budget. St.
Louis County's grand jury meets one time per week and hears approximately 30
witnesses per day, for a total of 1,500 witnesses each year. Currently, St.
Louis County typically records only 15 witnesses per year. This proposal
would require St. Louis County to record all witnesses. St. Louis County
assumes they would be required to employ a court reporter to take testimony
one entire day and then to transcribe for another three to five days each
week. St. Louis County assumes the proposal would result in the need to
employ 1.0 FTE Stenographer ($37,995 per year) plus fringe benefits for a
total cost of $45,974 annually. Further, St. Louis County assumes the grand
jury is a division of the Office of State Courts Administrator and CTS should
be responsible for the additional costs incurred as a result of this
proposal.
Officials from the Office of the City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney assume
the proposal would have a significant fiscal impact on their budget. St.
Louis City assumes their costs for additional personnel, equipment, supplies,
and storage would be approximately $66,333 annually. St. Louis City's grand
jury heard 4,000 felony cases during FY 1996. Each grand jury proceeding
would have to be recorded on a separate cassette, with complex cases
requiring multiple cassettes. Since 98% of their cases are true-billed with
the defendants being arraigned for trial, St. Louis City assumes that nearly
every cassette would have to be duplicated and turned over to the defendant's
attorney within ten days of arraignment. St. Louis City further assumes that
most cassettes would have to be transcribed, as the defendant's attorney
would have access to the information contained on the cassette. St. Louis
City asserts that it would be unconstitutional to bill the defendant for the
cost of the transcript, as this information must be provided in accordance
with discovery rules. Therefore, the costs of this proposal would be borne
by the local prosecuting attorney offices. St. Louis City estimates the cost
of the cassettes and recording would be approximately $5,000 annually. St.
Louis City would require 1.0 FTE Stenographer ($40,000 per year for salary
and benefits), plus state-of-the-art recording and playback equipment. They
would require two sets of recording equipment, at an initial cost of
approximately $10,000. Additionally, a storage and retrieval system would
have to be developed for the long-term storage of all original tapes or
stenographic notes, as all grand jury proceedings are felonies and most would
require the evidence to be retained for at least ten years and possibly
indefinitely. St. Louis City does not have adequate storage space available
and this would be an additional expense that would be incurred. St. Louis
City assumes this proposal would be a violation of Article X, Section 21 of
the State Constitution by compelling them to assume additional costs and that
the state should reimburse them.
Officials from the Office of the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney assume the
proposal would have a significant fiscal impact on their budget. Cole
County's grand jury meets on a regular basis to hear testimony regarding
felony cases. Cole County assumes their costs for additional personnel,
equipment, supplies, and storage would be approximately $25,000 to $30,000
annually.
Officials from the Office of the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney assume
the proposal would have an unknown fiscal impact on their budget. Greene
County's grand jury only meets on occasion for an average of two to four days
per month. They could utilize the services of a judge's court reporter, if
available. Otherwise, they would be required to hire a court reporter from a
private service at a rate of $250 per day plus $20 per hour (average of $410
per day) for attendance plus up to $500 or more in transcription costs.
Overall, Greene County assumes this proposal could cost their office up to
$18,720 per year (based on an average of four days per month). If they did
not call a grand jury, then there would be no costs incurred.
Officials from the Office of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney assume
this proposal would result in a significant fiscal impact on their budget.
Jackson County's grand jury meets on a regular basis to hear testimony
regarding felony cases. Jackson County assumes their costs for additional
personnel would range from $5,000 (part-time) to $34,000 (full-time)
annually. Additionally, Jackson County assumes the transcription costs
incurred as a result of this proposal would be a minimum of $26,500 annually.
Officials from the Office of the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney assume
this proposal would result in an unknown increase in costs to their office.
Also, Boone County assumes additional resources would have to be expended to
address the additional litigation by defense attorneys concerning matters
which occur during grand jury proceedings.
Oversight assumes this proposal would have a fiscal impact on certain
counties, as it would require all witness testimony heard in grand jury
proceedings to be recorded stenographically or by an electronic recording
device. Based on numerous conversations with local prosecutors, Oversight
assumes the vast majority (80% to 90%) of the defendants who appear before a
grand jury are represented by the state public defender system. Local
prosecutors would be statutorily prohibited (Section 600.096, RSMo.) from
passing the costs associated with this proposal on to the defendants
represented by the state public defender system. Therefore, Oversight
assumes at least 80% to 90% of the costs associated with this proposal would
be borne by the local prosecuting attorneys, rather than the parties
requesting copies of the transcript.
Oversight assumes the expenses incurred as a result of this proposal would be
mandatory and would be subject to reimbursement from the State of Missouri
under Article X, Section 21, of the Missouri Constitution. All counties have
the ability to call a grand jury and therefore the exact costs are difficult
to determine. Oversight assumes the costs incurred as a result of this
proposal would exceed $100,000 annually. These costs have been shown as an
expense to General Revenue, as it is assumed that the state would be required
to reimburse the counties for the expenses incurred.
Oversight assumes that this legislation could have fiscal impact on counties
which impose confinement penalties on pawnshop licensees convicted of
violation of the law, since current law allows for punishment by fine only,
or on counties assessing increased fines as allowed by the proposal. Any net
fiscal impact on counties is expected to be minimal.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Costs-reimbursement to certain counties
(Article X, Section 21, mandatory recording Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds
of all grand jury proceedings) ($100,000) ($100,000) ($100,000)
Costs-State Courts
Equipment and expense-costs of travel for ($0 to ($0 to ($0 to
judges between court and official station 50,000) 50,000) 50,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds
GENERAL REVENUE FUND ($100,000) ($100,000) ($100,000)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Income - local prosecuting attorneys
state reimbursement (Article X,
Section 21, mandatory recording Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds
of all grand jury proceedings) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Cost - local prosecuting attorneys Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds
recording and transcription costs ($100,000) ($100,000) ($100,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES $0* $0* $0*
*Oversight assumes reimbursement would equal cost resulting in zero fiscal
impact.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS
Income - City of St. Louis
Civil jury fees collected to pay for
public transportation for jurors $33,167 $39,800 $39,800
Costs - City of St. Louis
Contract with Bi-State Development (33,167) (39,800) (39,800)
NET EFFECT ON CITY OF ST. LOUIS $0 $0 $0
GREENE COUNTY
Costs - Greene County Commission $0 or $0 or $0 or
Salary (1 FTE) ($18,062) ($22,216) ($22,771)
$0 or $0 or $0 or
Fringe Benefits (5,354) (6,679) (6,947)
$0 or $0 or $0 or
Equipment and Expense (11,000) (3,800) (4,350)
$0 or $0 or $0 or
NET EFFECT ON GREENE COUNTY ($34,416) ($32,695) ($34,068)
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
The proposal could result in additional duties and costs to pawnshops which
are classified as small businesses. Additional costs could include
unreimbursed legal costs or increased fines for violating state laws. The
proposal could affect small businesses employing persons between 18 and 21
years of age who would be eligible for jury duty.
DESCRIPTION
This legislation establishes provisions for resolving issues of ownership of
allegedly stolen goods which are pawned. It establishes misdemeanor classes
for fraudulently pledging or selling property. It also includes provisions
pertaining to property used by law enforcement officers in investigations and
pertaining to holds placed on the property by officers. Penalties against
pawnshop licensees for violating state law are increased to a maximum fine of
$5,000 and/or confinement in county jail for a maximum of six months and
possible revocation of the pawnshop license.
The proposal would add a $200 fee to the court costs in the 22nd Circuit
(City of St. Louis), to be assessed upon the impaneling of a jury in any
civil trial. The money collected would be used to supplement transportation
costs for jurors in the circuit using public transportation.
The proposal would lower the age requirement for jury service from 21 to 18
years of age.
The proposal would allow Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges to be
reimbursed for official travel between their official station and the
location of the court on which the judges sit.
The proposal would clarify and correct an error in legislation passed in 1996
which was designed to allow the Circuit Court in Greene County to appoint a
probate commissioner. That legislation had mistakenly given such authority
to the 30th Circuit. Greene County is actually the 31st Circuit.
The proposal would require all witness testimony before a grand jury to be
recorded stenographically or electronically. Current law merely grants the
judge the authority to order stenographic recording and transcription. The
proposal would clarify that the attorney for the state would retain custody
of such recordings unless ordered by the court to do otherwise, and that any
unintentional failure to properly record all or part of such a proceeding
would not invalidate the proceeding. All testimony recorded or transcribed
would be a closed record and accessible as provided by supreme court rule.
Any party requesting a transcript of such testimony would be responsible for
the costs of such transcript. (However, Section 600.096, RSMo., would
prohibit taxing these costs represented by the state public defender system.)
The proposal would allow juvenile records for law offenders, for which the
imposition of any disposition has been suspended, to be considered closed
records to the same extent as pursuant to section 610.105, RSMo, for a
suspended imposition of sentence in a court of general jurisdiction.
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 Economic Development - Division of Finance
City of St. Louis
Office of the Secretary of State
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Missouri Ethics Commission
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the Attorney General
Office of the State Public Defender
Greene County Commission
Department of Social Services-Division of Youth Services
Office of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney
Office of the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.