This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0532 - Revises drug laws to include crimes involving methamphetamines
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 2507-08
BILL NO. HCS for SCS for SBs 532, 806 and 633
SUBJECT: Crimes and Punishment: Drugs and Controlled Substances
TYPE: Original
DATE: April 24, 1998
FISCAL SUMMARY
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| General Revenue** | ($112,818) | ($3,214,547) | ($6,330,130) |
| Correctional Substance Abuse Earnings Fund* | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Estimated Partial Net Effect on All State Funds** | ($112,818) | ($3,214,547) | ($6,330,130) |
*Includes unknown income and costs which would net to $0.
**Does not include unknown costs to DOC for indeterminable increase in the number of incarcerations which would result from this proposal, which could be significant.
|
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 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 10 pages.
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Local Government | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposal would: increase penalties for the possession, manufacture, and distribution of methamphetamine, and for the possession of its chemical components; lower the amount of a drug required for prosecution for certain levels of crime; create new drug-related crimes; alter the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree to include chapter 195 violations; provide new Department of Health responsibilities relating to controlled substances; provide that conviction of any felony violation of chapter 195 in the course of business would result in the suspension of the individual's liquor license; amend the law about multijursidictional enforcement groups (MEGs); authorize applications for search warrants and authority for the issuance of search warrants to be done electronically, with various options for documenting approval; and creates provisions for stealing offenses relating to drugs.
Depending on the degree of enforcement, there could be a significant increase in the workload of the courts, but CTS officials were unable to quantify that increase. CTS officials also assume that there would be a definite increase in the prison population.
This proposal would also create an "educational assessment and community treatment program" to be certified by the Department of Mental Health to provide education and rehabilitation services to certain felony drug offenders. A "Correctional Substance Abuse Earnings Fund" is created to handle assessment fees an a supplemental fee of $60.00.
Since the assessment and collection of fees would appear to be handled by the program, CTS officials would not expect any significant workload increase or cost to the judiciary from this provision.
This proposal would also provide that drug courts could be established by any circuit court. The court en banc would be allowed to appoint a person or persons to act as drug court commissioners. The compensation of the commissioner is to be the same as that of an associate circuit judge. Funding sources other than the state would be required to reimburse the state for the salary and benefits of the commissioner.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Since the language of the proposal provides options as to funding a drug court (state or local) and is permissive as to whether a circuit would establish a drug court, CTS officials provided the following estimate of the cost for a drug court that could be created:
|
Salary |
Fringe |
Travel/Exp. |
Total | |
| Commissioner | $83,081 | $49,383.00 | $2,000 | $134,464.00 |
| Court Clerk III | 21,816 | 6,214.20 | 1,000 | 29,030.20 |
| Drug Court Administrator | 40,000 | 9,600.20 | 2,000 | 51,600.20 |
| Court Administrative Costs | 50,000.00 | |||
| Total Costs Per Court | $265,094.40 |
Under current law, CTS officials stated that space, equipment and operating costs would be a local expense.
CTS officials assume the number of drug courts funded and the funding mechanism are discretionary, and would be issues for future budget requests.
CTS officials stated that the Judicial Conference Task Force on Drug Courts (a large group from many agencies involved in responding to drug activity and chaired by Supreme Court Justice William Ray Price) has been actively studying the applicability and need for drug courts and services. At this time, there are no firm plans for how to implement these provisions.
Treatment costs could be expenses to Corrections, Mental Health, Family Services and/or Youth Services. CTS officials stated that any significant move to implement drug court programs and provide coordination of services would require some staff support from the CTS. One Program Specialist and one Secretary II would be requested to provide these services and interagency coordination.
Officials of the Missouri State Employees' Retirement System (MOS) stated in response to a the drug courts portion of this proposal that it would allow the majority of the court en banc to appoint individuals who have the same qualifications as an associate circuit judge to act as drug court commissioners. As proposed, the drug court commissioner would be appointed for a four year term and the compensation and retirement benefits for the position would be the same as an associate circuit judge. Drug court commissioners would be eligible for membership in the
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Judicial Retirement which is administered by MOS, and as an employee covered by the Judicial Retirement Plan, the state's contribution rate of 51.81% would apply to their salary ($82,961). The cost to fund a retirement benefit for a drug court commissioner is therefore estimated to be approximately $43,000 per year. MOS further states that the state will begin funding the Judicial Retirement Plan on an actuarial basis effective July 1, 1998.
In addition to the contribution rate (51.81%) stated by MOS, Oversight assumes an additional contribution rate of 17.63% for FICA, medical insurance, etc.
Officials of the State Public Defender (SPD) stated that if one-half of the Judicial Circuits establish a drug court, there would be the equivalent of 22 additional associate circuit judges. Although this proposal does not increase the public defender caseload, it would require assistant public defenders to appear in additional courts, often at the same time as existing hearings. SPD assumes they would require an additional 16 FTE, plus fringe benefits, equipment, and operating expenses, to carry out the provisions of this proposal. These FTE would include 11 Assistant Public Defenders ($32,580), 4 Paralegal/Investigators ($21,288), and 2 Legal Secretaries ($17,904) at an annual cost of approximately $750,000.
For purposes of this fiscal note SPD officials assumed that existing staff could provide representation for those 15-20 cases arising where indigent persons were accused of "possessing the chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine" and for the 15-20 cases where indigent persons were charged with unlawful endangerment of property. However, passage of similar proposals would require the SPD system to request increased appropriations to cover the cumulative cost of representing the indigent accused for these additional charges.
Florida's State Courts System has twenty judicial circuits. Currently, Florida has eleven (11) operational drug courts, or 55%. Oversight assumes that it would take at least a year to set up drug courts in Missouri. Missouri has 44 judicial circuits. For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight assumes 25% of the circuits would establish drug courts in FY00 and 50% of the circuits would have operational drug courts in FY01. Each drug court would cost an estimated $265,094. Therefore, Oversight assumes it would cost $2,916,034 in FY00 and $5,832,068 in FY01 to establish operational drug courts.
In addition, the SPD system would require additional FTE, including Assistant Public Defenders, Paralegal/Investigators, and Legal Secretaries in order to cover the additional court appearances which would result from the creation of drug courts. Again assuming that it would take a year to have operational drug courts and assuming that 25% of the circuits would establish drug courts in FY00 and 50% would establish drug courts in FY01. Oversight has estimated SPD staffing needs for those years would cost $186,762 in FY00 and $383,118 in FY01.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume any fiscal impact to prosecutors resulting from this proposal could be absorbed using existing resources.
Officials of the Department of Health (DOH) assume this proposal would add several chemicals to be regulated by their department. One FTE was requested in the FY99 budget to cover additional workload, supplies and expenses. If approved, all costs added due to the regulation of the chemicals -- sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, iodine and red phosphorous in this proposal and
the additional costs of regulating the chemicals -- methylamine, ethyl amine, propionic anydride, isosafrole, safrole, piperonal, n-methyl ephedrine, n-methyl pseudoephedrine, benzaldehyde, nitroethane and methyl isobutyl ketone would be covered.
If not approved, DOH officials assume they would request one Investigator II to inspect all registrant sites and required records, analyze distribution reports of registrants, investigate all complaints and anomalies involving possible diversion of regulated chemicals or record keeping in violation of Missouri Statutes, and to consult with and educate chemical registrants as needed.
Oversight assumed for purposes of this fiscal note that the Investigator II would be requested through the normal budget process and has therefore not included any costs associated with this position in the fiscal estimate.
DOH officials also assume as a result of this proposal manufacturers and distributors of sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, iodine and red phosphorous would be required to register with DOH and report all distributions of such chemicals in Missouri. Although, regulations specifying a registration fee have not been enacted yet, an annual fee of $200 has been proposed. DOH officials estimated that 100 manufacturers and distributors would be required to register due to this proposal. If proposed rules are finalized, this would generate $20,000 annually in general revenue.
DOH officials assume they would request one (1) Clerk Typist III to screen all applications (21,000 per year) on the MULES system. DOH officials also assume they would need access to the Missouri Unified Law Enforcement System (MULES) criminal information system and a dedicated printer for the system in order to enforce the requirement that DOH not grant a controlled substance registration to individuals convicted of a controlled substance violation. In addition, $6,500 would be requested to provide educational materials to Missouri retailers concerning products used for illicit production of meth.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) assume this proposal would increase penalties for methamphetamine possession and manufacturing. The broadened definition and list of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine would enhance prosecution efforts to convict drug manufacturers. MSHP officials assume this would cause an increased number of liquid, powder, and drug samples being submitted to the Patrol laboratories. In addition to testing, the laboratories personnel would be required to present testimonies in more criminal cases. Therefore, MSHP would request one Criminalist II and related laboratory equipment, including an electric balance, steriozoom
microscope, gas chromatography/mass spectrometer, and accessories. This additional FTE would help decrease the turnaround time related to clandestine lab cases and aid in the swift prosecution of these cases.
Oversight assumes this proposal increases penalties associated with the manufacture and production, or attempt to manufacture or produce, any quantity of any material which contains any quantity of amphetamine, methamphetamine, phenmetrazine or methylphenidate. It does not assign any new duties to the MSHP. Therefore, Oversight assumes that any costs for additional testing equipment or personnel to decrease the turnaround time related to such cases and to aid in swift prosecution of those cases would be requested through the normal budgetary process.
Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) assumes that the number of new commitments created by this proposal could not be accurately determined. In addition, changes in penalty provisions for current crimes could result in additional costs due to new commitments and/or longer sentences. The utilization of these laws both for new offenses and enhanced penalties for current offenses depend upon actions of prosecutors and the courts.
If additional persons were sentenced to the custody of DOC, the department 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 of $2.47 per offender, per day). Due to the wide variance of crimes and punishments, including newly created crimes and punishments, the fiscal impact on DOC is unknown, but could be significant.
DOC officials also anticipated that new beds might have to be constructed to accommodate the number of offenders receiving longer sentences due to passage of this legislation. Estimated construction costs for one new maximum security inmate bed is $48,800.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
This proposal states that the court would be required to order any person pleading guilty or found guilty to the commission of a felony offense under Chapter 195, RSMO, except for those offenses in which there exists a statutory prohibition against either probation or parole, to begin a required
educational assessment and community treatment program within the first sixty days of probation as a condition of probation. DOC would determine the fees for the assessment and treatment and treatment program which would be paid by the person receiving the assessment. Any person who was assessed would be required to pay, in addition to the fee charged for the assessment, would be charged an additional $60 fee. Those supplemental fees would be deposited in the Correctional Substance Abuse Earnings Fund (CSAE) created in this proposal. In a verbal
response to this proposal DOC officials said they could not estimate the number of additional
offenders they would be required to treat. Therefore, DOC staff could not project the amount of revenue which would be placed in the new CSAE fund. DOC officials assumed there would be an unknown fiscal impact to their agency for this portion of the proposal.
Officials of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) assumed in response to a proposal with similar provisions that DOC would administer the programs and collect the fees outlined in this proposal. DMH's role would be to provide program and substance abuse specialist certification which would result in minimal fiscal impact for the Division of ADA.
Officials of the Office of the Attorney General assume that any costs that resulted from this proposal could be absorbed within existing resources.
Officials of the Missouri Police Chiefs' and the Missouri Sheriffs' Associations assume that this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their agencies.
Officials of the St. Louis County Circuit Court assumed in response to a similar proposal which contained the drug courts provisions in this proposal would require 4 FTE, including a Drug Court Commissioner ($89,856), a Division Clerk ($19,200 to $27,468) and 2 Docket Clerks ($17,388 to $23,880), plus related expenses and equipment. In addition, the court assumes an additional courtroom would be needed to hold drug court cases. Costs for an additional courtroom are unknown.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | |||
| Income - Department of Health | |||
| manufacturer/distributor registration fees | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Cost - Department of Health (DOH) | |||
| Personal Service (1 FTE) | ($16,281) | ($20,033) | ($20,534) |
| Fringe Benefits | (4,564) | (5,615) | (5,756) |
| Expense and Equipment | (24,113) | (17,783) | (18,316) |
| Total Cost - DOH | ($44,958) | ($43,431) | ($44,606) |
| Costs - State Public Defender | |||
| Personal Service (0, 4.25, 8.50 FTE) | $ 0 | ($125,902) | ($258,099) |
| Fringe Benefits | 0 | (35,290) | (72,345) |
| Expense and Equipment | 0 | (25,570) | (52,674) |
| Total Cost - SPD | 0 | ($186,762) | ($383,118) |
| Costs - Department of Corrections | |||
| Increase in number of beds | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Costs - Office of State Courts Administrator | |||
| Personal Service (2 FTE) | ($51,250) | ($63,063) | ($64,639) |
| Fringe Benefits | (14,350) | (17,657) | (18,099) |
| Expense and Equipment | (22,260) | (7,600) | (7,600) |
| Administrative Cost - CTS | ($87,860) | ($88,320) | ($90,338) |
| Increase in court cases | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Drug courts (personal services, fringes) | 0 | ($2,916,034) | ($5,832,068) |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO | |||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND** | ($112,818) | ($3,214,547) | ($6,330,130) |
| **Does not include unknown costs to DOC for indeterminable increase in the number of incarcerations which would result from this proposal. | |||
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| CORRECTIONAL SUBSTANCE | |||
| ABUSE EARNINGS FUND | |||
| Income-Department of Corrections | |||
| fees | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Cost-Department of Corrections (DOC) | |||
| administration cost | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| drug/rehab. services | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Total Cost - DOC | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| NET EFFECT TO CORRECTIONAL | |||
| SUBSTANCE ABUSE EARNINGS FUND | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES | |||
| Costs | |||
| Operation of drug courts (equipment/expense) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON | |||
| LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
Small business manufacturers and distributors of chemicals outlined in this proposal could be impacted by requiring them to register with the Department of Health at a fee promulgated by rule by DOH.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would revise various provisions regarding sale and use of controlled substances, and would create several new crimes relating to methamphetamine. It also enhances penalties for the possession, manufacture, and distribution of methamphetamine, and for the possession of its chemical components. It would also lower the amount of drug required for prosecution for certain levels of crime.
This proposal would allow drug courts to be established by any circuit court. The court en banc could appoint a person or persons to act as drug court commissioners. The compensation of the commissioners would be the same as that of an associate circuit judge.
This proposal would amend the provisions regarding MEGs to limit state funding to those formed
by counties of the second, third and fourth classification and municipalities of such counties.
This proposal would authorize applications for search warrants and authority for the issuance of search warrants to be done electronically, with various options for documenting approval.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require rental space. It would require additional capital improvements.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Health
Department of Mental Health
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Missouri State Employees Retirement System
State Courts Administrator
Office of Prosecution Services
State Public Defender
Missouri Sheriffs' Association
Missouri Police Chiefs' Association
St. Louis County Circuit Court
http://justice.courts.state.fl.us/courts/criminal/drugct/drcts.html
http://www.flcourts.org/courts/supct/system2.html
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
April 24, 1998