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 0034 - Allows electronic retention of public records
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 0475-02
BILL NO. Truly Agreed To And Finally Passed HCS for SB 34
SUBJECT: County Officials: Public Records
TYPE: Original
DATE: April 28, 1999
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS Net Effect on All State Funds
FUND AFFECTED
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
$0
$0
$0
Total Estimated
$0
$0
$0
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Local Government | $0 or (Unknown) | $0 or (Unknown) | $0 or (Unknown) |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 3 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Office of Secretary of State (SOS) assume there would be long-term savings to their office and other agencies which would use electronic records. Officials noted that the State Records Commission has almost completed drafting standards. Officials stated that State Archives could be required to alter storage space but that any such changes would be accomplished within existing budget constraints.
Oversight assumes that costs for training and advising of government officials who choose to store records electronically would depend upon the standards drafted. The Secretary of State could, if necessary, request Electronic Records Archivists through budget decision items, but this is not anticipated.
Oversight assumes costs to Recorders of Deeds to use electronic technology for the purpose of record retention and preservation would depend upon standards promulgated by Local Records Boards and existing technology in Recorders offices. Oversight notes this proposal is permissive and would have no local fiscal impact unless the Recorder of Deeds would elect to use electronic technology for record keeping purposes.
Oversight also notes that there could be long term savings associated with electronic retention of records in the areas of paper storage costs and efficiency of record searches and record recreation.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS | |||
| Cost to Recorders | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| or | or | or | |
| (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (unknown) | |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business | |||
| Small businesses could benefit from more efficient government services as a result of this proposal. | |||
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would make governmental electronic records legal records for purposes of permanent or long-term record retention if the entity maintaining the records met standards set down by the State Records Commission or the Local Records Board.
This proposal would clarify that Recorders of Deeds would be allowed to use an electronic process for the purpose of record preservation. The reproductions could be used as permanent records of the original provided they meet the standards for permanent retention and integrity as promulgated by the local records boards.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space. The proposal would not affect Total State Revenues.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Secretary of State
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
April 28, 1999