COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 3346-01
Bill No.: SB 787
Subject: Crimes and Punishment; Department of Conservation; Fire Protection; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; Political Subdivisions; Department of Public Safety
Type: Original
Date: January 25, 2008
Bill Summary: This proposal creates penalties for individuals who set fires in areas proclaimed to be in extraordinary danger from fire.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
☐ Estimated Total Net Effect on All funds expected to exceed $100,000 savings or (cost).
☐ Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund expected to exceed $100,000 (cost).
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS |
|||
FUND AFFECTED |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
Local Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Conservation and the Department of Public Safety - Director’s Office and Fire Safety each assume the proposal would not fiscally impact their respective agencies.
Officials from the Office of the State Courts Administrator assume the proposal would not fiscally impact the courts.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) state while the number of new cases (or cases with increased penalties) may be too few or uncertain to request additional funding for this specific bill, the SPD will continue to request sufficient appropriations to provide competent and effective representation in all its cases.
In response to a similar proposal from 2007 (SB 114), officials from the Office of the Governor assumed the proposal would not fiscally impact their office.
In response to a similar proposal from 2007 (SB 114), officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated they could not predict the number of new commitments which may result from the creation of the offenses(s) outlined in this proposal. An increase in commitment 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 operational cost through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY 03 average of $3.15 per offender, per day or an annual cost of $1,150 per offender per year).
Supervision by the DOC through probation or incarceration 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.
In response to a similar proposal from 2007 (SB 114), officials from the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) stated this proposed legislation includes provisions for new criminal acts and therefore creates new obligations for prosecuting attorneys. Any increase in the number of cases referred for criminal prosecution and any new statutory obligations for prosecutors will have an additional fiscal impact on County Prosecutors. However, officials from the OPS are not aware
ASSUMPTION (continued)
of any estimates of the number of additional criminal cases that would be referred to County Prosecutors for charges because of this proposed legislation. Additionally, the OPS is not otherwise able to establish a workable estimate of the number of additional criminal cases that would be referred to County Prosecutors for charges or how many additional hours the proposed statutory obligations would require of prosecutors. It is therefore, not possible to determine the extent to which this proposal would have a direct fiscal impact on county prosecutors or the Office of Prosecution Services.
Oversight assumes this proposal would not fiscally impact the OPS.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government |
FY 2009 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government |
FY 2009 (10 Mo.) |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation appears to have no fiscal impact.
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
Office of the Governor
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Department of Public Safety
Department of Corrections
Department of Conservation
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
January 25, 2008