Relating to the cost of implementing laws and regulations
HB 767 revises Missouri law governing fiscal notes for legislation and adds a new reporting requirement for state departments. The bill repeals and reenacts section 23.140 to expand what must be included in a fiscal note for most bills before they are acted upon by the General Assembly. In addition to the existing focus on state cost, duplication of programs, federal mandates, local government impact, and facility needs, the bill requires fiscal notes to address whether legislation would affect small businesses and to estimate employee hours needed to implement a new program.
The bill also tightens procedures around how fiscal notes are prepared and revised. It limits participation in drafting fiscal notes to oversight division staff except for written communications or requested information, requires that communications to political subdivisions include the bill number, summary, text, fiscal note link, and changes to prior versions, and directs staff to seek relevant information from state agencies with access to needed data and tools. Separately, the bill creates section 620.1320, requiring each state department, beginning September 1, 2025, to report quarterly to the Department of Economic Development all costs incurred in complying with federal regulations, with the reports shared with the General Assembly and posted publicly online.
HB 767 would change the fiscal note process for Missouri legislation by expanding the required cost and impact analysis and by imposing more detailed procedures for gathering information from agencies and political subdivisions. It would also create a new statewide reporting obligation for state departments to track and disclose the costs of federal regulatory compliance, affecting executive branch administration, legislative oversight, and public transparency. The bill would not directly amend substantive regulatory programs, but it would affect how the costs of laws and regulations are measured, reported, and considered during the legislative process.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and accountability bill, with a generally neutral-to-supportive policy posture. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or bipartisan support in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests an emphasis on improving fiscal analysis and public reporting rather than creating a controversial policy program.
The main potential points of contention are the expanded scope of fiscal notes and the administrative burden placed on state departments and staff. Requiring estimates of small-business impact, employee hours, and more detailed communication protocols could be viewed as improving accountability, but also as adding workload and potentially slowing the legislative process. The quarterly reporting of federal compliance costs may also raise concerns about data collection burden, methodology, and whether departments have the resources to produce consistent and meaningful reports. No specific opposing or supporting groups are identified in the provided record.