Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.200 (2026)

Fiscal note for proposed rules or emergency rules affecting public funds, required when, where filed, contents

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

536.200. Fiscal note for proposed rules or emergency rules affecting public funds, required when, where filed, contents — failure to file, procedure — publication — effect of failure to publish — first year evaluation, publication — challenges to rule for failure to meet requirement, time limitations. — 1. Any state agency filing a notice of proposed rulemaking, as required by section 536.021, or an emergency rule, as required by section 536.025, wherein the adoption, amendment, or rescission of the rule would require or result in an expenditure of public funds by or a reduction of public revenues for that agency or any other state agency of the state government or any political subdivision thereof including counties, cities, towns, and villages, and school, road, drainage, sewer, water, levee, or any other special purpose district which is estimated to cost more than five hundred dollars in the aggregate to any such agency or political subdivision, shall at the time of filing the notice with the secretary of state file a fiscal note estimating the cost to each affected agency or to each class of the various political subdivisions to be affected. The fiscal note shall contain a detailed estimated cost of compliance and shall be supported with a declaration subject to the requirements of section 575.060 by the director of the department to which the agency belongs that in the director's opinion the estimate is reasonably accurate. If no fiscal note is filed, the director of the department to which the agency belongs shall file a declaration subject to the requirements of section 575.060 which states that the proposed change will cost less than five hundred dollars in the aggregate to all such agencies and political subdivisions.

2. A fiscal note for an emergency rule filed under section 536.025 shall only reflect the fiscal costs for the duration of the emergency rule.

3. If at the end of the first full fiscal year after the implementation of the rule, amendment, or rescission the cost to all affected entities has exceeded by ten percent or more the estimated cost in the fiscal note or has exceeded five hundred dollars if a declaration has been filed stating the proposed change will cost less than five hundred dollars, the original estimated cost together with the actual cost during the first fiscal year shall be published by the adopting agency in the Missouri Register within ninety days after the close of the fiscal year. Such costs shall be determined by the adopting agency. If the adopting agency fails to publish such costs as required by this section, the rule, amendment, or rescission shall be void and of no further force or effect.

4. The estimated cost in the aggregate shall be published in the Missouri Register contemporary with and adjacent to the notice of rulemaking, and failure to do so shall render any rule promulgated thereunder void and of no force or effect.

5. Any challenge to a rule based on failure to meet the requirements of this section shall be commenced within five years after the effective date of the rule.

6. In the event that any rule published prior to June 3, 1994, shall have failed to provide a fiscal note as required by this section, such agency shall publish the required fiscal note cross-referenced to the applicable rule prior to August 28, 1995, and in that event the rule shall not be void. Any such rule shall be deemed to have met the requirements of this section until that date.

--------

(L. 1978 S.B. 721 § 1, A.L. 1989 H.B. 143, A.L. 1994 S.B. 558, A.L. 2019 H.B. 1088)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Air Conservation Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Air Conservation Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “First, it found that because the State failed to comply with the provisions of § 536.200 and § 536.205, RSMo 1986, in promulgating and adopting the rules, they were void as expressly provided by both statutes.”

Corvera Abatement Tech., Inc. v. Air Conservation Comm'n, 973 S.W.2d 851 (Mo. 1998). · cites it 7× “The parties stipulate that the Commission failed to file proper fiscal notes as required by sections 536.200 and 536.205, RSMo Supp. 1992, at the time 10 CSR 10-6.”

Missouri Soybean Ass'n v. Missouri Clean Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 2× “The appellants also alleged noncompliance with MAPA because no fiscal note was filed with either the proposed or the final 303(d) list, in violation of sections 536.200 and 536.205. The appellants also alleged the respondents' actions in approving the list and including the…”

Associated Gen. Contractors of Missouri v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 898 S.W.2d 587 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “060 void due to the Department’s failure to comply with the fiscal note provisions of §§ 536.200 and 536.205, RSMo 1994. However, we address neither the alleged shortcomings outlined by AGC in its brief nor the correctness of the trial court’s decision thereon because a…”

Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Missouri Dep't of Consum. Affairs, Reg. & Licensing, 731 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Defendants appeal alleging the trial court erred by (1) holding that Chapter 338 RSMo did not encompass regulation of hospitals, and (2) finding that §§ 536.200 and 536.205 RSMo 1986 void the Pharmacy Board’s rule.”

FRIENDS OF AGR. v. Zimmerman, 51 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “The circuit court found both rules to be void on two grounds: (1) the Commission failed to comply with the provisions of § 536.200 and § 536.205, [17] in promulgating and adopting the rules, and (2) because the Commission's rulemaking power was constrained by § 643.”

In the Matter of the Amendment of the Comm'n's Rule Regarding Applications for Certificates of Convenience & Necessity Kansas City Power & Light & KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Dogwood Energy (Mo. 2021). · cites it 2× “The order included a public entity fiscal note pursuant to section 536.200 stating the cost of compliance for state agencies and political subdivisions would be less than $500 in the aggregate.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.