DEPARTMENT
OF
AUDITS
AND
ACCOUNTS
270 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 4-114
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-8400
270 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 4-114
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-8400
Russell W.
Hinton
State Auditor
(404) 656-2174
State Auditor
(404) 656-2174
April
13, 2007
Honorable James L. Whitehead,
Sr., Chairman
Senate Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee
Coverdell Legislative Office Building, Room 319-B
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Senate Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee
Coverdell Legislative Office Building, Room 319-B
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
SUBJECT: Fiscal
Note
House
Bill 314
Substitute
(LC 29 2906S)
(LC 29 2906S)
Dear
Chairman Whitehead:
This
bill adds certain reporting and registration requirements related to sexual
offenders and the State Sexual Offender Registry. The bill would require sexual
offenders to register with the sheriff of any county where such offender
resides, is employed, or is attending an institution of higher education in lieu
of only registering in the county of residence. It would also require the State
Sexual Offender Registry to obtain palm prints from sexual offenders and to
forward to the applicable county sheriff’s office, 30 days prior to the
offender’s release, the sexual offender’s fingerprints, palm prints,
and photograph along with other specific information. Additionally, the bill
would allow for certain elderly and disabled sexual offenders to petition the
superior court to be released from certain residency requirements.
It
is estimated that this bill would have minimal, if any, fiscal impact on the
state. Information obtained from the Department of Human Resources (DHR), to
which the Sexual Offender Registration Board is attached, indicates that no
financial impact is expected as a result of this bill. The Georgia Bureau of
Investigation (GBI), which operates the Georgia Crime Information Center’s
Sex Offender Registry, does not expect a fiscal impact as a result of this
substitute bill. GBI noted, however, that statutory changes made to the Sex
Offender Registry in 2006 were estimated to cost $80,000 but have not yet been
funded.
An
accurate assessment of the possible fiscal impact on local governments could not
be obtained during the given timeframe. Cursory feedback obtained from the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) indicates that there may be a significant
cost to local governments, potentially exceeding $7 million statewide, to
purchase equipment capable of reading and electronically storing palm prints.
Consideration should be given to requesting that the state’s Department of
Community Affairs prepare a fiscal note in accordance with O.C.G.A.
§28-5-49, which is contained in state legislation known as the “State
and Local Government Partnership Act of 1995.”
Respectfully,
/s/ Russell W.
Hinton
State Auditor
State Auditor
/s/ Shelley
C. Nickel,
Director
Office of Planning and Budget
Office of Planning and Budget