HB 2013 is an annual appropriations bill that authorizes state spending for real property leases, related services, utilities, systems furniture, structural modifications, and related expenses for Missouri state government for fiscal year 2027. It also authorizes certain transfers among state funds. The bill is structured as a conference committee substitute and sets out detailed line-item appropriations for the Office of Administration and numerous departments, divisions, and programs, including education, higher education/workforce development, revenue, agriculture, natural resources, commerce and insurance, labor, public safety, corrections, mental health, health and senior services, social services, the governor’s office, the legislature, statewide elected officials, and the judiciary.
The bill includes appropriations from General Revenue, federal funds, and a wide range of dedicated and revolving funds. It covers both expense-and-equipment needs and facilities-related costs such as leases, utilities, and structural modifications, and it includes flexibility provisions allowing limited transfers among certain sections and funds. The bill also identifies some one-time appropriations, which are not intended to become part of ongoing base funding in future fiscal years.
HB 2013’s effect on state law is primarily fiscal rather than regulatory: it does not create new substantive programs, but it legally authorizes spending from the State Treasury for the listed purposes and fund sources during the July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027 period. It also directs a nominal transfer to the State Legal Expense Fund under existing statutory authority and establishes how appropriated amounts may be treated as one-time items for budgeting purposes. The bill impacts the operations of nearly every major state department by funding administrative and facility-related costs.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable and routine, consistent with a must-pass appropriations measure. It passed the House and Senate by large margins, suggesting broad bipartisan support for funding state operations. The bill’s progress to the Governor indicates it was treated as a standard budget vehicle rather than a controversial policy measure.
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts are provided. Any disagreement appears limited to the normal budget process and the size or allocation of particular appropriations rather than the bill’s overall purpose. The most notable feature is the breadth of agencies and funds covered, along with the inclusion of flexibility language and one-time funding designations, which are common points of budget negotiation.
HB 2013 appropriates a total of $157,453,271 for state real property leases, utilities, systems furniture, structural modifications, and related expenses, while also authorizing fund transfers and setting spending authority for numerous state departments and programs. It affects the Office of Administration most directly, especially the Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction, and also funds administrative and operational costs across education, public safety, corrections, health, social services, and other agencies. The bill’s legal impact is to provide spending authority for fiscal year 2027 and to define how certain appropriations are treated as one-time amounts.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and moved through the legislative process with strong vote totals in both chambers. The large House and Senate margins suggest it was viewed as a necessary, routine appropriations measure to keep state government functioning. No committee testimony or recorded debate is available in the provided materials, and nothing indicates significant opposition beyond ordinary budget scrutiny.
No major points of contention are evident in the provided record. Because the bill is an appropriations measure, any disputes would likely have centered on funding levels, fund sources, flexibility between sections, or the use of one-time appropriations rather than on policy substance. The available voting history shows substantial bipartisan approval, indicating that any disagreements were limited and did not prevent passage.