Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to review Missouri marijuana microbusiness rule amendments, especially 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation explained that the changes were intended to clarify what it means for a microbusiness to be “owned and operated” by eligible individuals, move compliance review earlier in the application process, and address repeated instances where licenses were later found to be controlled by ineligible or noncompliant parties. The department said it had used stakeholder outreach, town halls, listening sessions, and public comments in drafting the rules, and noted that 25 standalone comments were received during formal rulemaking. Committee members focused heavily on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for past agency revocations, and whether the department had clear authority to impose a lifetime ban on people denied or revoked under the ownership-and-operation provisions. Several members argued the language should be narrowed to intentional or egregious violations and better tied to specific conduct rather than prior agency action. Witnesses from the public, including applicants and attorneys, testified that the department’s guidance on “predatory practices” and acceptable ownership structures had been unclear, that some applicants relied on consultant arrangements later deemed problematic, and that similar agreements were treated inconsistently. Others supported stronger enforcement, saying the rules were needed to prevent manipulation of social equity applicants and preserve the constitutional requirements of the program. The committee also discussed training and technical assistance requirements, the five-day document deadline, and whether the department should provide more concrete guidance or model forms. Members raised concerns that the proposed definitions could burden small or first-time business owners and that some applicants might be unfairly penalized despite acting in good faith. No substantive vote on the rule package was taken; instead, the committee voted to adjourn and return on Thursday after working with the department on possible corrections, clarifications, or amendments.

Summary: The Commerce Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 3395, sponsored by Representative Christ, which would reauthorize and update the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act (MODESA) to spur redevelopment in downtown St. Louis and Kansas City. Christ said the program previously helped create Ballpark Village and Power & Light District through a no-upfront-cost, tax-revenue-sharing model, and he indicated a committee substitute would significantly revise the bill language while keeping the same overall concept. Representative Sides supported the bill in principle but said he wanted the final version to read more like standard Missouri statute. A long line of witnesses testified in support, including representatives of the Cordish Companies, Gateway Arch Park Foundation, the Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City, Greater St. Louis, Inc., St. Louis City SC, the City of St. Louis, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, the Kansas City Chamber/Civic Council, the Downtown Council of Kansas City, J.E. Dunn, and the Missouri Chamber. Supporters described MODESA as a proven tool that leveraged private investment, created jobs, increased visitors and tax revenue, and helped revitalize downtown areas. Cordish said the company had invested more than $2 billion in Missouri and would pursue another large mixed-use project, including residential, office, and entertainment components, if the program were renewed. Testimony focused heavily on two proposed St. Louis projects: redevelopment of the Millennium Hotel site and broader riverfront/downtown connectivity around the Arch grounds. Gateway Arch Park Foundation said it had purchased the Millennium site, was demolishing the old tower, and believed the project would connect the Arch grounds to downtown with a high-rise residential and office mixed-use development. Committee members asked about impacts on taxing jurisdictions, property taxes, retail demand, and whether the bill would benefit communities broadly rather than only developers; witnesses said cities would be applicants, property taxes would still be paid, and the projects were intended to bring new residents and activity rather than simply shift existing development. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee took no vote before adjourning.

Summary: The General Laws Committee met without a quorum and heard House Bill 2749, sponsored by Rep. Davidson. The bill would allow hospital systems, rather than only individual physicians, to sign and maintain collaborative practice agreements for physician assistants in hospital settings. The sponsor said the measure is intended to reduce administrative burden and paperwork without changing scope of practice, supervision requirements, or liability, and noted it has a $0 fiscal note. Committee members asked about how the bill would work in practice, including what happens when physicians leave a hospital system, whether the collaborating physician relationship would still be meaningful, and whether the bill could affect liability or accountability. Supporters, including a long-time PA with BJC and the Missouri Hospital Association, said large hospital systems already use credentialing and chart-review processes, and that centralizing the paperwork would help hospitals, physicians, and the Board of Healing Arts while freeing physician time for patient care. They emphasized that the bill would not change clinical oversight or reimbursement arrangements. Opposition came from the Missouri State Medical Association and the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons. Their witness argued that collaborative practice agreements are personal physician agreements, not mere paperwork, and warned that shifting them to a hospital-level document could weaken physician accountability and potentially increase liability. The hearing concluded after testimony, with no vote taken.

Summary: The committee heard extended discussion of the chair’s House budget substitute, especially House Bill 2 for elementary and secondary education and House Bill 3 for higher education. The chair said the operating budget leaves roughly $300 million in reserve, explained several cuts and restorations, and described proposed changes to child care, including cutting enhancement payments and keeping attendance-based rather than enrollment-based subsidy payments. Representative Fogle objected to the child care cuts and the proposed language limiting the department’s move to prospective payment and enrollment-based reimbursement; State Budget Director Dan Hogg testified that the governor’s office still intended to move to payment on enrollment in May if the budget language did not block it, while prospective payment remained under review because of federal funding concerns. The chair also explained a restriction on Parents as Teachers services for children already in public pre-K, and members debated whether that would reduce duplication or improperly limit services. The chair further proposed a new competitive Title I innovation grant program funded by a reallocation of some Title I dollars, with questions raised about what services would be reduced to offset it. The bulk of the meeting focused on a major higher education funding overhaul in House Bill 3. The chair and vice chair proposed replacing the current base-plus model with an FTE-based formula that would distribute the same overall state funding according to student credit hours, with community colleges funded on a 12-hour FTE, four-year undergraduate students on a 15-hour FTE, and graduate enrollment discussed as a separate issue. They said the goal was to make funding follow students rather than institutions and to reduce long-standing disparities between schools. Several members supported the idea as overdue and more transparent, while others warned it was being done too quickly and could harm institutions with high-cost programs, research missions, or smaller enrollments. Concerns were raised about possible closures, accreditation problems, and unintended effects on workforce programs such as nursing, engineering, and technical training. The chair and vice chair said there was no intent to force consolidation, but acknowledged that some institutions would gain and others would lose under the new model. Members also questioned how the formula would treat research and doctoral funding, especially at the University of Missouri, and whether graduate programs were properly counted. The chair said some special-purpose lines were retained, but a large portion of MU’s research and doctoral funding was folded into the broader pool and redistributed through the FTE model. Several members asked for clarification on whether graduate hours were counted at nine credits, and the chair said he was not certain and would seek follow-up from staff or the department. Community college representatives were discussed as having unanimously opposed the recommendation, and the chair noted that the institutions were briefed only shortly before the hearing. No votes were taken during the exchange, and the committee appeared to be gathering testimony and concerns ahead of markup and future action on the budget bills.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the House Journal by a 121-0 vote, and a brief suspension of business for the Speaker to sign HB 2014. Members also observed a moment of silence for Butler County Fire Protection District Sergeant Commander Jatin Warren, who died in the line of duty, and the chamber introduced several guest groups, including Missouri Council on Aging representatives and county clerks. A resolution was also presented honoring former state representative K. H. Steinmetz for her 18 years of service in the Missouri House. The House then received committee reports recommending passage of HB 2934, HB 1800, and HB 1707. On third reading, HB 2974 passed 136-0 on telehealth and licensure reciprocity; HB 2934 passed 121-24 on consolidating St. Louis convention center governance; HB 2057 passed 137-10 on entertainment districts for Osage Beach and Chesterfield; the combined HB 1839/2921/3015 passed 120-19 on age verification for harmful online content; HB 1707 passed 149-0 to bar the Department of Revenue from taxing credit card processing fees; HB 2819 passed 145-0 to set rounding rules as the penny is phased out; and HB 2600 passed 148-0 to allow ambulance districts to combine resources for coverage. HB 1800, which reduces the inflationary growth factor for certain taxing districts from 5% to 3% and adjusts assessment ranges, drew the most extended debate over its effect on schools, fire districts, and taxpayers; it ultimately passed 82-61. Members also perfected HB 2774, which bars state and local governments from restricting equipment sales or use based on fuel source, and HB 2383, a utility infrastructure protection bill adding wired/copper infrastructure to existing critical infrastructure protections and setting penalties for theft or damage; HB 2383 was amended to align with the Senate version and then perfected. Finally, the House began debate on a combined bill package including HB 1664, 1610, 1645, and 2182, which would extend the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse civil claims while also shortening the general personal injury statute of limitations from five years to three; the child sexual abuse provisions drew broad support, while the tort-reform portion prompted sharp disagreement over access to justice versus business certainty.

Summary: The committee spent most of the meeting discussing a proposed overhaul of Missouri’s higher education funding model, centered on shifting core funding toward an FTE-based formula. The chair and vice chair argued the current system is outdated and inequitable, saying the new approach would better align state dollars with student enrollment and workforce outcomes. Several members supported the need for change but raised concerns about the speed of implementation, the lack of advance consultation with universities, and the possibility that some institutions could face severe budget cuts, accreditation problems, or even closure. Community college representatives were noted as unanimously opposing the recommendation, and members repeatedly asked for clarification on whether graduate programs would be counted at 9, 12, or 15 credit hours, with no definitive answer provided during the meeting. Testimony and comments focused heavily on the consequences for specific institutions and programs. Some members warned that the proposal could hurt schools with expensive programs such as nursing, engineering, doctoral study, research, and specialized missions, while others argued that institutions should be rewarded for producing graduates who are in demand in the workforce. Truman State, Harris-Stowe, Missouri State, and several community colleges were discussed as examples of schools that could either gain or lose substantially under the model. The chair and vice chair said the proposal was not intended to force consolidation, but several members said the size of the cuts could indirectly lead to consolidation or closure and would require a phase-in to avoid harming students. After the higher education discussion, the committee moved through other budget items. The chair described cuts and restorations in several areas, including removing easement funding at the Department of Revenue, adding hearing officers for the State Tax Commission, restoring some MODOT requests, and shifting interest earnings from I-70 and I-44 project funds back to general revenue. Members also asked about Bartle Hall funding, a Bolivar road project, and new language restricting personal-service spending unless appropriations explicitly allow it. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue moving through the budget items and follow up on unresolved questions with the department.

Summary: The Committee for Insurance met with a quorum and first took up three bills in executive session. House Bill 2902 was amended with a committee substitute that removed the commission language while keeping provisions on software and key-emulating devices, and members confirmed it still included a Class D felony penalty. The committee adopted the substitute and voted the bill do pass, with one member voting no. House Bill 1789, dealing with delivery network companies and insurance coverage during the delivery availability period, was also amended and adopted; the substitute clarified that the availability period is not commercial activity and that auto insurance applies until a driver is actually engaged in delivery. The committee then voted the bill do pass, with one no vote and one present. House Bill 1647 was amended to remove it from the collateral source rule section and clarify that it applies only to civil actions for damages and property claims; the substitute was adopted and the bill voted do pass, with several no votes recorded. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 1894, which would implement federal nondiscrimination requirements for licensed health care providers in Missouri insurance law. The sponsor said the bill is about patient choice, fairness, and access, especially in rural areas, and does not expand scope of practice or require coverage of new services. Supporters from chiropractic, nursing, occupational therapy, podiatry, and nurse anesthetist groups said the bill would ensure equal reimbursement for the same covered services and improve access to local providers. Opponents from the insurance industry argued the bill would interfere with network design, reduce negotiating leverage, and require equal payment regardless of provider type or credentials; they also said current federal law already governs network adequacy and that the bill’s rulemaking language was standard but the reimbursement mandate was the main concern. The committee also heard House Bill 3314, which updates Missouri’s insurance guaranty association laws. The sponsor and supporters explained that the bill would clarify coverage for cyber policies, ensure coverage follows the policyholder in insurance business transfer or corporate division transactions, and allow limited pre-liquidation information sharing from the Department of Commerce and Insurance to guaranty associations so claims can be handled faster after insolvency. Witnesses said the bill is technical and intended to modernize the system without expanding coverage or increasing taxpayer exposure. Members asked about the $300,000 property and casualty claims cap, the definition of high-net-worth individual, oversight of guaranty associations, and confidentiality concerns; supporters said the cap is longstanding, high-net-worth means over $25 million, and the department’s existing oversight and confidentiality protections are sufficient. The hearing closed after a final supportive statement from the Missouri Insurance Coalition, and the committee adjourned.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform met to hear public testimony on House Bill 3342 and House Bill 3354. HB 3342, sponsored by Rep. Matteson, would prevent tax levies adopted before January 1, 1975 from being applied to personal property tax, with the sponsor arguing that personal property taxation on motor vehicles and similar property was not part of earlier voter-approved levies. Members questioned how the bill would work in practice, whether it should instead remove vehicles from assessment entirely, and what property classes would be affected. The sponsor said he was focused on class four personal property, especially motor vehicles, but was open to refining the language. No one testified in support, opposition, or for information, and no vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 3354, sponsored by Chair Taylor, which would reduce the Blind Pension Fund levy from 3 cents to 0.0275. Taylor said the fund’s participant numbers are declining while reserves have grown, that the department agreed the lower rate would still be sufficient, and that he wanted to keep the fund lean while preserving a cushion. Members asked about how the levy is calculated, whether it fluctuates with assessments, and whether excess funds could be transferred to public education as contemplated by the constitution. There was also discussion about the bill’s decimal wording and a possible drafting amendment to clarify the rate. No witnesses testified in favor, opposition, or informationally, and the hearing on HB 3354 was concluded without a committee vote.

Summary: The committee met in executive session first and took up House Bill 2330, reconsidering a prior due-pass vote and then voting the House Committee Substitute due pass by roll call. It then considered House Bill 2291, where an amendment meant to clarify municipal building-code and zoning authority was discussed at length and ultimately withdrawn after members raised concerns that it would undercut the bill’s purpose; the bill itself then received a due-pass recommendation. House Bill 2336, dealing with state property conveyances and title issues, also drew questions about unclear title and the status of several properties, but the committee adopted the House Committee Substitute and voted the bill do pass. The committee then moved into public hearing on House Bill 3136, which would remove the state prohibition on creating a Missouri-based health insurance exchange; the sponsor and a witness argued it could save money, keep exchange fees in-state, and give Missouri more control, while several members objected that it would reverse the 2012 voter-approved prohibition and could entrench federal health-care policy. No action was taken on that bill in the hearing. The committee next heard House Bill 1833, which would let certain state employees opt out of the state health plan and receive a partial cash payout if they have other coverage. The sponsor argued it could be cost-neutral or save money and give employees more flexibility, while members and the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan raised concerns about fiscal impact, adverse selection, administrative burden, and whether the proposal turns a benefit into an entitlement. The witness for the plan said the fiscal note was based on about 4,112 active employees who already opt out, warned the stipend would be taxable and could create a new benefit that is hard to remove, and said proof of outside coverage would need to be maintained. The hearing then moved to House Bill 2506, which would require DESE to post QR-code placards at licensed child care facilities linking parents to existing inspection and complaint records; supporters said it would help parents make safer choices at no fiscal cost, while DESE explained the portal already exists and complaints are investigated quickly, and a witness described serious problems at one facility to illustrate why the information matters. Finally, the committee opened public hearing on House Bill 1758, a proposal to move Missouri to permanent daylight saving time once federal law allows it. The sponsor argued it would improve safety, boost economic activity, and avoid the inconvenience of changing clocks twice a year, while members raised concerns about darker mornings for schoolchildren and commuters and questioned whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The hearing was still underway when the transcript ended, and no final committee action on House Bill 3136, 1833, 2506, or 1758 was recorded in the excerpt.