Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

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 House Committee on Crime and Public Safety met in executive session and first took up House Bill 3105, which drew the most discussion. The committee adopted a House committee substitute and two amendments: one replacing references to the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission with the Director of Public Safety, and another changing venue language to Cole County. Members debated the bill’s effect on cooperation with federal law enforcement, Second Amendment rights, and local control, with supporters saying it would protect law-abiding citizens and allow public safety agencies to work with federal partners, while opponents argued it was unnecessary, politically motivated, or could weaken local authority. The committee then voted the substitute do pass by 11 ayes to 6 noes. The committee also voted House Bill 1740 do pass without discussion. House Bill 3186, relating to sex offenders, received one present vote from Representative Anderson, who cited possible constitutional concerns, but it still passed 15-0-1. House Joint Resolution 124 also passed, 12-4-1. The committee then combined House Bills 3068 and 3049 into a single committee substitute on sex offender registry matters and approved it unanimously, 17-0. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2868, which would expand DNA swabbing requirements for certain felony offenses. An amendment added several felony categories, including controlled substance offenses, forgery, fraud, auto theft, felony DWI, and felony evading arrest, while removing check forgery language after member concerns. Representative Seitz said the change addressed his concerns and referenced a recent local officer shooting as a reason for support. The committee adopted the substitute and voted the bill do pass unanimously, 17-0, then adjourned the executive session.

Summary: The Legislative Rules Committee met in executive session and announced that it would not hear House Committee Substitute for HB 1941, HB 2279, and HB 1681 that morning, saying members wanted more time to review it and that a hearing would be scheduled in the near future. The committee also took up two bills not on the hearing notice: House Committee Substitute No. 2 for HB 2668 and House Committee Substitute No. 2 for HB 2780, both dealing with property tax issues. The committee advanced a series of bills on a variety of topics, including fire district surplus property (HB 1752), personal property assessments (HB 1759), voter roll maintenance (HB 1812), epinephrine delivery devices (HCS for HB 1826, 2560, 2349, and 2194), disabled license plates and placards (HB 1827), school employee training (HCS for HB 2335), mortgage modifications (HB 2636), fuel-source-based regulations (HCS for HB 2774), masked intimidation (HB 2848), a registry of persistent domestic violence offenders (HCS for HB 3012, 2997, and 3058), motor vehicle assessments (HCS for HB 3035), and drug abuse (HCS for HB 313). Most of these measures received unanimous or near-unanimous do pass recommendations. There was limited discussion on HB 1752, where Vice Chair Mayhew raised a constitutional concern about allowing surplus fire district property to go to public service corporations; the sponsor explained that the bill did not further define that term, and the bill still received a 9-3 do pass recommendation. HB 2848 drew supportive comments from Ranking Member Bosley after he reviewed the bill, and HB 3035 was briefly corrected for a mistaken vote before receiving a do pass recommendation. The two property tax bills, HCS No. 2 for HB 2668 and HCS No. 2 for HB 2780, were explained by their sponsors as splitting earlier legislation into separate pieces: HB 2668 covered ballot language, tax impact disclosures, abatements, and election timing, while HB 2780 addressed the remaining property tax provisions, including subclass-based levy protections and school district debt service levy changes. HB 2668 passed 9-3, and HB 2780 passed 9-0 with three present. The committee then adjourned.

Summary: The House Committee on Health and Mental Health met in executive session and advanced several bills. HB 1881 was voted do pass without discussion. HB 3010 was amended with a committee substitute that removed a subsection allowing payers to remove “gold carding” based on procedure volume changes, then passed 10-0. HB 2355, the “Food is Medicine” bill, received a committee amendment to align terminology with other partnerships and then passed 11-0. HB 1855, dealing with alpha-gal reporting, was substantially revised: the substitute narrowed the bill to alpha-gal, removed Lyme disease, changed a department duty from mandatory to discretionary in one section, and delayed reporting implementation; it then passed 14-0 after members discussed the need for better disease tracking and the department’s workload. The committee then heard testimony on HB 2034, which would require insurance coverage for activity-based prostheses, orthotics, and high-performance or mobility-supportive wheelchairs. Sponsor Representative Carolyn Caton said the bill is intended to cover devices that help people live, exercise, and avoid secondary health problems, while preserving prior authorization and medical-necessity review. Supporters included clinicians, parents, amputees, and athletes who described being denied running blades, water-safe prostheses, or durable wheelchairs and said the devices are essential for health, independence, mental well-being, and participation in school, work, and sports. Several witnesses said the bill would reduce long-term costs and reliance on charity. Opponents, including the Missouri Insurance Coalition and America’s Health Insurance Plans, argued the bill is an expansion of coverage with unclear definitions and potentially significant costs, especially for Medicaid and other state-regulated plans. They cited the fiscal note, warned about possible federal ACA rule changes that could shift costs to states, and questioned whether the bill’s language on Medicare supplemental coverage and “perceived disability” was workable or preempted. Committee members pressed both sides on cost savings, definitions of “normal” activity, and whether the bill could be narrowed or otherwise revised, and several said they were willing to keep working on the issue. The hearing on HB 2034 was left open and then recessed after testimony, with no vote taken in the portion provided.

Summary: The committee first took up several bills in executive session. House Committee Amendment No. 1 was adopted and rolled into a substitute for House Bills 3292 and 2171, which then received a do pass recommendation by a 10-2 vote. House Bill 2753 also received a committee substitute and was voted do pass 10-2. House Bill 2912 was voted do pass by an 11-1 vote. During this portion, one member criticized the Department of Corrections for not responding to inquiries or attending earlier hearings, and the chair acknowledged the concern. The committee then heard testimony on House Bills 1616 and 2832, sponsored by Representatives Allen and Collins, which would create an independent corrections oversight structure, including an Office of Corrections and Transparency or ombudsman-style advocate with authority to inspect facilities, investigate complaints, access records, and report publicly. The sponsors argued that DOC currently lacks independent oversight and that internal review is insufficient. They cited deaths, unsafe conditions, medical neglect, and the need for confidential reporting by staff and incarcerated people. Committee members questioned whether the bills would duplicate existing processes, what the fiscal impact would be, and whether the proposal had enough enforcement power; the sponsors said the office would be small, likely around $300,000, and were open to amendments. Supporters testified that independent oversight is needed because of repeated deaths in custody, lack of trust in internal complaint systems, retaliation concerns for staff, and large taxpayer costs from lawsuits and settlements. Witnesses from Empower Missouri, Missouri Justice Coalition, the NAACP, ACLU of Missouri, and FAMM all supported the bills, with several emphasizing that prisons are closed institutions with inherent power imbalances and that external oversight would improve transparency, safety, and accountability for both incarcerated people and staff. The hearing ended after testimony in support, with no opposition presented and the committee adjourning without taking final action on the oversight bills.

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform heard public testimony on House Bills 3253 and 3254, presented by Representatives Steinhoff and Jobe. The bills would expand assessor training and continuing education requirements, require physical inspections for large assessment increases on commercial property as well as residential property, allow greater use of technology and remote imagery in assessments, create optional electronic notices and communications for taxpayers, and move toward setting property tax levies by subclass with a small-parcel exception. The bill also included provisions to raise the per-parcel reimbursement floor for assessors, reimburse local governments for revenue losses tied to SB 190 and SB 3, provide payment options during appeals, and require counties to offer installment payment options for property taxes. The sponsors said the proposal was built from bipartisan committee discussions and statewide listening sessions, and they emphasized assessor professionalism, taxpayer flexibility, and fairness in the assessment process. Committee members asked about assessor training, the fiscal note, the parcel reimbursement formula, and how the subclass levy system would work in small jurisdictions. Witnesses from the Missouri Special Districts Association and school administrators generally supported the concepts of better assessor training, more resources, and taxpayer payment flexibility, while also warning about implementation burdens and the fiscal impact of state backfill for SB 190 and SB 3. Testimony also focused on the accuracy of ratio studies and the fairness of moving to subclass-based levies. Some members argued the current system can shift tax burdens unfairly between residential, commercial, and agricultural property owners, while others cautioned that the new structure could create winners and losers depending on local assessment practices. A representative from the State Tax Commission clarified that commissioners do receive training, corrected the parcel reimbursement discussion to note the first 20,000 parcels are treated differently under current law, and said the commission already provides assessor training. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after public testimony.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education met to hear an informational presentation from the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development on Missouri’s higher education funding model and related workforce trends. Commissioner Bennett Boggs described the department’s mission, its data and workforce partnerships, and the need to better align postsecondary education with Missouri’s labor market, noting projections that 65% of jobs in the 2030s will require education beyond high school. He emphasized that the current “base-plus” funding approach dates to 1992 and no longer reflects demographic, technological, or economic changes, and said the department wants every institution to remain healthy and serve its region. Deputy Commissioner Leroye Wade outlined a proposed cost-based, performance-informed funding framework with four main parts: fixed costs, variable program costs, performance measures, and a mechanism for targeted legislative investment. He said the model is intended to be data-driven, transparent, and more responsive to enrollment changes, program mix, completion outcomes, workforce needs, and collaboration among institutions. He also reviewed the history of the effort, including a 2022 legislative appropriation for a study, a 2023 report, and subsequent interim and bill activity. Committee members asked about educational attainment goals, the P20W longitudinal data system, persistence and completion rates, and how the model would account for mission differences and student outcomes. Representative John Black, sponsor of the bill discussed, said the legislation is meant to move Missouri toward a 21st-century higher education funding system by tying appropriations more closely to state goals and institutional performance rather than continuing automatic across-the-board increases. He said the department’s work and the bill are intended to prompt continued refinement of the model, and he warned that declining enrollments and tight state finances make reform urgent. No votes were taken; the committee heard the presentation, allowed brief public comment, and then adjourned.