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

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee first announced that House Bill 1873 had been pulled at the sponsors’ request and would not be heard. The committee then took up House Bill 2759, which would require MoDOT to publish engineer’s estimates after a project is awarded or rejected, with the sponsor and supporters framing it as a transparency and accountability measure that would help taxpayers and contractors understand why bids are accepted or rejected. Supporters, including the Missouri Asphalt Paving Association and a state public advocate, said the bill would not affect bidding because the estimate would be released only after award, and argued that other states already do this without higher costs. MoDOT opposed the bill, saying its estimates are meant to reflect fair market value at the time of letting and that releasing them could let contractors pattern bids around MoDOT’s numbers, potentially setting an artificial floor or otherwise distorting competition. Committee members questioned both sides closely about whether publishing the estimate after award would still influence future bids, whether rejected bids are already explained, and whether the bill would help identify problems with project scope or estimating. The sponsor said the bill had been refined and referenced an amendment to make clear the disclosure would occur at award or rejection, not before bidding. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2837, which would change how vacancies on the Bi-State Development Agency board are filled by returning to a system where the governor appoints from within the district rather than from lists submitted by the St. Louis city mayor and county executive. The sponsor argued the current process gives too much control to St. Louis City and County and does not adequately represent growing areas such as St. Charles County. Opponents from the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, Citizens for Modern Transit, and a state public advocate argued the change would weaken local control for the jurisdictions that actually fund and use the transit system, noting that St. Charles, Jefferson, and Monroe counties do not pay the same transit taxes and in some cases do not receive service. The hearing ended after testimony in opposition, with no vote taken and the committee adjourned.