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 Committee on Transportation met in executive session and considered House Bill 1939. Members adopted an amendment that incorporated changes discussed in the public hearing, including allowing municipalities to permit golf carts on roads over 25 mph, requiring golf carts to carry insurance, and creating a carve-out for private property owners to allow golf carts on their sidewalks or paths. A member raised a question about a possible accommodation for a disabled young man who uses a golf cart but is not licensed; the sponsor said that issue was not included in the bill but might be considered later as a floor amendment. After adopting the amendment, the committee rolled it into a new substitute and adopted the House Committee Substitute for HB 1939. The substitute was then voted do pass by a roll call vote of 13 ayes and 0 noes. The committee adjourned after completing that business.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2508, which would clarify that Missouri series LLCs may obtain standalone certificates of good standing from the Secretary of State and be individually listed on the Secretary of State’s website. Representative Chris Brown said the bill is intended to remove uncertainty created by a newer interpretation of the law and help Missouri businesses operate in other states. Committee members and witnesses from law and business groups generally supported the measure, emphasizing transparency, easier verification of entities, and reduced barriers to interstate business. No opposition was offered, and the hearing on HB 2508 was closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2517, which would require real estate wholesalers to provide a written disclosure before contracting with a seller, stating that they are acting as a wholesaler, do not represent the seller, may assign the contract, and encouraging the seller to seek legal counsel. Representative Brown described the bill as a consumer protection measure aimed at preventing deceptive practices that can harm distressed homeowners, seniors, heirs, and first-time sellers. Members raised questions about whether the disclosure should be more prominent and whether the bill would affect legitimate investors. Brown and several supporters said the bill targets bad actors without restricting legitimate transactions. Testimony on HB 2517 was mixed but broadly supportive of disclosure. The Missouri Association of Realtors, the Missouri Chamber, and several wholesalers and homebuyers supported the bill’s transparency requirements, while warning that overregulation could hurt the market for distressed and blighted properties. Supporters described wholesalers as important to moving off-market homes into the hands of rehabbers and argued that disclosure helps ensure sellers understand the transaction. One witness said the Senate companion bill had been amended to require disclosure 14 days before contracting and to make Attorney General enforcement discretionary, which would eliminate the fiscal note, though some witnesses said the 14-day requirement could burden sellers in urgent situations. The hearing on HB 2517 was then closed, with no votes taken during the meeting.

Summary: The Agriculture Committee first established a quorum and then went into executive session, where it voted House Bill 24-22 do pass by a vote of 18 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 present. The committee then moved into public hearing on House Bills 2713 and 2716, both sponsored by Representative Deal. HB 2713 was described as the larger agriculture tax credit package, including removal of sunsets from several existing ag-related credits and technical changes to programs such as biodiesel, meat processing, specialty crops, wood energy, and rolling stock. HB 2716 focused on the short-line rail tax credit and related rail infrastructure incentives, including track rehabilitation and industrial development credits. Representative Deal said the bills were intended to provide long-term certainty for agriculture and rail investment and noted the programs’ positive return on investment. Committee members raised concerns about eliminating sunsets, how future legislatures would review the credits, and whether some credits could be used if Missouri moved toward eliminating income tax. Questions also focused on whether abandoned or minimally used rail lines would qualify, and on the transferability of rolling stock credits to entities with different tax liabilities. Deal and witnesses said the rail provisions were aimed at active short lines and that data on the credits’ performance could be provided. Testimony in support came from the Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Soybeans, the Biodiesel Coalition of Missouri, Missouri Dairy, Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Bankers Association, Missouri Eastern Railroad, Missouri Economic Development Council, Osage Valley Electric Cooperative, and the Missouri Railroad Association. Supporters said the credits have stimulated ethanol, biodiesel, dairy, specialty crop, meat processing, and rural economic development projects, and that rail credits help preserve and expand short-line service, reduce truck traffic, and attract industrial investment. No opposition testimony was offered on either bill, and the hearings on HB 2713 and HB 2716 were adjourned without any recorded committee vote on those bills in the transcript.

Summary: The Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources met in executive session and considered five bills. House Bill 1624, described as Representative Sassmann’s invasive species bill, was voted due pass unanimously. House Bills 2162 and 1736 were also each voted due pass without opposition. House Bill 2267, identified as the agroforestry bill, initially prompted some confusion during the roll call, but after votes were clarified it also passed due pass unanimously. House Bill 2549 was then considered and failed on a 5-6-1 vote, with one member present and several no votes recorded. No testimony was taken during the session, and the committee adjourned after the final vote.

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families met with a quorum and first took up several bills in executive session. House Bill 1818, dealing with protections for children involved in content creation and related financial arrangements, was amended and converted into a House Committee substitute. Members discussed that the bill is aimed at children creating content for financial gain and clarifies that platforms must comply with federal law without being drawn into disputes between children and parents. The substitute was then voted do pass by a 17-0 roll call. House Bill 1948 was also amended and substituted; the amendment changed references from the Family Support Division to the Department of Social Services, and members briefly joked about the wording of “fatherhood” versus “fathership.” The committee then voted the substitute do pass 17-0. The committee next debated House Bill 2688, which drew sharp disagreement. Opponents argued the bill’s due process language for unborn children was too vague, could create legal uncertainty, and might have consequences for IVF, miscarriage investigations, and criminal liability for women and medical providers. Supporters said the bill was about protecting pre-born life and that due process should apply. The bill was voted do pass by a 12-5 roll call. The committee then moved into public hearings. In public hearing, House Bill 1772 was presented as an adoption-fee bill intended to raise state-paid attorney fees for adoptions, increase fees for contested adoptions, and separate guardian fees so more children could be adopted from foster care. The sponsor said the goal was to reduce costs and speed adoptions; Foster Adopt Connect testified in support, while members raised questions about contested adoptions, subsidy timing, and whether the bill would affect access to attorneys. House Bill 1696 proposed clarifying who has the right of sepulcher for minors with court-appointed guardians, giving the guardian priority unless the guardian is under criminal investigation for the child’s death, and adding religious-belief protections regarding cremation. Testimony from family members described painful experiences where legal authority reverted to abusive parents after a child’s death, and committee members generally supported clarifying the law. Finally, House Bill 2505 was heard, a grandparent custody bill giving grandparents priority when both parents are found unfit, unsuitable, or unable to serve as custodians and the child’s welfare requires placement. Supporters, including Foster Adopt Connect and a grandmother who testified emotionally, said grandparents often provide the most stable care and should be recognized in statute. An opponent argued the current law already allows courts to place children with grandparents when appropriate and warned that statutory priority could override the child’s best interests in some cases. The committee adjourned after concluding public testimony on HB 2505.