R.N.C. A.C. Dinoff — Identified himself as State Public Advocate and testified in opposition to HB 2748, emphasizing local control.
Organ Schlamar — Testified in support of House Bill 2748 on behalf of Chuck Stetson.
Chuck Stetson — The witness said he was speaking on behalf of Chuck Stetson, who contacted him about the issue.
Haley Edwards — Haley Edwards, a senior at Republic High School, introduced herself and explained her future plans to attend the University of Missouri in the fall to study constitutional democracy, potentially double major, and eventually become a lawyer. She then described struggles with high school scheduling, saying the issues were largely systemic because desired classes often overlapped. She added that expanding access to courses and external opportunities, including physical education, would be helpful. When prompted further, she gave a brief, uncertain response.
Autophagin, on behalf of Missouri NEA — Speaking on behalf of Missouri NEA, the witness said the organization is interested in the bill and appreciates the sponsor raising the issue, but is not yet convinced legislation is needed. The witness then expanded on why physical activity matters in education, especially for elementary students and boys, citing examples from reading instruction for children with dyslexia, homeschoolers who benefit from exercise breaks to re-center and make progress, and broader ideas about educating the body, mind, and spirit. The witness recommended the film The Motivation Factor and referenced historical and contemporary examples suggesting physical fitness can improve student well-being, reduce isolation and discipline problems, and preserve something valuable in children’s lives. The witness concluded by reiterating that Missouri NEA is unsure a legislative solution is necessary but believes the issue is important for kids and invited questions.
Lance Kinser — Testifies in support of the bill on behalf of First Amendment Partnership, focusing on protections for student clubs and faith-based clubs.
Otto Fagent — Testifies on behalf of Missouri NEA in opposition to the bill as filed.
Camelia Peterson — Testified in support of the bill on behalf of Americans for Prosperity and said the organization agrees with the representative's reasoning.
Sharon Goway Jones — Testified in opposition on behalf of PROMO and the state conference of the NAACP in Missouri.
Doug Ritchie — Testified in support of House Bill 2682 on behalf of ADF Action.
Ornac C. A. C. Dinoff — Witness begins testimony, but the name and title are unclear due to transcription errors.
R. N. C. A. C. Dinoff — Witness identified himself as a state public advocate and testified in support of House Bill 2682 and SB 909.
Sarah Beth Nolan — Legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, providing informational testimony and context for committee questions.
Curtis Trent — Curtis Trent is referenced in a brief procedural exchange as the chair, with the speaker indicating a desire to work with him and then directly addressing him as 'Mr. Chair.'
Noel Torpey — Testified in support on behalf of MCTA and said the bill has been around for three years.
Richard Richards — Richard Richards, speaking for the Missouri Municipal League, opposes bill 2155 and explains that it would shift costs to taxpayers, creating an unfunded mandate. He further references the prior Wayfair-related compromise and notes that broadband does not pay the same fee structure, contrasting cable television and broadband treatment under the bill.
Mike Zerilli — Mike Zerilli, Assistant General Counsel at Charter Communications, testifies in support of the bill and explains Charter’s position on utility relocation costs. He notes that he and Noel prepared the comments together, says Charter is currently required to pay relocation expenses itself and pass those costs on to customers, and explains that the company gets permits from cities but is not allowed under current state law to receive reimbursement. He argues the bill would change state law so Charter can be paid for these costs, which he says would free up more money for broadband expansion. He also provides cost figures, stating Charter spent about $2 million in Missouri last year and about $120 million nationwide on relocations.
Noel — Noel is referenced as having collaborated on prepared comments and largely delivered them, and as having made a related point that funds are being spent moving services instead of expanding them.
Lacey Hirsch-Fogle — Lacey Hirsch-Fogle, representing the municipal utilities of Missouri, testified in opposition to the bill. She said municipal customers and taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of doing business for a private company, and noted that they are still working with the bill sponsor on possible language they could support.
David Stokes — David Stokes, Director of Municipal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, testified in support of the bill. He explained that broadband is disadvantaged because other utilities can recover relocation costs through rate-making, and argued that the proposed change could encourage better planning and shared responsibility, ultimately reducing relocation costs for everyone.
Jeff Glenn — Jeff Glenn testified in opposition on behalf of Missourians for Transportation Investment, reiterating concerns about the bill’s fiscal impact, including an estimated $48.5 million annual effect on the state road fund.
Bill Gamble — Bill Gamble, speaking for the Missouri Broadband Providers Association, testified in support and described the organization’s rural service footprint. He explained that the group, formerly the Missouri Small Telephone Company Group, serves some of the most rural parts of the state and includes about 30 to 35 companies, emphasizing the importance of the issue to customers in those areas.
Eric Landware — Eric Landware, the Public Works Director for Cole County, begins his testimony in opposition to the bill by identifying his role and explaining that his career has focused on managing infrastructure projects from conception through construction, including direct coordination with utility companies. He argues from that experience that the bill would shift costs to taxpayers.
Matthew Smith — Matthew Smith testified in support of the bill on behalf of Associated Industries of Missouri.
Scott Pollock — Scott Pollock, a registered lobbyist for the cities of Nevada and Lee's Summit, testified in opposition.
Chair Hankinson — Chair Hankinson testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Elliot Brown — Elliot Brown of the City of Chesterfield testified in opposition, saying the current process works well.
Mike Sutherland — Mike Sutherland testified in support on behalf of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, noting that 17 cooperatives have broadband subsidiaries.
Steve Allers — Steve Allers testified in opposition on behalf of the Missouri Association of Counties' executive director.
Matt Thompson — Matt Thompson testified on behalf of the City of Maryland Heights in opposition to the bill.
Wilmar Mars — Wilmar Mars testified on behalf of the City of Springfield in opposition and said the bill could cost the city about $1.5 million or more annually.
Ryan DeBoof — Testified for the City of Warrensburg in opposition and argued that cities cannot say no to utilities entering the right-of-way.
Kara Stark — Testified on behalf of the City of Columbia in opposition and stated the bill could cost Columbia at least $250,000.
Tom Dempsey — Testified as a registered lobbyist for St. Charles County in opposition and said county transportation needs would be affected.
Rani C. A. C. Dinoff — Identified as a state public advocate and testified that the bill would be devastating to political subdivisions and costly to transportation agencies.
Eric Schrader — Eric Schrader, the deputy director and chief engineer from MoDOT/ODOT, testified about how utilities use highway corridors at no charge and explained MoDOT's utility corridor and relocation process.
John Simmons — Offered and explained an amendment.
John Simmons — Called during roll call.
John Simmons — Asked a question about the witness’s experience and the logistics of implementing the bill.
John Simmons — Representative Simmons asks whether the proposal should also apply to private parochial religious schools.
John Simmons — Asked for the second Supreme Court case referenced for Section 10, subsection 3.
David Tyson Smith — During roll call, David Tyson Smith was called multiple times and ultimately responded 'Aye.'
David Tyson Smith — The chair briefly addresses Representative Davidson before moving into public testimony, then references Davidson’s discussion of Naperville Central High School in Illinois as part of the same ongoing exchange.
David Tyson Smith — Representative David Tyson Smith thanked the witnesses for their comments and then shared an example from his time working on a case at a Marine base, noting that Marines break daily for physical training as part of a broader point about daily exercise and school-day routines.
David Tyson Smith — David Tyson Smith shared an example from Columbia, Missouri, where his daughter participated in a walking school bus program. He explained that children were dropped off about half a mile from school and walked together with an adult escort, emphasizing that the model works.
David Tyson Smith — Representative Smith makes a brief inquiry/comment expressing the same concern he raised earlier in the university context: that the bill could be used by hateful groups to protect abhorrent speech.
Rudy Veit — Rudy Veit is repeatedly called during the roll call, including the opening calls, a later call, and the tail end of the roll call.
Rudy Veit — He asks about district costs and whether schools could do this on their own.
Rudy Veit — Asked whether the witness worked with districts to set up different programs and whether those programs varied by curriculum.
Rudy Veit — Representative Veit is called on to continue the discussion and then responds by objecting to applying the proposal to private, parochial, and religious schools.