Wendy L. Hausman — Wendy L. Hausman is addressed as Madam Chair during the roll call and opening proceedings.
Wendy L. Hausman — A brief procedural exchange references prior discussion, defers the decision to the chair, and ends with a direct thanks to Madam Chair, all centered on Chair Wendy L. Hausman.
Wendy L. Hausman — The chair asked Representative Mayhew to keep his remarks brief because there was one more bill to hear.
Wendy L. Hausman — Addressed as Madam Chair during the introduction of House Bill 2330.
Wendy L. Hausman — Likely the 'representative from the Wolfin District' is a garbled reference to the chair or another member; uncertain, so not assigned here.
Don Mayhew — Called during roll call.
Don Mayhew — Don Mayhew expressed support for the bill while raising concerns about annexation practices and the proposed 25% contiguity requirement. He argued that fiscal and policy decisions should be grounded in facts, questioned whether the standard would apply to both voluntary and involuntary annexations, and explained that the goal was to prevent strip annexation, keep communities compact and contiguous, and avoid island situations. He also described real-world public safety and access problems caused by narrow annexations, including delayed fire response, and said the bill would help reduce those problems.
Don Mayhew — Representative Mayhew is referenced in connection with the flagpole issue.
Michael Burton — Called during roll call.
Mark Boyko — Called during roll call.
Darin Chappell — Called during roll call; transcript says "Chapel."
Darin Chappell — Representative Chappell was recognized by the chair and then began questioning the witness, opening with a discussion of voluntary versus involuntary annexation and asking about the witness’s experience as a mayor.
Bennie Cook — Called during roll call.
Michael Davis — Called during roll call.
Bill Irwin — Called during roll call.
Martin Jacobs — Called during roll call.
Martin Jacobs — Representative Jacobs is recognized by the chair and invited to proceed, with the invitation repeated shortly afterward.
Martin Jacobs — Representative Jacobs was recognized and asked a brief follow-up question seeking clarification about local control and a possible change to item 3 on line 108.
Steve Jordan — Called during roll call.
Jeff Knight — Called during roll call.
Jeff Knight — Likely intended reference to Representative Van Schoiack earlier, but the text says 'Van Schoiack'; no Knight mention here.
Jim Murphy — Called during roll call.
Jim Murphy — Jim Murphy was recognized to speak and then argued that the information being discussed would not meaningfully change decisions, criticizing added mandates as burdensome to teachers. He continued by saying such assessment requirements take away from teaching time and that the issue is system-wide, especially affecting schools.
Jim Murphy — Was cited as making a good point about fiscal notes being inaccurate.
Jim Murphy — Jim Murphy is called on to speak and then asks whether the bill is intended to prevent a developer-driven land grab and its related domino effects, framing the bill’s underlying purpose.
Ray Reed — Ray Reed was called during roll call and responded that he was present.
Ray Reed — Ray Reed questions the rationale for the bill’s 24-month prohibition on annexing adjacent unincorporated areas and is told it is intended to slow rapid, developer-driven annexation. He then raises broader concerns that annexation can be used to absorb tax base while avoiding responsibility for lower-income or rural neighborhoods, asks whether protections for small rural communities could be added through amendment or future legislation, cites a specific example of a city trying to draw residents from an adjacent city, and closes by asking why annexation should not require a vote or explicit consent from the people being annexed.
Louis Riggs — Louis Riggs was called during roll call, then introduced himself as the representative for Missouri’s 5th District and presented House Bill 2226. He explained that the bill would require fiscal notes to estimate the employee hours needed to implement new programs, arguing that mandates create burdens for schools and rural districts and that fiscal notes should account for the work involved, not just costs. In response to committee questions and criticism, he defended the bill, said fiscal-note estimates should be made once the bill is finalized, criticized bureaucracy and unnecessary reporting, and closed by saying the committee would scrutinize the hour estimates and that he could not support the criticism of his bill.
Deanna Self — Called during roll call; transcript says "self."
Marla Smith — Marla Smith was called during roll call.
Marla Smith — Was recognized to inquire about the petition annexation procedure.
Connie Steinmetz — Responded present during roll call.
Connie Steinmetz — Connie Steinmetz drew on her 40 years as a teacher and reading specialist in Hazelwood to explain that reading assessments take significant time and often require pulling staff from other parts of the school to administer them. She argued that legislators already place many demands on school districts and expressed mixed feelings about the bill, acknowledging it could be helpful but also warning that adding more assessments takes away from teaching. She concluded that overreliance on testing reduces students to numbers rather than whole people, noting that teachers know much more about students than their assessment scores.
Dean Van Schoiack — Dean Van Schoiack is first noted present during roll call, then participates in the hearing by questioning the bill’s fiscal note and expressing skepticism and criticism about its cost and implications.
Bryant Wolfin — Called during roll call; transcript says "Wolfen."
Bryant Wolfin — Bryant Wolfin was recognized to speak and thanked the sponsors, saying the concept was interesting. He then criticized the fiscal note as ridiculous and noted that inaccurate or zero fiscal notes are common, using another bill as an example. He concluded by saying he would support the bill and suggested there may be room to add broader language, including language to make fiscal notes more accurate.
Bryant Wolfin — Bryant Wolfin expressed general support for the bill, said he favored a larger percentage requirement, and asked for clarification about the strikeout language on page six, section three as likely statutory cleanup. He then reiterated his support, including approval of the petition-side language changes.
HB767 — Cited as a similar bill that passed the committee 17-0 last year.
HB868 — House Bill 868 is discussed as related language that was included in the prior committee substitute and noted to be the same language as House Bill 2227 filed this year.
Richard West — Representative Richard West presented House Bill 2330 as an annexation bill and explained its main provisions: raising the contiguity threshold for annexation from 15% to 25%, repealing a special annexation procedure, and removing an exception that allowed petition-based annexations to proceed without notarization or certification. He argued the bill would better protect unincorporated areas, preserve county land-use rules, and prevent cities and developers from annexing land in ways that undermine property owners’ expectations or outpace infrastructure. He illustrated the issue with examples from western St. Charles County and Highway N, and later confirmed the bill should apply to both involuntary and voluntary annexation.
Richard West — The witness says he will visit with Representative West about the annexation statutes.
Michael Gibbons — Michael Gibbons, representing St. Charles County, speaks in support of the bill.
Richard Schitz — Richard Schitz testifies in opposition and argues the bill needs clarification.