SPONSOR: West
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "Do Pass with HCS" by the Standing Committee on Government Efficiency by a vote of 14 to 2, with 3 voting present.
The following is a summary of the House Committee Substitute for HB 2330.
Current law provides that a city, town, or village can annex an unincorporated area that is contiguous and compact to its existing corporate limits.
This bill specifies that the term "contiguous and compact" includes a situation whereby at least 25% of the length of the perimeter of the unincorporated area is contiguous with the annexing city, town, or village. Currently, the bill applies to St Charles and Jefferson Counties.
The bill prohibits a city, town, or village from annexing an unincorporated area contiguous to another unincorporated area annexed by the same city, town, or village within the last 24 months.
Current law provides that a public hearing must be conducted in order to inform residents of the area to be annexed about certain information, including a list of major services presently provided by the annexing city, town, or village. This bill repeals water and sewer systems from this list.
Current law provides an additional annexation procedure for cities in certain counties using a petition process rather than a vote of the residents of the annexed area. This bill repeals this annexation procedure.
This bill is similar to HB 631 (2025).
The following is a summary of the public testimony from the committee hearing. The testimony was based on the introduced version of the bill.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this bill will remove the possibility of cities being annexed into large, unincorporated areas. Cities typically have higher density permission use for those portions of the city that might be annexed. Supporters further state that current infrastructure of political subdivisions is not designed for an influx of people, which inevitably leads to more traffic and over-development. School districts, water, sewer, and other utilities cannot keep up with some of the annexations that are occurring across the state. Supporters also say that the 24-month restriction protects against rapid, successive annexations, which also overburden infrastructure.
Testifying in person for the bill were Representative West; and St. Charles County.
OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that this particular issue of annexation was dealt with primarily in the 1990s, and those adjustments are still adequate. There are currently protections in place to prevent overburdening cities, towns, and villages, which makes this bill unnecessary. Opponents further state that most of the growth that occurs in cities is from "voluntary annexation", in which individuals or businesses choose the city as the principal residence, but that process is usually handled by local zoning restrictions and local ballot measures.
Testifying in person against the bill was Missouri Municipal League.
Written testimony has been submitted for this bill. The full written testimony and witnesses testifying online can be found under Testimony on the bill page on the House website.
Statutes affected: