WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2223

Establishes an administrative process for review by the administrative hearing commission of items in the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP)

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Louis Riggs

HB 2223 would require STIP items to undergo Administrative Hearing Commission review, adding formal hearings and due-process oversight to transportation funding decisions.

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#transportation #departmentof
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2223

Summary of HB 2223 (2026) – Missouri

Purpose and intent

HB 2223 proposes to establish an administrative process for review by the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) of items in the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). The bill appears designed to create an organized channel for reviewing certain STIP items through an administrative quasi-judicial process rather than or in addition to existing review or approval pathways within transportation or budgeting agencies.

Key provisions and changes

  • Administrative review pathway for STIP items: The bill creates or formalizes a process by which items within the STIP can be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Commission. This implies that decisions related to listed STIP items could be subject to administrative hearing procedures, including potential hearings, evidence submission, and findings of fact and conclusions of law.
  • Scope of review items: While the summary available does not specify the exact categories, the focus is on items within the STIP, which typically include transportation projects prioritized for state funding and scheduling. The bill may indicate which kinds of actions (e.g., funding determinations, project approvals, amendments, or project deferrals) are subject to AHC review.
  • Procedural framework: The bill would establish the procedural framework for how AHC reviews are initiated, what standards apply, timelines for decisions, and rights of appeal or rehearing. This would standardize hearings and ensure due process for interested parties.
  • Role of the AHC: The Administrative Hearing Commission would be the primary body conducting the hearings, receiving evidence, and issuing determinations on STIP items under review.

Who or what would be affected

  • State transportation program participants: Agencies responsible for STIP items (likely including the Missouri Department of Transportation and related state agencies) would implement and respond to AHC review processes.
  • Interested stakeholders: Local governments, public transit agencies, project sponsors, engineers, and the public with an interest in specific STIP items could participate in or be affected by AHC review outcomes.
  • Administrative procedures: Agencies would need to align their STIP item decision-making with the new AHC review process, including complying with scheduling, notice, and evidentiary requirements.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Referral to committee: The bill was referred to the Emerging Issues committee (H) on May 15, 2026, indicating it is being considered as a newer or innovative policy area.
  • Reading timeline: The bill had a second reading on January 8, 2026, and a first reading on January 7, 2026, with prefiling noted on December 5, 2025, suggesting a process of legislative consideration and potential amendments.
  • Sponsorship: Co-sponsor listed is Louis Riggs, indicating bipartisan or cross-chamber interest (depending on party alignment and committee assignment).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Administrative efficiency vs. accessibility: The new review channel could provide structured due process and potentially more transparency for STIP decisions, but it may also add procedural steps, potentially affecting project timelines.
  • Budget and planning implications: If AHC review becomes a required step for STIP items, agencies may need to allocate resources to hearings, legal counsel, and documentation.
  • Flexibility and oversight: The process could increase oversight of transportation funding and prioritization, potentially influencing project sequencing or mitigation requirements.

Note: The available information provides a high-level view of the bill’s structure and intent. For a detailed understanding, including the exact scope of STIP items subject to review, specific hearing rules, appeals provisions, and any fiscal impact estimates, the full bill text and accompanying fiscal notes would be necessary.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.