Video & Transcript Research : 'DCR'
Page 1 of 10
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Transportation Mar 3rd, 2026
Joint Committee on Transportation
Transcript Highlights:
- infrastructure that's under the care and control of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, DCR
- DCR is the steward of over 100 lane miles spanning over 30 communities, as well as bridges, trails, and
- every day without necessarily knowing who owns the road, whether it be MassDOT, a municipality, or DCR
- the $200 million for the Parkway Resilience Improvement and Safety Modernization Program to support DCR
Keywords:
transportation bond bill, municipal roads, municipal bridges, Chapter 90, road aid, highway funding, bridge repair, pavement, MassDOT, MBTA, rail reliability, commuter rail locomotives, Fair Share surtax, Commonwealth Transportation Fund, infrastructure financing, bond authorization, deferred maintenance, climate resilience, parkways, DCR
Summary:
The Transportation Committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the Healey-Driscoll administration’s transportation bond bill centered on long-term municipal road and bridge funding. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue Chapter 90 at $300 million per year for four years, with $100 million allocated by road miles, and also authorize funds for accelerated bridge and pavement work, municipal pavement and Shared Streets and Spaces programs, housing-related transportation improvements, DCR parkway and bridge resilience work, and MBTA rail modernization and reliability. They emphasized that the proposal is backed by Commonwealth Transportation Fund revenues, including registry fees, gas tax, and Fair Share surtax revenue, and said the bill would support local planning, affordability, housing production, and regional rail/electrification efforts.
Committee members and the administration discussed the bill’s housing-related $200 million transportation authorization and the MBTA’s $200 million rail modernization funding, including questions about how flexible those funds would be and how they would support electrification and regional rail. Officials said the housing funds would be kept broad to address transportation barriers that block development, and that the rail money would support locomotive procurements, reliability, and future electrification work, including the Fairmount and Providence corridors and other lines. One member raised concerns about the fiscal outlook and whether a four-year authorization was prudent given possible revenue pressures, but administration witnesses responded that the funding is capital bond authority tied to dedicated transportation revenues rather than operating funds.
Municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal Association strongly supported the bill, saying Chapter 90 is essential for predictable local road and bridge maintenance and that the road-mile-based allocation improves equity for smaller and rural communities. Testimony from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth highlighted how the increased funding and multi-year certainty would help towns plan projects, bundle work, and address backlogs, culverts, sidewalks, and resilience needs more efficiently. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to use the bond bill to advance broader transportation policy changes and new revenue tools, including electrification timelines, procurement reforms, and possible updates to TNC and other transportation fees. The committee took no vote and adjourned after testimony concluded.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Jul 1st, 2026
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Keywords:
Newbury, rodenticides, second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, SGARs, pesticides, pest control, wildlife protection, environmental regulation, local bylaw, municipal authority, private property, rodent control, anticoagulant poison, public health, Massachusetts local option, Wellfleet, fertilizer, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient pollution
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a hybrid hearing on late-file bills, with testimony focused first on multiple home rule petitions seeking local authority to restrict anticoagulant rodenticides in towns including Andover, Topsfield, North Andover, Williamstown, Georgetown, Lexington, and others. Municipal officials, residents, wildlife advocates, and conservation groups described documented harm to hawks, owls, foxes, turtles, pets, and other wildlife, and argued that towns should be able to regulate these poisons locally. Several speakers said their towns had already voted to support restrictions and were using integrated pest management and other alternatives. Committee members noted that statewide rodenticide legislation had already advanced out of committee in both chambers and that the environmental bond bill was in conference committee, but no votes were taken during the hearing itself.
The committee then heard testimony on H. 5137, a bill to prohibit the retail sale of parrots. Supporters, including animal welfare groups, veterinarians, rescue operators, and advocates, said parrots are often sourced from large breeding facilities with poor conditions, that many birds are surrendered because they are difficult long-term pets, and that rescues are overwhelmed. They argued the bill would encourage adoption, reduce demand for commercial breeding and trafficking, and improve bird welfare and public health. Opponents, including breeders, pet retailers, aviculture representatives, and rescue operators, said the bill would harm small businesses, reduce consumer access and transparency, and push sales to unregulated markets without improving welfare. Several speakers said the bill should instead focus on stronger standards and enforcement rather than banning sales.
A separate bill, S. 310, designating the Marion Stoddard River Walk, was also briefly discussed in testimony supporting Marion Stoddard’s environmental work. The hearing ended after the committee finished taking testimony and adjourned; no roll-call votes or formal actions were taken in the transcript.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Jul 1st, 2026
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Keywords:
Newbury, rodenticides, second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, SGARs, pesticides, pest control, wildlife protection, environmental regulation, local bylaw, municipal authority, private property, rodent control, anticoagulant poison, public health, Massachusetts local option, Wellfleet, fertilizer, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient pollution
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Mar 4th, 2026
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Transcript Highlights:
- It also has the support of DCR, with whom I started working right after I filed the bill, and you might
- be aware DCR is not in the habit of naming trails after living people and they do so only in extraordinary
- It also has the support of DCR, support of the entire town of Groton.
- It also has the support of DCR with whom I started working with right after I filed the bill and you
- might be aware DCR is not in the habit of naming trails after living people and they do so only in extraordinary
Keywords:
Marion Stoddart, riverwalk, J. Harry Rich State Forest, Groton, Nashua River, Nashua River Watershed Association, Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Department of Conservation and Recreation, DCR, trail designation, state forest, conservation, environmental recognition, commemorative naming, signage, public lands, toxic pesticides, Eastham, environmental regulation, local control
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a hearing on late-filed bills covering several environmental and local control issues. Rep. Scarsdale testified for H.5113, which would name an accessible trail in Groton the Marion Stoddard Riverwalk in honor of the activist who helped restore the Nashua River; Groton Trails Committee chair Paul Funch also supported the bill. Rep. Sweezy presented a package of Duxbury Beach bills: H.5141 on aligning state shorebird protections more closely with federal designations, H.5140 on creating parity among beaches for management tools, and H.5139 on requiring regular review of outdated recreational-use guidelines. Supporters said the bills would balance conservation with beach access and local economic needs, while some committee members asked about agency input and the relationship to federal habitat plans.
A large portion of the hearing focused on home rule petitions allowing towns to restrict second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and other pesticides. Testimony in support came from residents, wildlife rehabilitators, and advocacy groups, including Mass Audubon, Sierra Club, and Animal Defenders International, who described secondary poisoning of hawks, owls, eagles, and other wildlife, as well as risks to pets and children. Several speakers argued that local communities should be able to act where statewide legislation has stalled, and some noted that the statewide rodenticide bill had already been favorably reported earlier in the session. Opponents, including the New England Pest Management Association, argued that regulation should remain at the state level for consistency and because MDAR is reviewing the science and can better manage licensing and enforcement.
The committee also heard support for S.2961, a Dighton bill authorizing use of a small portion of conservation land for public way purposes tied to replacement of the Pleasant Street Bridge, which proponents said would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety with minimal impact on conservation land. The hearing included some technical difficulties with virtual testimony, but the committee continued with in-person and online witnesses and then adjourned without taking any votes during the hearing itself.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- ><c> will</c> Also, where possible, DCR will Also, where possible, DCR will incorporate<00:04:51.760>
- We'll take a look at enforcement in this case DCR. enforcement in this case DCR.
- </c> is available on the DCR website as well. is available on the DCR website as well.
- That's where DCR.
- That's where DCR. So I think held over. That's where DCR.
Bills:
SR185, HB2452, HB2329, HB2272, HB2273, HB2335, HB1656, HB2207, HB2289, HB1854, HB2581, HB20, HB2296, HB1707, HB2297, HB1890, HB2241, HB2474, HB1688, HB2546, HB1574, HB1546, HB2218, HB1163, HB1514, HB1749, HB2385, HB1576, HB1974, HB2022, HB1973, HB2005, HB1894, HB1515, HB1718, HB1591, HB2475, HB1721, HB1864, HB1946, HB1920
Keywords:
Department of Education, capital improvement program, performance audit, infrastructure, transparency, state bonds, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, bond authorization, state debt limit, constitutional debt limit, Article VII Section 13, Hawaii bonds, state borrowing, public finance, capital improvement projects, supplemental appropriations, judiciary appropriations, refunding bonds, reimbursable bonds
WA
Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Community Safety Oct 29th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- Other communities, the DCR goes into the community.
- So sometimes the DCR will detain, and the providers at the hospital, even though the DCR is saying it's
- They give great information for the DCRs if the DCRs need to get involved.
- DCRs cannot put hands on individuals.
- DCRs can go and detain, and there's still no movement.
Summary:
The Community Safety Committee held an interim work session on crisis response, with members and witnesses discussing how Washington can better integrate 911, 988, mobile crisis, co-response, and alternative response models for behavioral health crises in public spaces. Travis Parker opened with an overview of the Sequential Intercept Model and the crisis care continuum, emphasizing early intervention, 988 access, regional coordination, navigators and peer support, and the need for sustainable braided funding. Several Washington witnesses then described current programs and system gaps, including the growth of co-response teams, the importance of integrating 911 and 988 rather than treating them as competing systems, and the need to reduce unnecessary emergency room use and improve first responder wellness and training.
City, fire, and crisis-system representatives described local challenges and reforms. Kim Hendrickson of Poulsbo said most crisis calls still come through 911 and urged better coordination among field-based teams, more behavioral health training for fire/EMS, and more alternatives to ER transport. Laura Pippen, a designated crisis responder, described a strained involuntary treatment system, fewer DCRs statewide, difficulty getting law enforcement support for transports, and limited facility capacity, especially for substance use disorder. Jennifer Stuber and South County Fire’s Keith Sharp highlighted workforce training, a crisis responder certificate program, and first responder wellness efforts. Research witnesses Evan Lauder and James Pine said the evidence is still developing but generally supports on-scene resolution, reduced ED transport and detention in some models, and the importance of clear dispatch protocols, coordination, and ongoing evaluation.
Dispatch and program operators then gave examples of how systems are working in practice. Katie Myers of Washington APCO/NENA said 911 remains essential, but needs evidence-based triage protocols, liability protections, and additional funding if it is expected to take on more crisis-response responsibilities. Whatcom County described embedding a “community connector” in the 911 center to coordinate alternative response, while ValleyCom reported that its 988 diversion pilot transferred 2,165 calls with 98% resolved through 988/211 without returning to 911. National examples included Denver’s STAR program, Albuquerque’s Community Safety Department, and Atlanta’s PAD initiative, each showing different ways to route low-acuity or behavioral-health-related calls away from police and toward clinicians, peers, or civilian responders. The session ended with Washington examples continuing, including Whatcom County’s alternative response team, underscoring the committee’s interest in refining and expanding integrated crisis response systems in the next session.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets
Transcript Highlights:
- It includes $764 million for DCR improvements to support core infrastructure like roads, bridges, and
- We also have the DCR commissioner, so she probably could provide a little bit more information about
- So this authorization is really to help DCR do some of the study, do some of the planning.
- As mentioned earlier, we also hope you'll increase investments in DCR.
- As mentioned earlier, we also hope you'll increase investments in DCR.
Summary:
The committee held a hearing on S.2542, the Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill aimed at climate resilience, water infrastructure, conservation, and related permitting reforms. Secretary Rebecca Tepper and administration officials described the bill’s major investments in flood control, coastal resilience, DCR roads/bridges/dams and parks, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, land conservation, food security infrastructure, and expanded Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness funding. They also explained proposed streamlining measures for environmental permitting, flood risk disclosures, a Connecticut River Resilient Commission, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund to provide low-cost financing for municipal resilience projects. Committee members asked about affordability, useful life of projects, how the revolving fund would be capitalized, and how the bill would help communities such as Lawrence, Methuen, and coastal towns; officials said the fund would initially use existing trust resources, not new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds once it has a track record.
Several witnesses supported the bill but urged larger authorizations or additional provisions. Boston Harbor Now asked for more funding for MVP and the state’s resilient coast plan, and supported permitting reforms for nature-based and hybrid solutions. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance urged inclusion of drought-management language from separate bills, plus a statewide flood buyout program and a water reuse commission. Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements, especially in environmental justice communities affected by traffic and airport pollution. Conservation and forestry advocates requested more funding for urban tree canopy, local nurseries, and workforce training, while also raising concerns about PFAS impacts and the need for clearer municipal reforestation language.
Agriculture and water infrastructure groups focused on food security and drinking water needs. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative backed the food security infrastructure grant program and farmland protection funding, warning that the program needs continued support in fiscal 2027 and that farmland loss is accelerating. The Massachusetts Waterworks Association said the bill does not go far enough on drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, citing large statewide capital needs and PFAS compliance costs, and asked for recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. A Product Stewardship Council representative also urged funding for a waste reduction needs assessment, citing growing landfill constraints and rising disposal costs. No votes were taken during the hearing."}{
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- So, we can re-entry program with DCR.
- </c> >> the House draft one still makes DCR >> the House draft one still makes DCR responsible
- Um DCR continues to framework?
- </c><00:54:22.319><c> retains</c> and DCR retains and DCR retains jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction
- </c> >> well um I have a problem if it's DCR >> well um I have a problem if it's DCR because
Keywords:
students with disabilities, individualized education programs, emergency plans, evacuation procedures, support services, Hawaii education law, HB2343, Maui State Veterans Home, veterans home, veterans, long-term care, skilled nursing, rehabilitation, hospice, Alzheimer's care, respite care, assimilate, transfer deadline, Act 99, Session Laws of Hawaii 2024
Summary:
The committee heard House Bill 1997, which would require IEPs for students with disabilities to include individualized emergency accommodations and evacuation supports. The Attorney General’s office supported the intent but recommended amendments to explicitly include students with Section 504 plans and to change references from “department schools” to “public schools” so charter school students are covered. Testimony in support came from disability advocates and several individuals, including Peter Fritz, who said emergency evacuation planning should be made explicit because it is not clearly required by federal law, and Ka Swan, who emphasized student safety during emergencies. No vote or final action was taken on the bill in the transcript.
The committee then took up House Bill 2343, relating to the Maui State Veterans Home. The measure would repeal a deadline for transferring the home to a state agency with a Maui affiliation and instead require the transfer to occur as soon as practicable. The Department of Defense, the Office of Veterans Services, HHSC Oahu Region, and several individuals testified in support. Committee members asked whether a more definite deadline should be used, but the department said the open-ended language was preferable because the Maui entity is not yet ready and Oahu is currently providing oversight. No vote or final action was recorded.
House Bill 2566, authorizing special license plates for Hawaii Civil Air Patrol members, was also heard. The City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services testified in opposition, while Johnny Perry testified in support. The committee did not take a vote in the transcript.
Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2493 on wrongful imprisonment compensation procedures. The Attorney General’s office opposed the bill, arguing it would create an automatic payment mechanism without a sufficient finding of actual innocence, could trigger payments within five days of dismissal, and raised concerns about insufficient time for prosecution review and about funding and appropriation issues. Supporters, including people who said they had been wrongfully convicted and later found actually innocent, argued the bill would reduce delays and help released individuals survive while awaiting compensation. Judiciary staff requested technical amendments and said operational details still needed review. Members questioned the AG about the meaning of “actual innocence,” burden shifting, and whether the bill would better define the standard, but no vote or final action was taken.
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group 08-21-2025
Hawaii Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm with<00:03:14.720><c> DCR,</c><00:03:15.360><c> division</c><00:03:15.760><c> administrator.
- </c> with DCR, division administrator. with DCR, division administrator.
- Hoffman here from DCR, I believe. Is Director Johnson available on Zoom?
- </c> with having first a presentation by DCR with having first a presentation by DCR to<00:09:48.880>
- Hoffman, is that something that DCR can put together for our next meeting? >> I am here.
Summary:
The Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group held its first meeting on August 21, 2025, to organize under Act 292, which directs the group to review and recommend laws, policies, and procedures on restrictive housing for vulnerable populations, including older adults, people with disabilities, people with serious mental illness, those with sensory impairments, and people perceived to be LGBTQIA+. Co-chairs Sen. Brandon Elefante and Rep. Della Au Belatti outlined the group’s purpose, membership, and timeline, noting the final recommendations are due to the Legislature by January 8, 2027. Members and invited participants introduced themselves, including legislative members, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff, the Department of Health, the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, ACLU of Hawaii, Community Alliance on Prisons, UPW, and an OHA representative in the audience.
The working group discussed its initial focus and agreed that a first priority should be understanding current restrictive housing practices at DCR, including policies on solitary confinement, training, reporting, and how the department currently handles vulnerable populations. Co-chair Belatti said the group should also hear from people with lived experience, including incarcerated individuals and family members affected by solitary confinement, and review litigation, settlements, and outside expert work on best practices. DCR Director Tommy Johnson, appearing by Zoom, said the bill contains specific implementation timelines and that the group should use future meetings to surface topics tied to the act’s requirements. Rep. Shimizu asked how the working group’s recommendations would fit with SB 104 and whether they would supersede existing provisions; Belatti responded that the act allows time for review and for both departmental policy changes and legislative recommendations, with section two’s implementation date set for July 1, 2026.
Public comment was limited, with no online testimony. An OHA representative thanked the chairs and said the office looked forward to participating once formally designated. House legislative attorney Sean Aronson suggested the group should hear about any outside or court-mandated oversight of DCR in a future presentation. A member of the working group also asked about scheduling an in-person visit to a correctional facility, and the chairs said that could be arranged with DCR. The group tentatively scheduled its next meeting for October 16, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., noted that September would be skipped, and discussed holding future meetings on third Thursdays. The meeting ended with thanks to staff and adjournment.
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
PBS Info Briefing - Mon Feb 3, 2025 @ 9:00 AM HST
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The problem of overpopulation is not solely on DCR.
- </c> services to an array of agencies and DCR services to an array of agencies and DCR is<00:51:25.440
- So DCR is keeping us busy.
- So DCR is keeping us busy.
- </c> re-entry is not just a problem of DCR re-entry is not just a problem of DCR it's<01:46:09.280><c
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group (RHG) - Tue Dec 16, 2025 @ 9:30 AM HST
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Um, the DCR presentation from October 16th is also there.
- Um the DCR presentation from there.
- </c> the draft allows transfers from any DCR the draft allows transfers from any DCR facility<00:36:17.440
- </c><01:02:44.400><c> to</c> that relieves and allows then DCR to that relieves and allows then DCR to
- challenges that DCR faces in the<01:13:32.719><c> short</c><01:13:32.880><c> term.
Summary:
The working group convened with all members present, approved the minutes from its October 16, 2025 meeting and its October 28, 2025 Halawa Correctional Facility site visit by unanimous consent, and received no public testimony on the agenda or minutes. The chair then reviewed the statutory timeline under Act 292/SB 104, noting the group continues until January 8, 2027, and discussed required reporting dates and the need to develop a work plan for the remaining meetings. The chair also said the October 16 DCR presentation would be treated as satisfying the group’s interim-report purpose, though the legal reporting obligations to the Legislature and oversight commission still needed to be sorted out.
The main discussion focused on DCR’s proposed amendments to Act 292 and the department’s interim report. Director Johnson said the department’s October 16 presentation included recommended statutory amendments because the law, as written, could not be fully complied with; the proposals were described as section-by-section changes intended to address implementation problems. Members discussed several specific issues, including transfer language for higher levels of care, the 2010 MOA with the Department of Health, and replacing “physician” with “clinician” to reflect staffing realities. DCR explained that the change would allow licensed clinicians, including APRNs and doctors of osteopathy, to make decisions when physicians are not on duty, and that the MOA is being updated so transfers can occur from any DCR facility to the state hospital.
An OHA staff member gave a detailed critique of the proposed amendments, saying they would weaken Act 292’s intent by reducing procedural protections, expanding exceptions, and relying on aspirational language such as “strive” and “if practicable.” OHA also raised concerns about the lack of baseline data on restrictive housing use and said the department’s report showed serious operational problems, including overcrowded and outdated facilities, limited space for private medical or mental health exams, and the use of suicide/safety cells for people who may not need mental health treatment. DCR responded that it had requested 35 new medical positions in the budget, supported by the governor, and said those positions are needed to meet basic care obligations for people in custody.
The group did not take a vote on the proposed amendments. Instead, members agreed to continue the discussion, with the chair saying the reports, settlement tracker, 2010 MOA, and comparison guidelines would be distributed and used as the basis for future work. In the final discussion on work-plan priorities, members identified staffing shortages, physical plant limitations, and the need to examine humane alternatives and implementation challenges as key topics for upcoming meetings.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- </c> with both the unions and also DCR with both the unions and also DCR leadership<00:08:12.039><c>
- </c> probation violators in addition the DCR probation violators in addition the DCR is<00:40:50.599>
- </c> terms and conditions of parole the DCR terms and conditions of parole the DCR only<00:41:00.400>
- </c> prosecutors there is very little the DCR prosecutors there is very little the DCR can<00:41:18.880
- Members, any other questions for commission and oversight or DCR?
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Mar 9th, 2026 at 11:00 am
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Transcript Highlights:
- I supplied DCR with the agreements when requested.
- I supplied DCR with the agreements when requested, believing they were compliant.
- Nonetheless, DCR revoked my microbusiness license merely for signing a contract to have someone help
- The agreement that I did sign, we negated that agreement to appease DCR. Okay.
- of DCR, you would think that this attorney would know where the boundaries were.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to approve prior minutes and then took up the Missouri marijuana micro-business rules, including amendments to 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation said the changes were meant to clarify the constitutional micro-business framework, define terms like “owned and operated,” require applicants to disclose agreements and operating structures, add front-end training/technical assistance, and move some compliance review from the post-licensure period into the application process. The department said this was necessary because prior rounds found widespread noncompliance, including licenses awarded to people who were not actually owning and operating the businesses, and it argued the amendments would reduce revocations and better protect eligible applicants and the market.
Committee members, especially Representative Keathley and Senator Coleman, pressed the department on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for future or speculative conduct, and whether the department had authority to require training, document production, and a five-day response window. They also questioned the proposed lifetime or future participation ban for people whose licenses were denied or revoked, arguing the rule should focus on specific conduct rather than the fact of a prior agency action. Department witnesses responded that the rules were tied to Article 14’s ownership-and-operation requirements, that the department had seen repeated schemes using eligible individuals as figureheads, and that the new language was intended to provide clearer notice and consequences for intentional noncompliance. Some witnesses and committee members also discussed whether “department-approved format” and “predatory practices” were sufficiently defined.
Public testimony was mixed. One applicant testified that she had acted in good faith but lost her license after signing an agreement to obtain financial and business help, and said the department had not clearly explained what was wrong with the arrangement until after the fact. A consultant testified that the department had previously given inconsistent guidance, approved similar consultant arrangements in the first round, then later revoked or threatened licenses in the second round, and argued the new ban was arbitrary, capricious, and potentially an ex post facto penalty. An attorney testified that the proposed definition of “majority owned and operated” was too restrictive and could chill investment in micro-businesses, while another witness supported stronger enforcement against bad actors but urged clearer protections for inexperienced social equity applicants. The committee received a count of 25 standalone public comments during formal rulemaking and then adjourned without taking final action, planning to return Thursday to work with the department on possible corrections and clarifications.
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group (RHG) - Tue Jan 27, 2026 @ 9:30 AM HST
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- And DCR has been working diligently to fill vacancies, but it is extremely difficult.
- DCR has done a great job focusing its efforts on hiring.
- DCR policy correctional 1801.
- </c><00:33:33.519><c> The</c><00:33:33.760><c> goal</c> DCR policy correctional 1801.
- The goal DCR policy correctional 1801.
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Mar 9th, 2026
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Transcript Highlights:
- I supplied DCR with the agreements when requested, believing they were compliant.
- Nonetheless, DCR revoked my micro-business license merely for signing a contract to have someone help
- After the fact, the agreement that I did sign, we negated that agreement to appease DCR. Okay.
- Here, DCR is attempting to say that anyone who allegedly violated ownership and operational rules in
- was providing this information at the DCR events, at the invitation of DCR, you would think that this
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to review Missouri marijuana microbusiness rule amendments, especially 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation explained that the changes were intended to clarify what it means for a microbusiness to be “owned and operated” by eligible individuals, move compliance review earlier in the application process, and address repeated instances where licenses were later found to be controlled by ineligible or noncompliant parties. The department said it had used stakeholder outreach, town halls, listening sessions, and public comments in drafting the rules, and noted that 25 standalone comments were received during formal rulemaking.
Committee members focused heavily on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for past agency revocations, and whether the department had clear authority to impose a lifetime ban on people denied or revoked under the ownership-and-operation provisions. Several members argued the language should be narrowed to intentional or egregious violations and better tied to specific conduct rather than prior agency action. Witnesses from the public, including applicants and attorneys, testified that the department’s guidance on “predatory practices” and acceptable ownership structures had been unclear, that some applicants relied on consultant arrangements later deemed problematic, and that similar agreements were treated inconsistently. Others supported stronger enforcement, saying the rules were needed to prevent manipulation of social equity applicants and preserve the constitutional requirements of the program.
The committee also discussed training and technical assistance requirements, the five-day document deadline, and whether the department should provide more concrete guidance or model forms. Members raised concerns that the proposed definitions could burden small or first-time business owners and that some applicants might be unfairly penalized despite acting in good faith. No substantive vote on the rule package was taken; instead, the committee voted to adjourn and return on Thursday after working with the department on possible corrections, clarifications, or amendments.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Apr 7th, 2026
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets
Transcript Highlights:
- PRISM, Parkway, Resilience, Improvement, and Safety Modernization, a collaboration between MassDOT and DCR
- that will address deferred maintenance needs on DCR transportation properties.
- I had a follow-up question just on the other line item around the DCR Parkway and the prison piece.
- So I understand that the DCR Parkway maintenance had the backlog.
- I will say that DCR does have, I think it's over 30 communities and over, I think it's 100 lane miles
Bills:
H5279
Keywords:
municipal roads, bridges, transportation bond bill, infrastructure financing, capital spending, bond authorization, general obligation bonds, special obligation bonds, Commonwealth Transportation Improvement Act, road resurfacing, road repair, bridge repair, pavement, culverts, stormwater management, climate resilience, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, transit modernization, commuter rail
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, An Act Financing Long-Term Improvements to Municipal Roads and Bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a transportation bond package centered on Chapter 90 local aid, MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT parkway and safety program called PRISM, and reauthorizations of several programs from the 2022 transportation bond bill, including federal-aid and non-federal-aid highway programs, the municipal pavement program, and Shared Streets and Spaces. They also explained that the bill uses Fair Share surtax revenue and the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to support borrowing, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds depending on market conditions.
Witnesses emphasized that the bill would provide $300 million annually for Chapter 90, with $200 million distributed by the traditional formula and $100 million by road miles to better support rural communities. MassDOT and A&F said the multiyear authorization would help municipalities plan projects and that the bill also includes $2.3 billion for federally aided highway projects, $800 million for non-federal-aid highway projects, $500 million for accelerated road and bridge work through LAMP and FAIR, $200 million for housing-related transportation infrastructure, and $200 million for MBTA rail vehicle and modernization investments. Committee members asked about bridge repair needs, federal matching funds, vehicle sourcing, resilience and safety, DCR backlog, and whether rural communities would have fair access to the housing-related funds.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, calling Chapter 90 the most important tool for cities and towns to maintain local roads and bridges and urging quick passage before construction season. MMA representatives praised the continued $300 million level and the road-mile distribution, saying it helps communities with large road networks and limited local revenue. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after public testimony concluded.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Apr 7th, 2026
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets
Transcript Highlights:
- that will address deferred maintenance needs on DCR transportation properties.
- I had a follow-up question just on the other line item around the DCR Parkway and the prison piece.
- So I understand that the DCR Parkway maintenance had the backlog.
- I will say that DCR does have, I think it's over 30 communities and over, I think it's 100 lane miles
- DCR views its roads as linear part DCR views its roads as linear parks, so they have a lot of specific
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a transportation bond bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a major transportation investment package centered on a $300 million annual Chapter 90 local aid program, with $200 million distributed by the traditional formula and $100 million by lane miles to better support rural communities. They also outlined funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, transportation projects that support housing production, a new DCR parkway resilience and safety program, and reauthorizations of existing highway and municipal grant programs such as the Municipal Pavement Program and Shared Streets and Spaces.
Witnesses said the bill would help address aging infrastructure, improve safety and resilience, support housing development, and leverage Fair Share surtax revenue through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund. They explained that some authorizations are structured to allow the state to issue special obligation bonds, and clarified that the bill authorizes the full spending amount for federally aided projects even though the state only borrows the 20 percent match, with the federal government reimbursing the rest. Committee members asked about bridge repair needs, the size of the backlog, how housing-related transportation funds would be allocated, MBTA vehicle procurement, and whether rural communities would have fair access to the new funding streams.
Several members praised the administration’s financing approach but urged future Chapter 90 increases to keep pace with inflation and requested more attention to rural municipal capacity and bridge safety needs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool for cities and towns to maintain local roads and bridges and urging prompt passage before construction season. No votes were taken; after testimony concluded, the committee adjourned.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- First up, we have testimony in support from Director Johnson, DCR.
- First up, we have testimony in support from Director Johnson, DCR.
- We've learned that DCR and Human Services are implementing a pilot project.
- We've learned that DCR and Human Services are implementing a pilot project.
- ,</c><00:46:08.960><c> but</c> agreements they needed with DCR, but agreements they needed with DCR,
Keywords:
protective orders, military, law enforcement, judicial coordination, victim safety, community safety, federal military installations, disaster response, emergency services, state funding, transportation department, public safety, Hawaii, education, high school diploma, veterans, wartime practices, armed services, HB1518, Hawaii SNAP
Summary:
The committee opened by announcing that it would hear testimony but would not take decisions on the day’s bills, with action deferred to a later decision-making agenda. The first measure, HB 2264, would require notification to military security forces when a protective order is issued involving a military-affiliated person. Support came from the U.S. Defense State Liaison Office, the Hawaii National Guard, and DBEDT’s Military Affairs office, all emphasizing better coordination and faster notice to help protect victims and support command oversight. Family Court Judge Jesse Hall supported the intent but asked for deferral, explaining that a prior fax-and-email notification system had broken down and that the military had not re-engaged with the court. The Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence supported the bill but recommended narrowing it so it applies only when the respondent is actually marked as military-connected and delaying the effective date to January 1, 2027 to allow implementation. In questions, members discussed the current breakdown in communication, the number of military-marked TROs statewide, and whether the bill would be necessary if the old system were restored; the military witness said she would try to reestablish contact with the court.
The committee then took up HB 2336, which would authorize the Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with the U.S. Department of Defense for services at federal military installations and charge an administrative fee. DOT and the Military Affairs office supported the measure, describing it as a way to speed projects, combine state and federal resources, and strengthen infrastructure that also supports disaster response and the economy. Members questioned why the bill was needed if similar arrangements had existed before, and whether Title 23 federal highway funds could be used; DOT responded that the bill would help expedite projects and supplement, not supplant, federal funding, while each project would still require review of the appropriate funding source. The committee also heard HB 2298, which would allow the Department of Education to award high school diplomas to qualified people whose schooling was interrupted by military service or wartime practices during World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. The U.S. Defense State Liaison Office, the Hawaii Office of Veterans Affairs, and DOE supported the bill, and DOE said implementation would have only a minimal printing cost.
Finally, the committee heard HB 1518, which would require DHS, upon obtaining a federal waiver, to create a pre-release SNAP application process for inmates nearing release by January 1, 2028. DHS said it was already working on a pilot and stood on its testimony; the County of Hawaii, the Correctional System Oversight Commission, the ACLU of Hawaii, and the Hawaii Public Health Institute supported the measure, arguing it would improve reentry outcomes and would not cost the state additional money. No votes or final committee actions were taken on any of the bills during this meeting.
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
JHA Info Briefing - Thu Jan 29, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- And I'm going to do just a very brief overview of DCR.
- And I'm going to do just a very brief overview of DCR.
- ><c> structure</c> So Hawaii's DCR organizational structure So Hawaii's DCR organizational structure
- DCR is provide notification to victims.
- Johnson at DCR to Judiciary us from Mr.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- They flow into the responsibilities of other agencies, and not simply DCR.
- </c> know it seems like it's always like DCR know it seems like it's always like DCR we<01:16:48.800>
- DCR was up at a Tennessee trade organization, and that needs to come to light.
- </c> that um I think it's plain to even DCR that um I think it's plain to even DCR that<02:08:22.960>
- I'm Tommy Johnson, Director of DCR.
Summary:
The Public Safety Committee held a hearing on House Bill 433, which would appropriate $4 million for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re-entry services to connect offenders with community-based services. Director Tommy Johnson said the department supports the bill’s intent but noted the governor’s executive budget already includes $4 million for the same purpose and asked that the measure defer to that budget. Supporters, including the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, Community Alliance on Prisons, and the ACLU, backed the funding but urged that it be tied to a clear re-entry plan, performance measures, transparency, and regular reporting to the legislature. They emphasized that re-entry should begin at intake and involve community partnerships, housing, treatment, employment, and family reunification services.
Committee members questioned the department about current re-entry services, pre-trial detainees, and how the new funds would be used. Johnson said the department’s current statewide re-entry budget is about $1.5 million to $1.7 million, separate from the larger Corrections Program Services Division budget for in-facility programs. He described the proposed $4 million as supporting a mix of services, including a pilot apprenticeship program, substance abuse treatment, navigator or warm-handoff services, and short-term transitional housing. He also said the department already tracks performance outcomes in its annual report and can provide a matrix showing the intake-to-discharge process, program contracts, and volunteer organizations.
The discussion also covered pre-trial detainees, electronic monitoring, and mental health services. Johnson said the department has limited jurisdiction over pre-trial detainees but works with courts to seek supervised release when possible; he noted that many requests are denied, though electronic monitoring has improved release rates somewhat. On mental health, he said the jail is not an ideal therapeutic setting for people found unfit to proceed and suggested a secure community-based step-down facility run by the Department of Health for those needing care above what the jail can provide but below forensic-level treatment. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the hearing.