Second, okay, we are recording work. Are you all right? All right. Um, so we get started. My name is James Pepper on the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Today is January the 10th, 2022. It's 11am. And I call this meeting to order. So, uh, this is the new day and time that the board intends to hold its regular meetings. Um, we're still kind of monitoring the COVID situation. But until further notice, the physical location for these meetings is the CCB headquarters, 89 Main Street in Montpelier. Just a few administrative details to cover. Um, we'll be holding our official public comment meeting. Um, on the first of our two rules, the first two of our five rules, I should say this Friday, January 14th at 11am. This meeting will be live streamed. So please feel free to attend remotely. But the physical location will be our offices here. We've officially transitioned the medical program to the CCB. We're very excited to welcome the registry staff, Melissa, Meredith, and Lindsay to the Cannabis Board. They've worked incredibly hard to ensure that there's a continuity of services and operations during this transition. If you're a patient or a caregiver, please note that the same phone number that you've always used is still operational. That's<PHONE_NUMBER>. The same website will be operational while we, at least to the next month, while we transition into the CCB. And if you want to send us anything, though, or send the registry, if you want to submit a paper, renewal, or application, please send it to the CCB now. And again, that's 89 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Montpelier, Vermont, 05620.  But I just want to make sure everyone knows that. Other than that, we had a really great discussion with our advisory committee last Thursday regarding some of the policy recommendations that the Board needs to make for our January 15th report. We're going to be discussing those decisions in greater detail later today. So why don't we just go ahead and turn to the agenda. But first, we should approve the minutes from January 4th. You guys had a chance to look at those? Yes. All right. Is there a motion to approve? Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So looking at the agenda, we left off last week talking about some additional tiers of licensing. You know, specifically a cottage manufacturing tier. And I thought that we should return to that conversation. We all kind of decided to look at the regulations around the cottage industry in Vermont, as well as the regulations that we're going to require for tier two product manufacturers. And I thought that we should just pick up where we left off. So, Julie, do you want to start with that? I can archive. I think we both have had thoughts on this. Feel free. So, you know, when I brought this up, it was the problem I was trying to solve was how do we encourage people who have skills and talent in manufacturing and are able to do that in a small scale at their homes now but aren't ready for a variety of different reasons. Either they don't have the investments or they're not prepared or maybe they want it to be a side gig and not a full-time gig. Not prepared to do a full-time, full-scale manufacturing facility. So, the reason I think this is a problem we need to solve is I do think that it meets the portion of our vision that we've talked about as it relates to social equity and encouraging folks from the legacy market into the regulated market. I think we have some existing structures in place, which you've just mentioned, the home occupation structure of 24VSA and then, of course, the home-based, I thought about it mostly in terms of food manufacturing. So, we have some food home-based food manufacturing rules already outlined in Vermont and a long history of businesses starting that way. So, Andrew Livingston in our October 1st meeting, we asked about cottage licensing and he posed a couple of questions. He did say that, you know, some of our existing cottage rules are making their way into regulations, other places in the country. But I asked some questions and I used that to sort of frame my thinking. So, like, would we inspect people's kitchens? What would be the volume restrictions because most home occupation or small home-based businesses do have some sort of limitation? Actually, in Vermont, if I've read this correctly, and certainly anything, I'm not an attorney, so this is all from a lay person's perspective. It seems like if you're under a certain amount, you're actually exempt from getting a license if you're doing that home-based food manufacturing. Certainly, we can't exempt people from licenses if they're adding THC to their product that has to be regulated. And he asked where the packaging would occur and what the safety and sanitation requirements and what the testing requirements would be. In terms of inspecting people's home kitchens, I think that's already included in the home-based business food manufacturing licensing. It already requires you to have someone come and look at your kitchen. And we could certainly take that existing structure and overlay it into our structure. I mean, if we were to write rules around cottage licensing. So it requires an inspection? If you're, yes, unless you're exempt from a license. Right? So in this case, we would not be able to exempt people from a license because they're adding a regulated product to their food in their name factory. I thought it was just your home-based cottage, home-based caterer, home-based banker or whatever was, was an unlicensed position and therefore did not, you had to follow the same regulation because you were not going to be inspected. I thought that was like the under $6,500 or under $10,000 was unlicensed and did not accord an inspection. But we're saying licensed and inspection. Yes. So according to there, the flyer that's on the Department of Health website, it talks about the steps to getting a home-based food business license. And it talks on the second page about the conditions under which you can be exempt from getting a license altogether. And that is what we talked about the last time was the kind of the sales limitations, the dollar amounts that are included there. So the way I read this was if you're doing this out of your home, you need to get a license unless it is under this, I think it was $6,500 for certain products and $10,000 for other types of products. And then you could be exempt. And also I think if you were selling to certain establishments, so if you're selling at a farmer's market or something like that, you did not have to get a license and you're under that $10,000 or $6,500. But then if you're selling it to like a restaurant that you did, that's the way I read it. Right. But so are we thinking a cottage, we're thinking of a cottage manufacturing license because we don't want to have an unlicensed tier. Correct. But we are thinking about having those sales caps though. So that's what I was thinking. Yes, I was thinking we could say, you know, if it's under $10,000 in sales a year, that it would be that like a cottage level license have a lower license tier and allow people adjust the rules to allow people to do it in their home. So we have certain rules that I think might make it difficult for people to do this as a home production. Do you have those, I don't need to put you on the spot, but do you have those specific sections of the whole one and two that would permit you? Yep. So the visitors, there was under the, I think it was under the manufacturing to remember the number. No, no, no, no, just conceptually, I'm just kidding, conceptually it's fine. You do it like brand titles. The ones about the visitors, the ones about, let's see, what was the other one, security and then which said that in order to be in your manufacturing facility, it had to be, you had to have the ID card, right? I think that was in that portion of the rules. And then the fire safety, I think we've said, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, that fire safety would have to inspect every manufacturer and they don't typically inspect single family dwelling. And just to the visitor question, I think conceptually visitors to an establishment is a really cool concept. It helps unlock a lot of the mystery around how these products actually make it to market. But when you invite the public onto your premises, even if it's under home occupation, that's when fire safety gets involved to make sure that the public in your home occupation business is not at risk from a fire and public safety perspective. So right, so we can't wave the fire and safety regulations. However, what Kyle said is true, which is their jurisdiction extends to public places of public accommodation. It doesn't extend to single family residences.  Understand the sales threshold. And again, if this means that we're not going to inspect, that's that'd be a huge difference to me. So I don't think that we would not inspect. I don't necessarily think though people are baking in their home kitchen that we need to have fire safety inspect. So if we're if that part of the rule would not extend or maybe I misunderstand if I would not extend to somebody who's doing this in their home, then that solves part of that. I mean, the reason why I presented it as like, here's the problem I see, we don't necessarily have to solve it with a different tier of licensing. But I think we do want to make opportunities for people to be able to incubate in their own homes if they have the opportunity or to do it as like a side, you know, business that maybe helps them go through school or do something else, you know, they may not do cannabis for their whole life, but it may also grow into a business that they then have a manufacturing facility. I can respect and appreciate how generally speaking people are looking for multiple streams of income these days. And so this license type might make sense for somebody who is looking for something supplemental to what their otherwise day job might take a majority of their time. And I appreciate that, of course. And I just think that's what the tier two license does. You know, I really, you know, when I was looking through, I was coming around to the idea. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what we're waiting for a tier between the difference between a tier two and a cottage. I mean, are we going to waive the inspection requirement?  I mean, that to me would be a big difference that would help the board. Certainly, you know, it would decrease the burden on the board. And we have faith in our small bakers already. Our small food manufacturers, because they're exempt from the inspection department. So that would be one, you know, major difference from a resource perspective for the board. If we had this cottage license, and you know, you're going to keep your sales small, the impact, you know, the potential impact for selling a contaminated product or whatever the risk is would be very minimal because you're keeping your sales low. So, you know, if the idea is that it's less of a regulatory burden on that person and for us, then I can see why we might, it would be a good idea. Otherwise, I'm trying to really just dig into what the difference is between a tier two and a cottage. So I think we could do it with that. I mean, like you're right about the exemption is that they don't have to be inspected. So I can agree with that. I think we might want to add them to some random inspections in the future or, you know, ensure that they've been through some health and safety training, which I think is pretty easy to find elsewhere. Just so that people understand how to keep their kitchen clean if they're producing at home. Yeah, that and I think the break-even point with the license fees that we have for tier two manufacturing are high for someone who's doing low production, small batch production. In terms of, you know, when you, and I only did it back at the napkin, like how many, how many brownies, how many cookies would you have to make? If you have anywhere between $1,000 and $2,500 as a license fee, that break-even point is much, much higher than I think people would be interested in. I think it would be a deterrent. See that you've thought about? I was thinking like $200 really low. Did you have a sales threshold for this? Yeah, I was thinking $10,000. And that's actually, I think, for cannabis products a pretty low threshold. I mean, even if we had 80 people who stopped this license, it would only be like 10% of the, like for edibles, because I just make it easy, I looked at one thing of what we projected on sales for those. So have you thought about what else from the application standpoint that we'd be waiving? Because that's where I thought that there was a pretty high burden. And I know that we've been looking at trying to reduce kind of some of the requirements in rule one on the application side. But to me, that's where really someone who's really trying to be kind of an at-home small baker, having to put together all the plans that we're requiring in the application might be too burdensome. So I didn't think all the way through that. But I, yes, I agree, like I'm thinking about, you know, what kind of business panel we asked someone like who's seeking a license like that to submit, it would be much more skeletal than what we're asking for larger operations, I think. So yeah, I think there's lots of them for exemption. And of course, the major costs are around, I think, testing and labeling, packaging generally. Are you thinking about waiving any of those requirements? No, you can buy packages on Amazon and you can have the labels printed at Staples. And it's not, I mean, you can buy 100 packages that have the ASTM, even though we haven't required that certification for $40 or $50. And the testing? So the testing would depend on what it is someone is making. So I think we could still do the testing. I don't think we would have to waive the testing. I'm not, I wasn't clear on what, and maybe we haven't decided on this, but like four things that are produced, what is the size of a batch? So if somebody's making a batch of something at home, like what is the size of that batch that has to be produced? Yeah, I mean, there's pretty strict, it's, you know, edible, especially around edibles, very strict, right? Your rule of statutory rule is about what's around on the edible side. So the testing would have to really, it's hard to waive any of that, honestly. Right, but I'm not sure, depending on the size of a batch, so if someone makes a batch of 100, and that's they do a sampling of that batch, then isn't the testing, I feel like it was like somewhere around $70 or $80 for cannabinoids, right? Wouldn't necessarily be the full panel, which was like $500 average, right, would just be some of those things. Maybe they wouldn't be testing edibles for molds and things like that, but that product would probably be tested before it goes into the cannabis, or into the... All right, I think we can draw some lines in the sand that afford people some flexibility. But the general gist is there would be a sales threshold, roughly $10,000. That $10,000 number shows up in a lot of different agencies when you trigger more regulatory burdens too, and at the agency of agriculture and stuff like that, so I don't think folks would be all too unfamiliar with that threshold. Okay, inspections would be less, we don't know yet. They would be less than a tier two manufacturer. Maybe, you know, you're going to get inspected maybe once every five years, but it's going to be random, so you don't know when that's going to be something along those lines, like we inspect 20% of these licensees a year, something like that. We would notice people, I think, before we shoot the video. Yeah, we'd have some form of a short form application that wouldn't look like a tier two manufacturing application, but we're not going to be waiving any sort of testing or labeling requirements. Okay, all right. I mean, it seems fine to me. I don't know if the $200 is right or not. You know, it really depends, to me, those fees really depend upon what sort of regulatory burden it places on the board. So I don't know if $200 is the right number or not. It could certainly be a placeholder for now, but yeah, I think I'm okay with the concept. Likewise, and so I want to raise another potential new license type. Okay. On a similar vein with a slightly different twist and what I'm thinking about it, I'm going to call it the incubator indoor license type. And I'm thinking about it that way conceptually. We don't need to stick with, it's similar to the cottage thought, but from my perspective, you know, you know, one, I think we've heard from a lot of folks that the thousand square foot canopy is too small. We've also heard from some folks that it's too big. They at this point in time are not ready for that, or they don't necessarily want to, given the way that they currently operate and everything else they've got going on in their life, want to be treated the same as a thousand square foot grower. And I think, you know, this is really interesting because typically business moves a lot faster than government. Right now it's kind of the inverse. I recognize that this, the forming and the standing up of this industry is moving a lot faster than some folks are ready for in a business context. And so just trying to recognize that and recognizing that we do have very strong home occupation, you know, a robust home occupation market in this state, I don't think necessarily anything and either of our authorizing statutes would prevent somebody from, from growing in a residential Lee's owned area, but there's still a lot of regulatory burden that could make that an expensive high barrier to entry. Notably stuff we've already mentioned in this context, security visitors, and so on and so forth. So with this incubator license, what I, what I'm proposing is a license type where you can grow 25 plants under home occupation. And what I would like to see is your ability to seek this license sunset after a set period of time. Maybe you're, and I think that recognizes that certain folks don't have the time, the energy, the connections, the wherewithal generally speaking to move from maybe growing home, grow right now to over a hundred plants. There's an educational curve that I think we hear a lot of people are ready for. Some people might not be ready for that, whether it's translating those skills of growing a handful of plants to a high number of plants, or, you know, this is their second, third side hustle. And it's not their primary means of business, even at a thousand square foot. That might be hard to be your primary source of income. So I think if we can, I think, you know, one of the things that I would want to see a part of this, this license type, maybe stronger than other license types is your business plan. What are your, what are your goals? How are you going to get beyond this very small license type into one of our more defined end or cultivation license types? So in my mind, the way I see this working is let's say low barrier to entry, you can more cleanly fit in current home occupation rules. And I've looked at various municipalities and how they treat home occupation. And this seems like something that could be more easily fit into certain things, even from a growing perspective, let's say you want a thousand square foot canopy, and you want to do it in your garage. There's something that says you can't, but you might need to update your circuit breakers. You might need to do certain things to get those grow lights from a public fire safety perspective up and running. I think if we limit that number and allow folks to over the course of maybe two years or a couple more seek this license and help them grow into one of our cultivation tiers, we might capture more of the legacy market that are currently doing this. They just don't have the wherewithal because we're moving fast to get their ducks in a row ahead of when licenses open. I think, you know, one of the feedback that I've read around the country when it comes to cottage licenses is you often produce so little in the grand scheme of things that certain wholesalers or other folks along the supply chain won't look at you. Not seriously, but you don't have the quantity that they want in a business relationship. But I think the size of the market that we're operating on and what I expect to be strong co-op structure of how this market's going to take place, I think it will help those small like row growers really find and make connections and still be able to offload these products and make, you know, supplemental income in addition to what their day job is. But I think it's just recognizing that even a thousand square foot might not be appropriate for folks, you know, given their set of circumstances. But I still would want to see a plan to get into a thousand twenty five hundred or five thousand or whatever the case may be as you try and figure out if this is what you want to do with your life full-time. So is the problem that we're facing the $750 recommended fees too high? No, I'm thinking I'm not even necessarily thinking from a fee perspective. I just think folks want to do this because they're currently doing it in their home or their garage or wherever the case may be. And I think, again, there's nothing that says you can't grow in a residentially zoned area. But I think some things that we have done or other local zoning issues might just make that a high burden. And so I was thinking maybe $500 for this fee. And it's the intention is to getting views to being regulated. You know, a lot of folks are good at what they do in a four by eight little pop-up tent in their attic or their garage or basement or bedroom, whatever. But I think that they are not used to the high level of requirements from a regulated market that we would ask of certain businesses, whether it's updating energy. I mean, in home occupation, you still need to take care of storm and wastewater. So that would still be present. And I think just with an understanding that this is a limited license, not that it's limited to everybody, meaning that the license will go away in two years generally. But me myself did not operate it more than a couple years. And we can figure out if there's a right number for that. But I think, you know, with this kind of micro license or incubator license, we can, you know, bring in a lot more folks that otherwise might think that even the thousand square foot and those requirements, no matter how many accommodations we can make, might just be unrealistic because it's going to be so hard to do it in their home. They might still need to seek commercial business or real estate to do so. I like the point that you mentioned about understanding what it means to be regulated because it seems like if you're doing this in a space that's already existing in your home, you're learning to be regulated without investing a lot of personal funds potentially with a huge amount of risk. So I agree. I think it could encourage people to come into the market that may otherwise not. I agree. And I don't want to undercut the small cultivator license. And that's why I think, you know, $500 for this 750 for small cultivators in two years. That 250, if you're where we hope you are, that should not be a barrier to entry. But I still think whether it's visitors, whether it's security requirements, I mean, we can put certain parameters on this where there is no visitors so we can fit it very cleanly into home occupation. I think municipalities are very educated when it comes to the home occupation standards and how that's different from a home business where you're inviting folks in from a retail perspective. I think it would be a clean option for folks that otherwise feel like, you know, even the accommodations that we can make per statute just might not be enough to get them interested. I'm having just a difficult time really distinguishing once again, I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, the difference between this and a small cultivator because we can't waive energy and environmental regulations, right? We can lower the bar across the board but we can't waive those for this license type.  So I'm just trying to really drill down what is the difference here between this and a small cultivator?  I don't because I haven't, you know, we have, I have, as Julie kind of alluded to, I have to go back and look at very specific requirements. I think generally speaking when you're using less energy and you're growing less plants, like even if you wanted to grow the thousand square foot and I get you don't have to grow up to that. I think I've just heard from some folks that they want to do it on a more micro level and don't want to be included in that license type and I can appreciate that. That's not my sole reasoning for doing this but you might need to make, you know, upgrades to your residential structure or building to still meet certain requirements of a thousand square foot grow that you otherwise would not need to make under a more micro grow and so that might de-incentivize some folks from growing, you know, a thousand, up to a thousand square feet where I think, and a lot of it comes down to cost. You know, I know that there's grants and programs out there. We talked about them, you know, at an exhaustive rate that efficiency Vermont might help you do so by growing, by buying the actual lights. But what does that mean from actually updating the structure of your, of your residential dwelling in order to meet certain standards that you otherwise would have to do? From the visitor perspective, you know, I don't know if we can include, it's a point well taken. I don't know if we can include on the application that you opt yourself out of visitors that might otherwise allow you to avoid some fire safety stuff but as it's written, you know, you're allowed to do it. I mean you're allowed to have visitors in. Is that, is that a blanket? No matter what or are we being, allowing folks to kind of subject themselves to that regulatory oversight or not. I don't know. I think at the end of the day, my intention is just recognizing that some folks are not ready for the type of financial event it takes to grow a thousand square foot license. Some folks in the illicit market are not going to seek that license no matter how many accommodations we make. But isn't creating this license site just another accommodation? I mean I just don't understand the difference. I mean we're essentially said 500 square, you know, a thousand square feet is a, it's a ceiling, it's not a floor, you know, people can grow anything they want within that thousand square feet and we can make any accommodation we want other than energy and environmental to those. So I don't, just don't see why we wouldn't be focused, instead of creating a new license site, focused on creating exemptions for small communities. I get that and I think I'm just bringing, this is bringing the license type is trying to shed some light on some of the still issues that I'm, I guess at least hearing about and so I was trying to find an equal medium here. I just think that if we can find a cleaner glide path from a permitting and regulatory perspective to give clarity that some folks under the right set of circumstances can participate in the regulated market by growing it in their residential dwelling, there might be more appetite from other eyes folks who one, we've got a lot of education and guidance to put out to tell folks what they can and cannot do but it's it's it's something that one municipalities are familiar with and two I just think we'll get more buy-in from this more limited license type right now that allows you to kind of grow into being regulated at at the higher tiers. Did you say a plant limit 25 plants? What's the rough square foot equivalent to that? I think it depends on your, I think it would depend on your growing methodology and the type of plants that you're growing. Is that 25 plants are those female flowering plants or is that total? I'm trying to find a equal medium between home growing, recognizing that some folks are growing more than they're legally allowed to grow home growing and and I get you don't have to grow a thousand square feet. I totally appreciate every point that you're bringing forward. I just think that some we'll get more buy-in from some folks if we find a you know equal medium between home growing in the thousand square foot canopy. I mean it seems like yes you don't have to grow a thousand square feet as a small cultivator but you would need to in order to have the cost in order to benefit from the various different costs you have to invest in. So if there's some way that we can allow access make an accommodation in some way to allow people who are growing less than that to go business that seems like a way to provide like you said for people who are in legacy market now to come into the regulated market and even if it's just testing it out like people may do this for a couple of years and decide actually this is not for me I'm just going to grow for myself you know like that might be the well I'm going to sell my business and that would be you know a benefit to them. So I just I just keep coming back to the point of so there's other regulatory compliance costs that we're talking about that would the thousand square foot may be a barrier to entry. Why aren't we just cutting those? Why aren't we looking at what those regulatory burdens are and saying okay we don't need a security plan in your application period we don't need a business operations plan we don't need XY or Z for the thousand square foot. I don't see why we're creating a new license type I mean it seems to me like we're getting to the point where we're slicing this up so much instead of trying to really focus on what our legislative charge is which is to waive accommodations for small cultivators. And again we can't waive energy and environmental ones I think a lot of the things you're talking about as far as upgrading your house and things like that are the energy and environmental concerns that we're that we either have to lower for the entire industry or we need to we need you know we can't just create a new license type and say none of those things apply. Is there a point at which within that you know zero to a thousand square feet that it's true we don't need all of these items you know the business plan and so forth but that then it turns to we do and you know is it if you happen and I'm not this is the words are coming out of my mouth as I'm thinking that's not working out for me. The if it's zero to five hundreds maybe you're following me but like if it's zero to five hundred square feet maybe the risk is so low and I'd be so few licenses that we don't need all those things and maybe the energy impact is already small because it's such a small grow but then from a certain point up to a thousand square feet it is necessary because it does trigger all these other important things like energy and environmental standards. I think I think if I'm following Julie she's she's raising that you know if we every thousand square foot application that we get are we going to look through it so substantively that we know exactly what you're doing and making certain accommodations for individuals over a certain threshold if you're planning to do certain things or is it easier to propose a new license type recognizing that your impact is so small I understand that we can't make many accommodations at all for environmental and energy purposes but to what extent will the a thousand square foot you know I don't know I'm getting lost in my own words now too but I think I don't I think I know what you're saying it's like do we treat everybody equally even if they are planning to grow under that thousand square foot cap recognizing that this is where the most discretion that we have as a board is versus making a even smaller license type that limits people and again like I think that they would enjoy most if not all the same benefits of small cultivators maybe we do need to just look more closely on at the final rulemaking stage on security plans on visitors and the sort but my overall intent with some folks just potentially aren't aren't ready and we're getting a lot of questions about residential real estate commercial real estate agricultural real estate so on and so forth and a lot of that is a lot of that is that we need to address through through guidance but I think there is there are folks that want to grow this at their home with a very low barrier to entry and so my my thought in trying to solve a lot of those issues was to just make an incubator license type where you can be on it for a couple years but we want to see you grow into a more robust license type I think you would be from a sequencing point of view be very beneficial for us to go through a rule one and two again and look at what we want to waive for small cultivators before we create a new license type I just to me that that should be the kind of starving and if we say okay well this is still too expensive for certain people you know certain people that are currently growing the illicit market then we should think about creating an even I mean a thousand square feet is very much considered a micro license would be considered a super micro license anywhere else you know I just I feel like we should do what we need to do which is waive the regulations that allow you to reduce these barriers to entry before we further slice the small cultivator license and I don't even know really how we make further accommodations for them I mean we can't just say you're allowed to do this in your home because this is a commercial product and you know until that gets changed if it does get changed you know a town could still say no you can't do this in your home you know we can't just impose our judgment you know we can't just say this is a home business well I don't want to get into some endings about the authorizing legislation but it does not technically say it's a commercial product it just says it's not an agricultural product but I'm just saying that just because we say something doesn't mean that the towns have to accept that is my only point there I thought that the towns didn't have as much control of our home occupation as they do home business the one we say small cultivators are home occupation and I'm just saying that maybe that is the way around it you know I think that we should really be focused on what our primary task is which is to think about small cultivators as the legacy market and try and make accommodations to them as opposed to bringing in a whole new license type that we don't even really I don't fully understand what what it is that we're waiting for this incubator program that we're not going to be waiting for small cultivators we should do that work first before we propose a new license. Fair enough I just I think I think you know as we talk about home occupation and small cultivators I think I think it's I think it's going to be challenged no matter how many accommodations we make to you know do that cleanly at the at the square footage we're talking about but that doesn't make it impossible I just thought and do you want to do the same I guess my question is do you want to have the same level of accommodations for someone who's growing exactly 1000 square feet utilizing the whole license type or who has maybe eight plants or 10 plants do we want to make the same level of accommodation I mean that's what we've been told to do right is treat them equally you know and treat them you know inspect them test make sure that they're being tested that we know where these plants are and where the product is moving make sure it's not being diverted you know the whole kind of backbone of the rationale means that we have to treat you know someone who's growing any who's putting any of this into the stream of commerce the same but we can make accommodations for small cultivators. Yeah and I guess you know one of my thoughts here was like you know I recognize I'm trying to meet people where they're at right now which is growing it at home in some way shape or form around their property I'd like to see folks move up and grow their businesses so how could we meet certain folks where they're at recognizing that they probably want to get to a different point just like we hope that they do and just try to make as many accommodations from that perspective you know do I want all small cultivators taking advantage of home occupation at the beginning yes but I want to see growth so this was an opportunity I thought to allow the folks that just don't have however many different means there are which there's a lot to try and be a regulated entity in this market you know some folks are pursuing new real estate some folks are trying to figure out how to do it at home but it was there a way that we could just meet everybody where they're at and you know does that warrant a special license type I don't know I thought I'd bring it forward for discussion I wonder if we'll get some public comment on it actually yeah maybe I'm off you know I've talked to some folks that thought we captured a lot more interest with this new license type but I have been wrong before and I'll be wrong again you know I'm not saying that that's I'm not saying that you're wrong I what I wanted what I want to be very clear about is what we're waiting for these folks that makes it so much less of a burden that we wouldn't be comfortable waiting for a thousand square foot so I think what we should do is have a meeting have a meeting maybe soon sooner rather than later is once again go through world one and two and say I feel comfortable waiting at for all small cultivators I only feel comfortable waiting this for people in this incubator style there is a very clear difference between those two and I think it's a good idea to have this license yeah I mean for the record they would still need to have their products tested so on and so forth I just think it was an interesting opportunity to recognize that it would even in the small cultivator category like I've heard from so many different folks that are interested at so many different starting points and how do we try and accommodate recognizing that the legislative intent is you know prioritizing small cultivators but also moving as much of the illicit market into the regulated market as we can and I guarantee there's going to be some folks that aren't going to want to grow that much regardless of of what we accommodate for them at least right now can you say that again not want to grow up to a thousand square feet yeah I bet you there will be folks and you know I'm I get and appreciate that I'm still referring to this as an incubator program where I'd want to see marginal growth over the first two years to graduate I'm saying two years that's a number in my head doesn't have to be that number I want to make that very clear but how can we help you scale up to making this more of a priority in your in your life you know granted that it takes a lot of time attention detail and understanding of this plan to grow any of any number of them let alone you know the jump from a home grow to a thousand square foot space and there's some folks that are interested and it's their side gig or their their hobby that might want to figure out ways to you know make it a little bit more part of their their portfolio moving forward so the problem really that we anticipate is that there are people who have very small grows far less than a thousand square feet that we still yeah they warrant special attention so I mean I know what the legislation says we may we may actually need to think a little smaller even given just the structure of our it's and it's I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that work the the thing that I want to know on this is I mean we still have to we still have some mandate for seeded sale track I mean to make sure that a legally grown plant doesn't end up on a gray or illicit market and so what does that mean for this group of folks and what happens if their businesses fail and they all send out 25 flowering plants you know are we in charge of that you know if we gave gave someone a license then it's our responsibility to deal with that and to make sure it's not getting diverted so you know I just I would like to go through our rule one two and just again kind of divide things into three categories mandatory for everyone waivable for the thousand square foot and then you know they if we see that you know this might be a good idea for a thousand square foot grow but not necessary for a home occupancy incubator grow and it's the more that we find that fit into that third bucket the more to me it's a good idea to have that yeah no I appreciate I appreciate that I'd like to have us all do that just to see if this rises to the level of necessity I think to your point we're gonna have people fail at every single level and we're gonna have to figure out from the compliance and enforcement perspective what we do with grows that do fail it's inevitable in market dynamics that some people win some people lose but for the record these folks I would still require that they be in inventory tracking and they would have their product tested to me it was more about learning how to be regulated crafting relationships that you might otherwise not have right now to help yourself become part of a co-op or relationships with wholesalers or retailers or you know it's just think trying again trying to meet people where they're currently at with goals to move forward yeah I just when I envision that I just envision it for all the small cultivators all small cultivators you know to me that's the kind of introductory license no one's telling you you have to grow a thousand square feet you know that's the kind of that that category to me should be the bare minimum requirements you know that should be capturing the same but I just I get that I was again if I think about home occupation I think we should view the small cultivator exemptions as you're talking about can somebody do this in their home without additional regulatory burden and there's some decisions that we would have to make I think especially on visitors I want folks to be able to visit certain operations to see oh this is how this is done you know and unlock the mystery but then you open yourself up to it being a public space and fire safety would have to come and approve your operation so there's just decisions on what we think would have to make this would kind of cut that conversation short by not allowing certain things and allowing you to do it in the comforts of your home and craft those relationships and grow your business at your pace over the course of a couple years before you would no longer be able to seek this license but we don't have to keep recycling the same talking points early so I don't know if we are going to do that exercise we would have to do that that you suggested looking at we need to do that this week right we're going to consider this is one of the license types that we suggest we have to do it before a few little passes doesn't necessarily have to be this week okay well perfect thought yeah um any other license types that we should talk about during this portion are we going to talk about event and again um I think we should yeah I mean they're both they are contained in both our January 15th report and our NACB social equity report so we can talk about them then or we can talk about them now so I don't know yeah okay just so we're all clear I was planning on moving to NACB next okay and then after we're done with this conversation and then maybe take a break depending on the time and do the January 15th final review um after after that so um but no why don't we go ahead uh I think delivery I think we all kind of came to a conclusion so I don't think you have to rehash that um but on-site consumption temporary event so I was thinking about on-site consumption after our last meeting and events and what I what stuck out my mind was the event licensing um having a requirement for transportation um like an approved transportation plan and I wonder if if we could still include on-site consumption in our January 15th report as a possible license type if the on-site consumption is somewhere where public transportation is available I see this sort of approved transportation plan and the access to public transportation is sort of meeting the same goal right that people are not driving after consuming yeah I mean I'm I'm fine with that I think really to me you just need to have some whether it's on-site consumption or you know if you're seeking a permanent on-site consumption location there needs to be a public safety plan involved and it doesn't have to be accessible by public transportation there'll be a huge benefit if it was it knocks out you know what people can see though so to me you know you could have you could have people that work for you that are willing to drive customers in their cars back home you know it doesn't have to necessarily be public transportation so I don't you know I'm I I'm in a fan of on-site consumption recognizing the highway safety issues present a real challenge to to just our general mission of creating a safe market so you know I don't I don't I just don't feel like we need to be prescripted that it has to be accessible by public transportation I think any on-site consumption needs application needs to have a very detailed highway safety plan and it doesn't have to be specifically detailed it just means to actually work it means to pass this very phase test that there's a plan to get these folks home safely anyone who's consuming it seems like in our last meeting though we were not going to recommend on-site consumption as I'm talking about on-site consumption like consumption lounges or on-site consumption in the context of special permits because it looked like we were in the context of a special special event with an on-site designated area versus what we hear about a lot which is a brick-and-mortar consumption lounge I'm talking about the lounge yeah yeah um I think yeah I mean I'm in favor of it I just recognize that we might need to kind of back into it you know I think that we might need to have some some model that we can point to that says that this can work um that that this that this can achieve for the kind of safety goals that we've all laid out I ask you a question I'm gonna ask you I don't have it in front of me but I don't have labeling requirements what's the time limit that says you shouldn't operate isn't there like a two-hour time limit I want to say it was two hours is for edibles right it says like edibles could take could take up to two hours and then it just says something to the effect of like if this can impact your imperium okay I was trying to tie that like let's say you have a special event and your special event ends at 11 p.m. and you cut off on on-site consumption at nine just thinking out loud but maybe that's not appropriate in this context I don't know I was trying to tie it to what we've worked we've already done and established as part of our program so when we heard from the DRE program they said they said technically 24 hours is the best but obviously that's not realistic sure um you know people have to go to work the next day so I think the recommendation was 6 to 12 hours you know not operating motor vehicle for 6 to 12 hours of consumption but you know they're not yeah I mean I want folks to give us their plan the problem is that it becomes so subjective that it's hard for folks to understand what's up potentially what is a successful plan and what it's not a plan and that that gives us the ability to look at that but at the same time I suppose we would decide in rule what that plan would what the what would have to look like right what the criteria would be for that plan I wouldn't want to be in a situation where we're just approving you know haphazardly like this one looks good and this one looks good but maybe not this one right you have to have criteria right so for event licenses a retailer then potentially could apply for an event license right and has an avenue to onsite consumption in a retail space potentially or whatever that except for the prohibition on that we do we do prohibit that elsewhere the onsite consumption at a licensed brick and mortar retail cannabis establishment yeah but if that was changed at the legislative level I think not that well as part of the special event license type we might be able to I don't know I'm thinking how loud anything you back to what you said about the path to onsite consumption and if we were able to change that and allow retailers to apply for event licenses we could demonstrate it safe then that might be the path to onsite consumption that that's how I see it you know New York's doing it you know there probably won't come online anytime soon you know that these licenses likely won't be issued anytime soon you know or it's a little bit of putting our head in the sands by not recognizing that these things exist in Washington DC they exist in San Francisco they exist in Spain you know onsite consumption is not you know a totally foreign concept to the cannabis industry I just I think about the hurdle to getting us there in a state that has public transportation challenges and it seems like we need to have some demonstrated success then again you know if we all think it's a good idea then we can leave the details to someone else to figure out we can recommend it and just say we think it's a good idea for these reasons and we'll figure it out if we if you want us to figure it out we will the legislature wants to put guardrails around it they can I mean ultimately whatever we decide needs legislative controls so it doesn't really it's not a huge problem for us to recommend it but the follow-up question is just what does it look like yeah and in New York they've written social consumption into their their regulations but right now you can consume if I understand this right well yeah anywhere you can smoke a cigarette so maybe the way to solve the consumption problem or the you know the equity problem with consumption is to recommend that to the legislature yeah I think there'd be fewer questions started to enter up but there'd be fewer questions like if you allow consumption like that then we don't know we've already had the public health conversation about secondhand smoke we've already said as a state where people can smoke a cigarette already so that conversation's already been had versus I think the conversations that we'll have with on-site and event consumption that's like is it indoors what happens with the ventilated space like I think if we open it up we could still have event licenses so people could retail and sell and manufacture or whatever at an event but if you could just consume it already you can smoke a cigarette that seems to solve most of the problem yeah I mean this is the conundrum that I've been trying to untangle which is that it's we have we are inevitably going to have a very large tourist contingency purchasing here in Vermont and yet these tourists have nowhere to consume in Vermont they can't go into a car they can't go into you know most Airbnb's have a line in there about not consuming certainly if you're in federally subsidized housing you're not allowed to consume and even if you're at a ski resort that's on federally designated land which a lot of them are except for Calington maybe Jay technically still consuming it in a federal spot yeah so yeah that was my justification in my head for on-site consumption but maybe the the real solution here is just to say when New York anywhere you can smoke a cigarette you can consume cannabis you know the controversy is is that you're not preventing kind of a youth from seeing that happening you know that's the counter argument and since in a lot of ways normalizing cannabis use in a way that you know a lot of our prevention folks and our public health folks want to kind of have a non-normalization of cannabis use but you know it still doesn't solve you know it still doesn't that mentality doesn't solve the problem that no there's no legal place to consume and as a secondary point that there's disproportionate disparate arrest rates sentencing rates you know there's a different response to enforcement for people of color and so they're going to continue to bear the burden or the brunt of the enforcement action for people that are consuming publicly so yeah I mean maybe it makes sense to either say on-site consumption for these reasons or allowing people to consume openly you know there needs to be some solution here how do you feel about this I don't know kind of lost in which one we're which one's rising to the top right now I think it's in either war right we're bored both yeah yeah I mean I think as part of a designated area as part of a special event is obviously something that I'd like to see as part of our pilot program I want to talk about that in different contexts but I don't want to muddy our conversation so I'll get to that after we kind of settle here as far as brick and mortar consumption I think that's what we're yeah talking about sorry just a lot going on I want to see that happen too I don't know the easiest way for us to get there at this point in time you know whether it's any in any place that you can consume tobacco products or you know limiting it to a brick and mortar establishment I tend to think that considering everything we might get more traction with lounges than you can consume anywhere just at this point in time but that's my gut feeling yeah I think that's a fair point okay um and just to be clear my issue with indoor on-site consumption and I know we got a comment about it last week the health concerns that I'm worried about are not the impairing effects of secondhand smoke it's really the the negative health consequences of inhaling particulate matter on a consistent basis if you're an employee that works as consumption yeah required to go into a spot that has smoke in it every single day you're talking about carcinogens in general not a psychoactive effect of I'm not saying other psychoact I'm to I'm strictly talking about the particulate matter you know not even just the carcinogens just the strictly having to inhale smoke if you're asthmatic or whatever else is can have long-term consequences yeah and I don't know off the top of my head how other jurisdictions that have wandered into social consumption regulations have handled that yeah honestly well that's one more thing we have to figure out I'm willing to figure it out if it's something that we want to do and I think I mean you can have single stalls and you can have kind of these smokier machines that ventilate and you know it's not impossible to figure out but you can't subject employees to that on a daily basis respirators all right so so the other thing with special event licenses and we heard from a number of our advisory committee members and I mean of course we've heard from members of the public I think if we are going to think long term about farm gate sales these special events I think allowing suggesting to the legislature that we allow producers to sell their products at these special events is something that we should consider I'd be in favor of and I think you know it's a it's kind of as we talk about a pilot program it really is a pilot program to understand how direct to consumer from a producer perspective will will you know be handled moving forward and I think in the context of an application for a special event if if that applicant does list the potential participating producers that gives us the ability to kind of look at their operation make sure that they're from an inventory tracking perspective you know there's no irregularities or anything like that they would still have to label and package their product in accordance with our rules but I think in the spirit of those special events and their intended purpose allowing producers or retailers to be present at those special events and setting up their own you know ability to sell there is something that I think would be a good first step if we do have the expectation and goal that at some point in the future farm gate sales will be a part of our program any thoughts I think that's how I mean I know right how alcohol store works now yeah no and we heard from you know we've heard from the public at length about this issue and I think you know similar to your thoughts on social or on consumption lunges pepper like I like the idea how do we get there is it's really you know where I'm trying to figure things out with farm gate sales but recognizing this this is a special event not unlimited and we would be able to kind of help on an understanding who is participating making sure that they have you know the wherewithal to follow our regulations it might be a good first step in acknowledging and understanding the expected and unexpected impacts of allowing producers to sell directly to consumers that actually helps too with what I talked about in the last meeting was like the conventions that happen you know if that would help in that sort of business building your business having those conversations if it's not just to retail because I mean it's point well taken I mean there is I think we heard from Chris and from Sivan in the last meeting like Sivan's like yeah you know where you otherwise wouldn't be able to sell to the public that's where businesses are able to grow their businesses I think retailers would be a little different than your typical 802 spirit store because you know the look and feel and the products that they're carrying are not you know the same as how we view a Vermont state run liquor store I get that but I think that there would be appetite for allowing both of them and I assume they'd still have to learn all of the pieces about like consumption and do all the training of somebody who is dispensing yeah I mean I think that would be included in the special event but I think you know this would be an opportunity for certain folks that feel like they have you know the ability to potentially I know a lot of folks feel like they've got that ability right now maybe they do but you know from the success of your business in meeting our regulations in the spirit of our program understanding you know this would be a good starting point to learn so are you thinking about this as a separate special event from a onsite consumption I mean that's what I think Eli was talking about in this kind of last week that this is this would be distinct from a onsite consumption it would be more like a farmer's market where producers can come together and sell their products and not consume on site well I and I don't have the definition of what we are putting forward in the January 15th report of a special event off the top of my head but I think there be room for both of those within the context of that pilot program because there is an event I remember correctly that says an opportunity for these special events with a designated area for consumption so I think of it as and there it says retailers would be able to sell and there would be a specific area for consumption and I mean I I think if we just say producer or retailer it doesn't change much I think you know it could be that farmer's market for cannabis with a designated area but it would still be a special event that would have to be vetted through the board and the local scrutiny so really we just these are the myriad of things that we would allow under a special event license yeah so you see a lot easier to regulate if you don't allow on-site consumption you just allow sales I think we could do either or but I think the special event either or both you know what I mean but I think if I'm remembering the language that we saw at the advisory committee last week it says you can propose a designated area doesn't say you have to propose a designated area for on-site consumption I'm saying it doesn't matter to me if you're a retailer or a producer setting up a vending area with a designated space for consumption if that's what you choose to do with your event does that make sense yeah the only reason that I'm trying to work this is my first time hearing about this I'm trying to figure it out on the fly here but what would prevent a cultivator from just holding one of these every single week at his or her farm it would still be a special event that needs to get vetted through local so I'm thinking about it in the context of let's say there's an individual who wants to organize a special event and he or she has to you know we talked about you still need to have approval through your local municipality to host the event and you've got to submit an application to us as a special event all I'm saying is the vendors that would come for that special event to buy because there is an on-site consumption option but there's also a retail vending option it was my understanding of our special event program it wouldn't just be a special event to smoke or consume it would be one where you could buy from retailers at that designated special event kind of like a brew fest or something like that when we could decide that what limitations there would be yeah that's everything would flow through us is what I'm saying so there wouldn't be the opportunity for somebody to hold one of these at their farm each week without our express approval and their local municipality approval of that yeah but on what basis would we deny it if the farmer said I'm the only vendor to have my farm and every single weekend I want to do one of these special events the same the same basis we would have to deny anybody who wanted to deal with just retailers that wanted to to seek a special event license to do anything well that's why this is a pilot you know that's because it was going to you know I was thinking in my mind it'd be very limited at first so you can kind of see what the issues are unintended consequences etc yeah no but I think all I'm saying is we are saying that retailers can participate at this special event as it's currently drafted but if we allow producers or retailers to participate at this event under the umbrella of the permit meaning the event organizer who's going to submit the application on behalf of the event allowing you know producer growing operations that otherwise might be interested in direct to farm sales if we were to allow that this would still be under our purview and it'd still be a special event and we would have scrutiny as a board to make sure that you know the special events we understand exactly who's vending but I'm just I'm just suggesting we not limit it just to the dispensaries or retail operations but allow folks that are growing I wasn't planning on that anyway I mean my vision of the special event license is that only a special event operator can put them on and that's what we license and then there's a event specific permit that you have to get as well but you know it's not only a retailer can put on one of these events anyone can become a special event operator but it's kind of like the bar that does weddings also they are the ones in charge of getting all the liability insurance and having all the education and the urban consumption and yeah I was thinking about it differently I was thinking about it you know in that in that festival spirit because that's happening already well so the festival spirit is kind of I feel like we're combining these two concepts because you know at a wedding you can't go to the cash bar and buy a six pack and take it home with you you know the alcohol stays on the premises this is what you're saying you're suggesting is more like a farmers market where people are buying products and taking them home yeah but to me that's still we could still regulate that as a special event under our pilot program right I'm just we're combining the onsite consumption brewers fest type style event with a farmers market style event you know brewer brewers fest you can't buy the beer and take it home with you you can consume on site and then you leave with your cup which I have a million of them I know and I understand there is a disconnect in our definition and our understanding of what this would look like I guess fundamentally before I added this new wrinkle into it I think that if we can find a way to include direct farm sales in our pilot program to build that record that you know we we're going to say on our January 15th report this should be a part of our program and can benefit all of our monitors moving forward we're just not ready for it right now we should find ways to start introducing it into what we're trying to accomplish from a regulatory perspective at the opportunities that are in front of us and so I think doing so in this context through the special event and we can again if the legislature is so inclined to allow us to do it we can put parameters around it in regulatory compliance around it but I think again so your your your thought on these special events is let's say XYZ dispensary that's the brand that I just invented could go and like hold a special event in a parking lot somewhere and so outside there was a special event operator exactly okay so we're yeah it's nice yeah I want to decouple this from a brick and mortar retail licensee they're not in my mind anyone can be a special event operator so long as you have the proper training and the proper insurance and the kind of have sought a special event license the operator license so that would even with that that would include a producer for example so they could still so what I think what you're looking for is already available and then I think this is a little different than how we talked about last week because I was under the understanding that you were talking about it that it would be retailers that could do special events but I think I prefer that it's anyone can do it yeah because then a producer can get a special event license right and have a special producer could do it yeah and have a special event the question is is the special event limited to that date and time or and with for on site consumption at that event or is it a store essentially is it you know is it a farmers market where people are buying product and taking it home yeah it seems like it would seems like you could do oh right well you know my concerns around been saying guidance and wholesale and inventory tracking just hold you know the reason why we have so much regulation for our brick and mortar retailers is strictly because we need to know you know that taxes are being paid that product is you know that you know inventory matches receipts you know that it's it's not an insurmountable problem for direct consumer but it's the same issues that I raised last week about why we might want to not do direct consumer in year one is we're trying to figure out how to ensure that we're we're doing what we're supposed to be doing ensuring that you know we're compliant with federal guidance on this well I guess I think about special event a little bit more broadly than the new deal and that's fine I think it could be a producer or retailer doing their own event I get the the nuance there are we allowing to consume or to purchase I think if we allow to consume without purchasing they're still going to be purchasing going on regardless of whether or not we say that there can be at least you know and and then that hurts them as they try and go for another special event I get that you could purchase to consume on site I mean that's you know right then we're gonna run into the same we're gonna run into the same issues we get yeah well I still think the special event context of having multiple vendors whether they're retailers or the producers still be subject to a lot of the other whether it's inventory tracking or labeling or packaging requirements I still think it's an opportunity for us to understand the intended and unintended impacts of allowing direct farm consumer consumers in this pilot program context and again like this wouldn't be something that can happen every Saturday morning like farmers markets can it would still be considered a special event and we would be less we would understand who would be selling at these special events all under the umbrella of the applicant or the event organizer I think you'd have to allow both purchase and consumption I think if people are going to purchase it at a special event I think you can reasonably assume that they're going to consume it even even if we say they're not supposed to I think it'd make sense to say purchase and consume well that's right I don't understand the like what is the distinction Kyle in your mind of a special event versus like a farmer's market that's like approved for every Saturday as an event like what's the what's the distinction that's not a special event from a licensing perspective that's something that your license to do through the state on this day and time and and take over you know the parking lots so it would be like a one-off not like you'd say I'm going to do this every Saturday and I want an event license no I'm not saying that I'm saying allowing whether it's let's say I as an easy example you know want to host a special event and I want folks to come to this area that I've already been through local zoning and I want to invite eight retailers and or producers to participate in and it'd be an opportunity for folks with ID checks to come and speak to producers you know when on one environment where I would still buy it how I otherwise would look at a retail establishment from a packaging labeling perspective and it would be a one-off event you know that that event ends that they want to do another one they'd have to come back and apply for another one I'm not thinking it's a special event meaning it could happen every week okay you know as a special way to buy your groceries versus a more traditional way to buy your groceries I didn't mean to muddy the water it's okay I just wanted to understand and then the talking about purchasing consumed could you bring your own to like I think one of the comments we heard like about weddings for example or whatever would be able to have an area that you can you know well I mean no one's really going to be policing a wedding I don't think you know as far as people bring a flask or something like that uh but you know the idea of the wedding is that you're purchasing or there's an open bar you're purchasing from the person so that there's some control or consumption over consumption um so but there have been maybe there still are wedding venues in Vermont that are bring your own that you don't have to have that you don't have to have a bartender that they're they're be like well in that instance I don't think we need to know about anything they're venues they're very natural venues so they may they may want a consumption license sometimes in order to allow them something I don't know the particulars of how that works exactly I think uh the more we can simplify our lives the better um in this in these next couple months so I would what I what I think when if we're going to go through our rules wanting to it'll look at you know whether a incubator indoor license is necessary I also think what we should do is while we're doing that look at our retail regulations and see what would apply to a farmers market style event for you know what regulations we have that cover retail that we would want to see in this style of sale because again I thought we the regulations we put in place for retail I kind of thought were the bare minimum that we need to feel comfortable that we're tracking everything and we have the ability to kind of ensure compliance and you know the cash handling the point of sale the inventory tracking the kind of employee trainings all of those regulations I thought were necessary this opens the door to a totally different style of retail which I think we all want to get to and I think we can all envision this happening but I think it'd be useful for us before we decide to allow to recommend this to think about specifically what regulations from our retail would apply to this style of retail this direct consumer retail but do if so sorry I mean we're requiring a safe you know for a haul you know that doesn't make sense for outside well yeah there's nothing it doesn't make sense for insight that's my question well there's not going to be the same type of cash or product on hand at these very limited maybe you're saying that the product would be limited as well you know the amount of sales if you want me I think I think you can't bring your whole inventory to one of these events and expect to sell everything I think there's certain things that we will obviously need to consider but other market dynamics and the ability the events from 12 to 4 oh I can reasonably expect to sell x amount of product I'm going to bring that with me and yeah we probably have to figure out certain regulatory requirements but I think it's part of the security retail stuff that we have put in place is because those products and that cash are living in that retail establishment at hours where folks otherwise would not be working at the same time of you know other considerations that we have to abide by from a you know federal compliance perspective but I think that kind of you know what I'm trying to say like at 1 a.m. it's not going to be an issue you know what I mean I still feel like it would behoove us to look at what we're I mean what we've you know talked about last week is that you know we still need some I mean we put those regulations in place for a reason we should go through a similar process of saying if we're going to have direct consumer temporary event retail what which pieces of this would be necessary for that okay you know it's like the chicken or the egg you know I think we could still propose it and figure it out it's all it's all that I'm saying are we still I'm sorry are we still talking about events yeah okay we're talking about retail right and the event style licensing that we're proposing anybody can get regardless of what other type of license they have or if they don't have another type of license they could be just a purveyor of events right but my idea of the event was that you're not taking the product outside of the event space it's everything stays in this just like in a kind of cash bar away any other license types that we want to consider at this stage I think there might be some other ones sprinkled throughout the next two reports that we're going to look at so I don't have to talk about any other license types I put all my brain power into those two right now anyways yeah well then it's 12 30 almost we want to take a break now or we want to get through the NACB report social media report out of people feel I can by the way I'm indifferent about melly kyle and uh David brink yes please okay thank you great good hour does that work that's plenty I mean I don't need that much time is this uh but do you guys want any lunch now or do you want to need a quick break let's just do a quick one all right why don't we uh why don't we come back in 15 minutes 20 till okay sounds great well why don't we jump back into it um I think next on our agenda is a review of our social equity um subcommittee report which includes I think recommendations that NACB collected during those public input hearings as well so I'm going to do this review of um our consultant NACB's uh proposed social equity recommendations and this is a result of their work with the advisory committee subcommittee on social equity and also a result of their work in their one-on-one kind of um outreach to stakeholders in Vermont and also the two um public input sessions that were held during their time here in November so I'm going to run through these um just a little roadmap here to what's contained in their report is a review of the proposal for social equity criteria and the benefits associated with those criteria this will look familiar because we um did put some of this language in our October 15th report to the legislature also some economic empowerment criteria and associated benefits um and then some recommendations for the board and how to create a socially equitable cannabis industry and then some recommendations um for legislative action that could promote social equity so um with respect to number four some of these recommendations um we're going to look at also in context of our January 15th report which we'll review later in the meeting so to start the overview of the social equity criteria um there are two criteria so if a person meets um at least one of these criteria they can be considered a social equity applicant and have access to the social equity program so if a person is African American or Black or indigenous or Hispanic or is a person from a community that's historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition that would satisfy criteria one or if a person is convicted of a cannabis related offense and that would include um a person who's been personally convicted and incarcerated for a cannabis related offense or a person who is a member of an impacted family um and that definition is on the next slide and just a reminder that there's no previous residency requirement for a social equity applicant but the applicant does have to currently reside in Vermont can we pause there a second because this is different than what we put in our rules yes it is um and so I guess this is a question for Julie and Kyle do we want to change what we did in our rules to match this or do we want to leave all we did in our rules I think we need to hear the I personally I would want to hear the public comment that we're going to get later this week okay before deciding that okay and I think if I'm if I'm not mistaken we our definition might be interpreted to be a little bit broader than this but that definition that we went with in drafting has looked been looked at more favorably in courts around the country as it gets a little bit further away than specific words that might jeopardize the program yeah my personal opinion is that this is much more directed towards the people um that were that the legislation identified and that we're trying to mitigate the harms of prohibition our language and in our rules is probably exactly what you describe by more defensible yet broader um just one other just piece of note that you know that convicted or incarcerated just so we're all just on the same page here would not include juvenile adjudications under that language there is no incarceration and um for juveniles they're being adjudicated a family court um but that being said the purpose of family court is to be a rehabilitative alternative to the criminal justice system and so we could just make the assumption that if you've been adjudicated uh in the family court that your sentence essentially or your adjudic disposition was meant to be rehabilitated and not meant to be punitive like the incarcerated sitting is it um convicted and incarcerated if you're if you're tried as an adult yes just I just want to I guess yeah I know at least one legislator is asked if this would include juvenile adjudications in this language would not so okay yeah no I think we can revisit it on Friday yeah I think just yeah okay so here's the definition of impacted family um the person has had or has a parent legal guardian child spouse or domestic partner or was dependent of a person who was incarcerated for a cannabis related offense so again the limitation there is that the person um has to have been incarcerated for that crime so this is just the definition and Vermont's definition of what domestic partnership means moving on to what documents would be required for a social equity candidate to apply for a license so either um proof of a person's conviction which could be court documents or probation documents or doc documents um and proof of residency and then there's also a note here that if a person's unable to obtain those proof of conviction documents um they can request to self-attest to that conviction so the proposal is um that social equity applicants should have their application fee waived um and in addition to the waiver of their application fee also license fee waiver for the first year um and then like a progressively smaller waiver of the fee for the first four years of their licensure and there's also this little note here that um if a licensee can't pay that uh 25 percent of their fee in the second year or 50 percent of their fee in the third year um they can apply for a full fee waiver from the board if they can demonstrate um as a part of that application that they have a financial need and also they've got a plan to achieve full payment um moving forward um also recommended recommended um that the provisional license application that um like intent to apply uh procedure that we set out and rule um the fee associated with that would also be waived uh a waiver of employee registration cards and also there's a recommendation that the local fee um be waived and these fees here are all um part of our proposal that we put forward to the legislature in October so those decisions haven't been made yet yeah so employee registration card fee um I would assume that that means a social equity someone who meets the criteria of social equity applicant employee not because we're we're decoupling the employer we're suggesting that we decouple so I just want to be clear on some of this stuff and then the other the local fee um we don't have the ability to waive this I was gonna ask that right I I know I can't support us waiving a local fee without asking for it in our budget you know someone has to pay it and so we would have we could waive it but then we would pay it and so we would want to now roughly have some rough estimation of how much money we need to set aside to pay that local fee so anyway I just um we have to go one way or the other on that we can't we can't just waive it though we included that in our October 15th report though didn't we waiving local fees or did we not no I don't think that was a part of okay that I don't think it would have slipped behind me there okay I you know it's paying it's paying to offset administrative costs at the level so someone has to pay it okay so next are the recommendations regarding the business ownership of a social equity license so the recommended requirements are that businesses have to be at least 51 owned by either one or more social equity candidates and there's also a recommendation that an applicant can request a waiver from the board for a 50-50 split ownership the candidate has to be involved with daily operations and be able to make decisions for the business and also the candidate must meet state requirements to open a business next are the recommendations on license transfer so if a licensee a social equity licensee wants to transfer to another social equity business that's permitted but the new licensee benefits would start at the second year of those reduced license fees regardless of when the business is transferred so that's a requirement the second year is a 25% fee if the business is transferred to social equity affiliate owner anyone that has control over the business or a social equity family member the new licensee would have to take over the previous owner's fee schedule and if the transfer occurs to a non-social equity licensee within five years of the social equity applicant first getting the license the new business holder would have to repay to the social equity program any cost savings that that license received during those first five years and if it's after five years then transfer of ownership is allowed to anyone without a repayment requirement can i ask a question about this is this something that the legislature would have to adopt or something that we have to write into a role and the reason i'm asking is there's obviously financial impacts right i think this is essentially recouping money so this is this would be a net benefit or a positive to the board so i don't think the legislature would you know if they approve the plan for the fee waiver then i don't think they would have to approve this thank you so the benefits that would come along with being a social equity licensee there would be priority of review the board's review of the license application the reduce in wage fees as we as we discussed education courses or certificates technical assistance in certain areas including application assistance business management job training and then guidance on tax and legal issues access to the canvas business development fund and also access to peer-to-peer networks information and just generally consolidated clear and concise information on what the program entails so just that was good this would be clear on this slide you know we don't have education or canvas certificate courses right now and we don't have peer-to-peer networks that we are can facilitate at this point so while we can just at the outset of the program if we're gonna think about you know april first and may first is the outset we can certainly do priority license interview we can certainly wage fees we can do the technical assistance to the extent that it's written in statute and the canvas business development fund when that comes online is also available but those two you know i just this is a recommendation from any cp in our subcommittee this isn't stuff that necessarily we can just flip a switch and do so i think we're already working on scaring it working that's great yeah i know that we are i don't need to say it so indirectly that is a plan for the like hopefully to start at the end of this one that's great yeah i mean these are all fantastic benefits i hope we have the budget to put some teeth behind them right okay okay so this slide lays out how the board will prioritize granting licenses to social equity applicants so you'll have to remember criteria is what criteria one and two are to understand the slide so candidates that meet both those criteria would would have sort of first crack at the licenses candidates that just meet criteria one which is the race-based criteria or proof that you've come from a community that's been disproportionately impacted would come next and then and then third would be candidates that just meet that criteria two about with a cannabis-related conviction and incarceration on this i agree with the principal here certainly people that meet both criteria are the people that have been most directly impacted i'm not sure about the one only versus two only you know someone whose spouse had a three-strike law and was incarcerated for life for a cannabis-related offense might be more directly impacted than someone who only needs criteria one i wonder how difficult it's going to be to operationalize this given our current staff in levels i just i think we're halfway our staff is halfway through reviewing a social equity applicant all of a sudden another one comes in that meets one into you know and then all of a sudden everything has to be paused and shifted around i understand that again the thinking behind this slide but i i wonder if this is something that we really need to think about yeah and we still have to we haven't written a policy about how we're going to prioritize applications right so we can address this then yeah i just i'm trying to i i reviewed these slides last week and i just wanted to flag my notes on it so yeah i mean i like the thinking here it's just dependent on us being able to figure out how to do it effectively right okay i'm going to move on to the cannabis business development fund slide so just some facts to start out with that five hundred thousand dollar allocation is pretty limited there may be some additional funding that comes in from the integrated licenses expenditures from the fund are listed here loans and grants to social equity applicants payment for outreach that could be provided or targeted to attract and retain social equity applicants and assist with job training and technical assistance for social equity applicants which are all of the expenditures that are identified in the legislation establishing the fund and then also um an additional one which is funding incubator programs that have demonstrated success yeah so this one i think it's just important for us to remember that we're not in charge of allocating the funds that's going to either a ccd or a third party and they're unless the statute changes they're going to be limited to those first three bullets under expenditures from the fund the last one is not authorized by statute which bring just that underscore that okay so um what should be included in the social equity application is proof of residency um either proof or access station of social equity qualification any incorporating documents um so that the board can identify the ownership criteria um a description of the social equity candidate's role in the organization and and then lastly an explanation of how the applicant is impacted by cannabis prohibition okay i'm going to move to the economic empowerment program so the idea here was to create a program um that would provide some opportunities for people from communities that have been historically underrepresented in society and to encourage people from those communities to participate in the industry here are the um types of the groups to be considered for this economic empowerment program i'm going to read it so you guys can read so the economic empowerment business ownership requirements um would be at least 51 percent owned by the economic empowerment candidate and again there's that provision that economic empowerment applicant can request a waiver for a 50-50 split ownership again they have to be involved with the daily operations and be able to make decisions for the business and they must meet state requirements to open a business so similar requirements here ownership requirements as for the social equity program um and then the benefits of this program would be priority licensing review again a waiver of the application fees um not the license fees but just the initial application fee and then that they receive technical assistance in the same areas of technical assistance of social equity applicants their application should include proof of residency proof of the their qualification as an economic empowerment candidate their corporation documents so the board can determine control of the organization and then a description of their of the candidate's role and responsibilities in the company so the same same application requirements apart from that last one about a narrative about the disproportionate impact so here are some recommendations of how the the board can consider how to establish a socially equitable industry um and they include requiring as a condition of licensure that um employees pay livable wages and that would be exclusive of any samples or vouchers provided by an employee the licensee is creating an incubator or an accelerator program for social equity licensees that could include grants um or access to capital access to retail space or cultivation or manufacturing space management training other kinds of technical training and mentorship from industry experts um also the boards consider uh inclusive hiring requiring inclusive hiring and contracting practices and community reinvestment plans and much of this is a part of the board's work on the priority um the positive impact criteria that you've done in rule two also with respect to creating a socially equitable cannabis industry um an acknowledgement here that that uh there's trauma that exists between law enforcement and social equity candidates and disproportionately impacted communities and as a result law enforcement shouldn't be the primary enforcement mechanism for the industry um there's a recommendation here that the board be very clear um have clear communication to licensees about what kinds of regulations could result in violations and also just that the board conduct outreach to create relationships between the board and the people it regulates um and then I'm just going to keep trucking unless somebody interrupts me but the next slide is legislative action so these are recommendations that the that um the board could recommend to the legislature to promote social equity so um the first bullet here is exclusivity periods for new license types and specifically co-op delivery on-site consumption and special events um elimination of the concentrated caps on both flower and products um expansion of expungement eligibility to include all nonviolent offenses uh the creation of a fund um for disproportionately impacted communities um the creation of a social equity board uh funding ongoing assistance and educational programs for social equity applicants a clarification of the zoning designation for small outdoor cultivators an allocation of tax revenue to the cannabis business development fund and a creation of a social equity trust to allow for public donations to fund social equity programming so the following slides um provide some more detail on some of these recommendations so the first is a co-op license um and the idea here is that social equity applicants can pool their resources that um that come from the cannabis business development fund to cooperatively operate a business and that could include cultivating in different areas of the state and then processing and selling from one central location here's a recommendation on the different types of delivery licenses so we've got three tiers here the first being a transport model that would allow um a delivery licensee this would be a social equity applicant um that meets certain criteria set by the board could deliver and transport um among all sectors of the industry the second tier would be a retailer model so that would be where the social equity delivery licensee is hired by the retailer as an employee and then the customer would order from the retailer and the delivery license holder would be the person delivering to the customer and then third tier delivery operators would be allowed to purchase cannabis from a cultivator or a product manufacturer and then sell to consumers okay the next one is the on-site consumption special event license type so the recommendation here is to create a license type or to recommend to the legislature that they create a license type for on-site consumption um the board should consider an exclusivity period for social equity applicants um currently there's prohibition to consume in all places of public accommodation public spaces motor vehicles federal housing the board has talked about this in multiple meetings um on-site consumption offers people a safe place to consume and sort of equitably offers people a safe place to consume also reduces public consumption and the interaction of law enforcement with individuals who are consuming and the second recommendation here is to recommend a license type for special events and for the board to consider an exclusivity period for social equity applicants and again this would provide a safer regulated alternative for people who consume the special events so um we were gonna I I don't know if we officially decided whether we wanted to recommend on-site consumption um as part of our January 15th we talked about earlier today uh was that where we landed was that our consensus do we want to offer this as a license type recommend that it be created social consumption yeah on-site consumption yes yeah that's my yeah okay all right why don't we do that and do we want the exclusivity period for social equity applicants yeah okay all right you want to talk about special events now or no maybe when we we'll talk about that in context of the report yeah we have a recommendation report on that yeah we do okay so I'll move on to the recommendation that we that the board recommend to the legislature that they eliminate the THC cap so the first is to remove the 30 percent THC cap for flour and the 60 percent THC cap for solid concentrates the second part of this recommendation the board has already done um there's a narrative here that the high THC products represents about 20 to 30 percent of the market and other legal states so putting a cap on these products um perpetuates the illicit market activity and the risk of increased arrests for cannabis offenses and as the board has mentioned before their racial disparities for drug arrests and sentencing are really ongoing problems and continuing to prohibit those products um again asks communities of color to bear the burden of these disproportionately police policies and then the second point here is to ensure that remediation is available for any crop that exceeds that existing 30 cap I think we've already put point two right so it's not illegal to possess a flour that has higher than 30 percent THC it's probably it's prohibited to sell it yeah it's different than I think what folks might be accustomed to under the health program where they allowed it to be federally legal this half at a certain percentage and it would otherwise be right you know at that point in time illegal at the state and federal level um and have to remediate it you know because at any point if it was above that testing limit of 0.02 percent THC it was you know not federally legal under the federal program that authorized the program so I just I'm looking at that set third sentence in the first below point and that's the point that I think is important for public consumption which is that it is illegal to consume openly and that's where I really do think that racial disparities in arrests for that citations sentencing etc really do come into play but I don't know that that statement there really holds true for someone who's in possession of high THC cannabis but we just just like you said kind of we do have a process to ensure remediation here it's not like the hemp program where you need to immediately right destroy it and under a certain set of circumstances yeah you're automatically in violation of law but I think as you said it's illegal to sell it and put it into the marketplace it's not illegal to possess it yeah I'm just trying to think how we can within our kind of our mission and our guidance and our legislative intent how we could recommend getting rid of the 30 percent THC cap for flower so just to address the first thing you said because I've we read the sentence there when we were talking I do think that there would continue to be disparities right if you have something that's over this over the THC cap and I think that the assumption is that it would be sold illicitly right and so that's we already know the policing for that is there's a just put in fact the policing right but the if you're a non-licensing in your position yes but if you I think the assumption is that that's is the sale is the issue right the thing that's stuck out to me is just you know one comment that we heard is I've heard along the way it's just that you know the on-site consumption giving people a safe place to consume is important because if the only alternative for folks to legally consume is out it's not legally consumed the only place that a person can consume is out in the open that you know you're subjecting yourself to police enforcement or at least interaction or interaction and then that you know we've seen the kind of racial disparities that exist in those interactions but if you're just merely in possession of the flower that's a 31 THC that's not a crime that is my is my only point okay and then your your question was should we recommend removing the 30 percent THC cap okay sorry yeah the question is do we see it within our mission to make that recommendation to remove the 30 percent cap yeah it's acid be removed I'm trying to think safe equitable effective market there's probably some connection there encouraging the legacy market to participate there might be a nexus there I don't either I think that there's some cultivators that can achieve it under the right sort of circumstances I think you know most like we might try there's a book out there but people can do it is the justification for me I mean we weren't asked to recommend that so it's kind of we're acting in our own we're acting kind of on our own on this so I think we're gonna recommend that we will want to tie it back to you know our central mission so is it just that that first sentence that these high THC flower is present in the illicit market and therefore it should be allowed in the legal market yes I think if the if the one if the legislature wants as much of the legacy market to move into the regulated market as possible then yes okay okay I think it's more important on the concentrate side but right I recognize that it's still on the show okay so it sounds like the that second bullet we'd like to add to or I mean the removal of the cap for flower you would like to add to the January 15th report yeah okay the next slide has to do with expungement so as as we've discussed previously in this in these slides prohibition has has perpetrated intergenerational harm on communities of color arrests and sentencing practices of people of color persist to this day disparate arrests and sentencing practices criminal history records entrap people in a cycle of crime and poverty and expanding out expungement eligibility to nonviolent convictions is an important step in mitigating some of these harms so here's a recommendation that the legislature create a fund to provide tax revenue to disproportionately impacted communities the recommendation is that at least 20% of the tax revenue for cannabis products be put in the fund and allocated for various purposes including education job training reentry supports legal assistance youth development violence prevention mental health grants for community development and needs and subsidized product testing for social equity cannabis licensees and then the final recommendation here is the social equity board and their responsibilities so this recommendation is that the legislature create a board that would ensure accountability of the board in its social equity program and social equity program success so it would assist in developing and deploying the social equity program it would administer this recommended fund for disproportionately impacted communities and it would conduct community outreach and education on the social equity program would also review social equity applications and do collection and reporting of racially disaggregated data on participants in the program it would develop and track performance measures and data on the program and lastly it would review the business development fund disbursements and then the final slide is a list of the representatives that should be appointed to the social equity board which includes a representative from a disproportionately impacted community that currently resides in that community a representative from a disproportionately impacted community who's experienced in community development a person who's arrested convicted or incarcerated for a cannabis related offense a family member of somebody who's been arrested convicted or incarcerated for cannabis related offense a social worker from a disproportionately impacted community that currently serves that community an educator from one of these communities that currently serves that community a business owner from a disproportionately impacted community a licensed social equity cannabis representative from one of the sectors of either the sector of retail processing or cultivating a licensed social equity cannabis representative from a delivery or cooperative license a licensed non-social equity cannabis representative a social equity candidate that currently works in the cannabis industry I think this may refer to the executive director of racial equity the agency of commerce and community development a member of the social equity caucus and a member of the board is it our plan to talk about which of these recommendations we want to include in the January 15th report later which we don't are we going to readdress these recommendations at some point I think now's the time honestly yeah I've been trying to pause kind of along the way but is there some we should we should I think talk about this report now yeah so I I've thought about this a lot actually the social equity board and I think I would really like to see us look at the composition of our advisory committee rather than create a separate board if that's something that we're if this is a recommendation that we as a board are thinking about I would rather see us look at the composition of our advisory committee than to create another board did you work was this part of the social equity subcommittee they talked about this do you know how closely this mirrors and I should have just looked it up by page 414 is it the same composition I do not remember I ask yeah right it doesn't I only ask because you know disproportionate impact communities when we try to define that as a board and as a subcommittee we ran into some issues being both simultaneously over inclusive and under inclusive um when you do it by geography whether that's zip code or economic opportunity zones or by policing districts etc you know when we tried to do it by geography we realized that it wasn't going to work in a state this small but I know that h414 or I think h414 uses that based on geography they try and determine an impacted community by a geographic balance what we did of course was we said that if you're part of a bipod community if you are black or african-american or indigenous or Hispanic you are de facto a disproportionate from a disproportionate community I'm just wondering um if that's what was intended here and I know um really you worked you know you were kind of a board representative to the social equity subcommittee I'm wondering if they talked about that I don't remember off the top of my head if the discussion about what a disproportionate impact is coming I don't I don't know if they got really deep into that particular conversation that's huge obviously yeah through the first kind of like six members yeah it does not mirror the composition of the board proposed and 414 okay when you say look at our advisory committee what exactly do you mean well you know maybe we should be adding members there that that bring a social equity perspective to our advisors to our advice okay I didn't know if you're trying to select certain members of our advisory committee to stand up like a subcommittee no I think if we if we really want social equity to be part of the program and you know to systemically eradicate it then then social equity needs to be part of the system so there may be maybe an educator or you know family member maybe they need to be part of the advisory committee rather than a separate board not to create a board of only 40 people value there I think you'd have to think about yeah how many people is this board I think it's 14 or 15 and there was a lot of discussion about about whether it should be a big board yes and I have my own concerns about being able to find enough volunteers to participate and I mean boards all over the state are having trouble finding volunteers all kinds of and is this really um a cannabis social equity board can you go back for into the charge of this board just to me it feels like so that we asked to create a so they're in charge of kind of reviewing cannabis business development fund disbursements that's directly related to the cannabis industry but I think we all this is just seems like this their mission is broader than just dealing with the cannabis industry specifically so the administer the cannabis disproportionate impact of communities fund so that's a fund that's supported by cannabis excise tax revenue but it's not to it's not designed to support the cannabis industry it just feels like this board is broader than the cannabis board it's broader than just looking at the industry maybe that's a distinction without a difference maybe we don't maybe it doesn't matter I think you're right about the second bullet I think the other bullets that were intended to be specific to cannabis right like so you know like the second to last development track performance measures on down social equity program and that we would want to do that for our social equity program yeah I think we're involved yeah we do that regardless but yeah I just it seems to me if you're going to create you know we have a 14-member advisory committee if you're going to create a new 14-member board that their mission might be a little bit broader so I'm kind of me I think I'm just tilting towards where you're at which is let's change the makeup of our advisory committee and they can do all of these things yeah yeah I think a new board that we might have trouble filling even with you know the right attention on it still making decisions here with that big of a board recognizing that it's hard to get every single member of a board to a meeting means that you're effectively making these decisions with a forum and leaving out voices potentially right so from this I think we should just look at the composition of our advisory committee and try to be more inclusive and that would then cover our entire operation not strictly through the lines of the social equity program so any other comments you're out this report do we want to return to is that it that's it I think so all right uh Bryn do we want to take a break or do we want to just jump into our January 15th so that's up to you we can jump right in I haven't included um the decisions that you made about the onsite consumption but it sounds like you're gonna you may have returned to that conversation anyway okay um so as long as you're okay with that not being in there at the moment we can jump back that's not 30 for some cat yeah how do how does everyone else you know Julie and Kyle do you want to power through um January 15th yeah well it's 1 30 we've been out for two and a half hours let's roll Natalie and David do you let's go let's do this okay okay and you go for it all right um all right why don't we just go go for it then Bryn okay we'll come to Monday each so this is a draft of the report um our our last legislative report due this year so far so the board saw this on Thursday at the advisory committee meeting um I did have time to include at least one of the decisions that you made this morning but as I mentioned it doesn't include everything so overview of the presentation um this this legislative report is specifically to discuss a summary of some of the social equity outreach that we've done make a recommendation on online ordering and delivery make recommendations about additional license types um our recommendation about CBD and potency and then lastly that paraphernalia recommendation so I'm going to skip through these because you've seen these multiple times about our advisory committee and our consultants here's the legislative language setting out the requirements of this report through that um this is our public comment slide that we like to include in all of our legislative reports with updated numbers about the number of board meetings we've had and public comments we've received so the first section of the report is responsive to 164 section 5g1 and this is a summary of our work with um accd and some other um state partners on um programs to provide economic opportunities to people who've been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition um so we've got some language here on the board's mission statement and um that includes that cannabis prohibition has disproportionately harmed black and brown people for generations and it's central to the board's vision to create a program that provides economic opportunities in the cannabis industry for these people and then it summarizes our work to develop a social equity um kind of vision statement and we've included it there so this slide provides a summary of the the direct outreach that the board has done um to develop inequitable programs so it's been the strategy of the board from the outset to hear from all possible stakeholders in the marketplace um we've received extraordinary levels of public involvement um as set out in that summary slide of our board meetings and public comment periods so during its meetings board is heard from small cultivators policy advocates experts on racial justice and social equity issues and people with lived experience of those issues medicinal cannabis patients and experts public health experts and advocates environmental and energy experts and advocates agricultural experts and advocates and more a description of a cb's work to hold public engagement sessions um and have one-on-one discussions with people um from communities that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition and then lastly um just a narrative about board members extensive discussions with members of the public and experts and advocates for social equity in the industry so we've had initial conversations with staff at accd on their role in administering the cannabis business development fund we've also had discussions with other state government entities regarding economic opportunities for communities that have been disproportionately impacted and to identify some existing opportunities um for social equity outreach assistance and training and we're going to continue that work there will be additional information um provided to the legislature in this part of the report so um this is kind of an opportunity for us to reiterate our social equity criteria and what our program is going to look like so um the social equity criteria are listed here um and we have it as the first criteria is if um you're a person of color or anyone who can demonstrate you're from a community that's been historically disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition or the second criteria if you have been personally incarcerated for a cannabis related offense or have a family member that's been incarcerated for a cannabis related offense no residency required applicant has to currently reside in Vermont and then the bottom half of the slide is a summary of the social equity program so um applicants social equity applicants shall be eligible for um an application fee waiver and a license fee waiver um in the first year a full waiver in the first year and then uh reduction on the schedule um that was set out in the recommendations from NACB that first year is a 75 percent reduction I'm sorry first year is full fee waiver second year 75 percent third year 50 percent fourth year 25 percent um board shall host entrepreneurial outreach sessions to encourage participation in the market social equity applicants and license holders should be eligible for disbursements from the business development fund also eligible for application assistance from the board business and technical assistance programming as developed by the board and access to educational resources so um beyond this work of the board to develop a equitable cannabis marketplace um general assembly can also create policy to mitigate the long-standing social and economic inequity that's fueled by prohibition so the the board encourages the legislature to adopt these policies so the first is the cannabis business development fund um the statement that it's not adequately funded to provide ongoing meaningful economic opportunity to social equity applicants um and this is a recommendation that the legislature allocate a percentage specifically 20 percent of the cannabis excise tax revenue to that fund on an annual basis and the second recommendation here is that the legislature create a cannabis community reinvestment fund to direct cannabis revenue to communities that have been disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition and again to allocate a percentage of the tax revenue to that fund annually and then some suggestions about how revenue from that fund can be used so um you know I raised the concern last week I know I supported the inclusion of the 20 percent I really you know in thinking about it do not think it's our place to put a specific number on that I really do feel like that first statement that it's not adequately adequately funded is the most important message that we can deliver and I really think that we're operating kind of outside of our balance by recommending a specific percentage amount you know we recommended a specific percentage in our local fee or our local excise tax contribution to local municipalities I think that really was reflective of the fact that we needed to have you know towns opt in and have an incentive to opt in I didn't feel comfortable then by including an amount but we did um I don't think we should include an amount here I think that we just need to really say that it's not adequately funded and the legislature needs to grapple with what the right number is and on the second point the second bullet um the three sub-bullets that we have there I think are all good things um you know I don't know exactly you know it seems like we're putting a list together that um you know I can go one or two ways and say these are important things which they are um they're not totally inclusive of what that social equity subcommittee recommended so I would say either we we just put forward with the social equity subcommittee recommended which was I think a 10 point bullet um and just say this this is you know the folks that really dug in and thought about it this is what they suggested um or we just get rid of that kind of sub-list there those three points and just say this is a really you know not everyone who's been harmed by prohibition wants to participate in the cannabis industry but this cannabis community investment fund might be a good way to mitigate those harms so um to start with your first point I'm a little afraid not to put an amount a percentage in there hey hey I you know I think if we have a thought on what that should be and have a recommendation and we have an opportunity to make a recommendation we should do it I don't think that we were asked for any additional social equity recommendations at all so we're already putting something in the court that we weren't asked for um and it's an opportunity for us to do that I the reason why I'm hesitant about 20 percent putting a specific number period is we don't know what the excise tax is gonna look like we're essentially picking a number out of the blue and uh you know is that eight million dollars a year is it ten million dollars a year is it 15 you know and it's kind of you know it just seems to me that putting a specific amount it's kind of like well why'd you choose that amount well we thought it was good we thought it was an adequate amount to me it's not it seems more like advocacy as opposed to you know trying to create a equitable market I think it's our job to make sure that there's an equitable market um I don't think that 20 percent is necessarily based upon anything other than we all kind of said 20 percent in the search the subcommittee recommend 20 percent um not for that I don't think is that for the community I think saying that it's not adequately funded is the thing that we need to say that five hundred thousand dollars is not you know even if it was all put towards a single licensee it wouldn't be enough to kind of create a viable business I think that that's I think the first sentence is the most important part and the 20 percent kind of it puts us in the position of saying why'd you come up with that and it distracts from the fact that you know it's not adequately funded I think that's the most important thing we need to say I agree with that I think I think my only concern is we need to give some type of starting point at least if nothing else because I think too often you see at the legislature they don't know where to begin especially with cannabis so how do we if we're not going to settle on a specific number how do we frame the conversation a little bit more dialed in than just saying it's not adequately funded I mean it's just the way that I see this is that it's our job to use our authority to create a equitable marketplace we've done that in any number of places including our social priority social equity criteria and our prioritization our requirement on inclusive hiring practices our requirement on inclusive contracting processes investments from our largest industry participants to the community development fund we pushed the limits of what I think is within our authority to make an inclusive marketplace it's up to the legislature to decide how they spend this revenue and if they're getting a recommendation from us it should be that some of it should go towards this fund and I just don't feel comfortable saying how much I don't you know if there's an additional eight million dollar contribution or ten or fifteen or twenty million dollar contribution every year I don't feel like I have any way to any total to say that's the right amount but that's not the right amount so I just that's that's around 20 percent I would prefer to leave it in I I think that we can if it's how that money could be spent I think we could probably outline that for the legislature if that's the concern I I agree with Kyle on that what I'm afraid of is if there's no place to start I mean there are a lot of entities that are asking already for cannabis excess tax money if we don't provide some sort of place to start it it could be zero we don't have to provide a place to start that is my point is that's an advocacy role and we're not necessarily advocates in this we are trying to regulate the industry we're not trying to you know there's there's H414 has a contribution in it to this fund there's I know you know Keisha was Keisha Rahm was advocating for a certain amount that's the kind of proper role of a legislator or an advocate and that's not our role you know I think we need to do what we can do using our authority and I just to me I mean how much in your mind is 20 percent of the exercise tax I don't know we're just gonna do the math what I'm saying is just like if we don't even know that then why are we recommending well I don't know off the top of my head can I do the math absolutely can I find a way to spend it absolutely um it just feels to me like we're a little bit outside of what we've been asked to do to kind of recommend a very specific amount of the tax revenue supporting this fund and what's to say the 20 percent shouldn't go towards the community reinvestment funds or 100 percent should go to the community reinvestment fund you know that's just but this is just some recommendation so the legislature can take it up or they or they don't you know that I don't know that it's I mean I get what you're saying about advocacy versus um you know regulation but it seems like they would want to ask the people who've been thinking and talking about this for months for what what the appropriate amount might be or where to start I don't think that's us I think that that's the people that formed the subcommittee that were members of the subcommittee I think it's people like the run equity coalition I feel like it's people with lived experience in this I don't think I don't think it's up to us to put a specific percentage amount that's somewhat arbitrary so what if we included the amount at least that the subcommittee recommended the five to ten percent that was something that I was going to raise if we're not going to I certainly appreciate that we don't have the record built to go in and justify the 20 20 percent will you know solve the problems when it comes to that specific fund because we don't know what that number is going to look like even from a you know equitable percentages out perspective of the total revenue generated but I think we would be remiss to not give them a starting point I think if we're going to eliminate the 20 and that first sentence needs to be a little bit more dialed in or if we go with the subcommittee's recommendation because then at least we have a footing to stand on because those folks have talked to people and you know experts and advocates in other parts of the country that have seen similar programs either succeed or not when they receive public comment may help the town halls and so forth so are we aware of our community investment funds I mean to me in some ways that has the ability to have systemic impact you know it just seems to me like we're getting specific in one place and not the other it just I just essentially what we're doing here is we are being very specific about this without I mean I just if I was asked why 20 percent I would say well we just we saw five to ten percent over here and we decided to do 20 percent so I I don't have it up but I think that the subcommittee made a recommendation for the community uh reinvestment fund too and if if the concern is translating what our our subcommittee said into the report that goes to the legislature I would rather do that than say nothing and I think it was 20 percent for the community I have to pull it up or maybe yeah do you switch it to the disproportionately impacted communities fund and five to ten percent for the other I think that I suggested flipping them because it seems like the immediate need for the cannabis industries for the business fund is that an ongoing need is my question well no it may not be but so maybe that's not the right thing to do but I still agree with the general concept of flipping them because from the disproportionately impacted communities but I mean you know those those communities there's more going on there than just cannabis and there's a lot of funding coming into the to the state there's federal dollars flowing into help certain communities and the governor and his state the state did as we heard from our advisory committee you should strengthen those bullets or whatever to reflect certain you know comments made by the governor in his day of the state address to prioritize a lot of those issues over the course of the next year I mean I would say the opposite is true the ARPA funding is one time funding this is a dedicated revenue stream once the market is somewhat saturated are we really going to need 20 percent of the excise tax annually to go into a fund you know first of all we don't even know how it's going to be allocated yet we don't know who's allocating it so to me it's just kind of like the ARPA funding it seems to me like you want a dedicated revenue source towards comm