 Hello everyone, I'm Danika Scott with the National Association of Cannabis Businesses and welcome to week three, the 920 discussion on social equity. Before we get started, I'd like to do a quick attendance today of who all is on the line. Ashley Reynolds. President. Nader Hashim. President. Susana Davis. President. And Julio. And I'm sorry, I don't see your last name. But we'll get it captured. Julio Townsend. Thank you. Jeffrey Gallegos. President. Gina Cranwinkle. President. And from the CCB, if you'll let me know who's there. Sure. You have Julie Holbert. Board member. Nellie Marvel. Julia Nellie. Yep. David Cher and Bryn Hare. And we have five members of the public. I believe that is. Can everybody hear me? Okay. That is Julie and Nellie and they're okay. Fantastic. All right. So before we get started, I would like to also see if we can get for the minutes from. She's got. From the 13th. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Just from the, the minutes from. She. From the 13th. If I. Of September. If I could get a motion to approve the minutes from September 13th. And just. If I can get a first or a second and then a second, please. Or you would need to modify. Not a lot of Ashley. They don't need to do that all set. Okay. I don't think they need to be modified either. Okay, can I get a first in the second? Please just state it for the record. I'll make that motion. Thank you Second, thank you Fantastic So just as a quick reminder, we always put this slide up so that everyone can see the milestones We have coming up and it is September 20th. So we definitely have Some things coming up but rapidly on us the plan for reducing or eliminating a fees for social equity applicants And then the development of the criteria for applicants for the purpose of obtaining social equity loans or grants from the cannabis develop Cannabis business development fund. What is important to note here is that we're working simultaneously on these issues, so Yes, we need to approve both Okay, great. We made a Modification on 916. Yeah, you're fine Ashley or not or would I Either if you'd be willing to Approve those or get that started or have you had the opportunity to review them the 916 minutes? I've they look good to me. I motion I'll second the motion as well. Thank you so much for the record reflect at the minutes from 916 have also been approved Gina, I'm gonna turn it over to you as we oh, no, I'll keep it We don't have any electronic comments, so that so that is what is confusing me. I apologize on that one There are no new written comments But as a reminder anyone may that is in Vermont may submit their public comments via the ccb website We look forward to receiving those and rest assured that everyone on the subcommittee does see the Comments and at the end of this meeting at 10 till the hour We have if we have members of the public who would like to speak and be heard that will Be made available. So thank you and now we're ready to move forward unless I have forgotten anything else today All right, very good Okay, I'm gonna get away great So last meeting we left off with defining a social equity candidate I know we had Ashley and Nadar on my call But actually I'm dropped off at that half of the hour and so we were not able to Both on if this is the way that we are going to define a social equity candidate But right now we have one that they live in an opportunity zone To their member of BIPOC a minority race three if they were impacted on Cannabis prohibition so if they have been arrested can make it or incarcerated For a non-Lyland cannabis defense or if they are a member of an impacted family We also had a one-eaten year Residential requirement to join the social equity program now After some of our discussions, I wanted to revisit residency before We spoke about this and I also wanted just a brief a Conversation about family as well So just a family member is a relationship to the impact is individual is a parent leave a guardian the sibling spouse child Mine a minor in the guardianship of Disciple or grandparents or grandchild. How does everybody feel with that those requirements of a Family member that has been impacted on someone being incarcerated you on to cannabis I'm need I see Yeah, I support that. I think I think that's something we need to include and I think it looks good All right. Thank you, Ashley. I Agree, I think that's a better definition of impacted family Leo Well, I'm new I'm new to all of this. I'm I'm working a little bit behind but it you're talking about Not just immediate parents and family, but Grandparents is that right? Yes, that's correct and any children Because we do realize that there are multi generational people in a family household so that those people can also be impacted and or Someone who is in guardianship of a minor who may not be necessarily their mother or father But these are not in lives or a sibling spouse. I know this is not in Unless they were the guardian of the minor Yeah I understand that I are you all looking at a maybe I'm just looking at the slide on the screen Is there another document that has Definition that I don't have that I could pull up off of Maybe the indication This is the definition that we're going to go by based on family Of the slide that you see that's a relationship to the impacted individual Which would be the parents the legal guardian sibling spouse child minor in the guardianship of a grandparent of grandchild Danika is that impacted family slide on this deck? I'm not sure Just yeah, I think it's slide 9 of 28. I was able to navigate forward There you go. I yes, um, that's the fight. I just had Okay, I is everybody seeing slide 9 Yeah, yeah, okay, I do know my I think my slide was not in not in sync But it is now so thank you sorry for that. I yeah, I don't have any concerns about that Okay, great and Susanna Yep comfortable with this thing and I'm just for everyone to be aware Susanna will be leaving at Half of the hour You ready? Now I just want to go back to residency So just to give you some perspective of residency that they have on required in other states It's normally for an opportunity zone so in Colorado They have at least 15 years and they chose the specific time frame which was between 1980s and 2010 where they found that there was at the most farm that was done in Colorado And that was before their legalization Then in Illinois for just for personally impacted areas is by that of the last 10 years In Massachusetts, they also have for just before showing impacted areas by that of the past 10 years for drug convictions, it is the last on 12 months and I'm Michigan may require at least they give a reduced licensing fee if you have a live there as the five out of the last 10 years I'm just gonna hand this over to Jeffrey because as Cannabis is new to the United States. There are changes all the time that are occurring and there have been some recent lawsuits Dealing with interstate commerce issues Jeffrey can you please give us some information about that? Sure. So I'll try to keep it This is kind of confusing a little bit the whole concept of the door dormant commerce clause applying to the cannabis industry So the dormant commerce clause says it that a state cannot so we're caught where the Congress has not Made an official ruling on on regulating interstate commerce The states can they have some flexibility to to regulate it But they can't do a state can't regulate it They can't a state can't regulate an industry in a way that would impact interstate commerce. Does that make sense? Okay, cool So so what's happening now is that? the states that are bringing forth these residency requirements some people that are that are from out of state that want to participate in The industry are suing saying that you're discriminating against me because I live out of state and I want to participate in this market and they bring it under the dormant commerce clause so what's confusing as far as cannabis goes is um is Congress has has expressly prohibited interstate commerce Cannabis and so I'm not quite sure how that would trigger the dormant commerce clause But these lawsuits are happening and there's one that just happened in the city of Detroit called low low versus city of Detroit Lowe and that judge I believe they ruled in favor of the plaintiff who uh who was bringing that against the interstate commerce clause So it's just the heads up that these red is the residency requirements can can possibly Raise an issue if it's an out of state person who wants to participate in the Vermont market Can can bring forth an action and sometimes they're winning so Just a heads up that that could happen. Does this all make sense? I feel like I'm doing word salad on the call This all makes sense Yes, no Thank You Jeffrey. I'm just gonna summarize that for everybody Right now interstate commerce is not allowed for cannabis I mean we cannot cross any cannabis into a different state However, some people are feeling that if they move to Vermont that they should have the same Opportunities of being a social equity Candidate and that is the question that we have around There are cases that are coming up But we're not really sure what the full determination will be on that But I've wanted everyone to be aware on this conversation obviously when Legal federal legalization happens with cannabis. This will be more of a concern um for Vermont which Can revise their standards at that time So just wanted to see how people feel about this residency requirement You know, do we do you want to just limit this to opportunity zones and not have them? You know based on two or three do we want to have one year? Do we want to have more than one year? Do we want to have no year? um Who would like to discuss residency first neither so How so if we're concerned Interstate commerce of cannabis Uh, if somebody is living here for a year How do how does that create liability for the state of vermont? I mean is the concern that they're Going to just get an apartment here for a year and then bounce back to massachusetts or another state. Is that what the concern is? um, the concern when interstate commerce is if someone came safe from massachusetts and Was now residing in vermont They're going to want the opportunity If they fit one of these qualifications for a social equity candidate Right now we would be limiting them and saying that you need to have At least lived in vermont for one year before you would be able to qualify as a social equity candidate And so having that time restriction of a year or more does that shield vermont from liability or It are are we concerned that I'm just trying to make the connection in my brain between the interstate commerce risk and the residency requirements so Jeffrey The um The concern is the potential for somebody living out of state currently that would move to vermont And claim that the state is discriminating against them because they're not a state resident. That's the concern Okay With that being said we do not know we don't have enough cases to say what the full determination will be on that We can only really give you information of what we've seen, but we want you to be fully informed before you make A recommendation With that being said, how do how do you feel nader about the one year residential requirement? I mean at this moment i'm still fine with keeping it at one year again Thank you nader. Uh, actually, how do you feel about the one year requirement? Um, we're looking at these other states, you know, I think these are all really good Requirements. I don't see why vermont honestly can't incorporate all of these. I think these are Well thought out. I think that it protects the residents Um in the state that they're residing I feel like i'm getting a little bit bogged down by interstate commerce, you know as well Nader so I don't want you to feel like You know, you're thinking short-sighted. I find myself thinking short-sighted because I feel like federal equalization is going to take forever So I'd rather do as much as we can to protect on a state level As long as we can But in the meantime, um, yeah, I like all of these requirements of increasing the residential requirement From one year. I want to make sure that Vermonters who have really been impacted in vermont are the ones that are benefiting the most You know, I can see that case and understand the parameters around that case that's happening that you mentioned jeffrey, but Um, like you said, you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. Um, you know, you said perhaps it's going in the plan of favor, um I think that's going to be tricky given the climate here in vermont. Um I certainly, you know know a lot of folks who are You know have had convictions here in vermont and Went out west and are thriving in a legal cannabis market both in colorado and in california They all did live there and established the residency In the states like in colorado specifically. Um, no, they're not going after Social equity Licenses, you know, that's that's not that these people are going after but they have established the residency In the states that they are working in currently in the legal market. So I don't think that's increasing it to You know two three, you know, I'd like to see five Um, I don't think that that's going to hinder that many people to be honest Um, and I think that in the spirit of vermont is it protects us and allows us To have a little bit more of an equal Um playing field to be honest Thanks Thank you, ashley. And would you like, um Two three or five years for all of the three categories that we indicated here Opportunity zones minorities and Prohibition and so arrest. Yeah. Yeah. I think all of these that are currently operating and other these are other dealing states as well I think it's really important There's a reason that they set these numbers and I think for us to try to go and reinvent the wheel Is a little silly Thank you so much for that. How do you feel about this? Um So I I took a look at the low decision that jeffrey mentioned. Um Which also cites a decision from last summer For portland main energy versus city of portland We're an out-of-state resident challenged portlands ordinance They also want a preliminary injunction that doesn't mean they've won the whole lawsuit But they were able to freeze at the outset of the lawsuit That out-of-state requirement on the same grounds, which is that it on a space discriminates against Uh people from out-of-state without Satisfying what in constitutional law is called strict scrutiny, which is a heightened level To show that the state has a strong interest that can't be addressed by reasonably addressed by other means Then that So, yeah, I don't know if anyone has had if any city or state has had A challenge where they defeated the challenge. Um, I'm only aware of two And the the government lost both times Um, so I I'm I'm a I'm a little uncertain because I'd like to see If there's an example of a court Going the other way. I mean You know, it's we know that vermont can't restrict the sale of maple syrup in the state to only vermont maple syrup um, and um It's other question to people who are in the state of vermont and so I think it's important if vermont is looking towards a residency requirement. I think I would be more comfortable hearing the reasons for Vermont's needs that are specific to vermont rather than relying upon another state what illinois did in illinois Um, doesn't really apply to what the the experience of folks have been in vermont. So I think it is worth exploring What the history has been in vermont specific because specifically because I think if there is a legal challenge We're going to have to demonstrate that track record and what illinois did is not going to be relevant to vermont's exercise of vermont government power so, um I'm a little at sea here because again, I don't know what the state of the legal Playing field is I know it's an issue and it's enough of an issue that two different I don't know if the low case was a federal case. I assume it was The um, the the the the portland main case was a federal case And I'm not sure where that what where they are right now whether there's It's unlikely that there was a you know a decision on an appeal so quickly so, um it seems to me that Some I mean because they're different and I don't want to take up too much airtime on this But I can imagine somebody who was as a as a young adult Being impacted by vermont's enforcement of miracle or of that's marijuana laws And then leaving vermont Maybe because of that Uh, and then returning to vermont and wanting to participate in the market um And that person would have something of a case to make about the impact of their lives But the residency requirement for for a period of time You know would be you know, it sounds like it would it would trip them up. So I'm I don't think my views are um You know my own views and I'm sitting in for the ag and I haven't spoken with them about This requirement, but my own views are a little Unformed yet Thank you. Julio those were great points. Um How I do see the requirement is that they had to have lived in the state for at least one year If they left and they came back, I think they would fulfill that one year requirement. Um But very good points that were made jeffrey. Did you want to add about the other court cases? These are just kind of starting to pop up. Um, the low case, I believe that's eastern district of michigan federal case. Um So there's there's not really a case law record yet kind of developing now um, rather than bringing an equal protection charge of bringing a dormant commerce clause and uh Yeah, I think that once it hits the appellate courts Maybe somebody will recognize that that the dormant commerce clause probably wouldn't even be triggered as of now But in planning ahead for for a future with interstate commerce just a heads up But yeah to answer your question There's there's nothing solid yet because it's all just coming down this year. It's all just happening now Susanna, how do you feel? I appreciate Julio's points a lot. Um, I I also agree that it's yes, um, one big thing is about sorry I sound like i'm talking really fast because I have to jump off Let me just go down for a second. Um, so I appreciate those points because Yes, it's about who's here and who has We stood all of the challenges of living here But also about who has been pushed away and why right and being able to do right by those folks too So I appreciate that point. Um and about the fact that you know, brahman is unique And so we've got to come up with something that that uniquely fits us I also would agree with ashley in that I wouldn't even mind necessarily raising it past a year a little bit But I don't want to I wouldn't want to see like I think five years will probably be excessive Because there's a presumption of stability Right and especially when we're talking about historically marginalized groups I think that it it may be inappropriate of us to presume a level of housing stability That would lead a person to have lived somewhere 15 years or for five years Whether it's consecutive or broken up So I would ask us to reconsider that the population we're really looking to lift up May not May not have the level of stability that we're assuming In order to qualify so I would just I would leave it at that and sorry to drop that and run away But I do have to to run but I'll look out for the minutes afterwards. I appreciate your your time with everyone Thank you, and that was a great comment. Susanna. Thanks So and nader after our conversation just now, how do you feel about the time requirement? So um susanna Articulated what was on my mind much better than I could Regarding the presumption of housing stability And that's why I predominantly lean towards the lower And when it comes to the years that we'd require for residency I mean I support one year, but I'm happy to agree the two years if that's uh What we lower looking at compromising that Okay, and uh, ukulele, um, how do you feel about the residency requirement? I think I I'm not sure about it. Um, like I said, I feel like I I need a little bit more background, um In in the portland main case The court issued the injunction against the residency requirements Even though earlier in the case The state of Maine said That they were not going to enforce the residency requirement According to the court because The attorney general for the state of Maine said that It had significant constitutional issues and likely would not be enforceable So, um, so it does it. I mean just looking at that court's decision and it wasn't just the opinion of The sole federal judge, but if the court is correct, I mean I haven't looked at the underlying Papers, but it sounds like the AG of the state of Maine agreed and told Or stated that for the entire state of Maine. They were not going to enforce that requirement um, so I'm I'm I'm hesitant again because I haven't seen anyone yet Make the challenge and say That challenge is legally meritless. Um and so, um That that's kind of where I am now. I mean, I it's one thing to Make it a requirement. It's another one if you are having Uh, you know, if if there's competitive if there's competition for the position Uh as to whether that might Offer you some points on the board, so to speak, but it's not a Uh a minimum requirement that necessarily excludes 49 states and dc and portorico, um Off the bat, but that they can compete and maybe there are other Points they can put on the board and still remain competitive Uh, I I'm I'm interested in and thinking about that as opposed to just throwing a line um, and uh, you know You know, I come at it again, but I'm a lawyer in the AG's office So I come at it from the standpoint that I would want to have Something that's not that's not going to um Hold up the you know the process here. I'm a legal challenge. So Uh, I I can't I can't say Firmly one way or the other. I'm just I'm just kind of undecided at this point because I feel like I need to know more Okay, thank you. I feel it's a good point and um, I see the nakers can raise One of the points that I do want to make is that I think that we need to take more time I'll be contacting everyone Um, independently to kind of give more information and more research for the Sunica Thank you. So the only question that I would like to pose for clarity Is to understand when we are talking a residency requirement How we define that residency requirement meaning is it the state or is it that you have to live in that same DIA area or many DIA areas within the required time period and I only say that because people who do not own homes Is that are considered middle americans and and lower incomes do move once a year? Typically because they are renting I could get the statistical pieces on that if we needed to prove it as it's coming from my my banking days So I think it's important that we note that that there's a state residency requirement And then there is a DIA residency requirement and I know that may sound confusing But if someone is a social equity candidate And they've moved five of the last five years but only lived in a DIA twice But perhaps when we fall into some of the same areas, I'm just putting that out there as something I think we need to clarify Very good point, Anika Can I follow that up? Yes, Jeffrey Um, and this will be the last comment that we make about the residency because we have to get to some other slides as well today And I think that we really need to hold off on that, but Jeffrey, yes Yeah, just to go along with what Anika said that though, you know, the with the eviction moratorium fails There's going to be a lot of people That would probably be targeted for social equity Benefits that would end up having to move anyway negative after this last year. We've had so just let's know the thought that I just It is and it's just not uncommon to move Especially if rents go up or you know life changes and there is a flexibility and mobility to not owning as well Thank you both. So, um, we're not voting on this. We're going to come back to this residency requirement um on our next call I I'm going to go to um supporting documents that we wanted for a social equity candidate just a proof of commission and court documents And then proof of residency, you know, we had a number of driver's license the voter registration card assigned lease agreement But I'm going to come back to this when we figure out if there's going to be residency or not requirements because then we might not need any of this Except for that first requirement The glorious fees What do we want? How can we reduce or eliminate licensing fees? um, and also application fees So we give you on sort of the city of Denver for colorado And what they're doing there um They have a city fee for delivery programs at 2000, but that's only opens the social equity candidate Their application fee is waived for all of social equity candidates And all of retail and additional licenses are 50% off for social equity In Illinois, so so as we the applicants get a 50% discount non-social equity So it's just 50% across the board In massachusetts, um, they have a waived application fee But do charge if they're for the cost of the background check And they also give 50% reduction of annual licensing fees regardless of the licensing type in michigan They have it a little bit of difference They have Three criteria That you can fall under So if you are from a disproportionately impacted community and resided there in the last five or ten years You get a 25 percent fee reduction If you were primary caregiver between 2008 and 2017 for at least two years you get a 10 percent reduction And if there was you had a conviction For misdemeanor, it's 25 percent reduction and for felony convictions. It's a 40 percent fee reduction To a max that you can receive is 75 percent Of their application and annual fees So what um, we kind of have what should it look like for remarks One of the recommendations is that obviously for a social equity Applicant that first year Would be the most expensive And that's one of the things that I really want us to consider when we're reviewing this right now A lot of states view that the application fees are waived Which can be a very good recommendation for the state of ramon I've put a couple of recommendations out here where it's a first year is waived The second year would be 25 percent of the fee the third year being 50 percent Fourth year being 75 percent of the fee and that fifth year which we're hoping to Make sure that these people are able to just stay on their own with legal price Another recommendation is doing the first year at 50 percent of the fee and then increasing it um 10 percent the 60 percent in the second year 70 percent in the third year 80 percent in the fourth year and once again saying that this year should be full price that we're hoping to establish that we are Whip reports and making sure that social equity Licensee holders saw that this year. They should be able to be stable and be able to pay Full price with that in mind. We have any other recommendations, you know, do you want that first year waived the second year 50 percent off? Do you only want it for two years? um Every everyone starts I will start um with Ashley, how do you feel about the discount? and I'm really glad that we are bringing this up because you know again like When we're talking about these applicants We're talking about these applicants for every step of the supply chain or just for retail. This is for every Aspect yeah, we can break it down if you would like I thought the easiest to do is just have something standardized for support right, so um I just wanted to clarify that a little bit because sometimes I forget myself like that a this industry is going to go on for years and years and years and do that um They will you know, whoever is at the different sections of the supply chain Are at some point another going to be making money and having a thriving business wherever they decide to enter into the industry So just want to make sure that that's clear Um, I agree with you the first year is the most expensive And I think would be the most advantageous for getting people That advantage, um, that will be needed in this competitive market. Um, I think perhaps even the second year we can increase those uh To 50% wading of the fees then um third year Or would you you know second year 75 percent third year 50 percent fourth year 25 percent and then Um that fifth year they're playing full price for their life Also keeping in mind too. Um, I haven't done the research, but maybe uh, maybe you guys would know um The licensing fees change at like with inflation like The way that licenses have been set as is for the existing industry. Let's say like in california Have those fees stays the same Have there been general increments of increase in fees as I just I don't know they have to do that I can't answer that solid right now either. Sorry I'm not sure Okay, I mean either way. I'll I think it would be on the state by state spaces. Yeah Yeah, it is very very expensive. Yeah Um So, yeah, I I think I think I like these I like the idea of these percentages. Um And I do agree that that first year should be waived the fees should be waived And are you okay with waiving that application fee or should there be some charge for that? That application fee is for get um your initial licensing fee Applying to get anyone Right. No, I understand that. I mean Like like we talked about it and it has talked about how can you do the most good, you know, um and create the most competitive applicants of this Group of people. I you know, I think I think it should all be waived that first year Um, if we can if we can get, you know committee support on that one Great. Thank you. And it seems like you are on the recommendation one Um, I see Sonika your hand raised Yes, the only um thing I'd like to add to that is if we have an idea of the hard costs To the ccp or to the state of vermont for processing an application or at least an estimation May also help us in some of this area as we continue these discussions Some things are going to have a physical hard cost and then some are well Everything is a hard cost when it comes to labor, but at the same time it's it's um, what is that application? Processing even look like Yes, Sonika. Thank you so much for that comment. Unfortunately. We're doing this along with the marketing fees and structures at the same time on so they haven't made a determination But they would like to know How we feel about social equity so that they can make appropriate fees across the board Nader, how do you feel about um application and licensing fees? So, uh, similar to what ashley said, you know, I I think it should be waived. Um, I think And so I'm primarily looking at recommendation one where the first year is waived My only concern is, you know, it takes a while to start turning a profit in any business and so my only Concern is, you know, after that first year if that business is Struggling more so than usual that 25 might be a big jump, which is why That's lower 10 percent Increment the lower 10 percent increments of recommendation two That's that's appealing, but I also want to see at least the first year wave Um, so I mean, I don't know how significant that difference between 25 percent versus Um, so rather I don't know how significant the difference is between the 15 year All right 15 jump versus the 10 percent jump Um But that's somebody Somebody has more business sense than I do that that might be useful For them to chime in So which are you saying for that second year you want them to pay only 10 percent of the application fee instead of 25 percent or 15 percent versus 25 percent Right. Sorry. I know I wasn't very articulate. Um, You know, I'm leaning generally more towards recommendation one But it's where As it's presented, but if anybody has any thoughts on whether or not the 25 percent Is a it might be too big of a jump for a business that's struggling after their first year I'd like to know but generally I lean towards recommendation one Okay Um, we can we can get you that information and julio, um, just if I could get your thoughts and Danika I'm just going to put you on hold for one minute. Um, and to speak at the public comment, but that's okay with you Yes, that's actually I was making sure we knew time was here. Thank you julio Um, so I thought a nadir made really good points here I would say that like I'm not sure like he's not sure that um startups Particularly ones that that may have had a the history of disadvantage would be able to turn the corner by the second year I think that And and who knows what the trajectory would Be for the third year. I'm sort of flying this a little blind because I don't have a sense of what How much the fees are? Um but I think that it would be I'm okay with recommendation one provided that It also includes a process for someone to seek a waiver of the fee They can demonstrate You know an appropriate level of financial hardship and so that it can be subject to evaluation Because someone might come in and have terrific success in the first year 25 wouldn't be much of a burden or it could be the third or fourth year but um I think that the number of Licensed persons or or their businesses Is likely not to be large and so large that that can't be something that could be evaluated by the board On an ongoing basis. I think it should be a little there should be Some kind of safety valve there. So if someone is um Really struggling then, you know, it doesn't really Be in the interest to have a license, you know, entity fail or have fees be A big part of, you know, the the failure or any kind of shortage And so that's where I am I think that's a great inclusion into this and nadir I just want to let you know that a lot of states does 50 percent After for that second year So just based on sort of the business aspect For social equity, I think us going at 25 percent is taking into consideration And and being very conservative with that price if that helps you nadir With your decision I think Um, I would like to have a vote now for recommendation one With putting in a stipulation that someone can apply for our financial hardship waiver If one it needed to do so um Um, how do you feel about that ashley? Gina? Can I interrupt you for a minute? We've got some people here who'd like to participate in the conversation and I would like to Save make sure we save time for that So it we may need to push off a vote until next week or next meeting Okay So I'm let's go to public comment We have a public comment. Yeah, come on up And Nellie if you can put the person's name in the chat box to come to speak please So this is ronald williams So I'll just start here. I prepared a little bit of a statement So yet my name is ron williams and along with my partner here max eingorn and our third co-founder Zach tyson make up mr. Z craft cannabis And is a majority black-owned cultivator based in middlebury vermont where we currently live full time We practice sustainable organic growing techniques We've come today to ask committee not to include the requirement of one-year residency Prior to licensure for social equity applicants and to modify it simply to require state residency period We believe that the committee should ensure that not only is vermont the vermont cannabis market equitable But that it remains attractive for young diverse communities that are currently underrepresented in the state It is no secret that vermont does not only faced with the dearth of people of color But also of young working people A one-year residency requirement for social equity applicants could prevent us And other young people of color from moving to the state and establishing long fulfilling lives as vermont cannabis entrepreneurs As an example my partners and I are childhood friends from new york city Notably at the height of stop and frisk, which is a policy that by the way has personally affected me We attended colleges bordering and in vermont where we fell in love with the state You know why we moved here faced with massive student loans and one of the worst job markets in american history We did what we were supposed to do and pursued relatively well-paying careers in tech finance and law We are entirely self funded and you know using the help of friends and family as well We do not accept any venture capital period This means we had an extremely difficult time finding a location without the use of a mortgage is notably because that's illegal Um, you know paying for construction other crucial steps in the process of establishing a business On top of that this state is currently experiencing a housing crisis, which uh, you know nader noted as well To deal with a one-year residency requirement would be a serious barrier to entry at this point in any young company any young person's journey You know the three of us moved here to pursue our passions and to become Active participants within the vermont cannabis community and our local communities And to immerse ourselves, you know in the beauty of the state You know and it would be a shame to see us and other young people that look like us prevented from participating You know because of a one-year Residency requirement In fact, we have friends who would actively come up here to help participate and uh, They need assurance that they will have a place for them. You know and uh, you know We hope the community does the right thing here and it makes us a truly inclusive, you know market for all Um, and that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you very much Any is there any other public comment I'm glad you're here Dave no You know about bci, don't you? No, pfc The uh, vermont corrections industries. Oh, yeah, the ones that are making all of this nice furniture for us Hey, it's uh mark Hughes again I'm uh with the vermont racial justice alliance and we are one of the members of the vermont cannabis equity coalition and um So, yeah, we're i'm almost finished with our full comments on the breath of the discussion with With equity There are um Can you hand me that computer, please? I think I got some notes in there There's a couple a couple things. I just wanted to go back to and then there's a couple things I wanted to address again We're running up against a time crunch because none of the stuff that we're doing here is reasonably We reasonably expect to accomplish But I would like to take a couple minutes in h414 that we left on the wall in government operations this year There were three Components of h414 and we talked a little bit about it last time I was here One was the cannabis Business development fund itself And there doesn't seem to be any conversation about the cannabis business development fund and before I go into anything Gina is there any um something on the agenda in the future? I have that conversation because I can just um move on if there is Okay, okay. Yeah, we we just haven't gotten we haven't gotten into it. Okay. I'm just trying to get the Foundation right now. Okay. Well, the the reason why I brought it up is is that's pretty foundational because that's where all the money is So um, so yeah, we can come back to that um then um And talk about its sustainability. The other thing is is the community social equity program itself the community social equity program Which seems to be right now being fused Together with this social equity applicant process Again, gina not talk to you on the spot. It's good to see you again Is there a conversation that we will be having about the community social equity program? Yes as it pertains to h414 Yeah, we will okay Thank you so much for that. That'd be great. Those comments would be appropriate then and then as far as Funding the social equity program The the last part of h414 spoke to um specifically spoke to the the whole idea of Integrated license holders um and through the integrated licensing process that in addition to the fees required for contribution to the cannabis development fund Um That it was also provisions that will provide an option for integrated License holders to choose from additional contribution options Including the vermont community college cannabis industry training fund the jobs training program And also the reentry Or and and I think the other one was host cannabis business establishment incubator. So are we Is there any conversation that we're having on h414 or any other programs Like these that would be applicable. Um, or are we are those like later or or no? We will be discussing integrated licenses which you Know are not a guarantee of funding and we will be talking about Ways on how we can spend that cannabis development fund and integrated ways with like incubator program But we've first needed to establish what the candidate was and what benefits That they will be getting okay, so Next week we're hoping to get up to the benefit Which will then start discussing licenses and then we will Then proceed hopefully the following week on when How to what to do with those funds right appreciate that so when it So obviously today's discussion There is a huge intersection on market structure licensing taxes and fees that particular group So um What we're what i'm trying to get after is is i'm just trying to better understand this whole um, There's There's there's recommendations for um Some kind of approach to addressing discounted fees here But there hasn't really been a market structure established in terms of licensing I guess all of this stuff has to just play itself out parallel In order to meet our deadlines right in order to meet our deadlines because we're in a hurry Okay, um and um Regarding low versus the city of detroit, um if I think um Julio is still on um It looks like a local control license Case actually Not a statewide social equity case So there would be a criteria established for licensing Carblage and then there would seem to be a separate criteria required for social equity applicants so I think there's a There's some confusion because in the city of low with low with detroit That It was a local control on a license not a social equity applicant So technically the social equity applicant Who was denied in detroit could apply for a license? With no equity qualifier So I don't think that that particular case is apples with these apples I think it's more like oranges And I think that um It's perfectly fine to establish a different criteria for a social equity applicant As opposed to a criteria for just a regular license applicant And I think really what it bumps up against Is is what my steam colleague was just seeing earlier is is that I think if i'm not mistaken They're looking for a social equity applicant application Um, there would be nothing to preclude them from doing business in this state without such Um, because they would just have to qualify under the regular application process And I think that the criteria That was a staff that we are seeking to establish for social social equity applicants um is I think it is being Created to be more stringent So as to avoid situations where folks who come from out of the state Maybe taking advantage of a program and denying folks who are in the state access to that same program So I think that's the delineation As far as folks being impacted It is my personal opinion that it doesn't make any difference in what 50 state a person has impacted It seems as though they ought to be able to realize the same benefits here in the state of vermont because we are a part of the united states So, um, that's all I'll say for now. I'm glad that we're going to get to these other parts about, uh Well actually since we're here. No, I won't do that to you that's all I'm going to say now Thank you very much Have a great afternoon Is there any other public comment There's no one behind me. I think that's it for public comment today Okay, excellent. Gina. Is there anything else that we're five after the hour or Um, would we like to follow up in email correspondence Yeah, we're following the email Okay, excellent Motion to adjourn Not or Everybody wants to leave If they want to come up the rest of your presentation Everybody loves social equity. That's why uh, can we Can uh, we cannot be the um That's All right, yeah So we'll try this one more time. Can we have a motion to adjourn? Always And I think we lost Ashley Uh, Nathan or Julio Thank you, thank you Thank you No, everybody loves social equity Have a great day