 Good morning. This is Houseways Means. It is May 12th, Thursday. No, Wednesday, Wednesday. And yesterday felt like two days to me. I see that Michelle Childs is with us. And she is going to start us off on our next. Hi, how are you. On our next bill. So I'm going to go ahead and get started on that. That is S 25, the campus bill. And you've been in our committee before, if you can give us, you know, a high level. Run through on the bill. Section on fees, which is what what the bill is. Do you have any comments on that? Sure. I would like to hear just an overview of everything that's in the bill. I think if you don't mind a Senate's on each section or each issue. Okay. Something brief, but yeah, I think it'd be good. Sure. And, and can you remind me. Do you all like to see documents up on there? No, I don't. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if this is unless there's unless it just simply doesn't work, but assume that we got it up on our. Okay. All right. Great. Except I'm. Getting mine up. Sure. Go ahead. So I will, I will be quick. Because I know because it's a little lengthy. So I'll just give you a sentence or two on those. And so this is the house government operations committee. And the first section is, please see the bill. And, and the legislation. That's the bill, or what you passed last year, establishing the adult use commercial cannabis regulatory system. So section one is simply a. A technical clarification with regard to regulation of. By local government. And it's just clarifying. retailer or the retail portion of an integrated license, so an integrated license is one where you can do all stages of from cultivation through sale. So that's just a technical clarification. Section two, this has to do with the cannabis control board, the duties, the members. There is one provision in there that's just clarifying that with regard to the removal process by the other board members that the board is to adopt rules under the APA that define the basis and process for removal, again, kind of, I think, more of a technical. There is an amendment to the advice, a couple amendments to the advisory committee and those are folks who are not part of the, they're not board members, but they are selected by various appointing authorities, whether it's the speaker or the committee on committees or such, and those folks are, as it sounds, to advise the board on a number of issues. The changes there are, that they added, the primary changes are that they added two new members to that advisory committee, and that's the chair of the cannabis committee. Excuse me, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jordan, following along and didn't look. Go ahead. Well, I just wonder if Michelle could tell us where she is in the bill. She's just sort of running through, but if she could tell us what section she's in, as she's describing something that might be helpful. I'm in section two. Oh, it's page, page three. Therefore, page three. Yep. And so I'm looking at the addition of two new members to the advisory committee. So that's the chair of the Cannabis for Symptom Relief Oversight Committee or Designee and one member appointed by the Vermont Cannabis Trade Association. Those, that is the professional organization for the dispensary. So adding two new members to the advisory committee. There's also one change there, which is just bumping out the date for when the advisory committee has to convene. It was originally designated as May 1st. As you know, the Cannabis Control Board was late getting appointed and started. And so that's just bumped out to July 1st for the committee to meet. Section three is just adding advertising fees to what goes into the Cannabis Regulation Fund. I'll talk about in a few minutes. There is a new regulatory scheme for advertising. So we recall that last year there, the the bill that passed directed the Cannabis Control Board working with the Attorney General's Office to come up with a proposal for advertising. And and so that is contained in here. And it is essentially the what was voted out of House government operations last year, but did not make it across the final finish line. The Attorney General's Office testified in support of that language. And so that's what's contained in here. And so part of that was an advertising review fee. So anyone who any licensee that comes before the board, prior to them being able to publish an advertisement, they have to go before the board and have the advertisement reviewed and approved. The next section is section four. And this is getting more to the heart of your area. That is an amendment to section five of Act 164. Section five was a long list of things that the board was to report to the General Assembly on primarily by April 1st of this year. But because of the delay in getting the board appointed, obviously, they they weren't able to meet that that deadline. And and so this section, what section four does is it essentially removes the it immense Act 164 with regard to reporting by the board to the legislature for the fees on April 1st. And then I'll show you in section four, a where that law where that language is what the when it's substituting. There's also just a small tweak there that Act 164 had the board reporting by April 1st on resources necessary for implementation of the Act for FY 22 and 23. And that's just been changed to 22 for now. So section four A is page seven. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can I jump in with a question on that? So is the recommendation on resources necessary for implementation for fiscal year 22 been done? Or does that date need to be pushed out as well? They I would say it's contained in this bill because there are they have requested a couple of new positions. Funding is not an issue for them with regard to those positions at this point. They said because they have a surplus of money because there was such a late start to the board and the money that was appropriated, they have some extra money in there. So right now they're just looking for approval for two extra positions. OK, so this bill goes to the Appropriations Committee, though. Yes, in terms of an operating budget, just trying to is this section calling for an operation operating budget for fiscal 22? Is that what is that what it's saying? I don't I don't know. I was just looking the resources necessary for implementation of this act and trying to understand what that is. Is that a budget request? I don't think it was anything. I don't when you're using certain terms, I don't usually use. I may not be familiar, but I think it was generally to be proposing, you know, do they need additional positions? Do they what do they need to be carrying things out all over FY 22? Thank you. So Section four is the top of page seven, and this is what is essentially the alternative to what you had passed last year. So because it was impossible for the board to come to you with recommendation of these during the legislative session, assuming that we are adjourning when we're adjourning, is the alternative here is that on or before September 1st of this year, the Cannabis Control Board is to provide draft recommendations to the Joint Fiscal Committee for approval on those same fees. So it includes all the fees that were contained in Act 164. So whether it's state fees or local fees, application fees, all of all of that. It also would include the new fee. And they're also to be reporting on whether money is expected to be generated by state fees are sufficient to support the statutory duties of the board or whether or not any portion of the taxes that were established need to be allocated to the fund to make sure that that they can carry on their obligations. Again, that was language that was passed in 164 that's just repeated here. So subsection B is that upon upon receiving the proposal, Joint Fiscal Committee is to review them recommendations and provide feedback to the board for any suggested changes. And the board is to revise the the proposal if necessary to incorporate the committee's recommendations and then present a draft for approval to the Joint Fiscal Committee. And then I was standing 603 and Title 32, the fees would take effect upon approval of the committee. And so this is just a one year kind of stop gap measure. And then after that, it would become part of the normal kind of process between the administration and the general assembly on presentation of fees and then general assembly approving the fees. So it's just to try to get through this one year because you have applicants being licensed in the spring of twenty two. And so there's, you know, if you don't have the fees in there, there's a lot of uncertainty leading up to the application process. And so it would just be for this one year. Some things just to note. And I consulted with our our our attorneys who regularly work on these issues because not typically my field. So it's talking with with Abby and Becky and then via. I modeled this language primarily after what is in title twenty two with regard to the web portal. And there's a process there for that's very similar to this with Joint Fiscal Committee approving fees. And it's you could also look at like last fall with with the CRF funds. So it's kind of a similar model where when the general assembly is not able to, then the Joint Fiscal Committee can represent the the general assembly. And unless you also have a provision in thirty two, six or three, you know, six or three subdivision two that allows for Joint Fiscal Committee to adjust fees when necessary. So we feel as though it's a it's an allowable use of the Joint Fiscal Committee because and then there's not a separation of powers issue because it's the still the committee approving them rather than the administration set setting them. I just for people who are on the committee when we dealt with the web portal, just there's not a lot of us left, I think, from those days. But that was that that was an issue that was discussed a lot in this committee, not and not not acceptable to the committee, to this committee. And we eventually ended that process of having those fees set other than by the legislature. So that the web portal was a particularly controversial issue in here. So so I think I think this is an area that the delegation issue is. And it's I understand we're not delegating to the executive. We're delegating to a committee of the legislature. But it's an issue that I think bears a little discussion. Emily. Curious, what is the web portal? So so I can tell you the little bit. I don't know if there's any I don't know if Graham was involved with that or not. I think it may have predated you. It's basically a a private for profit entity that was contracted to provide web portal services for a number of state agencies, including motor vehicles and motor vehicles, sort of one of the more notable ones. And in the the original agreement with with them, I can remember the name of the organization, Vermont, something or other. But it was a for profit corporation. And they had the authority to set fees for access to the portal. So in that set, in that case, they were setting fees for somebody to access this private operation. So it was a little bit a little bit different from what we're talking about here. Here, we're talking about straight on government service and fees that are. And that would be paid by somebody who wants. Wants to thank you. And then my other question is, and I was. Spared this conversation in ways and means last year, I think, when this bill was moving through. So I'm curious. I know that lots of deadlines have moved, but why we don't. Why we're not starting with just sort of estimated fees that we could correct later. But if that conversation came up when this bill was drafted or when it was in. Of course. Sure. So so developing the fees is you can certainly look to other states for that. Things like that. But one of the things that to kind of start with and and Graham can can fill you in on how they start to kind of figure all that out. But as you have to figure out, what is the appropriate, what's the capacity for Vermont with regard to how much cannabis should be to be grown and how much should there be in the state? So and it's, you know, it's an imperfect science. They are trying to determine that. We had years ago when the first commercial cannabis bills were moving. We had a study that had been done by the RAND report that kind of did a lot of that work and kind of. And but it's we can't really use that now because at the time there weren't any other states in the Northeast that had legal cannabis markets and they were anticipating a lot of people coming from other places to purchase in Vermont. But you have to kind of look at, well, what would you know, how many, how many acres, how much cannabis should be grown? So and then you divide that up into how much cultivation space, how many harvests and all of that. And you kind of use that data to determine how many permits how much is going to be grown and then you're going to start working with the the how many applications and what should the price of those be and kind of tear all of those things. And and so the conversation last year was just that that involved a level of expertise and information that at the time the General Assembly didn't have. And also because the cannabis market is really changing so quickly, you know, with Massachusetts online and Maine online. And now we've got New York coming online shortly. And so the question is so they thought that the board having this particular expertise would be better able to recommend with more accuracy kind of where those target fees should be with and kind of balancing, obviously, needing to raise the revenue to run the the duties of the board because the board is only supported by the fees. There's no tax money that goes to support the board unless you need to kind of backfill it and then balancing that with making sure that you don't either have, you know, not enough and you've got lines stretching down the block, you know, for days or whether or not you have too much. And you wind up something like Oregon where you've got three years of supply of cannabis sitting in barns. So, Tim. Yeah, I think you just answered the question, Michelle, but thank you. You've used the term balance a couple of times and is at the end of the day is the is the intention to balance what's grown with in state need and also in other places to buy here so that somehow rather not just straight market, but through this mechanism, we balance what's grown with what's going to be used here. So we don't end up with a surplus or a deficit, you know, lack thereof. Right. So how do you how do you try to target to have the appropriate amount there to to meet demand, but not to have an oversupply and. And is the intention that the fee would fees that are applied would help via using the term balance over and over again. But the balancing factor, a mitigating factor to oversupply under supply. It would cost me too much to get a permit. I won't bother growing the stuff. Well, I think the the overall stated goal of one sixty four many times is the legislature said there a lot of one of the primary goals is to try to move as much of the illegal market into the regulated market. So I think it's not so much to keep people out, but it's to try to move the existing market into a regulatory scheme. And so so I think they're really going to try to balance that. You also have some other priorities in Act one sixty four around supporting small cultivators again that goes to moving the illegal market into the regulated market. And and so well, this is very helpful. And I see rep again and nodding his head up and down up and down, you know. So so thank you. This all makes sense. Sure. So they continue. Yes, please. OK, Section four B is some new reporting requirements for the board for as of for November 1st of this year. And the first one is recommendations as to whether integrated licensees and product manufacturers should be permitted to produce solid concentrate products with greater than 60 percent THC for purposes of incorporating into other cannabis products that meet the restrictions that you put in place for prohibited products. So you have an Act one sixty four. There are certain prohibited products that are higher THC products. And the question is, is can there be a certain the production of certain concentrates that you then incorporate into something that the end product doesn't have that high THC? But it's but it's essentially, you know, so it's just used as an ingredient. The second one is a recommendation developed in consultation with the Agency of Agriculture as to whether the board should permit hemp or CBD to be converted to Delta nine THC. And if so, how it should be regulated. Section four sees the establishment of two new positions, one being a full time exempt general council position, and the second one being a full time classified administrative assistant. And as I mentioned before, the board is not requesting any appropriation at this time for those positions. So now the next few sections have to do with advertising. And so I'll just kind of group them together and just to mention so like section five is adding the new definitions for advertising and then moving on to section six, which starts on page 15. This is the heart of the advertising section. And again, this is the exact language that was passed out of House government operations last year and was on the floor. Then there was a floor amendment that passed banning all advertising. When the bill was in conference, the Senate had was concerned about constitutionality and the Attorney General had issued some kind of had said that they were concerned about the constitutionality of a complete ban. And so what was settled on is to ask the board and the AG to come back to you by April 1 of this year with a proposal that met your needs around making sure that it's not, you know, marketing to kids, that it's not promoting over consumption, things like that, that they're not essentially kind of encouraging and promoting cannabis use, but allowing some type of advertising and commercial speech. And so the Attorney General's office, again, because the board was not formed yet, so they couldn't do that collaboration. So the Senate had the Attorney General's office in and then the House government operations did as well. And the Attorney General's office promoted and supported the adoption of the House government operations language from last year. They said that they thought that it was while it was, you know, quite strict in comparison to other other states, they felt as though it was defensible and they did not feel that way about a complete ban. Emily. The fees connected to the review of advertisements and I can sort of get my head around this for a billboard. But we don't have billboards or even a newspaper ad. I'm trying to sort of imagine what that process would is how much this process is described in statute for individuals, say, web ads and how a fee would be attached to each of those and how much sort of modification of the ad requires a new review and how much of that's being left to the board to figure out. Sure. So just wanted to mention that when you're talking like billboards or newspapers, those are completely off the table because provision in here that says that campus establishments are not permitted to advertise their products via any medium unless they can show to the board that not more than 15 percent of the audience is recently expected to be under 21 years of age. And so there are other states that have it at a 70 30 split. So it's so just so you know, there's not just to be clear with everybody, there's not going to be big roadside signs and things like that. There is a provision in subsection E in here that all advertisements have to be submitted to the board on a form or in a format prescribed by the board prior to dissemination. And then the board basically has a review and can either require a specific disclosure or amendments to the tweaks to the ad, things like that to make sure that it's in compliance with the statutory requirements also with any rules that are adopted by the board with regard to advertising and marketing. And I think with regard to kind of the back and forth and, you know, we're going to ask you change it and resubmit it and things like that, that's not specified in statute. So the board may kind of suss that out a little bit in rules. But but it's not prescribed to that level about whether I think in general, the way that I've read it is that there's kind of like a one time fee associated with submitting your your advertisement. But I think it would be for the board. The board will come back to the joint fiscal under this proposal. The board will come back to the joint fiscal committee with recommendations for those fees. So if there was more than one fee upon initial submission, they would indicate that and it would be up to the Joint Fiscal Committee to approve or disapprove. And I guess my question is, is it per advertisement that they're seeking approval and paying a fee in the statute or is it per organization that wants to advertise per advertisement? So all each advertisement. So section seven is just kind of a repeat. And I know you all hate that stuff, but some committees like it of language with regard to youth. So there are some provisions in the advertising section that pertain to to youth. And there's also a youth section in Act 164. And this is just kind of cross referencing that section. Eight is just adding something into the rulemaking for the board that they are to be developing rules on advertising and marketing. Section nine is adoption of those same advertising restrictions for dispensaries. So you have the the adult use in one chapter and dispensaries in another. So this is that they but the advertising provisions are the same section. I'm sorry, they're there are restrictions currently on dispensaries. Am I right that is it an outright prohibition? It's an outright prohibition. That has done been done by rule for through DPS has always been questionable. I think it's but it's just there's only five dispensaries, nobody has challenged it. So this basically changes the rule for for for everything that dispensary does. Yes. Section 10 is on the cultivation. And so the integrated licensees, which are just would be available, there's only potentially five to the existing dispensaries to have an integrated adult use license. They go they are in in the queue first for licensing, along with small cultivators and testing labs. And so there is a period of time for for arguably potentially six months where an integrated licensee may be selling cannabis to the public before the retailers come online in the fall. And so there's a provision on page 21. What you see is that between August 1st and October 1st, 25 percent of cannabis flowers sold by an integrated licensee is to be obtained from a licensed small cultivator, if available. So if they are able to purchase and then they are required to have 25 percent of it come from outside. Section 11, and so this is starting a few sections on social equity. And this one is specifically with regard to fees. So when the Cannabis Control Board makes their recommendations to the Joint Fiscal Committee with recommended fees, they're to propose a plan for either seeing or eliminating license fees for individuals from communities that have historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. Or individuals directly and personally impacted by cannabis prohibition. So those terms, those are terms that were used in Act 164. I realize that they people it causes a little consternation for folks. Well, you know, who exactly does that mean? That's going to be up to the board to be determining that. So they're going to so they would be proposing reduced or eliminated fees for some folks. Section 12 is creating a new chapter, chapter 39 for cannabis social equity programs. And essentially, this is creating the Cannabis Business Development Fund. And the fund is to be comprised of two things. The first one is going to be three percent of the gross sales made by integrated licensees prior to October 15th of next year, with a maximum contribution of $50,000 per integrated licensee. So so in that time period before the other retailers come on board. So the and this would be this isn't taking money away from any existing pot. It would be on top of. So whatever the gross sales are for the dispensary or for the integrated licensee, they would take three percent of those gross sales and then they would contribute to this business development fund. And there would be a cap of $50,000 per license. And then the second one would be monies allocated to the general to the fund by the General Assembly. And there is a $500,000 appropriation in the bill for for the fund for FY 22. So so their gross sales prior to October 2022. Am I right that that doesn't include the medical sales that they have? It's just the just the integrated license. So it's kind of like if they're going to the idea being that if they have kind of a head start on adult use sales, this is, you know, they're returning some of those profits and putting them into the cannabis business development fund. But then but the dispensary license is a completely different thing. All that money is the same. I mean, it's the dispens is the folks with the dispensary license who are eligible for the integrated license. Am I right about that? Yes. So it's the same only sales of the. It's only sales made by the integrated license for this. Yes. But it's the same licensee. So we keep all that money separate. And so it's their recreation, their adult use sales prior to October. Twenty twenty two, which is really going to be just next summer. Next, whatever. Yeah, for the period in which they're able to operate before the other ones are on. Yep. I'm fine. When can they when can they? What is the date that they can start selling for adult use? The earliest possible date. The earliest date that they could be licensed would be April 1st. So it's the sales between April 1st and October 15th. OK, I'm just trying to get a sense of what it is. Yeah. So the funds to be used for providing low interest rate loans and grants to social equity applicants to pay for ordinary necessary expenses to start and operate a licensed cannabis establishment to pay for outreach that may be provided or targeted to attract and support social equity applicants to assist with job training and technical assistance for social equity applicants and to pay for necessary costs incurred in administering the fund. It's also a revolving loan fund so that amounts from loans that are required to be repaid, provide additional funding through the fund. And that gets managed by home. This is a CCD. So the next section is so a CCD is to develop a program using funds from there for the purpose of providing the financial assistance loans and grants. And let's see. The agency may procure by contract all or part of the necessary underwriting, execution, administration services required. And should the agency be unable to do so, the program shall not move forward until the General Assembly appropriates the operational resources necessary for the agency to do so. OK, there is a reporting requirements. The cannabis control hand up. Sorry. I'm sorry. Emily. Shall the agency be unable to do so? When I first read it, it sounded to me as if that was about they couldn't find sort of the right subcontractor for it. But then the resolution is that we're appropriating resources for it. So I guess I'm can you explain that a little bit more? I might have to punt that one to represent hand. I was not I was not in committee for that one testimony. So. So thank you, Madam Chair. John Gannon represented from Wilmington for the record. So representative Kornheiser, we heard we talked to a CCD and actually took their testimony committee, which the Senate did not. One of their concerns was, well, they provide grants to a number of different entities through a number of different programs that they typically do not provide loans. And so they believe that they needed to outsource that. The problem is outsourcing it is a challenge because cannabis is still illegal at the federal level and there are many banking issues around cannabis. So that is why this language is in here is that while there are at least two Vermont banks or credit unions that do provide services to cannabis companies, the dispensaries, you know, they had not gone far enough to determine whether one or more of those could provide those services. And so if they can't, then they would need resources in house to provide for the loan part of the program. So a CCD would need resources in order to create a whole new loan program internally, since there was no way for them to if they can't outsource it, yeah, because it's not for the outsource it. OK, thank you. That makes more sense to me. So the the introductory clause, should the agency be unable to do so, that's referring to contracting. I wasn't at that way. I wasn't sure what it meant. Yes. OK. So there is a reporting requirement for the board in consultation with the advisory committee, a CCD and the executive director of racial equity to report to the General Assembly on or before January 15th of 23 and then by NLE after regarding the implementation and application of this particular chapter, including data on the number of applicants, number of recipients, number and amounts of loans and grants and the identification of continuing barriers to accessing the cannabis market for social equity applicants. And the information is to be presented in a way that they can track it over time. Section 13 is directing the Cannabis Control Board in consultation with the advisory committee, a CCD and executive director of racial equity to develop criteria for social equity applicants for purposes of obtaining the loans and grants and the board is to provide the criteria to the General Assembly, not later than October 15th of this fall. And that one, I will just say there's a lot of I'm sure you all have in some ways dealt with some of these issues around how to identify social equity folks in different contexts. And there are a lot of ideas and it got fairly complicated and a lot of different key points. And so they were the committees were looking to have some recommendations as a starting point where were you talking about the I got lost. I'm sorry, I was reading. I'm sorry. On just the who is is who is a social equity applicant? I think that's what I was just saying is why it's having these folks kind of work together and then make a recommendation back to the General Assembly is because there was a lot of time on that in the Senate and they just got kind of stuck. And yeah, I heard I heard all that. I was head to Section 14. That's not what you were talking about. I'm sorry. I just I went ahead. I was listening and reading and you have not talked about Section 14 yet. Is that right? I have not. OK. Representative Coordinizer had a hand up. So I didn't want to move yet. That's fine. Emily, go ahead. Going back to Section 12, sorry. Curious why what the thinking was on this sort of complicated three percent of gross sales between these particular time periods rather than just a sum of money. Such as the $50,000 maximum contribution. Maybe for Repgan and I don't know their original folks have been working on it and this is kind of a proposal that came to me. I don't know. So that that would represent of Cornhizer came from the Senate and we did not take tests money with respect to that. OK, and then one other question. Did you have a conversation about Vita rather than ACCD? Yes, Representative Cornhizer, we did with ACCD. We discussed with them and the conversation we had about Vita is Vita would not be able to provide services because of the other services they provide because that was ACCD's first thought about who to subcontract with. And they determined that that was impossible because of the federal rules and the loan programs that currently have. Yes, I represent Cornhizer. I will say, I think that the 3% with the cap of 50,000 per was part of what was recommended by the coalition of racial justice folks. And I think it's an H414 as well. So I think that might. So that doesn't answer like who came like why that originally. But it's it's that's been the kind of formula that's been out there floating around for a while. Thank you. Sometimes the path is helpful. So Section 14. So this is for FY 22, 500,000 transferred from General Fund to the Cannabis Business Development Fund. And then Subsection B is then appropriating that money from the fund to ACCD to make loans and grants. So now I am a little bit confused, but. So the the General Fund. Is going to fund this Business Development Fund. And that's the same fund that we were putting the 3%. Yes, it's the fund is made up of two things, appropriations from the General Assembly and as well as the monies from the integrated licensees. And if 500,000 is coming from the General Fund and there's this additional money, maybe this is a timing question. Why is it just 500,000 that's going to ACCD? Because it's going to have more than that in there, right? It's going to have 500,000 plus the 3%. Right. I don't know. Good question. So so I have to think about that when it's an appropriations. It's probably I think that because the timing of the other one is October. So I guess there has to be a mechanism for for transferring that over. So I think, right, I think that's probably a gap there. That should be addressed. Right. And I get this to probably be an appropriation question, but we do appropriate money to funds. So I don't know that we need to appropriate it to ACCD and then to the fund. I think we can do it directly to the fund. That was the that was the way that's the Senate appropriations wanted it. So well, on the money stuff, I'm just like, you tell me what you need. So OK. So Section 15. So you recall that last year. So what you have is you have the medical program is currently and has been since its inception in 2004 under the authority of the Department of Public Safety, and so they run the program. And and Act 264 has the medical program, the registry, the dispense regulation of dispensaries, everything moving over on March 1st of 2022. What Section 15 does is it moves it over to the board two months earlier. So as of January 1st. And so that would include not only the the authority to regulate those programs, it would also be the Cannabis Registration Fee Fund that exists so that there is this fund where the the fees that are paid by the dispensaries as well as the annual fees for patients and caregivers. All goes into that fund to run that program itself sustaining. There's no money that is allocated from the General Assembly to run that program. So that fund will shift over to the board as well, and as well as the positions and that are running the program. And so that will be two months earlier. What will happen is that during that time, that brief amount of time, the the medical program will continue to operate under the existing statutes and their existing rules because the new ones don't take effect until March 1st. And that is what was originally established in Act 164. And because of the delay with the with the board getting rolling, they still have to develop the rules for the medical program. And so you don't want to kind of move that up too early. And so they would continue to operate under their existing statutes and rules for that in our own time. And the funds being combined or they kept separate but under the purview of the single board. I think that it's going to be it's my understanding is it would just shift over and it would be a separate it would be a separate fund. Then Section 16 is just repealing the language in Act 164 that has it moving over March 1st. Section 16A is the Medical Cannabis Oversight Advisory Panel. So currently there is a a Cannabis for Symptom Relief Oversight Committee that exists in current law for the medical program. Act 164 in repealing the whole statutory scheme and then creating a new one took away took that that oversight committee out. And the general so the House Government Operations Committee heard some testimony about from folks saying that they thought that there still should be that type of committee that's focused entirely on providing medical cannabis to patients. And so the but the issue is that the the current medical statutes are fairly restrictive. And so that's why they're generally repealed and their and new ones are coming into play. And they don't necessarily make sense in light of an adult use market. So, you know, an example is for medical patients have to make an appointment to go to a dispensary, right? But if under the adult use, you can just walk into any retail store, doesn't really make sense necessarily that you restrict patients in ways that they wouldn't be if they walked into a retail store. And so and so the idea is to kind of reconstitute this oversight committee that better reflects the cannabis landscape now. And so you'll see that in the twenty twenty twenty twenty two's legislative session, General Assembly intends to establish the Medical Cannabis Oversight Advisory Panel and request that the Cannabis Control Board submit its recommendations for the membership and duties of the panel to the General Assembly on or before November 1st of this year. So the current panel, the current oversight committee has a lot of representation by law enforcement. So again, you know, it was originally created quite a while ago when the focus was there was a big focus on law enforcement regulation of the medical program before cannabis had been decriminalized and then subsequently legalized here. So looking at and saying, what should this oversight committee look like in the future? Section 17 has to do with highway safety. So there is language in title 20 that requires all law enforcement officers to be to have a minimum of 16 hours of training of what's called a ride training. It's advanced roadside impaired driving enforcement training. And they were supposed to have that by December 31st of the end of this year. And that's been changed to December 31st in twenty twenty six. Next section is section 18. So in at one sixty four, you designated 30 percent of the excise tax to be going to substance misuse prevention funding. That was in session law. What section 18 does is it codifies it in title 32. And it also adds a couple of things, noting that that if there's any unexpended monies at the end of the fiscal year, the balance carries forward. And then also that any carry forward is to be in addition to revenues allocated for some misuse prevention programming, not as a substitute. Section 19 repeals that session law. George. Yeah, back in session section 17. I'm wondering about pushing out the law enforcement training for five years. It seems like an awfully long time that will have people on the roads with marijuana. And I just wonder what the thinking was of making it that far out. Representative Gannon, do you want to take a stab at that? Sure. Thank you. So part of the thinking here was that we talk to the Vermont Criminal Justice Council about their their A-Ride training program. And what they told us is a couple of things. First of all, it costs seventy five to one hundred thousand dollars additional money to get everybody trained by the original date in sixty four. But the bigger issue was they had concerns that by rushing training that amount that that would set up defense counsel to be able to challenge convictions for driving under the influence of drugs. So what and we're working on a potential amendment to this section. But the way the things work currently is if you were were certified at after twenty fifteen, you must take a ride training within thirty six months of being certified. So the real question is for law enforcement officers who were certified before twenty fifteen, because there is no requirement except the next one sixty four for them to get a right training. So it's getting them trained on a consistent basis. And there's actually two steps. You need your DUI certification before you can have your A-Ride certification. So there can be for some officers a two step process to getting a right training. And so that may take a little longer. So that that was the thinking and that there's still the issue is that we're discussing with the Criminal Justice Council is, you know, level three officers, which are most law enforcement officers, those are your state troopers and do receive this training. But level two officers, which are mostly part time officers, don't receive this training at all. So we're still working on that. The other issue is there are some level three officers, such as Office of Professional Regulation investigators who investigate professional complaints who probably meet the the roadside testing requirements that you have to be tested on before you can even start a right training because they don't do roadside stops. So we're trying to figure out how to solve that problem, too. John, is there any social equity training involved in this training that you require that we require? With the A-Ride training, I don't believe so. I do know that there is fair and impartial training that's required for all law enforcement officers. But it's not to my knowledge, it's not part of the A-Ride certification process. OK, thanks. So did we get to the end of the bill? We did. OK, good. Thank you very much. There are a few things that we're going to have to mull over and the fee process is one of them, Bill. Yeah, thanks, Michelle. Back in Section 4B, you have two new positions with no appropriation. Did I miss where they're going to be paid or covered? So when you appropriated money at one sixty four for for this year, there. There was for October through June 30th. The board was supposed to see that by January 19th. I don't remember exactly when they were, but they were about maybe two and a half, three behind. And so they have funding right now. And they said that they the board was not requesting additional funding at this time. I don't know what they've requested in terms of. In the future, but right now, they said they don't need any additional money. Thank you. Um, so thank you, Representative Gannon. Thank you for joining us, Michelle. Thank you for your careful walkthrough on the bill. We are going to have to shift gears. We've got I have to go to House Education on S 13 and we have to do a quick review of S 47, which is sometimes known as the Tesla bill. And that bill, the clerk says, needs to be reviewed by us. And I said, we would try to squeeze that in this morning. The fiscal impact is negligible, so I don't think we need to take it in. So I want to get that in here. And then we have folks lined up on S 79 and then we still have to work it on S 10. So so I'm going to leave this issue at the moment and go to S 47. If I have the right people here, Sorcia, I told them 10 15. I can tell them to come over early. OK, actually, that'd be great. Why don't why don't we give people five minutes to walk around and then and then come back at 10 15 and do that? And honestly, I won't be here, but I think it's not going to take more than five minutes to well, 10 minutes to go through. So it's in Emily's hands. I see that, Anthea just came in. I'm late.