 We have Shayla Livingston with us again today, and I know that in the context of our visit with the medical dispensary in Milton, we had some committee conversation about who is it that reviews the food production part of a dispensary, and so I've asked Shayla to come back and spend some time with us this afternoon, so thank you for being here. Thank you so much for having me. I apologize, I ran away the other day. Shayla Livingston from the Health Department. So I thought maybe it would be helpful just very briefly to back up because I know now that this is right over four weeks that we've been talking about this. So the Health Department is our food inspectors inspect licensed food manufacturers, licensed food service, so what do you think of us, restaurants, and lodging. And they use model FDA food codes, so Food and Drug Administration food codes to do that work. We use our Department of Health State Laboratory to work with them and they do their inspections. I think I've said it before, but I'll just say it again, that that program is currently seriously understaffed and underfunded. And there's 11 of them in the national regs, and they make recommendations for how many inspectors per institution based on their estimation to each one. So that group and that program is very worried about this new project because for them it feels like starting an entirely new program. They do not inspect the product, they do not test for things like the solvents and the pesticides. They do not have any expertise or any federal standards to use in order to consider THC content within an edible. And the Health Department, I think, which is where this program sits as a whole, has been very vocal, that we are opposed to edibles and opposed to sell edibles in the long run. So that's just sort of the Health Department. We're not excited or interested in doing this work part of it, and we need a lot of resources and more people and more money and more lead time to do it. The flip side, which we didn't have when we very first came to you, is that we've now had more in-depth conversations with that agency of agriculture, Food and Drug Administration. And they are both, there's a bill that's before the House and the Senate about hemp production, and they are working actively on regulations for CBD and hemp production in Vermont. And they are already starting up this type of program for this same plant that would do these same tests for solvents and metals and pesticides. And again, regulate this product for human consumption. They also do food safety and food inspection work. That work is split between the federal and state governments, as well as health and agriculture, in many different configurations. I can tell you a little bit more about what they do already and how they have expertise that would take a need to do this work. In terms of efficiency and effectiveness, what has been found in terms of recalls in other states have almost all been related to the THC cannabis product itself, involving pesticides and other solvents and things that come from the plant. So if we're looking to other states for what is the most risky part of this process and the thing that we would be the most concerned about is really in the curvy with ad, and they would have a better capacity of the week to look for that. Whereas we actually probably won't at all ever do that. And then lastly, I think what's important is if we did this at the health department, we would have two different departments and agencies doing very, very similar work for very similar products in terms of food safety, and that doesn't make sense. And again, I'm sorry I didn't have that information the first time we came to you, so it sort of sounded even more like we were just complaining, and I don't like to do that, but it does make more sense from an efficiency perspective to do it in this area. We have had requests from the medical marijuana industry to come in and inspect their kitchens, and that has been a constant thing. And part of there, looking for the legitimacy of having the health department see all the approval on what they're doing. On the one hand, we really appreciate that, but they're looking at food safety and taking that very seriously, and I think that some of them very much are. Those food model food codes are online. They are accessible to the public. I know that kind of conversation is a shame. I know that they don't know those. We would not be leaving ag out there on a limb by themselves alone. Somehow we work with them. We work very closely with ag, and we would of course support them in any way that they need it. For example, when there are food-borne illness outbreaks, we often work together already. So it's not that we would never touch it or that we would never support them. It's rather who's the leader, who's the one responsible for the regulation and inspection aspects of this program. So hopefully that was a more comprehensive, consolidated version. So if the health department goes into a dispensary today because it would ask you to look at some of the procedures and stuff, and you saw something that was. That's a good question, and I don't have an immediate answer for you. I need to talk with our lawyer. We do have the authority to go in and end public health emergencies. So if there wasn't a public health emergency or something that looked like it could become that, I think we almost always have the ability to write a public health... Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry. Thank you for wording. Order. So you would still have some ability? Well we wouldn't necessarily. I don't know if we would have. I'd have to check on the whether we have the authority to shut them down right now. Because the way that we shut down a restaurant is through a licensing authority. The license? No. And has that same authority that we have for meat and dairy and eggs and other products of that nature? So it's that license, it's that when the Canvas board would create this license, that would be a piece of it. Is that you would have to get a license from X agency to do this food production or food manufacturing process. But I would have to get back to exactly how we would address that under the current statutes. Yeah, I guess my point is we don't want you to turn a blind eye. Well that's not ours. They really did that. We're not, we're normally not into under regulation. I also appreciate your comment about efficiency and how many people do we have to do the same highs and the same issues looking at an establishment. Which begs the question why we continue in retail of having the health department look at the deli and then next to the deli is the meat department. We have the meat inspector going around in their own cars and burning their own gas. You can see that being similar. Could I have to fix the federal government? That's got a lot of things that could be on the list. You could fix it at the state level. Some things we can fix at the state level. That one has a federal margin though. But yes, I agree with you. So if the health department were to have sufficient resources to inspect productive facilities of Canada's product, what might that cost? We don't know because we don't understand the quantity of licensees this would be, the quantity of products. I mean one of the pieces that is very concerning to a program is again this feeling that we're already so under-resourced and we don't have the concept of what this would look like, how long it will have. So I don't have an answer for you for that. We would probably base it on the same FDA ratios and I could get those for you so you could figure out what that ratio of inspectorate institution is and then we'll have it up the top of my head. But I'm assuming that's how the program would work from it in order to tell you what it would entail. But again it would depend on how many of these institutions there are. So are you proposing we set up something where from a food safety inspection and licensing standpoint that that for cannabis facilities that refers to the agency of agriculture would you be open to some type of wording and consultation in inspection? I'm going to have to work on Michelle in that particular. But absolutely we would be very much open to being consulted and would happily provide that and would probably do it anyway. Rob, is that John? So you've made it quite clear that the Department doesn't have the capability in some cases to do this but with the agricultural department I mean if they go into a facility that is making food products, how different are their audits than yours? Right, like what's the gap that would have to be filled? Can I phone a friend? Sure. Well, sorry, was that okay then? It really depends. So it really depends. We are in meat production facilities every day and they can't operate unless our inspectors are there. We inspect every carcass, we inspect every... We do have facilities, meat and milk in particular, that can't operate unless the agency inspector is on site. To produce, to produce a dairy, here a dairy processor. Anybody, the dispensaries are great processors now. Since, I don't know if you've heard the testimony about the moldy butter. Since this was something that was regulated wholly under DPS, we are aware that dispensaries were processing dairy products. As soon as we found out, through those moldy butter complaints, we got those facilities licensed to produce dairy products. Any creamy stand, anyone making creamies and selling them in the summer as licensed as a dairy producer as well? Those inspectors are similar to what the department does when we look at temperature, look at sanitary conditions due swabs and pests. And that's not, we don't have an inspector on time every day, but we do have a inspector. So based on your knowledge and what you would anticipate will have to happen, do you have the in-house capability to do... So we're building that for him in CBD-infused products right now. The size of that retail tax-related market is unknown, but it could utilize some of the resources that would devote to that industry. Just to follow up on what Shayla was saying, on any food product, there's that hazard analysis piece. It's called a HACCP plan, if you're talking about meat, but it's hazard analysis, critical control point. We swab carcasses because that's the most likely to find out where some of the knowledge would be. With cannabis products, what we're seeing across the country at this point is all of those recalls are due to pesticide residues. So we did bestowal-ship-critical control point initially that involved testing for pesticide residues, second is residual-solid meat extraction process. And our lab is currently set up to do that, and we are doing that for the extracted CBD products. You can't tell me what we need for resources. I broke this down for 2.41, like five years ago, at the original shop at this. And I think we are looking mostly at one field inspector and a two-cance position that would phase in with the development and scaling of the tax-related system. So the health department regulates bakeries, correct? Yeah. And bakeries are required to be licensed. Yeah. So if a cannabis producer is baking cookies, shouldn't they have to be licensed by the Department of Health? So what we're saying is that we think that the Department of Ag is able to do the food safety piece of it and is much more capable of doing the THC cannabis aspect, doesn't it? I'm not talking about the cannabis, I'm talking about the food safety piece. So we couldn't inspect the cannabis edible separate from the cannabis content. So this is something I actually said took me a while to understand with our inspectors. They are not, the way that they do their infections, they couldn't say, okay, this product is safe to eat because they have to be able to say that about the whole product. And that that contains cannabis and they don't have the capacity to regulate that. I hear what you're saying in terms of keeping the butter at the correct temperature before you. And I'm sorry, I don't actually know the details about it. Did you do all those steps correctly? Yes, they could do that, but they would never want to license that place as saying it's food safe because they cannot tell you that it is based on their expertise. What if I decide to put my cookies? Are you ingredient? Kumboka or something like that? Are you going to tell me you're not going to license that? No, that's a very good question. They have a very specific list of what is and is not considered an okay thing to add to food and food additive. So Kumbucha is considered an acceptable thing to sell for human consumption and is an okay food additive. Cannabis is because it's federally legal and is not considered right now by the food infection community a food additive. And so no, it's a really good question. Yes, so new ingredients, there are standards and there are lists and this cannabis is not on that list. That's because of the federal prohibition? I think it's that and I can't tell you all the reasons, but yes, it's not considered an acceptable thing to add to it. So a couple of friends of mine have set up full in-home small industries where they make food products, not with cannabis, food products. So initially before they got started when they maybe contacted the health department for a license, there was an initial inspection of the premises. Nothing to do really with the food that was being made, but do they have running water, is it clean, et cetera, et cetera. There's quite a lot on our list. So is that something that in my mind is what the role that I was thinking of for the health department was to expect the premises periodically to make sure that it's clean. So what you would do for a restaurant, not necessarily the food, is that possible and do I have to, and I misunderstand it. You are, your understanding is excellent and the agency of agriculture does that as well for there. So for the creamy stance that he just described, that is also what they do there. So it is the same function, but they could do the whole king taboodle or as we would just be doing, you'd be sending two different people in instead of one person in. How often do you review restaurants? How often do you inspect them? Is that a handy thing or ideally? It's about every 14 months. Yeah, that's right. It's between one and two years. It's what I want to, but the chair might know better. Unless there's a complaint. Right. I do. Carrie, based on what you've heard, is there any part of the seed to sale process that you can't do currently or couldn't be able to do with some slight modification? That's the, and as I spoke earlier about that house, the retail inspection side. We only have authority to stop sale, not the sting operation at the alcohol. The liquor and lottery booth. If we were to find somebody by the way. If we were to find somebody by the way. If we were to find somebody by the way that sales to an underage individual. We could stop sale them or essentially pull the license, but we don't have the authority to bring a criminal. But up to that, you could handle everything from the seed to buy that a sale. There's no underage person outside the county. Correct. That could be within your career. Yes. And we've outlined this for the governor's commission. And that includes the environmental piece, the nutrient management plans, the pesticide use, outdoor or indoor pesticide use, as well as disposing of waste nutrient, whether that's a fertilizer or other soil. Any questions for these five people today? To answer your question a little bit, some of our CBD producers are currently using already established commercial kitchens. And it may or may not cause the licensure of that commercial kitchen to follow up the puncture question. But I know a lot of the folks producing these CBD infused products are currently using restaurants or commercial kitchens. And it's still a gray area. We chatted about that extensively. So they're using the rest up. Could kitchens at us already established? Correct. And they do that sometimes with pet food as well. And that's another gray area because you're bringing a class D meat into a food house. Interesting. So we do overlap and talk all the time. They use them for pet food. And just to be very clear, I think that one piece that we're very worried about is not having that kind of cross-contamination with THC. And CBD, as Gary said, we want to work on that and sort of figure that out and make sure that it's clear. But with THC, we never want that to be gray. That's the second issue. Michelle, at your pleasure. Michelle, I understand you have been very productive this weekend in incorporating some of the suggested changes that we have been working on here. We've got a few things for you all. And then you've got somebody else. We have you at, too. We don't need to switch gears until three o'clock. We don't. Okay. I'm sorry. You don't have to use all that time. Okay. I appreciate that. I think it's really going to be up to you, actually. I don't know how much of that time I need to use. I hope you get some time to spend with your kids. I did. But they know the drill. We just started doing a countdown, which is like, this is the time of year. I have a lot to make up. I'll take a bowl of it. I'm just going to go right to the highlighted portions. If I'm not going to, there's sometimes little highlighted portions that are just me changing my reference or things like that. I'm just not going to do that. I'm just really going to go to the stuff and stuff, if that's okay with y'all. And also let you know that there's a few things that like on the decision points around like the integrated license where if you guys are okay with that and the concept there. On the next draft, I'll go back and put all the cross-reference. Sometimes I don't pull it all the way through just in case you don't stick with that decision and you want to go somewhere else. So for the record, Michelle Child's Office of Legislative Council, we're looking at draft 3.3, dated today for S54. The first change, and this one actually is a technical, but I just want to talk about it just for a minute. And this is on the definition of public place. So if you recall when we talked about the bill originally, so last year in H511, it prohibited consumption of cannabis in a public place. And this definition is currently in Title 18 where you have your marijuana laws, criminal laws and civil laws. And public place is a very expansive definition. And so it's a new place that we generally think of. It also includes any place of public accommodation. And in addition to that, it's any place that you can't smoke a cigarette or a vape. So those are sometimes places that are not public accommodations. It might be a private office, but yet you might fall under this definition under the smoke-free law. So it's pretty broad. And so this is the definition that's in the current law. But the highlighted language on line two on page three is that there's a reference. The reference is to the definition of the tobacco substitute. Not that that's not helpful, but I think it's better if it's referencing the phrase any place where the use or possession of a light tobacco product or tobacco substitute is prohibited by law pursuant to. And that's the chapter. And so it's important because that other definition where it's just saying here's the definition of tobacco substituting is in Title 7. And this is referring you to the actual chapter where they prohibit, the locations where they prohibit smoking. And so I just thought that that was a better technical tweak. And I just wanted to point it out too, because I know there's a lot of confusion about where you can use cannabis. Next change is page seven. This is on the advisory committee. So I didn't change composition anyway, but I added the sentence on lines 15 and 16. Section should not be construed to limit the board in any way with regard to who it may consult within an effort to execute its duties. So just trying to roll the bells and suspenders to make it clear that anybody who's not listed there doesn't mean they can't think the board can't bring them in, talk to them, set them on an advisory committee or such. And 13. And this is on the report to the legislature in next January. And one thing that y'all discussed, and the last markup was to ask them to report on whether money's collected for some of the local option tax should be shared with municipalities that don't, that have a licensed cannabis retailer, but it isn't a, I mean, have a licensed cannabis establishment that's not a retailer, whether there should be some revenue sharing. That's not the way that it's set up currently. The report back in January on that. This is going into the cannabis establishment chapter. I just go back to that. What does that mean for a dispensary that's taken advantage of the town that dispensary is located in? You've seen many local options. Well, this draft November contemplates temporary licenses. We've changed the name or something. Oh, you do an integrated license, like a vertical license for one. And so that would be, if everybody is good with this, the way that it would, the way that the retail tax works is it's attached to retail. And so it would be wherever that, wherever that integrated license point of sale is located. Okay. But it would only obviously be on some, would be on their credible? No, it would be under the retail, under the commercial system. Yep. I don't have medical sales, but on retail sales that are made. And the option tax itself is something in this value that to vote on, right? But is it an option tax? Or is the option tax there at least 2% to talk about? The 2%. It's already. So how would they then decide to divvy that up, would be up to the local community expecting the option? I mean, how do they divvy up the... Yeah, when they talk to you about sharing it, who's going to divvy this up to the board? Well, right now is, is that it's, it goes, tax department does it, and then it goes back out to the towns that collected it. But my understanding was, and I wasn't here for the conversation. But I, you know, directed me later to, to, that I think DMPV made a suggestion, or somebody may suggest in about, what about some type of revenue sharing with the towns that have a cannabis establishment that's not a retailer? And shouldn't they maybe get some of the local option money? And my understanding is there wasn't agreement on a certain policy thing, and that you guys decided to have the board come back and, and recommend something. And if they, you know, and what that might look like of how they would divvy that up. I'll come in. I'm collecting some of the dollars in option tax. And currently the way this feeds is that option tax is the effect of the one town. But what you're saying is, is this change is someone's going to make the same amount of the town will get this much because they have a retail option tax and then the other will be given to them. The other non-retail source? Right. This is a report back, but that was my understanding. I'm just looking at more growers than I do retailers. Right. I think it's complex because you have to think about, well, you know, how many other cannabis establishments does a town have, and what type of establishments do they have, and, you know, what's the impact on the town of those establishments. And so it's a, trying to come up with a formula for how you do that revenue sharing. If they're not all collecting the tax. And it's not their town. It's another town over. You know, how do you get one town to say I'm going to give up tax to this town over here? Well, I don't think it would go from this town to that town. I think it all go back to the tax department. There would be a formula for how they then redistribute that to any of the towns that have some type of, so it may be that if you have, you know, there's some kind of formula. You get this percentage if you have a tier one through tier three cultivator. You get this much, you know, and then they come up with some kind of plan. So it's just not for the retailer? Yeah. Right. The way that it is currently is that it's just for retailers collected in the town. It goes back to the town in which the retailer. But this would change that? This wouldn't change it. This would have the board come back and report to you whether money's collected pursuant should be shared. So a recommendation from them of whether there should be revenue sharing with other towns. And if they do recommend that they're sharing with other towns, what would that kind of formula, what would that possibly look like? So just so that we're all clear on what this process looks like, this is directing the board to come back with a recommendation on whether towns that have just a dispensary or just a grow operation or just a manufacturer, whether they should also get a little bit of that revenue back from the local option. It doesn't guarantee that they do. We're not setting in stone what that sharing rate is going to be. And even when the board comes back and makes that recommendation, the legislature has to enact that because we have to actually pass the law. So this is prompting the board to say, hey, sometimes who don't have a retail establishment might still have other cannabis establishments and might benefit from some of the revenue sharing. And then it'll be up to the legislature to figure that out. Not to complicate things, but I thought, and Marshall is probably more expertise on this, it is, you know, we talked about how towns and state share licensing fees for alcohol. And I thought that's where we're going with this language is that there'd be a split. The local option tax, you know, would go to the towns where it's collected. But that the licensing fee could be split, you know, for, you know, growers and other licenses that are not retail licenses. A portion of that, like with alcohol, could go to towns that host a grower. But that's not the case. I think John is correct. That's what we were talking about. What I threw out there is awesome. But I don't have any problem in also licensing the area. It's all that is, it's like the local option tax now, 30% to be paid by the state. And it's getting back to the pilot moment. Something similar to that on the 2%. We would have to okay that next year. But whenever they came back to the suggestion, or we do nothing and just leave it as it is. I don't see any harm in putting this language in or putting it in with the license fee. And maybe we settle on one or the other and not both. So JP, this conversation is coming about because of an idea that you sparked in committee. I'm just wondering if you have a sense of whether your conception of this was on sharing the fees, the application fees, or was your concept on sharing between municipalities on the local option? My take on, my request on this was to receive revenue from the production of the marijuana grown for retail purposes, which obviously would have to be kept separate from the medical growth. And then any, that didn't meet a whole lot of support, but then an optimist, by Marshall, similar to what the ELC has done, or at least the municipality might get a portion of the license fee. So that's better than nothing. Obviously my job as a representative of Milton, and that we have a large dispensary in our town. My job is to represent Milton and to see that we, if this law passes, that maybe we can get a share of the revenue from that. So I'm still, you know, trying to get some tax relief. And this is a good start. This to me is something that I like to see this. It does allow the marijuana control board to review it. And what you said, if they do recommend, then it comes back to the legislature for further action, which is pretty much what I'm looking for. So, you know, I'm fairly content on what I'm hearing today. That's what I'm guessing about, but I think it's what I was initially looking for. I just have a minor critique in line 20. It seems after a so or recommended formula for sharing the revenue, is that missing a word? Is it a formula for sharing the revenue that is recommended? Or is it a fragment? But I'll take a look at it. Okay. So I wasn't here for any discussion about sharing license fees. So if that's something you want and I need somebody to touch base with me about what that might look like, I would also just as a reminder, you have a giant hole in your cannabis regulation fund. It is only, the only monies in there are your license fees. Not that you can't then dedicate some of them to go back out somewhere else, but one of the issues is that you're having a hard time because it's very up in the air about whether or not your license fees are going to be able to sustain the board. So any time you say, we're going to then take a piece of license fees and send them somewhere else, you just want to remember that. It's a new definition for advertising. So advertisement. I'm going to continue to read it to you all, but I thought this was a pretty good definition. We were looking at the industry recommendations. So it's pretty comprehensive. We'll see it enlists a number of things that it doesn't include. So it doesn't include labels affixed to any cannabis or cannabis products. It doesn't cover any editorial. Yeah, it's the, but in any other media, I just know that social media is a burden because so the question is, is that what we are looking to do is to prevent social media from putting up where these places are and like the one we looked at for actually advertising through selling? I don't think that's possible. I don't need to. That's what I meant. This is also, this is just the definition of what is an advertisement. And there's nothing in what you have that says you can't have a website or anything like that. I would say the biggest restriction that you have in the substantive requirements around advertising is your, what was 30 percent rule, which is now 15 percent rule. So in thinking through, that's going to be what's going to really narrow it down to being, you know, probably very few places in which you could have. But if somebody's going to have a website, you might want to consider, you know, to look at language about having in there saying something about the licensing, they have a website and the board should develop rules in regard to, you know, what that website can have on it in terms of rights. And there are certain things that, again, this organization recommends in terms of like having something where you have to enter your birth date when you go sign on and certain things that are on there in terms of, you know, location and products that are available and things like that, but it's not, it doesn't allow other things. So picking up on the social media aspects, are we saying through this that it's just totally open? So, I mean, with Facebook, for example, you can own your demographics to do any aid. So you guys are taking, talking about the requirements? No, I'm just wondering what the advertising means, and the retailer. Can I advertise on social media if that's not going to be like this? You couldn't if you can't show that less than 15% of the audience is going to be under 21. Okay, so if I use their demographic criteria and find two minutes and only an individual is over 21, is that okay? Yeah. But it would still have to be approved by the cannabis board. I don't know, but I think Facebook is the only social media opportunity that has that type of restriction on it. I don't think you can actually advertise cannabis products on Facebook. No, but other than that, that's today. Yeah. I think you can target Google AdWords pretty precisely to... What did you say? Google AdWords. You know where it says, you know, when you do a Google search, usually the first couple of hours of search, terms that come up are ads. Those are typically, you can target those by terms, by people, you know, you should take a look at Google AdWords to see where it's going. Questions on this page. All right, let's keep going to the next section. So with respect to see educational, so having spent a lot of time looking at different things, like, you know, there's a YouTube video of how to use a dab rig. That would be educational or instructional, right? Do we want... Well, we... How could you guarantee that a YouTube video wasn't? Well, I'm saying YouTube, I mean, anybody can post that there. That's their freedom to do it. I guess I'm getting as if a cannabis establishment. Right. I was thinking, like, in terms of, like, if a cannabis establishment is out... How to use their products. Let's just say, it's a seller. What do you call that thing? Dab rig? Yeah. Showing how to use it with your product. Not advertising for your product. Can he control what you do? I mean, I could decide that Uncommon Market has the absolute best lunch and I could set up a website dedicated to directing people to the sandwiches that they have. And they can do much of anything about it. We're not trying to regulate that. Uncommon Market. I'm just asking a question. I mean, how do you... Is that not allowing an opportunity to circumvent the rules by doing testimonials? I mean, I think there's no way you can regulate that. That's, you know, what's the best form of advertising you can get? Or media, which is, you know, a reporter writing an article about how great your food is, or whatever you're trying to sell. Or you're going to a review site like Yelp, where you get... Right. You know, persons who have used your products, whether they're food or otherwise, you know, doing a review. I mean, people look at that and I don't think there's any way we can control their product. I'm not saying that there is. It's just... I hadn't really thought about it, but all the issues related to age restriction, I mean, they may not apply to me. I don't work for the cannabis establishment. So what I hear you're saying is that that would induce sales. I would think so. But the language here says that it's a cheer that is not intended. But this all applies to the cannabis retail or cannabis establishment. Doesn't apply to the members of the public. Yeah? I mean, maybe that's there today of the interest, whatever. We don't have to get sidetracked now, but if the shoes come up... You could probably do some poking around on some of those websites that I was referring to. I see what you get for advertising. Okay, CD and E, folks. We've got something about signs attached to the premises. Everybody... That's right. J.P.? That was my question. Sign has to be pre-approved by the paramedic control board or the local zoning law for both. If you have zoning... Zoning is... I don't know if your zoning can... Oh yeah, zoning can restrict signs. Well, they can restrict the size of the sign. Can you restrict the content of the sign? Not necessarily on public signs. So zoning would say you could have a sign at this facility where you could have it and how it could be in the size, not what's on it, but the marijuana control board could restrict the contact, such as it would be a symbol such as one of our dispensaries has a very, very small heart. Or a bigger... I'm not... a big billboard type. So the forward board would have that responsibility, is that correct? They are required to adopt the rules with regard to signage. So you have... you have your local, whatever your local zoning or bylaws or whatever that would restrict with regard to what you can do for signage, and then you have to forward them. So you've got three fabulous layers of... Regulation. Regulation takes a cut through to put your sign up. To put your sign up. Regulation. Signs can be regulated down to the colour level on the brokerage itself. So all the municipality votes and says they want to have this a sign because you could have options it takes off with, that's what you're allowed to do. At least you can join the board with the brokerage. Next change is on page 20. I just thought I should add this because the term is used and this is definition in current law with regard to tobacco products and so I just brought it in there so it's clear and you have that in there because there's a requirement for child resistance packaging in what you already have in here and I just thought it would be good to drop the definition. Changing definition from current law at all and just on page 22 I just added a definition of an integrated licensee means a person licensed by the board to engage in the activities of the other five types of licenses. Page 23, that was just striking out because you added the commerce stuff so resident no longer we would need that term in the long run for a residence. On advertising it's just on a section where you get to the substance not necessary because it's in the same chapter but I just again kind of wanted to do a direction also in some times a little aids so it has those definitions and then on subsection B the earlier the version had said cannabis establishments do not advertise via flyer bill or whatever this new definition of advertisement is much more comprehensive I think and better than any medium and also we already have those terms put into all those mediums and then unless the licensee can show that not more than 15% of the audience is recently expected to be under 20% so changing that from 30% In C which I know there's no how that it changes there I think you've heard testimony about pregnant women and pregnant women so I just did that Yeah and I think there's a particular warning around that I can get the language Next is on age 30 I've been in products very tough about that on Friday so just now this is included in the draft I think my understanding as it is for now is that where we've got THC where you've got Delta 9 I don't think that it all ended on any changes on the part of the other part of things that are in size section that we've talked about and what I'm going to get to in a second That is in the rules under product media I know we didn't settle on it and change I just, we talked about the issue that's on it we were talking about prohibitive products so like like over and on Well that's not a prohibiting it's just a limiting it's just a it's just a it's just a it's just a it's just a it's just a it's just a I'm going to come back to that So for rulemaking about the mostly it's about around the integrated I did Vice Chair ask me about this before about why there wasn't anything specific that had to apply to all they had to develop rules on a number of issues for all licensees there wasn't anything that had come up either in testimony or in talking to folks around having to be specific for wholesalers but I thought you know might as well put one in there so it doesn't look as like we forgot about them but something insane rules concerning position including provisions that are already in that super long list and that are appropriate for safe regulation wholesalers in the forms of this chapter so it's just kind of something comes up and they think oh my gosh this is some unique function that they do that nobody else does and we want to create some standards around it and get some some D 5D or retailers this was around I thought it was trying to clarify some language around the idea that consumers are sending someone out of the store with their products that those have to be any child resistant packaging so that those envelopes that are stick together or something so it could be we had a couple of child resistant packages right it passed so the idea that because the cannabis products can be in those things but cannabis does not and so the idea that when you're kind of walking out of the store if it's all like in a something then you've got that so I just added that to be clear so rules for integrated licenses shall include the provisions of all of the other ones so if it applies to a cultivator it applies to an integrated licensee who is cultivating it it applies to a product manufacturer if you have any milligrams you can have a product it's also going to apply to an integrated licensee so we're adding a new six license, the integrated license and this is doing some exception language on subdivision 3A there so applicants can obtain a maximum of one type of each license and they get one location for a license and then subdivision 3B an applicant and civilians that have a dispensary that's registered exist under current law can obtain one integrated license or a maximum of one of each type of light of the other licenses but you can have one so you could get one integrated license or you could get decide not to go integrated license we just want to cultivate and retail and we want to be out of the product business we don't want to be a wholesaler or a testing lab we want to do these two things so maybe we don't want to pay a fee for an integrated license so we're going to get a cultivator in a retail they can do that but they can't the option for the integrated precludes them for participating in the other licenses when we toward some of the facilities all you can do they pretty much did everything from A to F they did the product they threw it they packaged it they sold it so they're all six of these things so they would give an integrated license and here and here in order to continue what they're doing under a commercial system so the dispensary so we're not talking about what they would do under their dispensary license but if they this is the alternative so the idea of allowing them there's only five of them allowing them to continue to operate as an integrated system under one new license so they still have their dispensary license and then they would have an integrated license it may be that my understanding is that the dispensaries are supportive of the idea of the integrated license but it may be that once everything comes down and they look at the theme and everything they may say well actually maybe they don't want to they don't have all of those so they can opt for an individual as they want but they have the option of doing it so especially when we're looking at it's early sales they're basically going to fix all the product and then sell it now there are medical sites but they have a full functional operations to do then and they would be getting a semi integrated license if they would do it that way if they would do it in all stages that's what they want to do and that actually brings us let me come back to the PRA so I'll show you the 50 so for an integrated license as I already talked about it allows them to engage in activities so cultivator, wholesaler, manufacturer, retailer and testing lab only available to applicants that hold a dispensary registration as of July 1st 2020 should be no more than 5 non-compliance with all application procedures and requirements the board shall issue the license so kind of the grandfathering as long as you get everything in your application is complete if you get the license and the licensee has the right to renew the license so it's not some it's not a temporary license as long as they go through either fees in good standing obviously they can continue to be able to do the integrated license prevent them from doing it at separate locations for example, Milton do all the cultivating and they don't need to read that right in terms of the locations for the different things and that's a good point I should clarify that with regard to the integrated license that you don't have to have your retail necessary in the same right and I'll skip around just again if it's okay just a quick comment stillers have long wanted a license that would include several different aspects of their business that they're constantly required to ask for licensure on so maybe our board somewhere down the road will want to keep this integrated well this doesn't go away this will stay only for those five entities they may come to you with a recommendation at some point to say hey it's working pretty well and it's actually maybe less work for the board to regulate because they've got in terms of all the moving pieces maybe they would recommend to you that you expand and then I just want to show you the implementation so the way that this would work and now I'll do an updated timeline for you if everybody agrees with the concept so the idea is that what would happen is imagine your board going through rule making having their final rules adopted in December of 2020 then January 21 rolls around and at that time in January you're going to have an application created open up for integrated licenses and for cultivators only those two and so subsection A is the integrated and B and move down for cultivators so for A so the plant limits the cannabis limits the possession limits for a dispensary will disappear since September of 2020 so about four months prior to a dispensary being able to apply for an integrated license so those caps will land the idea being that they could start to ramp up to be able to get ready to share their integrated license for product to do sales so in January as of January 15 they can apply for the integrated license you have five of them applying and then on or before February 15 the board will begin issuing those licenses and that a licensee could begin selling cannabis and cannabis products immediately so they wouldn't have been able to cultivate under that new license but they were able to gear up under the dispensary license and then they can either transfer or sell products from the dispensary to the integrated licensee and then they could sell under that permit so that allows them to begin so you get kind of some early sales in a sense but not under a temporary system not under a different ready body they'd be gearing up still under DPS system but they'd be in the process of getting ready for the treatment and they would just be lifting up I believe Michelle was talking about as far as wanting to have us give her a sense of direction on this before you go and do it I changed it in most places so before we this is a decision point about how to proceed and this again brings small cultivators in at the same time as dispensaries because it would have the issuance of those licenses happening at the same time the small cultivators you would still have the preference for the small cultivators and then and then just clarification that cultivators can start selling to integrated licensees and dispensaries as soon as they've got a product because the retailers the new retailers won't be licensed until that July but if the cultivator got a fast growing strain or something and they can get it up and going and they can get some products but they can immediately as soon as they have a product start selling to dispensaries and so it gives them a little boost I may have missed this somewhere along the way but how would we know that all five dispensaries are committed to doing retail sales do you know that? I don't think that's anecdotal if you want to make sure because if that's not it take it out in the hall just kidding I still want to know I'm just wondering because that wasn't the case then then we would not have retail product until the other retail establishments go online but they would still give preference to small cultivators to begin to plan for either I'm getting my plants in the ground as soon as last frost or whatever their preferred method of growing is so committee do we feel comfortable with this with giving the green light on this change you know alright Jim's thumbs are busy good job Rob hahaha you just agreed that you were paying for breakfast on Friday morning so the outstanding issue on the PRA which maybe you guys are coming back to a little later today so the PRA is still announcing but are you guys going to schedule something for them we have David Hall coming in so you guys will talk to her as well perfect here just on page 42 I just put in a reference to the appeals process so that an applicant can deny the license just a reference back to the appeals process that we put in earlier section 903 I added in back in the language about the board issuing licenses pursuant to the priority system that's established by the rule because that was kind of taken out by the commerce one so I still have the commerce language down here so it's just the agency she'll provide business and technical assistance to applicants with priority for services based on criteria adopted by the board in accordance with A but then you still have A and so A will operate the way that you had it earlier but just without the right on page 46 with respect to small cultivators that one I think I need to update that's from the last one there were 10 gray sales but I might I'll look at the timeline I might tweak that to just again kind of make it clear that all cultivators I don't know maybe it won't matter there but as soon as they're licensed they can get out of the need to start selling to whoever is licensed at the time talked about that and I'll do a new timeline for you but generally I may see the earliest sales from an integrated licensee might be as early as second half of January of 21 and then you'll see the other retailers come on the later part of the summer and the small cultivators is that February 21? yep that's if you look just above there they're applying January and 21 and they'll issue licensee yeah it could be that they can start issuing them as soon as possible the dates you must start at least by now they can start as soon as possible so if they're ready to go so they can be January they can be immediately the cultivators and the integrated are the same timeline the issue is that if you don't let the integrated go be at least at the same when you put the cultivators in front of everybody they're not going to have anybody to sell to that's it for this stuff down at the bottom we have the we're not talking about the medical for now but the issues around if you put a new language on your new fund so what you'll see there is that the fund will be created this year and then I change the date so that because you'll see some revenue coming in and somewhere between January and July of 21 which would be FY 22 I'm changing so that this language that you see section 18 would be that will start to apply as of January 1st in 2021 so we'll start to see some of the money going to that fund in the second half of FY 22 on the ag lab I just changed the terminology because it was from 117 that uses the term marijuana because it's working in the in the medical tap so we'll just change the cannabis or the net that's the same I also went to section C that so to contemplate that because this section goes into effect this July so it could be that right now until while DPS is regulating the dispensaries they want to do compliance testing they pay the ag lab and then once it shifts over you just have your language to decide about section for sections 20A which is the fund establishment and then 20B which healthcare is taking up this afternoon and that's it other than I've just been tweaking any of the decisions just changing the effect would you like to have a discussion about the manufacturing it's pretty clear that that's in why she is very good at conveying that yes it's our old times I do think there should be some overview of the foodborne illness so I think we're you know we may be give some kind of regulatory oversight with the ag department consultation with the health department it would be nicer if we came in with suggested language well what occurs to me when I hear ag talking about the roll out of what they're doing for hemp and knowing that they're ramping up their inspection staffing and their testing staffing and then looking at the timeline that we're looking at there certainly would be time for us next year to do a deeper dive into this and say okay does the ag agency have experience doing this because they've been doing it for CBD products for the last however many months or do we want to take a closer look at how we slice it so I guess I'm going to say that I'm comfortable with this right now but I'm going to keep it in the back of my head as something that we want to possibly come back to next year once we know more about the landscape so are you saying that you don't even need section 20 in this bunch of section that you would need to be considered later or so the underlying language precludes that from being considered for Canada or considered a food manufacturing establishment for the purposes of the Department of Health so right they want the exemption take the exemption out then I would interpret that as meaning you do want it but since it's been considered here and discussed taking it out but as you said it's going to be it's going to be a little time so you can take action next year the only thing that I would add to the mix for your consideration is about when the board is adopting rules with regard to health and safety requirements and sanitary requirements and things like that do you want them to have clear direction about whether or not the health department is involved with product manufacturers as a regulator as well I guess they would consult because I mean this is exempting health from having to examine cannabis products so all they could do is consult on the rules establishments that produce cannabis products what we've been trying to get to is the inspection of the establishment not the testing of the product and so that has been the rough Jim and then Bob so I'm going to see is there something similar that you would add language to I guess my only concern to totally put it off is it slips through and then going down the road next year I'm wondering if instead of where they exempt themselves you could say which places shall be inspected or licensed by the agency of agriculture consultation with the health department I'm not sure what belongs there may have to go in the ag section you know what I'm saying there's a section in the ag with all the creamy stands dairy processing and the inspection probably the age are in there and I'm just asking I think we should put something in there which we could change or another option is to leave the senate as is and put a note there on whether the health department should come back with a recommendation to make sure that the inspections are done I just want to flag you know I had a birthday last week it was in brain cells every day I I coming in the middle of a discussion but I sent some ambiguity from both of the representatives about the power to do what was it closing down when they found either violations or area of concern and I sort of think we should stick something in in order to say if we're acting jointly or independently if there's something funky I'd be able to say stop there well and I could have misinterpreted what they were saying but it seemed like they were doing a lot of punting I think to Michelle's point she's concerned that we give direction to the board so that when they're making their rules they can be clear about which department to see is going to have jurisdiction right so you're requiring them to adopt rules on you know health and safety and sanitation and things like that for all cannabis establishments and so when it comes to product manufacturers and their consideration of that I think they might want to know or have good guidance at that time well every part of the rules is you have to be in compliance with the DOH's requirements for food manufacture and establishments you know or you like that that's part of a requirement of your product manufacturer license and I'm sorry I wasn't here for most of the discussion about between these two I would say my general advice is just about being a little concerned that there are too many cooks in the kitchen um on sorry it's hard sometimes with the cannabis issue on traps but I just mean I don't know do they really have it sorted out no so I would say just be cautious about building a new system on top of something that isn't sorted out yet that's why I was suggesting that we will know more I mean I can put some kind of placeholder and then have somebody come back to you on it and that would probably be a threat you know we can just to me it seems like again more it should be the board rather than department of health in the sense that the board is independent and looking at what makes sense best from the safe regulation appeared I mean I'm not saying that the Department of Health doesn't have people's blessings but they clearly have a position that they don't want to be fault in regulating some like in the example that exists now in liquor control board the Department of Health of order to do something like we're sort of suggesting here that the cannabis control board would set up parameters by which the Department of Health could do something under their review where they separate enough that that's what they have that authority to begin with when they come back to prohibition but they may not need that authority now that well established and separate going back to the idea that you were sitting here about who had the power to do what it needed J.P. Michelle will ask you a comment she made or I think right on comment on some of those but you've done better on that but go back to the basics and drag me if I'm wrong the marijuana control board makes the rules conceptually rules and guidance and inspections for inspections and all that could stop however I do not believe I could be wrong I do not believe that they have the authority to direct what agency does the inspections that is a that's a yes or no question because the marijuana control board has the authority to direct in my case I'm going to say directly Department of Health you shall conduct the inspection or is an authority given to the legislature to tell the Department of Health you shall and I understand that the Department of Health is actively fighting against this for whatever reason and the reason that it is specified but can't they be pulled by the legislature you shall conduct these and then the board sets the rules and restrictions and the guidance and all that stuff so if that's the case theoretically it's up to you yes it's not for the board I think when it is unclear there is ambiguity basically it's going to be left up to those in the different agencies to look at their own statutes and rules and determine do you fall under our jurisdiction or do you not so Department of Health's perspective is they would not fall under their jurisdiction and board couldn't do anything to compel them to inspect it would be up to you if you want to if you want to acquire the health department to be doing sanitation inspections of commercial kitchens that are producing cannabis products then you should be explicit about that exactly in the Department of Agriculture on the flip side is also saying that we don't really want to do this either so I think it's going to come down to the level where the legislature is committing which I recommend as to who is going to do what and if it boils down to saying the Department of Health is going to do it then so be it kind of harsh but but still somebody's got to do it if we think the inspections are necessary which I do personally but if we think they're necessary somebody's got to do it and if they need some help make it up their mind so maybe some report back language to trigger us to take a deeper dive on this question so just having the board come back about whether or not so I think that kind of fits in with the issue you know they're going to come back for the build out and talking about you know the second and third years and you know if you make sense it can come back and say you know it makes sense it doesn't make sense we can cover it maybe what they'll ask maybe they'll ask for their own public health inspector you know as one of their positions around the board and not utilize another agency maybe that will bring us some information just to clarify and they will have they will be at the beginning of their rulemaking stage so they can get that information from you guys since probably one of the general things they want to kind of go in the direction of having and just plugging into the existing system for health department in those things or whether they want to take a different path whether they can consider that when they're working in their boards they wouldn't be in particular disadvantaged to just get the community down the road and then that's a good idea I think but I just think we, personally I think we need to be very clear for the public safety aspect of it and getting the products that you say and say products and clean products and prepare properly we want the inspections done properly and whether you have your own inspector or whatever you're going to do it but I just think we need to be very clear to say that this is what we want and this is what we expect so they have very good guidance on how to move, there's an old question well, the legislature is working on inspections or I guess we're not going to inspect them and I'm new here but that's just the presentation it's about consumer protection so we will make sure that that can I just ask one part that's right that I missed with the two witnesses so were they saying that with people who are who are paid CBD products that are making foods or drinks with CBD products that they are not covered by this now I believe they said that the ag agency is reaching do you know what number is it on production bill we should probably do it like that is that your reference that okay I'll hold your yeah no that's around testing no I'm talking about like if somebody is like when I'm looking at this definition if they're producing food the fact that it has to be ingredient in it I don't know how that then exempts them from being a food manufacturer in the south but but are they is the Department of Health regulating the people who are you know making the iced tea at the the co-op with the CBD in it they were regulating it before they started putting CBD in it I guess I just don't understand why in addition of CBP why all of a sudden that exempts them from I agree with you I find health's position bizarre in some ways because what if peppered farms decided to open a mega bakery in this state are we going to say can't do it we don't have enough inspectors even though we want jobs and business to come in here we can't do it because we don't have enough inspectors I mean it seems a little silly and if you go to ag's page on Vermont regulations of food safety it spells out which of the two agencies regulate various products bakery goods bread cookies health other product other processed food products such as candy and popcorn health it's just so I mean we can take a look at this production bill and see if it clarifies it but I don't know I just find there I can't imagine the feedback we see from other food manufacturers who have to abide by these very stringent guidelines food safety when like a brown maker a cookie maker and then they say the guy across the street who's putting you know canvas in the cookie doesn't have any inspection at all yes which is why we want to create a flag so that we can come back to this Jim there's an exemption for a home kitchen below a certain level $10,000 or something I must but the health department I think still has the ability to show down if they have a problem it's somewhere in here you know as a path forward there's also language in the health department statutes about if there's a health risk they have all kinds of power I suspect that we have serious measles outbreak like New York City the mayor just says you're going to get vaccinated I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in our statutes the health commissioner has the ability to circumvent religious exemptions I don't know but not suggesting that she's a fellow okay so because we got through the end of the bill I'm going to suggest that we change switch gears at this point because I do have some of the requested testimony on the AVR language that was removed from 107 when it was on the senate side so Michelle is there anything else that you can think of that you would like direction from us on at this moment I don't think so but you can send me right thank you very much so committee just to reorient ourselves we we did some work on S107 elections corrections we've had the secretary state's office in a couple of times to talk with us about about the expanding automatic voter registration beyond the department of motor vehicles to any departments who might also be collecting the same information that that is required to be collected for voter registration and whether the secretary state's office might set up an automatic voter registration agreement with other departments and so we've asked asked Candace Morgan to come in and talk with us about the initiative of the agency of human services which is where I understand the majority of those potential collaborators would be and so Candace, Candace come on up and join us Nelson's going to take a breather but that's okay right ahead if we need to I don't have any so there we go for the record Candace Morgan the principal assistant in the secretary's office at the agency of human services so thank you for asking us to testify on this language from the agency of human services perspective we took a look at the language of the request of the chair at the end of last week and we did have a brief conversation with Will Senning in the secretary of state's office our understanding of the intent of this language is for us to be able to pursue these opportunities where they might make sense for our different agencies or rather different departments within the agency in some of the forms that we require for monitors to submit and see whether or not anything might be an option for us to act as a voter registration agency we have not had a chance to really run to ground all of the different places where this might be an option but we plan to work with the secretary of state's office so as long as it's something that is authorizing but not requiring us we are comfortable with this language so the initial language talked about consulting with the various agencies but they could still do it even if you didn't think you were ready and my understanding was they were okay with changing it but I don't know if you've seen a new draft I don't have a new draft what I have right now before me is the bill that was the language in the bill is introduced so I don't have any new language to talk about so I think it was the intention as we were discussing it that we would make this authorizing not requiring right now as we talked about I just didn't know if it was new draft that we will make one thank you any other questions you don't have to make one up I'm sure 11 minute break Candice was just dying to have a conversation so in all seriousness though I do appreciate you touching base and getting a feel for the comfort level of our department and we will pursue the language to make sure that it is an authorizing perfect sense as opposed to a required alright maybe you've earned yourself a 10 minute break before we get back to Prop 2 thank you clarification of rights, clarifying the prohibition on slavery and indigenous servitude