 The recording is set. Excellent. Welcome everyone. Thank you so much for being here today. We are in the last part of week four for social equity. We are thrilled to have you and we are going to get started with the meeting. I'm going to call it to order. Before we go over that, again we've called the meeting to order. We're going to talk about public comments today and before we do that so we can go in order. May I get a motion from someone to approve a minutes from 9.27? Question? Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you so much. So because we are September 30th, I'm going to flip back one slide just as a quick reminder that we have our first milestone tomorrow. To put forth a plan for reducing or eliminating fees for social equity applicants with our second coming up on the heels. I feel like a sports commentator today. Sorry about that. So we have October 1st and October 15th coming our way. So I am going to jump back over to the agenda. These are the topics we'll be going over today. The minutes have been approved so now if you're okay everybody, I'm going to move over to a summation of the public comments. There are five of them or either six of them today. So if you'll bear with me, I'm not going to read them all but I am going to hit some of the highlights since you all did receive them. So Kelly's story brought up the point that disability benefits may not provide enough funding to support the cost of medical cannabis products for those who need them. She also wanted to make note to the board and others here that people that live in government housing are not allowed to cultivate cannabis. So medical marijuana is not financially obtainable to many of those who may need it and can't manage their own crops. She noted this was a problem. She has thoughts and ideas. I'm sure hopefully we'll hear more from her on that but she also wanted to note that cannabis should not be financially unobtainable to anyone who relies on or benefits from it. Again, that's from Kelly's story. Ronald Williams from Mr. Seacraft Cannabis. I'm not going to go through it completely because this has already been addressed by the subcommittee members. He did not want the requirement of the one-year residency. We have touched on that but what is important to note in his comment is that he does want to ensure that not only is Vermont the Vermont cannabis market equitable but that it remains attractive for young diverse communities that are currently underrepresented in the state. So we thank Ronald for that. And then Joseph, and I'm sorry I can't read his last name, I think it's Burger. The important thing he wanted to note is what went on in Missouri with some applicants and that folks were paying people to help consult with them to fill out applications. He noted that the former president of the Missouri chapter of minorities for medical marijuana lost approximately $70,000 putting together her application, which I believe was possibly denied, yes, was denied. And he said knowing that folks would have to compete for a limited number of licenses, many applicants did pay top dollar to consultants for their experience in legal marijuana markets for help with applications. He said the high cost and license caps created in industry in Missouri accessible only to those with money and connections instead of more black owned marijuana businesses given the disproportionate impact of the war on drugs in communities of color. Also, Michael Shane noted the best thing the cannabis control board can do to help small cultivators is to provide a provisional license and allow small cultivators ahead start to grow over the winter when cooling costs are low and then fell to the integrated license holders in May. He also noted that forcing small cultivators to begin cultivation in May when costs are the highest will put them at a disadvantage. It will ensure supply shortage and encourage only the very rich and parenthetically he said or the illegal may be able to participate. Again, that's from Michael Shane. And then there was an additional comment from Michael Shane that he said people should understand how competitive the market really is and raise the point that all New England states will have legal cannabis soon. He also noted a few different links that people can access and I believe everyone on the subcommittee should have those that you can look this over. And he said a quote from one of the links is the general consensus among plant scientists and horticulturists as much as it takes many of us to admit it is that the highest quality fruits and flowers are achieved in a controlled indoor growing environment. Again, that's from Michael Shane and he did also add some resources. As a reminder to everyone in the public, if you would like to submit comments, you may submit them at ccb.vermont.gov and the public input form where your comments will be noted, logged and submitted to the subcommittee members. With that being said, and I know that wasn't mouthful, I am going to move on to the start of the topics. And Gina and Jeffrey, I'm going to turn this over to you to talk about the relationship to the impact of the individual and impact of family. Thank you, everyone. Hi, everyone. So we started with impact of family. I know we did vote on this, but there was a advisory board meeting with all of the people from the entire board, including all of the subcommittees. And we had C-bonds yesterday make a recommendation that we include domestic partner to this list. I'm not sure why the bottom of this is not showing up. So it should be relationships to the impact of individual partner, legal guardian, sibling, spouse, child, minor. I think it's just rearranged. Minor in their guardianship, grandparent and grandchild. The grandparent and grandchild is not on this list. So please note that that is what is included in all of this. Are we okay as a committee to include domestic partner to our definition of impacted family member? I was just going to say yes. I think that we should include domestic partner. Ashley, I agree that was a really good addition. And Leo? I don't know what domestic partner means in this context. Vermont used to have domestic partnership before same sex or marriage equality came to the state. So you had as a civil equivalent of marriage, but now that we have marriage equality in the state and in all 50 states, I'm not really sure what domestic partner means. Is there a definition, especially if we have applicants work from out of state and you know, state domestic laws. I mean, there are 50 different state laws about family law and marriage. They're not uniform. So is there an explanation of what counts as domestic partner and how you would establish them? So just from what I found using the links on the Vermont website, it says you would have a relationship agreement or a contract. So there would be, you would need to cohabitate together regarding property and finances. And that you would need to create this contract and it would need to be signed. It's sort of similar to a prenuptial agreement. And then there could be a power of attorney as well. Then you can make one debt just for healthcare, but that would not relate to us for the subcommittee. And well, so for the subcommittee terms, it would be if you had a contract or I guess power of attorney over someone. Hallelujah. Does that answer your question? Is that definition going to be disclosed in the application material? I know the applications are... So if you have a relationship agreement or contract or a power of attorney over someone, so we can put that in parentheses if you like when we disclose domestic partner and then parentheses. Relationship agreement or contract and or power of attorney. So you can have a power of attorney over anyone, like if you have a neighbor who's elderly and they have children who are out of state who want you to have power of attorney to assist them with medical decisions for a limited period of time before the children can fly into the state to participate in those decisions. So should we just have relationship agreement or contract? Jada, can I interrupt for a second? I'm just going to share with you the state of Vermont's HR policy on domestic partner. My familiarity with domestic partner is, you know, in adding someone to your insurance and I wonder if we can maybe copy some of that. Because typically it's similar to what you're saying, but I think we'd provide a little bit more to answer Julio's question. Can you read that out for us, please? It's a long policy. Hold on, let me see if I can go back to it. Julio, what would you like to say? Well, I'm not sure what we're agreeing about. Like I said, my familiarity with domestic partnership and this is something that our office was involved in. Our civil rights unit was involved in advocating for marriage equality in Vermont. So I only understood domestic partner in the context of what Vermont used to call civil unions. The statutes were amended to just sunset the civil union law because it was no longer necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage equality. So that's where I'm coming from in the state policy. I don't have it in front of me. But prior to the Supreme Court's decision and the Obergefell decision that recognized marriage equality states that wanted to recognize civil unions would use the phrase domestic partner. But I don't know that it has like an agreed upon meaning. So that's all I'm saying. I don't know what I would be agreeing to because some people, some applicants might have relationships that this committee or subcommittee wouldn't consider to be the equivalent. But what we would regard as a family member and some of us might, so that's all that you're just introducing in terms that I don't think has like a settled meaning. And so I'm trying to figure out what that meaning would be. So I did drop in the chat pod a couple of links for the state of Vermont. There is a state of Vermont offers coverage to domestic partners and employees in order to be eligible. You must certify the following criteria and it lists out six different things. It's the second link is from the human resources page that maybe that may assist anyone as well. Novor has his hand up Tina while. Yeah, I just copied and pasted the six different things that define what domestic partner is. So we can all read that and that puts in the Vermont human resources packet for adding people to your health insurance. I really liked the first one on here, which is that you are each other. So domestic partner and have been an exclusive and enduring domestic relationship while sharing a residency for not less than six consecutive months prior to the submission of your application. Are we okay with using that definition for a domestic partner? And obviously it says neither one of you is married to anyone else. You're both 18 years of age. You're not blood. You're not related by blood. You are both in a legally binding contract. And you have agreed between yourself to be responsible for each other's welfare. Leo, are you okay with using that definition? Yeah, I like the definition. I just want to clarify. Five doesn't mean that the relationship is a legally binding contract that each person is mentally and physically capable of entering into a legally binding contract. Which, you know, this is a modern substitute for what some laws or criteria would say that they're both a sound mind and body. That's really what it's about. But I don't understand five to say that the part, because I think earlier you said that they have a contract and I've never heard of a domestic couple actually having a contract. Rather, they just had an informal personal agreement to be together, which is what I take factor number six debate. I'm comfortable with this. The domestic partner has to find on the screen. I'm really appreciative for the clarity there. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Can I add that added to the definition on a separate page just to give more clarity for everybody applying? Yes, Nader? Just one small thing I wanted to be able to modify for number two. It says the persons are 18 years or older. It's my understanding have to be 21, at least 21 to be in possession legally in Vermont. So, in this context, should we make it that the persons are 21 years or older or would that be irrelevant because we're just talking about domestic partners. And I wouldn't want to create something at 21 because we're not saying that the partner needs to be 21 years of age. But I believe in order to do it, I'm not sure what the age limit is to get a license, which I'm assuming would be 21. So, if one of them was 21 that they can, the 21 year old would be able to get a license even if that partner was not 21. Right, that makes sense. Okay. With the definition of domestic partner, are you, Julio, okay, with adding domestic partner to the impacted family destination? Yeah, I guess the related question is whether the child of the domestic partner is included within the definition of child now. Because when you were just talking about spouse, I guess we don't have here step children. And, you know, it's sort of, I guess that brings it into further release the, I think the state policy that was just shared a while ago, I think had something about, or referring to the, maybe I was wrong, maybe I was reading something off of the actual webpage where it was talking. Yeah, in the state of Vermont policy for coverage of domestic partners, there's a section on domestic partners for health coverage and then there's a section on children of a domestic partner. And I guess that's what brought it to mind. You're muted, Gina. Are you interested in including step children into the definition, which then any marriage and domestic partners should be the same. So that would also cover domestic partner if you want to add step children to the definition of family. Nader, you're a commons person. I don't have any new comments or questions. I saw your hand raised. Oh, sorry. Do you like to add step children to the impacted family? I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. Did you add step children into the impacted family? Yes. Yes. Ashley? Yeah. I think that would be wise. And Julia. Just to follow up on what's in that state of Vermont policy, their definition of for children of a domestic partner are ones who would be classified as a dependent child. So someone who lives in the household and is dependent on the domestic partnership, you know, they're married couples and domestic partnership couples that, you know, for which one may have children that are 30 years old and living on their own. And so if I don't know that that would be, that might be a little bit attenuated to draw the line to say that you had an impacted family member if you've got an adult child who doesn't live in your household. And maybe you don't really know. So I think if step children are dependent, like the state policy says, I think that's a little closer. I just worry about diluting the standard for the candidates here so that people who would, we wouldn't typically consider to be connected to social injustices and, you know, personally as a licensee or an applicant. So I raised that question. I think, you know, something that what I think is a pretty helpful guide from the state of Vermont about covered relationships. I just wonder what the other folks think about that. I haven't decided but it's something that caught my eye is that they're not talking about grown up step children who don't reside with the family. Great point Julio. Great point. I would like us to go to a bowl. Based on all of the information that I have so far is that an impacted family member would be a spouse domestic partner, a child or step child that resided in the relationship when they were a minor. I hope that works for everybody. A minor in a guardianship, a legal guardian, a parent, a sibling, a grandparent and grandchild. Ashley, your vote? Yes. Thanks for that definition. Just to be clear, I'm saying yes to the definition. Yes. And child and grandchild is, if they were there as a minor, not as an adult. Nada. My vote is yes. Thank you. And Julio. Yes. Thank you. This is going to be a very extensive comprehensive definition, but we will make sure to have it exactly stated for the Vermont cannabis control board. The attachments as to what a domestic partner is considered as a definition for the Vermont social equity program. Then we are going. Here's another vote. Are there any last comments or questions about application waivers and reduced licensing fees before we make a vote on this today? Okay. I'm going to go to Nada. How do you vote on this recommendation? My vote would be yes. Ashley, how do you vote on this? I'm voting on the definition of, what's the question again? I'm sorry. The slides are not linking with that. No, they're not. I'm sorry, that's my fault. I'm sorry. So we're on the slide of Vermont recommendations for eliminating and discontinuing fees for social equity candidates. The answer to that is for about Q&A already. Just to get all the applications will be waived. We want more recommendation one that the first year would be waived. The second year would be 25% of the fees. The third year would be 50%. The fourth year at 75% of the fee and the fifth year at full price. And that there is a fee waiver recommendation for your first or second year if you can show financial harm, but also show a plan on how you're going to remedy the situation going forward. And to clarify, Nada, you just voted yes for recommendation one. Right. So based on what I was seeing on the screen, I thought I was voting on the definition for the domestic argument. Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's what I thought. That's what I thought. You want to start on that? Yeah. So let's start this over. Nada, how do you vote on the recommendations for eliminating discounted fees for social equity in terms of application and licensing fee? Did you say eliminating discounted fees? It's on slight tax matters. Okay. I'm voting for recommendation one. And application fees should be waived as well, correct? Yes. Thank you. Ashley. The one thing that I did like about the recommendation two was the possibility of the second year being waived with qualifications being met as I just came out of the compliance and enforcement. Obviously, I don't want to see this happen, but if there's sex or if there's, you know, gender or just, you know, plain old, you know, operator error as far as like learning how to grow these plants properly or, you know, without mold and certain things. So I do like the idea of if there's a qualification met, which has generally been set that qualification as well, of possibly waiving the fees for the second year. Yes. So that is part of recommendation one. I'm sorry. It either is or isn't. Yeah. Okay. It is. So it's recommendation one, first year waive, second year 25%, third year 50%, fourth year 75%, fifth year, you pay the full price. And first and second year, you're allowed to submit a waiver if you have financial hardship, but along with the waiver, you need to show a plan on how you go and remedy the situation. Because yes, we do want to support them financially, but we also need to make sure that they are on track for financial independence. Then yes, I vote yes to recommendation one. Thank you. Actually, Nader, I'm sorry, I do not know why this is going the way it is, but did you fully understand the recommendation that you're making right now that it is the tiered system plus the waiver included with it? Yes, I do fully understand. Sorry for any confusion earlier. No worries. I'm sorry for the text difficulty today. And Julio, what is your vote? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Let's have that for the record. Everybody has said yes to that. Don't worry. We're going to talk about other fees. We're not done yet. There are some other fees that have been suggested by the market structure subcommittee, which has gone into effect today. And there was a provisional license application fee, which I think it is now intention to apply fee. They're calling it, which would be at $500. My recommendation is because it's part of the application fee that would be waived as well. Julio, how do you feel about that? I agree. Great. Ashley, I agree. And Nader? I agree. Okay. And part of Vermont cannabis legislation, there needs to be an employee registration fee for everyone who participates in the industry. That is at $100. The recommendation was for that to be paid by businesses, as it is done right now for the medicinal cannabis industry. Ashley, how do you feel about that? Yeah, I think that's fine. I mean, I'm thinking about like pay data and what is going to all be involved for the fees for the business in and of itself just to have registered and paid employees. Like, you know, this cost is still a cost, but it's inconsequential to the actual paying people's salaries and what it takes to a pay data through cannabis. So I think this is fine. Julio? I agree. It's less than a day's wages or it should be. I agree. Thank you. And Nader? Just to clarify, this is a $100 that pays for the identification card for the employee, or is that another $100 fee that's separate from this registration? This is an identification card that in order to become employed in the cannabis industry. Okay. Yes, I support that. Thank you. So please note for the record, the provisional license application fee, which is now at the least called the intent to apply fee, is recommendation of ways employee registration fee as well. So the identification card for all of the employees is a yes from all three people. And now we have a local fee that will also need to be included within an application and it will be a max of $100 at this moment in time and that is what was submitted. Please note that all of the pricing is subject to change. Nader, how do you feel about either that being weighed or paid by the applicant? I think that since we've done away with the residency requirements, we should have a local fee and $100 isn't that much. And I think it would be good to create that connection between the applicant and their community that they're planning to work in. So I would support it. Thank you. Ashley? Yeah, I agree. Good if it says so. Agreed. Thank you. And Julio. Julio, are you on mute? I understood whether that's an annual fee, one-time fee, an application fee or what? From my understanding, the local fee would be an annual fee attached to be paid when one renews their license. But I mean, Julie, do you see it as an annual fee as well? Yes, I think that's correct. The licenses are on an annual basis and that's intended to be an annual fee that goes with that. So the licensing fee is waived for your first year, but you would still pay a local fee of $100. What does that reflect other than just revenue to the locality? I mean, what does that serve? Well, that's any expenses that the local community will have. And some others say so. For example, Massachusetts has the 2-3% community fee saying that there will be additional charges for that. So this is like police enforcement if they're having more issues with parking. Anything else that would create time and expense to the community for now having cannabis businesses there? My favorite waiver for a social equity applicant for the first year. Okay, thank you. So, Nate or Ashley, are there any changes that you would like to make? Are you still yet to do the social equity candidate paying local fees of $100? I mean, in the spirit of compromise at the fine with reducing the fee, maybe about 50%, I think that there's two sides to it in my mind. When you look at the numbers and you think our $50 or $100 isn't that much, but it does eventually add up when you start tacking on other fees and then the purchasing of equipment. But then there's also the fact that we want to make sure that these applicants are creating some sort of connection to that locality. And we have done away with the residency requirements. And also $50 or $100 is able to manage that to start creating a business. It's kind of algorithm, in my opinion. Thank you, Nada. I agree with that statement. Ashley? I need to think about it a little bit more. You know, I still feel like there's a little bit of confusion. Again, this is the hard part about having my compliance and enforcement break coming into social equity is that we don't really know, like, how towns are going to deal with the municipal aspects of the cannabis market. Most importantly, I guess I'm thinking about the need for, you know, possible law enforcement if that occurs, if really more on the side of protecting the people in the facilities. And I'm already, you know, we're already trying to figure out ways that, broadening the Department of Labor and Lottery to help with the increased demand that's going to be needed for enforcement and compliance for the cannabis base on top of the agency's agriculture, expanding perhaps their enforcement officers and their teams so that they can handle the influx of the cannabis industry. So I agree with what Nader said about, you know, establishing that local relationship and that fees. And since we don't really know exactly what the percentage tax is going to be to municipals, I think this is just another win for towns to feel that they want this in their town, that they feel that the industry is already giving back to their community. But like I said, I need a little bit more time understanding exactly how we're going to pay for more enforcement individuals as a result of the industry and ourselves. And so this would be just for local fee, whether they use it for law enforcement or not. The feeling behind having a social equity candidate pay for the local fee with that connection. And, you know, Nader made a really great point just now saying, you know, we're done away with a residency requirement. You know, this can start to establish a connection between the candidate and the local community that they will be working as a business partner, essentially. And but, you know, Julio has made a good point that we've waived everything and maybe that first year should be waived. So Julio, I see your hand up. Yeah, just to explain my thinking a little bit, I mean, I think it would be kind of the idea that I had behind all of this is that for social equity applicants, if they want to get in the industry, I would like, I was envisioning or I would like the state to be able to say, we want you, if you want to enter into this market, we want you. And no fees for your first year. No government fees. There'll be other costs, clearly. But for me, just to be able to say that cleanly and not like, oh, there are minor fees and that sort of thing. So I just think that you aren't, the localities aren't losing very much. I would think that local law enforcement, the community is going to allow the business in their town that the law enforcement, because of security issues, because of making, and you have a new business and it's a new industry and it's got a history, that I don't know that $100 check buys that relationship. It should be, that's what the town's doing anyway. And hopefully the business person when they select the town, it's because of something more favorable. And that's, I just don't, I see it as a bit of unnecessary expense and I don't see it as a great loss to the town. Again, there are a lot of towns that would love to have more businesses in there. People who, you know, engage in business to more commerce in their town is a benefit for them. So I know, I agree that it's not a huge barrier, but I just think just to say, you know, for our social equity pool, you know, if you want to get into this market, we're not going to impose any state fee barriers for that and let you have that and hopefully it'll take off. That's the thing. Thank you. So can we have, and Nader, how do you feel about just having the local fee waived just for the first year and then charging the local fee the following year? Yeah, I mean, I can get on board to that. I mean, a lot of good points are being brought up and I don't want to drag on, but yeah, I'd be okay with that. Thank you. Ashley, waiving the local fee for the first year and not the other year. Yeah, I like those points a lot. Thanks, Ashley. Julio, yes, to the first year of local fees waived following the year the candidate. Yes. So that are three yeses for the record for local fees being waived for the first year only. Great. We are up to license transfers, which will conclude this and then we get to go up to what benefits we want to create for the program. So we're getting there. For social equity license transfer, this is if you've started a business and have used the social equity program to do so about if you transfer it over to someone else. Your business is being sold. So if you transfer to another, transferring of the social equity license is permitted. However, the new social equity licensees, their social equity candidates, they must take over their previous owner fee schedule. For example, if they're in the third year of the transfer, all of the third year fees apply. If they're supposed to pay that third year, they are able to get that 50% of the fee. The new social equity candidate cannot just restart the clock on that business. If you transfer to a non-social equity licensee within the five years, the new licensee will need to repay any cost savings the company received to the social equity program. After five years where you will be paying regular fees, transfer of ownership is allowed without penalty. Ashley, your thoughts? Nutter? One point of clarity. So with transfer to another social equity licensee is permitted, does that also cover the other license that we were talking about the, I think with the diversity and inclusion license? Is that under that umbrella? We will be talking about the diversity and inclusion license once we fully discuss the social equity program. So this is only for social equity licensee to another social equity licensee. Okay. So, sorry, so I'll just, I'll wait until we discuss further, but at the moment this doesn't make sense to me. Thank you. Julio? Just so I understand how the first, the transfer to another social equity licensee works. If I want to transfer my license in the third year, but, or let's say, yeah, it's the third year, but in my second year I got 100% waiver because of financial hardship. The social equity licensee, and let's say, let's say that they, they didn't have a hardship that they, they did, they were very well off. Their, their market took off. That's maybe why they're acquiring licenses. They would not have any obligation to backfill that waste fee, but rather just, just take it going forward. Is that right? Yes. Yes. That's correct. Because it's not based on the licensee holder. It is based on the licensee's business. So we're not determining when we give the waiver. We're saying how the business is doing, not how much money the licensee holder themselves have. But if, but if the transfer was to a non-social equity licensee under my example, they would have to backfill that waiver? Yes, because the non-social equity licensee holder would not be entitled to any of those benefits. Okay. I understand it. I just want to make sure I understood that part. I understand about like the fee rates, but I didn't know about waivers, how that might occur. If you had to repay, if a fee waiver was considered cost savings, and I think you said it is. It's a great question. Great question. I guess the part I'm thinking about, and I'd like to hear other comments is just whether five years is too long to repay the cost savings. And with this, would this continue like for successive licensees? Let's suppose I acquire the license. I've got five years to pay. I pay one fifth of the cost savings, and then I transfer my license now to another person. And suppose that person is also non-social equity license. Does that, does the second non-social equity licensee acquire the debt to pay off? And do they have five years, or do they have four years now to pay off that? So the non-social equity licensee would not have been entitled to any of the benefits that a social equity candidate received. So within that five years, if someone acquired a social equity candidate's business, they would need to pay back any cost savings that company received because they were a social equity candidate. So if they acquired the company in the second year, and so they must pay back the application fees, they may pay back the first year of licensee wage and whatever benefit they received the second year. So 75% of the fee. From whatever was before, not after because they haven't received those benefits yet. And are you paying prorated over five years, or you could just pay the lump sum on the last day of year five? So whatever the person received up to the date where it was transferred. So if they received two years of benefits, the new owner of the company would just need to pay back whatever the two years of benefits the company has received. But they have five years from acquiring the social equity license to pay back, right? No, within five years just meant for the first five years, after five years, you could transfer the business without any penalty. Oh, I see. So the five years is, I'm not able to transfer to a non-social equity licensee at all for five years. Is that right? Well, you can. If you transfer within the first five years, and the licensee holder is a non-social equity candidate, then the new owner would need to pay back the cannabis control board, or a social equity program specifically, the revenues or the benefits that were waived. So today, if the first year is 10,000, the second year is 5,000, and you took it over at the end of the second year, then the new owner would have to pay the social equity program $15,000 for business, upfront. Before acquiring the license. Before acquiring the business. I see. Okay. I just read this to me that you had a five-year payment plan to repay the cost savings. So that was, I'm glad you cleared that up. Yeah, I think that's fine. We just have to stop here for a moment to see if there's any public comments. I do see Ashley and Nader your handphrase. Sure. Can I ask a quick question, or are we going to public comment? We have to go to public comment, but I will, and we have questions. We do. We have public comment. Hello, everyone. My name is Nicola Shore, and I'm with Vermont Normal. I've been attending these meetings frequently, but I think it's my first time speaking from the camera. I understand it's Thursday at 4 p.m. and we're all being regularly, but I kind of wanted to put, you know, someone with a big picture idea out there, which is that, you know, one of the main reasons why we are here today, creating a regulated market for cannabis is because it was made illegal in the first place under the, you know, under racist and xenophobic frameworks. So as a result, moving forward, the regulatory result of us regulating it should be a value-driven marketplace as opposed to a profit-driven marketplace. So with that said, I think it's imperative that we look at, you know, any chance we can have to waive fees for social equity applicants should absolutely be taken up, whether that is with a local fee, a license fee, which you've obviously been discussing, and that it is important to go out and have this not from a profit-driven mindset, but from a value-driven approach. And I think you've all been doing a fantastic job at keeping that mindset at the forefront, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you all have to come up with in the coming weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Other public comments? I think that's it, Gina. Thank you, Julie. What was your question about this slide? Can we go back to the slide, please? Absolutely, as soon as it comes up. So it was just a quick clarification that if a social equity licensee wanted to transfer after the five years to a non-social equity licensee, that new non-social equity licensee wouldn't have to pay back any of the fees that were waived, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I was just curious about that. Thank you. Ashley? So I appreciate that public comment. I'm thinking of this from the lens of a social equity applicant gets these licenses. Is there any provision of... So it's a year, right? If they bought that, or if they acquired that license, it's up to them if they want to renew that license for year or two, year, three, year, four, year five. So there's no stipulation in there of how long they need to maintain that license before they can sell it. I'm just asking for clarification on that. So we assume if there are social equity candidates that they will be getting four years of reduced fees. With that being said, if they transfer, if they sell their business within that time to a non-social equity licensee, we would want the business owner to repay that after fees for the business has received because the owner was a social equity licensee holder. Because it is for the help of the social equity candidate. Right. I understand that part, but they can sell it year two. They can sell it at any time. At any time. And I guess I'm also looking at it from the lens of we're working really hard as a state and as a committee and as a board to create as much social equity and fairness and diversity for the candidate space. I guess I'm just a little bit nervous about the transfer into a non-social equity licensee. That feels a little bit like I don't want to prevent growth or financial growth of anyone. But I just feel like there's a little bit in there that doesn't feel great as far as, okay, I come into this program. I get this license and then I can sell it to an MSO. Is that possible? Is there going to be any sort of provisions of that? No, but it would be any business. Since there's unlimited licenses, we're not saying that any MSO can't come. So if a social equity licensee has started the business and by the second and third or fourth year, they say, you know what, this is too much for me to handle. Or I'm not enjoying the cannabis industry, but has made a name for themselves in the business. We want them to have the ability to be able to sell their business. You know, this is a program benefit to help them advance. We don't want to limit their advancement by saying you shouldn't have the right to be able to sell your business to someone else. Right, I don't want that to be misconstrued. I just want to make sure that there's not, you know, I'm looking at this from five years, 10 years, 20 years, you know, 100 years from now and making sure that in these first five years where there's going to be so much movement and so much influence. That we're looking at it from all those angles to make sure that we are getting these quality social equity licensee holders and that they feel that it is in their best interest to stay working and creating the state-first market from Vermont. And so I just need a little bit more time to think about that specifically. Okay. Thank you for your suggestions on that and the different viewpoints. Julio, Nadar, are there any other questions that we have for social equity licensee transfer? I have a question, but I'll see if Nadar does first. I don't have questions at the moment. There's, I probably will have questions by Monday, but yeah, I have some stuff to think on and then I will probably have some questions by our next meeting. So I'll just pass it to Julio. One thing I would like to add before we conclude Julio, sorry, and this might be added for more understanding is that the first one, what we're trying to prevent here with a social equity licensee holder is that we don't want one social equity licensee holder to come and then they're at the end for the middle of their licensee and then they give it off to another social equity licensee who might be in the same company in the same organization. So we don't want that someone can come in and just keep on running that time and continue to get the same benefits for the same business. We have to say this business receives a benefit because of the holder. It's okay if you are a social equity candidate, but we cannot start the time again because we can just continuously restart the time. And so that's what our prevention is. One business, one time clock. And with a transfer to a non-social equity licensee, we want to prevent that a social equity candidate came in, started a business, but their true intention was for another person to take it over. And they let someone else take it over and pay because they could have a reduced amount of fees. We want to ensure that these social equity benefits are going to social equity candidates. So as you said, Ashley, we don't want an MFO to come in here, start it off with a social equity licensee, take as many reductions that they can possibly get by having a social equity candidate start the business, and then really just take it over once the benefits are completed. Now at five years, there would be no benefit. At five years, we're hoping that the social equity candidate shows enough time that actually you wanted to run this company and you wanted to be with this company. And we also don't want to prevent transfers of licenses of businesses because it would then hold people to something that may not be right for them. And we don't want to control it, we just want to provide support. I hope that gains more clarity to the reasoning behind these transfers. And Julio, what was your question? My question was whether I was trying to look at it from a buyer's perspective, the one who's going to purchase the non-social equity buyer or prospective buyer. So the licenses that they acquire are the licenses specific to a particular site operation, or they're pretty much all licenses look alike for the size of the operation, like a cultivation, let's say it's a two-acre cultivation license. It's not specific to the original social equity operators or their cultivators. They are two acres, it's just two acres anywhere, is that it? To whatever the license the application. So if it was 2,000 acres of land, it would just be that 2,000 acres of land. So I'm trying to figure out if I wanted to enter the market why I would ever pay for a social equity license, because I would have to pay for back fees, where if I can compete, I can just apply and start on my own. Why would I ever, I don't understand the incentive for a buyer to purchase a license from a social equity seller, as opposed to just getting their own license. Could you explain that? Well, it would be brand recognition, client held lists that they might have already supplied to. You know, all of those connections that have been made in whatever amount of time they've been in business, that becomes equitable for a company. I understand that, but what does the license have to do with that? So they're being taken over the brand, I'm sorry. So we're talking about them taking over their company. Right, but if I have a license, let's say it's a retail license, and I want to buy your business, but I'd rather apply for my own retail license, because I don't have to backfill fees. So I think the point that Julia was missing is that it's already created. There's already profit being generated. That's the advantage of somebody who's not just starting fresh with the application process. So in cannabis businesses, they call them license transfers instead of business transfers. Sorry. It might be misunderstanding the name. Thank you. Actually, I see your hand raised with it. Any questions or comments? Oh, no, that was from before. Sorry about that. Is that enough clarity? Does everybody have enough clarity behind that? Shall we hold off on voting on this so next time, people's feelings? Or do you want to do that now, Ashley? I need a little bit more time. Okay. So let us adjourn. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you. I'll second that. Thanks. Thank you so much, everybody. It's been a great meeting. Thank you for going over those few minutes with me. And we will pick up from this license, social equity license transfer next time, and we'll be going into the benefits of the program. So, you know, put those thinking caps on on how we can really give as much benefit to a social equity candidate as possible. And remember, it's not just for the licensee holder, but for other people trying to get into the industry from all different years. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Bye.