 We'll start by saying that this meeting might run a little bit long today. We will pause for public comment as noticed on the agenda. And we can do some more public comment at the end of the meeting as well. There's a few quick updates from the board. We did have our first public comment after hours meeting on Tuesday. It was well attended. We got to hear from some voices that we hadn't heard from before. So it was a great opportunity for us to kind of connect with the broader audience and we'll continue to do those pretty much the last Tuesday of every month is when we're attending 6th to 7th again. But the official dates are on our website. We had a full advisory committee meeting on Wednesday where they were providing input on some of the recommendations that the subcommittees have made. We're planning on reconvening the full advisory committee one additional time prior to the submission of our market structure report, which our target date for that is now October 15th. So that meeting will likely happen the week of the 11th, but we have not yet set a date for that. Speaking of the 11th, there will be no subcommittee meetings on October 11th in recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day. But our subcommittees have continued their work this week and we're going to turn to some of the updates. We're going to go a little out of order on the agenda just because we have some guests with us. Andrew Livingston and Dan Smith are here from VS Strategies to help us understand the kind of market structure. We do have a recommendation from our Market Structure Advisory Subcommittee. As I mentioned last week, this will form kind of the backbone of our October 15th report on the market structure. I would have liked to have voted on this today, but it seems to me that just given the fact that it was only published yesterday and voted on yesterday, we figured that it might be a good idea to have us discuss it here today. I have a few lingering questions and then hopefully get it ready, queued up for a vote at our next meeting. So I'm just going to pull it up so that everyone has an opportunity to see it. And then maybe, Andrew, Dan, we could turn to some of the questions that have come up in my mind about it. Absolutely. I would have to answer any questions. Let me just get it up here. I'll just go through, I think 12 slides, let's go through them quickly. So essentially our fee structure, there's two recommendations in here. One is recommendation A, and that's where our fee structure, based on that some of the dynamics and possible market participation match our expected operating budget. And then proposal B is a reduced price or reduced cost model where the fee structure does not meet our entire operating expenses. And we would be partially supported through a portion of the excise tax. So that's why there's two proposals here. And that was actually a part of our October 1st report was to provide alternatives to the legislature. So this includes, this model includes a kind of provisional license or an intent to apply fee. This fee would be kind of a down payment on your future license. It would be non-refundable. And the benefit of this is twofold. One, it offers people that are seeking licenses the ability to kind of really get started. Have some submit a short form application and start the work of kind of getting their business model together, getting their capital in place, finding a location, entering to lease agreements, et cetera. And then it also, because it's non-refundable, you know, it offers the board kind of a barometer on how much market participation we're going to have and how many people are actually interested in seeking licenses. And the idea you can see here would be to have kind of a $500 initial fee. And, you know, if it was for, for instance, a outdoor small cultivator license and proposal a $1,000, it would go towards that eventual cost of $1,000. So here's the basic tiering structure that the subcommittee approved. Again, proposal A is the one with higher fees that meet our operating expenses. Proposal B is kind of more of a sliding scale where we would be supported partially through the excise tax. So you have a thousand, under a thousand square feet, under 5,000 square feet, under 10,000 square feet, and essentially just under an acre for outdoor cultivation and the associated fees. And then on indoor, roughly the same breakout, 1,000, 5,000, 10,000, 25,000, and 50,000. So I'm just going to keep going through this and then turn to Andrew for questions. On the retail side, there is two tiers. One is kind of a nursery license that sells seeds and clones only. One is a storefront, which could sell seeds and clones, but can also sell kind of more traditional brick and mortar style cannabis store that we kind of, I think, all picture. There's two kind of possible license types here that I think are not actually permitted under the law currently, but one, or at least we would need to kind of figure out what they would look like. One is a limited space. This would be kind of a cannabis store within a broader store, like a general store. And one is kind of a farm direct to consumer farmer cultivator license retail license. Two tiers of manufacturing, you know, the difference here would be tier one would be allowed to use solid and based extraction. And this poses some additional regulation and public safety concerns, so it'd be more expensive. And then the tier two product manufacturer would be kind of like producing edibles and not using solid based extractions. Sure. Are there any, or has there been any consideration of smaller tiers of manufacturer for like home occupation or cottage style licensing or anything like that? I think it was just these two that have been discussed so far. But we can save that for Andrew as well. Yeah, happy to discuss. These are the integrated wholesale or testing lab. And then also the kind of employee registration fee, local processing fee. So that was kind of capped at $100. This is kind of the employee ID card fee. I know there was some conversation about having this not be tied to a specific cannabis establishment but kind of be a worker card that allows you to work in any kind of this establishment. The testing lab fee. This, I think is the same for the industrial cannabis quality program fee. You know, there was an open question about whether if someone's a license lab for the cannabis program, the hem program, whether they need to pay a separate fee for this, but I think it's a reasonable fee. Irrespective. Full sailor fee integrated license fee. And then here's the kind of this 125 by the way was designed to be kind of the summation of all of the other license types. So that's kind of how the 125 guide is put there. And then, so I mentioned at the beginning that, you know, based on the fees, there's going to be a certain amount of entrepreneurial demands. You know, if the fees are high, then it seems like there could be a dynamic where not a lot of people want to actually participate in a regulated market. If the fees are low, you could see a lot of interest in participating in the regular market. And then so there's dynamic one is kind of the robust sort of participation dynamic three is kind of the, not as much excitement in participating. And I think, you know, via strategies is is pegging things kind of based on these V structure at a more, more likely dynamic to situation. So kind of revenue generated fees. Based on those two proposals and the two and three dynamics. That's the end of that. Andrew. You don't mind I'd like to kind of just open this up discussion this is kind of our first chance at really looking at this. Some questions immediately came to my mind. But if you could just kind of join us and let us talk through some of these questions. And what you think, you know, we should be doing as a board. Absolutely happy to answer any questions you have James and the rest of the board. I have the model open if we need to show a little bit demonstration and kind of queue in on any specific questions, but I think it makes sense to start off with some of those questions. And I'm happy to start with the micro processing and home manufacturing license. If that's of interest. It's actually funny because when Colorado was considering working on creating some of these real micro manufacturing license, we're actually thinking about kind of commissary kitchens. I ended up looking at the cottage food laws and regulations in Vermont. Now it was a number of years ago so I don't remember those off the top of my head. It's great to see that, you know, your regulatory design on small home goods is, you know, is integrating itself into cannabis laws and other in other states. And so, absolutely, I think that it's possible to create another license type for this that there's a few things to consider, which is first, would there be inspections of people's home kitchens. It's a broader policy thing for you all to consider as it takes into, you know, both public health, public safety, but also personal privacy. You know, is it a permit what sort of dynamics look like there. If someone is not producing these these products in in their own kitchen and is using some sort of commercial kitchen, it likely would fall into the kind of that that tier two manufacturing license. If someone is producing at home, the question then comes into a few different things. One, what are kind of the total volume restrictions that would be put in on a license like that. Typically, in most state programs there aren't volume of production restrictions, as it pertains to a a processing or manufacturing license. It is understandable to consider those restrictions when you're talking about a real micro cottage establishment in someone's own home kitchen. The other things to consider are where does the packaging occur, or they're kind of, you know, are you splitting what is normally that manufacturing supply chain into another person's facility. Typically in a manufacturing facility, even if let's say they're not doing their own extraction, they bring in, you know, processed oil, or maybe they bring in trim and they create their own butter. They produce the product, they package the product, they label the product, and then they ship that product down. Now, given that much of these manufacturing, much of this kind of packaging equipment can be more expensive, difficult to deal with on with a single person. You may end up having a situation in which that supply chain, which is normally kind of all entirely within a manufacturing facility, actually ends up being transported. So with that, the question is, what are the safety and transport regulations look like as it pertains to transporting essentially unlabeled product that is also yet been untested from one manufacturing facility or a home cottage production, you know, let's say permit license to maybe another manufacturing license that they have a partnership with that helps them assist them with the packaging. So these are just things to think about that complicate a little bit, but as long as you all are willing to put in the time for the effort and then, you know, understand where those, you know, hazard and critical control points may occur. Are there are some of them not as relevant given the very small volume that production would occur in some sort of cottage home food production, and we know when testing would occur as well. Does that testing occur at, you know, before it's sent to maybe another manufacturing facility for packaging. Does it occur after that point? These are just things to think about as they pretend to this sort of policy. It wasn't something we absolutely put in now, but it's something we'd be happy to assist you with on regulatory design. So I hope that helped to answer the question, Julie. Great. Thank you so much. Andrew, my first question, I think might need the model, but let me ask it and then you decide. Okay. So, I think kind of the basic assumption of the model, the BS created is, you know, we need between 400 and 500,000 square feet of canopy somewhere in that ballpark. That's the kind of target. But I think that is assumes kind of a certain ratio indoor and outdoor grows. I think when we spoke, I think you said 82 to 18 indoor to outdoor. Yeah, that's currently what the model set at, but we can shift things around quite a bit. So if it starts looking like it's going to be more like 7030 or 6535 or something along those lines. What does that mean for kind of the supply and demand kind of, you know, how that impacts that and is and also does that also mean because, you know, you can get four to five harvest out of an indoor versus, you know, one per year out of an outdoor. Does that mean that we need significantly more canopy to meet the demand. So those are two kind of interrelated questions. Absolutely. And this is definitely something that I think the model will provide some visual help with. And so I will first want to start out by saying that 8020 not hard and fast 7030 not hard and fast. We absolutely can change these ratios. And I know that there are significant priorities in Vermont to increase the amount of outdoor cultivation relative to indoor. I, you know, as someone who cares deeply about the environment and served on the kind of inaugural group of the Denver cannabis sustainability committee. Absolutely support and understand this as well. Now the main thing to consider is that outdoor cultivation given the fact that Vermont is quite north. We'll only occur typically with one harvest cycle. And so when we look at the graph, for instance, this is currently this market is set at 370,000 square feet of flowering indoor and 80,000 square feet of flowering outdoor. And that's James, as you mentioned, currently it's just set around 82 to 18 or so. And you can see here, these outdoor spikes. Now this wouldn't be all that substantial and distorting the market. As you can see, let me go one second to the index. You can see here, as we scroll by the amount of supply that is on the market. And here, and this is essentially how much of it is how much supplies on the market, given in demand. So 100% would be meeting everything. It's, it's okay, you know, there are certain months where it exceeds it. It just depends upon, you know, how much is it exceeding it by right. And so what you can see here is during kind of that September, October period, there tends to be spikes, right. Now those spikes, right, thankfully, we can turn some cannabis products, you know, there's a shelf life to them, you know, flower doesn't need to be sold a month that is final finalized and packaged. It can be sold two to three months afterwards concentrates have a longer shelf life edible products, you know, currently this is all adjustable is set to eight months and topicals will last quite a bit longer. And so we're able to smooth some of this out right so what you can see here. It's kind of a lingering amount of a little bit of oversupply that occurs now this is also important to consider, because Vermont has kind of seasonal dynamics as it pertains to tourism. So all cannabis demand tends to spike in the summer and fall off kind of in that fall and early spring periods, when people tend to be inside there's not as much hiking not as much kind of outdoor recreation. So one of the things to consider is that is some of this outdoor harvest comes online when demand is actually at some of its low points. So you can look here, looking at adult use demand you can see these ups and downs follow pretty regular these were incorporated from seasonal trends in Colorado, or again in Washington. Go back again. So we can look at this and let's say we want to adjust it right. You can see here again in September spikes, right. And in the late summer, you tend to have have under supply, but given the fact that you can spread that inventory over we're likely actually not going to see that unless there is significant under supply in the market. Which, which I'm happy to talk about. So let's say we want to change this from 370 and let's do a 300,000 and 150,000 so that would be two thirds and one so 60, 66 to 33. So let's let's see how this changes. And this is a pretty complex cultivation model. This is all kind of adjustable Gantt charts where you can you can actually see what stage each production facility. Make sure sometimes the model is a little slow when I'm on screen share. So forgive me here. This model, you can see essentially every stage, the different growth facilities are at. And again, you know, as, as the board knows I've showed this before, there's enough sense of randomness that is factored into the model, given the fact that, you know, you know when you're going to start licensing people, but you don't have control over when they start and open their facilities. So there's a random number generator in the back end of this model that drives some of these differences. So let's for a second look back at how, you know, when we switch from 20 to about 66, 33, you know, two thirds, one third, let's see how that changes these sorts of things. So here you can see, you know, a much more significant oversupply in these fall months in that first few months. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual market will have oversupply because again, you have less indoor cultivation, right. So the spikes might be higher. But it's almost crashing onto a waves below them that are lower. So it evens itself out of it, right. So what this would show is that when you get to 60, you know, only 300,000 square foot indoor 150,000 square foot outdoor, your peaks and troughs are going to be a little bit more significant. Let's drop down to here. You can see these are now much more significant. But as this kind of crests, right, if you almost think about a wave, it will crash on the waves that are lower. So whereas there's bigger distortions, what this ends up resulting in is kind of more shortages in that late spring to early summer period before you have those fall harvests. Just certain things to consider. Now, when we look at this, you could say, OK, how, you know, is this initial peak too high that is distorting out the market a bit. I mean, we're dealing still here in this middle months. And again, these are really projections. There's a ton of assumptions in here. So if we're at like 125, 130, maybe even 140% of the market, it may very well be OK, given that demand might be higher than we expect. Production output, so yield may be a little less. Everyone may not be cultivating at what they intended to cultivate. They may be a little bit lower that is factored into the market. But under utilization of allocated canopy is a big factor dynamic in most regulated cannabis markets. So what we can see here is that actually shifting the percentages might actually mean we need a little more inventory. If we push down to two thirds, one third, we might actually need more than 450,000 square feet of canopy. So these are just things to factor in, play around as this model. When you look at it, you can kind of understand what it does. Now, one major factor that I would consider is that there are risks for the small outdoor cultivators themselves who may not have the ability to hold on to that inventory or kind of save it so that they can sell it when the price increases again. Obviously, right around here, when there is quite a bit of oversupply in the market, the outdoor inventory that they harvest is going to be of a much lower value than if they're able to hold it to May or June and sell it once it increases in value once again. So these are just sort of things to think about as it pertains to both the market entirely as well as the profitability and longevity of your small outdoor growers that I think Vermont, you know, me personally as well really wants to cherish. Thank you. Are there any follow-ups on that specific point about this blend between indoor outdoor? Not necessarily, but if the storage of this product would be a considerable issue as Andrew just mentioned, I think that's something that we could help facilitate conversation around. It can be stored and maintained at THC content and everything else. That may very well be something you want to consider as it pertains to a wholesale license. Do we essentially increase the usability of such a license type? We'd be happy to work with you on that. Good idea. Yeah. Is this supply spike? Is the downside there in addition to the prices going down and not having too much to meet the demand? Does that create pressure to move product to the illicit market? Is that one of the concerns that we should be considering? It very well could. That is a concern. I think that concern really props up, only arises in a large way when those small cultivators are at risk of just going out of business entirely. I know there were some concerns about that in Oregon back in about 2017 or so when they saw really significant supply spikes. I know the U.S. Attorney of that time had convened a working group with regulators and actually was one of the first U.S. attorneys to work constructively with state regulators to try to fix some of these issues. Those spikes were significantly higher than these were in proportion to their underlying cultivation. I think I've sent this to James in the past to recommend others to read the fiscal year 2021 crop report from the state of Oregon. Andrew, Andrew, a question for you. Let's say this 66-33 model is the direction we wanted to go. And obviously, the more outdoor we focus on the higher risk of environmental factors, potentially destroying crops. I know the program is fighting mold issues in the southern part of Vermont because it's been pretty rainy over the course of the last couple months. What kind of stopgap measures or I don't know the right terminology to use? But how could we address that uncertainty around an entire crop, potentially facing similar issues? Yeah. So this is definitely a concern, particularly as it pertains to hemp, a concern because they needed to have the hemp tested in the field and if a rain is coming, you need to be able to harvest it quickly. So I would say the most important thing there is to provide flexibility for these small outdoor growers in when they harvest and where they can store. It may come about where they plan to harvest in two and a half weeks. And all of a sudden a snowstorm is coming and they need to harvest now. What do they do with that inventory? How quickly can they move that inventory? What sort of extreme measures are there to consider? And there's a lot of good regulations here to actually look at. I'm pretty sure there's been either some bulletins or some regulations developed about this in California as it pertains to wildfires. If you're a cultivator, you may need to be able to immediately cut your plants down in the middle of the night because fire is coming. Now I think you'll have a little bit more head start on that for winter season and snowstorms, but still something to consider. And I would say the most important dynamic is increased flexibility there. Now as it pertains to mold issues, there is some ability to rectify this through essentially extraction. But you do have to ensure that you're also testing for mycotoxins, which can be an outcome of moldy cannabis. You can get rid of the mold itself, but sometimes you end up with mycotoxins, which almost all states test for now, but probably one of the main things to consider. You still can, if a cannabis, lower, test moldy and can't be sold, it still may actually be usable through an extraction, CO2 extraction techniques that can make it safe for use. Great, thank you. I think we're interested in how we can satisfy a lot of outdoor potential cultivators, but I don't want it to throw the demand and supply off. If something unforeseen does happen, so probably building some flexibility. I'm going to shift topics with Andrew. Yeah, yeah, so we received quite a bit, I would say a public comment around a decision point that the advisory committee made around the thousand square feet of total canopy versus flowering canopy. And I'm just curious kind of what the rationale was to say that those, those caps or the tiers of cultivation that we see was determined to be total canopy. And it's a two part question. Sorry about that. And if we wanted to move towards flowering canopy thousand square feet of flowering canopy, but don't want to be kind of increasing our regulatory burden tremendously about, you know, enforcing that. Is there a simple, a kind of simple ratio that we could use to kind of say, all right, if we want a thousand square feet of flowering canopy, then you actually need a facility or field that's 1250 square feet or something like that. To allow for veg and aisles and those things that we don't have to go in and individually measure, you know, or determine what's flowering and what's not. Yeah. Yeah. So there has been some research on this. It's a little bit older from bow tech out in Washington when they were first developing the regulations. This is something that I think a discussion with other other cultivators both in Vermont and other and elsewhere would be helpful. And we're happy to help facilitate that. But historically, the back of the hand, you know, the back of the envelope calculation there is of the total facility about 70% is cultivation area. So that includes the rooms where mother plants, plant plants, vegetative plants and flowering plants occur. And then 70% of that room of those rooms and area where cultivation occurs is flowering canopy. So that gives you a 50% 70% times 70% is 49. Now, as it pertains to an outdoor facility, that's going to be a lot different. You know, if someone's using hoop houses, plants are going to be closer together. Typically, if someone's just big field planting, it depends upon whether they're trying to grow very, very large plants, or, you know, smaller row crops with plastic culture. So this will depend upon how much they spread it out. I'm happy to look into that, but I don't have a back of the envelope calculation on that ratio for indoor to outdoor. Now, as for why to regulate it on the total cultivation area rather than the flowering one most states do regulate the public of Massachusetts, for instance, that's in cultivation area. Regulating just the flowering one could create some complications both for the farmers as well as for the your regulators, right? You know, if you've only got 1000 square feet of flowering to play with, but let's say you've got 2000 square feet of total, you know, to work around with. You've got a little bit more flexibility, right? You can get to that 1000 square feet, but maybe, you know, some more clones or vegetative plants are coming in. Maybe you want to split one of your, you know, use one of your rooms you normally do for vegetative flowering and you can push things over, right? It just provides a little bit more flexibility for the farmers to essentially deal with a larger area that they can shift their plants from within that vegetative clone flowering stages between. Now, as it pertains to what you consider a small grower, I would say that, you know, it's probably safe to say, you know, you've got a statutory cutoff for 1000 square feet. You want to say, all right, a 1500 square foot grower that's the total cultivation area or 2000 square foot grower that's a total cultivation area should still be considered a small grower that very well could have 1000 square feet or less of flowering. So, you know, it may very well be beneficial to create another license tier kind of in between that one and 5000 square feet. We can press some of them because, you know, at a certain point, so many different license tiers for cultivation can become unduly burdensome. But, you know, I think it's it very well may be effective, particularly if you are looking to create kind of a larger yet still small cultivator that is able to really take advantage of that full 1000 square feet of flowering canopy to have a tier kind of in between that one and 5000 square feet. Any questions on that? So, I want to make sure I understand. So, we're talking about the difference between measuring this in flowering canopy versus like total grow space, right? So, one of the opportunities then in total grow space is that you could you could make assumptions about how how big you want to get, right? Could you do like a scale up or scale down with this or is it or is that not what's considered? Well, I think it all depends on what tiers we have, right? So, I think, you know, the question is if we had an intermediate tier, could we, and we select it as total canopy, could we could we still consider that a small cultivator and have the benefits of being a small cultivator baked into that tier? I was just wondering that. I know statutorily we need to make special accommodations for small cultivators, but what authority do we have? To do that for like a medium craft cultivator. So, yeah, what is the intermediate license type that you're considering? I mean, what comes to my mind is we should have one more tier in between the one and 5000. And hopefully we can, you know, call that a small cultivator. And, you know, one thing that we've heard quite a bit as well is that there should be some acknowledgement on the small cultivation side that are some flexibility to have kind of indoor mixed light and outdoor. I know we're not doing a mixed light kind of differentiation here, but I'm wondering if we could create a license type, like a craft small cultivator. They would include 1000 square feet of canopy indoors and in a lot of outdoors, like a 2500 outdoor square foot as well. Is that something that seems like a viable license type? Yeah, you know, many states over time have recognized, you know, there are concerns with licensees kind of stacking cultivation facilities, right? This happened in Oregon early on. It's happened in some other states. In some places it's actually okay and regulated, like in Michigan with their medical, or at least I'm pretty sure it was that way. Initially they may have condensed those licenses, whereas essentially someone would get, you know, five, you know, 2000 square foot licenses and stack them all in the same location and then they essentially have a 10,000 square foot license. Now, normally, you know, what I would say is you want to push people away from that and push them towards just increasing their tier, right? You move from a tier one to a tier two to a tier three, got one cultivation license. Now, as it pertains to indoor and outdoor, I do think it makes sense to allow for co-location of those different license types for those smaller growers. So one of the main factors here is if you are thinking about how an outdoor facility might operate, right? In Vermont, you know, there's kind of two different ways an outdoor facility will operate. Either they will only grow outdoor, have no indoor component, and a need to buy new clones every year. That could be very expensive from a capital intensive standpoint. It may only be viable for the smallest outdoor growers who are really just utilizing this as, you know, almost like a test bed or maybe some additional plants onto, you know, next to a farm that provides other sorts of product crops. But I imagine that most of the outdoor cultivators will want to keep around their own mothers, you know, plants that they keep in vegetative state to provide clones for their annual outdoor grows, for their annual outdoor harvest. And in order to do this, they need to essentially have some portion of a facility that is indoors. Now, I still think that this would be considered an outdoor. The differentiator here, which, you know, as we spoke with Stephanie Smith, is similar to the differentiation with hemp. Is whether or not the flowering stage occurs outside under natural light or inside under augmented light or maybe a combination of augmented light and natural green house. So if you have a facility that is outdoor, all of the flowering stages outdoor under natural light, it still might need, you know, a thousand square feet, two thousand square feet of indoor facility to keep those moms live to keep the vegetative. The clones, because sometimes, you know, you don't want to root your clones outside, you want to make sure they're rooted and healthy before you move them outside. So the question then is what happens that indoor facility, you know, in January, February, March, right, they would essentially be keeping alive plants and keep running a business without any revenue coming in because, you know, their harvest won't be sold until the fall. So with that kind of design, it could very well be beneficial to allow both a small amount of indoor and outdoor. And that, you know, there's a period of time when their indoor facility is all being used to, you know, root clones and get their vegetative plants, you know, their young vegetative plants well rooted before putting them out in the field. But once that is done, they're able to, you know, let their moms rest for a little bit once they start to replenish. They can use some of that for indoor harvest so that they can have a more continuous revenue stream and keep some of those small to mid-sized outdoor growers alive. While they have a real small indoor harvest that helps to sustain those costs of operating that indoor facility that is necessary to supply their outdoor inventory. It's a little confusing, but let me know if you have any questions with that. Andrew, could you repeat what you thought if this was like a supplemental indoor allowable under the outdoor license type? What would the indoor square footage or canopy size need to be for this to actually work in practice? I think did you say another 1,000 square feet? Yeah. This is something where I am much less of an expert. There's likely others we could speak to, you know, in Vermont. I'm happy to kind of brainstorm this with some other cultivators as I'm less familiar with how much, you know, clones you would need for an outdoor facility and how much space that would need for an indoor facility. So not necessarily my explicit expertise on that area, but we're happy to work with you to provide that. What I would say is it may not even be a specific type of license type. It may just be you allow them to get both. And in that case, it might be a little bit more expensive, but particularly if we drop the prices of those smaller indoor and outdoor facilities, even if you get two, it shouldn't be that expensive. That's why I try to characterize it as supplemental to the outdoor license type. But this would just be for propagation starter, vegetative state only. But then it could shift in the kind of after you harvest it, it could shift for like the winter months into indoor cultivators. Andrew, this probably, I don't know if you have the ability to answer this question, but can you tell me kind of like what size business, how much product, you know, can be harvested produced between a kind of 1,000 and a 3,000 and a 5,000 tier cultivator. And let's just stick to indoor for now. What kind of numbers are we talking about? Because I do think that there's room in the model to have an intermediary license between the one and the five, but I just don't really know what the size of these businesses are. We really want to focus on small businesses and increasing competition in Vermont. And so I'm just trying to think out loud about how big of a jump is it between one and five? 1,000 and 5,000 indoor cultivators. So I'm going to use the model for a little bit of scratch paper right here. So you guys can, you know, I think you can see, let's take, I'm going to do, and this would be for harvest, right? So let's say we had, I'll just do this for, for example, right, flowering canopy. The real question is, is what is this ratio? Let's say it's about that 70%. It could be less, it could be more. Let's just put it here for now. Let me, we have some comments here, right? So this then really depends upon your yield and your output. The first question is, is what percentage of the allocated canopy is actually going to be utilized? So this model here factors in 60%. I spoke with some of the growers in Vermont. One of them let me know that that's kind of out where they were. And this is actually similar a little higher than what it is in Colorado and Oregon, sorry, Colorado and Washington. There's some really interesting crop reports there. It's usually between, it was like 40 to 55%, depending on what period of time and things like that. But if we assume 60, we're essentially looking at 60% is going to be utilized times let's say 40 grams of flower per square feet of flowering canopy. And if we're an indoor facility, let's say five harvest a year. And now let's divide that into pounds. Just make it a little easier. I'm impressed you have the self confidence to do this on Excel in a public setting. This is not my first time doing this in a public setting. I'm going to take off my video for a second because I got a notice on bad network quality. So, all right, so let's say we've got some flower output. Yeah, my biggest concern is actually spelling things wrong, not not doing my Excel run. So that's where my skill set is at. So this then depends upon, you know, what is our volume? What's our value per per pound, right? You know, we're dealing with let's say 2,500 a pound, things like that. This again is is total output, right? Let's say we're dealing with I'll put some different prices in here. So let's go 2,000 a pound, 2,500 and 3,000 a pound, right? Now we look at this then would actually going to have to do it this way. I'm going to go, I don't have enough cells. So we're just going to have to imagine this one's the thousand, 2,000, 5,000, right? Because I want to show this sorry that the screen share delays some of the lock this across and lock this down. So here is the annual, this would be annual revenue associated with flower output. This would be your smallest, you know, a thousand square foot, 25, 2,000 square foot and 5,000 square foot, assuming some of these production estimates we have here, right? And this is the amount of the value in the pounds. So these smaller growers really here, this is really just a really small facility, probably one person operating it. This may or may not be a full-time job. It might have to be, but it's going to be a struggle, particularly if these prices are low, right? If prices are higher a bit and they're really getting a higher quality, you know, at 2,500 to 3,000 a pound, it's a much better limit, right? And then you start looking at, okay, sorry, once you get to the larger facilities, it's a much easier business, right? With the 1,000 square foot at 3,000 pound, again, that's an easier to pull off as far as kind of your ongoing costs and things like that. But this is kind of what we're thinking about both in terms of pound volumes and potentially as far as wholesale revenue, depending on what the wholesale value is at, about what it means to be a real small farmer. In most of these cases, even if you're at is 2,000 a pound, even if sorry, even if you're 2,000 square feet of total facility, you're probably in most cases less than a million dollars a year. That's very much a small business. So as far as rationale for like what would you consider a small business, right? You know, you probably with 2,000 square feet of facility, you know, one, you're not using all of it for flowering. And two, you're probably not even out utilizing all of your canopy, right? Now this changes and we're now at 80% utilization, right? This shifts quite a bit. And I think probably for some of the smaller farmers, their utilization would be higher because under utilizing their limited square feet that they have is a bigger hit. Gotcha. Okay, so essentially what you're saying is there's probably room in our, in our model and our tiering structure for some sort of intermediate tier between the one and 5,000 if we really want to focus on kind of small businesses. Yeah. Absolutely. So, Andrew, we have a public comment period. I don't think I'm not quite, I have a few more questions for you, but we have on our agenda public comment period right now. I'd like to pause if you can stick around if you can't let me know. Yeah, I should be able to stick around. Okay. So we're going to pause for just 10 minutes to do public comment. If you have, if you joined us through the link and you have a comment you'd like to make, please raise your virtual hand. And I see David Templeman. Hello again. Thank you very much for taking my question. So first off, I'm really excited to see what you've come up with here and I think most of the metrics pretty good. My one concern though, it seems that the number of square feet under cultivation between 400 and 500,000 seems to be quite a bit, especially at the production levels that Andrew calculated there. It also seems a bit exaggerated the numbers he used for wholesale prices per pound. I would imagine them to be quite a bit less, especially under market pressures where there's more cannabis than can be put into the marketplace. And it seems that that's kind of where the ship is being steered. If we're headed for 400,000 500,000 square square feet under cultivation. So my question is to be a little more rigorous. How did that number arrive at like what what is the number of hundreds of millions of dollars of market shared as cannabis look like or is projected to be in this state? And where is Andrew getting these numbers for wholesale, you know, to $3,000 a pound. It seems really high to me. I'll take my question off the forum. Thank you. Andrew, just hold on one second. We can try to get an answer for you, but we can't just turn this into a kind of question and answer session with Andrew at this point. We do have kind of a longer agenda today. And we have to get through it, but David, I appreciate you kind of keeping track of this and giving us your feedback at every stage. And we'll try and get you an answer kind of offline to that question. Okay. Thanks, Jeffrey. Jeffrey, do you want to join? Certainly. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Yes. Thanks for this meeting, Andrew. Thank you for the presentation. My name is Jeffrey for the record co-founder executive director of Vermont gross association partner organization in the Vermont cannabis equity coalition. We have Andrew, we have pulled cultivators across the state. We have an annual policy survey and we have arrived at data points that helped inform the updated canopy size of 500,000 square feet, which we actually think is a floor. That being said, I appreciate the talk about canopy and considering demands supply and demand. One reason why in our proposals that were recommended to the CCB, we define the canopy as flowering and not total living plant. We think that makes more sense and it prevents these complex avoidable conversations of having to define supplemental permitting for outdoor and whatnot. Simply going with a flower mature plant for the definition of a canopy would simplify all of this and is in more alignment with Vermont's producers as we're currently producing. And that's really important. I want to keep in mind, we have a robust market right now we need to transition these individuals, which means we need to meet them where they're at. That's another reason why we are proposing a one to four cultivation ratio. These are stats we see in other states, VGA on an ongoing basis meets with groups in other states, and we're forming a craft, basically a definition for the craft marketplace, it includes these parameters. So I would urge you guys to adopt these Andrew few have any questions about the local community and finding greater data points we're happy to help you there. Thank you. Thanks, Jeffrey. All right, we have Eli Harrington next. Really good comment. Yeah, thank you for for taking the time. Just quickly the wanted to support the definition of flowering canopy over total canopy for a lot of the aforementioned reasons, including quality and ability to breed especially important for people up north here, being able to have male plants. I think we also heard a lot of feedback about cultivator tears being capped. I know at one of the forums we had here 10,000 square feet for an indoor facility was discussed. I know they're market realities, but I think a cap at something, you know, 10 or 20,000 square feet. You know, to really emphasize that that role for the small and medium producer to get a part of this 500,000 square feet. And then looking forward to national legalization. One thing that was clear from the hemp program was when CBD could move across state boundaries. There was no definition of Vermont products that protected our producers. So I think it's really crucial looking ahead that a Vermont edible has to be sourced from Vermont grown product. And that we need to bake that in now anticipating future competition from other states. And even the likelihood of, you know, distillate coming in from out of state via the illicit market, making it into Vermont edibles and those making it onto the shelves in regulated stores. So looking ahead, you know, I don't know how that impacts or, you know, changes potential models, but I think that definition is really important to establish and bake in looking ahead. So thank you. Thanks, Eli. Tito Bern. Tito, you want to join? Hi there. I'd just like to reiterate everything I've been hearing, just how crucial it is that canopy be defined as flowering canopy and also unlimited edge for all licenses. I think it's crucial. Thank you. That's it for joins big link. We have five people by phone that have joined. Okay, if you've joined through the phone. You can and you would like to make a public comment. You can do so now just please hit star six and we'll try and manage multiple people. Okay. Okay, well, we'll stop public and we'll continue with Andrew. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Sorry to squeeze in the last minute. I just wanted to go back further and in what we've covered so far to the market structure fees licenses for the other license types beside cultivation. I just wanted to be a voice here as I have been previously for the other license types that haven't been discussed yet that I know are on a different timeline but delivery special events and we're hoping social consumption will work into that. And then just because this is, you know, the integral word. And you all have your presence at the subcommittees. I just want to mention an integrated piece of that which is that we are hoping for social equity exclusivity on some of these newer licenses. And I just wanted to say an affirmative piece that, you know, as with the current plan being for the license fees to cover the administration of the CCB and the building of the marketplace, if you extend the social equity benefit of free and then discounted licensing to the exclusive future licenses, they just become an added bonus to the income after the first couple of years. You know, it would be fine to give the exclusivity to social equity and give it to them for free. Just wanted to share that note. Thank you very much. Okay. So we'll jump back in with Andrew. Andrew, you know, I hate to put you on the spot like this, but do you remember David's question and I don't want this to necessarily be a back and forth but do you want to just speak quickly. No, I'm happy to discuss. Um, so, um, honestly, the 2000 and 3000 square feet, sorry, 2000 and 3000 square a pound was just as an example. I think it is very possible, as I think is David the first David Templeton mentioned that particularly early on. Sorry, early on right after those those fall harvest that that will be lower. We saw wholesale prices in Colorado kind of bottom out at around 800 a pound and then they came back up as some cultivators left. I think that was even lower than for for Oregon. I'm just as an explanatory I changed that from 2000 to 50 to 3000 to 1000 2000 and 3000 so so those that are looking can see how this this differs. So just as an explanatory, you know, I do agree with David that it likely will see much lower prices in that fall period of people that are offloading their harvest, and then that will grow over time as kind of we see the seasonal fluctuations in supply. And as such, you know, increases in prices as demand increase all else equal. So that's one thing to consider. The second is, you know, my thought for alright, let's look at this regulating it both for the total canopy area rather than just flower was a combination of what I thought would be easiest for the growers as well as a little bit easiest for the regulators. But you know, if all of the growers believe that for them it's going to be a lot easier to just regulate based upon flowering canopy and you guys willing to work with them and find a way to make that efficient there. Go for it. Absolutely go for it. You know, that was not a this is the best policy. This is what I had thought might be best might what the small growers in Vermont might want. But if they're coming together and telling you something different, you know, that is a partnership that you're going to be working with them on a longer term basis than you will, you know, it with me and kind of developing his initial policy recognition. So I would say absolutely if they are coming together and providing you kind of a uniform uniform voice on that issue that says it's easier to regulate some flower and that's something definitely consider. I would also mention that the model itself works off of flowering canopy right so that, you know, I think it was the second or third speaker from from the small growers currently from on he was saying the five thousand square foot floor for flowering. And we were talking about really right now the market is a at this is at 450. That's just for flowering. That's not total canopy. Right. So, so we're dealing with a lot more canopy on top of that. His mother's veg and others. So these sorts of things very well, you know, play around with as far as as what works best for the growers that are in Vermont themselves right growers that I'm used to working with around the country. I tend to be larger than what the small growers will be in Vermont and so I think it's essentially it's vital to as we've been taking their public input now on what would work best for them as far as canopy determinations. Well, James and Julie correctly if I'm wrong but at 164 canopy is defined as all living plants. I'm fairly certain that that is that's been defined in statute, which is why we've been kind of trying to be a little bit more creative but I'm not sure we have that that authority rests strictly in our in our camp. Andrew, I had one last topic that I was hoping you might be able to touch on, because I think there is a nexus to what these we want to approve. We have to make a recommendation to the legislature on delivery, whether we should allow it and what it should look like and how much the license should cost. There's a number of different models, some of which kind of start to cannibalize some of the retail licenses. And so, you know, just curious if you wouldn't mind doing a very high level overview of some of the various models of delivery that you see across the country and how that might, if we allow one over another how that might impact our kind of, you know, potentially the retailers ability to kind of profit and support, you know, paying our fees. Absolutely. So I would say that, you know, when we're talking about delivery. There's a few different factors to consider, but first we'll talk about at what stage along supply chain does the delivery to consumers occur. Right, so in all of these cases, you're going to need to be delivering what is essentially finished product that has been tested. So even if it's coming from a cultivation facility that that cultivation facility has tested their product, you're probably you're going to need to package the product label the product because the delivery facilities, you know, unless they also have a wholesale facility and you enable wholesalers to package and label, you know, they're going to be just picking up product and delivering to consumers. So the real differentiation here is you allow delivery to pick up from, you know, either wholesalers from manufacturers from cultivators or can they only pick up from retail stores. Right. If you're only picking up from retail stores, obviously the retailer then is able to benefit from that margin, right, they're able to capture a little bit along that chain. Now that may be something that is necessary in order to keep those retailers alive without cutting them out of the out of business because we don't want small growers but we also don't want small retailers in Vermont to go out of business. That being said, you know, if we're looking to see okay well then how much margin is the delivery driver going to get, they may be compressed there right so it's it's how many people are are profiting off of the margin all the way from cultivation to to direct direct sale and and who is getting a larger percentage of that margin. These are just things for you all to consider. So that's kind of one of the first major policy questions. The second major policy question is how you allow delivery. Right. So I would say that there's three different types here. The first is you could only pick up an order from, let's say a cultivator or manufacturer or wholesale or retailer for that one person order and deliver it directly to the customer. It has to go back and forth constantly. This is probably not going to be viable in Vermont, given that you are relatively rural state. And what that would mean is that a delivery driver would have to either charge a huge amount to deliver or would have to tell people in in more rural areas. I just can't deliver to you effectively. It also means more driving around and that of course is more emissions and as a climate impact as well. The second is kind of intermediate, which is you can accept orders or maybe even pre orders from, you know, to let's say either whether it's a cultivation facility, manufacturing, wholesale or retail, accept multiple orders at a time, pick up those multiple orders and then deliver them out. Right. So you pick up, let's say orders one through 10 for the day that maybe came in even the day before or you can have a system in which, you know, someone who's in a real rural area can just pre order. And, you know, in the same way that, you know, you can set deliveries, you know, you make all your orders, but then you get one package that comes on Wednesdays or whatever, you know, I know Amazon is now allowing this to reduce the amount of boxes you have to deal with. In this case, you reduce the amount of transports, right. Retailer, let's say gets in a whole bunch of different orders. They pre plan this out. The delivery truck driver today is going to do orders one through 25. Tomorrow you do 25 through 50 and so forth. That allows you, you know, those orders are still coming in, but they, you're able to much more efficiently deliver them out. The option is to essentially allow a delivery driver to act almost as a mini retailer in the fact that they can pre purchase packaged inventory that they think would be in demand and then take orders as they come in. So almost like, you know, a lift driver, you're in, you know, you're in a car. He gets another ding. And he just goes to another person, right? In this case, they would have a secure trunk, locked, you know, product segregated, all that sort of things. And they'd be making a delivery while they're on their way from delivery one, maybe they get a delivery for delivery three. They go, you know, finish the second delivery. Now they make a third and it kind of daisy chains throughout. It's another way of looking at it. It allows them to not have to go back and forth as much to a retail facility allows them to kind of purchase an amount of inventory they want to previously. Now the negative part of this, of course, is that it may reduce selection for a consumers as more smaller, unique products. You know, a delivery driver may not stock up on the full plethora of small, you know, items and different cottage products that a consumer may demand and that may push consumers in a way that would consolidate a number of products available on the market. Or at least for delivery. So those are probably three different models to think about from the actual metrics, designing delivery, but then also what to consider as far as at what stage in the supply chain can a delivery driver hook into. That's great. I know our social equity subcommittee is going to be delving into this issue. I think next week, I just wanted to get a little bit of a primer out there and just recognize that this does have an impact. It's a great thing, and it's a great way to increase accessibility. And I know, you know, the black, the illicit market, legacy market, you know, delivery is an option. And so it's something that I think, you know, we should think about our recommendation. But I just want to make sure we are all cognizant of how it impacts other license types. Any questions for Andrew? I have a monopolizing conversation on this. I have a general just fee structure question. So, going back to just the fees and the slides I think pepper you shared with in the beginning, I don't remember if, if that only showed the fees for the first year, or if there's any consideration of how those fees would change over time. The subcommittee said they would just remain the same. So it's the annual, it's the application fee and the renewal fee. For, yes, but then, you know, in the next fiscal year, the fees all the same. Is there any, is there any thought about how over time we would evaluate what the cost of the actual fees should be without having to go back and recommend a specific fee to the legislature. I mean, the way it works for other departments, the DMV, etc., is every three years you do a true up and re-evaluation. Yeah, I don't think they ever got to a mechanism for reviewing if those fees were prudent, should they go down, should they go up. But I think the renewal fee, they wanted to just keep the same as the fees that we had here just to alleviate any confusion on which fee you need to pay. And that's something we can develop irregularly. Yeah, I think that makes sense. You know, with all of these sorts of things, those good government to, you know, whether it's three years, five years to sit back, evaluate the costs, re-evaluate, recommend to the legislature and change those there. But for starting, I think it makes sense to at least have the same, you know, annual renewal as well as initial license fee. It may come to a point that, you know, you want to reduce those or maybe it's a higher per initial because it requires a little bit more inspections early on and then lower when you're dealing with re-occurrent. So we might have some recommendations for you, Andrew, and for VS more generally to change the fee structure a little bit. I would like to have the board vote on it next week. I mean, we have an October 15th report and I'd like to approve something and then have the advisory committee take a look at what we did. So, you know, if you don't mind, just kind of expect some kind of recommendations from us in the coming days. Wonderful. Yep. I was, you know, we, Dan, myself, the others at VS Strategies and Cindy Sederberg have thoroughly enjoyed working with you all and look forward to continuing that relationship as it comes to any kind of consulting or additional insights you need. Thank you. Thank you. It's been really productive and great. I mean, incredible time spent around on your part, so thank you. And I would say, you know, James and the rest of the board, you know, if there are other stakeholders that made comments today that you think would be beneficial to direct me directly to connect me with, feel free to do that as I'm, I always love gaining more insights from individuals directly on the ground in Vermont as your market and your size, your growers, your number of growers, your history with cannabis, cannabis cultivation is somewhat unique. And these models, you know, are quite flexible. There's a lot of assumptions and they can be tweaked relatively easily to incorporate, you know, any of those insights. So feel free to connect me with those individuals. I'm happy to speak with them. Thank you for that. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. Yeah, feel free to hop off unless you want to stick around. I got another meeting I gotta go to. So thank you. And I hope you have a wonderful Friday and a good weekend. Thank you. You too. So we have some decision points that we can make today on social equity, but I would just give to round out my portion of the presentation just give a very brief update on the medical subcommittee. They did meet this week on Thursday. They had a guest witness, Shane Lynn from series med, talk about the kind of internal mechanics of the medical program. They have delivery there. He explained that. He kind of explained some basic patient counts and some of the things that, you know, the Vermont Cannabis Trade Association has been advocating for to improve the medical program over the years. And trying to think, I mean, one important note from that is, it sounds to me like there's a real commitment from series and the other two organizations that run the dispensaries to maintain the current products, you know, maintain the current inventory for Vermont patients. I mean, the commitment was ongoing, but certainly, you know, throughout this transition. Well, the board assumes assumes a medical program. So, other than that, I don't think there was much to report back on that, but I do think that they next week, they're going to look at the marijuana for symptom relief oversight committee's recommendations about the future of that advisory board and how that board will interact with the cannabis control board. So they will be meeting next week. Great. So I'm going to turn things over to you, Julie. Okay. So, the social activities have had a very productive week. Share my screen. Oh, that work. So this, the social equity subcommittee is working with, they were working with an October 1 plan or deadline for reducing or eliminating fees for social equity applicants and then October 15 for developing the criteria. And this week they have provided some general recommendations on both their next tasks in the coming weeks will be to discuss the transferability of social equity licenses, the details of the benefits. How social equity applicants will be approved. And then a host of other things, including a broader program, which is, I think what I'll talk about a little bit next is that the first recommendation of the subcommittee was to kind of bifurcate these into two different programs. One is social equity program that specifically addresses the disproportionate impact of cannabis prohibition and then the other to create a broader diversity equity inclusion program to make a more inclusive industry for those who've been typically underrepresented in society. So what they focused on thus far is just the social equity program pieces of this and then the diversity equity inclusion program pieces of this would come a little bit later. So they their recommendation for social equity applicants criteria is that the person lives in an opportunity zone and we've discussed this a little bit before those are census tracks that were identified by the IRS and then 25 of them were accepted or move forward by the state of Vermont and identified as opportunity zones. And typically those are zones where there is a significant either unemployment or a lowering of income over a period of time. That's how the IRS identified those opportunity zones. So lives in that area, black indigenous or person of color, or convicted of a cannabis related offense, meaning they themselves have been arrested, or convicted or incarcerated or are a member of an impacted family. And they also defined what impacted family meant. And so that's the relationship to the impacted individual. And I'll just I won't read out this whole list, but here's the list of what they've discussed. We've added, or at least this past week they added domestic partners or for those who've been following this for a couple weeks. Yesterday, they added domestic partner and stepchild and clarified that it's, you know, a minor when they're living with the with the impacted individual. So they clarified those two things yesterday. They also defined what domestic partnership is and they took this from the state of Vermont's HR policy. They're typical for HR policies to have a domestic partnership definition. This you'd like the best structure to sort of steal from quickly. And this is what they view. So it's somebody who is is a sole domestic partner of another person. They're obviously not married to another person and I again won't read out this list, but this is the definition and it came from state of Vermont policy for supporting documentation for the social equity applicant criteria for conviction. They recommended proof of conviction of court documents, probation documents or other Department of Correction documents and believe that this can be achieved by requesting those from the courts. When this committee created the criteria, they did not include a residency requirement where some states have included a one year or six month or several year residency requirement. They did not include that in the criteria definition. However, to qualify for these programs, you would have to be a resident on the day that you apply for the programs. And so these are the proof of residency documents that this subcommittee came up with at the time of application. And the feeling of the subcommittee was that these are relatively easy to obtain or have to be obtained for other reasons. For example, you know, school district requirements. And you know, folks have to provide that documentation to send their kids to that school. These are relatively easy to obtain I guess is the goal of that subcommittees recommendation. And I believe that they ended with just one of these documents would be necessary. So did you want me to talk about their eliminating and discounting of fees recommendation they came to that conclusion yesterday. I think you should talk, talk about it. I don't know if I'm prepared because we haven't adopted our fee proposal yet to vote on this piece of it. Sure. Yeah. So the subcommittees recommendation for eliminating or discounting fees is that all application fees should be waived including that provisional intent to apply fee that the employee ID card fee should be paid by the employer. That's actually pretty typical and unexpected. And that the local fee should be waived only for the first year. So that was sort of the application fee and then their licensing structure for reduced fees for licensing is here in this chart so waived for the first year. An applicant would pay 25% of the fee in the second year 50% in the third 75% and the fourth and then by the fifth year be paying the full fee. They did also include a recommendation that if someone's in their second year of business knowing that the first couple of years of starting up a business are the most expensive and challenging that they could apply for an additional year of waivers. But they did not provide us with a recommendation of what what we would use as a criteria. So that's up to us. Okay. They also provided us with a criteria of what a social equity business license would look like, meaning that the person who holds the license would have to have at least 51% ownership. That they must be involved in the day to day operations so they can't be, you know, just in name only they have to be actively involved in the business. And they have to meet the requirements to be able to open a business under the state of Ramon or our other requirements that we that we come up with in our structure. So based on all of this, I think our decision point for today really is that we can accept the work of the subcommittee. And then there are several details. I think that we need to work out either based on the public comment that we've heard the full advisory committee gave some additional comment. But there are some additional details that I think we need to look closer at kind of the decision points. There are opportunity zones. There are only 25 opportunity zones in Vermont, whether or not we as a board feel that that is capturing enough of the people that we are looking to to provide opportunity to should be considered. We need to, I think, define a little bit what cannabis related offense might be. Are there any exclusions that we should be considering? Should we line those up with what other licensing requirements will be? And, you know, the ease and challenge of obtaining court documentation, I think there was a feeling of the subcommittee that you would be able to just go somewhere and get documentation. And that may or may not be true depending on the state you live in the type of conviction and all those types of things. The subcommittee didn't talk about the definition of impact. So if someone had a cannabis related offense in their past, but now, you know, are not really feeling the impacts of that. They didn't talk about whether or not that person would still qualify as a social equity applicant. And I know that that's come up in some public comment and even direct comment in the past. I think it might be helpful to further clarify impacted family. I think there might be some gaps as it relates to people who may have been in foster care or otherwise wars of the state or had informal relationships where they were living outside of their sort of, you know, typical nuclear family sort of domestic, you know, traditional housing. And I think we could probably further define domestic partner. And I really mean that by creating a system of what documentation would someone provide that they were the proof of domestic partnership. And there may be some requirements for additional fee waivers. We need to figure out what that would look like. Great. So, should we discuss whether or not we can take a vote on accepting the work of the community. Yeah, I think I think we can accept their work knowing that there's more that this is a recommendation that there's more for us to do on this. Yeah, the opportunity zones. I'm curious what that was meant to capture. And then this is the question I think that Suvarn raised at the advisory committee, because we have meant to capture. People have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. I think the other two criteria are speaking to those. So is it meant to capture kind of socioeconomic considerations. And I think that, you know, his point there, and I think it's a valid one is that relying on these opportunity zones and be both overly inclusive. As in, there's a way to kind of game living in an opportunity zone by property there now or something along those lines versus it can be severely under inclusive as well. Thinking about kind of all the area of Vermont that are not opportunities. And he actually pointed to his home town of Virginia, which is an opportunity zone under the map. And yet, you know, it was, there's a huge blend of kind of socioeconomic dynamics happening there. And if everyone in Virginia was, you know, automatically a social equity that might be overly. Right. So if the thought was to do socioeconomic factors, I wouldn't want to approve or accept the opportunity zone language. I would say that we should have socioeconomic criteria. I do agree with that. But I'm not sure that the opportunities are actually the best way to capture that. So I would agree that and opportunity zones are not necessarily evenly geographically dispersed state, but there are certainly folks across the state who are having socioeconomic challenges. So for me, it was more, who are we leaving out by this narrow sort of definition. And they are, you know, some of those census tracks seem like they're portions of towns. You know, and there may be other parts of the town that weren't included because each state could only choose, I think, 25 or 30 opportunity zones. I suspect that originally this, the conversation around opportunity zones was more about community reinvestment than it was about using it for the definition. So I think it would be good if we as a board further defined what socioeconomic criteria we're looking at. I'm in agreement there. Me too. So, okay, and then of course, just the language around conviction. This is something that came up in the social equity caucus when we presented this, when Gina presented this is that, you know, this is semantics. I think I understand the purpose, but you know, technically, you know, in family court, there are no convictions, there are adjudications. So we want to make sure that, you know, we're not excluding folks that may have cannabis related adjudication. And of course, those records are very hard to obtain. They are under seal. And then it's expanded after. Yeah. So we need to think about how, you know, what sort of, you know, documentation folks are going to actually need to present to us. I do think it was the intent, like you said, semantics, I think it was the intent to include those right. So is there a language of a motion that we would like to take to approve? She kind of worked out or. So I would move to approve the work of the subcommittee with the understanding that the cannabis control board will now do their work to further define social equity applicant criteria and program. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor. Hi. And that includes all the things that you just laid out. Yes, that we need to, there's more to come. Right. Okay. And so really the kind of next phase for this subcommittee is really to define explicitly what the benefits with the privileges of social like the applicant are. Yeah. Beyond just the fees, you know, that's right. Expanded review process. Um, specific licensing as well. Yeah. Yeah. Sounds great. Yeah. Thanks to the work of the subcommittee. Yeah, they've done a great job. Is there one more slide there that we're missing? That was about the municipal round table. And I've got stuff about public health. Okay, why don't we start with public health? Public health has not made any decisions finalized yet. They're working with an October 20th deadline. And as of yesterday, they sent their favorite symbols and their favorite warnings to the department of health for review. Getting tired and a little bit punchy, I think their next review of those symbols and warnings will be the week of October 11. So most likely since we're not meeting on the 11th, October 14. So in the meantime, they're going to work on the point of sale flyer and the distinctions between food processor and food manufacturer, which is a recommendation that we as a board have to go forward to the legislature. So I'll share with you their top two symbols. This one. It may look familiar. It's very similar to mass and main symbol with the exception that the leaf is a little bit more defined and looks a little bit more like a cannabis leaf just because the mass and main, you know, they may not be considering whether or not their symbol looks like a maple leaf and we did. And it's a it's a fair consideration. So here are some examples of what it would look like on product. They talked a little bit about this night, this white knockout and how it stands out on, you know, sort of any type of packaging. And we did share with them some some packages held them up to the camera so they could see what what that looks like kind of in real life, if you will. Is that a bag or is that just fun? That's just front just fun. Yep. And is that kind of relative size? Yes. Yeah, well, there'd be a size dimension requirement of like an inch by an inch by an inch. And I think it's based on package size. So another conversation that they've had is, you know, what can you fit on a certain size package. So these are, you know, you can see the size of these packages here but like a pre roll package, for example, is much smaller. You can't put very much on it. So are we going to require larger packaging to accommodate the symbols? Or are we going to allow for smaller symbols and they're going to continue to talk about that once they get some recommendations from the Department of Health. This was their other option with the yellow and that yellow comes from ISO standards, international standards for safety. And that was another thing that they considered. Of course, the concern is if it's yellow package doesn't stand out. Yeah. Thank you. And wait for Dr. Levine and the sub community to do their work. They sent these two draft warnings for packaging. And again, we'd have to consider, you know, what, what size packaging can all that fit on and still be readable. You know, I had some packaging in the subcommittee meeting and the moderator, Danika asked me to read it and I said, I'm not sure I can do this without reading. Oh, it's important. You know, if you can't read it without, you know, just by picking it up, then you're missing important information. You know, we did get some feedback about including poison control and that, you know, you know, what are we saying about cannabis if we're also using poison control, but I think really poison control is meant for any kind of accidental ingestion. It's not necessarily something that's considered a poison. It could be any kind of plant matter that a child eats in a home, you know, anything like that. It is a catch all phrase. Yes. So that's where that subcommittee is at and there's no decisions from them. No final decisions because they're working with that October date. Is the not to use it pregnant or breastfeeding is that from a different different state to other states? Yeah, other states do have that. Yeah, in various different verbiage, but pretty much that. Yeah. And then I think the subcommittee lean to the one on on our left because it just seems to stand out more. Great. So, in the past, I've talked a little bit about a municipal input survey and the municipal round table. So we had the municipal round. We did do the survey we had. I think in the end 77 out of 246 towns responded, which was great. And we about 20 towns were able to attend the round table, which is good considering that we extended the dates and kind of change that. And it was a two hour long period of time. And most of the towns that were there stayed for the full two hours. So we from the survey result. Let me see if I can pull those up. So, you know, we got some data about how many responding towns had already included retail cannabis. I don't know some of that already, but we know now that there are at least 19 more towns that are considering it. Before or before town meeting day and a couple that are considering it afterwards. It seems like most of the towns that are either considering opting in or have already opted in have some sort of zoning bylaws, which I think was a concern that we've talked about. What we noticed and looking at these results is that there's quite a bit of uncertainty. So there was a lot of unsure, you know, for answers, including, you know, the conversation that we've had is what types of resources are you going to use. There's uncertainty. So it was clear that the takeaways from the survey were that the towns are really looking for more clarity. First, and what's in the legislation. Second, and what kind of decisions we will make so that they can understand better what the local impact will be and what kind of decisions are still up to their community. And then, loud and clear, we heard that they want really clear, easy to understand guidance and the ability to ask questions or get resources to have their questions answered as this is something that's brand new. So that was kind of our takeaways from the survey. And so that's what we addressed in the round table. These are the three questions that I sort of proposed in the round table. We did spend some time, a significant amount of time actually going through the portions of Act 164 and Act 62 that were relevant to towns. And I think that answered a lot of questions for them. I do think that was helpful. But we did ask, you know, what are the costs that you expect to incur? You know, what are you, what, what fees are covering administrative costs now? Where do you see pickups happening? What kind of community concerns related to compliance and enforcement are you looking at? We've talked about buffer zones. We've talked about all those types of things. And then what topics do they need to specifically address in guidance that we develop and what do they want that to apply? So it was a good conversation. That's great. Yeah, I totally agree with the need to provide guidance, especially, you know, in real time as this thing moves very quickly. I'm wondering how, how much the week of cities and towns is working kind of hand in hand with you, Julie, on this to help get that guidance. Yeah, quite a bit. They were very supportive of doing this survey. They attended the roundtable. You know, I'm able to converse with them on a regular basis, which is incredibly helpful in asking these questions. And they've even shared, you know, the contact information for some towns that we should be reaching out to that would find themselves in various different, you know, whether they have zoning or not and their questions about what the decisions of the CCB will impact their local community. I can't quite remember. And maybe you don't know the answer. There's an ability to opt in outside of town meeting day. Right. You can do that. You don't need town meeting day makes a lot of sense for folks. Right. It is by the most participation, but you could hold a vote if you're a town to opt in at any point. You could hold a vote. I think. I think it's unrealistic. I mean, I would suspect that most towns are going to wait for another election, whether it's town meeting day. I think this is a three election year. So I would suspect that they would do it when they're doing another election, just knowing what's involved in setting up an election. Did you get a sense that the towns are waiting for us to act before they want to hold this vote? I did get that sense. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there are some towns that are, they're ready and will prepare to deal with whatever it is. I got a sense that they're waiting for us both on the regulations and potentially on the fees because it's not just about the initial processing that they're concerned about. It's when there's a bad actor or when something goes wrong. There's actually more time and energy spent on those issues than the initial processing. Yeah, I mean, I don't have a question. It's more about like a general comment and observation from a lot of the work that we've done and what we're going to face moving forward because, you know, it's kind of like a chicken or the egg thing. We can be very prescriptive in our regulations that might alleviate a lot of burdens on local municipalities and can keep those local fees that the various committees have discussed low, or we can be less prescriptive. And more local nuanced issues are going to pop up, which would want them to have higher fees at the local level and where do we fall in that sliding scale of being prescriptive in our regulations through security, not eating as much law enforcement, so on and so forth, depending on even what kind of licenses and how a special event license may look down the road, delivery license may look down the road. I can appreciate how they want to see more. We also want to see more from them and so it's, it's, you know, it's, it's great that you're in touch with them because I think it's there's going to need to be a lot of back and forth over the course of the next couple months as we as we really figure out where's the most appropriate for license holders municipalities and us as the regulatory agency to to make sure everybody understands what's expected and we understand administrative costs from the municipality perspective. Yeah. Well, I think that I'm very thrilled that you did this. And I think it's kind of the opening of the conversation between the survey and this roundtable and I think the more we can provide information to the towns about the decision points that they're going to need to make and some guidance. All right. Anything else for Julie on public health or social equity. All right, Kyle. All right, I'll try and be, yeah, I'll try and be quick because I know we're running about 40 minutes behind schedule. So I don't have any fancy presentation materials either but I want to start the sustainability committee over the course of the last week or two. We've really dug into a lot of the energy recommendations that the PSD has presented to us. I think, you know, we brought PSD to our meeting on Monday and had a really good conversation. Our consultant who is the gold standard for environmental consulting in the cannabis space. From my perspective, throughout many jurisdictions across our country and he has some very technical questions of PSD to kind of understand where their head was at. Recognizing that they have a lot of expertise with CVS commercial building energy standards in the Vermont context and the traditional building contest but not so much through the admittance of PSD in the greenhouse context because greenhouses are not regulated by PSD in the traditional agriculture sense of the word greenhouse. And he said I think the subcommittee members and our consultant and myself were very impressed with a lot of the work that PSD has done. There is some outstanding questions that we're seeking more information on but a lot of those recommendations from the PSD the subcommittee has voted out or in agreement on and approved to send to the board. And I'm just going to run through those very quickly. So applying the Vermont commercial building energy standards for cannabis operation to indoor cultivation facilities would be for indoor cultivation facilities would be the same as the CVS for building envelope which ensures all buildings are properly insulated, reducing energy usage for heat and cooling needs, lighting for non-cultivation standards or excuse me, lighting for non-cultivation the same standards for all new buildings and all buildings that would need to be retrofit to enter this marketplace. So ventilation requirements would be the same as the CVS, HVAC, same efficiency requirements for equipment and CVS so fans and motors. There might be or there's an exemption requiring growing specific excuse me exemption requiring gross specific equipment to have economizers and heat recapture. These are components that increase the energy efficiency of standard HVAC units but due to high heat and humidity levels require required for cannabis or counterproductive or can cause mold to grow inside these units. From a cultivation specific perspective, lighting for cultivation a minimum of 1.9 PPE which is photosynthetic photon efficacy. It measures how effectively or efficiently the fixture turns electricity into light usable for growing cannabis. This would provide growers with options like double ended high pressure sodium, ceramic metal, halide LEDs based on their cultivation preference, sets of solid foundation for energy efficient lighting which is necessary since lights won't be changed for many years. The fixtures will cost more than less efficient lights but efficiency Vermont has been a part of this conversation. The way efficiency Vermont works is if you go above and beyond the regulatory floor if they have rebate incentives and they have programs that are ready for as soon as we're ready. Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes will apply for extraction operations, hazardous material handling and cultivation using carbon dioxide enrichment and this is an employee in public safety issue pretty straightforward. For greenhouses specifically HVAC equipment efficiency with the same exemption for grow specific equipment that's the same as the CVs. From a greenhouse specific perspective and how they're going to differentiate from CVs or this is kind of where PST is kind of stepped outside their traditional jurisdiction of work with consultants on developing some of this. For greenhouse envelope a minimum U factor of .7 this kind of indicates how good the clear panels of a greenhouse are at reducing heat loss. This should allow growers product options and is suitable for our climate here in Vermont. It will save energy by reducing heat loads and equipment run times, a cultivation lighting of 1.7 PPE or better since greenhouses use fixtures to supplement the sun. A lower limit allows for a few more options and accounts for efficiency differences in GH specific lighting fixtures. Low lighting load greenhouses of a greenhouse has a total connected lighting load of less than 40 kilowatts. It is exempt from the lighting requirements. Greenhouses using 35 1,000 watt lights or less would be exempt which would be around 120 square foot and that's a back of the envelope number. The committee also determined and accepted PSD's language on when these above requirements would apply and would be triggered. And there's five of them when installing new HVAC and dehumidification equipment, when changing lights that increases wattage, when replacing or adding more than 10% of light fixtures, when there's a change in occupancy classification of the building, when converting a greenhouse to a more climate controlled version or expanding a climate controlled greenhouse. That's when you would have to really ensure that you're meeting the full suite of CB's from a greenhouse perspective. Additional equipment efficiency standards, so less about the building, more about specific equipment that would be utilized within the building and how they look from an energy perspective. So standalone dehumidifiers that meet the following integrated energy factors, a minimum integrated energy factor of 1.77 liters per kilowatt hour for product case volumes of 8.0 cubic feet or less, or a minimum integrated energy factor of 2.41 liters per kilowatt hours for product case volumes greater than 8.0 cubic feet. An integrated HVAC system with on-site heat recovery designed to fulfill at least 75% of the annual energy for dehumidification, dehumidification reheat, chilled water system with on-site heat recovery designed to fulfill at least 75% of the annual energy for dehumidification reheat, or solid or liquid desiccant dehumidification system for system designs that require a dew point of 50% Fahrenheit or less. Fans and clean water pumps, the subcommittee agrees that the CCB should apply 2021 energy efficiency standards for fans and water pumps. That's kind of where they've landed from accepting, I'd say this is probably 80% of what PSD recommended that we roll with as a board. There's still a couple things that we're seeking more information on and discussing benchmarking requirements. The subcommittee agrees on the purpose and benefit of requiring licensees to report energy and water performance benchmarks. They want to know how that information collected will be used. So that's a board question that we can talk about now and talk about later. But I think there's just making sure that if we're going to be requiring folks to submit us information, it's not just going to sit on a hard drive or in a file somewhere that we're actually going to do something with it. And I think it's important as we move through the process of what we're trying to do, recognizing that the more efficient we get, the more grants or rebates or incentives might be found within the system of state government, partners like Efficiency of Vermont, or once this does go federal at some point, how we collect data now might position folks for further rebates at the federal level. One thing we're still tweaking is the definition of a greenhouse as it relates to this. So this definition is not found in Act 164, what's a greenhouse? This is a commercial building energy industry standard for how they typically define a greenhouse. And these are very minor tweaks that they're considering. For instance, this says a structure or a thermally isolated area of a building that maintains a specialized sunlit environment exclusively used for and essential to the cultivation, protection, or maintenance of plants. And so we're debating taking that word plants out. We don't want to confuse people that might be using greenhouses in the agricultural context for stuff other than cannabis, thinking they now need to comply with these. So putting cannabis in there, high THC cannabis in there because the program isn't subject to these CVs either. And greenhouses that are erected, an additional part of this definition, greenhouses are those that are erected for a period of 180 days or more and trying to understand what that word erected means. I mean folks, this is like a hoop house that isn't necessarily taken down after six months of usage in the winter. So on and so forth. So can we talk about growth cycles instead of erected months out of the year when you actually start growing so on and so forth. So the subcommittee is just kind of trying to figure out how we can get around or replace that word erected to make something that makes more sense in the practice of how we do things. The low energy building exemption that PSD proposed. I think our consultants done some feedback that might make it seem like it's hard for folks to actually meet that incentive. So the subcommittees debating on proposing some different thresholds that would allow folks to really qualify as a low energy building to meet some of the exemptions of what we've been discussing. Energy optimization requirement. So it's kind of like a benchmarking requirement where you look every five years to kind of adjust to look at your systems. Are they working? Are they doing what they should be doing? The subcommittees just thinking about bumping that up to two to three years to kind of get folks looking at their processes a little bit more quickly than five years recognizing how quickly technology is moving in this space but counteracting that with the typical life of a lot of the equipment that's present that's expensive in these operations. So I can stop there. That's pretty much where things are. I would expect that those energy racks will be fully flushed out by the start of the next meeting. So I think it makes sense for us to vote on those as a package when they're kind of complete. But they sound to me that they're supported by PSD, Public Service Department and our subcommittee and our subcommittee moderators kind of the expert, national expert, international expert on this. Yeah, absolutely. I'd say we're like 80 to 85% through the energy recommendations. I want to remember also those PSD recommendations were created by a robust stakeholder. Yeah, the agency of agriculture was involved. Efficiency of Vermont was involved. A consultant that PSD retained at the national level was involved. They were not done in a vacuum. And they are recent, right? They're within the last six months of the year. They gave it to us, I think, what, in June or July? I think they are one of the few agencies that met all of their deadlines, under Act 164. But it's not like they would need to go back between now and the time we write our regulations. And some of this is very much in line with these limits, these set determinations within these recommendations are also present in jurisdictions like the city of Denver, California, Washington. So it's nothing, some of the more, you know, looking forward programs that have seen things and adjusted accordingly from an environmental and energy perspective over the first iteration of their programs. This is in line with that readjustment that some of them have made. There are small cultivators, there are exceptions for small cultivators, but not specifically for social likely applicants, unless they're a small cultivator, right? We talked about that at another meeting. So I'm not sure if there's going to be much accommodation for small cultivators in this context, because I'm, and maybe we can figure out a way to do that. But my mind always comes back to we can make every accommodation that we think is prudent, except for environmental issues as it relates to that accommodation. So, you know, we might be, you know, I think the focus of the subcommittee is to look at this program broadly from an energy perspective and making sure that this isn't overly burdensome for anyone. That being said, it's going to take some retrofitting, depending on your operation and how big you want to get. So are those decision points that you just ran through, are they on our website, the ones that have been kind of approved? I can ask Nellie to get these up. Yeah, I think it's important for us to get feedback from the actual small cultivators to see how impactful, because I know sometimes it's technical. I mean, I have an environmental background and energy talk as its own distinct language. So, you know, it's a lot. I will quickly mention that that subcommittee has also started to tackle the issue of waste, hazardous waste, solid waste, what it means from a cultivation perspective. We've talked with various experts at ANR and how they manage waste composting, how we can make sure that we're not going to reinvent the wheel and make overly burdensome regulations and recommendations on cultivators as it relates to waste. What does waste in this context mean? I've reconnected Jacob, our consultant with Julie, because he has been doing some research on sustainable packaging, single use plastics. Recycling in this industry can be a challenge because the way recycling screeners work is you typically need to have in two dimensions over two inches wide in two different dimensions. So like a pre-roll tube is not going to meet that, it's going to fall through a recycling screen. So from a, I've asked Julie and Jacob to have a conversation about packaging in the public health context and labeling and also this, you know, the 50 milligram statutory requirement, you know, is going to create additional waste. So how can public health and consumer protection and youth prevention and environmental sustainability don't always travel the same road? So we've, and so I just want to make sure that folks are cognizant of how a decision in one subcommittee might affect the impact in a different committee and making sure we can still look to meet our waste reduction and climate change goals as a state. I think there's room for like a crossover meeting there, like a joint meeting of those two subcommittees to talk about those types of things. That's great. Well, do we have time for compliance and enforcement? Yeah, I'll be, I'll be very brief. I think we might be able to vote on one thing that I've mentioned multiple times over the course of the last, I don't know, two or three meetings and we talked about it in the full advisory committee about much at all disagreement. But that's pursuing an MOU with the Agency of Agriculture for outdoor cultivation, compliance, inspection and enforcement. There's a lot of stuff that will need to get worked out. As I mentioned in that, in that committee meeting, the advisory committee meeting on Wednesday, you know, this isn't an agricultural product. So we need to make sure that we're not running afoul of any jurisdictional requirements. I think Billy Koster from A&R was fine with this so long as those folks that would be helping us from the Agency of Agriculture are cross-trained on how the RAPs might look different from other requirements. We would have to comply with it because this is a commercial product instead of an agricultural product. And the Agency of Ag has assured me that from an outside of their traditional jurisdiction perspective, they do do other inspections. The farm worker housing was one that immediately came to the conversation on how they kind of work with other agencies to make sure those structures are safe sound and folks are able to live in them appropriately. So is this something that you think we should vote on now? I think we can. I think it's our most prudent option at this point in time moving forward. They've got the substantive expertise. They've got, I like the culture that they try and create around compliance and enforcement. It's a culture of compliance more so than one in education that focuses on enforcement. And I think at this point in time that's the direction we need to go. So do you have kind of language worked out in your head at all or around an MOU? I can pull up. You mean? Just for emotion? Yep. Let me pull it up. I don't have it on me at this point in time. I don't have a specific sentence teed up. I don't think we need to figure this out. No, I don't unless we wanted to get the ball rolling. We'll hold off on that. But the idea would be to pursue a relationship, see what resources we can use. Again, it's all resource dependent. I think we're getting closer to understanding how many folks are going to be participating in this market. Our fees associated with that, what type of resources the agency of agriculture would need. But we haven't seen that proposal and I think that partnership would be partly reliant on the cost to the board as it relates to what that relationship would look like. So sorry, I didn't have that teed up. That's fine. The only other thing I have to report from that subcommittee is we did talk about retail enforcement and the subcommittee has asked both the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and the Department of Liquor and Lottery to do a resource analysis and help the board understand what retail enforcement in this context looks like and submit a proposal to the board for consideration of working with them from a retail enforcement perspective. And that's everything from ID checks, making sure cameras are operational, what those regulations would look like to ensuring consumer protection and quality of the product that's actually on the shelves at a retail operation. Is there any consideration about the kind of data we might collect when we're doing compliance and enforcement once this market is rolled out? So one thing that came up in the municipal round table was a question about whether or not we'll keep track of how we're doing compliance and enforcement, which types of businesses, which types of license types are experiencing that and that sort of data. Are we uncovering any unconscious bias in that? Is there any thought about that? Maybe that's too far down the road. I don't think we're there yet. I think DLL has showed us some other dashboards and how they look to do certain things. It's full capabilities I don't have in the top in my head right now. But it's something I think I've stressed data to every agency partner I've talked to is something that the board is interested in starting to collect at the very beginning of what we're trying to accomplish. And there was a discussion also on that same line around security requirements for outdoor cultivation, right? We started that conversation yesterday. We heard from Massachusetts on their requirements from a fencing camera alarm system lighting perspective. Our consultants kind of ran an analysis to kind of find similarities in other jurisdictions on what they've typically done. It doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of differentiation between how outdoor cultivation security is looked at amongst different states. I mean, I know in California counties get to decide if they want to put up fencing. So that's a county by county thing. I asked a lot of questions about alternatives to any of those requirements. Are any of them overly duplicative? I think every licensed holder would have their own prerogative to make sure that their cultivation site is secure for their own insurance purposes, quality purposes, making sure that they're not getting robbed of any potential revenue down the road. So how prescriptive do we need to be from that context recognizing that there's other safeguards that are going to be in place? Do we need fencing if it's far enough away from a road that natural barriers might create a de facto fence? Or do we need an alarm system if there's fences and cameras, so on and so forth? They're just trying to understand the way other jurisdictions, has it, it's worked, but is it overly burdensome on cultivators? So, you know, I know Massachusetts has their standard, and if you can't meet that standard, you have an ability to go propose an alternative to that standard. That seemed like it was more in the context of I can't meet all four, but I can propose to meet three, and here's why. Versus an alternative to fencing being like a natural area that buffers it, so on and so forth. So that was the first of that part of the conversation on Thursday. I think we've got a lot more to discuss there. I would like to see that subcommittee get us some recommendations on those four kind of key areas of security from an outdoor cultivation site over the course of the next couple of meetings. One thing I heard from local police was about, and I realize it's expensive, but alarms that ring to a central station because they felt like those who've been in communities where a hemp field, for example, or a store has been, you know, robbed or whatever. They can't do anything. They can't do as much after the fact if they're not wrong when the break in is happening. So that was a concern that was brought up. Really, it's about protecting the business from their perspective. Okay. I'll bring that to the attention of the committee. All right. Well, I think that we covered a lot of grounds. I think there are worse and important decisions here, and we teed up, I think, a few for next week, which will then give us, you know, kind of one week to draft our final October 15th report. And I'd like to just open back up to public comments. Thank you to all the members of the public that stuck with us. It was essentially a two hour meeting and you could just raise your virtual hand and we'll start with David Templeman. Hello again. So I'd really like to take up Andrew's offer to make personal contact and discuss some of the metrics he's come up with. What do you recommend the best way to do that is David, why don't you just put that in the public input form on our website and we'll make sure it happens. Okay, because I just want to say again, using his numbers, it looks like you're all projecting a $600 million marketplace and that seems a little exaggerated to me, but maybe he can clarify that for me. Thank you very much. Yeah. Tito. Hi, thanks for hearing me again. So I want to talk about Julie's work with working with the towns, specifically with the towns opting in and how important that guidance is and how important that guidance is before town meeting day. I'm working on this exact issue myself in Ferrisburg and I haven't received any pushback from anybody on the select order or anybody in the town, but nobody really knows what's going on. And we have to do something before town meeting day and I realize that any town can do something before town meeting day, but the reality is they have to call a special town meeting vote, which costs a lot of money and they just don't want to do that. So, you know, some kind of guidance here would be would be excellent and even more so some kind of statewide town, especially voters or however this can work. I'm not sure the details, but thank you very much. Thanks Tito. Amelia. Hi guys. So normally I'm here speaking for medical but I'm actually speaking as a product designer today and a graphic designer to the the requirements on packaging that Julie was talking about earlier the symbols and the text. And I would heavily encourage that the size of symbols be directly proportional to the size of the package, rather than having a set size of the symbol, especially given that we haven't even figured out what's going to be required in addition to those on the packaging, whether that be lab panel results, cannabinoids, etc. The more you require people to put on their packaging, the harder it's going to get for them to create that packaging so keeping those symbols directly in proportion with the size of the packaging is just going to create one less headache for the people that have to design it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to make a public comment that's joined by the link please just raise your virtual hand. Kelly story. Hello, how are you and thank you so much for allowing us to input on this meeting. I'm founder of highly holistic, and this is going back a little bit in the meeting, but a couple of things. I just wanted to say please consider allowing craft entities to provide their own delivery like a florist. I mean, it's, it's, yeah, and as far as the social equity piece, I just wanted to put my two cents in there because we are in a region that's not a very racially diverse. I don't know if they'll be like qualifications for domestic abuse survivors, but that was something I wanted to throw out there as well. And then as far as packaging goes for things like candy wrappers, they end up in a landfill. It'd be really cool if you incentives for people that paid the extra for like bio degradable wrapping. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you Kelly. Anyone else for public comment. Anyone on phone. All right, if you joined via the phone, you can hit star six to unmute yourself if you'd like to make a public comment. Hello, Kevin Komiski here. Hi. Hi folks. This is the first time I've listened in and heard a lot of great information and I'm kind of in agreement because I'm on the phone. I couldn't see the valuation of the industry. 40 grams per cubic foot of canopy. I think I heard. And did I end it? Yep. So, five. How are what in your, you just escalated it up to a pound, right? And then you did a chart that said $1,000 per pound, 2000, 3000 and projected the Right. I think that's right. And if you, if you'd like to, you know, we will have the meeting kind of through the Orca media is we have it on video so you can go back and look. You can also email Nellie and ask for that model. Yes. Well, it won't have that. He just did that live. Well, that's the specific part, but if you want the full, the full model, it's an impressive Excel sheet that looks at all the data that he crossed. Great. And I was thinking in in my head, even though I haven't seen the information, the numbers don't seem to collaborate with the Rand report that was put out a couple of what four or five years ago. So I'm interested in that which thank you that gives me an avenue and also You were going to put contact information for Andrew. I have a different for business perspective than what I think I'm seeing all this permitting scale thing that I wanted to share with him. Sure, if you just we have a kind of portal for submitting public comment. If you could maybe just push your contact us that way. I'd hate to just publish his personal, you know, email and cell phone, but we can connect people kind of on an individual basis. Sure, of course, and that's on your homepage website. Yeah, the portal, the portal is. Yes, it is. Okay, great. Well, thank you very much. Thanks for hearing me. Thank you. Anyone else public comment? Okay, well, I've been advised that we don't need to move to adjourn that I can just adjourn once we do our agenda and we've hit our time. So I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you everyone.