 I agree. So the, it's just concerned and we can circle back around and have this conversation again, because I think this is crossing over next week, because this is a money bill. But I think that there, there's, it's just concerning me that these are both recommendations from, you know, a board hasn't been appointed yet, you know, three folks are going to come back with this, these recommendations. And then the other thing is, is one is, is they're just going to consider it. And then the last point I'll make is it goes beyond this, is it's about the conclusion that has been made that the only option is going to be available for these folks who are in these communities are loans. And loans are just problematic. Okay. Well, maybe I misunderstood that. I said loans and grants. I said loans and grants. Okay. Well, just scratch that then. And I'll just be done. Thanks. But I think you're right. I think we can reword a little bit to make it clear that they, they have to come back to us, not considering reduced, but how to implement a program for reduced, for eliminated licensing fees. And then there's, there's some also some definition challenges there too, because we, we tried to provide definitions and we kind of got slam for that. But you know, there, there's this use of disproportionately impacted in both of those paragraphs. Nobody defines that anywhere in this policy. That is true. That is true. But I don't, I think that that's what we're asking the advisory committee to come back with some definitions for, for that. That was my understanding. And not to belabor it a point, but the challenge, I understand that we're asking for the ACCD and others to come back with definitions for, for that. But we're at the same time, we're using it in this policy to establish a criteria for some folks, folks to come back and provide us a report on something. So I mean, I don't want to create a quagmire or anything like that. But it's just that, you know, maybe we should define to the best of our ability, if we're going to use that in this policy, maybe we should define it or use something else. And I think it doesn't hurt to say that by largest underlying concern with it is just the fact that we would need to wait for the CCB to come back to actually advise us on these matters. Because it seems like they would be, seems like there should be a way we can get after that before that point. But I've taken enough time. Thank you for that. And I would ask you to take it into consideration and please allow me to circle back around with you here or judiciary so we can close the loop on it. Yeah, we definitely will. And we'll probably do this again on Thursday. You'd be looking forward to it. Yeah, yeah, I know. Thank you. I gotta run. Thank you so much for the time. I gotta shut my door here. Thank you, Michelle. Senator White, I just meant to mention, and I think you know this, but some of the other members may not is that term that's used there in section three and s 25 is that's the term that's used because it's used throughout Act 164 in a variety of places. And when that bill first passed Senate judiciary in February of 2019, that was the agreed upon, you know, length term that people were offering around the issue. I realized that that has changed. And now people hate that phrase, but and are looking to kind of change that. But in terms of being consistent right now, and so there is a new either an intro, you know, the board either fleshing that out and identifying what that means through rule or you directing it some other way. And we want to be consistent so that it doesn't create confusion around these different groups. Oh, yeah, well, the challenge is to do it so that you're not discriminating, you know, that's I mean, that's that's I think also the fine line we tread here is that, you know, we, you know, you can't discriminate. It's a difficult issue, which is I think why it shows for the board to be taking it up in the context of all the moving pieces. And I think the advisory board working out the criteria is good. And they can, they can, they can battle that piece out. And my guess is that many of the people on the advisory board or who have been giving, having thoughts about this have, have some thoughts already in mind, and so they can kind of figure that out. And clearly, the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance came up with some definitions here. I'm not sure I like those definitions, but if that's what everybody comes up with, then I'm not going to try to start second guessing, but we'll ask the advisory board committee, I think it's called the advisory committee to grapple with that. And then, and they, there are representatives on that, as Keisha said, people who, who have different perspectives. And my guess is that they'll bring in a lot of the perspectives from the communities that they represent to that discussion. All right. So I would say in a just instead of saying, I think Mark is right, instead of saying, shall consider reduced licensing fees. And I think Senator Sears was pretty clear about that too. He wants them to come in with a recommendation of how to reduce or eliminate fees, licensing fees. And then you're rewriting B, right? So committee, can we jump to the license structure and Graham, if you are you still with us, you are. I am. Can you just talk a little bit, give us some, you had some, I thought, really good suggestions this morning on the license, how to word the licensing structure, because there are many issues here. There's like a, the development of a craft license. I've suggested a CSA type license so that farmers could actually sell just to their own, a group of people just like CSAs do a different license for that. There's production caps. So you had some really good language, I thought this morning about how to, how to direct them without, without coming up with specifics, because we can't do that, but how to set the parameters that they need to look at here. And this is not in S 25 at all anywhere right now. This would be an addition, Michelle. And just because the members of your committee weren't privy to our conversation this morning, that in act 164, it directs the board to report back to the general assembly recommendations as to whether the general assembly should, should add additional types of cannabis licenses, including a craft cooperative license delivery license or special event license or others. And so there is already a requirement for them to report back on whether or not there should be additional licenses. So if, so I think what you're talking about is amending that and potentially expanding that. Yeah, I think why not just let them do their work and because no, let me, because we want to have them look at some very specific issues around the creation of those licenses. And I think that's what Graham has. It's not, it's not, okay, Graham, why don't you just talk to us a little bit about your suggestions about kind of putting, putting some definition around what they should be looking at. Thank you, Senator. And I can just quickly, let me just frame at least some of what we're suggesting here too. So this maybe makes a little sense to folks that was asking the other question. But from the beginning, we've been asking for time in the ag committees because we feel like this isn't really a conversation for a three member CCB. This is more a conversation for a group of people who are expertise, who have expertise in the subject matter. And you can bring in stakeholders from across, you know, the farming community, the cultivator community, growing community to have a conversation about this and to create some scale appropriate and agriculturally appropriate regulations. So we have worked with some on grower system and remarks, Justice Alliance and Nova Vermont to come up with entries as part of our coalition to come up with some broad licensing ideas related to equity. So it essentially differentiates licenses based on scale, which is sort of gets to the craft consideration, which was the CCB was already directed to you. But also we ask that they define and differentiate based on outdoor production, mixed light and indoor cultivation, because there's a significant difference that cultivators will tell you about in terms of what you can produce, for example, in one year from a temperate climate outdoors versus what you can produce in a controlled environment indoors in Vermont. And this is Juniper. She's trying to eat a little right now. We have some grandparents here giving a hand. So we wanted to make sure that the CCB if we're going to direct the CCB, my recommendation would be to put in enough detail such that they're not just required to consider this, but that they shall actually implement and shall just make distinctions as we sort of suggest them based on scale, based on indoor outdoor mixed light cultivation. And we do have some specific ideas related to the craft license tiers as well. So what I suggested earlier today, and again, I do hope this goes to the Agriculture Committee, so we really can have some conversation about this because we also talked about production caps and supply management. And as I said earlier today, folks who understand how cannabis and other agricultural commodities have what happens when they become commodified is they become priced based on economy of scale. The basic price point becomes unbearable for small producers. And that's why we have a situation we have in dairy production right now, where you have the huge farms and we've lost thousands of dairy farms because there's an amazing amount of consolidation and concentration in that industry. And we've seen it in other states when the cannabis industry becomes commodified as well. So what we're trying to do is make an industry where as many people as possible can participate and where people can actually make a decent livelihood by participating in a relatively small scale. So what I was suggesting is, for example, directing the CCB to differentiate, to define and differentiate licenses based on parameters related to indoor, outdoor, in next-site cultivation, indoor scale of production, and to require them to institute production caps for all scales and types of operations. From our perspective, again, we have specific details that we suggested around fees, around scales, around definitions, but we are also recognizing the challenges of this. I think that putting directives to the CCB, which require them to implement definitions and these specific distinctions, is something we'd be interested in looking at with you and seeing how close it would come to getting where we feel our community has asked us to get. Senator White, is that a decent summary? Do you want me to include anything else specific? I didn't get into too many of the details we really say because I don't think that's what you were interested in, but I can give some examples of what we would talk about in the Agriculture Committee. Well, first of all, I'm not sure it will get to the Ag Committee, but you have two members of the Ag Committee here. So I would say that the distinctions, the licenses based on distinctions between scale, lighting, indoor, outdoor, and production caps for all of those, and I don't know if there are other parameters. I'm not sure that we can get into any more detail than that, but to tell them that they need to, when they're looking at developing licenses, they need to look at all of those things. Isn't that the way it makes sense, or am I not reading this right? I mean, I think from our perspective, sort of similar to how Mark was saying, last, the CCB shall consider, I don't think we're really, we would definitely continue to push at legislative level for more specifics in legislation if the CCB were just considering. We want them to be mandated to make these differentiate by these scales. This is sort of what equity, from my perspective, that's more what I was saying, and one of the things we know we can't deal with is part of what we're advocating for is the outdoor production of cannabis be considered agricultural, and that's a conversation we think would be really great to have in the Ag Committees. We think there really are scale-appropriate ways of approaching this than across the board, taking all farmland and current use, taking all farmland and agricultural usements off the board, essentially taking the three most experienced growers in the state who've been working for decades to try to afford a good farm out of an industry where they might actually be able to make a decent lily coat or how to supplement a crop, a decent lily hood. No, I think I'll ask other committee members if they have any question. I think that you're right about leaving the question about the outdoor, whether it should be an agricultural proper or not to the Ag Committee, because I don't think we can weigh in on that, but I do, I did, when I was thinking about this, I wasn't thinking about that we should, they should consider granting, differentiating the licenses in these categories, but that they need to differentiate the licenses based on those criteria. Michelle? So I had a question because the current law requires the board to establish tiers within the license categories. So right now it's that's required for them to establish a bunch of tiers for cultivators and for retailers, and then they can then they're have discretion to do it for all the other types of licenses. So I'm not clear on when adding something and saying that they have to consider and then report back to the General Assembly on license on the scale aspect, you know, like as to scale, I don't understand how that's different from the tiering that's in there now. So I just need a little more explanation of what's, what's, what's, does that bring so I can just clarify that because so. Okay. Could you, could you clarify what you mean by tiers? Is that based on, you're talking about size? Yeah, so I don't know if you remember Anthony, but you know the the predecessors to as 54 that y'all worked on for a few years there, we had in there that you had established various tiers within each license category. So you might say, you know, tier one is a thousand square feet or less from a canopy standpoint. And then the next tier is the size, the next tier is that size. So and I'm obviously not an expert in the growing aspect. So for me, thinking about it, I think of when you're talking about the tiers, you're talking about the scale of the operation. And so you're talking about how much space you're using for that operation to be cultivating. So when, so when you're asking to put new language in there about having them identify licenses and related to scale, I'm just not clear on how that's different from what they're required to do now, which is to tier based on size. Well, one thing might be, I mean, tiering by size says I can, I can grow on X amount of acres, let's say, whereas a supply management program that the kind of thing that Graham was referring to would say you can only, you can only grow as much, so many pounds per year. Right, I got that on production caps. I understand the production cap this business, but I didn't understand what scale means suffered and apart from the production caps. Good question. So Graham or Jeffrey? Why don't I start and then I can hand it over to Jeffrey, but you know, just a reminder that, you know, we were, the idea wasn't to just suggest language around tiers, we have actually specific suggestions around scale and size. And because we can't get the details considered legislatively, we're trying to work with something which gives, you know, language like this. So, sorry, I'm just getting some help here, it's pretty distracting. When, so currently, Senator Flynn, what we're suggesting is, yes, tiers based on size and tiers could be interpreted, however, I think, based on the current language in legislation, right? They could tier it based on anything. We've suggested tiers based on size differentiated by outdoor mixed light and indoor because they both have substantial different potentials for growth over periods of time. And we've also suggested not production caps in our case, based on amount of product, but actually based on acreage for outdoor and square feet of indoor space or square feet for both. We just converted it to acreage. And I'll pass it on to Jeffrey just because I'm being sort of distracted and I can come back and just listen and see if I can, if I can help. Thanks. So one thing that, and I have, I have Act 164 in front of me and thank you for highlighting that, Michelle. It is on page 42, if anyone has that in front of them as well. We expand on that. So for instance, there is no, there is no distinction between indoor and outdoor, which is crucial, which will be developed, if not now, then by the CCB. And why do we bring that up? We see differences in grow ratios by different states. So for instance, I believe Oregon is one to five outdoor, we adopted a one to four ratio, which is what we see in Northern California, which means for every 1,000 square feet inside, you get 4,000 square feet outside. That seems to be an adequate ratio for outdoor and indoor cultivation in terms of meeting production. And I want to be mindful here, stepping back for a moment. We're not, we're pro legalization, but we really want regulation. So that's what we're talking about here. We want to define as much of this regulation for our monitors as possible. One thing we see in other states is them and you guys on our loan grappling with what's legislative and what is in the territory of rulemaking. And what we've seen a lot of states come to realize after having a mature market is they develop licensing at the legislative level. So that's one reason why we are suggesting this and we've approached it this way. We're also mindful of the formation issues that we have right now with this law. It's significantly behind. We think that it could catch up still, but we don't want to see these significant delays manifest or materialized with licensing at a later date. The, the CCB has a lot on its plate right now. So, and I think that we all have expressed those concerns. So we're trying to, and I understand that it's sort of late in the process, but we are trying to assist as much as possible by trying to define as much as possible. And I understand shifting to suggestions as opposed to having the time to define these, you know, through process. I understand that. So hopefully I spoke to some of the parameters with regards to differentiating between indoor and outdoor. And I'm happy to take any questions that you guys may have. Any questions here? I'm not sure where to go with this. I thought that we were, yes, Senator Clarkson. I guess I'm just feeling like we're, again, we're, I feel like, and I know I'm not an expert on this, but I do feel like the cart is really before the horse. Why can't we just let the CCB get started and then have all these people with these great ideas testify in front of them while they're creating these rules instead of our trying to micromanage the CCB. And we've given them the tiers to get going with it. And then all these groups will be testifying in front of the CCB board. Why are we doing their work? Strikes me. This is their work. This is what they need to do. I think that the suggestion was to just put a few more parameters around what they're doing, that if we haven't clearly defined tiers, and if we haven't made any distinction between indoor and outdoor and mixed lighting, I don't know. But can't that be a conversation with them directly when they're weighing this? Yeah, I think that the thought was to put, to tell them that they had to consider this when they're doing it. That they, that this, these are the things that they need to look at when they're considering this. Senator Polina and then Senator Coleman. I agree with what you're saying. I think what we're talking about doing is telling them that as they, as they develop their criteria for licenses, they, they shall include, you know, the tiers and indoor, outdoor, like they shall actually include these things. So it's still means they would have to go out and hold hearings and take testimony and decide exactly how to do it. But we're telling them what they should include or not recommend we're saying you shall do these things. Senator Colomar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the CCB have rulemaking authority? That's what they're going to be spending their first year. Yes. Okay, so that's what's going to be taking in. And, and if I can just say as part of that is the, the indoor, outdoor, mixed lighting, production gaps, that's all like in everybody's rules. Like that's just part of what you do. If you're the CCB and you're establishing the tiers and the licenses, that's all going to be part of their discussion. I mean, you can certainly tell them to look at those things, but they're going to look at those things anyway. So I guess my suggestion would be that we send an MOU or some sort of a letter once they have been appointed and ask them to please concentrate on the areas that both Graham and Jeffrey have suggested as being important. In other words, I don't know that we need to get involved on a statutory level. I think they could do it with rulemaking and it's a little bit more nimble than a statute. It's not 100% more nimble, but that way if, if they air one way or another, their, their ability to redo it seems to me a little bit easier than just having to do a whole new bill. But that's just one idea. Go ahead. Go ahead, Michelle. I was going to say, so when they go through rulemaking, you know, and you guys probably know rulemaking even better than I do, you probably deal with that pretty, pretty regularly in this committee. So, you know, there's a long process. They'll issue draft rules. They'll take comments. They have to respond to comments. They'll have some hearings. Maybe they'll have some hearings around the state. They'll go through all of that. And that's originally why when you set up 164 was to allow that level of kind of minutia detail around, you know, what are, what kind of security measures should be are appropriate for an outdoor grow that's only a thousand square feet. Does it need to be the same as what it is for an indoor, you know, $10,000. But, you know, like all of that kind of stuff was for the board to be working through through the rulemaking process and hearing from people who want to be a part of the industry and getting their recommendations for it. So I'm hearing from some people that we need to set some a little more guidance for them in telling them what they have to look at and from others that we don't need to. So where are we? And I see it's Graham's, the yellow hand. Thanks, folks. Just in relation to that conversation, you know, one of the reasons we did this is because we saw a lot of these details spelled out for the medical industry and integrated licenses. We also saw details which articulated what the smallest scale of CRAP license would be. And we weren't satisfied with that. We really didn't feel like it was appropriate or equitable to define it for the most, the already most established and most heavily moneyed part of the industry, but sort of leave the rest of us hanging out to dry and be like, well, just wait for the CCB. They'll actually give a rulemaking process. It's not the agency of agriculture. You know, if the agency of agriculture were doing a rulemaking process, we'd have a bunch of people with expertise in the agricultural field, too. It would make more sense from us to be able to speak to the agricultural committees, have a conversation about this, make some more clear directives so the CCB can make some decisions on. But, you know, right now that we have very little for our constituents to find, and there's a lot to find for the dispensary side of the industry. So that's part of our concern here is that we needed to, but we felt like we need to reach out and define some stuff because otherwise we're going to be left out to dry like we were in Act 164. And maybe Jeffrey has some more. Okay, let me just jump in and ask Graham a question if I could. If we were able to get you to come in to Senator Ag and obviously get two of the members here, are you suggesting, Graham, that then we would take further testimony and then Ag would somehow get that information to Senate judiciary on S-25 to be added? I'm not suggesting a particular process point. I'm suggesting that the Agricultural Committee is the appropriate place for the testimony to be taken for these changes to be made. And we're appreciative that Senator White and Sears have been making the time to try to figure out with us how to most appropriately do it. I think it's more in your realm of expertise to figure out like what the how to do that from a process perspective would be. But I'm open to supporting that and doing what we can. You know, we've been reaching out for two years now trying to get the Ag committee to hear this. So that's where we're at with that. So if this bill, you know, is then now going to the House, I mean the House Agriculture Committee could take the time to explore this and add this work also. Would that make any sense? I mean, you know, we don't have to have this bill in perfect form. Right. I mean, it's going to the House. The House will spend a lot of time on it, as Michelle already noted. I think that Senate government operations spend a lot of time on it. I think Senate, our House Ag spent time on it. Well, we could ask them to. I mean, on this piece anyway. I'm all for adding something, but I also just feel like we've given CCB the tools and hopefully they're up and running in the next month and it just. All right. Well, let's let's see if we can convince Ag to take it up. What's your schedule like tomorrow? I happen to have our agenda right here. Tomorrow we're going to look at Act or S61 agricultural land use value appraisals. And I think that's the only thing on the calendar right now. So it might, yeah, I don't see anything else tomorrow. There's a lot of TBDs later in the week. So perhaps the two member, Ag members on this committee could convince the chair to take and the vice chair who's very interested in this to take this up tomorrow and look at it. And if they can come up with some language and if not, we could look at it again on Thursday. Well, that might be a little bit ambitious in terms of taking up tomorrow. But I'd certainly be willing to or Thursday morning. Yeah, that probably would be a little bit easier to accomplish. Senator Polina, what do you think? I think you're right. I think, you know, tomorrow is a possibility, but Thursday is more likely. Okay. Do you want to contact Senator Stardee? What means? Well, I think we should do it together. I mean, okay, I mean, I'd be willing to write to him and CCU or say that you and I have been involved in this conversations. Okay. Yeah. Mention that Graham wants to come in and Jeffrey for that matter, if he wants to. And I think that you have, Senator Pearson has was very, he was the one that actually got the current use language that's in 164 in there. I remember that. I mean, he's the one that brought it up. So let's just for a parent, for a parent. So just to be just to finish this thought, because I could write him an email soon. But what are we actually saying? We're saying that in Gov House before testimony regarding the impacts on agriculture that we think need to be worked out before the Agriculture Committee to have been put into the bill. I mean, just generally like that. I would think so. Yeah. Okay. So you're looking at all of the agriculture issues that topics that have been raised by the witnesses? Yeah. Are you asking? I'm asking because I'm wondering if I'm going to have to staff it or not. Or if I pull in. That's what I was just wondering too, is whether whether you are available? When? Well, either tomorrow or Thursday. Depends. I have, I'm in a lot, you know, with crossover. I'm pretty sure it depends on when. But if you know a lot of this stuff on the ag stuff really isn't appropriate for me anyway. I mean, I know certainly obviously all cannabis stuff and 164 in and out. But if it's going to go into deep into ag policy and stuff like that, that's not really me. So that would be Michael. Right. I can talk to him. That's why I was just trying to understand the scope of it because the witnesses have presented like a real kind of wholesale overhaul of a lot of the ag stuff. And if it's going to be that, it should be Michael. Because he's the one who talks about he's the one who handles land use. He's the one who handles current use. He's the one who handles all of that kind of stuff. It's not me. Actually, I just looked at our agenda and tomorrow might make more sense because we literally don't have anything else after the S 61 consideration tomorrow. We do have something else on Thursday. We have a maple syrup at 1030 Friday. Well, Friday is probably too late. Tomorrow, if we could get folks in around 1030 in the morning, it might work. Graham, are you around tomorrow at 1030 ish? I should be coming out of the house agriculture community at that time. I'm in house bag at nine. So I'll probably be happy to see them. It's just learning to wait. Zoom is such an interesting interactive platform compared to any other screen. She doesn't see the screen really otherwise. Yeah, I can do my best to be available and I really do appreciate the efforts you all are willing to put in here. I think it would be really helpful and appreciated. And I would certainly make a time. I don't know if Jeffrey is available. Jeffrey, what do you think? 1030 tomorrow? Well, as a guess, yeah. Sure. How about Michelle? Michelle's not sure. I can also reach out to Maddie Kempner, who's been working with us on from the Northeast Organic Farmers Association on this as well and see if she's available. So how would you, Graham, how would you describe to the Senate Ag Committee what it is you want to talk about? I mean, I'm happy to send you. I think I actually did this weekend already send everybody on that committee copies of sort of some more proposed language, summary findings, and some bullets. And I think you all framed it pretty well, though, just talking about some agricultural aspects of this legislation, which are most appropriate for the Agricultural Committee to look at, in which Senate Judiciary and Senate Government runoffs are outside of their purview. Got Graham's email, Anthony, Saturday. Yeah, I see it. Okay. So maybe you could cut or copy and paste some of the sentences in there. I don't know whether the chair will allow it or not, but I think you have three out of the four, three out of the five committee members want to. I don't see any reason why we could. So Senator Sears is also, I believe, sending your committee a request to take it up. And maybe I'll do the same thing from our committee. Okay. Okay. So can we, there's one other, Michelle, there's one other issue on here that we were supposed to look at is on page five of S-25. And that's the integrated license. So do you want to explain that to us? It's section two. You're muted. I'm going onto one device now. So, right, so section two, integrated license. Remember, integrated licenses is only available to the existing dispensaries as long as they're in compliance with their license and they meet the requirements under Act 164. They would be granted an integrated license, which would allow them to stay vertically integrated under one license under, and so the way that they work now under the cannabis medical program is just under one license rather than having separate licenses for each of the different types of things they engage in so that they could enter the adult cannabis market with an integrated license. The current language basically says as long as they qualify and they meet all the conditions that they shall be issued the license. There's a tweak to Line 21 and I realize it probably just escaped editing. Right now the current law says there shall be no more than five total license integrated licenses. That's current law and I don't know where that not came from. I don't know if the editors put it in there or something, but that doesn't change anything subjectively. The only change is on page five on lines two and three where it changes the shall to a may so that it would allow the board the discretion about whether or not to issue an integrated license. Even if the applicant met all the criteria the board could just say no we're not going to issue any integrated or we're only going to issue two integrated whereas the current law right now says basically if they qualify then they should be issued the license. The thing that's important to note about if you go from the shall to the may and then it kind of it does have repercussions in terms of the other licenses and also for your funding mechanism isn't why so the the way that the implementation is set up is that the first people to get licenses next spring are the small cultivators testing labs and the integrated licensees. The reasoning behind that is if you look at the other states that have gone from a medical to an adult use program they've all kind of let the existing medical dispensaries roll out first because they're already up and running and that's a way to get some revenue coming in to support the system that you're going to roll out and so the idea in 164 is that the small cultivators could start growing and the integrated could be growing and start selling immediately to the public and then the small cultivators once under that new license can sell to both dispensaries and integrated licensees and so you could get the small cultivators into the market and making a profit under the new license rather than waiting until the retailers are online which would be at the earliest October. So if you wind up not having the integrated go early it also kind of there's no market for the small cultivators there's nowhere for them there's nobody for them to sell to so I just want to note that there's also means that you don't have any tax revenue coming in until October of FY23 rather than April of FY22 so just know that that's going to affect your your pocketbook there in terms of the revenue coming in and not that it's necessarily going to be you know I don't know you know I know there's a big everybody kind of flocks to it right the beginning but why I mentioned the revenue is not so much for the general fund purposes or substance abuse fund but you know you're running at a deficit for the board for the for the first year absolutely probably the second year maybe the third year because the board is only supported through fees through licensing fees things like that the tax money you know doesn't go in to support the running of the program and there's a provision in Act 164 that if there is still a hole in the fund that supports the board's work that the tax revenue is supposed to go and fill that so that you're not running at this big deficit for years and years so if you shorten it it just means you're going to have less revenue to be able to fund you're going to have to come up with money to appropriate to the board to run the program rather than using tax dollars from the early sales to backfill the deficit does that make sense so committee the question this morning was and we it got put off to us about whether we should leave shall or may and one of my concerns with putting may in there is that there's no criteria for why they would deny I mean they could just decide that they don't like the guy that comes in and deny the the license so I where our committee have do you know enough about this now that you think you could weigh in Virginia do you want to just where are you well the dispensaries you know would like to you know have the shell remain we the dispensaries you know want to partner with the state they want to see this get up and running as soon as possible and you know having the small growers be licensed to uh start to sell their products which would then I know it was mentioned earlier this morning about you know some growers probably wouldn't want to sell to the dispensaries because it would be the dispensaries product but what the dispensaries have said right along is that you know if Farmer Virginia is selling a product to us it's going to go on the shelf as Farmer Virginia it's not going to be under the dispensary it'll be sold in that integrated license but and so I think you know I think really it's you know how soon do you want to start getting you know income coming into the state and again the dispensaries have that ability to you know they have an integrated license now they do everything and as I said this morning you know they don't want to be a monopoly they want to work with the state and you know recognizing that you know there's going to be a lot of other people coming into the um into the program and this will just get some get some small farmers going get the just you know the integrated license going and having money come in to fund everything um I see Graham as its hand up thank you I just had a question actually um if one of the things we've been trying to achieve and this is sort of similar to what you were talking about this morning senator white if there were for example a csa model or a direct sale model where a farmer was allowed to sell the product they produce on their own farm from the farm or two customers through a csa would that be considered an integrated license would they need to have a license that they'd be doing retail potentially processing and cultivation and just selling it directly and I guess I want to be when they when it when there's limitation on entry would that be considered an integrated license if it contained all three of those or would it have to be called an integrated license for it to be considered an integrated life my guess is that that would be a csa license that it wouldn't be an integrated license okay so like in our proposal we call like a small farm license where uh anybody who's at a certain scale of production could sell their own product from their site um with with a particular type of license which enabled on farm processing and retail of on farm product if that's one of the licenses that's developed yeah that that's the way I would see it I see I think the integrated licenses there can't be more than five of them because there are right now five dispensaries so there wouldn't be more than that I just wanted to make if those other if someone were at some point given the allowance to do multiple functions would they not would that um for example act by a ccb be preempted by a law which said well there's only five license is allowed and this is functionally an integrated license right like they can they can retail and cultivate and process um I don't know michelle what do you think I I see no you would the way that it's set up now is that if you want to be uh if you want to do that um you would get a small or whatever size tier cultivation you would get a you know micro processing and then you get uh although there's not a processing it's more like though there's the wholesaler I don't know that you I mean you could probably just have a cultivation and a retail and have the smallest tier of license for the cultivation and the retail license and then you would engage and do what you want to do which is direct selling to consumer from the farm so potentially they may come up with one license that does that and has some things like that but you can still do that under the current system you would just have two licenses you'd have the cult of it you'd have a mini you know small cultivation license and you'd have a small tier retail license I think we I think we understand that and that's part of what we see is potentially problematic it's like what is the cost of all these licenses for someone who for example the small farmer they can't compete in a wholesale price world they can compete by directly selling their product are they going to have to pay the same amount of fees to set up a retail license as opposed to having a more accessible integrated license I think that we we aren't establishing fees and I think that when the board considers this they're going to they're going to consider that if they have different tiers and different for the fees are going to be different for different tiers you're not going to have the same fees and and then it might end up being that there is a csa license you only have to have one they may they may do that I I don't know I don't think that we can get into that level of detail here does that help yeah I was just one I just wanted to make sure that wasn't that the language around limiting the number of integrated licenses wasn't limiting the the functional integration of licenses in even like a csa or a small farm license like your suggestions and it sounds like the interpreter currently is now yeah that's my interpretation and I'll argue with the board if they don't like that interpretation senator colomar thank you madam chair so are we only to decide whether it should be shall or nay and if so what's the negative side of making it shall it is shall right now that's what I mean I don't know why I don't know why it was put in here as a may I see that I'm one of the sponsors of this bill I don't know why it was put in there as may instead of shall I mean personally I think it should be shall it was in response to and I don't know specifically what the concern was but it's something from the governor with regard to the the integrated or the dispensaries being able to get integrated licenses so but they already have them now no dispensaries are under the medical program and they're integrated under their medical license if if they want to enter the adult use they would have to get an integrated under the new adult use program so those would be separate and and I think it just goes to the issue of what some of the witnesses are saying that they don't that they feel as though the dispensaries have an unfair advantage and so this was just I think somewhat of a place folder maybe for senators to at least have the conversation around the integrated licenses to dispensaries and did senate judiciary just not want to take it up or why is it because we were as unfocused there as we are here and it just got I don't know how else to say it this this dealing with this bill in two different committees and it not really having a home anywhere is I mean it really should be three different committees and it'll end up being five committees if ag takes it up so I think that's why and I that that's my best guess so Jeffrey thank you madam chair I just wanted to bring everyone's attention to the consolidation that occurred over the past year so between s 54 s 54 being introduced and then it passing into law or enacting in I guess October of last year just want to remind everyone that you know of the large businesses that operate in the state these are multi-state operators MSOs is what they're called in the industry one of them one of our dispensaries I believe Champlain Valley dispensary is the only locally independently owned but the rest are owned by large out-of-state companies and there was consolidation over the past year over the course of you guys deliberating the bill last year Cureleaf purchased grassroots Inc these are two large players I just wanted you guys to be aware of that Cureleaf is based out of Massachusetts and grassroots Inc is based out of Illinois they are both license holders in this state historically they own they own I believe I I guess two different or maybe even three different medical dispensary licenses I don't know how their consolidation factors into the issuing of these integrated licenses come next year I at least want you guys to be aware of that industry activity Asia so I just it's almost five o'clock and I'm just wondering I feel like from my past experience if we were in the building we would ask someone on our committee to like have lunch with someone on ag and some of these advocates and sort of help us solve this in a way that really honors their expertise that I'm just wondering if we could spend a few minutes maybe now on like what even makes sense right yeah we can but this but this issue is not an ag issue what just the licensing issue yeah this is this is whether the integrated whether they have to give them if they qualify yeah do can the cannabis control board just say no we're not going to give it to you that's that's the question here this isn't an ag issue well it's called the cannabis control board I mean aren't they controlling isn't this isn't this exactly what so the question is do we give them here's here's the way I look at this we had that if they qualify if someone qualifies one of these five entities there can only be five if one of them qualifies and applies for it in our original legislation we said if they qualify they meet all the requirements you give them the license what this says now is even if they qualify and they are one of those five you have the right to just tell them you don't want to give them the license that's what this may and shall is and and these five are independent from the five medical dispensary no they are the five they are the five dispensaries if you read it says that an integrated license is only available to an applicant and its affiliates that hold a dispensary registration on April 2022 so it's only the dispensaries and there are only five of them and that's why there are five and just so I can be clear is that so with their integrated license that allows them to engage in all of the activities but they can only have one location one point of serving the public so there will be let's say if all five licensees wanted dispensary licensees wanted to get an integrated the maximum number of you know retail shops that would be run owned and run by just you know the entities that also owned dispensaries would be five so it doesn't allow multiple points I just wanted to yeah it isn't so it can't be like McDonald's and have license and then franchise out through the same as opposed to the town's which are the franchise at the moment there could be 241 shops no we're talking about five retail establishments a maximum of five here with this thank you manager and I can appreciate Michelle what you said about sort of giving the dispensaries a little bit of an advantage over other people but that advantage is as I think you put the timeline out will only last for about a year until fiscal year 23 correct when everybody last a year it's just from April uh of next year until October when uh when retailers so uh may okay five months six six months okay then I want us I want to make it shall okay senator rom I didn't have my hand up a gram does I know but we're it's almost five o'clock is it may or shall is it may or shall yeah I'd like to listen to other people on the committee because I'm just feeling like I don't know I don't try to absorb last last years okay I'll weigh in I think it should be shall because I don't think that they should have the discretion to sit to just not give it to someone just because they don't feel like it you know I'll add my two cents up the small farmers would have an advantage in the interim by being able to find a new market for their product so that helps them and whatever disadvantage it puts the average retail uh licensee at it's not going to be forever it's going to be for five months I don't see that as particularly onus on us on them so I'm fine with show but is it okay I'm just confused is it shall because I mean is is shall saying that it's first come first serve no shall says that there there can be five of them there can be five and if what if though whoever comes applies for it and they qualify they meet all the requirements they shall be given a license they can have five there can be five licenses and there are only five people that qualify for the five licenses so it isn't as if anybody's being cut out there can be five licenses and there are five dispensaries now so each of them if they qualify could have one that would mean five retail establishments in 250 towns and then kasha in the in october yeah when all it completely opens up for any retail licenses it's tiered because our experience in getting testimony from the other states was was to not open all the licensing categories at once because you got to first start with cultivators and testing and then you kind of roll that out and if you're trying to do everybody at once you get overwhelmed and so or you have retailers that have no products things like that and so um so it's saying they have to get their ducks in a row and come with their application yeah and it's guaranteed if they do that and everything's in order yes and everything's in order and there's no one else that we're leaving out in the interim by doing that no because there are only five of them and you can grant five licenses okay okay i guess i just got lost in what the controversy is but the controversy is that some people didn't want um they think that giving the dispensaries and a leg up is going to disadvantage everybody else and i think there was also some fear that they would put retail establishments in many different towns which they can't do they can only do the one retail establishment so um okay i'm going to i see that both of you have your hands up here but i need to get the committee to agree on something here and then we'll or not if we can't agree today we'll take this up again on thursday but um i anyway or you can keep and i just antonette and i just need to weigh in and we need to go soon yeah so i'm happy with to stay with the shell and and if they work something out and change it in the house that's fine but i think for the moment i'm a shell i would i would go with shell and i would also mention that pretty soon i'm going to have to feed my turtle yes i think that you are right the turtle needs to be fed so um we will um look at this language again um assuming that um we will have some language and i will bring the thoughts to um judiciary in the morning