 Good afternoon. Let's start by, I guess, taking a roll call on the previous minutes. Savannah and Stephanie, do I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from the last meeting or any suggestion changes? Savannah, I hear a move. Stephanie, is there a second? Second. Beautiful. All right. We are done with that then. So today's call is basically just an extension of what we did last time. And, Savannah, I know you weren't there, but we are going to share that same spreadsheet from last time. Basically, we started going through all of the license sites that we've talked about so far and attaching some fee numbers to them. We kind of went through most of the license types. We'll go through the fees today. This is all kind of building up to our grand culmination of our time together, which I believe will be on Thursday, where we'll have final votes on some of this stuff. And so we can get ready for that report that we need to put together quickly to get up to the legislature on fees and license types. Andrew, would you be able to share the spreadsheet again? Sure thing. Sure thing. And then we'll dive right in. Savannah, feel free to stop and interrupt, because I know we covered some of this last time. So if you needed to get caught back up, but I don't think anything would surprise you with what we talked about. And then we'll kind of vote on the things next time. But we basically created this spreadsheet, the two-second rundown of it will be, we created this spreadsheet. There's obviously a lot of variables in trying to figure out how to set up the fees in order to cover costs. So we tried to do that with this spreadsheet, where we kind of created three different dynamics based on potential interest in joining the market from entrepreneurs, so that we could try to estimate where fee revenue would be if there's a lot of demand down to the market, what we think will probably be there, and then even if in a bad situation where there aren't that many folks who are interested in starting businesses in Vermont. So that's what we did. And we also broke it down into two different sets of recommendations, as we've talked about before. The first proposal being the one that we think these fees would get us to about where the board would be covering their costs and able to pay back some of the money that has been appropriated to them so far. And then recommendation B or proposal B would be lower fees, more in line with trying to get as many small businesses into the market as possible. So that's basically what we've done. And unless anyone has Devon or Stephanie or anyone else has any questions, like right off the bat, we can just kind of jump in and start running through our fees and what we are and see where people feel on them and if they think they should be adjusted at all. Yeah, Dan, I'll hit you with a high level one just from looking at the minutes from last time from the meeting that I wasn't here for. Talk me through the logic of the tiers being so different in size for indoor versus outdoor and also in price. So the tiers being different would generally be starting with the outdoor versus indoor tier differences. I think there's a couple reasons behind that. The first one being we've been thinking of outdoor cultivation, particularly as a way to try to create more lower barrier, lower cost of entry licenses, which would probably tend to be smaller. So we were thinking a lot of those would be smaller farmers trying to supplement their other activities with cannabis or some other smaller cultivation individuals. The second reason, and we can adjust as if we think this is wrong, but our model has been built on that you probably don't want too much of your supply to be in the outdoor market just because of the nature of Vermont. You're only getting one gross season. Most of your product harvest time is going to come right when demand plummets and you can extend that through the ski season, but if too much of the Vermont market is outdoor without figuring out how to adjust that demand, you could end up with an area where you have surplus of product in the late autumn early ski season, but before ski season really gets going, and then not enough supply at other times in the year. So that was our reasoning. There's no, again, this is all, we're all just trying to figure out how best to suit this to fit the Vermont market. So a few thoughts about adjusting those tier sizes. I'm happy to. Oh, sorry. Let me finish by one thought. The same reasoning is also basically behind the fees. Indoor facilities are more expensive and so we thought that you could probably have higher fee totals there, especially if you're trying to cover costs. And if we're trying to create outdoor cultivation as an entry level way to get into the market for folks who might not be sitting on millions of dollars in capital, we wanted to keep those fees substantially lower than the indoor facilities. I think Andrew was going to say something. And then I think we have a question from the main room. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Dan. I was going to say, you know, it's like these were just what we initially rolled out. We absolutely can go with, you know, if people think 1,000, 2,500 and 5,000 is better or 1,000, 3,000 and 6,000 is better. It's, you know, not really holding fast to anything on that regard. And I did also know that, you know, Bren had mentioned that it may be optimal to actually have an outdoor growing option that's just under an acre in order to kind of reduce the potential bureaucratic issues that could arise with larger growth, particularly, you know, wanting to keep smaller ones. So we could absolutely set, you know, do something and looking at it at 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 or, you know, whatever we want. At this point, we can create more tiers at a certain point. Obviously, creating a huge amount of tiers makes things overly complicated. But I think that probably I'd wanted to more without too much issue. And I think there's a question in the room. Yeah. Sorry. It's James Pepper. More of a programming note. We got a public comment, I think that when you screen share, we can't see who's talking. And so for the people in the room that don't spend quite as much time with you all, if you could just say your name when you talk, I think we've been good on it so far. But it would just help the people in the room know who's speaking when there's a screen share happening. Yeah, definitely will do that. This is Dan. And Sivan, you had a question? Yeah. So this is Sivan talking just to finish this point. I guess I would kick it to the board to discuss what they want to be encouraging or not. I totally respect that we want to try to manage away from a huge oversupply gluts at one point in time. But my gut says that there will be a lot of disappointed Vermonters if they find out that outdoor can't be more than 10,000 square feet. So I think we want to think about what the expectations are and what we want as a state, where if a lot of farmers are looking at, hey, I can take my field over there and repurpose it, and this is going to be a nice thing to mix in with the other things that farm anyway. And one field is probably already going to be way larger than 10,000 square feet of canopy. Maybe not. Maybe I don't have the right sense of this from a gut. But that strikes me as not what I expected. But I think that's really a question to the board as to what they do or don't want and encourage. Well, I actually have a question on this too. And sorry to interrupt the actual subcommittee. But if we're thinking that Vermont outdoor is kind of a one harvest per year and yet indoor is kind of three to four. I know sometimes folks do five, but if it's three to four, shouldn't there be some kind of ratio there that makes sense? Like a 1,000 indoor is equivalent to a 4,000 outdoor or 3,000? And that's just a question. I don't know the answer to that if it matters. So there are differences in production as well. But indoor growers typically, as I've seen it, if you're only getting three a year, you're probably under producing. It's more like four and a half to five and a half. But yeah, I mean, we can absolutely adjust these both the tier sizes and the fees because we were just kind of conditional proposals. And yeah, I agree. We can do that. Some of this per fee proposals, we were walking a little backwards from the statutory mandate, seeing what number we had to get to cover costs and then and figuring it out from there. So we that was kind of our main goal was to make sure that we covered costs, especially in this fee recommendation one, but we can try to adjust that using a different ratio and kind of come up with slightly different fees. And the other option, and sorry, this is Dan, I forgot to announce myself. I failed on your one request on my first opportunity. And then the the other thing is that I think I'm totally, I think our team would be happy with we could create other larger tiers. That's possible. One of the things that we could do. And as you've seen, Sivan, we didn't really talk about it. I don't think on calls before when you're on, but some of the larger tiers for indoor and outdoor, we were going to basically put in the give the board the authority to expand to those tiers if certain benchmarks are needed or if they're needed, basically building out of your comment from I think our very first meeting where we're not really sure what the what the market dynamics are going to be here. And if there's a whole bunch of people want to cultivate, if there's if maybe we're overestimating it. So we're going to try we're going to like create up license types that a larger tiers that if the overwhelming amount of small cultivators doesn't materialize, and we can see that through that intent to apply provisional license process that we've talked about before, then it would allow the board to expand and allow for larger tiers right off the start. That's something we could probably put in some additional tiers that may not be issued right away on the first license. But the board could have the authority to do so if it seems like demand isn't going to be met by the supply or, you know, and always allowing companies to grow as they if they get settled on a lower tier obviously provide a room to grow and expand as they as they succeed and grow. So does that seem like a thing that we should adjust and we can start we have we save this whole call to just talk about this so we can walk through some of that here now or or if you want us to just kind of come up with another proposal and share before Thursday to vote on either way whatever the board feels comfortable with or whatever the some committee feels comfortable with sorry. Hi Dan and Andrew this is Kyle I have a question mixed like greenhouses are those are you are you couching those under our indoor cultivation category here I know in some states they have their own license type. So I don't know Andrew do you want to talk about your oh sorry as Kyle this is Andrew here Kyle as soon as you you said mixed like greenhouses my wife I went a little down I missed your question would you mind repeating it yeah no no problem at all and thinking just through how I imagine there might be some some folks trying to utilize mixed like greenhouses here I didn't know if you were you were covering that grow concept in your indoor cultivation license hearing okay just want to make sure yeah so so I think I mentioned this time or two ago the way that we're really differentiating indoor versus greenhouse or outdoor is whether not the flowering plants are getting a a light cycle that is different from the normal you know rise instead of the sun so you could very well have you know bench plants that you do indoors or under light depth greenhouse and then put just you know once you start flowering you only flower outside and that would be considered you know outdoor greenhouse if you're doing a light deprivation greenhouse in which you know sometimes you are augmented with with additional lights sometimes you're blacking the greenhouse out that's essentially equivalent to indoor as far as production cycles are occurring and what you're just essentially doing is you're lowering your electricity bills by utilizing the sun during those times when the sun matches up with when your lights would normally be on so light depth greenhouse become is indoor if that makes sense yeah absolutely just wanted to make sure I understand where they were covered in your destinations here yeah does that work I mean I we could try to come up with another tier of mixed light I'm sorry it would be hard to I think project or I don't know I won't yeah maybe he can project but is that something the board or the subcommittee would be interested in us like creating it as a separate a separate tier I don't think I was just gonna say that this makes sense to me as presented and that I also assume that an indoor grow is more than one harvest and so if we draw the line there that makes that regardless of mixed light greenhouse or you know like all those other terms I think it just you know it makes sense outdoor is using natural light likely one harvest and indoor is multiple harvests over the course of the year we'd be happy to work with you this is Andrew here again this would be happy to work with you on specifically uh writing out with that you know the regulatory definition would have to be for the differentiation there I know that California does have different licenses here for mixed light but California also has way too many different license types it's just good I can see I can see Jeff laughing uh it's uh it gets a little cumbersome I think probably both for regulators as well as for business arms yeah I wasn't trying to hijack conversation I just wanted to make sure I understood where where we were drawing orders and what how you know we're not a great question yeah from a board and for the first time and oh sorry from a board perspective I think uh just having a clear definition and not having that license study would be would be my preference so I'm just making a note um all right so I have uh right now I think we'll so I think we'll adjust for the outdoor tiers to do to adjust that uh to adjust the tier to make sure that there's uh it aligns with the the number of square feet uh in in an acre for some of the land review uh to to streamline now with some of the other uh laws in the state and some of the land review would add issues that I'm sure Andrew probably knows better than I do and I will also probably build out um maybe another one or two outdoor tiers um to allow for a higher uh outdoor canopy either immediately upon uh licensure or uh at the board's discretion um when when needed when there's growth or when uh more demand is needed does that sound um right for the tier types this is Andrew here I think that that I agree with that Dan I think that another thing we should do and if you make note of this is there shouldn't be a difference in the square footage size between the different uh you know maybe indoor will have one larger you know delayed tier type but I don't think it makes sense to have you know one thousand three thousand six thousand for an outdoor and then like one thousand twenty five hundred five thousand for indoor I think it just is honestly isn't yeah I think that's good and then and then once we align those properly then we can actually just readjust the fees based on kind of that ratio uh that the the chair was talking about um to to just have a more reasonable uh indefendable t structure but I think I'd still probably um I think you've seen it built here with we've made that lowest tier even on this few recommendations a which are um you know built to meet the the costs we still tried to make sure that that lowest tier was uh quite affordable uh from a fee perspective just to keep those costs down so we'll probably build that ratio for like the rest of the tiers but try to keep those first ones um like disproportionately low I guess since it's all all the ratio I guess with the other fees um but does that does that make sense there was support or clarified that uh I think less tiers is better so I'd agree with that so you should yeah under one thousand under five thousand under ten thousand instead of one three six ten indoor could be under one thousand under five thousand and under you know like you could remove part of these tiers right instead of going indoor we've got under one 25 5 10 25,000 50,000 you could literally just have 1,000 5,000 15,000 50,000 you know or you know take your pick right but I think uh this is more tiers than than we probably need thanks Yvonne this is Nick you're here but we hear you there and absolutely I think we could structure them in a way that would be uh that request as well as the desire to get at least another tier right below that 4,300 square feet so thanks all right sounds good and then the I guess the only other question I have about the cultivation license tiers and fees is are there any uh some committee thoughts on kind of this model where we're a couple of the larger tiers would be delayed it was basically to predict to create an opportunity for smaller businesses to to get their foot in also provide that safety valve if they weren't able to supply the market to allow bigger companies to uh to come in um I think it's a good a valuable concept provide like so is there any objection to that or is that um that's unnecessary you just want to if we this is Chris Walsh I I think it's a smart move to delay some of the bigger canopies I I support it this is Yvonne I also support it but with the caveat that we just need to be really certain that we are going to make it easy for people to step up in size so for example you know if we're saying that we're going to delay 50,000 for indoor but someone who's interested in doing 50,000 wants to start by building themselves a 25,000 or by building the facility that they anticipate to eventually be able to capable of doing 50,000 but only growing 25 until they're allowed to step up that that should be totally reasonable and plausible and should not be someone we're discouraging so you know as long as we're going to be able to help people uh scale up when we deem that acceptable uh I'm full support something yeah I think that um is probably for future future calls or or another subcommittee but I think our thought would be that it would be you know if you can show demand you can show demand for your products you can you can expand you know you get it when you come up for renewal later down the down the road um so let whoever's thriving in the market continue to to grow and expand if they can um it also provides the the board some some tools to um you know make sure that they have uh enough enough supply to cover the demand of the state so so uh turning I guess uh because it was still be called the nation but the one which you won't see here are the um the existing businesses which are called the integrated licenses so we uh in this proposed $50,000 as a as a fee um partly because we were trying to account for the fact that in statute there's already a $50,000 fee um that would go to the the social equity fund um so it would be a $100,000 uh annual fee right off the bat but only $50,000 uh kind of in perpetuity so um we're trying to balance that initial that initial uh upfront cost um for kind of how big their current facilities are um but open to thoughts from the subcommittee on whether that's too low too high um we also wanted to just try to keep it aligned with what we have generally here which are we tried to keep pretty low fees overall there's no fees where we tried to try to go too high so um um let uh I guess I'll open it up for for discussion um if anyone has thoughts on on whether it's high or low this is Sivan um you know we've compared many things to alcohol regular policy in Vermont and compared to that these fees are astronomically high I'm not saying they're unfair um but you know alcohol licenses in Vermont you pay a thousand dollars for manufacturing license whether you are distilling you know a hundred cases a year or 20,000 cases a year um I think that when people see these there might be a reaction that uh they're getting double taxed I'm not saying that's right or wrong but I think a lot of people might look at us and say hey if we sell a lot right there's already going to be excess taxes and sales taxes so that already is tied to how big or small we are but now you're also saying the license itself could be another 50 grand I think some Vermonters might gripe that this is not in keeping with how we've approached other things that that might be in August that being said we're also still constrained by statute statute says that these licenses have to be sufficient to pay for the ccb so uh you know that that's a tough balancing act but it's at least something that I would put on the radar that we probably should be prepared to expect this is definitely one more question um states doing main and we had we saw that before I guess but it doesn't compare yeah I could pull it up um I mean I think these are still lower than um I mean you know you see it's obviously a totally different market but like the the fees that were required in like Illinois for the existing businesses are you know many standards uh totally different playing from these these are still much lower than those um I can pull I don't remember what we we copied or we didn't copy but we were informed on a lot of this stuff by uh by main and we tried to look at like main and and uh Alaska and some of the other more rural uh smaller market states give me a second I'll try to open up that spreadsheet um because I don't remember exactly what uh main did but I don't think main had the same exact uh I just bring this up just in terms of like with adjacent to us because again in the hemp program it's always like well I'll go to the other state because it's done differently there yeah that's nearby and so I was just thinking in terms of that um where someone can easily relocate possibly um or start a business in a different state yeah I'm sorry I shouldn't have I done on the spreadsheet open and I can't remember off the top of my head what the what the fees were but I feel like we when coming up with these you try to inform them all by being like around where not outliers with any uh without any with any of the kind of comparable states um or a significant outlier below or for mom would be a significant outlier below some of the um much larger states but as it should be um like the the value of this license it's going to be the same as the you know the limited license in Illinois or something so um I will um uh it's good to hear that that's been considered I just wanted to yeah sorry and I'm kind of fumbling because I can't get this that's okay you don't have to think about is there is there any other industry in Vermont that the fees are tied to operating um budgets uh fishing wildlife in the medical dispensaries see uh I guess yeah so I mean that's the that addresses like I can imagine that they well I don't I guess I don't know but um it seems like there's more costs here that are going to have to be covered by these license fees according to what's required in statute than in other industries uh in in Vermont um so that's going to be the answer to some somewhat why these these fees are higher than you see in other others other industry areas Siobhan yep uh this is Siobhan um just adding on my previous comment clearly my previous comment was only about the cultivators um I didn't comment at all about the retail license types and just want to add I think the retail license types look exactly what what we probably expect for Vermont looking at you know storefront and that pricing all looks totally feasible great um do we want to turn to I guess was there any other thoughts on on integrated I can uh try to pull some information and see where where this fits in with like other existing businesses transferring in I think it's uh again can't find it all right in front of me and I'm Andrew I don't know if you this is the sort of thing that you might know off the top of your head but I feel like if you compare these other states as well but again it's probably just still an outlier for Vermont just because of how Vermont's fees tend to be yeah very low on everything I did just pull them up though and um Dan I will I will share them with you just definitely start going to find this specific regulatory section in for Maine um but yeah I need to check what the size of their cultivation facilities are but I'm looking at it right now and like their outdoor is like you know 1500 5000 15 000 and their outdoor for the different this is like tier three two three and four is 3000 10 000 and 30 000 so those seem pretty similar um to be honest um but I'm gonna I'll find this out Dan I'll send it to you yeah um so if we don't have any questions on on that um let's I guess go to the the retail fees um are there thoughts on that again we tried to have that um you know a ratio somewhat there so obviously the fees go down quite a bit depending on how uh like the the likely value and expense of each license um Chris I see that you have a question yeah um just my feedback I think all the retail licenses are a little bit on the lower low side and that they could go up um and there's really no listing of like are you doing renewals that or is the idea renewal will be at a different rate or would that be the same every year sorry yeah this was all um these are all the uh license fee and renewal fee so this would be the same fee every year yeah I would recommend at least for the retail store front that your initial year would be higher than five and then maybe renewals coming down after you've proven yourself a little bit more about uh the logic do you have there um you know I've looked at some of the other states um you know we're not that far off but I would um I would think that a year one for a retail store front in our state um I just feel that it should be higher than five thousand it's just my opinion and these and um yeah like for for input these these do vary widely um among states uh the the license fees they're like I think um you know in like Michigan uh you know I think Michigan, Nevada and they're up to like 20,000 25,000 I think Massachusetts Jen correct me is it is it 10,000 yeah um but then there are states like I think I think this is one where we try to um balance it because I think vane is only uh 2,500 um yeah so we're like we're like trying to aim low end of range um but I think these are things that that are uh I guess my one question Chris to you um would be do you think there's any so one of our concerns I think that's kind of run through our thought is that um other once you get outside of um Burlington and some of the other markets that it could be hard to make um storefront work with with smaller populations um do you think higher fees there would kind of limit the amount of uh the amount of uh like people who would be interested in storefront in I guess places that could potentially handle uh handle some some retailers but but aren't big markets I'm realizing that big market is relative uh when talking about Vermont but I mean I think that's where the sort of limited uh retail license would work in a maybe a smaller town where uh a dedicated brick and mortar regardless of the license fee may not support your rent and uh your build out so that's you know the the the limited retail I think would work there I'm not talking about like tripling the amount I just feel that you could go slightly higher as the initial license for storefront retail and then maybe have a $5,000 renewal okay and again for at least for this set of fee recommendations um you know we're trying to get to that like uh 1.6 1.7 million so we increase the storefront amount we can lower um some of the lower level of dirt cultivation or other other fees uh commensurate um Siobhan yeah this is Siobhan of course um I just stick with that previous idea I would be a little concerned about having a higher fee um in the first year and lower later um I because I want us to avoid um falling into a preconceived bias that only Burlington will have full storefronts and you know other places that aren't Burlington or Burlington like will only have you know limited license and corners or general stores because there's a lot of in between throughout Vermont you know I'm looking for gents for gents is a tiny it's technically a city but it's 2,000 people it's two square miles it's tiny right but we're the hub and spoke of our part of Addison County and there's a couple other towns and we have a vibrant main street that goes a couple blocks in downtown I could totally picture you know what is currently our small CBD shop that does exist on main street instead being a small cannabis shop and that would be a normal full full storefront license right and there's a lot of places like we're in Vermont like that where I think it is the intent where you have locals left boards who voted and we're going to allow and they expect there's going to be some dedicated store there not some corner of a general store maybe it will also be the latter but um so I don't think we want to discourage application types just by just thinking oh big markets of brilliant inconsistent storefront others can't and you know I think a lot of places could do a small storefront that they are going to make work in a smaller town because they're going to be you know a mom and pop owned you know one or two employees and a small retail you know small square footage and not have that high rent and they probably will make that work and I think that is what a lot of people are imagining in Vermont so I don't think I think we want to be careful about something that will economically discourage that happening Chris is your hand still up or is that your is that another comment or is that a response my disobedient icon Stephanie do you want to weigh in on this at all and again like I think one of the good parts of this whole process is that uh the again these are recommendations to the board and the board's listening in so uh all no matter what we uh recommend here uh they they have heard each individual recommendation but Stephanie since it seems like we have a couple of disagreements on our three person board do you have any thoughts I do think actually I was in Savan's comments I was just I think likewise I think there'll be a number of small storefronts fully dedicated sprinkled throughout state of Vermont I don't think it'll be limited just to Burlington the other thing that I wanted to mention that I Chris Walsh say was a separate renewal fee that's lower than the initial fee I think that might be confusing I think it'd be better just to have a consistent fee you know it's just an annual fee you pay the same thing every year and then everybody can budget including the cannabis control board can budget based on those numbers um and I guess they could budget based on less as well but this just seems a little more um sturdy so that's I don't have any additional comments so I think can I just add one thing yep sorry the one thing uh the one thing that it's important to think about uh and I said this earlier today in the compliance and enforcement subcommittee meeting is that while this committee is looking directly at fees and and how it cover the cost of the board I'm not sure the board yet knows what those costs are if enforcement comes under them or staffing levels and I know you have to go back to the legislature but just keep in mind that there's many different facets of regulatory structure that have to be accounted for that we may not be thinking of at this moment in time because that will definitely be affected by any decisions that are made yeah I think all of these are um projections in here trying to figure out exactly how how the how this budget will work out um but it's the last kind of a lot of a lot of our job here was to try to try to estimate as best we can kind of how this will be and again I guess the most helpful thing to think about through all this is that I think we're putting together a good set of recommendations on all this and I think we're as a group of work through a lot of the questions and issues of how this will work in Vermont and how this will kind of affect the unique nature of Vermont and how it will help um have Vermont kind of embrace its culture and try to create a cannabis market that looks a little different than some of the other states but the board will end up having the power to to try to adjust or or fix as we as we go forward is I don't think there's been a single cannabis regulatory system in the country that hasn't gone back and after their first go at it made some changes saw what was working saw what wasn't working and tried to try to improve it and make it better for everyone so um you know if we we all of this will be subject to future edits if we need to I see I see a hand in the like bubble of other participants I I don't know who who that is but if somebody has a question or comment feel free to jump in maybe not maybe that's maybe it's still Chris's hand yeah sorry I'm trying to take it down oh there we go yeah no worries it's gone it's gone now yeah it's not that it was on your when it was on your icon I knew it was you that it went to the to the bubble of other participants um so I think the last couple things that I want to hit before we um before we wrap up um and go to public comment if there is any um are the uh just like the ratio for manufacturing uh license fees seem to work for everybody um and for the overall rate all we can adjust all these a little bit when once we redo the outdoor and indoor cultivation tiers but um does that kind of ratio work this is even I'd say they seem to make sense and you know reading the minutes from the last session you know I I know that kind of danger is the line demarcation between the two types and I think with that framework in mind the price difference here is totally appropriate um sounds good um so then I guess it's turning to our um again so I guess we'll pause on on substance for a second while I just run through like we're I think how I'll envision this going forward I think next meeting um before the next meeting we'll we'll send out to um the subcommittee members kind of our revised list of fees and and license types um so that uh for final review um that I think we'll recommend to the board um and then on that meeting we will have vote on those uh as a recommendations of the subcommittee um I think there'll be a few other uh questions that I'll put to the board next week as well um basically confirming some of the things that we've talked about in here on like the responsibility of those license types and what different licenses can do like for instance um chris savanya misses but chris brought up a good point on the last call that you know the retail license should be uh the storefront retail license should also have the power to sell seats and clones like you shouldn't need both licenses so we'll have those also up for votes that I think we kind of already um as a subcommittee talked about agreed on um but so that's I think the they're going to be the process uh for the next call um so for the last couple minutes here before we check for um public comment um I just wanted to say that we had a a second b recommendation tier that just had um lower fees uh based on trying to keep a similar ratio but based on the fact that these current fees are the ones that statutorily are um meet what we think let me start over if if we get the license numbers that we think we might get in vermont based on these fees it should be enough for the board to cover costs um and with a little bit of excess so that they could pay back the deficit over 10 years um so that's kind of where these fees came from so once we even adjust for these outdoor cultivations we'll probably play with the numbers a little bit to make sure that um that they still cover the fees but we have this second second second second set of recommendations where we're going to just recommend fees that we think um are are reasonable um where we can maybe go down a little bit it sounds like um there's not that much or it doesn't sound like actually I'll turn it back rather than rather than assuming what the subcommittee thinks um are there any places here where you think these fees are just generally too high and that we should lower them for our kind of like recommendations that aren't tied to the statutory requirements um siobhan I see that here ends up um so maybe you can go first yep yeah this is siobhan um to the question I think we're trying to get to Dan um looking at all these fees except that you guys are going to rejigger a little bit when you change the number of categories these fees all look reasonable so if the committee agrees um then I don't know that we need to be pursuing an alternative approach that has reduced fees and is asking the legislature to provide tax revenue to cover that reduction because these already look pretty reasonable that they don't look like anything I think would you know lead to people you know running with pitchforks and and you know being upset so yeah I would say like if we were to to propose lower fees I think um we were trying to have the fees disproportionately lowered for the low entry licenses again to just like that's probably where if you're building a you know a 10,000 square foot indoor facility like you probably have some you know some capital available to to pay that to the fee but if you're trying to be a small outdoor cultivator you know we want to be cognizant that you may not be sitting on the a huge bank account um any other thoughts from from Chris or Stephanie um or anyone else on the call about um kind of that and we'll just rework these and send you guys copies of the latest proposal based on all of your feedback um for the uh for the call on Thursday Dan I've got one more now this is Siobhan again Siobhan and then I yeah Siobhan and then I see somebody in the uh in the main room so Siobhan um just our comment for the record I'm assuming that uh in addition to these year recommendations we're still expecting uh separate recommendations from the social equity subcommittee um that would be speaking into how some of these licenses would be uh further reduced for people who meet certain categories so just say that again that's a working assumption I think you'll have but just making sure it's still out there for this discussion yeah sorry I should have reiterated I kind of said that at the beginning of this discussion at the start of the last call the social equity uh committee is working on reducing some fees and and eliminating some license fees and things along those lines I have to fully up on where they are exactly landing but these would then be kind of merged with those so um yeah for social equity applicants these would be lower uh there's a question in the in the boardroom yeah this is James Pepper um uh there was an open question I think last meeting about whether the testing labs that were um certified and paid their fees through the hemp program would need to pay an additional fee uh to be part of the cannabis um so if that could be just on the table for discussion next week um and it doesn't make a huge difference to the budget it looks like but it's just uh I just want to get kind of some clarification on that and then we do have to make a recommendation on delivery and I think that you know depending on how that delivery looks uh I know the social equity caucus or the social equity subcommittees is thinking about this um you know how that compares to some of the other retail fees um yep I think if we're going to make a recommendation of legislature it should accompany it should be accompanied by a fee um amount a recommended fee amount as well so um it's something that maybe you know Dan we should work with you offline on um but I just I don't want that I know that it impacts kind of the viability of a retail location depending on which way you go and maybe that should be a consideration in the fee structure here yeah definitely I can I can follow up on the um I'll follow up to the on the delivery piece and we can work on that on the uh testing lab thing I actually meant to bring that up we're gonna uh I think I I was going to follow up with um the Stephanie and just I think my thoughts and let me know I know we're running late but I think we're going to recommend figuring out however to align the costs with the the costs for the labs uh for the hemp program and I think we want to attract labs to the state and not make it more difficult so if you can be accredited if you're if you basically will have one time fee if possible for uh and it can cover hemp and uh a W's cannabis provided you hit the norm the required um uh you know quality assurance procedures and things like that but I don't think we should be trying to raise too much extra revenue on the back of labs because I think the state's going to want to have uh labs so that there's no testing backlogs and other problems and I think uh Chris brought up a good point that one thing that we should definitely recommend is that allow those labs to um to test uh home grow and try to create a different revenue source for them as well so that they don't um just have to test for allow like a lot of the home cultivators to use them to to quality to do quality assurance on their own on their own growth so I think those are things that we recommend yeah uh currently there's no prohibition of any lab whether certified by the agency of agriculture to test hemp or not to I mean they can take examples from whoever they're willing to take samples from so we don't we don't have a prohibition currently um even though there's probably cannabis going to maybe some of our labs so just it's already happening yeah okay it'd be the recommendation will then just be like don't impose a new prohibition uh make it clear that they yeah um but I want to uh unless there's any last questions I don't know if there's uh I know we normally want to pause around now to see if there's any public comment but uh Stephanie you have one more question I just have one clarification on the wholesale or license um is that kind of like a I mean an aggregator of products that are already labeled and I would like a definition I guess is what I'm looking for yeah I think the the clearest definition is that you can purchase from other licensees and sell to other licensees but you can't sell uh you can't produce your own products or or sell directly to consumers um uh part of the reason why it's a low license is that a low fee is that uh in the statute a lot of the that ability is built into the existing license types um uh so um this would be like if somebody was not like a cultivator wouldn't need to get this license additionally um but if somebody didn't want to um you know would just want it to be uh on in the wholesale require it also wouldn't be required I know in alcohol uh wholesale level is required it would not be uh required to go through uh through a wholesaler um yeah one place really that's now Stephanie again if someone wanted to white label products that's probably not entertained in this I would think that the white label and again we we haven't ironed out every definition here but our vision I think uh was that a white labeling would probably be um like a tier two manufacturing license um and that's why we're trying to keep those low low cost as much as possible and in kind of in a fee proposal fee where we're going lower would probably move though it's even maybe even a little bit lower because that would be a good entry level license for for folks who are um you know trying to get into this market but don't have the capital to set up a full cultivation facility or or a full manufacturer facility if the board was interested I think you could probably define these in different ways and and have different licenses do different things but you just want to make sure that you kind of define them all so that they fit together so that there's not any licenses that are kind of useless because everyone has that power or um you know or else way or in like another way where you know your fee isn't aligned with what the what the economic value is for that license in the market Chris sorry I was muted um just to get clarity again so wholesale you don't need wholesale if you have a cultivation license but you also do not need wholesale if you're either of the manufacturing tiers uh correct I mean I should double check on the statute but it looked like the definitions of those of manufacturing and cultivation in the statute included like the ability to wholesale but I will I will definitely double check that before the next call unless anyone has that knows that right off the top of their head but it seemed like that's where it was in the statute um Suvan yeah I I expect that we will see wholesalers it's good that that uh you know manufacturers and cultivators can sell directly to storefronts but I anticipate that we will see wholesalers from existing wholesalers and other industries in Vermont you know whether it's Farrell who sells a lot of beer in Vermont or it's rhino foods who delivers produce and much more stuff like that you know there are a number of existing Vermont wholesalers uh in other industries that I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to apply for you know this as what they would think of as an ad on their business and that's kind of what our like we wanted the vision to be and what we're thinking is that it's we want to make it a license that it can it can help you know you're a cultivator and you don't want to have to deal with uh you know moving your product around you can just focus on what you do best and get a wholesaler to do that but what we didn't want to do was um create a uh you know that's what we wanted to not price it out of the market you know by having too high of fees where uh you know you might use a wholesaler uh if it's there but if you but there might not be a big of a margin for the wholesalers if the fees are super high um any other questions Chris is that another question or did I didn't see your hand go down before I went back up so I don't know if uh if you're just still busy asking or I'm giving those questions sorry about uh as long as being unruly is there any let's just I know we only have two minutes left is there any public comment in the in the room today yeah we we do have uh at least one person in public comment hi it's uh Dave Silverman I'll try to be very quick uh first on wholesalers uh the statute does permit wholesalers to both process and package products so uh you know there was a question on you know kind of white labeling and things like that so I think you know there will be some of that and that's in the statute but it doesn't allow manufacturing or production of products just processing and packaging um on fees you know overall I really like what I see I really like the low fees at the low levels ease ease of entry into the marketplace um I agree uh with Chris uh that the retail fee seems a little low uh or lower than it could be um you know uh $5,000 when when you break it down into what it is these guys are selling it's about I don't know three and a half pounds of of their wholesale input um it's not very much um I do like that the seeds and clones license fee is is nice and low um integrated licenses you know when I think about integrated licenses it is one license that allows the all all the activities of all the other license types and it doesn't make sense to me that the integrated licenses don't cost at least the sum of all the other license fees so you know if you take a look at you know 25,000 square foot indoor grow and a retail storefront uh and a tier one manufacturer and a wholesaler and a testing lab I get to 67,000 at this proposal so it seems like 50 is a little low um on that front and it doesn't really make sense to me to have it be anything other than the sum of of all it would even make sense to have the sum of all plus a little more in the first year to reflect the fact that they have this exclusive sales period um but that may be a a political question that's beyond the scope of this committee um but certainly the sum of the fees is the only logical approach I can think of um and I thank you for your efforts here um and I think you guys are making tremendous progress thank you so I think that's all for public comments in the room sounds good uh and we are only one minute over so um again uh you guys will all see our revised proposals uh sometime before the Thursday call and then I think we'll just be prepared to to vote on some of these issues and address those uh few remaining topics um uh that we that were brought up today um so until then uh do I have a motion to uh to adjourn for the day? Motion to adjourn. I think we had all three motion at the same exact time so I think that's probably good so uh I'll talk to everybody I hope everyone has a good evening and I'll talk to everyone in a couple days