 okay we're recording great I'll get going then my name is James Pepper I'm the chair of the Vermont cannabis control board today is January 18 2022 it's 11 a.m. and I call this meeting to order so I'm at the risk of sounding like a broken record just a few administrative details before we get started on our new regular meeting schedule for the foreseeable future is Mondays at 11 you know last year we were doing Fridays at 11 this year we're gonna do Mondays at 11 and we'll probably adopt a formal meeting schedule sometimes soon on that we've officially transitioned the medical cannabis program including Lindsay Meredith and Melissa from the Department of Public Safety to the Cannabis Board all patients and caregivers have been notified but again the new address if you're mailing us something is 89 Main Street third floor Montpelier Vermont 05620 the phone number is still the same that's 802-241-5115 the website is still the same however it will migrate to the ccb.vermont.gov website in February and there's a new email address if you're contacting Meredith Melissa or Lindsay by email on that ccb.medmed at Vermont.gov finally just a big thank you to all the members of the public who've been submitting comments to us I know it's a lot to keep up with the pace that we've worked at particularly given that most people don't have all day to you know watch our meetings and read through our rules but we really do as a board appreciate it we're not going to get this right unless we're hearing from the people who are going to be most directly impacted so thank you this is our final week of our official public comment period for rules 1 and 2 we're going to hold a series of meetings in the near future to discuss those comments and adjust our rules accordingly before they go to the legislative committee on administrative rules so that's it from a ministry of details Julie and Kyle have yet an opportunity to review the minutes from January 10th yes yes I take a motion to approve the minutes seconded all in favor hi hi okay so moving to the agenda first up we're gonna have a discussion of our peer networking events for social equity applicants I think we all remember that this was something that has been requested from our social equity subcommittee of our advisory committee as well as brought up multiple times at the public town hall meetings that we did on social equity we know I've been to a few of them that these are happening around the state but you know having a much more coordinated effort could be very helpful so Julia I think you've been doing some work on this and I have and on that with the other groups that are forming around the state this certainly isn't to take away from any of those but to add to sort of that effort that's occurring sort of organically throughout the state for this so I think the goal of these networking sessions is to do some peer-to-peer networking among social equity applicants and economic empowerment applicants with a regular speaker series on sort of the topics that have kind of risen to the surface as like the most immediate need and sort of at a high level so folks that can you know hear from some panelists here's from some experienced folks and then have conversations you know and network so that is sort of the goal the goal is to start on January 27th from five to seven the in-person location would be here and then we'll have remote attendance available as well the first two so just to back up for a second the plan is to do them every other week from January 27th through March you know assuming that we have the participation for that we can you know keep up with the speakers and so forth I think it would be great if we as a board kind of rotated hosting and took turns hosting I'm happy to do the first one and then if we could take turns doing that that would be fantastic and we can talk about the day and time for that but one of the pieces of that networking and one of the recommendations I think from the subcommittee was that folks have an opportunity to sort of see the board and and get to know the board as part of this process so the first two sessions the first one would be on building relationships with your local government and navigating that permitting process and we have some folks who've been through that coming in to speak and a regional planning professional coming to speak and then also someone from municipal government coming to speak on that to sort of give some insight on how to manage those relationships and then proposed for the second one which would be February 3rd is the key elements of a successful business plan so those seem like the first two things that people would be if they aren't working on those and well underway with those that they might want some sort of guidance and connection on to start with I think that that covers it that's yeah yeah and are there kind of key folks that you're working with to kind of generate topics yeah so I've reached out to folks who brought this to us through public comment and spoken with them to get some some topics and that's why I've only gotten through two but I'm hoping as we move forward with this you know the topics that people want to hear about will sort of rise to the surface or be recommended or suggested by participants yeah I think that's a fantastic idea and I think given three of our contacts around in and around the state whether it's state agencies or folks like efficiency Vermont or informational sessions that can help people unpack a little bit more of our requirements and so on and so forth to figure out a starting point nothing else so we're planning to have some signups online I think starting early next week perhaps and we'll have more information as well great all right anything else on your network your networking no okay so thanks for the work on that I do think and there's a lot of value there and even if it's answering questions particularly right now there's a lot of ambiguity out there I think it could be very helpful so that's great continued discussion on fee proposals is next I think no Bryn had sent around some information to report about the fees in other states for things that we talked about last week including on-site consumption lounges delivery licenses special event licenses etc you know I think it's really tough for us to just pick a number on those without knowing what the kind of regulatory compliance is gonna look like you know obviously the fee is always just one piece of what these licensees are gonna have to deal with with respect to startup costs and so I think before we kind of really open the can of worms about what those fees should look like I think we should also kind of tie in a conversation around more specifically what the regulations we suspect would be and again these are not allowed currently they're prohibited currently so we also don't want to get too far ahead of the legislature you know on this issue until they specifically authorize these we might not want to kind of go down any one road too far because really it's dependent on them to kind of approve of these concepts that being said we do have to kind of I think come to a conclusion about the the cottage the tier three manufacturer and you know the same consideration comes into play what exactly are the regulations gonna look like we have some basic a basic framework but until we kind of really determine what this looks like in rule it's kind of hard to understand what an appropriate fee would be and I think about you know fees generally speaking that saying anything that we don't all know are supposed to cover services so how much of a regulatory burden is inspecting or regulating this license gonna cost the board and you know all that ties into how often or if we inspect and if we inspect how often we inspect what what the kind of other regulatory compliance looks like for these licensees so I think you know having a placeholder number in there right now is important because the legislature is trying to pass a fee bill right now but I think you know that placeholder number could be tweaked depending on what specifically this license type looks like so I think a good number that just comes to mind for this just thinking about if we are gonna inspect these folks even if it's not every year maybe once every two years is $750 which I think is at least half of the tier two I can't remember where we landed on tier 10 line with one of the small cultivator proposals yeah so yeah yeah that makes sense to me okay the Bryn I think we're gonna just have 750 is our placeholder number for tier three manufacturers okay I think we should also try to work out the new mixed tier license fees I have a formula that kind of made sense to me that I could propose unless anyone has you know specific thoughts not yet okay so you know we decided that it outdoor tier one would be a thousand feet or 125 plants so if you look at the kind of cost the fee per plant that works out to about six dollars per plant and so I use that and what's fortunate also is that that is consistent with our tier one or mixed tier one which you know I think was it essentially when you subtract the cost of the thousand square feet indoor you know I think it's $1800 for the tier one mixed year so you subtract the 1500 for indoor and then you divide the remainder by the 50 plants it works out to $6 a plant also so I don't know if that was by design or not but it's essentially the six dollar fee per plant if you apply that to tier two and tier three mixed year would be for a tier two two thousand two hundred fifty dollars which is the 1500 indoor fee plus six dollars times 125 plants and for the tier three it would be the three thousand seven hundred fifty dollar fee for a twenty five hundred dollar indoor license plate plus six dollars times two hundred plants which runs which turns out to be four thousand nine hundred fifty I think we just bump it up to five thousand that sounds I mean I think the logic is sound I think there's some other states that do try to remember where I saw it and I can't but I think there are some other states actually that use a formula like similar to that so unless we think that there's some sort of kind of some reason to just not follow that formula I think that those those numbers make sense to me so again it'd be a tier two mixed year all the data would be two thousand two hundred and fifty and a tier three would be five thousand way better logic than trying to pick a number out of that it makes sense to me so okay is it worth running those by you know the S just to make sure that they're consistent with one of our other fee proposals yep it is do that but for now that can be kind of our placeholder okay any other feed discussion do we need to do today alright well then the bulk of today's meeting really is around reviewing rules one and two I am very proud of the work we all did to get these rules drafted and submitted considering the time crunch that we're under and I think we all recognize that that time crunch was somewhat artificially created by the legislature but that may first date is not totally arbitrary you know it's really the date that we need to start issuing outdoor cultivation licenses if those folks are gonna have any chance of participating in year one we certainly don't want to push them out and then have them come into a heavily saturated marketing year two so I think the pace really was necessary but we do I think just having reviewed them last week you know over the weekend just have some further refinement that we need to do which I really see is a two-phase process first we need to review them specifically with small cultivators in mind a lot of our regulations at least from my perspective were designed to ensure that larger entities don't intentionally or unintentionally undermine our our consumer safety and public safety mandates but the risk from small cultivators on those fronts is much less and we should be reflected in our regulations that kind of lower risk and the second phase really is to kind of look at all the public comments we received and look at our rules more globally and make adjustments so I think today my vision is to start with that kind of small cultivator review and then you know next week and thereafter move to the kind of more global review of the rules and fine-tune based upon public comments so I'm gonna put the rules on the screen and I think you know I've got a list of all the sections that I think could we could adjust and so I'll just go through them I'll have similar lists or similar places you'd like to go we can just kind of go through them line-by-line I actually thought it might be helpful just very quickly before he had started to review our small cultivator mandate so the first three sections I think are the most relevant here so again it's the intent of the General Assembly to move as much of the illegal cannabis market into the regulated market for the purposes of consumer protection and public safety and you know the legislature really wants us to focus on small local farmers so small cultivators which again is defined by statute shall be prioritized over larger cultivators during the initial application period and then the kind of subsection C is the really important one is just that the board shall consider the different needs and risks of small cultivators and make exceptions or accommodations for these cultivators when appropriate so I think that's really what we're going to be focused on now which which of our rules and regulations probably don't need to apply to small cultivators I'll just pull up the rules I just if you don't mind just grab my mouse make a alright so my first proposal doesn't come until 1.4.2 they won't have anything before that everything else that's pretty procedural to that point that seems so 1.4.2 this is what's required for all cannabis establishments anyone seeking a license has to submit the following it as part of their application so we have individuals legal name individuals address date of birth copy of a driver's license set of fingerprints any authorization to do a background check again these background checks are mandated in the statute but when we get down to G or J so again and I was one that proposed these but a description of any criminal action against an applicant principal or person a description of any civil action description of any administrative action description of any disciplinary action so this is the applicant himself or herself actually writing out kind of what we would expect to finds in a criminal history check or if we did a check on civil actions or administrative actions and the point of this was really that we aren't authorized to share criminal history records but we can we are authorized to share with relevant state agencies you know a description of it's supplied by the individual and I'm wondering really which is it really important in certain instances but I really don't know if it's important for small cultivators tier one cultivators and it could be overly complicated I mean you know potentially a farmer might not fully understand what action the state has taken against them in a old criminal case you know he or she pled you know Nolo to a case or got diversion in this and the crime was expunged you know there it might you know there are some complexities of our legal system that might lead someone to unintentionally make a false statement to the board and then we're in a somewhat of a strange place so I think that this is important for larger licensees but I would consider waving G through J for tier one cultivators my only question is and then this is coming from my experience at the Agency of Agriculture there might be some folks that from an administrative perspective have done something but in violation of the RAPs or something else that we might want to know about before we allow them to do another activity on agriculturally designated land so I'm wondering if it still might be prudent to understand potential administrative actions from an ANR VA FM perspective in the context of is are you in good standing with the state before we allow you to do certain things on that piece of property not necessarily from a criminal background perspective but recognizing that there might be some issues jurisdictionally with other agencies and I know that this is something that happens in the context of seeking grants at the Agency of Agriculture you can't do anything if you're in violation of and I'm wondering if that might make sense to hold on to some. So then maybe wave G and H but not INJ. Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking I think I think we're just gonna need to know and I mean it's harder for us to coordinate it with other agencies to understand you might have and I know that the Agency of Ag specifically and I use them because I come from that that world doesn't take this type of action all too often I think that they look to to seek other ways to do business but you know I don't want to have to call over to there every every every time we're at this decision point so I would suggest that in the spirit of understanding the status of that specific land and actions taken upon it we hold on to certain things but certainly you're in favor of the criminal action and civil action and and really just to make sure I understand this what we're waving is that we're not asking them to fill it out in the application that's right right so it's not that if there was a if there was you know money laundering or any of the other concerns that might sort of trigger those Finns and Cole memo things it doesn't we're not waving that piece of it it's just that we don't need them to make a list for us yes yeah okay yeah and you know again this also is partially designed to help ease the process of the financial institutions essentially this is double work for or the licensee if they're giving it to us and we're allowed to kind of share some of this with a financial institution then they don't have to then do it again all over again for the financial institution but I do think that yeah I think G&H again even the you know yeah I think we're wrong yeah yeah so wave G&H for tier one cold I just want to know that they're in good standing if depending with other agencies that we're we have to work with yeah you're leaving K sorry I think that makes sense I think that's kind of in line with I and J yeah and that's specific to a cannabis cultivation or otherwise other cannabis licenses not any specific any other state license that you may have not I mean we could be more clear if we want to be mad that's what I remember the intent being but I could be wrong anything in 1.4.3 not with respect to small cultivators and waving 1.4.4 again this is these are things that an applicant has to put in their actual application to show a plan to register or comply with any board required third-party systems for example the inventory tracking system I think that this could just be an attestation that you will comply you know showing a plan I don't even really know what that might look like you know just attest to the fact that I mean we will know whether you're using these third party systems or not so it's showing a plan to me seems a little bit kind of like paperwork yeah that makes sense yeah so just attest that you that you will comply with any board or part third-party systems and I'm honestly okay with waving B through D for for smoke tier one cultivators so I thought about this too over the weekend and I was kind of going between waving or just making the application specific you know so that it's easy to fill out and and I think in general what we would expect from a tier one cultivator is different than what we would expect from a tier three so I don't know if it needs to be waved or there just needs to be you know a sentence versus paragraphs of description so they're gonna be your one cultivator all cultivators all licensees will be subject to the health and safety regulations so I don't I just don't see why submitting a plan I know the plan kind of gets tier one cultivators thinking about this but to me this seems like something again that might if I were just reading this and I didn't have any other guidance and I know we're planning on submitting guidance I would think that this would be you know a little burdensome to try and think well what does the board really want as far as a health and safety plan and storage and record-keeping plan and inventory control plan I mean they can look at the regulations and see what's required but this seems to be a secondary step that doesn't add much if they're if they're already looking at the regulations and seeing what's required I'm fine with that I went back and forth yeah some two minds that the inventory control plan I mean they are everyone's gonna be part of the inventory tracking so I just don't know how much more you would say the only question I have for for us to talk about is with C to submit a storage and record-keeping plan and I'm thinking about it in the context of we are gonna allow outdoor growers and I know all outdoor growers are small cultivators but but recognizing that I would imagine the majority of them could likely be we're allowing outdoor cultivators to bring in their genetics their vegetative plants inside during winter months and so do we want from a storage perspective and that's where my mind goes specifically with with respect to subsection C do we still want that plan on what they are likely going to do where they're where it's going to be how they're going to be storing them just a question for us to consider I mean I'm comfortable with the direction that this is going but that's kind of my one thought the way that I'm looking at all of this right now is that the tier one cultivators are already out there operating they're already doing they're already growing they're already kind of doing these things in the risk to them the risk of them getting licensed as much smaller than it is for everyone else I know that we're all kind of understanding that but you know I just I don't see it necessary for them to change what they're doing right now in the storage plan to me and I guess they could just describe how they're doing things currently but it's like it's not going to change anything by them having a storage plan in their application yeah no I mean I'm just wondering what do we want and and or need to know right so we could build in some parameters in the you know in rule two about what you need to do if you're gonna bring those inside or we could in my mind allow folks to tell us what they intend to do I don't know if we need to do both just yeah I know what you mean well essentially anything that we require here you know we have to verify whether it's true not necessarily but we we should be verifying whether it's true and if it's not true then at least the problems so it does someone having a storage plan and then violating that storage plan is that something that we think is important enough to regulate just to add to I think the direction that you're going the other way I thought about this when I was looking through these is how much do we want people to spend time creating a business plan now knowing that they need to start I mean that they're gonna have to make adjustments to meet the other regulations that we've written you know how much planning if they're already operating do we need them to do versus kind of adjusting what they're already doing to meet the regulations that are really like the security requirements right you know I'm comfortable with it just wanted to ask the question because when I saw storage that was where my mind immediately went to maybe when we wrote it it was more in the context of records or administrative you know concepts around storage and record keeping so I just want to make sure that we are all in the same beat when it came to what we want to see from that storage of an MIP also you know I know it's a slippery slope with the word with any of these generic terms but you know pesticide usage other input storage and usage and so on and so forth that we need to see all that I mean it's made up for in our regulations and other state regulations too but I get it I mean there's one thing that we were thinking about when we were crafting this is it's good to have people at the outset be thinking about these things but again this some of this seems like a paperwork exercise considering that people are going to be subject to these rules regardless of they submit a plan or not but anyway yeah I mean I mean point well taken what passes the smell test for an adequate plan and without even guidance from us I think it leaves a lot of folks wondering where to start and what's satisfactory you know and that's where you know lawyers come in to fill the gap but they charge money for it that's good now I'm cool with that all right so I have the waving D through D for tier one cultivators and so the hiring kind of so I I was thinking that J through L might be waived or and this kind of again harps on the definition of employee but but whether it should apply just to people with three or more employees I thought that was kind of an alternative way to do it that was my sort of thinking and also you know I I sort of imagine I don't know if this is true or not that most small cultivators will either be sole proprietors right I might have seasonal workers and they might also be family so I wonder if you know we could say like three employees if those employees are not like if they're if it's a partnership between spouses or you know siblings or something like that I don't know that they need to follow this the same you know the general rules and responsibilities of staff you have one or two people or even three people you know those three people are gonna do generally everything right right so I think it's cleaner for us just to say wave it for tier one cultivators because we don't have to get into the your issue of how to define employee yet but I think we do have to do that and I forget what we've said in statute I know there's definition employees in statute elsewhere that we could just rely on but I think waving J through L for small for tier one cultivators is maybe a starting point and we're not actually waving but they will get safety training they just don't have to provide a plan in advance okay keeping eyes sorry waving J through L just making sure I have the right I mean do we want to wave all yeah wave all yeah all right I threw up I thought it might be helpful good now all right yeah I threw up 1.4 point or did anyone have any anything else on 1.4.4 all right 1.4.5 so the bond or escrow for cessation of operations very important and once you get to be a certain size I think I've been trying to think I mean essentially what the concern is is that you have all of legally licensed cannabis in your possession whether it's in crop or in storage and all of a sudden your business is bankrupt or you have to cease operations for one reason or other this the idea of the bond or escrow was to have at least some money set aside to kind of wind down your business and make sure that that cannabis is either stored or there's a plan for it I think on this that we could wait we could wave this for tier one cultivators I really you know it would be antithetical to our mission for that for that cannabis to end up on the illicit market legally grown cannabis but I've been talking to a few folks in the hemp worlds about the cost of destruction of a crop and honestly it seems very minimal and so you know if the main concern is whether that legally grown cannabis ends up on the illicit market I think we should just make sure and I think we do in our regulations that if there is a cessation of operations that that cannabis either gets legally sold to another licensee or is destroyed and it shouldn't be all that expensive to do that we left 1.4.4 E which is the plan essentially I agree that the bond or escrow is not necessary yep agreed okay so wave that for tier one that's all I had for 1.4 5 so anyone else have anything there I have something I mean we've gotten some requests from the Department of Tax to add a few things here but we can do that at our next meeting anything on 1.4.6 I don't think so we need to know where these are gonna be yep 1.4.7 8 9 my only question here was going back to we who has to participate in this part of this process which we can define later but that was my only right exactly you know in in Vermont I think you know for purposes of providing health care it's anyone who works at least 20 hours a week we could say something like that I don't I don't know how they deal with seasonal workers I'm sure anyone at the agency that culture could give us some advice on that I don't know how they deal with family members that are being you know compensated in other ways so right we could also think about it in terms of full-time equipment you might have a number of people who come in and out of your business working for different parts of the year how many you know you added up all the hours they work how many FTEs do you have at the end of the year yep so again yeah I mean I would consider waving this for small cultivators being B through D but you know this structure that we have here is based on employees not not you know your license type so maybe we just leave it for now and until we resolve our employee conversation think about whether small cultivators should be a part of this yeah and I think some depending on what happens at the Legislature with S188 might change some some things because they would be agricultural workers and not commercial workers and I'm not an employment law expert but I would imagine that there are some nuanced differences there but I know who we can talk to at the agency a bag for some some guidance there okay so why don't we hold off on making any further changes to that section next is one point next on my list is 1.5.2 does anyone have anything before that so I wanted to wave this the entirety of this section I guess it's really just a and B not for all tier one cultivators but just tier one cultivators that are home occupancy growers and again the thought here is these people are already growing like this is something that they've been doing there's no additional impact by bringing these folks in to the system you know the whatever is going on from a municipal water supply standard is already happening for in home there's probably very few that are actually on a municipal water supply yeah so again if we're trying to really make you know make the folks that are already growing you know licensed regulated growers then you know this to me seems like that you know we've already this seems over unnecessary I know that you know when we come to energy water and environmental requirements that we're on slightly different ground and I know that we really don't want to create additional impacts there but you know this would just be for a subset of tier one people that are currently growing in their house maybe maybe it should be all tier one I don't know I think I'm okay with that under those set of circumstances if you're going out and leasing a new space especially an indoor space I feel like this should be required but if you're just have a small row in your in your basement or your garage or in your spare bedroom I just don't I don't think this is necessary yeah and I mean for the record and our wanted us to apply this tier five and six cultivator applicant stuff to every single cultivator and I already tried to make some accommodations for the smaller folks but if we think we need to do more and I mean this gets back to that kind of incubator and license type that I was referring to maybe viewed it from that perspective I think you know I think that makes sense I think if we were in a state with larger water concerns like out west I might feel differently I think I'm okay with that okay I actually don't have anything left on rule one so I don't have it necessarily into me there Louie I had a question about change of control but I think that's more about whether or not we would charge fees for that you know like for a small cultivator if they change control I don't think we've just discussed that yeah I thought that we were treating change of control as a new application and then so I guess I'm wondering if it's change of control of a small cultivator do they need to reapply is that one of the things that we can change your way at first small cultivators it seems like we would want to we would want to be notified right you know and so whether that requires a new application or not I don't know I we could easily you know just well we wave the fee or prorate the fee or do whatever else we can do to kind of make the transition easier you know we certainly want the information of the new licensee that we would want of the prior licensee so yeah I guess my question is do they have to go through the entire process and pay a new license fee or is that can we simplify that process a little bit because if you've just if you've just gotten your license and then you change control then you have to do everything all over again but you have all your application materials ready presumably except for the ownership piece so I guess it really comes down to is the fee over the burdensome right and so I think I mean you know I don't see why we couldn't prorate the fee so that you know if you've been operating for six months that the new change of ownership fee I mean with the way we have it now is the kind of change of ownership triggers a new licensing period so you know from the day to the change of ownership you have a your license is good for a year so there I think there's I don't know what would you like to see I think we need notice that there's change of ownership and control but I I think we should propose if we can prorating the fee so it would really be more of a fee refund I think to the original licensing of a prorated portion are we allowed to do this stuff this is money that the board you know is using to operate yeah and you know any fee discussion that might implicate our operation you know usually requires legislative approval but you know we can kind of tweak the rules in a way that it's not necessarily lost money seems to me to be within your discretion as long as that licensing fee comes to the board I would imagine we would come to the authority to be some portion of it as long as it's being recouped by the new license fee are we silent on this in our rules currently in that section of our rules where we discussed kind of change of ownership right now 153 the board does retain it's 115.2 and under subsection D the board this retains question discretion to waive or reduce fees upon or such renewals so it's in there in some sense right now all the sense spelled out I think you're talking about this not really lost money to the board is the new owner is paying for a full year fee so there's no real we refund the unused portion of kind of a licensee fee not really or the board's in that isn't in no worse position really so I don't know if we want to be more explicit than this I mean as long as well I mean as long as we do it consistently right there's nothing that requires us to do it one way or the other and if we all win the lottery and go do something else and another group of people are sitting here as long as they do the same thing again I'm just trying to think about it you know the fee is designed to offset our regulatory compliance and enforcement so if a small cultivator has just been inspected then we've spent the money that their fee was supposed to cover and if they then ask for a partial refund then we are I guess in somewhat of a worse position because we've spent the money yeah I think I don't know I guess maybe we should be explicit for small cultivators and then leave it this way for yeah for others she would be entitled to a partial refund or something if I think what I was thinking about was if a small cultivator decides they don't want to do this anymore I want to make it as easy as possible for them to transfer their business to someone else rather than abandoning the business yeah that makes sense okay well we're agreed conceptually I think we need to that's a decision well we'll grapple yeah okay thank you nothing else in rule one all right my first comment or suggestion is two point two point one anyone have anything before that okay so on this one these are the records that any licensee is required to maintain on-site and accessible F may not be necessary period for anyone depending on the system that we go with you know is most likely we're gonna have automated we'll have those records available to us already but we don't know what system we're going with so maybe it's okay to keep it for now but I think we should waive this at least for now or tier one cultivators yes that's fine sorry then and and to me should be waived for tier one cultivators that to me really seems like a paperwork exercise for people that have already been operating and you know what I've heard just anecdotally is you know some attorneys around the state are more than welcome to create a standard one that all small cultivators can submit to us and again they're gonna charge for it but I don't know how much value there is if everyone is just submitting the exact same one to us how does that look for the products that someone might use in cultivation I mean usually so SOPs can also be six safety standards you know use and disposal and and and that sort of thing document how you do that is there a safety reason to keep the SOPs I mean maybe that's only true if you have you know one or two other employees that you're certain that you have some standards that your employees are following if they're one or two other people yeah I'm thinking more about what what you might use yeah I mean now that we do ask for other like an integrative pest management plan I wouldn't want you know that's kind of specific and not necessarily I could mean this but it's also its own separate thing and I think if we have those few instances where that we need this information regardless of what you want to call it I'm fine with waving the standard operating operating procedures manuals found in it recognizing I don't want that ripple effect to mean you're not preparing yourself if something does not go the way that you think it's going to go yeah I seem to remember us there's another portion maybe it was in role one about what you've just got discussing pest management applicator yeah I think it's somewhere in rule two we'll get there I'm sure but as long as we've got another place that that's addressed that's fine I mean the alternative is we could create that right as I was thinking I mean we could be the ones that play it together and just say this is how you have to operate but again I don't think that really takes no account the unique unique nature of each individual right yeah and we also don't really have the staff yeah I mean I did like hearing about you know Michael's chickens and yeah yeah but to require that put all that into a standard operating manual just seems like we might discourage some folks from joining the market that we would want yeah no and I think we're balancing what we need to know versus recognizing there's a lot of really good craft growers that have their processes down and to we need to see those processes when they know more than we do about their specific business what kind of standard would we hold us to and review you know so I get it anyone have anything else on 2.2.1 2.2.2 so this seems both of these sections again seem kind of potentially unobtainable for small cultivator and again we're really trying to balance the risk that they pose versus kind of what the benefit of having this is I think general liability insurance is an important for any business on large or small but I think you know the advice I've been given is kind of for small for tier one cultivators and maybe for others drop that down to 250,000 in insurance and 10,000 in escrow as an alternative to the insurance and that you'd probably cover whatever you know catastrophic thing happens at one of these businesses is there a time frame for putting the funds in escrow I mean the way this is written it seems like it has to be there on the first day of licensing is that necessary or can they have six or eight months to put that money in escrow I mean the problem is if something happens before that I mean if your employee you know it's dealing with some sort of solid base you know I mean I know that's probably not going to be a tier one cultivator but you blow yourself up, blow an employee or you have a visitor on to your farm it slips and falls I mean it just seems like well that would be under general liability I'm talking about the escrow. The escrow is the alternative to the money. Oh I see yeah okay I'm so I mean I know like you know just setting aside an extra 10k is not going to be easy but again I think that this is this is an important piece of any business maybe we could waive something for home occupancies that don't allow visitors I think that's what I'm thinking of yeah yeah and again this could be another argument in favor of having a kind of incubator license but I actually think that just having a difference between a distinction between people that are operating out of their homes versus renting a new space and you know I think that makes sense and again this you know when we move to the kind of broader conversation about other license types you know we're focused on small cultivators but this might also make sense to apply the same standard to the kind of tier three product manufacturer you've possibly you know other other license types sorry to clarify the decision on that one but so the dropping insurance amounts to 250,000 and the escrow to 10,000 and that's for tier one just here whether it's in home or not whether it's in home or not and I don't know and say we want to go over there for home occupancies we put a pin in that and just decide that and these numbers you know they're being recommended to me from a number of different sources I don't know if they're the right numbers or not seems like 10,000 again might be inaccessible to some people but I do think if there's a problem you want to have something set aside anything else on this section sorry no I think I think that makes sense to me put a pin in the one and again like my my thought or my in bringing that incubator type license to the conversation and it's just something do we care about as a board do you know my goal with that was trying to get folks the ability to move out of their home once they get to a certain level of business ready but do we fundamentally care of a majority of our small cultivator market is growing in their home you know and I don't necessarily care I mean they're good at what they do and it's it's more how we feel the market should look on its face but that was that that concept of allowing folks more advantages to begin while they kind of get themselves ready to have a feel like a more commercial operation for lack of a better way to describe it but if we don't necessarily feel like we need to move people out of their home I mean the statute says you can grow in your home not directly but on you know in effect it does that was just a conceptual point that I wanted to raise do we do we have an opinion either way so far I've seen maybe one or two places where we had a smaller incubator style license where I would apply a slightly different standard to them but I just don't think it's enough quite yet for me to kind of say that we need it I'm not trying to advocate for that license right now I'm just fundamentally do we care if folks are doing this in their home or do we want to structure things where we're trying to care it's not sticks move them into a more commercial feel of an operation does that make sense so my point is here is like if it even will be lower these and wave these for you your operation and you're in your home is there an incentive to other than more revenue I guess because you can grow more to move beyond that I don't know if we need to draw that distinction I'm just asking conceptually do we care if people are growing in their home yeah that's where I think you know meeting people where they're at is important I think really people are growing in their homes right now right so I don't have any problem with people continuing to do that I don't feel real need to push them to kind of a rented space somewhere off site as long as they're kind of following the general municipal rules around home occupancy yeah no I don't disagree with you just wanted to make sure we were sexually on the same wavelength there I have one more question about this the escrow we've talked in the past about people struggling to do banking to have access to banks so we may need to think of an option I would imagine if I were a banker which I am not that a small cultivator may seem more risky to bank with than a larger operation we we should ask the banks about that I mean generally speaking the banks don't mind taking people's money you know I think it's really when they're lending it or they're potentially you know banking you know that I but you're right you know they might say well where did this 10,000 come from is this I think that's what I was getting at with can they have you know six months to demonstrate that they've earned that 10,000 in this market versus having not answer yeah I think there are naturally going to be some barriers to entry this because of access to land access gap of federal status you know I think we have to balance is that barrier absolutely necessary and to me you know the the escrow or no liability insurance is really about if someone's injured how to how do we make that person home so I'm just I think flagging it as potential you can ask you should ask you know some of the bank we can ask the kind of bankers association I don't know which one they would rather prefer get it sooner and not know where it comes from or six months on the road anything in 2.2.3 2.2.4 so I would consider waiving A through C for tier one cultivators because I really think my concerns here are covered by E and D we're essentially saying comply with everything and report breaches to me that's that's the real thing that we're concerned about especially for smaller operations you know sole proprietors or maybe one employee I mean these are important things A through C are important but I really do feel like you know everything that we're worried about we're requiring disclosure and compliance and D&E anything else on this one no 2.2.5 employment and training some of these really just aren't applicable to a small cultivator you know some of this is really kind of aimed at retail so this one I'm not sure we need one two six seven and eight for tier one cultivators those one two six seven and eight were two and eight included in statute not that I'm aware of like the health effects and I don't remember if it was specific to retailers or all establishments yeah I mean I think regardless that makes sense for retailers but not necessarily I mean depending on our definition of employee and you know the over three employees and might not even be necessary or required to do all of these if you don't have full-time employees you know so number two is per statute by statute yeah okay I remember that some of these were but not yeah so that one I think has to stay that's fine you know and then my other ones the the nine through 12 I think are very important but I think that we need to if we can we have the capacity find a way to provide these trainings whether it's linking to other organizations that provide these trainings I just I think that again you know someone gets trained human trafficking domestic violence awareness is that training to you know their standard for what this is or any standardization on these trainings at all so there are certain certain industries that have done to like the hospitality is done here trafficking and the reason why I suggested that was because in Oregon there was an issue with cultivators in human trafficking so which makes sense I think but I think when I proposed these I had in mind that we would not be reinventing the wheel that would be linking people to training that they get it's perfect yeah so it from a cost perspective is that some thing that the license holder would burden the cost of or we would burden the cost of I think it well if there assumption is that it we're would include that in the cost of what it is to license the total cost of licensing right just asking yeah so then but I don't I don't know that's what we've done or not like then why don't we again like if they don't have any full-time employees but this still apply to them as an operator right you know what I mean these are important issues I don't want to sideline that aspect of it means early human trafficking you know it is a problem can be particularly what kind of thing so why don't you look into whether or not nine through 12 how we how we plan on on delivering those things and to as well and then but I think what I'm hearing is that we could wave one six seven and eight for tier one cultivators okay okay anything else on that section so two point two point six so see all cannabis and cannabis products must be tracked using inventory tracking system from the time the cannabis is grown by a cultivator until it's sold to a consumer by a retailer cannabis establishments must reconcile along well it's that first sentence that I was thinking about so you know we we've been dealing with this or hearing about it in public comments quite a bit obviously also there's the problem where if licenses don't get out you know right on May 1st room you know earlier then we're gonna have this problem in year one of people wanting to bring their genetics into the legal market and this probably prohibits it I would say this section and then there's another section later on that we can get to when we get there 2.2 point 15 so I don't know where I stand on this quite yet but I I would think that we should discuss having a potential grace period for small cultivators in year one my question with this is do we I mean ultimately we need to know the products that go to market right and we need to know the products that don't make it there to ensure that there's no diversion there's no you know saying that these plants all died and then actually during them to that but I wonder if that all has to be done through seed to sale tracking or if there's a point at which a plan has to enter seed to sell tracking for small cultivator and then if the plant dies and it's never gonna make it to Marcus or another way to capture that information yeah I don't know and I don't know you know there's obviously there's kind of the big three maybe four seed to sale tracking companies nationally and then there's a host of other kind of smaller companies we don't know which way we're going on that so you know it's hard to answer that question even if even if we wanted to try you know it's something that maybe we could get our consultants to come in and talk to us about about seed to sale tracking and how to do it particularly for small cultivators in the most cost effective way but I I don't think we should change this quite yet or decide on anything on this quite yet but it is something that this and then there's an equivalent provision in 2.2 point 15 where we really need to think about you know at the start of this market how do we move in all the plants that people have spent years kind of growing the genetics you know developing the genetics on and whether we care about whether it's been tracked from seed to cultivation. I've heard a lot about anxiety around this specific issue and I've looked at how other jurisdictions have done it I think my thought is even outside the small cultivator world allowing I think in any potential license holder for a certain week two week race period to get their existing genetics into the system in year one their first time applying I mean I don't know which way we want to go there you know makes make sense or else people are going to start you know getting these genetics in the various ways that might create anticipated problems for us so think about it like vaculate conception or I don't like to say don't ask don't tell because it has other political undertones but you know giving folks an opportunity to do it before they need to start tracking after they receive their license is something that I would be in in favor for I don't think we need to micromanage that I think so much good genetics in this state that are tailored specifically to our climate here that folks have spent a lot of time trying to you know make marketable here and I want all of that to be included in our regulated market or else it just feeds the illicit market recognize that puts us in a in a box but right I think we need to acknowledge that and recognize it so what would we need in order to answer this question I mean one we probably want to know a little bit more about seed sale tracking recognizing there's a procurement process that we don't have much control over at this stage we have to go through kind of a standard process on all contracts and we can't really talk to any potential vendors at this stage so knowing the kind of what seed to sale tracking looks like it's kind of an unknown thing except you know we can hear from other jurisdictions about how their process went and how are they brought in during especially during year one the kind of illicit genetics yeah I mean let's do our homework yeah but I think some have just turned the other way and allowed folks to get things entered on a certain grace period before they're between when they seek a license and when inventory tracking is required in year one and then kind of solves probably mean people can't buy seeds over the internet legally you know it's it's a big ball of yarn we're gonna find ourselves in unless we acknowledge I think that practically speaking it's gonna be challenging and I think I'm thinking along those lines as long as it's tested before it goes to market right and I'm really sure I I'm so they don't care because they care but I don't I'm not sure that it matters when it and where it came from yeah and you need any more direction from us on that I don't think that there's any real decision here for you I was curious about the sub e a canvas is for tier one cultivators a comprehensive inventory audit at least once a year from the day of the previous comprehensive inventory I mean it's obviously a good idea I'm just wondering how burdensome this might be to a small cultivator yeah and again I think there's just so much that we don't know until we we know the vendor that we're going with you know how easy is it to pull certain data points that line up with the software we're gonna go with and we're kind of between a rock and a hard place but some of the requirements of this section because we're gonna need to finalize before we can I get my understanding is pick a better I don't understand what the day-to-day if that would look like right well then why don't we just move on from this leave it for now and or we could wave it for now and then come back to it yeah I mean I do fundamentally you know think that looking at the section overall recognizing that a and e we have potentially some changes to make is we're making a lot of accommodations for small cultivators relying on the seed to sail tracking platform to do the the work that otherwise would be a paper work requirement so on and so forth so it needs to be strong recognizing that there's some grace periods and potential audits is every year satisfactory or too much I'm not sure you know I say we leave it for now recognizing that this whole section you know might need some tier one cultivator tweaks to it so anything else on this section that we want to discuss is there anything you know something all right 2.2.7 transportation I think you know my first note is this is something that is not related to one cultivator so just leave it alone for now but this might need to be tweaked if delivery is permitted but I think you can just kind of do some special legislative or regulatory language I had a question about Dean I couldn't remember the the purpose but it says must take place in a vehicle the board may waive what would be the other what would be another option than a vehicle walking it on down the road I mean depending okay that's a good compost man what's his name that has the mule Vermont compost no idea that existed I think it's just trying to recognize that you know depending on your specific operation maybe or you have neighbors down the down the street that are doing a different part of the supply chain you know yeah I think that there's some I want to look at this with more of a broader overview than than just for small cultivators maybe at our next meeting or whenever the case may be because I think there is some whether it's GPS tracking or some other kind of the only one I highlighted was I wasn't sure because it talks about transmitting back to a remote computing device like I'm not what would that be if it if you're a small cultivator and it's just you yeah I mean I think what we tried to do or that subcommittee tried to do was look at other jurisdictions and this was a very watered down these are very watered down requirements compared to some other states that have much stricter transportation requirements around what they're doing but but that being said you know that makes sense with these larger in other state businesses where it's not just you as the sole proprietor and so I think we just need to to look at this whole subsection not necessarily make any special accommodations for small cultivators but look at it generally speaking for all participants in our our market but for now I think we should weigh this for small cultivators yes yeah I mean yeah we can make that decision now I think we should have a conversation about whether or not it's necessary and we can only see where it's meant discretion but yeah you know that discretion changes right what I was thinking for this is we have another place where we tie certain regulations to the amount of product you're transporting if you hit a 20 pound threshold that you need certain additional that's kind of where I was tying into that 20 pound yeah but I think for now just given the conversation we're having today we should just waive this for small cultivators the other thing I had in this section is we need oh if we have Q so again we're we're saying in Q that transportation shall be under conditions so we're saying to the transporter do this to your the best of your ability to protect the can transport this to the best of your ability to protect cannabis cannabis products from loss and thefts so do we really need that you have to stay with your vehicle while transporting if they option to stay with the vehicle you must choose that option I just in the reason Q to me is kind of gives a little bit of flexibility to kind of transport especially smaller amounts that you know tier one cultivators will be transporting to you know really not have to kind of just strictly stay with their car at all times these are unmarked cars no cannabis be visible I mean the likelihood of these being a target I think is somewhat minimal and you know Q is just saying just transport this as best you can to protect the cannabis cannabis products from loss and theft so you're talking about this in relation to just small cultivators like I think just changing that in general I think oh is an important one if you are a larger transporter I think I think that that in that is even you know just as you know Kyle you just mentioned that's kind of a water down version of what other states require oh but I think for small cultivators essentially put the onus on them to make sure that the cannabis cannabis products are protected but if you need to kind of make a stop unrelated to the delivery the transportation for some reason you know you're logging it you know you're trying to take the best you know standard the best approach to protecting cannabis but under this under oh that would be prohibited you know you're taking your debt to the doctor and you're also transporting you know you know a cannabis plant or you know you know that would be those would be inconsistent under oh but allowed under Q as long as you're taking precautions so you're saying wave oh because Q makes up I think more effectively and provides more clarity and or maybe not more clarity but more flexibility yeah that makes sense to me and so I get it we're over two years one but not others yeah I mean it's a rural state folks like to go out and do all their I mean I do it all my stuff in one trip versus special trip just for this practically I get it doesn't make sense okay any anything else on two point two point seven transportation two point two point eight under the I thought and just tell me if I'm crazy here that we could allow on-site burning for small cultivators yeah these are just some these are five suggestions it says maybe not be limited to methods so you can dispose it in other ways if we want to get prescriptive and at burning I'm fine with that I was talking to a hemp cultivator about on-site burning and it's a widely used practice you're not just you know in hemp but just for a lot of agricultural establishments yeah what you know obviously if you need a burden you know it'd be subject to a municipal kind of regulations around on-site burning I'm wondering do we want to we want to have any role in the destruction by burning do we want to be on do we want to witness it do we want a video of it you know the the concern there is that someone says I'm going to destroy my crop because it's contaminated but then they don't so well that could be true for anything any of these right I think we're just gonna have to in that instance rely on people being honest I don't we'd have to have like how would you have a video of somebody on-site composting when you could do that anyway you could say I composted these plants and they could still be diverted into the market I think in the hemp context they require above a certain amount someone to be to witness it oh really inspectors need to go out and actually participate in the burning but not like if it's but we've allowed compo do I misunderstand here we've allowed like composting on-site composting yeah how would you know how would we know I think I think burning because of the nature of the plan and THC levels and potential intoxication and municipal ordinances if they do exist around odor nuisance I think maybe that's where you're thinking it might require a different level of scrutiny from a just a factor that you've done certain things but otherwise I understand I mean so we're what you're thinking yeah I mean the easiest thing for us to do would be to allow on-site burning for tier one cultivators and not saying anything about the process and then but you know if we want to allow on-site burning for larger cultivators it might require us to be there or to get a video of it so I'm fine with allowing it for small cultivators I think you're right that there are municipal ordinances that would that allow you to burn in certain places or you know have certain size fires they might have a burn ban you might not be able to burn it at a particular time depending on where you're doing this so we could for tier one cultivators just permit on-site burning if allowed by the municipality or subject to a municipal so they're municipal ordinances yeah I mean and again I think from a waste disposal perspective I'm hoping that there's a lot of opportunity for remediation I mean you know this was such an issue with the hemp program at the agency because if it is over that point three percent THC it's a fed it's federally illegal so because they were operating under a USDA pilot program they needed a specific level oversight but there's a lot more opportunity for remediation and I think it will find it somewhere in here unless you're closely negligent I don't know if that's the phrase we use when it comes to what you're applying you know that it needs to be destroyed but it's not something that I hope happens not too often given the flexibility that we're providing in remediation of a product but still good to be clear yeah you know again this is like a may not be limited to so these are just options but they're not an exhaustive list so okay so we'll add on site burning if permitted or subject to local ordinances or tier one culprits okay anything else on this one 2.2 point 8 packaging this is another area where you know when you read through it you realize that a lot of these are designed for retail right packaging but not necessarily intra supply chain packaging like cultivator to product manufacturer right so I think what I just think we're here is there should we should make some distinction here I think all of this is pretty much important for products or flower that are intended for sale at a retail store front but for products that are not intended for sale to the public at a retail store front I really think it should just be packaged in a way that is secure and reasonably designed to protect it from loss or theft and I'm using I'm getting the language from our transportation requirements protected from loss of theft as well as against physical chemical or microbial contamination and against deterioration of the product which is taken from one of our transportation regulations is the child resistant and opaque part of statute for cultivators and manufacturers there are specific requirements for culture packaging for cultivators and manufacturers I'd have to look at the statute again to be clear on this but I think ever raises a point that's not clearly is allowed to say I think a distinction between product that's going to consumer versus just going interest by chain that seem about right though if we make a distinction between the kind of products available to the public versus products available to licensees every hundred percent and then just say is secure necessary the packaging again the kind of key points are that it's secure reasonably designed to protect it from loss and theft as well as from against contamination or deterioration of products should it also did you say in there that it should identify what it is you know I didn't I thought that sorry I have another piece here you scroll down a little further it should have a label on it that includes the batch and lot number the licensee number and testing results if required and it contain the not safe for kids and contains THC well that makes yeah but I mean this all this conversation makes sense I mean these are packaged in like pound vacuum sealed bags between you know folks you know I don't know if would that meet the smell test for smell test before for a secure you know method of packaging between intra supply chain partners I don't know but I think we need to recognize that these little resistant and opaque packages don't make sense for the type of volume that's going to move in our supply chain it's just not realistic now you know in addition you know these tier 1 cultivators are gonna have to have a transport manifest as well it kind of describes just the the weight and you know other aspects so you know I'm just thinking purely about just what the packaging needs to have is the transport manifest will put it back the rest of the stuff okay so David I've got some language around that that I can just send you okay thank you anything else on this so my next comment jumps a little bit it's 2.2 point 15 so anyone has anything before that did we want to talk about social media under 2.2 point 11 there's some comment about images and text regarding products for social media I don't know how that would meet that 15 80% 85% rule sorry well I think we could make some type of accommodation around imagery or text as long as it's not promoting a price point or or something similar there of you know but if it's promoting the quality of a product you know that post is on a you know white or blue or pink background behind it and it's just a but or the product itself I think link then linking to an educated website from that specific social media post recognizing that you can't educate on Instagram and and others it might make sense for small cultivators that don't have the wherewithal to spend money on marketing or advertising to the extent that they even can through our statute it might be an opportunity for some folks who do very you know price-saliable and marketing on their own behalf so what is what would this say instead it would allow images is any images or other text regarding progress otherwise prohibited right yeah I allow images yeah I mean images of the product in and of itself and I yeah I don't know that I agree I'm bringing it up because we did receive it in public comment and I don't know that it would meet that ever meet the 15 85 kind of advertising rule that we have yeah just to be clear just for my benefit age-gating websites are just the kind of are you over 21 or what's your birthday yeah and so obviously that's not much of a gate it's more about a like suggestion make sure you can make sure you can count I guess if you're related we know we have any way of knowing I I know the answer is no you know whether those are effective at blocking people that are underage I don't have any data but I know the answer to that but you know I know that depending on how you're using social media in this context it's not all too easy to be shut down from a operator of the you know your own account perspective if you're doing things in cannabis or other federally illegal activities they'll shut you down quickly so if you're if you're advertising in the wrong way and I'm I don't have Instagram's legal terms that you acknowledge as a recipient of in front of me so I don't know what that standard is necessarily but I think making some potential accommodations for folks that can't otherwise market themselves at all because of the you know limited ability to do so under set of certain set of circumstances I could see it being valuable and you could still fall within certain parameters that wouldn't shut you down at the platform level or our level but how we wrap that into words on a piece of paper and regulation I don't necessarily know the answer to that either I'm not comfortable allowing any images so I would need something more specific there to agree to something like this you know certainly something on the lines that Kyle said is much more palatable I think then you know about just blank background with a picture of a cannabis or cannabis product is much more palatable than someone say kind of out snowboarding and smoking a joint or something like that but so we receive public comment on this we'll have to deal with this one way or the other you know I would just this is a hot button issue on both sides you know small cultivators really need this as a way of low-cost advertising the legislature and the prevention community and the medical society and others really this is the kind of front the new front of advertising that they're very concerned about so you have a specific proposal or Kyle when we do our kind of public comment about what this could look like happy to consider it but I think we should just leave it for now knowing that we're gonna have to revisit it during those public comment periods yeah I'm just raising it as an issue that I think we can probably find a path forward for with correct parameters I don't have a proposed language to satisfy everybody I did a little research on this yesterday and you're right that I think Twitter is the most lax when it comes to cannabis products but everyone else if you kind of you know hashtag cannabis or if you if you're showing pictures that they very quickly whether they shadow block you first then they they suspend shadow ban you and then suspend or revoke your account pretty quickly so in some ways the mark the free market has already kind of dealt with this issue but what if there's specific language I'll find I'll present someone yeah so I thought we should talk about 2.2 point 13 because visitor visitors to an establishment if we are gonna make specific accommodations for folks growing in their home that's where a lot of our safety oversight kicks in if that our visitors so I know we allow visitors to an establishment I think we should specifically say if somebody's growing in their home I mean they can allow visitors but they're gonna open themselves up to other regulations so how do we want to handle that because that was another one of the things that I had in the incubator license type yeah I was looking at some home occupancy guidance documents and a lot of them just in the guidance mention this like you know if you allow members of the public or employees to come in here subjecting yourself to fire safety rules I think it's not something that needs to be in rule I think it's something that we have a kind of one-page guidance document for people that are doing home occupancy and again it's already been created for them for a large part for other home businesses so I don't think you know it's it would be too much of a lift for us to have just copy and paste sections of that post to our website I don't think we need to say it here as well okay I didn't know how we wanted to handle it but I want I just wanted some whether it's guidance or whatever else some got to some clear understanding of what that line would be for folks that want to do this under the home occupation you know frame framework so I forgot to kind of look at our schedule does anyone want to take a break I think we're rolling but about Brenda David I don't need to I'm fine I'm gonna step out and I'll be right back okay why don't we take a five minute break we're all set great thank you okay so we left off on 2.2 point 13 I anything on 2.2 point 14 all right so 2.2 point 15 this is once again this related to the concern I raised earlier about small cultivators being able to bring their genetics into the legal system I don't think I'm ready to make a decision on this quite yet but whatever we do in 2.2 point 6 it should also be reflected here in a version yeah 2.3 point 2 is my next one anyone have any anything prior to that yeah I was just thinking wave F for tier one cultivators I mean again you know just like you mentioned last time in the last comment Kyle just you're allowing visitors you know you're potentially subjecting yourself to fire safety regulation but that you know recognizing that most of these folks are going to be home occupants that relying on you know having to file a safety protocol just might not be realistic do we define I don't remember in the beginning and definitions do we define what a visitor is no I think my only like well and I ask because we kind of go between you know home occupation and you know someone who's releasing a space or renting a space or owns a different space you know what is a visitor for a home occupant yeah home occupation business versus if it you know so essentially we probably want to exempt family members yeah I mean or else they're going to be in violation for Carlos and it's up to us and our enforcement discretion but I don't really want to and maybe it's a dent maybe we address it guidance yeah but I just think it needs to be addressed somewhere for folks who have home occupation my I think our safety might have something to say about it I don't know just how they would define where they're public building kind of their cutoff is for these home occupants right I think one of the reasons that I put it up it's because when visitors you know I'm thinking about it and like the agritourism line of thinking if you're going farm to farm you're tracking microbial content between farms that can pose a risk to the plant life and health so like you'll wear booties or something like that on your shoes to prevent you know certain certain issues like that so that was a thought process a lot of science safety stuff and if they're ever going to become some ancillary agritourism style of business between visiting multiple cultivation sites and stuff I don't want there to be unintended unintended consequences I think it's more profound in the you know livestock dairy business arena but it certainly could be an issue here it's just but for small cultivators it might not be 100% necessary I would agree but that was part of the thinking yeah I think again this is all just how much of the market is a small cultivator is being supplied by a single small cultivator and is you know just everything is to me you know what's the risk versus is this too much you know developing a safety protocol is it kind of a paperwork exercise or is it really really important and you know if you you got a 5,000 square foot cultivation site you know you make up a much larger portion of market for the housing but I'm comfortable waving it just was making sure we knew what we were waving similar to the the storage component just kind of freezing it as reasoning you know okay that's all I had for 2.3.2 anyone else testing I didn't have anything here not that shouldn't be discussed in the context of all right all cultivators right three weeks thing we can talk about you know we we've received a lot of comment on that that's right yeah 2.3.4 I don't have anything here 2.3.5 so I did have something here a under B when a cultivator sells cannabis to a retailer packaging must include everything by statute all baseline packaging requirements in section 2.2.8 and then testing results and I was just wondering you know if a cultivator is selling to a retailer they might have some arrangement where the retailer is in charge of packaging and but we're kind of pushing that off to the cultivator and I'm wondering if that makes sense like is can't cultivators and retailers kind of come up with their own arrangement as to who is in charge of the kind of packaging requirements so I agree with you I don't think this is a linear supply chain you know so if you're gonna move back and forth yep just for one step back before it gets to that market in some ways so I'm wondering I mean I know these are statutory requirements the 904d and 907c don't have those statutes up in front of me and I also don't necessarily let me just see if I can go to 2.2.8 it is okay do you have it right there just leave this up then it's the packaging it's the list of resistance opaque all of us the cannabis yeah that's what I thought so it's kind of like again depending on how we change that that interest supply chain versus prepared for intended for a retail sale at a storefront this could change as well so David do you have any advice for us on this I just I think that whatever your decisions are which we've already kind of made at least partway in terms of the interest supply intra retail supply sorry intra supply chain packaging should just be applied to this and then which I think is within right the intent of the statute I think the statute didn't quite identify the issue that you bring up but I do think it's within the intention of the statute and then we'll apply it to this and then maybe add a line somewhere just clarifying that ultimately you know a retailer I think this is clear already a retailer is gonna have the final gate keeping responsibility to make sure that properly that stuff that's going out better I don't think me that I think that's gonna be a bonus check and what is can you remind me with the 904d and 907c I just if I look on my computer I know or D says each cultivator shall create a packaging for its cannabis so that's that that may I mean I think however that it's still within the requirements are within the concept what you're talking about already this production date and so forth and so I would argue that it's actually largely in line with what you're thinking the interest supply chain environments and then 907c has this more specific and this is more specific to what consumers need to have so then this maybe this doesn't need to be there because that it's kind of asking the cannabis is me it's pushing this burden to the cultivator and not necessarily the retail well so this one of the strange things in the statute is that cultivators aren't specifically empowered to package so if cultivation so if you are selling to a retailer you're supposed to have it it's an odd thing it's saying that cultivators you know have to ensure that packaging includes this stuff but they aren't specifically empowered to package themselves so the concept I think when we drafted this is that they have to ensure that it has this but the people giving it to them where it's intended for sale to a consumer without an additional sort of packaging step which shouldn't happen in the retailer space has to ensure that they are meeting those requirements so it just your bottom line conclusion is that we have to leave that the way it is the sub 2 B2 for selling to a retailer yeah for the other stuff we can okay I think yeah for the other stuff 904d is essentially what you listed when you spoke earlier this week all right well then we'll leave that the way it is and then we'll change 2.2.8 but we can leave with it'll probably be 2.2.8 B we change this because we'll have a differentiation between packaging requirements for retail sale versus packaging requirements for kind of interest supply chain sale anyone anyone else on this section so my next is 2.3.8 so yeah I'm just curious why this is submitting after you submit your application should this be part of the application period maybe we decided that you know someone might not know at the time of application potentially I think that's that's part of it I mean I think I'm hopeful that we can get things under a right schedule that will allow folks to have the most clarity that they possibly can upon license sure but let's say that we do run into speed bumps and folks can't get license before June and that subjects them to a different style schedule medium so on and so forth they might have to pivot crack you know that applicable to the pickle that we're in now versus three or four years from now I think it's more applicable to now than once it kind of got a system of you know repeated success in place but were you thinking of waving the 60-day no I just I was curious why it's this information just wouldn't be part of an application but if there's a reason it might not be available then that's fine I think some of it's just dependent on other actors other potential state agencies or securing folks to come pick up your waste and I think it was just trying to allow folks to seek a license without the love having all production around you know I would talk about things in the past so so anytime it says submitting plans you know it's kind of along the lines of where I wonder if people are gonna easily be able to comply with this I mean can you just I know that we've discussed this and this is we've discussed it even earlier today but what kind of we envision for a waste management plan a pest management plan and then a plan to secure related products you want me to talk to you about what I envision that plan looking like yeah just I don't think I don't think it's not very prescriptive I think you know the way the subcommittees pitched it and the way that I remember discussing it in slides is it's very descriptive into what you're intending to do I think as you know Julie and I have talked about the more discretion that we allow it's harder to develop a bright line test on what's satisfactory and what's not you know I know that that doesn't necessarily answer your question here but I think you know whether it's it's your preferred style of waste management whether it's burning or you know pyrolysis through biochar or whatever the case may be I think it's just informing us on how you intend to do certain things because not everything's gonna go right for you and your cultivation and I think you know even cultivation schedule or grow medium like you know the wastewater issue that we talked about I mean depending on your medium you might not have a lot of wastewater you know what I mean so it's just kind of helping us kind of I was specifically just looking at EF and G sorry but so waste management plan I can understand that it's just you know choose one from the list or if you have something else submitted has management plan did I think a best management plan it's absolutely crucial to being part of this because I think I want folks to start thinking you know even if I have 125 plants maybe only 80 of them make them make it to market and if there is a problem and I'll certain parts of your girl operation how do you isolate that and then it all complete crop loss failure and there's steps that you can take to start thinking about certain things ahead of time that I think will be valuable then allow you to pivot I think you know I'm thinking about myself and how how we I want to say we in terms of humans generally speaking but if you don't plan for something and something goes wrong you may be more inclined to do something that somebody who has taken the time to think about something might you might not otherwise do it's a knee jerk reaction and you might be like oh man I'm gonna lose everything I need to use this applicator in order to save my crop when you know you know if you had the time to think about it you probably wouldn't have done that because it might be something else that's illegal or whatever the case may be so I trying to help folks get a head start on management of stuff that goes wrong you know I think it's a I don't expect it to be a huge paperwork exercise or super onerous but I think that there's some requirements that need to be in place right and what does it affect our market your whole crop goes down and that's not just for a small cultivator but for anybody it affects the supply demand you know no it makes sense well I was just gonna say philosophically I think when we issue a license we want to know that number we're issuing it to has kind of thought this through yeah and I think it's kind of what where we came down earlier today which is it's really good to start this thought process earlier yeah and I think you know again like even our model includes a degree of randomness right because we're issuing licenses to be able to grow but we're not putting them on a schedule when certain products will actually make it to market so I think you know that that schedule or that irrigation plan if applicable kind of helps in that context I mean waste management plan I think that's necessary at the start I mean that's why it's within 60 days of getting a license but do we need that for small cultivators maybe we don't you know I know there's still some questions around composting companies and whether or not they want to actually get into this group of picking up waste from cannabis products so what about gee that's the only one that kind of sticks out to me a little bit I mean are pesticides that are going to be allowed in this industry are they just not widely available yeah you know they're not necessarily widely available and they're heavily regulated by the agency of agriculture what you can and cannot use and deal as far as how you're getting the products themselves I'm inclined to agree that maybe that's not necessary but I want to have conversations with the agency of agriculture on whether or not we're definitely on their toes or this isn't necessary or I mean I wouldn't I wouldn't want to get into a situation where someone assumes that they're gonna use a certain type of pesticide that's allowed and then it's not available and nothing's available so I think you know planning ahead for that is important I just if these if the plan is I'm just gonna go down to Abishon and pick it up off the shelf you know I don't I don't think we need to know that you know yeah no and yeah okay I mean it's only a question I don't know it's it's really just I don't have a good answer is there yeah I want to talk to Kerry yeah that's fine that makes sense to me I just yeah if that if that's gonna be the response that we see for every small cultivator I just wonder if there's any value to this asking for it but if they're not widely available if they are heavily regulated if there are supply chain issues you know it's better that you know a cultivator know that at the outset as opposed to just assuming that it's gonna be there when they need it all right so no no changes here not yeah let's circle back let's put it in okay I've got a pretty significant jump to the five point two point five point three so I don't know if anyone has anything in between and I just ask because I could not remember or two point four point one was that really the I mean when you were working with the sub committee Kyle did you think about this from the I'm sure you did from the perspective of small cultivators and being able to work within sort of like what fencing is and the security is there anything that could be reduced from that yeah so I mean if you look at two point four point three there is an entire laid-out schedule of what is required so if you're a tier one you only need one of those seven practices and so we made those accommodations for small cultivators specifically recognizing that you need to secure premises or your your cultivation site the larger that it is and as far as fencing goes the work that thing is found in the statute so the subcommittee looked creatively on how to provide the most flexibility with respect to fencing and I think what you know we chose to do is not to find what fencing actually is I don't think that they anticipated that fencing would look like super gauged chain link fencing or anything like that I think that there's other less restrictive fencing options out there that that we'll see so but again fencing isn't required for small cultivators but you need to take one of these other security requirements for for your cultivation site thank you and just to note on two point four point two a it does say that fencing must be sufficient to prevent an authorization of cultivation anything else on security requirements nope okay two point five point three energy standards for buildings we've heard a lot about this in the public comments and I don't want to do too much to mess with this just you know again when we heard from efficiency verman and public service department you know really struck me something I didn't know how you know environmentally harmful or impactful I should say indoor controlled environment cultivation is but that being said I kind of come back to one of my earlier points that people that are home occupancies in particular are already doing this you know the environmental impacts are already being felt for the most part you know so we're not necessarily you know increasing the carbon footprint of the industry by waving let's see let's just stick with this one a or home occupancies point five point three maybe just the whole thing I think if you're going out and leasing a space or you're building a new a new facility that you should come up to you know CVS but you know potentially if you're just you know growing in your basement or your spare bedroom that it doesn't make sense for us to require that you kind of essentially potentially renovate it I'd be comfortable making the accommodation for folks doing it through a home occupation I'm not told on it for any other and I haven't heard more about it from folks looking to do retail establishments and larger grows and I empathize but at the same time I'm not ready to exempt CVS from from anything other than home occupation right now yeah so I mean when I think about just like the major cost drivers for small cultivators one I mean access to land two it's this three is testing so you know and I've got a call just with Jacob our kind of energy advisor tomorrow about whether what kind of impact this might have in remand in particular so I might change my mind but my kind of initial gut reaction was to wave this your home occupancies yeah okay yeah and if you know I'm okay with that and especially even be I think people just need to look at what our definition of greenhouse actually is within the context of indoor versus outdoor because you know the hoop houses that are outside that are erected or I think I think through the more generic terminology not related to cannabis it's used it's not more than erected for 180 days I think I don't have the definition in front of me but we said it used for the production or cultivation of cannabis for 180 days like those are outdoor grows not indoor grows so they would not be subject to CBES but greenhouses otherwise would be if you're if you're not so strictly using natural light in this to me and a few of the other places kind of pushes me slightly in the direction closer to you know having this smaller micro small grower but I think for now yeah I mean I don't want folks that doing it in their home to have to update their whole in a month I'm not electrician but update their whole circuit breaker and everything else to like kind of come into compliance I don't think that's necessary do I want folks setting their houses on fire no so it's kind of yeah it almost makes you I'm starting to come around to the idea we just have a home occupancy license type it's a micro grow that's less than a thousand square feet but again I think you know I haven't quite tipped in that direction quite I like to kind of think about all the things that were making combinations for tier one home occupancy growers versus other tier one and see if if in aggregate there's a there's a need to have kind of a yeah and I mean this generally speaking as far as energy standards for buildings like this is something that every commercial enterprise in the state has to follow what I don't want to see is in five years but we're not meeting our climate goals as a state or if we're not meeting our climate goals as a state you know indoor cannabis it doesn't have the the the data still is out because the regulated market has only been around for 10 years elsewhere but I think we all can acknowledge that you know there's a lot of climate impacts around cannabis grown inside and I do not want the crosshairs to switch from wherever they wherever they else may be in the state of Vermont to our program as the main reason that we're not meeting certain climate or energy goals as a state so on 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 the only thing that I was thinking here is giving tier one cultivators a year to meet to come up with these standards essentially giving me a year worth of revenue to kind of help shift some of their older you know lighting systems in order to come in compliance with this but again I didn't do the heavy lifting on coming up with this section and you know I am gonna like I said call Jacob tomorrow yeah what that would mean I think I think his perspective would be helpful but I would I would submit that you know I worked with Jacob pretty closely on developing these standards and we certainly had small cultivators in mind I think one of the challenges around this part of our regulation specifically is and then I've said to a host of different people that have asked me about these standards thus far as we look at these words and they don't mean a lot on first blush they're scary because they're they're foreign in the way that the energy code works and the term specific terminology that's associated with it I will tell you that we worked with efficiency Vermont to make sure that these standards are not a barrier to entry and so that you can still use services like efficiency Vermont for them to cost share in getting up to code with a lot of these standards so I I think a lot of it is on us from a guidance perspective to help folks with a starting point in determining what these mean and we did kind of tweaks Jacob and I did tweak some of the recommendations from PSD to make them a little bit more user friendly especially in the types of lighting systems that that'll be present here but I can I can appreciate how it is a cost and and a perceived barrier to entry I think what I would like to do is put a pin on it let's have some more discussion with you know with certain folks before we make that waiver and if there was a waiver I want to see that certain that folks have contacted efficiency Vermont and that they're working to get on there or else it's just going to be another issue once their registration comes up for renewal we're going to hear the same same concerns that it's cost prohibitive and we hear from a lot of folks on how sustainable that they are without government regulation right now and when we put regulations in to move us in a forward thinking sustainable program and rubber meets the road folks get a little anxious and nervous because it affects their bottom line but I still think this the long-term sustainability of our program outweighs that I'm with you on that and I know that if I were starting a grow I would certainly want to build you know to these standards as opposed to kind of buying less efficient standards and having to replace them within a year so you know and I'm really just thinking about giving the folks that are currently cultivating small cultivators a year to come into compliance but again I am happy to kind of talk to Jacob, talk to some of the folks that efficiency Vermont and think about what kind of impact that might have and that's yeah and I would be more comfortable waiving some reporting requirements than general standards. I do have some of that coming up too. Anything else on these two sections or these three 2.5.3 through? Oh and again I appreciate how this this is as far as startup cost this can be a lot or you know whatever the case may be but I think the long-term viability of our program and the sustainable direction that we're trying to take it as far as a forward thinking one from an energy and environmental one in the state I think it's important that we don't completely let the bottom fall out of it I mean if 20 to 40 or upwards of that of our market is made of small cultivators and we're exempting all of these energy requirements from them then how can we really get a good feel for our impact on the environment you know that's kind of where I need to see more from through common or otherwise on how we view these other than just. Again I'm not saying wave them you know a lot of good thinking went into creating them it would just be giving kind of a one-year period for people to ramp up. I'm not opposed but let's run it by the the folks smart I mean hey I have a master's and then a environmental policy and when to do the whole law school around environmental stuff and energy stuff is its own subset of of a language and it's challenging to kind of wrap your head around unless you're specifically educated on it. Yeah all right on 2.5.6 some of the reporting requirements I'm looking specifically at waving B and C for tier one cultivators. Yeah I mean I'm much more my gut reaction is a much more let's wave reporting fees or reporting requirements versus other things and it's not one or the other but I think I think it makes sense to wave some reporting requirements and maybe some of these things are good if you know engagement with energy efficiency programs if if you are gonna seek tool if we end up saying that you can have a one-year kind of ramp up period with respect to 2.5.5 or 2.5.4 as long as you're actively engaging with these with these folks but we can we can come back to that. That is that's it for me that with respect to small cultivators and I got a lot of other notes around other things but when it comes specifically to kind of waving provisions for small cultivators that's all I had anyone else have anything if they want to add. All right now I think once we talk about it more in the broad sense of every license type there'll be some other conversations to have but context of small cultivators that's it right now. All right then why don't we I think we have public comment is our last agenda item why don't we open it up to a public comment if you if you join we have one person who joined us you want to make a comment? Sure. Great if you don't mind just coming up here just so that we can get you listen to the microphone. Oh great. Where is it Mike? I'm a little pleased to hear you guys waving a lot of this stuff for the small cultivators. That is pretty much my number one concern here. It seems like there are still a lot of barriers here to the entry and a lot of costs associated with that that are just going to push people away like if I'm if I'm a regular guy looking at this and I'm thinking of starting a grow operation or you know anything like that I'm reading all these rules and I'm thinking wow this would just be easier to grow the weed myself and sell it to my friends or cannabis I'm sorry but you know just the application process for the licensing is daunting to look at you know you need a lawyer to rip through I mean I've been sort of paying attention to some of this stuff and it's it makes my head spin so for a normal like I have friends back I'm from the Northeast Kingdom I have friends up there you know they they're not super highly educated they're certainly not lawyers and when they look at this stuff they're just like why bother you know that's where a lot of my friends right now are sitting there they can't wait for this to open because the prices are going to be jacked up like they are in Massachusetts and it's going to make them their product more competitive on the black market where they can turn around and say hey I can make the edibles you know for a fraction of the price put them in a paper bag and hand them to somebody you know and I really think that this is just going to drive a lot more people towards the black market and if you're looking to include people I think a lot of a lot of these things and well some of them are a lot of the energy stuff you know I like that you should be using energy efficient lights and all that stuff but a lot of people just don't have the money for that now this is especially in the Northeast Kingdom you know it's not a it's not a rich area you don't have a lot of money up there and I really feel like they're going to look at this stuff and use it as an opportunity to expand their footprint and the black market which I don't have a problem with but clearly you guys are trying to invite people into this and there's still a lot and I really do appreciate all of the waving of a lot of these rules were stuff that I was going to comment on and you've waved a lot of them out of there and I and I appreciate that the packaging was another big thing that's going to be very cost prohibitive especially I see you're proposing 50 milligrams of edibles in a package that's it's nothing for some people that's not even one dose you know if you're a medical patient of cancer I know guys I eat 100 200 at a time how you're going to make all of these package you know like for instance my friend will give me 600 milligrams of edibles at once or $60 in one paper bag that is recyclable now for that same thing I'd have to buy 12 packages at 50 milligrams a piece I don't know what kind of packaging we're talking about here but in Massachusetts I see it's non-recyclable now we've got 12 non-recyclable packages going into a landfill somewhere which is certainly a concern of mine you know and again it's going to favor the larger operations with more money to invest in renewable packaging stuff like that which is you know it's out there but it's more expensive I thought I thought some of the labeling requirements were I mean I have cigarettes here and those are the warning label on these is less strict and I realized there's still some differences federally with the scheduling and all that stuff but you know even alcohol you know alcohol doesn't come in a tamper approved package you know a kid can just screw the lid off and start drinking so I think that's another I don't know it's labeled kind of like oxycontin keep out of reach of children you know or like household cleaning chemical and I think I'd like to talk to you guys more privately but I think I'll leave it there for now and yeah thank you yeah thank you yeah thanks for making the drive yeah okay so again this is our public comment period I see a couple hands raised if you join via the link we'll start with you just raise your virtual hand we'll call on you in the order that you raise your hand I'm seeing the first person Jay why feel free to unmute yourself and make a comment and a little trouble hearing you it's getting better can you hear me now yeah yep we can awesome sorry about that I guess my questions are a lot along the lines of the last comment here so I I've been following this as close as possible just like anybody else and it seems like you're trying really hard to make it so that you're fulfilling the projected demand with the one through five thousand tier licenses and if that is the case you're going to need you know at least a thousand of the five thousand licenses or split down to the smaller ones so I guess where I'm at is the same as the other guy like I know a whole bunch of people that already grow a thousand square feet and don't really want to spend $30,000 for you to say it's okay for them to do that so I guess what I'm getting at is if you're actually trying to keep the large business out then you have to reassess how you're including the small cultivators and that is all I have to say thank you thanks Jay Zachary Tyson good afternoon everyone sorry we have it on multiple screens one second all right I think we're good now so yeah hi my name is Tyson I'm with mr. Zeke crap cannabis first I wanted to thank the board for all their hard work and it's greatly appreciated and you have my continued support throughout this process my comment today is on banking services for the cannabis companies I personally have been having trouble finding bank or credit unions that are willing to handle normal deposit services for cannabis companies so if there's any guidance from the board on this that would be incredibly helpful I think for all applicants and I don't know if there's been any behind-the-scenes work with any of these banks or credit unions but a little clarity on that would definitely be helpful so thank you thank you thank you that Amelia hey everybody happy Tuesday so my comment is in regard to people being able to bring their own genetics into the market through cloning which I think is really really important to allow I think especially so there are a couple a couple points I want to make but the first being that we are currently operating under the definition of canopy mixing flowering plants and veg plants and when you enforce that and you also force people to start their genetics from seed rather than take bring their own clones in you're asking farmers to play genetics roulette essentially with the sex of their plants you know you could start 40 seeds and maybe get you know 30 35 females if you're lucky or you could get 15 to 20 females but that limits you know the number of viable plants you have then going into flower and makes it harder to estimate your output and yeah I just I think that if you're going to define canopy as flowering and bench together you can't then tell people that they have to work from seed only and they can't bring their clones in my second point I don't know if any of you have looked at the cost of seeds lately but they're very expensive and they're sold in 6 to 10 per pack so if you look at the cost of a 10 pack of seeds you know it can go anywhere from 80 to 3 400 dollars depending on the quality of the genetics and the popularity of the breeder so that's an insane expense especially for somebody just starting out you know their nursery and my final point is that if you don't allow existing legacy growers to bring their own genetics into market they just won't come into the market or as I've already seen they'll plan for ways to get around this rule which is obviously what you don't want I see this as another instance of regulating people into non-compliance and you know my final point is medically we're constantly striving to produce better genetics to treat medical symptoms and that's really hard to do if you can't take clones you know when you have regular seeds and I'm not talking about feminizes I'm talking about regular seeds that is a much broader range of phenotypical expression that if you then can't clone is hard to nail down and to improve upon and a lot of really good medicine that's currently in Vermont comes from clone only strains that have been around since the 90s that people are definitely want to bring both into market and that people on the market are going to want to buy yeah and I also have some thoughts on social media so I'll follow up with that in private after this thank you thank you Amelia you know hi everybody hopefully you're all having a great day um I just want to comment again about commercial building standards um it's not about it's not just about new buildings or home basement and home grows many of us are repurposing buildings and we have to go through the change of use process and that's that's what I've been talking about and you know specifically meeting um the the current standards for insulation um you know so I'm repurposing a building um I don't I think the installation is like r30 we're not 100 sure yet but um for me to bring that up to our 40s going to cost over $50,000 so it's a really really substantial cost so I think that if you could please also include relaxing these building standards for tier two as well uh I think that would be great and let's be real I think the tier two is the actual craft license because you know if a thousand square foot flowering is not going to mean flowering canopy then um you know you're going to need a 2,500 square foot license to to meet what what would have been a thousand square foot flowering canopy and uh and this affects a lot more than the bottom line as Kyle was saying it's it definitely affects many black market players from just getting in this game um and uh and also I I agree with that first speaker that was a refreshing dose of reality thank you everybody. Thanks Tito. Ron W. Hi can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Perfect um so this is Ronald Williams from Mr. Z Craft Cannabis and I'm calling in regards to rule two uh social media and advertising um so I believe that Vermont should allow smaller to mid-tier uh to feature product images on social media uh and require the bios to say 21 and only not for sale um in the business pages bio and I want to know that this is the industry standard um especially for the mature markets and I think the stage should allow the standard and also defer to Instagram platform based moderation process uh and and for most other social media platforms um shareperson pepper you noted that these platforms are self moderated and they have their own standards for that um I do want to also note that those standards are fairly stringent and restrictive um for example Instagram already prevents sale of alcohol and cannabis to minors or any alcohol or cannabis sales for that matter through the platform um the you know the policy prohibits uh cannabis establishments from promoting their business by providing contact information uh email addresses street addresses such you know if you look at Lawson's page for example uh you cannot buy directly from them but they are able to advertise um and utilize the contact them button and sucks to these platforms so you know that's a really important distinction um if these posts are restricted to lifestyle alone I feel that the consumer won't be exposed to the quality of the product that Vermont farmers can produce um you know this especially rings true I think from a representation standpoint as well it is incredibly important for us as a social equity brand uh to be able to feature on these platforms without having to engage large marketing firms and such um you know these restrictions could favor lifestyle and well-funded larger cultivators rather than letting the quality of the farming speed for itself um I think that's you know really important to the CCB I would imagine it is to the state as well and I would like to you know not have the Vermont cannabis market favor large cultivators with ample resources to deploy marketing firms and strategies at ease thank you and I really really appreciate everybody's efforts here thanks thanks Ron um THC analytics yes hello uh this is getting plenty yes with THC analytics uh we are a small laboratory who is in the independent testing laboratory in Vermont uh and a couple of uh the comments in regards to section two um they are when it says regulations are applicable to all kind of establishments uh we are not going to have any uh warning labels or uh a lab wouldn't have any of these things like warning labels packaging uh well we will have tracking transportation but there's a few things here written more specifically for cultivators and and producers rather than laboratories uh we will not be uh selling a product to the customers so we wouldn't be much um tied with warning labels and packaging um we have compliance and step of law laws uh it's just a comment that it's uh at least a bit of bit ambiguous and it adds us into things that we will not be um part of um and the other thing is that I really hope you are guys are looking into again give us a bit more clarification on what a harvest lot is because like I mentioned before uh I could I could plant uh you know one plant a thousand feet or a thousand plants in a thousand feet and you're telling me that I only have to test a you know uh a fraction of that uh on your on your rules um but those are my only two comments thank you very much for listening thank you and just on your first point if you wouldn't mind submitting a comment that and it directs us to the specific sections that shouldn't apply to labs that would be helpful for the board um next on the list is Dan Frank you can you hear me okay yep we can hear you thank you board members for your time and attention I have two questions I'll be brief on November 26th I posted on the public comments a uh presentation from Biotouch Media I wanted to find out if each of you have reviewed the presentation again posted November 26th and do you have a serious interest in having Tom Mern the CEO give you a presentation in detail as to how Biotouch Media could make an effective uh valued contribution to the Vermont cannabis control board in terms of its mission is that your is that the end of your comment and yes yes okay thank you yeah uh we'll we don't generally answer questions specifically during this period otherwise it really turns into something other than a public comment period but we'll get in touch with you offline about that thank you next I have uh Dan guest hey everybody um yeah thanks for giving me a moment um first I'd just like to recognize you know you guys as the board I can completely see how dedicated you guys are to this and how much detail it requires so I appreciate that um you know cannabis legalization unfolding is unprecedented and so you know there's going to be a big learning curve for everybody but I appreciate the effort um I'll be super brief with my comments the first one is regarding the tracking trace um I would just make the recommendation to not use metric metric is implemented by every adult use state except for Washington and it's incredibly overbearing to the farmer for instance you're required to weigh all of the product that is pruned off a plant you know wet this is just an example of something wasteful so say that you're in your field and you're removing you know leaf and excess plant particles really it has no value you know nobody's going to become intoxicated but you need to take the time and the labor to weigh that product and implement that into the system same with all the drying protocols you have to weigh the plant wet then you have to weigh it again dry then you have to weigh all the the stems and the waste product and I think there's just got to be a lot easier way to explain that you're going to compost the waste material so I would just make a recommendation to avoid using metric and I'd be very curious to hear what Vermont decides to do for tracking trace I would definitely make a strong urge to speak with community members and cultivators and try to find a middle ground so people can have the necessary you know compliance to make sure that product stays within the system but not to place unnecessary overburning measures on growers the next comment that I just wanted to make briefly is about the plant count in the last meeting I know that there was discussion between combining the indoor and the outdoor licenses and I think that it would be a big mistake to use plant counts at all plant counts were something that was used by the federal government to imprison people and have more evidence and harsher penalties but in any type of agriculture you want to use the square footage I understand that outdoors you know people may grow larger plants and have the advantage of the sun tracking across the sky versus a horizontal reflector in an indoor grow room but the appropriate way to measure cannabis really should be done through square footage and it's up to each farmer how they choose to use and maximize that space but I would think that getting rid of plant counts altogether makes a lot of sense I think that if you spoke to different experts there's got to be some other ways to just come up with square footage allotments another very quick thing I just wanted to applaud you guys on the comments about outdoor hoops being considered part of an outdoor cultivation I had a question about seasonal lighting I had mentioned in a letter that I wrote just about light deprivation which is a way for outdoor farmers to maybe get a second crop out of the year sometimes people use very low light intensity for just several weeks in the spring in some of those hoop houses to extend their vegetative cycle of a crop so that they can get it to the right size before flowering and I'm wondering if you guys could include some detail or information about very minimal and seasonal lighting in those hoops and it's still being listed as an outdoor cultivation and then the very last comment that I would have is about the social media I agree with the last commenter you know as long as people are staying with industry standards and you know not advocating anything illegal you know I'd love to see Vermont cannabis businesses be able to tell their stories and promote adequately on social media and contribute you know education and culture and thank you appreciate it thanks Dan Shawna Kolikowski hi can you hear me sorry I'm on my wife's account oh sure yeah we can hear you okay so actually my comment was kind of contrary to the previous comment um especially I'm trying to go in as a small grower but I can't I'd like to do to the range between about 50 to 100 plants but trying to calculate a canopy size and guess the growth of my plants coming three months down the line I've seen if I want to do over 50 plants my estimations put me at 2,500 square feet I would love because I thought I heard you mention a thousand square feet kind of at about 100 plant range if maybe just for small tier growers if we could go with a plant size that would let me know how much to start for in the spring what to expect where to go I believe that the size of the plant reflects just the grow style of the cannabis cultivator and also with the geographical makeup of Vermont I'm not looking at planting this like corn so trying to utilize different squares or rectangles of the property that I have available trying to calculate that out making sure that my plants are going to fit in that come three months later whether I'm growing an indica plant which is much bushier and wider as to a sativa which is going to be taller and more narrow I think there's way too much guesstimation in that and I think that going to a plant count could solve a lot of problems as well as a certain plant count of flowering with a certain percentage of that count allowed for growth or nursery in the vegetative stages and I think that's all I got thank you um Glenn Anderson yeah hey how's everybody doing here great so um and thank you for taking my comment um you know I spoke on Friday primarily just to weigh in on packaging regarding the some of the pieces that VMS was advocating for um and I see you know some of the pieces of age still in the packaging for retail so I just want to reiterate that's you know again this is medicine that some people even under the age of 25 21 etc um are currently using and so I want to just advocate that whatever is the final language reflects something of respect for people that are you know in that space where that is their medicine so I hope we don't blur that line between recreational and medicinal and you know focus on that fact so that was one point I did see the fact that um you know as far as the small cultivator license uh with respect to having family uh in the establishment I use that as you know a positive I would go so far as to advocate for that to apply across the board in tears uh respect to you know family businesses I grew up in a family business and I know what it's like uh when times are great but I also know in times really hard sometimes it requires the entire family to be all hands on deck and sometimes that means underage children in facilities so you know I think bringing that sense of um not normality but just a reality right because we are all humans this stuff happens frequently where we have to work on a weekend and it's mom and pop on deck right and the baby's there so you know I just as the as certain voices are being heard with respect to you know making things look like surge in general wanting because I just really want to hear that um pushback and and I hope you hear that from me um the second piece is I would hope that that would apply across all tiers just because that family business aspect and I chatted with Tim Fair this weekend I would like to actually um pursue some of these pieces as far as in statutes and with legislature because I realize that's not something that you're uh commissioned with and tasked with at this moment but I do really want to see and have the board even thinking about what is a real farm right because there's a huge difference between an urban and suburban um big metal grow indoor right and an outdoor cultivation and I do really appreciate the board's work in creating small uh cultivator license components and that actually was something that Tim and I were chatting about which was for our collective you know we essentially have a compliance management system it's not seed to sail it's not metric and the others but we ideally will integrate with those pieces if required that being said you know that's going to raise all kinds of questions about what's that USB connector right so um you know I'm in a position where you know I just want to create a compliance system for our members so that as they're licensed hopefully through the system here in Waterbury and as we move forward we want to have a unified database so that a lot of those standard pieces you're asking for just easily um just implemented right so whether it's an ID card in a laminate getting printed because there's a new employee on board or making sure that the disposal waste products is met satisfactorily to the board's needed planning and and reporting so that's something that we're doing but I also want to make sure that while we're trying to license ourselves that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot if there's any ethical issues with that so any guidance on that would be greatly appreciated and I'll leave it at that thanks. Thanks Glenn. Matt, Matt Guest. Hey hello it's Matt thanks for letting me speak. Just a few points I wanted to make and I'm probably going to reiterate some that was already mentioned. One thing that I've been thinking about is I'm sure most folks are and I know we've had some of these discussions before but I have not seen any protocols as to how or in what capacity or in what set of numbers a legacy and I hate the word legacy I'm going back to black market a black market growers can bring their genetics to market. We allowed to bring one mom plant we allowed to bring three thousand clones if we're in a bigger license I don't think there has been any guidance as to how that moves into the legal market and I think that's a big concern for a lot of people that have spent an enormous amount of time hunting selecting and refining these cuts to get them to where they are to get them to where they know how to grow them they know how to feed them they know exactly what they need and that's the epitome of the craft grower right there and that's what this market should look like so I don't know if it's been written anywhere I haven't seen it but understanding and figuring out how these legacy black market growers can get their genetics into this market is one thing that I think needs to be addressed as far as packaging you know as a hemp farmer we have used biodegradable and compostable packaging from day one it's relatively cheap I think if the state could mandate something like that because this industry has a waste stream problem I would love to see that addressed in a manner that is responsible sustainable and goes with good standards and protocols I think several people had spoken about plant counts I am in full agreement with every one of them that spoke that I think we should get rid of numbers and just go to canopy size because everyone's going to do it differently and I think everyone has a very different system how they do this so plant counts are confining canopy size is entirely not I would love to see canopy size over plant counts if possible my last comment kind of goes to the advertising marketing side of things in reference to the word organic this is a term that has been regulated for decades it shows kind of a higher tier of production there's associated costs and protocols and other things that have to be met to use that term and my worry is is that every farmer in this state is going to call themselves organic to get that top tier we have several certification companies that have been working in this industry for decades now I know the term is regulated and controlled by the USDA under the national organic program which is a federal institution and this is not a federal industry at this point so my worry is I would hate to see that word diluted by allowing everyone that wanted or considers themselves to be organic to use that term there's a lot that goes into it and as someone who works in organic compliance and certifies farms I can tell you there's an enormous amount of farms that would not pass that have not passed that couldn't so I would like to see that word protected uh and its integrity kept intact with that said Vermont's hemp program does allow those folks that are certified to forego pesticide testing and I would love it if that is something that the state would consider because the cost of testing is probably one of the biggest things I think that's going to ding people and I don't think they realize how much it is it's a lot a full panel test is about $740 out of state and so keeping that consumer protection would be great but this might also be a way to incentivize people to get into a program to have some sort of reduced testing but increased scrutiny in other areas and it's kind of a kind of a balancing act in a sense so I know we've modeled some of this off the hemp program this would be something that I would love to also possibly see and part of it is you know going back to clean green who I work for and have been certified through they do test for 118 different compounds before you even get a certification unlike the USDA and unlike NOFA who don't test for anything this is a little bit of more consumer protection it also protects the farmer knowing that what they're planting in is clean before they get into it so those were my main comments and thank you for your time as always and I appreciate all your efforts and I highly appreciate this meeting and all the efforts that you have done to help the small guy get into this market thank you thanks Matt so I don't see anyone else with their hand raised there we have a number of people who joined via the phone if uh if you joined via phone and would like to make a comment please hit star six to unmute yourself and we'll just try and manage if multiple people comment one so I see seven eight one nine three nine five three yep hi everybody this has been mervis calling in by phone today thank you for the meeting and I just want to say you know I'm glad that we're hearing from so many legacy although I know that some folks don't like that term but uh legacy cultivators I think that you all are doing an excellent job keeping in mind something that I I think needs to be balanced which is the needs of these cultivators but also the needs of the consumers who maybe are not currently buying cannabis because they're looking for a little bit more assurance and safety when it comes to lab tests I think that it's a great opportunity for these cultivators for for us to prove to an entirely new customer base that Vermont growers have such high standards particularly when it comes to the safety of the flower I also wanted to add in to the conversation about social media great comments so far the specific policy that I've seen as best practice from operators in current markets and even from other comparable industries is that we not be allowed to show the products being used that is a big one that often makes it into policies so that we can show the quality of the flower but there is certainly a line as as much as I love and a lot of people have seen my work I love to shoot somebody smoking a joint but it's not strictly necessary for showing off the quality of the flower and attracting people to the market so that is some language that could be included to go way back to the beginning of the the meeting I wanted to thank board member Halberg for uh seemingly taking the lead on this peer networking among social equity and economic empowerment candidates um one topic that I would definitely suggest to be included in the roster there is banking and other professional services um as we already heard from the Mr. Z group today uh I wanted to go to a note that Kyle uh board member Harris had made about incubation for cultivators and it was a really poignant point about uh how we want the industry to look and uh Kyle I want you to know that you were heard with that and I think that from again the customer standpoint that's very important um we've seen in the established markets that I've worked in that there is a certain amount of marketing that needs to go into these sales in particular to attracting new customers to the market which will bring us to the valuation that is being placed on it um and it does take a certain amount of spin to when you're being transparent about the quality of the product to talk about it being grown in a basement or in a spare room um so I do think that cultivators who are doing that certainly meaning no offense to them but it would be helpful to think about how they could grow and progress into a more professional setting that makes their products that much more marketable and that much more saleable to customers um I also think that uh sorry I lost my thought there um oh I also just wanted to say on that note I think that there are certain incentives that the board has already put in place in terms of providing incubation space so hopefully there's a certain amount of that that will already shake out per your comment Kyle um that folks will will offer these professional commercial spaces to cultivators who realize they would like to grow out of their their smaller space um I also just wanted to my last point going with uh chairperson uh pepper's point about retail receiving from cultivators it sounded like there there's a lot here for you all to work out I just wanted to call to attention that it definitely is an interest supply chain topic with cultivators who might be supplying flower in bulk to product manufacturers or to wholesalers who are also able to prepare the flower for the general market when it comes to these packaging that it might be as simple as a a simple it might be as simple as saying that the cultivator just has to have a contract or an arrangement somewhere in the supply chain that accounts for x y and z being the testing the testing results the batch numbers all this um and the that just putting the the cultivator is required for making sure that that is taken care of once it leaves their hands if they don't have to send it out the door that way themselves um so thank you for bearing with me on that and have a great rest of your week thanks so much for the time thanks Ben so anyone else who joined via the phone um feel free to hit star six to unmute yourself i'll just give it a minute there hi can you guys hear me yep hi it's jesse with old growth organic um i'm at an airport so would you if an announcement goes off just because that's what it is um thank you guys for putting this on i haven't been able to catch every detail uh i've been traveling for my jaw um but i as i've been kind of growing with you guys in my dream have been taking off on its own i my partner and i are arriving in a position where we might end up with like a five thousand square foot um and opportunities are just being presented to us as a family because of networking and um just because i guess it's the way it's supposed to go but i am still keeping to our foundation here which is the reason we started this was because it was the skill my partner had for the past decade plus in the legacy market and we want to be with family um so that's what this is all about for us is we want to run a farm a cannabis farm but also you know a sustainable property for our family and our community that we end up in um and so i just wanted to plant the seed i was so shocked that someone else had talked about the family aspect of this just a few um commented out so i was really excited about that i was kind of sharing in my little seed over here um so i don't know what we can do with that i'm i'll think about it but i just wanted to make note of it as we're growing i guess um you know we're not qualifying for this small cultivator uh breaks anymore um and i'm just imagining being regulated at our home um so a lot of this you know we just have to roll with and see what's up but i just wanted to put it in your guys's mind like maybe there's something maybe we can work with this somehow like if it's a family business um because that's what we want that's like one of our pillars in our mission here is to involve the community um and to help people find a living wage makes um you know provide skill training and all of these things like that's what it's about for us so i don't know i'll ponder these things and um see where it goes but thank you guys for your work and um i will talk to you again next time thanks jesse um anyone else who joined via the phone um star six to unmute yourself if you'd like to make a comment glenn i do see your hand raised in the in these meetings we don't generally have repeat commenters um so if you have something you'd like to kind of add on to what you said already please feel free to email us um and uh you know our email address is all over the website got it thanks yeah thanks glenn hi can you hear me yeah so just want to uh echo what Amelia said about being able to utilize clones um it's very important you know there are people who have been phenyl hunting certain you know certain strains certain phenotypes for a while now and they would like to be able to use those clones growing from seed is great but actually expressed yesterday it is expensive but you know also the fact that there are certain varieties out there that are clone only and um you know it's important that it's important that we're able to utilize that method thank you thank you so i don't see any other public comments um so uh unless someone joins in the next you know a few seconds here i think um we'll um close out the meeting i did want to just mention briefly that our official public comment period on rules three and four um officially opens on wednesday um and runs till at least um the 25th of february again we staggered the filing of our rules um focusing on the ones that are most important for early adoption and so um you know any comments that anyone's made about rules three and four to date um we the board will consider but the official comment period opens on wednesday um so um with that um i don't the we're through the agenda do you have any concluding thoughts for today there's a lot to revisit but yep that was a good meeting thanks everybody for your comments and we're getting there great all right well i'll um adjourn the meeting then thank you