 I'll get started then. My name is James Pepper. I'm the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Today is November 23rd, 2021. It's 10.02 and I call this meeting to order. I don't have much to say for kind of opening remarks. I do want to just, you know, I hate to do this, but I do want to kind of just remind us where we've come from and where we're going because this is a very kind of important moment for the board as we review our rules. And we were all seated about four months later than expected and we missed kind of our initial legislative session to get our fee bill done. But we have met at this point 25 times as a board. We've had 70 meetings of our advisory committee and there are various subcommittees. We've held round table discussions with our municipal partners, with our financial institutions in the state. We've now held two social equity town hall meetings. We've had, you know, over a hundred substantive public comments through our website and we've just really, you know, been through a lot and learned a lot. And I think that we're kind of at the precipice of looking at our rules and filing them. And it's just a very exciting moment for me and as just being a part of this and being part of the team. You know, Nellie and Kyle have both bought houses in the meantime. We're really, you know, it's just a great group that we have here. We brought on some incredible staff and just want to thank you all for your dedication to this and your commitment and kind of living the values that we've kind of set out in our vision statement. So I don't have anything else to say other than we're gonna hear from Gina Cranwinkle, the president and CEO of NACB about how our social equity town halls went and some of the things that have come out of those. We're gonna look at our rules and hopefully vote on them today, which will allow us to pre-file them with ICAR on the interagency committee on administrative rules. And hopefully we can kind of get back kind of on track to where make up for some of the lost time. So anything to add, Kyle, Julie, Bryn, Nellie? Speckling your statements, yeah. And I would just thank everyone for their time. I mean, there's a lot of time and effort that's gone into this and a lot of different hands and that's very much appreciated. I would extend that to a lot of the folks watching and listening and participating in all of our meetings, recognizing that this isn't everybody's full-time nine to five job like it is ours and a lot of, I think a lot of comments given to us that will be incorporated into what we're going over today. And our staff who kept us moving. Yeah, I should have mentioned that as well, is that I knew very little about cannabis when I joined the sport and it's been through the education of everyone who's joined our meetings, both as witnesses and making public comment that I really feel like we're in a good spot to make some of these decisions. Yeah. And recognizing that this is the start of another process, you know, so. Right, I guess that's a good segue, which is that when we file our rules, there is a robust public comment period and the rules can change throughout that period. And even when they are adopted finally, we will be looking at them every single year to make sure that, you know, they are where they need to be, that we're fixing the unintended consequences. But has anyone had a chance to look at the minutes from our last meeting on November 19th? Okay, do you have a motion to approve? Move to approve the minute to the last minute of the meeting on November 19th. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye, okay. Well, let's move straight to the agenda then. Today, first we're gonna hear from Gina Cranwinkle about our social equity town halls. Gina, are you with us? Hi Anne, I'm right here. Hi everyone. I'm gonna give some recommendations that were made at the town halls that we had this past week on Thursday and Saturday. Pretty well attended. We had about 60 people in total, lots and lots of speakers. Some of the recommendations that are listed here are through report that were submitted to us and also conversations that were had prior to the town halls and we'll be continuing to have them for the remainder of the month. And then there will be a final report that is given with a sort of executive summary of how we can kind of merge the two together. On the town hall meetings, it wasn't just about hearing people's recommendations. It was also about hearing their stories, what they had gone through, but also during the process of meeting with people before the town hall meetings, we realized a lot of education needed to happen. So we had some speakers and also some documentation about what recommendations were made by the subcommittee, what laws were already passed through the government to find out what was the current statutes and also people wanted to know about expungements. A lot of people don't know even that expungement exists and we had allowed for people to sort of understand that Tim there was also one of the speakers to speak about expungement and there were a couple of recommendations that were made, which was that they feel that any nonviolent offense should be expunged. I know right now that they can apply for those expungements. I know a lot of people also want to see sort of automatic expungements happen and they want expungement needs to be broad enough to enable previous offenders to get financial aid, employment, right to vote, own a firearm, that even that they wanna make sure that they can have a life after being incarcerated. And some of the reasonings and other things that maybe are not necessarily recommendation, but we're often spoken about is that expungement of criminal record should be part of any social equity program. Criminal convictions impact people's lives. So even if there was a misdemeanor, they need to move forward. It's okay, that's fine. That the people that we're speaking about were targeted and impacted on more, on this war on drugs and that it was important for the state to act for expungement, because right now that there is nothing that they can do on the federal level as cannabis is still federally illegal and that we need to ensure that cannabis related crimes are not continuously seeing harm. Because a lot of people feel that harm has already been done, that the people were targeted, that cannabis should not have been illegal in the first place. So the recommendation, which the subcommittee did not speak about and I know that there is some current legislation available that Vermont will actually be voting on is that we need to do more for expungement. Another huge topic, which was not only brought up on the town hall meetings, but through some of my conversations with people is in the enforcement of the cannabis industry. They do not believe that the police in any form, whether that is a subgroup that we have towards the liquor and license industry enforcement group, that they should be enforcing the cannabis industry. And they believe that because they have been, police have been the ones to target and harm social equity candidates and their communities. And there's still a lot of stress and trauma that exists between police and social equity candidates and also within these communities. One of my recommendations to this as well is if we need to sort of remedy the situation and perhaps get these people into the same room and really start to create a bridge because regardless if it's in the enforcement of the police, police is still going to play a role in society. And the last thing that we want to do is to have someone coming home from a dispensary and then be stopped but having cannabis or if we have a social equity candidate that's delivering cannabis to someone's home. So we really want to start to really build those bridges but if it is a real strong commitment here if there is any other way than to have the police enforce that we should really look for alternative options. I know that there have also been talks about having the Department of Ag also regulate things. Our next thing is social consumption lounges. This is definitely not a topic that we've spoken about on the subcommittee. It was made during public comment several times. I know that that some subcommittees were going to be looking into this but there needs to be a place where people can consume safely whether that does not mean that it has to be through a social equity licensee but that some license should be made in order for safe consumption. Some of the reason behind this is that cannabis consumption is a significant part of social equity. It's a part of people's lives. Right now the top cannabis product is the bud. You know it is often smoke. If someone has medical issues it allows for immediate release. And many people do not have a safe place to consume because they're landlord or if it's a federal government building they're not allowed to consume or if they have a previous conviction if they're on probation, if anyone in the room is in probation then they can't have cannabis on the property. There are some places and it's something that we really haven't looked at that don't allow for homegrown either. So we need to find a place where they can safely consume in public. Some of the social equity benefits they would like to enlarge so some wanted job training programs for re-entry incubators. They wanted to provide more outreach, legal support, a full technology support for all social equity candidates. There were recommendations of using Vermont community colleges to allow for this training. Some people also wanted any type of educational training that it did not only have to be in cannabis and education. They want to be able to advance social equity candidates or even social people from social equity communities to be able to receive education. Advertising discounts and then loans and grants. As we all know the development fund at this time is not allowing for loans and grants though there has made other recommendations by the subcommittee to enhance the development fund budget. Delivery licenses right now the subcommittee has recommended a retailer model and cannabis transport model. Social equity candidates thought we didn't go far enough. They want to be able to have ownership of their companies and they want us to expand this license to allow for delivery operators where they'll be able to purchase marijuana as cultivators from cultivators from productive manufacturers and be able to sell and deliver to consumers. They'll be able to hold it onto their premise and be able to resell it. Once again the cannabis delivery fund. We all know that this is a significant problem. We and the subcommittee had already made a recommendation of five percent of tax cannabis revenue go back to fund the cannabis development fund and then there were talks about creating a trust. Some of the recommendations that we received during public comments and through some reports that were emailed is that we may want to use give additional fees for multi-state operators to fund. We want to they are thinking about increasing the integrated medicinal licenses to 250,000 instead of the 50,000 that has already been regulated and that perhaps more money needed to go into this fund instead of five percent to 20 percent. Overall, they want the cannabis development fund to focus on small businesses. They want this because they're afraid of big dispensaries dominating the market and that there's a significant amount of startup cost. Especially with a social equity candidate that who may be less likely to be able to get their own funds and their initial startups and that capital and land are barriers to entry. We received about reinvestment of cannabis funds to disproportionately impacted communities, which the subcommittee had already made a recommendation of 20 percent of cannabis tax revenues go into these disproportionately impacted communities. One suggestion to do with the money is to create a community social equity program. This would involve the impacts of what has happened through the years with violence, historical overuse of the criminal justice system, the pressure, the burdens that they have felt. They wanted to concentrate on reducing poverty, protecting people from domestic violence and really have a program to start a rectify the issues and burdens that they have gone through. They also wanted for land or and or housing grants funds. Currently, the subcommittee has made recommendations in legal aid. They've also made recommendations for mental health, education, community programs, but also a community grant fund so that if someone wanted to understand we we need land or we need housing because we have people homeless that they would be able to do so. This is more of a strategic area, but it is interesting to understand the community social equity program and how that would actually be developed. For disproportionately impacted communities, someone suggested using all of the opportunity zones currently with the disproportionately impacted communities that had been recommended by the subcommittee. There would be the following counties that would not be included. So age opportunity zones would not be included in the disproportionately impacted communities. And another recommendation is to remove the THC cap. I'm not sure if this would be included as a rule or not, but they feel that if the crop tests over 30 percent THC, then the crop is no longer able to be harvested and it can wipe out a complete season. And this is an enormous risk for a social equity cultivator. Another suggestion is that a social equity licensee business owner only needs to have 50 percent of ownership instead of 51 percent that was suggested by the subcommittee. 51 percent was suggested by the subcommittee because we wanted to ensure that a social equity candidate had a majority of ownership. So far we've only received that by one person, but it is something that the board should consider. Also they want to create forms for networking with social equity participants because it can feel very isolated to be on oneself. They're going through this industry at one time. They want to create forms just for to learn from each other, you know, what skills, what may be barriers of entry, channel funds from for profit businesses into social equity into non-for profit businesses. Some of the they want not for profit businesses to be able to give them money that there's some fee that would be developed in order to support the social equity programs and to create a form for and celebrity businesses, you know, some form that they would be able to put up are your accountants, you have legal skills, can you allow for mentoring, property management, you know, which ways can we start to facilitate to facilitate and encourage people to join this industry. One of the major things that I heard several times, which is easier access to social equity information. There's a lot of information that everybody is putting out and a lot of information that needs to be absorbed. Sometimes they're seeing this from the first time and it's just from array of different people. So they would like to have a one-stop shop for social equity information. That's clear and concise and something that they can understand. I know that you have done a wonderful job of putting this on the cannabis control board website. But we can think about creating a website that's a little more organized and not just information about Vermont cannabis control board, but you know, maybe other social equity programs or what programs are happening within the industry that might be beneficial to a social equity candidate. Overall, I really feel that we have found a lot of sort of missing links and some adjustments to a few of the recommendations that the subcommittee has made. Do you have any questions? Any questions, Regina? I don't. I appreciate you running through this with us, Gina. It's a lot to think about and some good recommendations. Yeah, I think it's great recommendations. You know, some of the recommendations that have been repeated over and over is to ensure that we have consumption lounges. So everybody has a safe space to go to. It's something that we really need to consider because right now, if a social consumption lounge isn't available, then we are leaving out a portion of people in the state of Vermont. And that's not what we want to. We don't want to open a market and then say, oh, well, it's great that all these other people can do it, but another person doesn't have a safe space to do it, which may lead to them doing it in public places, which is what we're trying to avoid. And then there could be more issues with police involvement if that definitely happens. Or if they choose to have it in their homes where they shouldn't have it in their homes, you know, that then puts them at risk of either losing their homes or if they have someone who is on probation, having that person go back into prison. So we need to really sort of resolve that issue. And another one of just easier access to the information. You know, that was told repeatedly time and time again. And just increasing that cannabis development fund, you know, right now at $500,000, it's really not enough to go a long way. And then we made a recommendation, the subcommittee made a recommendation of having co-ops so that they can pull their resources together. And I think that that is a great first step, but we have to ensure the longevity of the program as well. Again, a general question. Yeah, sorry. I had a general question about expungement. Yep. And that's like, because I think the concern is like future employment and so forth. If I understand correctly, when something is expunged, it's off the record, right? So if somebody applies for a job and then there's a background check, that that record no longer appears on that background check, is that right? It won't come up on a criminal history check. And the problem that we always run into is that records exist. It's hard to erase things from the internet. A lot of police departments, law enforcement agencies, post to their social media when they arrest someone and it's recorded in the newspapers. So it doesn't solve the Google problem, but it does solve the criminal history problem. From what I also believe that on the federal level, that these records, depending on how it's expunged, can be looked into as well. Like if it's not a complete erase, where the file doesn't exist anymore, if there's any trace of that file that the federal government can still see. So if you were applying for a federal job, you may not get it because a criminal record still exists, whether it was expunged or not. So, and especially since cannabis is not federally legal, this happens more and more times, where they're like, okay, your state expunged it, but federally they may still consider it. So there's definitely a lot of burdens. I just want everybody to know on this call, we're still taking in recommendations. So if you send public comments to the cannabis control board, or if you use social equity at NACB.com, if you go to NACB.com, you can find out other information about it as well. It's really important for us to hear what your recommendations are. We're reviewing them, we're looking at them. We want to hear you. I've still having conversations with different people about what recommendations they would like. And then I will be compiling it and sort of merging the phase one with the subcommittee group and then phase two, which is the people's voices being heard to really co-design what the social equity program will look like. And then phase three is the cannabis control board reviewing it and saying what they're really able to do and what needs to be modified. So please be extremely, extremely important. Yeah, thank you, Gina. And I think that that last part that you just mentioned is just really important for everybody to keep in mind. There's a lot of really great recommendations that have come out of this report and the report of the social equity subcommittee. But, you know, and I'm thinking specifically like THC caps and a portion of the excise tax, we don't have the ability to do that by ourselves. That takes some legislative action. So just a reminder to folks, not all these decisions stop and start with us. It's just gonna be a continued process and we've gotta go across the street to the state house on stuff that we think's important. And that's gonna take not just the board, but everybody that's listening and paying attention. Yeah, I would just piggyback on to that exactly what Kyle said, which is there's things within our control and there's things that is within the legislature's control. However, we can start to blur the lines a little bit. You know, you talked a lot about expungement, Gina, and that there should be automatic expungement and that there's a really great economic and reasons to do that. We can't change what's expungement eligible and what's not. We can't change automatic expungement. Well, what we can do and what we have done in our rules is said we're gonna treat every expungement eligible offense as if it's been expunged for the purposes of our license holders. And in fact, we go beyond that. I think that we actually have, we offer an avenue for every crime to be considered and to have it be treated as if it's been expunged. So we go well beyond what Vermont permits with respect to expungement law. But it's an area where there's a somewhat of we're, we can do what we can within our authority and we can try and do our best to make sure that, especially when it comes to criminal history records, that those are not an ultimate barrier that we're evaluating whether or not those criminal histories actually would impact the present operation of the market. And we're gonna do that, you know, we're gonna kind of have a blanket rule of any kind of nonviolent offenses that are either two years for misdemeanors or five years for felonies are not considered, period. And then we're gonna have a way to evaluate criminal history records that are more recent or that might impact the proper functioning of the market. You know, I think what I'd ask is that, what I took away from this conversation really is the communication piece that you said about like the website and the forums and how some of these things are things that we can directly or indirectly impact or their rules or statute that's made by other entities and having one sort of one stop shop for people to understand what those are would be really helpful, I think. Yeah. I think. Agreed. And I just wanna mention that Pennywise organization attended the town hall and, you know, just a reminder for people who may be listening, they help with expungement, they're willing to pay the fee for it. So please, if you're looking for expungement out there, there are groups in Vermont that can help you with the cost. And that would be something great to put on the website as well. You know, a lot of people are just not aware of that. I saw the Growers Association is trying to do some similar stuff. So thank you. So Gina, for the purposes of the report that you're gonna be delivering to us, I think just given that there are things that are outside of our control, it might be nice to note what we can do for specific social equity applicants, what we can do to make the broader industry more equitable. And then also things that we should be trying to recommend to the legislature on social equity, things that are outside of our purview, but we could recommend. And that would include delivery, that would include social consumption lounges, or onsite consumption. You know, those things are expressly prohibited currently, but we're asked to, we have to make recommendations whether we should allow them and go beyond that, which is if we allow them, what do they look like? How do we do it? How do we do it safely? How do we do it in a way that kind of promotes the proper functioning of the market? And how do we do it equitably? So when you're thinking about, kind of compiling all of those into our report, I'd like to see them kind of in those buckets. You know, again, another thing that Kyle mentioned is about having more contribution, part of the excise tax going into the community development fund. We can recommend it, we can't do it outright, but what we're thinking about and what we'll see kind of in our rules later is as a condition of licensure for larger cultivators, larger organizations that they make a contribution to that fund as a precondition of them getting a license. So there's things that we can do again to kind of blur the lines between, but we do have a kind of hard stop on our authority when it comes to things like community reinvestment using excise tax, things along those lines. I definitely understand and I think everyone, the subcommittee and the people we have spoken with, do realize that these are recommendations and that it can only be suggested, but not necessarily changed. So I think just the board suggesting it goes a huge way. Even if we can't change it, at least people realize that we're on their side, that we want the benefit of all and everyone to be represented in this industry. So Gina, just having run these two town halls, do you think that there's an appetite around the state to do more of them? Is there, should we be, I mean, we are going to pre-file our rules and then file them after they've been through a process which opens up a public comment period where we're planning on doing some community engagement, but should we focus them on social equity, continue to focus them on social equity, or should we try and move more broadly to the kind of more industry-based rules and regulations? I think there definitely should be more town halls for social equity. What I've realized in starting to create these town halls was that some people just need to let their voice be heard. Not just about recommendations, but the harm that has occurred and meeting people with similar stories. I think that this is the first step of building that bridge into connecting either with the government or realizing police exists and what to do. People having a community of others that ability to network and meet people. And another thing is education. It came across often with just questions of what is possible, what is impossible? How do I get into this industry? And how do I overturn all of the hurdles and burdens that I've gone through? So I think that there definitely is a need for more of these. I'm really sort of uniting these group and taking that first step of just building bridges and rectifying this harm that has been done. And I think this is definitely a group where oftentimes our voices haven't been heard. And people aren't, you know, we need to really go out there and see them and understand them and say, this is available. Because one of the most fears is that we can create the best social equity program out there. But if no one knows about it and no one's utilizing it, one of the major things that we said at the town hall is that this is not just for a licensee. This is for any individual that would be considered a social equity candidate or a DEI candidate. You know, many people don't even know the DEI exists is that we want a really diverse and inclusive industry. And without going to these people and allowing them to know about this program, it's not going to happen. And I would really highly suggest not just town halls but you know, perhaps having an external website that people can go to and find more information about these social equity programs and DEIs and not just how it pertains with the board but what services are available in Vermont, what services are available in cannabis industry as a whole. There's a lot of organizations that are willing to help and assist social equity candidates and DEI candidates as well. And you know, people right now don't have the resources or even some understanding of what that first step is. Jeanne, can I ask you about just the format? I mean, we had some of our highest COVID numbers in the last week that we've seen since the beginning of the pandemic. And so we really wanted to push people towards virtual but was there a benefit to having people in person? I think so. You know, people were able to be seen. There were some questions that were from the audience so that they weren't on camera. I feel that the second town hall on Saturday we had very little attendance in person and virtual was very helpful. With the increase of COVID into that can really be under control. The first step might just be doing town halls virtually. We allowed people to use the chat so it became another place where they could network with each other and talk to each other. And then after someone speaking they would even try to say, hey, give me a call. Here's my telephone number. Here's my email. We need to see how we can really unite. And if we do the co-op we want people to start engaging with each other because before you take that first step in the process we have to see if people are really interested in it. And there are a number of people who are interested. I even just got an email late last night saying, I'm sorry I couldn't attend the town halls but I heard you spoke about co-ops and we're really interested in that. And we did have someone, Arnold, call speak about co-ops as well at the town hall. Just a few more questions, sorry. But we made a conscious decision as a board not to attend because it would have triggered open meeting laws and it would have required us to record the conversation, post it and take minutes. And we really didn't want people to have any sort of, we didn't want to have any sort of chilling effect on people's willingness to be forthright with what they were saying, what they're recommending, telling their stories in front of kind of government officials. Was that a good move? Do you think our presence there would have kind of stifled the conversation at all? I'm just trying to think about this cause we're going to plan some more of these potentially and I just want to make sure that we're getting the format right. I think that people need a safe space to speak about their true stories. And there were people that had questions. There was someone that was at the town hall meeting but wouldn't go on camera because they wanted the safety of that. And we didn't record the meetings at all. We took notes on the recommendations only, not their stories. And even speaking with some people beforehand, one of the major question was, how can we ensure that you're not going to, this information is not going to get out? And several times during the town halls, we said, we're not recording and we hope that no one in the audience is recording either because some of the things that they're saying are very sensitive, whether that be sensitive to a harm that has occurred to them or if they might be in the illicit market. There was definitely a couple of questions about, how does one come from the illicit market to the regulated market as well? Or I was convicted, now it may be expunged but I don't want to go on record saying that I was previously incarcerated. So I think when we're doing these, that we have to ensure people's privacies as best as possible. Because as we said, there's already some hurdles that we have to go through even if they get expungement, we don't want people viewing them differently. Yeah. And I got one last one. Is that right? Do you have one? That recommendation around now using law enforcement to do kind of our compliance and enforcement? Was that a recommendation from the town halls or was that a recommendation from the subcommittee or both? The subcommittee did not discuss that. I have this recommendation from people that I spoke with on the telephone. It was presented by different associations as well and it was presented at the town hall meetings. There is a strong consensus that it would be very difficult for the people who have caused harm to be the ones who are now regulating harm. I do recommend that regardless, if police are regulators in this industry or not, they are still part of society. They are still part of the supply chain. So that one great thing is to start seeing what police need and what do social equity candidates need in order to build this bridge. What would make you feel safe? What would police need? Is there some retraining? Because I do believe that there is not harm just that goes one way. If police officers have this stigma that these are the people that they should be targeting, they have gone through experiences on their own that can cause them to be triggered easily in that direction. And there are tremendous harm that has been caused for BIPOC or even people who have been incarcerated. So social equity candidates are much more triggered. They have post-traumatic stress from this issue. And regardless if they're regulating it or not, once they step out of that dispensary, it is police territory. So we have to do something to really start to build that bridge and create a relationship somehow. And maybe one good way to do that is through town halls. Maybe inviting police to different meetings or having a couple of social equity candidates that we have and go in and make that relationship or just finding out what both sides need to ensure safety and compliance and regulation. I always think standards are a good thing because it helps people to know, okay, if I'm stopped, this is what I need to do or what a police is looking for as well. Any other questions Regina? No. I know that Bryn and I are having an outreach conversation next week and I think this will inform a great deal of that. I just want to echo that, I think it's really important for us to figure out a way to one-stop shop neatly packaged to the best that we're able to, a lot of the information around the social equity conversation. I think sometimes it can be really hard to meet people where they're at because we're so close to what we're doing and the processes that we're working on that something that's easily comprehended and understood by us isn't where everybody else is in the process. So we can certainly get better at that once we have an opportunity to move past this first milestone and start to really unpack a lot of what we've done to date and where we're going. One thing that I would suggest if you do have town hall meetings in person is that there is always a online option. So a hybrid is a must. Some of these social equity candidates don't have the means of getting to some town halls and because your state is about four hours long, it can be very difficult to reach every single region so in driving. So we just wanna really consider that so that people have a safe way and means of getting to the town halls and be included. And considering that it's snowing right now, I mean, that's a way to make sure that the town hall could happen and not have to be canceled because of whether we run into all the time or not. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Gina. Thank you for kind of leading these town halls and we really do look forward to the report and it's just been an incredible experience watching this social equity, not just the subcommittee, but also these town halls play out. So thank you for leading the charge. Well, thank you. Social equity brings me a lot of joy. I just wanna make sure everybody's voice is heard and that everybody is counted and included. So thank you. And one thing I'd like to say is just thank you so much. I remember when I first was meeting you and you said social equity is a top priority and I have seen that through and through in all the recommendations that you have made to the legislators and the laws that you want to change as well. So everybody who's listening to this, I could not attach myself to a better cannabis control board. They really mean what they say and they're pushing for everyone to have equal access. Thank you for that. Well, I think we'll move down the agenda. I think next we're gonna hear from David and Bryn about some of our rules or do you wanna take a break first? No, I think we're ready to start if we wanna jump right in. Great, let's do it. I'm gonna reach you to get it closer. I think we're good, okay. Admiral, please. So just to preface this and kind of orient us, we did review, we had sort of a high level review of these two rules that we're gonna be going through today last Friday at the advisory committee meeting. So we're gonna review them again today. We're gonna dive a little deeper into the rules, take a closer look. These rules incorporate some of the feedback that we got from our advisory committee members and our consultants and some others. And a reminder that our goal here, our plan is to meet our legislative deadlines to be opening ourselves up to applications in April is to vote on these two draft rules today in order to pre-file them tomorrow so we can get on I-first calendar for December. And at the risk of harping on this point, I'll just reiterate that we're going to enter into a 40 day notice and comment period that's going to go through January. So during January, there are going to be public hearings on these rules and plenty of opportunity for the public to give feedback. And the board will have to consider and respond to every comment that they get from the public and can make changes to the rules based on those comments. And also, I believe that you have a public hearing, a public meeting next Tuesday evening, it's your monthly meeting to hear from the public. So these rules, these draft rules will be posted after the board votes on them today. So the public can peruse them and over your Thanksgiving holiday and join the board next Tuesday and provide your comments then but as we've mentioned, there will be lots of other opportunities as well. When we do post these to the website, David and I are also going to work on a guidance document to post alongside the draft rules. And the guidance document will include all the definitions that are laid out in statute in Chapter 33, Title VII. Because as a reminder of those, all those definitions apply throughout these rules and they're kind of incorporated by reference within the rule. And we may provide some additional explanation of a couple of the definitions in that guidance document as well. So with that, let's just get started. So I'm going to start with rule one, which as the board will recall is licensing of cannabis establishments. I'm going to skip through the table of contents here and just go right to the language. So section one is our general provisions that set out our statutory authority that the board has to adopt these rules. We've got the scope and purpose, which is the charge that the board has of implementing and regulating the legal cannabis market in Vermont. And the scope of this rule is to regulate the licensing of cannabis establishments. So, and again, the board knows as well that feel free to interrupt me at any point if you have any questions or if you want to comment on something. So definition section, here's the sentence that incorporates the statutory references or the statutory definitions by reference. So then we get into some other specific definitions that the board is defining. I won't go through all of these, but because this applies to the application process, we're talking about who are indoor cultivators, who are interest holders and licensees and outdoor cultivators. What is the physical site of operations? What is a provisional license? And who is a social equity applicant? So I will go through the social equity applicant definition and David can feel free to jump in or probably will jump in because this has changed a little bit since you looked at it on Friday. So social equity applicant means one of two things which are both defined in the rule. So it means either a social equity individual applicant or a social equity business applicant. So what is a social equity individual applicant? And again, this is going to sound familiar. This is all based on the recommendation that came from the social equity subcommittee. So a person is a social equity individual applicant if they meet one or more of the criteria that are listed here. They are a socially disadvantaged individual which is another defined term. They have been arrested, convicted or incarcerated for a canvas related offense or they have a family member who has been. And then we have a sort of another destination incorporated in this one of what family member means. Social equity business applicant is a corporation partnership or other business entity that meets these federal standards for a disadvantaged business enterprise which is defined in federal law. So it's important to note that even the entity does not have to have applied for that federal program in order to qualify as a social equity business applicant for purposes of this rule. So and then we've got a sentence about what the board can consider when determining whether a social equity applicant meets those federal standards. The board can consider only participants in the business who meet the definition of a socially disadvantaged individual which is the next defined term. Can we just clarify 49 CFR 2669 and 2671. Those are about percentage of ownership mostly, right? Is that right? That's right. They're about ownership or control and defining what that means in this context. You just talk about that word only briefly. In that final sentence of the K. We'll consider only participants. That's right. So it's just saying that the participants who will count in the business determining whether they'll be social equity applicants are participants who are socially disadvantaged individuals as we have the board have defined them. It's a little complicated because we're trying to create a definition here that meets or is close to some very similar to not identical to what the board voted on in that October 15th report. And in order to do that, we have to carve out some things that are in the federal regulations. And so that's why that's all the verbiage there is effectively trying to do that. I think it does do that. And that's why we're saying, look, to make sure we're in line with what the board voted on and determined we're saying that you got to meet our version of socially disadvantaged individuals to find in that subsection. And just to make a note here, this is probably going to be one of the definitions that we provide some clarification on in the guidance document that we post, probably tomorrow, later today or tomorrow because this is kind of a heavy lift with these theories of definitions. So lastly, the socially disadvantaged individual is a person who meets one of these two criteria, at least one of these two criteria. Either they meet the criteria for social disadvantage as set forth in those federal regulations. Again, whether or not they have actually applied for those federal programs provided that no person should be excluded from this category because of their citizenship or immigration status. And once again, that's an effort to stay within the board the actual recommendation because the federal legislation does exclude people based on their citizenship or immigration status. And or the person that's from a community that has been historically disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. And they are able to demonstrate to the board that they were personally harmed by that disproportionate impact. And then the last sentence there provides some context for the board and making the determination the board can consider factors such as educational impacts, loss of employment opportunities or housing insecurity but you're not, the board won't be limited in considering those factors. Yeah, I'll just add to that. We already touched on it a little bit but this is an attempt as I said to design a definition that is close to what the board voted on and determined would be your social equity definition back in the middle of October. This is a challenging area of the law. This is not an easy area of the law the US Supreme Court has weighed in on making distinctions on the basis of racial categories and it is a very challenging thing to achieve, so this is an attempt to do that in a way that we believe has a good chance of withstanding a court challenge. Other regulations like this in other states have been challenged in court and they have at least so far been unsuccessful in withstanding those court challenges. So we want to do better because the board believes in these things and we want to have a social equity definition that lasts and stays in place and has the ability to actually provide the benefits that the board would like it to provide and if it doesn't survive in court, it won't do that. So we took from the Code of Federal Regulations this Code of Federal Regulations has actually has to do with the agency of transportation and how it does some of its contracting practices and things like that. This has withstood court challenge thus far through the various rounds of litigation that this has seen over the last 30 years and so borrowing from things that have been scrutinized already and survived that scrutiny, we believe it's gonna be a good way to enter into any court challenge if in fact one comes and so that's the idea behind all of this. It's a little bit complicated as Bryn mentioned, it's not the easiest thing to understand just reading through it and we will provide guidance as Bryn mentioned that will be more plain language in a way so that people can just understand what is happening here more clearly, hopefully. All right, for the benefit of us and the people watching though, the recommendation that we asked you to draft language around was there was two criteria. You either have been personally harmed by prohibition meaning that you have a cannabis related offense or your family member does, we saw that. What this one is essentially saying is our other criteria which was you're a person of color which is sub-I there, right? That's right, yeah. And then I too is, or you can demonstrate that you're from a community that has had a similar harm which is the second I-I there, right? Yeah, that's exactly right. Thanks for spelling that out clearly. Those provisions that are cited in there are provisions that discuss people of color and when they will be counted, you know, how that process will happen. And so this is basically just taking from that and in a very complicated way and a big way is saying exactly what you guys said which is that people of color will count as social equity applicants and the other things that you just mentioned will also count as social equity. The other categories you mentioned will also count as social equity applicants. Thank you both for trying to thread that needle. I think that guidance will be important, recognizing we're trying to do what we can to make sure that this can withstand the challenge but still get back to those very specific suggestions from the subcommittee and what we thought was a good way to go. Yeah, no, it's incredibly impressive. I know, and I've said it many times that people try and kind of bend themselves into and not trying to say what everyone knows which is the people of color have been selectively policed for cannabis throughout the war on drugs but you can't just come out and say it in a statute and expect it to survive a facial challenge. And I think our program is probably as close as you can come to the line of saying just that without, while still being legally defensible. So this looks good to me. But for the folks listening and the folks at home, little eye there is that people of color concept. Just to reiterate, these rules will be posted after the meeting and we will also work to post a guidance document that will provide some clarity around this definition and some other things either way today. Okay, so I'm gonna move on. Okay, questions, okay. So applicability, this is just the language here that sets out who the rule applies to and specifies that we're referring to people who are engaging in the transfer sale of cannabis or cannabis products. And it includes transferring or sales related to all the different license types except that it does not apply to activities that are regulated by the chapters regarding the medical registry and the medical dispensaries which is going to be governed by rule three which will is still to come. It also applies to lab testing licensees. So the next section has to do with the computation of time. We can talk about this if we want to but this is basically sort of the default method for computation of time and administrative rules. It essentially says that every day counts including holidays and weekends but the last day of the period has to be a weekday unless it's a holiday. I need to talk more about that if you want to. Severability, any portion of the rule is found to be invalid that the remaining portion shall remain in effect. People language. Okay. So now we get into section two which is the application format and the fees. So the first subsection here just provides that everybody has to, if you want to be a licensee you've got to submit an application that will be determined by the board and the board is going to make those applications accessible to the public. Second subsection is about fees and as a reminder the legislature has the authority to set the fees. So we don't have our fees laid out in the rule because the legislature hasn't adopted them yet but it does provide that the board will make those fees available readily accessible to the public once they exist. And it provides that applicants have to pay those fees unless they can demonstrate they qualify for a fee waiver and there will be a fee waiver that we will provide that will apply both to social equity applicants and other applicants. All right, next section is the license tiers. So this includes all of the various tiers that the board adopted in the October 15th report. You start with the outdoor cultivation. All this will look familiar in your cultivation. Six tiers of both indoor and outdoor and then we've got the mixed use cultivation licenses. And as a reminder, these are the license holders that can have up to 1,000 square feet of indoor cultivation plant canopy and up to 50 plants in an outdoor cultivation area at the same location. Retail license tiers, we've got there are two tiers of retail licenses, the storefront and the nursery. As a reminder, the storefront are the standalone retail locations that can also sell what nursery retail locations can sell. And then we've got the retail tier which enables licensees to sell fees and clones only and not cannabis and cannabis products. I am just gonna move along to the manufacturing license tiers. I'm going to talk about this a little bit more because this language has changed a little bit from the last time the board thought it. So the two tiers for manufacturers are set forth here. Tier one can produce cannabis products using all lawful methods of extraction and tier two manufacturers are more limited in the extraction processes they can use. So they can produce cannabis products using the listed forms of extraction but they cannot use unapproved flammable solvent chemical extraction or flammable solvent chemical synthesis. But they can use water-based extraction, food-based extraction or heat and pressure-based extraction so that high pressure CO2 extraction would be authorized for tier two manufacturers. And then a reminder here that no manufacturer neither tier may use any manufacturing process that is prohibited by 18VSA 4230H which prohibits the use of hexane and butane. And in our fee proposal, if I recall, tier one was more expensive than tier two, right? Because essentially the more dangerous- That's right. Thank you. I think there was some confusion about that in one of our comments. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Yes, the retail, both the retail tiers and the manufacturing tiers, tier one is more expensive license type than tier two in our proposal. And I'll just say that I know there's a lot of folks out there that have strong feelings about these tiers and what's included in both and look forward to reviewing any more public comments that might come our way, that might ask us to reconsider how we've kind of parsed that out. That doesn't have to happen at the end of this meeting but in public comment over the 40-day window. Okay, so I'll move on to section four which is license application requirements for all license types. So these are the requirements that apply no matter what type of license the applicant is seeking. So the first is operating plans that have to include all the requirements that are set out in statute and the following elements. So we've got a list here that are requirements that are included in that requirement to submit an operating plan which includes the legal name, registered alternate names for any cannabis establishment. Name of the individual who's gonna serve as the primary point of contact with the board, type of license type and the tier, documentation that the applicants registered to do business in Vermont, federal tax ID, list of principles for the proposed establishment, list of all persons having control of the establishment. Just a reminder that that word control is a statutorily defined word that will also be in our guidance document. Documentation of all persons involved, any contractual management, other agreement that conveys control over the establishment. And then for everybody who's identified in this list disclose whether that person would have to be disclosed for any other license application. And then lastly, documentation disclosing whether anybody who's in this list is a controlling interest holder in any other cannabis related business in another jurisdiction. So moving on to the record checks. This gets at the kind of like corporate structures that would kind of prevent us from knowing that someone starts an LLC or 10 LLCs and they can, we would know if they're controlling multiple different license types over 10%, they're violating the one license type per entity rule. That's right. This is a pretty important section. We can take a look at the. I don't think we need to. I mean, I think it's all right. It's just really the concern is that, these kind of shadow ownership arrangements that this is sufficient to make sure that we're knowing and that everyone is on notice that they need to disclose all of their interests in these licenses. That's right. Yeah, and I would just add real quick. We think that the definition of control that's in statute effectively gets at those types of attempts to hide true ownership behind corporate structures. But we also, this is an area where I'm sure we'll get input and we welcome input on making sure we're doing as good a job as possible during the notice and comment period. Yeah. So next section has to do with the background checks. So this provides that every applicant or principal, person who controls an applicant has to submit the following information to the board. So the board can conduct these individual record checks. All of this information is required. Full set of fingerprints, description of any criminal action, description of any civil action or administrative action. Or description of any disciplinary action and description of licensed denials or reasons for those denials and any other jurisdiction. If somebody does, let's say somebody is denied a license in another jurisdiction and they don't give that information to us, is there a reasonable way with which we would still find that information out? That's an open up question. Maybe we don't have an answer to it right now, but just curious if somebody's not being completely truthful. So there are provisions for untruthfulness to the board. Kind of makes up for it on the back end. The rules do provide for... It's found out by us in other ways or means. Yeah, so two things about that. One is in this rule itself, a reason for denying a license is untruthfulness in the application. And secondly, yes, once we promulgate the rule about compliance and enforcement, that will provide a second way of getting at anybody who does that if it wasn't detected before you granted the application. But omission will count as untruthfulness for the purposes of at least this? Yeah, I think I certainly think it would if we feel like we need to make that clear or we can just confirm it. Yeah. Okay, the next section is about financiers. So all of every applicant has to disclose information detailing the sources and amounts of capital resources that are available from any person that will be contributing resources to the applicant for the purposes of establishing or operating the Canvas establishment. So in addition to those requirements for applicants, principals, controllers, and financiers of applicants who don't fall into one of those categories have to be 21 years of age and have to be subject to additional requirements of the board's discretion. So those are requirements to disclose information to a licensed establishment, the board or DFR, requirements to conduct a background check for any natural person, and requirements to ensure that the financier complies with all applicable law governing the financial institutions, lenders, or other financial service providers. Can I ask a question because it says maybe subject to? Does that mean that they may not be required to do those things? Yeah, I mean, so for the financier section in this, you know, you could vote to change this, right? But we are already requiring all the information as a matter of course for everybody who's like really has control or ability to direct the operation, including anybody who has an ownership interest in it. And so figured that for financiers who may be pretty distantly related to the actual operation could be somebody's relative given them a few thousand dollars to help out has no real operational authority that this could be like, well, if we see somebody giving money to a bunch of different establishments and now it looks like, well, is this person actually in the background or are they kind of, you know, if circumstances arise where it seems like actually getting at financial financiers, information is important to make sure that the rules of the market are being followed. We can do that, but it didn't feel as necessary as a matter of course for every filing because some people who are financing are gonna be, as I said, distantly related to the actual operation. That being said, you could choose differently. You feel like that's in line with the FinCEN guidelines and what bankers will look for? I think so. I think it's okay, yeah. And remember control includes that sort of 10% cutoff. So it's gonna be a pretty broad sweep already and everybody, all these people will be required to be disclosed. So like we will know, we'll have visibility. It's just a question of how much more do you need for people who aren't meeting that sort of beneficial ownership rule or the general ability to direct rule, which is also within that control definition. Okay. I'm gonna move on to compliance and management plans. So this is a list of the... The applicants have to submit. So the first list is what all applicants have to submit and then the second list starting with little I there is just for applicants who intend to be hiring employees. So this includes all of the plans, the safety plans, storage and record keeping plans, inventory control, contingency and continuity plan that addresses what happens with cannabis that needs to be dispersed or disposed of if there's an abrupt closure of the establishment, a timeline of operations and then two attestations. First that they'll comply with the applicable municipal ordinances and they'll comply with the required inspections or permits from other state and local agencies. So as an example, certificates of occupancy. And I just wanna remind folks that none of those requirements are intended to be overly burdensome or prescriptive, but I think it's good business management practices. If some, if theft does occur, if there is diversion, if there is a public health issue, it'll help both the license holder and us kind of get to the root of what's going on and what happened, but we'll put out guidance and use discretion to kind of make sure folks don't feel like this is a paperwork exercise when it comes to certain aspects of that. Then applicants who intend to hire, employees have to provide overview of those positions and staffing levels, the general roles and responsibilities of those staff, overview of the management structure and then hiring and training plan, which includes safety training. Okay, I'm gonna keep going. Insurance, taxation and banking requirements is next. So these are the requirements to submit documentation about compliance with the board's required levels of insurance. And this is taken directly from the recommendations that the board voted on, no changes were made here. Also lastly, just important to point out that there will be a requirement that applicants submit documentation of either a deposit account with a financial institution or evidence of an attempt to open such an account along with a cash management plan. Moving on to the location information. So applicants have to provide a business address with a precise location of that physical site of operations and have to include GPS coordinates and also proof that the applicant has the right to occupy that physical site through either proof of ownership or a lease or some other document that demonstrates the right to occupy. Security requirements are next. So all applicants have to submit a plan to comply with security requirements that's relevant to their license type. And that will be, those requirements are discussed in rule two. So we'll get there. And then we've got a provision on information sharing with state agencies. So this is kind of a statement that applicants, is there a plan for a cannabis establishment license? They've got a consent to sharing their information with other state agencies, which will include DFR and the Department of Labor. Can you go up to 1.7 again? All right, wait a second. Nevermind. Security? Yeah. All of it against the scheme plan. Okay, yep, nevermind. So they just have to provide a plan to comply with the regulations and their application. Okay, the next section is talks about plans related to positive impact criteria. So we're gonna look at this. This is the first time the board has looked at the language. So this provides the applicants for any license type have to include plans that are related to the criteria that are listed in this subsection. So, and it's not all applicants. It's actually quite specific tiers of applicants that are required to provide these plans. And failing to provide the plans won't disqualify the applicant, but it will pause the applicant's license approval until they do submit these relevant requirements. So it applies to tier two and three cultivators and applicants that plan to hire more than 10 employees. So I'll go through this section here. All of the criteria are found in subsection C. So we're kind of going through this a little bit backwards, but applicants have to show plans for completing these criteria that are set out in subsection C and D to the following extent. So tier two and three cultivators, both indoor and outdoor, corporations, partnerships, or other business entities that aren't sold for proprietorships, and also any applicants with a plan to hire between one and 10 employees have to show plans to satisfy at least one of the criteria that's found in subsection C and D. Each and applicants that plan to hire more than 10 employees have to show plans to satisfy at least three of the criteria from sections C and D. So C is kind of the, both C and D provide these criteria that we're calling positive impact criteria. So subsection C requires that if you are, a licensed type and tier that's required to submit these plans, you have to propose plans to recruit, hire, and implement a development ladder for minorities, women, or other individuals who've been historically disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. And that includes inclusive hiring and contracting plan, a plan for providing a livable wage and paid leave, adopting and supporting incubator or accelerator programs that will assist businesses that meet the definition of a social equity applicant, or our minority or women owned. And that includes like an incubator program will include things like providing grants or access to capital, providing space for cultivation, manufacturing or retail, and management training, other forms of industry specific technical training or providing mentorship from experts. So those are kind of the different criteria that could fall within an incubator accelerator program. And the tier two and three have to provide this even if they're social equity applicants? So that is, yes, that is currently how we've drafted this language. If you wouldn't, if you didn't want it to apply to social equity applicants, change it so it doesn't. And then lastly in subsection C would be some type of community reinvestment, which would be including contribution to a board approved community development funds. Can I ask about the livable wage too? Because we had talked about sampling and we don't want the, do we or don't we want the calculation of benefits to be included in what we define as a livable wage? Because that could be part of the benefit. Yeah, I don't want, we do have some, to some extent generous sampling allowed for employees at like retail establishments, which could per employee be up to around an ounce a month. And I don't necessarily want that to be included as a benefit in the wage discussion because that's a considerable amount of cannabis from a dollars and cents perspective for one individual. If that makes sense. So I think in our guidance, we just want to be clear about what we mean about livable wage. I think that we're talking about salary. I was talking about salary. I just don't want some store owner to be like, hey, I'll pay you $3 less, but I'll make sure I hit the maximum sampling allowance for you each month or something along those lines. I mean, somebody might want that deal. I don't know, but I don't think it should be, I'm just trying to alleviate a gray area that I have concern about. I was talking about salary. I mean, it could say livable wage, paid leave and other, well, I guess we open the door to sampling, but I don't want to just limit it to a wage or paid leave. There's other things that you can, other benefits you can give people. No, absolutely. I think we should leave. I think my point is that we should be clear about what works for our expectation is in our guidance. Yeah, I think it's kind of the way it is. It's far the question. The word employee, will that be defined with respect to this or will seasonal labor or our folks just kind of come on to help trim or harvest? Will they be included in the calculation for employee, or are we thinking more in the traditional sense of? Employee is already defined. Okay. Employee, yes. It's defined, I believe in the statute. Okay. And not in a rule. So I believe it would include seasonal employees. Just wondering. Does that seem like the right mix though, like one in three? And are those tiers the correct ones that we're thinking? Well, before you get to that, why don't you review your next question, which is the other criteria that relate to sustainability? You know, the board approved community development fund. I was specifically thinking about the one that was created in statute, but. Business development fund? Yeah. But that's, because my question was more about like community reinvestment. I thought that's where you were maybe going with it. I was thinking community reinvestment could include just contributing to that fund because that one is kind of a known entity. We know what it's used for. We know what it's there for, you know, just kind of taking a random nonprofit and saying that's my community reinvestment. You know, I think, you know, could be problematic, could lead to kind of. I think one of the problems that immediately comes to mind is I think in other jurisdictions, there's been examples of those nonprofits not accepting funds from a cannabis business to begin with. And so are we creating up? Or there were some ethics issues. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. We could just limit this to the community business development fund. You're talking about the one in statute? Yes, the one in statute. Do we want to just limit it to that or? I think so. I mean, we know that there's lots that we would like to do with or we would like to have done with that money and not a huge amount of funding. So, yes. Yeah. So, David, why don't we just limit it to the one in statute? I think it's called the community business development fund. I can't quite remember that. I'll just do it. I'll add a citation to the. Okay, yeah. So this would apply for folks in the cultivation tiers two and three, but what about four and five and above? Did I miss something? It would apply to anyone with 10 or more employees has to pick three of these. Anyone who's a cultivator tier one or two or three would pick one. Okay. But as Brent suggested, we should probably look at D first and then have that conversation. Yeah, why don't you look at D? Because then you can think about the whole picture when you're thinking about who it should apply to. So D are the second set of criteria that have to do with sustainability. So applicants would have to propose plans to incorporate these principles, environmental resiliency, sustainability, which could include sustainable agricultural practices, sourcing energy from renewables, prioritizing recyclable compostable or reusable materials, exceeding minimum waste standards as provided in rule later on this rule or minimum efficiency standards as provided later on in rule two, or contribute to anti-pollution efforts, which could include the use of carbon offsets. So I'm gonna scroll back up so you can see who this applies to. So tier two and three cultivators, corporations, partnerships, other business entities, applicants with plans to hire one to 10 employees have to show plans to satisfy one criteria in each of those subsections. And then anyone who plans to hire more than 10 employees have to show plans to satisfy at least three criteria from both categories. And as a reminder, they would have to satisfy this in order for us to complete their application review and licensing. And this came out of our priority of licensure conversation, but it doesn't change the social equity DEI priority. This is for like sort of everyone, but it doesn't change those first two priorities, right? No, those applicants get moved to the front of their respective lines. I mean, they get moved up to their bucket in my vision at least. However, their application, if you have a social equity business, it's a tier five cultivator, then they would still have to have three criteria from C and three criteria from D. And their application would be deemed incomplete. And we would send out a request for more information on one of these and their application review would be paused until they respond. That's kind of how I was thinking about it. So I have a question that might be getting maybe two into the ways, I don't know if you thought about it or not, if somebody wants to create their own vertically integrated business by pursuing different license types with different applications. And the whole, are they gonna do this for each subset of their business or do we want to create some type of, in that specific circumstance where folks, I don't know, where it's not looking at the specific operation, but the business. It seems to me it wouldn't be difficult for them to just kind of copy and paste for each license that they're applying for what they're doing on each, they're planning to. I didn't know if we'd require something different or something else. I mean, I think it's pretty site-specific and appropriate to the specific business, but. It only applies to cultivators, right? Did I, or did I miss something? Well, any or other business entities. Oh, okay. That are not so private. I got tripped up on that too when I just saw the tier two and tier three. I wonder if we want to exclude small cultivators. I mean, generally speaking, a thousand foot, thousand square foot small cultivator likely would be a sole proprietorship or would only have one employee, you know, but I'm wondering if we do want to, if this is an area where we make an accommodation for a small cultivator. There's part of me that wants to leave it the way it is and get feedback on how doable this is for people who are looking to, as we're building their business plans now, you know. As we talk more about co-location, how can some of these be achievable for folks that are mentioned here, recognizing that, I don't know, some of it might be not as practical if everybody's in the same space sharing resources. You know what I mean? I think as it's drafted now, if you go back up to subsection B, I may have misunderstood your points and my apologies and so, but I think that small cultivators are by definition not required to meet these. You see it though, but the, or other business entity that plans to hire one or two. Yeah, I think, yeah. The small cultivator that's hiring one person to kind of manage their... Yes, that could sweep somebody in, yeah. We could also be adding barriers for social equity applicants who are planning on doing larger cultivation tiers, but I think I would like to hear that from people whether or not this is doable or not. Do we think the one slash three is the right mix? The criteria that you have to select. If you're entity with one to 10 employees, you choose one. If you're a larger entity, you choose three of each. I think it makes sense. Yes. I view this as a way to kind of pull the culture in the direction of where we want this program to go in a certain direction. And if folks think we're being a little too overly burdensome, I wanna hear that. But I think these triple bottom line kind of principles that you put into a business is, I think, where we hope folks will kind of meet us in the middle. This, we had certifies at B Corp. I've heard from some folks that B Corp doesn't do cannabis businesses and that the certification can take an inordinate amount of time, but I think this captures the principles that are in the B Corp kind of equity and environmental impact statements or evaluations. So I think this is the right way to go. But yeah, I think this is good. I don't think we need to belabor this point. Oh, just a couple of points. Sorry. I was kidding. So I think that if you want to ensure that it applies to everyone above tier two and above, we should specify that. I think the way it's drafted now kind of assumes that if you've got a growth site that size four or five, you're probably gonna have some employees in last year. Right. That was where I got tripped up initially. So we should, if you want to, I think that's something that we should probably change if you want to ensure that it's included. Yeah. Was your intent to waive this for small cultivators or put this in just depending on their business structure for small cultivators? I mean, I asked the question only because we're supposed to make accommodations for small cultivators. We're supposed to at least consider whether each of these can be waived for a small cultivator. And this could, I mean, this is an easy one to waive because we're essentially just created this. You know, you know, this is one that's, you know, could be waived for a small cultivator if you wanted to. I am going to belabor it a little further. I was just looking at the one, what does it matter who the one employee is? So perhaps that's, you know, one, I think this is where you were going with this guy, like one seasonable employee or what if it's a sole proprietorship but you hire family members because they help you out with your business occasionally? Is that going to make things more difficult for people? Right. And if David has corrected me, the employee is not defined in statute. So it would probably be a dictionary definition of employee, which would include the seasonal employee. You mean it's not defined in our statute or not defined in any statute? In our, in a blank statute. Sure, there is a statute. Yes, there is. But we can continue to take comment on that if we're being overly, if people are coming on to help for a couple of weeks out of the entire year. I still love these principles and I want them to be part of our plan but how burning some will it be to do certain things just based on the limited usage of potential seasonal employees at a very prescriptive time of the year, at least for the outdoor cultivators, you know. Do you, is it your decision to clarify the tier two and above, was that the intent here? Just right now, as Bren was pointing out, there's a bit of a, even though that likely tier four and five is gonna be caught by the higher one to 10. Yeah, I wonder if you just changed the one to two and just assume that all small cultivators are likely not gonna have more than two employees. And do you wanna make sure we're capturing four and five? I mean, so that's the one thing right now is they have a weird structure where it's like tier two and three is named and tier four and above is not named. And we're assuming that it's gonna be caught by whether it's two one to 10 or two to 10, but it's possible. Well, why don't we just take cultivators out of it and just say, if you're a business with two to 10 employees, you choose one. If you're a business with 10 and above, or 11 and above, you choose three. Maybe that. Okay. Yeah. We'll take public comment on it. Yeah, sure you will. I think we'll have to define what employee means, at least in guidance, if it's not in our role. Okay. Are you guys ready to move on? I will say that I'm trying to think about, especially from the sustainability, the criteria, what would apply to a testing facility? If we're requiring them to pick three of these, they can't do that, really. They could contribute to carbon offsets, I suppose. And I think we're gonna have to put out guidance on what are the best usage of contributing to carbon offsets, because that can be a little bit open-ended. Well, if they have a green building, that would cover some of this, wouldn't it? Yeah, I hate to think about the existing certified labs having to move or change their building because of this. I mean, we could exclude labs. We could exclude, I mean, really, the people that we're trying to capture, I think, are the larger cultivators and the larger retailers. I would be okay with giving labs some flexibility here, recognizing the importance of them and our supply chain in this language, as written, wasn't necessarily directly intended to capture information from them. I mean, there's certain things that they could, I guess, plausibly do. You know. I mean, part of what I think you're thinking is, that they're not solely cannabis labs, whereas a cultivator is solely a cannabis business, right? So if we exclude labs, I'm fine with that. Yeah. What's up, the decision? What about product manufacturers? Again, they could source from renewables, I think. They could prioritize the use of recyclable. Yeah. And they could contribute. They could plant some trees. Okay. There's something else. All right, well, why don't we exclude labs and change it to strictly based on number of employees and we'll see how that takes. Got it. Okay, I'm gonna move on. Hopefully that was easy for you two to follow. That one. Okay, we'll use it in the end. So last subsection and section four is just a statement that all applicants have to attest to the truthfulness and accuracy of the information that they submit in their application. I'm moving on to section five. Now we get into the various sections dealing with specific application requirements based on license type. But for cultivator licenses, applicants have to submit additional location information, including a diagram or a site plan of their physical site of operations, which includes various specific information here. And then a map showing the boundaries of the plan growing area. And then a statement that location for outdoor cultivators has to comply with some specifics and rule two that are specific to visibility from a public road. Those are the requirements that we will get to when we get to rule two. And then specific water and wastewater requirements. So we have got a couple of general requirements here in A and B. And then we have some more specific requirements for tiers five and six. So the general requirements are that they have to submit a letter from the water utility, certifying that utility's capacity to provide sufficient water to the physical site. And cultivators using municipal wastewater have to submit a letter certifying that the wastewater system has the capacity to accept the anticipated quantity and strength of wastewater from physical site. And there are a couple, I've got a little lettering problem here, but we can fix that. Tier five and six applicants have to state the following if their water and wastewater generation are covered by the wastewater system and potable water supply rule as issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation. So where they're planning on withdrawing water, how, when on-site water is used for potable sanitary purposes for employees and then how many people are gonna be on site in a given day. And then they have to provide some specific information about the volume and strength of the wastewater that they anticipate generating, including design flows from the wastewater system and water supply rule. And then they have to state whether the establishment needs to comply with the indirect discharge rules and underground injection control rules. Again, those rules are created by the Department of Environmental Conservation. And then lastly, they have to describe the anticipated needs of collecting, storing, treating and discharging wastewater. Indoor cultivator requirements here, they have to identify whether their water supply and wastewater systems comply. Again, with any applicable portion of those same drinking water and groundwater protection division rules. Moving on to section six. So these are specific requirements for manufacturers. So they have to provide a list of their intended production items and the means of production in a format to be determined by the board. Specific application requirements for retailers include a list of intended sale items and whether the intended sale item contains CBD, hemp or hemp derived compounds or the consumable items that is non-intoxicating, a little fixed one. We pause there for a second. So retailers of course have specific restrictions on them specifically around drug-free school zones and local zoning. I'm wondering if we want to see anything more from retailers with respect to where they're located within a community. Just curious, you know. When I worked for a solar company when we had to submit a permit application for a solar array, you had to show how far away it is from the border, from the boundary of the property. You had to kind of just show how far away it is from certain wetlands and other things. I'm wondering if we just want kind of like a general map of where this retail location is. Do you feel like that won't be covered by the local permitting that they have to supply? If, I think it would be in their application for the local permit. I don't know if we would see that. I don't know if they're just verifying that they have all their local permits. I don't know if we would ever see that map or if it's relevant. I don't know if it's relevant. But it could be helpful for us just to know where these things are. I know where they're going to submit the address. I think what Pepper's getting to in it, I think it was an oversight on my part when I presented a lot of this stuff in previous board meetings, is I was concerned with a diagram of a premises from an outdoor cultivation perspective. So when inspectors may be going to do a random site inspection, they could find it and in my head, if you have an indoor facility or retail establishment in an address, it's a lot easier to find them. But I still think there's some benefit to us knowing what things will look like within a certain block radius of a specific site and potentially a diagram of your facility inside. I think we require the inside diagram. In the rule? In the rule too. Security plans for retailers in the second rule. I can't quite remember, but. Sorry, I didn't follow. Oh, no, I think that we have kind of a security plan for retailers is probably captured elsewhere in our rules. Well, yeah, I wasn't even thinking about it in the security context, but just understanding kind of what you were referring to is where these, where things are generally happening. Yeah. Maybe it doesn't matter. It's the location of the retailer not, I mean, when you're talking about a diagram, do you mean like a diagram of the interior of the retail location and how detailed would we want that? Because I assume it's going to change, right? So a retailer will want to change things around. So I guess it depends on how detailed we would want that to be. Yeah, I just, I'm thinking about like, we have a retail establishment with glass windows downtown. You know, like we might want to give some extra scrutiny to that store. If it's downtown and it's within, you know, it's exactly 500 feet from a school, you know, I don't know, maybe we can just Google it for sure and try and just, you know, at the time of licensing, just kind of make those determinations ourselves. I just wonder if we wanted to preempt it from the applicant. Yeah, I guess I wonder, I mean, if someone submitting an application with an address, they've already probably made some sort of investment and we've already discussed the rules around where they can be. And the town's already approved. Right. I'm not sure. I mean, it seems duplicative. Maybe it's useful information, but it seems like it's additional information. All right, why don't we keep going then? I'll make a note in my notes and we need to come back to it again. Okay. So the next section is specific requirements for testing labs. So they have to submit current laboratory and accreditation certificates or that they've been certified under the cannabis quality control program established by the agency of agriculture. A quality assurance manual or procedures that document the quality control system and an outline of the quality management system. Laboratory standard operating procedures for analysis of cannabis and cannabis products. Master list of all analytical and non-analytical standard operating procedures that indicate the latest revision and review dates and the current effective dates. Documentation of educational and technical credentials for all personnel. And then a current organizational chart, including reporting requirements. Let me get to I. This is the. Okay. I think I should. Oh, okay. You have that little technical difficulties here. So current organizational chart, examples of certificates of analysis to be issued by the lab for each test. And then the latest proficiency results for cannabis testing for all test areas in which it states it's certified. And then the last subsection I, even though it's only half there on the screen, should say that they have to demonstrate analytical proficiency as in addition to all these other requirements. So proof of their analytical proficiency. And their license is going to be dependent upon maintaining that proficiency. So one thing that we had talked about is allowing kind of a somewhat of a waiver program in year one for the labs that are currently licensed under the cannabis quality program. So that they wouldn't have two different licensed renewal dates annually. You know, they could just carry it. They would be certified. They would be waved into our program and then they could carry out to the end of their cannabis quality program and then renew both at the exact same time. I don't know. There's kind of a question for these guys about whether that's required in rule or if we can just kind of wave, if we want to wave so that they essentially just that these labs that are certified already don't have to have two different certification dates or license dates where they have to renew. Is there like an annual renewal? I don't remember. I know that we talked about this. I think there is. Yeah, right now the statute requires annual renewal renewal for all licensees. For the hemp program? Oh, for that. For their, you're talking about their certification as well. I think it's annual. I think they have an annual fee at the least. So yeah, my question, David, is really, you know, we had talked to as a board about allowing somewhat of a waiver in year one where if you were, let's just say, your renewal for your hemp certification if you're a testing facility, you know, it was just, you know, just essentially trying to make it so that there's two dates aligned. Is there a way for we have to put it in rule or can we just kind of decide as a board that we can wave? I think that it should go in the rule underneath the renewal section, not in this section and just have a special carve out for testing labs that have been licensed by agriculture food and markets. And we'll just put that in, give flexibility and then you can figure it out on a case-by-case basis from there, but I would put that in a different section in this room. Okay, it would be a one-time thing. It's essentially just so that these two programs can have someone alignment when it comes to testing facilities. Got it. Let me try to sneak that in right now. Or no, you're looking at a different document. So I'll get that in and when we come back to review the final edits that we put in on this one, we'll. We can approve it conceptually too, right? And then you can add it. Yeah. I don't want it to be overly complicated. And if it's sounding overly complicated, then we don't have to do it. I think it should be fine. I think it's a one-sentence new subsection in the renewal that carves out a one-time carve out for laboratories that have been approved under that statutory section that's cited at the top of this. I think it'll just get them up a little bit faster. But is it part of renewal or their initial application? Because they're already certified by the HOPE program, right? They're not renewing, they're applying initially for cannabis. It's their first time, yeah. So you're saying you want a waiver for, like I've heard two things. One, use your initial application, but then also aligning the renewal date to the renewal date that exists under their current license with agriculture markets. Well, it could be, I mean, my thinking was allow these facilities that are already certified to do hemp to start doing high THC cannabis immediately. And then when they're renewing for hemp, then they could do their initial application for their renewal, their renewal would align, I guess. They're kind of waved into the program initially. I see, so that would go in here. Yeah, let me work on that. It might be, I can call Carrie during the break and just ask if there's any concerns with that. And I don't know if they have a window where people, like on the calendar year, where they would typically renewal, or if it's more of a, you know, loading. But every January, we could probably line that up, so it's accurate that it's more difficult. I think the overall concept is we want as many testing labs that have been accredited by our sister agency to do very similar testing to get them online as quickly as possible, recognizing the potential bottleneck that could happen if we're a little overly... I mean, then again, like, they could just submit the application that they submit for their renewal. I just, the idea of them having to renew, like potentially every six months because their timing is off, you know, once with us and then once with Ag, as opposed to... I think the complication there also is that there's like six distinct testing buckets and some of them are not accredited to all of those testing buckets. So maybe if we get even more specific, like if you are accredited for potency, we can... This sounds like it might be overly complicated. I was just wondering if we have the authority to wave people in and have them start testing, you know, using their current accreditation for doing the Cannabis Quality Program. I do think you do have the authority to do that because you have broad authority in how licensing occurs. Right. So I'm thinking that maybe we don't need anything in role. We can just do it. Oh, yeah. I mean, I think you have statutory authority. We'll allow for that as a difference. But I feel like that this shouldn't... I think the idea is relatively straightforward. And I think we put it in somewhere that can be that, or depending on your directive can be that during the break or you could also do... Just ask Kerry for public notice and comment on that and do it. Yeah, whatever you... This is not our last opportunity to exchange this. Okay. So... We should build on a break for the day for this purpose so that we could take some ideas that still needed a little drafting. Yeah. Okay. Sure. So I didn't mean to get us hung up on that. I just... That's important. I just think that the testing is a bottleneck we've heard about continuously. Okay. So I'll move on to Section 9, which provides for additional requirements for integrated licenses. So they are subject to all of the requirements for each other additional license site. But they also have to submit some additional things, including a plan to provide reduced cost or free cannabis to patients. And a plan to ensure that 25% of the flower that they sell is obtained from Tier 1 cultivators. A list of products to purchase by registered patients in the preceding 12 months. A plan to ensure continuity of products for patients that are using the dispensary. And a plan to contribute that one time $50,000 contribution to the Cannabis Business Development Fund by that statutory date of October 1 of 2022. And finally, an attestation of good standing with respect to their dispensary license. And good standing shall mean the dispensary is in compliance with Chapter 86 of Title 18 and all associated rules. Any questions about that question? So Section 10 governs the license application acceptance periods. So it provides that the board is going to accept applications in accordance with law. And other than those legislatively mandated time periods, the board may open or close acceptance periods at its discretion. Provided that the board will give public notice of no less than 30 days before opening or closing an application acceptance period. Subsection C says that the board may set separate application acceptance periods for each of the different license types and may set separate periods for each tier within those license types. And other than the legislatively mandated acceptance periods, the board may open application periods at their discretion subject to two limitations. First, that the board will shall accept applications for license types. All license types accept for cultivation license types for no less than 30 days of each calendar year. And the board shall accept applications for tiers one and two of indoor and outdoor cultivation for no less than 30 days of each calendar year. So this gives the board the authority to change those application windows in the event that something's going on with the market that needs to be addressed. But that the board has to open it at least once a year. Correct. Yeah, and I think this provision is important for future boards, depending on their shape and lookup and views on certain things, will have to open application periods for a set minimum amount of time, no matter what. Moving on to section 11, which deals with criminal records and license qualification determination. So the first section here is just a statement that no criminal offense that's committed by an applicant will have a negative effect on their application or disqualify them from obtaining a license. Then we have some presumptive disqualifications. And just as a reminder that immediately following this presumptive disqualification section is how to overcome the presumptive disqualification. So convictions for the following offenses in this list presumptively disqualify an applicant from obtaining a license, provided that they can overcome the presumption as specified in the next section. So listed crimes, these are the violent offenses or the equivalent of one of those violent offenses in another jurisdiction. Stater felony offenses that involve fraud, deceit, or embezzlement, trafficking of a regulated substance other than cannabis. And then we have a provision here that trafficking means a violation of the various Vermont regulated substance trafficking statutes or a nonviolent drug distribution offense in another jurisdiction that has a maximum penalty of 30 years of incarceration or greater. Dispensing cannabis to a person under 21, misdemeanor convictions that occurred within the two years preceding the application except for nonviolent drug offenses or felony convictions that occurred within five years preceding the application except for nonviolent drug offenses. We've got a two-year look back for those misdemeanor convictions and a five-year look back for felonies. So next section is how to overcome these presumptive disqualifications. So a board can decide the individual who's qualified to obtain a license can have a license even if they were convicted of one of those offenses, but you have to consider these factors in making that determination. Nature and seriousness of the crime, circumstances of the crime, date of the crime, age of the person when they committed the offense, whether they were subsequent offenses, any social conditions that may have contributed to the offense, nature and responsibility of the position that the person with the conviction would hold and then any evidence of rehabilitation. So are the license applications developed by the board will allow applicants to provide additional information beyond these criteria if necessary. Questions about, oh, okay. We'll move on to issuance of licenses. So this section just provides that the board will issue licenses to applicants who meet all the requirements that are contained in the rule and within the statutes, but notwithstanding that provision, the board retains the right to deny a license to an applicant that the board finds would threaten public health or safety if the applicant were to obtain a license. And if the board makes such a determination, they have to support it with written findings. And then here's the provision that applicants who falsely attest to the truthfulness and accuracy of the information in their application will be deemed unqualified for a license. So if the applicant applies again, subsequent to receiving a denial from the board, the board can request additional information to address or assess the truthfulness of the subsequent application. Moving on to section 13, provisional licenses. So this first section provides the board may choose to accept provisional license applications for purposes of smoothing the application process for applicants and assisting the board in anticipating the market structure. So second section here just makes it clear that provisional license doesn't permit the recipient to operate a cannabis establishment. They do not become a licensed cannabis establishment with the issuance of a provisional license and they're not permitted to operate until the board issues the full license subsequent to the applicant submitting their full application. And the review is complete and the board grants a license. So provisional license, they have to submit the application. Again, this is going to be in the format determined by the board and will be readily accessible. These applicants will also have to pay a fee or show they qualify for a waiver. And that fee will be a part of the schedule of fees that the board will make accessible. We clarify, it's my intention at least that that's a non-refundable fee. Sure. Yeah, I think yes, in accordance with the fee structure or fee schedule, it's kind of may encompass that but we can also make it clear in the rule. Just for the provisional license. If someone is applying for a full license and they're disqualified for some reason that could be refundable in my mind but the point, the benefit of the provisional license is that it shows true interest in wanting to be a license holder so that it's an accurate barometer for us. So you got it and you want to say something like in the rule, something like pay a non-refundable fee? I mean, if it's going to be covered, I think it's going to be covered in our fee structure and then I think that's fine but I do want it to be clear to folks that this is a non-refundable fee. This is really, you know, the discussion around this was we need to kind of separate the folks that are just throwing in an application and seeing what happens versus the people that are very serious about it, actually applying. But I would take your guidance whether we should say it here just the way just cross-reference the. I mean, for that, it's more a matter of like how much do you want to bind a future board? Your intention is clear now. Okay. But if you want to make sure that this is how it works, going into the future and make it harder to change it in the future, I would put it in the rule. Thoughts on that? I think since we don't have control over what the fees are, right? It might be better to just leave it out of the rule. That's fine. Okay. And honestly, it's helpful for us at the initial stage. It might not be helpful for future boards. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Okay. So exceptions periods for provisional license applications, the board may choose to accept these applications. It's up to the board. And the board will provide public notice of when it intends to accept provisional license no less than 30 days prior to opening that acceptance period. And then again, 30 days notice for when it's going to close the application period for provisional licenses. These license applications have to include the materials that are required by sections 1.41 and 1.42. And the board has to certify provisional license for any provisional license application that meets those requirements in those sections and isn't in violation of statute. So that's the operating plans requirement and the record checks requirement. And then this describes the process for converting the provisional to a full license application. So they're valid for a full year from the date that they're issued and they can be rescinded by the board if the board learns any information that was not truthful or accurate in the application. And if a provisional license fee wants to convert to a full license application, they have to update all of the information that's submitted in accordance with rule and provide all other applicant information required by rule. So again, just what we're thinking here just to be clear is that if nothing in your provisional license application changes and you're able to kind of complete the rest of the application that you don't, you wouldn't have any automatic disqualifiers that would disqualify you from converting your license. It's essentially kind of a pre-check on the ownership limitations that we have and on the criminal history limitations that we have. You know, if people add new financiers, if they add new sources of capital, they fundamentally change, you know, those additional people would also have to be cleared. So in that sense, a provisional license wouldn't guarantee conversion to a full license. If you're fundamentally changing your ownership structure or you're adding new people, we would have to do those additional checks. And then of course, you know, after you have your provisional license, then you can go out and find your space, get your town permits, do all the other, the rest of what's required in the application. Is that what everyone's thinking? Yes, you're up for it. All right. Okay, the next section is, sets out the priority of board considerations for license application. And this really tracks what's found in the statute that the board's gonna consider license applications under a system that's laid out in policy that will be available to the public. And that policy is going to give first priority to social equity applicants when the board is considering applications. And the board shall also utilize those factors that are outlined in statute for priority of licensure. Okay, then section 15, we get into the renewal timeframes and procedures. So this provides that the licenses are valid for one year, which is provided in statute. The board will send notice for renewals no less than 120 days prior to the license expiration. And renewal applications have to be submitted up to 90 days prior to their expiration. Maybe, sorry. Licensees have to apply for renewal no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date, except that we provide some label room there that if a licensee fails to meet that deadline, they can submit a renewal accompanied by a written explanation for why the renewal application is not timely. And then the board can accept that renewal application. And if necessary, continue their existing license until the renewal process is completed. And then subsection E provides if a licensee files their renewal application in a timely manner, but then the board is not timely, doesn't receive a response from the board before the expiration date. Their license will continue to be valid until the board provides a response to their renewal application. And then at that time, their license will either be renewed if the application is granted or terminated, if not. And then a licensee who doesn't submit their renewal application before their license expires is no longer a licensee once their license expires and they may no longer operate their Canvas establishment. The next section governs a change in control. What happens with a renewal application if there is a change in a Canvas establishment's control? So this provides that any interest holder who has control of a licensee once that person changes or entity changes, including by adding a person who's an interest holder and will have control, or removing a person who's an interest holder and has control, or transferring control from one person to another person, the licensee has to apply for a renewal of their license before that change in control is executed. The renewal has to have all the application information updated to reflect these proposed changes in control. And specifically, the updates have to include those operating plan updates and the record updates, but that is not exclusively what's required. So a failure to renew a license prior to executing a change in control will be considered a licensee who failed to renew their license before it expired provided as provided for in that section of the rule we just reviewed. And then the fees that we're gonna talk about next will apply to renewal applications. So that means anytime someone changes control of ownership, they would have to pay the renewal fee. That's right. So one thing that I think is in Massachusetts is right. Talks about transfer if somebody dies. Well, you have that discretion to waive fees. I think it should be waive or reduce because there could be an administrative burden for us reviewing the renewal, which would justify a fee. And we may not wanna just waive every year. We may not wanna waive depending on how complicated, but it probably wouldn't require a full renewal fee. Because the renewal fees, if I recall, are the same as the initial application fees. So should we do bring reduce or waive, waive or reduce fees? I mean, that's up to you. But it's easy to do. But you think if it says discretion to waive, we don't also have the discretion to reduce. No, I don't think so. I think that you should specify. Okay. I had, if that interpretation is right, we should change some other language. But we can do that. That's not hard. Let's do that to be sure. All right, so that'll be a few changes we'll make before we do the final. We'll take a nice, long break for you, David. Okay, so subsection E provides that the approval of that renewal application will, I'm sorry. So once the board approves the renewal application, the time period that the license remains valid starts over. So once they've got that approval, then we've got the year following that. Essentially, the clock starts again once you've submitted that renewal for when you have to renew again. Is there a time period by which they have to report this change in ownership? It's prior to the change. Prior to the change being executed. Okay, and someone dies, like an owner dies, it would be, obviously that couldn't be prior. Right. We, yeah, we can put in a provision that just acknowledges that possibility. Something like, we'll just put it in a separate subsection, like a death of an owner, somebody in interest holder who's in control. I'll just add that. Yeah. I won't try to write it right now. Yeah, I think you get the concept. I just wanna catch somebody up in a scenario where they can't renew and they abandon their business because it's overwhelming for them. Okay, so the last subsection just says that if the board doesn't approve that renewal application, the licensee can't proceed with the proposed change in control and their license will remain in effect until they are otherwise due to renew. Okay, next section is about the form and the fees. So this language is gonna look familiar now. The renewal application is gonna be in a format that the board will provide to the public. And this, anyone who is applying for a renewal will have to pay a fee or show that they qualify for a fee waiver pursuant to our fee schedule. So renewal information requirements, this is the list of what a licensee has to submit in their renewal application. And many of these requirements sort of refer back to other parts of the rule or rule two. So efficiency and water benchmarks, pesticide applicator report, description of the changes or adjustments that have been made to an outdoor cultivation site. Any other updates to the information that's submitted with the application and information regarding progress on licenses, on the licensee's required goals in that positive impact criteria section. Okay, moving on to conditions for renewal. So the board shall renew the license of a licensee that applies for a renewal and meets the following requirements. So as long as the licensee is in compliance with the rule, this rule, all other relevant rules and the provisions of chapter 33 has paid their fee, has provided all the required information and is in good standing with the board. The board will renew their license. And here is a description about what good standing is, which means having no unpaid or unsatisfied final notice of violations against the licensee. And that will be laid out in rule four. Provided that the notice of violation won't be considered final for purposes of this section until all appeals have been exhausted or waived. And the licensee is complying with the board of proof plan to remediate any harm that stemmed from the violation. That person will also be considered in good standing. So we did have in our kind of compliance and enforcement, I think I should just hold off some sort of emergency action that might need to be taken as in if something is jeopardizing the public safety or health or environment environment. As you read this language, would that be considered a final notice of violation if they're operating under an emergency remediation plan? So it could be, it depends, it could be. So the next paragraph notes that if you've been suspended or evoked according to rule four, that's just a different deal. And you got to reapply or conform to whatever the process ultimately ends up being under rule four. So in that case, you're at this entirely. Yeah. If there's some other sort of like serious problem where there's been an emergency order to stop doing something or to stop selling a product or whatever it might be, I think that it may not fall under this. It's possible. So let's say somebody complies with that, right? They just stopped selling. And I think they're okay as long as they have complied. If there's some other issue where it's uncertain and there has not, there's been an appeal that hasn't been a final decision, I think, Brennick, you scroll up. The subsection A, I think, could provide us essentially a catch-all if you need it. Yeah, okay. Yep. Pending notices of violation are not. In the normal course, yeah. Yes. In the normal course of things, there's still like an ongoing fight about whether or not somebody's violation really happens, say, or was as serious as the penalty that the board was considering, whether that penalty is required, then you're still okay. So basically it's like, if you haven't done something really bad and we're just fighting about some other issue, you may be able to still get your license renewed. If you've done something really bad, you may be out of this entirely because you've been suspended or revoked. Or if there's some safety issue, I think subsection A can catch that up. Okay. But I think the general concept here is that renewal isn't the place where disciplinary actions should be dealt with. Disciplinary action should be dealt with in rule four. And we shouldn't be using a renewal process to execute discipline. That's right. Okay. Section 16. Now we're moving on to the cannabis identification cards. So this provides that some general statement that the outset of the section owner means the natural person who controls, shares control of the cannabis establishment. And all owners and principals will be issued cannabis ID cards once the cannabis establishment has its license. So same language here about the forms and fees for cannabis identification cards. No difference there. Here are the application requirements for the ID cards. This was the list of what a person would have to submit to get to obtain an ID card. So the person would have to state to the board what cannabis establishment they intend to work at. Their full legal name, address, date of birth, driver's license or other government-issued ID card, fingerprints, any other authorization or disclosure that the board deems to be necessary for the purpose of conducting a background check. Listing of criminal convictions, including pending. If the applicant holds or has held any similar card in another jurisdiction, the name of that issuing authority and the dates that it was held. And then if a similar card has been held in another jurisdiction, whether that card was revoked, qualifications for the ID cards, obviously no one under 21 will be issued an ID card and the board can deny an individual an ID card if they have a record of any of the following. Any of the presumptively disqualifying offenses that we went through earlier, provided that the board can also consider those mitigating factors to overcome the presumption. Divergent of cannabis when the applicant worked at a past cannabis establishment, failure to disclose any required information, revocation of a similar ID card either in Vermont or somewhere else in the last two years or more than their ID card was revoked more than twice. Any fraudulent use of the ID card either in Vermont or anywhere else, which could include tampering, falsifying, altering, messing around with the card or allowing another person to do so. Failure to notify the board if their card is lost or stolen and failure to notify the board of any convictions that were pending at the time that the person is applying or convictions that occurred after the card is issued. And then subsection C just provides that the board gets to have discretion to issue a cannabis ID card to people who have a record of the behavior that we just went through. If that person can demonstrate evidence of rehabilitation or show some kind of mitigating factors that surrounded the behavior and the application for the ID cards will allow individuals to provide that evidence necessary. The next section governs the temporary employee work permits. So prior to completing the background check, the board will issue a temporary work permit to somebody who's applying for an ID card that allows the person to work at a cannabis establishment as long as they're 21 years of age or older and have not disclosed any record of that bad behavior as described before. Except that the board has discretion to deny that temporary license to anyone if the board has knowledge of such a record. And the board can withdraw the temporary permit if they find out that the person does, has done any of the behavior that we just went through after a permit has been issued. And if an application for the ID card discloses any of that behavior, the board has discretion to issue that temporary work permit if they believe they can do so consistent with public health and safety. And then lastly, the temporary permit expires after four months or upon the issuance of a denial of an ID card, whichever comes first, issuance or denial. So if the temporary permit expires before the board decides on whether to issue the card, the board, it shall issue another temporary permit. And then we have an ongoing duty to disclose. So the holder of the ID card has an ongoing duty to provide any information that is required under this portion of the rule. And then for next section governs the ID card renewal. So prior to renewal, anyone holding an ID card has to undergo the background check and ID cards expire as set out in statute. And the timeline for how requests to renew will unfold as follows. So a card holder has to apply for renewal no less than 30 days before their card is due to expire except that if a card holder doesn't meet that deadline, they can submit a renewal application again, accompanied with that written explanation for why their filing is late. And the board can accept that late renewal and continue the existing card until the renewal is completed. And sub B provides that if a card holder does file that renewal application in a timely manner, but the board doesn't issue a response before their card expires, their card will be renewed if the application is granted and terminated if it's not. And then lastly, card holder who doesn't submit a renewal application before their card expires is no longer a card holder on that date that the card expires and can no longer work at a cannabis establishment. This all looks good to me. I do think we should address the samples and diversion of samples. And I don't know if that's in this section or would be in rule four. Like so if an employee receives a sample and they're then selling that sample or... That's in rule. So that's forbidden by rule two. And then it's obviously discipline for that would come through rule four. Okay. I think there was some divergent language for getting a renewal. Yeah. So your ID card can be taken from you if you are taking those samples and telling it legally. Employer. But the ongoing pieces are captured somewhere else. Yep. Okay. Just to be clear on this employee card work permit is held by the employee. It's not tied to a specific cannabis establishment. So if you remember this, the way that this actual provision in the statute it makes it look like the person is it's tied to an establishment. Okay. So the board has had some discussion about whether that's a recommendation that you want to make. Yep. Okay. I think that you actually voted on the recommendation that you changed that. That's right. Okay. So for now it's tied or at least... I think that we... It's tied by statute. I think we tried to design this so that it accommodates either way. So that if it's got to be tied to an establishment this rule allows for that to happen. If it ends up getting decoupled this rule also allows for that to happen. That's the intention. And if people notice a gap between the intention and the text let us know. But I think that's what we tried to do. Yeah. Great. Changing players you can kickstart the renewal process I guess in a different way. Okay. And then the last two sections are the ongoing duties disclosed. This is the same language that you saw earlier. The applicant has to fully and transparently update their application while extending. If there's anything that changes that they submitted in their initial application and the board has to keep confidential all of that information as required by statute. And that completes rule one. Thank you. Wow. This takes us back. Takes me back to our original like marathon board meetings. You know. Brandon and Dave what would be best for the two of you to proceed? You know we're a little bit behind schedule. There's some updates you'll need to make to rule one but do you want to get through rule two first or would you like to pause now? I would like to take a break. Take a break. Yeah I think I'll take an hour. That's fine with me. I'm also happy just to take a short one and plow through rule two. Okay. I think well this is obviously up to all you folks but I'm thinking maybe it makes sense for us to do a roll. I guess we could. It's up the length of the break I'm agnostic on but in terms of process I would say we add in the couple fixes that haven't you haven't yet seen like the minor ones I just put in but there's a couple of full sentences that I'm going to put in and that you should look at. So I think we should take whatever length break come back look at rule one so we can just complete it and cross it off then start going through rule two. And at the end of rule two we'll have to take a short break for presumably everything's perfect which is likely of course but we'll go back through at the very end and do like the final little add in whatever sentences you want in rule two and then call it if that makes sense. Seems like a good plan. Yeah. So how long do you need right now David to. Oh we don't I don't really actually need I don't I don't think I need long. I think I need like 15 minutes to finish. I already input most of the stuff you talked about. So really the length is up to you. If you want to do full lunch break now that's great. If you want to do 15 minutes that's fine too. Elaine Kyle. Whatever's, whatever's best. Let's do 15 minutes and then I feel like we will have done rule one and then maybe. Lunch break. Yeah. Okay. Great. Why don't we come back take a break 15 minutes come back a quarter to one. That sound good? Yep. Yep that works. Would you mind just throwing up there. Everywhere it says to waive fees. I'm changing it to waiver or reduction. How 3000 to. That's. Yeah. All right we're back on. We're back on. Yes we are back on. We're still recording. Yes we are still recording. Okay great. Well let's see. It's 1249 and we're back from our break and I think Brynn is going to review the changes that David made based on our conversations around rule one. And then we can go to approve. So I'm gonna start with the change that you made to section 152 which governs the change control requiring a licensed renewal application. So the question arose about what happens if one of these people who have control dies. So we've carved out an exception here. So that all of this language in subsection A remains the same about what type of change in control requires a licensed renewal except as provided in this new subdivision A1. So if an interest holder dies an interest holder who has control of a licensee dies the licensee may notify the board of the death at the time that the license would have been required to be renewed pursuant to statute. That's good. So any transfer of ownership above 10% I assume requires notification to the board except in the case of death. And at which point the licensee the remaining interest holders have to notify just at the normal course of business. That's right. That's great. So the next change I just have to forgive me while I scroll through and find it. It's the statement about lab renewals. Am I going in the right direction? You are 1.8 I think. Okay so it's right here at its discretion. So this provides that the board at its discretion may waive or reduce licensing requirements which would include the fees for a lab that's currently certified under the agency of agriculture's cannabis quality control program. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. And the last change that's made throughout I'm not going to find every, well the change that we made throughout is whenever the board has discretion to waive a fee it also has discretion to reduce that fee. Perfect. I won't scroll through and find all the places. That's good. All right. Do we have a name of this document? Proposed rule one. Okay. Before we do that, did we change the two to 10 employees? Yeah, we can take a look at that. I did do that. Oh sure. It's near the end of. So here is subsection B who it applies to. So we remove that tier two and three cultivator and just instead have all of these business entities with plans to hire two to 10 employees are subject to satisfying at least one criteria for each of those sections. And then I had put in here applicants that are not testing laboratories in order to clarify that that was carved out as you guys had discussed. Yeah. With this. So the additional requirements don't apply to. With the last provision that we looked at about reducing or waiving licensing requirements also apply. Yeah, I think now that we have that this is probably built-in suspenders. Yeah. So it's up to you. We could do one final edit very quickly and delete this. If you feel like the other one is sufficient to cover it or the final built-in suspenders, it's a good look. But yeah, it's fine. Do no other changes other than those? Great. All right. Entertain a motion to approve proposed rule one. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Very excited. Okay. Now, David, I forget your timeframe. What did you want to do rule two now or do you want to break for lunch and do rule two? This is entirely up to you guys. I'm fine either way. Ren? I am also fine either way. Nellie? No. Are you getting hungry? No. I could also, I mean like 20 minutes at least would be fine. Okay. Why don't we do, why don't we do 25 minutes? Come back at 12, 20. 120. And we're going to do public comment at that. At the end. Yeah. Sorry for the members of the public. We're running behind schedule. We will do public comment after we finish rule two. We're available to all candidates established. We just got a notification from some of that that we are muted and apparently unmuting us there. Didn't unmute those speakers. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. So sorry to everyone watching. We did not unmute both microphones here. So again, this is James Pepper chair the cannabis control board. We came back online about three minutes ago and Brynn is walking us through these rules. And so far you haven't said anything that's not consistent with what's written on the page. I have not. And we are just now getting into the actual regulations that are applicable to cannabis establishments after a brief review of the definition section. So this is similar language that you saw in rule one that all cannabis establishments have to abide by what's included in statute and all other applicable laws. Two to one, this is where we really get into the requirements of the operating procedures. So this requires cannabis establishments to maintain certain records, both on site and readily accessible and make them available for inspection by the board if requested. So the list is the employee list, facility security information, advertising records, inventory records, insurance records. Seed to sale tracking, visitor log, all records that are retained by the establishment for tax purpose, a waste log, surveillance log, testing records, including all certificates of analysis, sampling unit records, license application records, SOP manuals and corrective action and preventative action records if applicable. The next section is the insurance requirement. So this was referenced in rule one about what applicants are required to submit about the insurance that they're required to maintain. So this section sets forth the minimum levels of liability insurance coverage that applicants or that cannabis establishments have to maintain. Sub-B provides that if a cannabis establishment documents an inability to obtain these minimum liability coverages, they can place an escrow, no less than 250,000 or some other amounts that's approved by the board to be expended for coverage of liabilities. And then C just provides that any escrow account has to be replenished within 10 business days of the expenditure move from it. And cannabis establishments have to be prepared to demonstrate compliance with this subsection at any time with records on site and readily available. Do we know if the insurance like these amounts have been underwritten in other states? All right, miss that. Do we know if these amounts for insurance have been underwritten by organizations in other states? So the specific amounts were taken from Massachusetts. I don't know if they ever had a sliding scale or an ability to waive some of these requirements for smaller licensees, but I got these numbers from Massachusetts. So likely, yes, somewhere there's an underwriter. I think so. So the next section has to do with continuing disclosure and the background check requirements. So this language is provides that the board has a discretion to require that entities or persons that are named in the application in the rules governing the application have to be resubmitted if the board has reason to believe that any of that information that's changed since the time that the establishment was issued a license or a renewal of their license. And they can be subject to the same background checks and financial disclosures provided for in those sections. And again, just a note that that information may be shared with other state agencies remember that's BFR and some other specific state agencies. The next section is a requirement that Canvas establishments provides some procedures regarding health safety and sanitation. So they are required to develop safe and sanitary handling procedures for all products and regular training on health safety and sanitation. Ensure that employees follow those procedures that are in place. And then immediately report to the board any breaches in those procedures that may pose a risk to consumer safety. And also that they comply with all applicable health safety and sanitation rules which would include the occupational and safety and health administration rules, fire safety rules, building standards and occupancy rules and good manufacturing practices for food rule that's issued by the Department of Health. And a note here at the bottom that nothing about that subsection E assigns any responsibility for enforcement to those other agencies and the board retains full responsibility for enforcing the safety standards of Canvas establishments. Is that put in there so as not to jeopardize their federal funding? Is that the thinking there? That's exactly right. It's not to jeopardize other people's federal funding. Right. Does that put us in a bad position though? I mean, because we have to rely on those partners as well. But we're saying we're taking sole responsibility. I mean, I'm just saying if there's like negligence on this side of BOSHA or fire safety or something are we responsible for that negligence based upon that language? I wouldn't say so, but if you want to be more careful we could delete the second sentence of that short paragraph. I think that makes sense to me, but I don't know, I don't know what this rule does as far as... I don't think this rule can bind anybody else. The key thing here was to assuage some other agencies concerns that the federal government might look at these rules and say, well, hey, it says right there that people have to follow your rules. So doesn't that mean here? So just removing all concern for them, but I think it would be sufficient to do that with just the first sentence. And then the second one is more likely to come into play with your concern around us all of a sudden now being responsible in a way that we shouldn't be for somebody else's error. Yeah. Julie and Kyle, what do you feel about that? I would be comfortable removing the second sentence if that's... Yep. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right, yeah. I think taking that second sentence out makes me a little bit more comfortable. I kind of read it on its faces. This is an opportunity for power grab from other agencies to come in and try and tell these establishments what they cannot do from an enforcement perspective and that kind of... That will live with us or our designee, but I can understand how it could be taken in red other ways. Okay. Yep. So we'll move on to employment and training. So this section provides that any employee of an establishment or a person who works at a cannabis establishment has to complete an enforcement seminar once every three years. Within 60 days of hire and then annually thereafter, employees of cannabis establishment have to complete training on a variety of topics, which are listed below. And there's a specific provision here that if the employee is an employee of a retail establishment who is selling cannabis or cannabis product, they are required to complete the first eight of these trainings prior to being able to sell any cannabis or cannabis products that a retail establishment. So one through eight are training on the establishment's operating, security, health, safety, family, teachers, health effects of cannabis, compliance, enforcement, inspection, incident reporting, and record keeping, acceptable forms of identification for staff and visitors, inventory control and the appropriate tracking system, cash handling, preventing the sale of cannabis to minors, signs of overconsumption and signs of mental health or substance abuse disorder are the first eight. So those are all required prior to any employee selling cannabis or cannabis products. And then the remaining required trainings are on human trafficking and domestic violence, diversity, equity and inclusion, racism and bias, and sexual harassment and discrimination. That's the complete list of required training within 60 days of hire and then annually thereafter for all employees. So the next section deals with trafficking or tracking, tracking cannabis. So this directs cannabis establishments to comply with the inventory tracking system, which is that defined term we went through earlier in a way that's determined by the board and requires them to cooperate with any third party vendors that the board uses for tracking. And that tracking system will be readily available for the public and will not change, the system will not change without at least 90 days notice. So this sub-D provides the establishments that are responsible for the cost associated with complying with that tracking system. Sub-C provides all cannabis, cannabis products have to be tracked using the system from the time the cannabis is grown by a cultivator until it's sold to a consumer. And the establishment has to reconcile all on-premises and in transit cannabis inventories every month and must complete reconciliation within 15 days of the end of every month. So sub-D provides that if cannabis is not ultimately sold it has to be disposed of as provided later in this rule and that disposal has to be entered into the system. Sub-E provides that the establishment has to conduct comprehensive annual inventory audits. We're doubling up on the annual requirement here, we'll fix that. At least once every year from the date of the previous comprehensive inventory. Sub-SF provides that people using the inventory tracking system are responsible for all the accuracy of the information that's entered and ending the statements or emissions could be considered a license violation affecting public safety. And lastly, establishments must have the ability to reconcile transported and on-hand products inventory with the system and any associated transaction history and transportation order receipt. So next is the transportation section. So every establishment has to designate a cannabis license agent, which we went through the outset and register that agent with the board. Only agents are permitted to transport cannabis between licensed cannabis establishments. These agents have to carry their ID card issued by rule at all times while transporting. And transportation must take place in a vehicle provided that the board may waive this requirement as discretion. And when cannabis is transported in a vehicle, it must not be visible from outside the vehicle. Driver must not be able to access from the driver's seat and the vehicle must be unmarked. And vehicles used for transportation have to be registered currently and updated in their registration inspection and insurance. G is a provision that agents may only transport between cannabis establishment and the transporting establishment has to enter all of the products to be transported into the tracking system. And while transporting, the agents have to use GPS tracking technology that records their route. But this is a requirement that can be waived with the board's discretion. So Sub-J provides that before leaving an establishment, the agent has to generate a transport manifest that includes the following requirements listed there. Archer date, location, time, name of the destination establishment, location of the destination establishment, name and ID card of the agent, product name and quantities to be delivered, estimated time of arrival, transport vehicle information and a signature line and a time notation that's signed by the employee of the receiving establishment. Sub-K provides the agents have to transmit these manifests before departure to the receiving establishment and the receiving establishment has to log the time of the receipt of the products and upon receipt of the transport, the receiving establishment has to ensure that all the products received are as described in the manifest and adjust its record in the system to reflect the receipt of the products. There's any discrepancy the receiving agency has to specify them. On that one, I'm just saying of Siobhan's concern about there not being a timely update. Do we want to say, you know, we have no just prescription about when they need to update their inventory tracking system they're receiving. But if we put something like in the inventory tracking system or reflect the receipt of the, it says the same day. Oh yeah, all right, I did already. Yeah, all right, sorry, yeah. Yeah, I just, I thought it was a good one. Yeah, perfect, great, thanks. Okay, this sub-N provides the agents have to log time arrival and departure from any stops whether planned or unplanned. And these logs have to be maintained temporarily, have to give reason for the stops that aren't in the establishment. Oh, provides the agents have to stay with their vehicles to the extent possible, while transporting products. And where they have the option to stay with their vehicle, they must do that. And except for when the agents are entering or exiting the vehicle, the vehicle has to remain locked. P is no crossing state borders while transporting products. Q is stored in transportation has to be under conditions that will protect the product from loss and theft, as well as against any physical, chemical and microbial contamination and against deterioration of the product. R provides that anyone who's establishing over 20 pounds of cannabis has to be transported in a secure, locked storage compartment within the vehicle. S provides that agents have to report to the board any vehicle accidents, divergent losses or any other reportable incidents that happen during transport within 24 hours. And then lastly, if a cannabis has failed and a required testing or has been contaminated or in any way presents a cross-contamination risk to other cannabis, it can only be transported if it's physically segregated and contained in a sealed package that prevents that cross-contamination. Okay, moving on to waste disposal. So this provides that with all of the applicable state, federal, local regulations the ordinances apply to waste disposal from cannabis establishment. And that includes all regulations pertinent to chemical, dangerous, hazardous waste as well as pesticides, other agricultural chemicals. Cannabis has to be rendered unusable and unrecognizable before it's disposed of. And this is a list of the acceptable methods for rendering it unusable and unrecognizable. The board is gonna enumerate a policy that with a complete list of what methods are acceptable. And that list will be available to the public. And this list includes what may be on the list that's enumerated by policy. Or any organic material that either doesn't contain any THC or has a THC content of under 0.3% doesn't have to be rendered unusable and unrecognizable. It can be composted or disposed of in a way that's consistent with applicable law. And then just a reiteration that disposal has to be tracked within the tracking system. So moving on to packaging. The packaging requirements are as follows. Must be child resistant and opaque. Include the required warning symbols and labels as provided later in this rule. Must clearly identify the contents and the ingredients and the THC content. Must be in a resealable packaging that remains child resistant for multiple uses if multiple servings are contained in the package. Must be free from false or misleading statements and it must not use any objects or child friendly depictions of food or other consumables or any other display depiction or image that's designed in a manner likely to be appealing to buyers or anyone under 21 years of age. We've talked a little bit about the deli style packaging. Do we need in the first one in A to be specific about that's when it leaves the retail establishment or do we not need to do that now? So this section is like a generalized packaging requirements section and there are further individual packaging requirements sections that change the different license types where it's relevant which I realize isn't the maybe smooth this way to do it but it does reflect the statutes which had multiple requirements depending on license type. So when we get to retailing I think it makes sense. There's another section about packaging there and we can talk about that a bit more there that works for you. Okay and so the next section is the warning labels. These warning labels are exactly as they appear in the recommendations that the board voted on two weeks ago. So all marketing advertising, branding and promotion has to include this warning label which is was developed and approved by the subcommittee on public health. So I'm just so I'm clear in my head Department of Health has reviewed this like we were supposed to and they've signed off because they were, I think they have to independently report on the warning label potentially. That's right. They do and they were our advisory committee subcommittee that worked on this kind of representative of the Department of Public Health on it and they did approve of this label. We're accepting their recommendation that subcommittee essentially yes. And the same is true for the following warning symbols developed by the public health subcommittee with the Department of Health and accepted by the board. Same with this label about keeping out of reach of children and includes multiple servings. All of this is directly taken from the recommendations from the public health subcommittee and move on to advertising. So there are restrictions on advertising contained in statute and in addition to that these following restrictions also shall apply to kind of establishments. So establishments are prohibited from using any objects as described above in any depiction or image that's likely to be appealing to minors or anyone under 21 that includes brand logo development any advertising used for the purposes of marketing. Establishments are also prohibited from advertising or promoting in a manner that's false, untrue or misleading. And they're also prohibited from including in the advertising any statement concerning a brand or product that's inconsistent with any statement on the label. Websites for establishments have to have age gating and social media accounts for establishments may only promote products using link to their age gated website. And any images or other text regarding products is otherwise prohibited. So a company can show a picture of a product on its social media page. Correct. They can link to their website with BHU to show products. Next section, audience composition presumptions for advertising. So the board has to make some presumptions when it's determining whether or not opposed to advertisements meets the statutory requirements for advertising. So the board can consider that more than 15% of the audience will be under 21 and less the prospective advertiser can show by a preponderance of the evidence that less than 15% is reasonably expected to be under 21. And that evidence must include reliable, verifiable and current audience composition data. Board can also make the presumptions of the audience for any outdoor advertisement is the general public. And that those under 21 will have the same prep once that audience that they do in the general public. Unless the prospective advertiser could demonstrate that outdoor space will not be accessed by the general public. And that those who can access it meet that audience metric that's required in statute. And except for signage, window displays, text, items, objects inside a canvas establishment that are visible to a person outside will be considered outdoor advertisement for the purposes of this rule. All right, so I'll move on to visitors. So this is sort of a general statement that visitors are only permitted to a cannabis establishment to the extent that it's provided for in the rule. And if it makes, if the rule does not is silent on visitors at a certain type of cannabis establishment then they're not permitted. Provided that contractors, the companies by cannabis establishment employee have an ID card, board designees and cannabis license agents that are making deliveries are permitted to cannabis establishment. And that provision specifically doesn't apply to retail establishment. Can we go back? I'm sorry for a second. To the audience composition and see window displays are items. Is that, do we intend that to be any item like t-shirts? Yes. Yes. That's the word item. I just wanted to be sure. Cool. So if someone does have just so- What cannabis items necessarily? Someone has large storefront windows in downtown Main Street, Montpelier. What could they have in their windows or should they just have them all kind of with blocked off? I mean they could have, they can have the basic signage that's defined in the statute in that section. And it's going to be the case that they're not able to do that much more than that. If you give me one second, I can look back at, this depends on the definitions for advertising and I can look back at that in the statute and I'll have a better answer for you in a second. But I think the short answer is there won't, isn't that much that they'll be able to put in those windows. I think that's what my question is getting at. Like could you have clothing items in your window, t-shirts or something like that and then have the rest of your displays behind that so that it can't be seen by from the street but you don't necessarily have to black out your windows. I think partly the reason for the breadth of this as I understand the policy is that the t-shirt could have products that the retailer sells. And that would effectively be getting around that advertising prohibition if you did try to carve stuff out like that. So yes, it is a broad, people will be able to tell the world that they're there with the sign and not a whole lot else. But let me look back at the advertising definition maybe get you a slightly different answer or a better answer. It may not be that different than what I just said though. A lot of that reasoning comes from the statute not necessarily from the subcommittee or from us. Yeah, that's a good point. It's a very restrictive statute in terms of permissible advertising. Okay, so we can come back to that. Let me know when you're ready. In the meantime, I'll talk about visitors. Nope, I already talked about visitors. Talk about instructions. So establishments have to submit to inspections of their physical site and an inspection of their records if the board or the board doesn't be requested. The next section about inversion and diversion from the legal market provides that no establishment can purchase or obtain cannabis or any other cannabis product from an entity that's not licensed and except for retail establishment, no cannabis establishment can sell or transfer cannabis or cannabis product to any person other than a licensed establishment statute of course. Next section is about compliance and other jurisdictions. So this just provides that to the extent that the principle of a licensee or controller of a licensee also controls or is the principle of a licensed cannabis establishment or the equivalent of a cannabis establishment of different jurisdictions. That establishment must remain in compliance with all of the laws and regulations of this jurisdiction. Reporting theft, establishments have to report such theft or loss of product to the board immediately after they discover such theft or loss and enter that loss into the tracking system. We add by the end of the day or something immediately does that, is that sufficient? Or is, I mean, I'm fine with it immediately. Immediately is, I think, I think it's fine. Sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit undefined but I think, you know, somebody waited a couple of days that would clearly not be immediate. Thank you. Can we go back up for one second to, yeah, two, two, two, one, five. You know, I know that our advisory or our exploratory committee is looking at other license types, including Farmgate or direct to consumer sales. I know we have kind of one hand tied behind our back with statute, but just considering we might make a recommendation, do we want to keep this language in our proposed rules right now? Yeah, so I think it still works even with another license type. Rule one basically is designed to say any license type needs to meet the X number of regulations and then it does specify further ones for other license types, but it doesn't mean that another license type that has been invented yet or hasn't been allowed to exist by the legislature yet couldn't still be allowed to exist. And then the first portion of rule one would apply to that new license type. It just wouldn't have specific further requirements. So you thought about this and... Yeah, yeah, so I think, you know, it may be the case that you need to reopen rule one to provide specific requirements, but even if you didn't, it's written in a way that allows for those new license types to come into play through legislation and then the first part of rule one will apply to those new license types. The first part of rule one says any license that's been permitted to exist by the legislature language along those lines. So it accounts for potential new license types. And I think that pertains to this as well. Okay, just wanted to make sure we didn't completely box ourselves in with the direct to a consumer or if there is consumption lounges that, you know, depending on the scenario might also be selling some type of product. No, we haven't. And maybe, like I said, it may be the case that you want to add stuff to rule one to address those new license types, but those new license types won't be prevented from existing by this rule. It allows for flexibility in that time period before you have a chance to promulgate a change to rule one. Okay, thank you. Sorry to backtrack. Yeah, so real quick on the advertising thing, Julie, it's really gonna depend on the definition of advertisement and whether somebody thinks that they can squeeze something in here. It's gonna be tough, but maybe not impossible with some creative thinking. And so this advertisement means any written or verbal statement, illustration, or depiction that is calculated to induce the sales of cannabis or cannabis products. And then it goes on to a list of bunch of things that that might include. So somebody might be able to put something in a window that they could argue is not calculated to induce sales of cannabis or cannabis products. So they could still put up like Christmas decorations or holiday decorations. Exactly, something like that. That doesn't really have something directly to do with cannabis or cannabis products might be the case. I mean, if they did it while also hanging, cannabis leaves from it, that might be, now we might be in different territory. So it's gonna be a case by case analysis. But yeah, it's restrictive, but doesn't make it impossible to put something in the window if you want to. Okay. Thank you. So the next section is about co-location. And the board did take a look at some proposed language for co-location on Friday. There are some differences here, which we can go over now. So this provides that cannabis establishments can operate at the same location subject to these conditions. This does not apply to retail cannabis establishment. So any other type can operate the same location as long as the co-located operation isn't in violation of any local ordinances or regulations. So the book provides that each establishment that's operating at the same location has to comply with the following provisions. First, they have to have a distinct and identifiable space area or plot. Each license be operating in its own area. Each establishment has to post notice of its license in its distinct area, space or plot. And each one has to maintain all the business operations and compliance requirements and record keeping obligations that cannabis establishment would have to maintain. If it were operating in its own location and they all have to otherwise comply with the provisions of this rule and the relevant statute. Subsea provides that co-located establishments have to limit their total canopy size to the relevant tier six plant canopy limit provided that the board has discretion to waive that limit. Can someone remind me why we didn't apply it to retail establishments? Yeah, is this saying that if you have a retail establishment you can't also have like an indoor cultivation facility in the same general building? Or are you getting at you can't have a building where there's multiple retail establishments inside the same building? The second was the intention. And now that I'm looking at this I think we could be clear about that, so I'll work on. I'd imagine there's gonna be folks wanting to build their own vertically integrated. I'll work on clarifying that. Yeah. Or we take the final vote. Thank you. Okay. Was that your question? Well, I guess I was also thinking about multiple retailers in one location. Like if you had multiple small business retailers that wanted to open and use the same four walls should we permit that? Maybe we're not. Maybe we don't need to discuss that now. Like a like a like Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia or something like that? Yes. Haven't talked about that at this point at all. Yes. No, if I have. We don't. Strong feelings either way. To me now doesn't mean we have to discuss it either. So the part that changed about this is that last provision in subsea, which is we kept this at the either 25,000 for indoor slash 37,000 for outdoor. But we do have the ability to go above that limit at our discretion. I think, you know, we've talked quite a bit about the benefits of co-location for reducing barriers to entry for, you know, smaller cultivators that wouldn't otherwise have the capital or the lands to start their own cannabis establishment. And that this does provide an avenue for those folks. I think the, you know, the kind of one of the downsides that we talked about is, you know, by opening up that door, there's, we need to be careful not to allow certain entities. One, to kind of have kind of shadow control or indirect control over their tenants. And two, we don't want to create a situation where one entity is kind of too big to fail. You know, if you think about, like if you had five, 25,000 square foot operations in a single facility and something goes wrong there, there's contamination or there's something's going on. That's a big chunk of the market that would be impacted. So I think we all kind of want to encourage the first model and we kind of want to at least have some ability to retain discretion over the second model where, so I think this, at least in these early stages, because we are trying to start slow and we are trying to focus on small cultivators, this strikes that balance, which will essentially cap these facilities at 25,000 square feet indoor. And if for some reason, you know, we decide, well, this has been a real benefit to social equity applicants, the DEI applicants. Maybe we should allow this company to expand and create some more cultivation stalls or whatever we think that we could allow that on a case-by-case basis. Are you thinking we'd allow folks in their initial application that want to, depending on the types of services they might provide in their building and want to go over that at the onset from a discretion perspective, or are you thinking we might consider or hold that conversation or are you thinking we can make that determination somewhere further down the road? I mean, either. I feel like we could, in an initial application, consider exercising this discretion. But it would, to me, what I would need to see is a real commitment to social equity, essentially. I would need to see that, you know, the reason why we're going over the tier six is because we want to have 15,000 square foot or 25,000 square foot or 26 stalls. And, you know, 50% of them or 100% of them are set aside for social equity applicants and we're waiving rent in year one. You know, I think that there is ways where we might do it initially, but recognizing that, you know, we've been told to kind of start slow and, you know, it's in our ethos to really focus on social equity and small cultivators. And so, you know, I think I would have a hard time justifying co-locating, you know, 10, 25,000 square foot. Yeah, I don't want this industry to start looking like huge 100,000 square foot warehouses just circumventing our tiering structures that way. Is there somewhere in here, and I'm missing it, that what kind of ownership can the person who owns the building have in the other licenses that are there? So can they only charge rent or can they have some ownership over the business? So we have down in sub F and, David, maybe you just want to talk about that section. Yeah, so this section is trying to address the issue of co-located establishments that are effectively operating in defiance of the legislature's law, that you can't have multiple licenses under with a single ownership. And so that's what the first part of that says very directly, saying if you're operating in a manner that achieves that, the board can step in. And then more directly to what you just said around sort of ownership or something like that, the second part gets at that too, saying that nobody can exercise control over a cannabis establishment. And again, control is a defined term that talks about ownership and ownership stake. And that piece basically says, look, you can't do that either without also disclosing in rule 1.4. And that gives the board the insight to understand whether really it's a way of making sure that the first part of that sentence isn't being countered by a group of people who are trying to get around the multiple license. Even, and you know, some of this might not happen with an intentional attempt to get around, but effectively somebody is operating in that way. And that's not what the law allows and the board needs to have enough insight to be able to prevent that from happening or take disciplinary action if needs to. I see all the social equity benefits that you're talking about. Make sure we protect people from any sort of predatory. Yeah, sure, right. I think, yeah, I mean, again, not to keep bringing back Savan into this, but he did kind of bring up the point in his comments to us that, you know, if you're gonna go above a tier six or if you will, you know, you should really look at what the rental agreements are going to be and make sure that they're not tied to kind of the profitability of the underlying, they kind of sub-licensee, not sub-licensees, but the kind of the tenant's licensees because really then you could start seeing how well, I don't have an ownership in your company. I do extract, you know, 50% of your profits every month. So, you know, I do think that that's why we certainly want to maintain discretion for above 25,000. And this provision I think protects also the people below 25,000 at tier six. I'm comfortable with it, with the, with the adjustment that David's gonna make on the retail being allowed at the same location as other different license types. So thank you for view. Most of the parts you didn't, are D and E. The effect of these two is essentially that the security requirements that apply to these co-located establishments have to be essentially the most strict, security requirement that would be applicable to either the entire combined plant canopy if it's co-located cultivators, or whichever individual license type would have the most strict security measures if they're co-located. Do a couple typos in that as well. Fixing them right now. So easy to see on such a large screen. Okay. And then just a note that that co-location section doesn't apply to dispensaries, which are governed in a later section of this rule and by a rule three. So regulations applicable to cultivators, section three that provides users with the regulations that apply to cultivator licenses versus cultivators. So the section requires all cultivators to abide by the guidelines set forth by the agency of agriculture on Custiside. And establishments of the cultivator license have to report to the board at the time of their harvest regarding the use and quantity of Custiside for safety. Next section governs visitors to cultivation sites, provides visitors have to be escorted at all times by employees, as an ID card. Visitors may not consume cannabis on site, may not purchase cannabis on site. Must be over the age of 21. And the establishment is responsible for ensuring that those age limits are complied with. Establishments have to issue an ID badge to all visitors, except for tier one cultivation licensees. They don't have to issue an ID badge to a visitor. But those that do have to issue a badge, badge has to have a design approved by the board, be visibly displayed while the visitor's on site and be returned upon exit. Visitors have to be logged in with the time of their entry and exit. And that log has to be made available to the board on request. And they have to be retained for calendar year. Safety protocol must be established by the, by the licensee before allowing visitors. And that protocol has to be on record with the board. And then a final note that board doesn't use or not considered visitors for the purposes of this rule. Moving on to testing requirements. So cultivators have to have their products tested in accordance with these rules and in accordance with the guidance that the board establishes to enumerate the rule. Testing for potency of a crop has to take place within three weeks of harvest, preceding harvest. And all of other testing has to occur in accordance with the relevant sections of the rule and policy. And test results have to be saved for no less than one year. Next section deals with adulterated cannabis. So subsection A is a reference to the rule four which the board hasn't reviewed yet. Sub B provides that the cannabis is adulterated due to willful or intentional misuse of pesticide. The cannabis has to be destroyed in accordance with the destruction portion of the rule and reported to the board by the cultivator of the testing lab. If the testing lab is where the adulteration is discovered. If the cannabis is adulterated due to no fault of the license holder, they can attempt to remediate if that can be done safely. And then a note that adulteration without fault can occur due to atmospheric drift or a similar natural phenomenon. And then we've got some finer detail here about remediation. It may include refinement into a manufactured product and any remediated product needs to be retested, subsequent to remediation. And if an adulteration poses a public health threat, subsequent to the remediation, it will, the product has to be destroyed in accordance with the rule. Moving on to cultivator specific packaging requirements. When a cultivator sells cannabis to any other licensee, other than a retail license, packaging has to include all the requirements that forth the statute and all the baseline packaging requirements that we just went through and the testing results, which can be conveyed with a QR code or another means that makes it available on a website. And here in sub B are the requirements for when, cultivator sells to a retailer, packaging again has to include all those statutory requirements, baseline packaging requirements, the testing results, which can be conveyed with a web address or QR code. Okay, moving on to cultivator inspections. This provides that the board can conduct annual inspections, which may or may not be noticed to ensure compliance with the rule and the statute. Inspections can include taking samples, taking photos or video, talking to employees or owners, inspecting the records for equipment or vehicles, and taking any other reasonable measure to evaluate compliance. Do we want to commit to annual inspections, just given that we don't know what our staff is going to look like? I didn't do a lot without helping. I just, that's a, it's kind of a shall. Instead of may or wait. Yeah, I mean, it's a will conduct, which essentially is a shall. So I feel like the first year of inspections is probably a learning curve forever. Probably an important learning curve, right? I don't know if you'll need annual inspections in five years, but I feel like for the first three years, probably do until work, you know, that doesn't answer your staffing question. So period's a problem, but I think, I mean, if the question is whether we can do what's contained in the entire rule without knowing our staff, I don't feel like this is the one straw that's going to break the camel's back. With that said, I think there's no reason why you shouldn't change it today, unless you want to ensure that a future board will. I mean, you could just cut out the will conduct inspection. You cut out that at least annually. We will conduct it. We shall conduct inspections. I just don't know if we're gonna be able to do it annually. I would want to, of course. So then it should be May, right? I think if you just cut out at least annually, then I think it conveys that we will be conducting inspections. It just might not be every year. I'd be okay with that, I think. I mean, my intention would be to conduct them annually. I just want to kind of at least not have to revisit this if annual inspections are just not feasible. I think that's fine. That's a decision. You could do it. We're just not committing to doing annual inspections, which I think we probably will do just to be clear. Just make sure you say that. Yeah. We hope to do so. I'm gonna move on. Next section deals with sanitation. So cultivate, this is specific to cultivators. They have to ensure that anyone working at a cultivation site with an illness or injury doesn't become a source of microbial contamination to a crop that waste is properly removed. So it doesn't become a source of microbial contamination and that cultivators have to ensure sufficient sanitation to minimize attracting pests. Cultivation and operations information is the next section. So this is information that has to be submitted to the board within 60 days of getting a license. Cultivation schedule, grow medium, any mixed light cultivation plan and schedule, irrigation plan, schedule, waste management, pest management and a plan to secure regulated products such as pesticides. Getting into sampling. So these are samples applicable to vendors and employees. So any samples that are given by a cultivator have to meet these requirements. So first cultivators may provide a sample of flower to a different license site both failure manufacturer or retailer. As long as those samples are not consumed on any like premises and are tested in accordance with the rule. Samples have to be limited to the following aggregate amount in a calendar month. Four grams per strain of flower per vendor and no more than seven strains of flower per vendor. Works out to about an ounce. So an ounce a month is the limit. Bender samples have to be labeled. Samples have to be designated and identified in the tracking system. Sub-B applies or the requirements that apply to employee samples. So the rule also allows for cultivators to give samples to employees to determine whether to make a product available to sell. Again, with the restriction that they can't be consumed on a licensed premises. Again, we have this aggregate limit in a month, four grams per strain per employee no more than seven strains of flower per employee about an ounce a month. And then employee samples have to be labeled quality control sample not for resale. And then again, samples for employees have to be designated and identified in the tracking system. They keep cruising unless somebody stops me. So section four is the regulations that are applicable to those outdoor cultivators and mixed use cultivators. So security management practices is the first subsection. So security management practices applicable to these license types include the following. Fencing, video surveillance, alarm system, photographic surveillance, motion activated flood lights which may face away from the plant canopy. Security services may or may not include physical presence of a guard, motion sensor trail cameras and control point of access. So on this one, I thought that we had decided that the motion activated trail cameras could be a subset of video surveillance system. So we didn't need that as a separate one. And then I also thought, I don't see the real difference between fencing and control point of access and may I'm just forgetting something? That may become clear when we go through the other sections that have to do with the viewing from the public road because there are provisions that, if there's restricted site view from a public road is not sufficient. So yeah, on the first one, that may be entirely right. We can delete if you feel like that is repetitive, may have dismissed that edit app with a slide presentation. And yeah, control point of access, I think we can return to it, but in carried to get speaking from the hemp sort of regulation standpoint did, I asked that exact same question, I wonder what it meant. And he was basically saying that I would boil it down to like natural geography creates barriers that are as difficult as a fence to get across. And if that's the case, and there's one or maybe two points of access outside of those and those have a gate that should be sufficient. That's the basic explanation that I doubt. That you have like a swing in the island. Sure. Or like a swinging gate fence at the long, at the end of a long dirt road where nobody else really has access to that piece of property. Okay. As long as there's some distinction there, I'm fine with it. That explicitly means, but I think it was unique enough to kind of warrant keeping it as a separate distinct best management practice from a fence. Yeah. Okay. So moving on to the standards for those outdoor security management practices. Just sorry for the like clerical, but do you need, which do you need the may or may not? Couldn't it just be may include just as a stylistic point? Are we looking under security services which may or may not include? Oh, yeah, yeah, we can definitely. And sorry, the decision point is to delete motion sensor trail cameras and assume it's under video surveillance. Right. Or the photographic surveillance, one or the other. I think it's captured in there. I just don't think it should be a standalone. I think the point, the only drawback to that is because we're using like a tiered system of management practices, the more we consolidate them, the more we're de facto getting away from giving folks different options to actually facilitate what they're doing. And I get that they're pretty similar, but if we go through this and it's like the higher up in tier you get, you need to start doing more. The lower tiers will have to start doing more because there's less distinct options. You know what I mean? Yeah. I mean, my thinking on this is just, someone puts up a single motion sensor trail camera and they think that they've satisfied this. I just feel like that's a little bit, you know. You'll be approving that, sorry to interrupt, right? Who would approve that plan? I think that you could say my video surveillance is this motion sensor trail camera. I think, and then we could approve it that way. I just, there are standards for video and electronic, video photographic surveillance coming up in the next section that may. Okay, why don't we look at those and verify some of this or may or may not. I'm getting punchy now. Then, yeah, section is the standard. So fencing has to be sufficient to prevent unauthorized entry to the cultivation areas. Electronic security has to be operating for no less than three weeks prior to a harvest, as well as while drying, curing or storing. And the video and photographic surveillance equipment has to retain footage for 30 days through date and time stamps, be capable of producing usable images and the lighting conditions where it's placed, and be placed in a way that allows for clear and certain identification of what's happening in the immediate vicinity of the cannabis product and be exportable and transferable to standard computing equipment and have a specific threshold for resolution. So here's, I think we're gonna hopefully get some clarity, the minimum outdoor security management practices. So outdoor cultivators have to abide by these management practices unless they apply to the board for a variance from the fencing requirements. And that's where the board of the authority to grant a waiver on that fencing requirement on a case-by-case basis. So tier one outdoor cultivators and mixed use cultivators have to utilize at least one of the outdoor security management practices that we just described. Tier two have to use at least two. And on tier three has to use at least three. And one of them has to be fencing. So one of them must be fencing for tier two, three, four, and five. And six, because tier six has to use all of them. Can we go back to the motion center check? So I wonder if it's better to include that in the guidance of what's acceptable? That's what I would do. I mean, it just seems if you're choosing to, I would choose video surveillance system and motion sensor trail camera and say that they're the same thing. Because I think Kyle's right that we wanna provide lots of options, but we might find that those options are not sufficient or we might find that there are other options. No, I get that. I think motion sensor trail cameras can run the gamut of how isolated they are, how effective and efficient they are. So if we're gonna get prescriptive on video surveillance requirements, we may need to, and it's just not all of those. What am I trying to say? A trail camera, if it's included in the video surveillance system, I don't know enough about trail camera the technology since I'm familiar with them when my dad was using them at our farm when I was younger. Will they meet that kind of criteria laid out in the video surveillance or are we kind of mooting them out because they might not satisfy some of those? I didn't see anything in there. I mean, they have to be 1080p. I think that's, that might be, but I would imagine most of them are high def these days anyway. You can alert your phone when there's motion. Okay, I'm not gonna. I mean, those are the nicer ones, but. I did do a little research on that definition resolution issue that I was writing these up. It does look like 1080p and I'm sure we'll get feedback on this and I may stand corrected, but it does look like 1080p at this point is just industry standard, even for like pretty low level commercial residential type of cameras. So, you know, well, that I think has that basis but we can also hear from people if I feel. My ring camera on my front door technically be a. I think so. Is that your trail camera? I think it would be. Or it would be a video surveillance system. Okay, you, you went, you went this way. Okay, I'm gonna move on to visibility from a public road. So, if cross is visible from a public road and that public road is defined in statute, there must be a physical barrier of concealment that's created so that the crop is not visible. So that could include fencing, hedges or building structures. And then two, four or five provides that the board has a discretion to require some additional security measures either accurate and specs a licensee and decides that there are security risks or that the crop is visible from the roadway. Or if the establishment experiences more than one incident of theft in a one year period, the board can require additional security practices. Yeah. You know, again, I think this outdoor security idea that we've created is new and not really existing in any other jurisdiction and very confident and hopeful that it'll work out as intended, but this provision I think helps in case things are not going as we hope to kind of make ensure that outdoor cultivate cultivation facilities are kind of rechecked by us if they are experiencing issues. Okay. So security for drying, curing and storage for outdoor cultivators has to meet the requirements for security for indoor and mixed use cultivators which we're gonna get to in the next section. And then the last subsection here provides that outdoor cultivators may move their plants inside for the winter months when outdoor cultivation is not possible, specifically mother plants, plant seeds and clones that are in propagation for vegetation phase development and just a requirement that these licensees may not cultivate campus indoors. They just may move these non flowering types of plants inside. Okay. Section five is getting into the regulations that apply to indoor and mixed cultivators. So first up is security requirements, locking perimeter doors and windows only individuals with ID cards granted entry. And they must have, and they may have keys or a key equivalent. The requirements that all perimeter doors and windows have operational security alarms except for tier one and next tier cultivators aren't required to have those security alarms unless the board specifically requires it which they may do on case by case basis. And lastly, that video surveillance with continuous monitoring of any space that contains cannabis, either growing or harvested or cannabis products that's required. And that surveillance has to meet the standards that they're just discussing that out previous section. And the security for drying, curing and storage has to be the same as these requirements here. Moving on to energy standards. So Vermont commercial building energy standards apply to indoor cultivation facilities in that the building envelope has to meet the standard for insulation. Non-cultivation lighting must meet the standard for new buildings and retrofits. Ventilation system must meet the standard and the HVAC system has to meet the standard for efficiency except the HVAC equipment that's used for cultivation does not need economizers and heat for capture. Greenhouses have to meet the standard for HVAC equipment efficiency except that again the equipment used for cultivation doesn't meet the economizers and heat for capture. And lastly, the fans and clean water pumps that indoor facilities have to comply with the most recent energy efficiency standards that are adopted by the federal department of energy. Energy standards for lighting. They have to have a minimum of 1.9 photosynthetic goton efficacy and lighting for greenhouses. The requirements are that the envelope has to have a minimum youth factor of 0.7. And if the greenhouse uses lighting fixtures to supplement the sun, that cultivation lighting has to have a minimum of 1.7 PPC. But if a greenhouse has total connected lighting load of less than 40 kilowatts, it's exempt from those lighting requirements. And again, a lot of this was designed to ensure that organizations like efficiency Vermont can help folks with meeting this depending on what they want to do and going above and beyond what we're requiring. Okay, so moving on to dehumidification standards. Any one of these dehumidification systems must be used for end-to-art cultivators, either standalone dehumidifier that meets these energy factors, enumerated in subsection one or two. Integrated HVAC system with on-site heat recovery. Designed to fulfill at least 75% of the annual energy for dehumidification for heat. Chilled water system. Again, with that on-site heat recovery. Solid or liquid, desiccant dehumidification system. Four system designs that require a dew point of 50 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Okay, I'm gonna move on to the reporting requirements and reduction efforts. So this section requires license holders to report their efficiency and water performance benchmarks to the board annually as a part of their license renewal. Licensees have to annually update and submit to the board all of its SOPs regarding equipment maintenance, calibration, and operation for all of its major energy equipment. Also, license holders have to annually assess and report to the board on opportunities to reduce their energy and water usage, which should include identification of potential energy use reduction opportunities, plan for implementing those opportunities, consideration of opportunities for renewable energy generation, strategies to reduce the electric demand, and engagement with energy efficiency programs that are offered around the state. Okay, I'm gonna move on to the out of cultivators and into manufacturers. So safety requirements for manufacturers, they have to the building and safety code, fire and building safety code regulations as adopted by the Department of Public Safety apply to all manufacturing operations. Manufacturers have to meet all the security requirements that we just went through in 2.51, which is the indoor security requirements and mixed use. Manufacturers have to have their products tested in accordance with rules, and the test results have to be saved for no less than a year. And then the packaging requirements that apply to manufacturers, all of those statutory packaging requirements, and the packaging requirements contained in 2.28 of this rule. The packaging for consumable cannabis has to include the number of servings in the package and serving size, provided that those servings have to be easy for a consumer to measure, either by clear and visible indentation on the product or physical separation of each serving. And they also have to include a warning that the impairment effect of the cannabis product may be delayed by two hours or more. Packaging requirements for non-consumable cannabis have to include the ingredients that were used in production, common irritants warning, and then a notice that the product is not proof onto additives. So these are prohibited additives for cannabis product, any chemicals other than those allowed in the processing of product, any psychoactive compounds other than those that are naturally occurring in the campus, any artificial sweeteners or flavor, but provided that this only applies to oil cannabis products and cannabis flower addibles. So moving on to records that manufacturers have to maintain. So they have to maintain on-site readily accessible all records of purchases from any manufacturer or supplier. And again, they have to be provided to the board on request. They have to maintain records of the name and business address of the manufacturer, of any cartridge or battery, atomizer, coil, hardware, device, any other component that's used in vaporized products. And they also have to maintain a copy of the COA for each thickening agent, or terpene to use in production. And those certificates have to be provided to the board upon request or to a retailer. I'm gonna move on to vendor samples for manufacturers. So this section provides that manufacturers can give cannabis product samples to a wholesaler or retailer. Again, with the prohibition on-site consumption, samples have to be tested in accordance with rule. And then the samples are limited to the following aggregate amounts in a calendar month, five grams of concentrate or extract, or 100 servings of edibles per vendor, as long as that THC content of each individual edible sample does not exceed five milligrams per serving, as falls within any applicable statutory and regulatory efficiency levels. Requirement of vendor samples be labeled and be designated and identified in the tracking system. So employee samples, manufacturers may provide samples to employees to determine whether to make a product available to sell. Limited in the same aggregate amounts, five grams of concentrate or 100 servings of five milligram THC edibles per employee have to be labeled and designated and identified in the tracking system. Keep going. There's a penalty in rule one for employees that are turning around and selling these, diverting them. Right. Well, there's your ability to get an employee card. Yeah. So section seven, now we're moving into the regulation that applies to the wholesalers. So wholesaler security requirements are all of those requirements that we went through for the indoor cultivators and then any manufactured product, but not flower has to be kept in a locked space. It's bolted to the ground. The next section provides some clarity about the word process as it applies to wholesalers. So if you remember the statute allows wholesalers to process cannabis. So we've added some clarification here that the act of packaging or wrapping cannabis flower in any manner that it can be transported or consumed is what process means with respect to wholesalers. Doesn't mean transforming cannabis flower into another substance through manufacturing. The packaging requirements are the same packaging requirements for product manufacturers. And they would have to follow the same transportation security rules. Yeah, that's in the section that's applicable to all cannabis establishment. Are they allowed to, are they allowed to brand a wholesaler? And I think both the statute and our rules are silent on that. I mean, they obviously have to follow the rules around advertising and labeling that are everybody. But yeah, I don't think we've said anything. I don't think the statute is saying anything about that. Changing of like white labeling and stuff like that. Is that what you're... Yeah, just for wholesaler, just wanted to purchase a bunch of cannabis, put it from the operator, put their own brand on it and then sell it to a product retailer. So I misspoke just now the packaging requirements that apply to wholesalers are the same packaging requirements for retailers. Okay, with that, I'm gonna move on to the retail regulation. So the first is the buffer zone requirement. So we have modified this language based on the meeting, the last board meeting on Friday. So retail cannabis establishments shall not be located as a place where the sale of a regulated drug will constitute a violation of Vermont statute. David, I'm gonna ask you to jump in here for my name about the statute. So this is the drug free school zone statute. And it basically says that the sale of a regulated drug is unlawful within a certain proximity of schools, school properties, it's got a couple elements, like the property has to be adjacent to a school and it also has to be within 500 feet of the school property line. So this is basically saying if you're in a place where the sale of a regulated drug would be a violation, it's not saying let's be clear that the sale of this is the same as the sale of a regulated drug. It's just saying that if you're in a place where the sale of a regulated drug would be a violation of those distance requirements that are in the drug free schools on act, then you're in violation of our rules. You can't be in a place that would constitute a violation of that. Do you recall if it defines school? It does have defined terms in that statute. And I'm just relying on the rest of that statute for its further definition. So this is, I mean, I should just not even ask this stupid question. But obviously the drug free school zone was not contemplating retail sales of cannabis. So is it where you're actually, is it actually the cash register where the sale is actually happening that needs to be 500 feet away? Or is it the kind of property line, like the parking lot around the retail establishment? I mean, I would say that. Sorry, I know that's a dumb question. I mean. There's something about a budding. I think that I would say like the inside of the retail. Okay. Would be like the place of sale, because people are looking at stuff, deciding what they're gonna buy and then buying. And those are all processes that are part of the sale. I think as long as the, I would say that, you know, from the edge of the building. The sort of inside of the retail store is what counts as the place of sale for figuring out the distance. Okay. We can just be clear about that in our guidance. Sorry, David. Good question. While we're talking about stuff related to this, you know, drug free school zone still contemplates cannabis as an illicit drug. And now it's legal from a state perspective and it's not within our bounds to amend that statute. But for purposes of it right now, this is what we've got. Yeah. It was included as a part of 164. Yeah. Okay. I think was the amendment that was made to 18VSA, not 4237, but some other piece of that. And this is designed so that if somebody, if down the road that were to change the regular drug definition or the change, this would still buy. So, yeah. And it's just schools. It doesn't say libraries, churches, community centers. That's right. Are we ready to move on to retail security? Yes. I think so. So this is requirements for the retailers. They have to meet all those requirements that apply to the indoor cultivators along with these additional requirements. So alarm systems that must be installed by an alarm installation company with expertise and industry standard, commercial grade alarms. Video surveillance has to include the point of sale area, entrances, exits, and any area where a product is stored or handled. Strict access controls to areas where a product is stored or handled have to be maintained. Video footage has to be kept for at least 90 days. Employees have to wear ID badges that clearly identify them as employees while they're working. And then upon request, retailers have to make available to the board all information that's related to their security system, monitoring, alarm activity, maps, camera locations, any surveillance equipment, including the maintenance fraud, authorized user list, operation instructions, anything else that's relevant. The number of customers that retailers have to maintain the number of customers in a retail area at any given time. They can't be more than who are easily monitored by the employees that are present in the retail area. And then lastly, the security requirements that apply in statute to the extent they're not already covered by the rules. So next is age verification procedures for retailers. So a person who's been issued an employee ID card has to inspect a visitor's group of identification and determine the visitor's age. As soon as a visitor enters a retail shop. So that age check has to take place in the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the retail premises. And for the purposes of this rule, acceptable form of identification means the photo ID, this issued by the government and it has to be a current valid ID. Subsea provides that no one should be admitted unless the retailer has verified that the visitor has an acceptable form of ID that matches the actual visitor that the visitor is 21 or older. Then there's another check that's required card completing a transaction for products. An employee, essentially an individual who's been issued an ID card as an employee has to inspect the visitor's proof of ID and determine the visitor's age before they could check that personnel. Retailer may not acquire or record any personal information of visitors other than that, which is typically required by any other retail transaction, which can include information that determines the visitor's age. Retailer can't record or retain any additional personal information without the visitor's permission. And lastly, retailers must refuse to sell to any visitors who vet visitor who's unable to produce valid proof of their age using an acceptable form of identification as defined for the rule. Okay, moving on to packaging. So retailers have to abide by these packaging requirements. They have to meet all the requirements that statute all the requirements that are contained and I think this is the wholesaler portion of the rule. That's the general package. Okay, general portion of the packaging requirements. And manufactured cannabis products have to meet the requirements contained in section 262. That is the wholesaler's portion. I think that's a new factor of portion because, yeah, manufactured. And then packaging has to have information regarding the chain of custody of the product, but it can provide that information through a QR code or some similar method. And then finally, packaging that's gonna exit the store with the customer has to be sealed or stapled closed. So moving on to the standard operating procedures for retailers, these are the things that they have to maintain on site and readily accessible to the board upon request. All security measures, employee security policies, description of the hours of operation and after hours contact information, plan for storage of inventory, procedures to ensure that record keeping is accurate, quality control plan, emergency procedures in case of emergency, how confidential information is maintained and a policy for immediate dismissal of an employee who is a diverted cannabis or engaged in an unsafe practice. Retailers can accept vendor samples as provided in earlier portions of this rule, but they are prohibited from offering such samples for sale. And accepting those samples has to be logged in the inventory track. And then here is where the board landed on the deli style conversation. The retailers may provide samples of cannabis in an exposed container for viewing or smelling by visitors that those samples can't be touched or sold to the visitors and their use in disposal has to be tracked. Yeah, you know, I know that we were hoping for a little bit more of that traditional deli style, but I think some of the repackaging language in the statute kind of prevented us from going as far as we had hoped for, or at least I had hoped for, but. But the samples may not be touched by visitors means that they could be held in tongs, right? Or they could, I think, or does it? Well, in closed containers. So I mean, you could have like a little glass cube that you allow somebody to look and examine it without actually touching the specific butt itself. It's just, you can't open a big jar and say I want that butt. Because yeah, we just couldn't figure out a good way to not be in violation of the statute that says retailers can't repackage. So this allows, from my perspective, retailers to open something and use that as a sample and use that same harvest lot or whatever, or process lot for other products to still sell, that's in essence same product to somebody that's sampling it. Am I right there, Brynne? Does this also allow for someone to open and reseal a package? So I was just thinking about that in enclosed containers. I don't think the word enclosed would prohibit the container from being opened, but we may want to get more specific there that the container could be open for smelling or serving. I mean, I think, yeah, enclosed container, the intention there was also to allow for a container that has like holes in it that you could smell something through. Just the key thing is that visitors, or I should really say, I guess really consumers, shouldn't be able to touch the actual cannabis itself, but otherwise, I think touching the container and so on and so forth is fine, although we may want to clarify that it also can't be given to consumers. So I may add in a little bit of language around there, but yeah, I think the basic idea you're envisioning is intended to be captured by this. And again, this might be an area for some guidance to be clear on what we need. So next is the safety information flyer. So retailers are required to display this flyer that's required by statute at the point of purchase. And the board is going to make the flyer readily available to the public and to retail establishments for their use. The board can update the flyer at any time. We'll provide notice when it makes an update. So moving on to regulations that apply to testing labs, cultivators and manufacturers. So these requirements apply to establishments of the testing lab license as well as cultivators and manufacturers who have their product tested at those testing labs and of course making a rule. So this portion of the rule incorporates everything that the board looked at last week with respect to the testing requirements. So the chart that describes those requirements that labs have to be prepared to administer and the standard operating procedures for sampling that establishments must follow. So top row describes the test, the last column describes the substance to be tested and the boxes in the chart describe the relevant sampling standards. Then we've got notes below. Rule two. So note one is the harvest lot testing is sufficient to show up in plan. Note two is the trim flower or concentrate testing is sufficient. And note three is residual solvents are tested whenever the product use solvent-based extraction. Four is the certified labs COA demonstrates that the product meets the acceptable level of co-complete for the processors formulation demonstrates compliance with the acceptance of the level of the sufficient level of co-complete. And then note five is testing for heavy metals is required whenever the crop land was used for orchard crops or any land use other than farming defined in the prior to agricultural practice school. Unless a recent soil test demonstrates that heavy metals are within authorized action limits. Note six is no testing for pesticides is required if the crop is certified by a third party to be pesticide free. And note seven is that testing for other contaminants is necessary when agency of natural resources has approved biosolid applications to crop land. So an explanation, a little explanation of these notes within the chart. So potency parameters, so Delta nine THC and other cannabinoids must be within 10% of the label value. And labs have to use the following formulation assessing potency. THCA is the precursor of Delta nine THC. The lab determination of potency will be determined by the total theoretical THC, which is the maximum amount of possible THC in a cannabis crop. If total conversion from THCA to THC were to occur. Calculated amount of total theoretical THC is determined by the sum of the concentration of Delta nine THC added to the amount of THCA after it's multiplied by 28.7 on a driveway basis supported to choose the different figures. And here's an mathematical equation to express that calculation. Brian, can we go back up to this table really quick? I have an edit for us to make something that was an overlook from the hemp program that we did not update in our table, but it's reflected in our six buckets down below. So on microbiological, mycotoxins, total aerobic, microbial, total combined yeast and mold. We're not gonna go with combined total yeast and mold. It should be just human pathogens and that'll cover our bacteria and fungus. So just total combined yeast and mold needs to be taken out. And that was in its place with human pathogens. Yes. I was just confirming that with Carrie right now. The reaction limits for moisture parameters are less than or equal to 13 cents for moisture content. Water activity is 0.65. Microbiological parameters. We've set out the human pathogens that are measured and the guidance that is issued by the board on these limits won't be altered without at least 90 days of production, both licensees and metal parameters. So these are the list of metals that will be measured. And the limits, action limits on these metals will be issued in guidance. And again, board won't amend that guidance without providing 90 days to test the size. So as indicated earlier in the rule, cultivators are gonna be required to abide by the test standard set by the agency of agriculture. The visual solvents are going to be measured and limits set in accordance with guidelines that are issued by the board. When a laboratory wants to gain a certification for a new test, it has to submit to the board the method validation summaries for that test. Laboratories have to provide to the board full access to all testing records when requested by the board. And the board retains the discretion to change or add any testing parameters, required pathogens or any other substances to the required testing school. So I'm gonna move on to regulations that apply to the integrated licenses. So again, there are all of the regulations that are required to the other license types that apply to integrated license pool groups. And then a note that to the dispensaries and the medical cannabis registry aren't regulated by the rule, they're rather they'll be regulated by rule three and by the relevant chapters of title seven. We'll move to co-located operation. This provides the integrated licenses can co-mingle their cannabis cultivation for adult use sales with cultivation for dispensaries. And sub-D provides that after that cultivation is complete and the crop is harvested, the licensee has to separate the products. It's gonna be sold through a retailer and the cannabis that will be sold through a dispensary to register patients. And that separation extends to all cannabis products that are derived from the cannabis and documented in the tracking system. So integrated licensees may co-locate operations from different license types in the same location, but they have to maintain all the relevant security requirements for each license type and maintaining all of the tracking requirements. Sub-D provides that dispensaries can be co-located with retail establishments, as long as the integrated license, licensees have a system to ensure that staff give priority of service, which will include priority of interest sales to dispensary patients before adult use. And that shall include curbside sale if requested for dispensary patients. And also strict protocols have to be placed to make sure that medical products for patients are not sold to adult use. Related to that is the next section, but integrated licenses have to ensure that they're a dispensary, maintain a continuity of services to registered patients. And if an integrated licensee does co-neval their cultivation pursuant to that previous section, continuity of services will include designating sufficient biomass at a cultivation facility to meet demand for the product by patients, as indicated by the sales data for the preceding two months. And those records have to be provided to the board or visiting the request. So the next section provides the dispensary operations and transfer cannabis and cannabis products to integrated licensees. Subjects of section eight of Act 162, but subject to the conditions that are included in this section. It should be Act 164. Yep. I like that. Good catch, Kyle. So starting on the date that a retail establishment that are not part of an integrated license can begin sales, the tiered plant canopy limits that are set out in rule one that apply to all cultivator licenses will apply to the cultivation portion of an integrated license, except for cultivations that's dedicated to medical cannabis sold to registrations through expensory. And other than cultivation for a dispensary that cultivator portions of integrated licenses will be deemed to be the largest cultivation tier that the board has opened for application for selling to rule one. And will be subject to the plant canopy limit for that tier. Can I ask a clarifying question about, so a medical license and an integrated license will be two separate licenses, right? Is there anywhere else that we would allow a transfer between licenses without purchase like this? So I guess I'm thinking of like a co-op. I mean, yes, I think so. If you're a vertically integrated, non-integrated license holder, you would be transferring between your license types. But what if you create a co-op of multiple businesses and part of that is transferring product? I think that would be a transfer as well, yeah. So in this language, just so I'm clear and I know we've belabored this point at many different meetings, what's the total? This is saying that the total amount that you can transfer from your medical side to your adult use side is the highest tier that we have open at one time without our express approval to transfer more than that. That's the intention and that's the intention of this. I think that I think this achieves it. Yeah, I mean, basically, well, we're gonna actually want to just keep it into the end of this and that might help answer questions. Yeah. And we'll discuss the whole vector. Sure. So C provides that if they're not gonna co-mingle their dispensary and adult use cultivation, then the dispensary grow is governed by rule three, which will be the medical rule and the adult use grow will be subject to this rule too. And if they do choose to co-mingle, cultivation will be subject to the requirements here and rule two, except for that total biomass that is required to meet the demand for those medical patients that's, you know, indicated by the sales data that's gonna be collected, won't be counted towards the total for physical square footage. So if that satisfied for medical products is ultimately not needed, then it may not be transferred to adult use. So it's dependent on what your sales data indicates. So to try to put this in plainer English, I don't know if I'm gonna succeed. The, there's sort of two phases here. The first phase is the phase that will occur before general retail establishments are open to the public. And right now in statute, that's October 1st of 2022. During that period, there's essentially, you know, dispensaries can transition whatever they want because we're, there's no other competing place to purchase for a consumer in Vermont. You're gonna have to go through the dispensaries, now integrated license type, that's the only option. After October 1st, when we have a full market, hopefully with other retailers selling and other cultivators being able to sell to those other retailers, there's gonna be a different regime, which is basically that the integrated licensees get to, or their cultivation tier of that integrated license gets to operate at the total plant canopy of the highest tier that the board has opened. But they also get to grow whatever they need to grow to meet the demands of their dispensary operation. And that amount, whatever that is, it'll be measured by the total biomass needed for the prior, whatever it was, three months that is in there. That amount does not count towards that total plant canopy. So they basically, for their regular commercial adult use sales, they have the same cultivation limits that every other cultivator has. But they also get another chunk that's necessary, whatever's necessary to meet their dispensary demands that doesn't count towards that total square footage. So it's an attempt to put them in the same, they're adult use operations in the same position that every other licensee is in without cutting in on their ability to service their medical patients. Is this obligate them to share with us details about their sales? I mean, how would we know, right? What three months of their sales is, if they're not obligated, we didn't have to share that with us. Yeah, I mean, we can make that more clear. I think that the general, my thought had been that the general sort of records, availability provisions that are elsewhere covers that. But before you guys sign off on this, I can just check that to make sure that's right. And then I think my other question is one of our goals is the continuity of the medical program. So we feel like the three months limitation that they have, that you have to have three months supply protects the medical program in that way. That's what we've heard from our subcommittee on medical. There was some concern around the length of time that it takes to make it concentrate. If someone needs it on a specific day that they're committing a three months of biomass, not three months of every single product that every patient needs. So there is going to have to be some, you know, patient education, not that a lot of those concentrates can be sold in the adult rep side. So, but it's going to, we're going to have to just keep a close eye to make sure that the products that people rely on are consistently available. And I do think we have a process for patients to notify us if their products aren't available. If they have complaints about the dispensary. You know, in one of my slides, I talked about, you know, having a kind of corrective action measures for complaints that are coming in. So David, I'm just trying to still wrap my head around the transfer. Make sure I understand it completely. So, so they'll have the ability to make a one-time transfer. Any, is that unlimited? So until October 1st, the concept is pre-transfer. They just do what they need to to supply their stores because they're the only game of town. So if a Vermont consumer wants to get cannabis legally, it's the only place that they can go to integrate the licensee. Once that's no longer the case, the intention is to put them on the same pudding as every other commercial actor. And at that point, they are their plant, they have the same plant canopy cap as any other cultivator, except that they also get another chunk that doesn't count against that cap that services the medical side. So they could transfer. So I think once- If they grew too much on the medical side, they could transfer to the- They can't be that. That's explicitly provided for in this. So if they grow too much, they're kind of out of luck on the dispensary side. They don't get to sneak it into the building and decide to convert the cap. So there's really no transfer effectively after October 1st. I mean, I think the term transfer is in the statute, but it's not a great term. I don't think it really describes what is going on here. It's just assigning different amounts to different operations. And we're saying the amount you get for adult use is the same deal that everybody else gets. The amount you get for medical is whatever you need for medical. And you get to be both. You have to supply 25% from small cost payers. And I'll put in, assuming we do the same little process we did last time where we go through and put in some edits that you guys then review. There aren't that many. I'll put in something about records. I think it would be covered elsewhere, but just to be sure that we can have visibility on that offer. We're nearly done here. The next section reiterates that duty purchase from small cost payers references the relevant section of Act 62 regarding that requirement. Section 11, this is going to look familiar. So this is that ongoing duty to disclose to the board requirements. Anything that's submitted, any information submitted with their application or their renewal form for the ongoing obligations to disclose. And then the next section is that there's a specific obligation for campus establishments to disclose that there's going to be changing control. That will trigger the renewal process just as described in section one. Section 12, providing the board will keep all of this information confidential to the extent required by statute. And then 13, this is the provision that Vermont in importance with the statute, the board can waive any regulatory requirement. That any requirements contained in this rule to the extent that such a waiver doesn't conflict with any other state law and is necessary to achieve the purpose of Vermont law and doesn't create a danger to the public health safety and welfare. Is that it? That's it. Wow. Mm-hmm. Thank you both. We're going to start with Caroline. Very helpful. So any conversation that we haven't already covered, I do have one question for David, but it's more general, not specific to any one piece. So David, we're going to vote for on these rules and then we're going to pre-file them, go through the ICAR process and file them out with the secretary of state. How and when do they get amended if we notice things that need amendment? I mean, I want to give people watching the industry at real large some certainty about what to expect, but I'm sure certain things are going to need to be amended, changed, updated. We're going to notice things. The public is going to notice things. Can you talk about just how these might get amended in the coming months? Yeah, so the official notice and comment period will open sometime in mid-December. Of course, as the board has always said, and we always have the public comment portal open. So it's not like you're prevented from telling us something before mid-December, but just officially speaking, the notice and comment period opens in mid-December. There will be at least some number of hearings that people can attend, but again, you can always submit comment and the upon these rules or anything and that will be clear on our website. And then you, the board will make decisions about what changes you're going to make, what amendments you're going to accept, what edits you think need to be done in response to those public comments. Likely around the third week of January, again, some of this depends on how the next few sort of deadlines unfold. So I can't give you exact dates at this moment, although we will be able to give exact dates by mid-December and we can post those on the website also. But yeah, so that'll be the time when you take into account everything that everybody's telling you. And it'll probably be around the third week of January. We'll have another long or maybe even a couple of long board meetings to go through all those comments and decide what you're going to do in response to them. And so we will have, as drafts get updated of these rules, they will be available on our website or do we refile them every time we make amendments? We'll update them when you make amendments and then the way the process works is we submit another official filing and we'll post the entirety of all the official filings that we put in on the website. So our first, well, it's really called a pre-filing, but it's in statute. So I'm going to call it an official filing for this conversation. The first official filing is tomorrow and it's got the rules in that a bunch of other stuff that we need to submit. And then so that'll all be posted and then the next official filing is called the filing and that will be in the second or third week of December and we'll post that whole thing, which will look very similar if not identical to the pre-filing, those two are very similar. And then where things might change is after you get the notice and comment, the filing that happens after that may have, the rules may look a good bit different depending on how many amendments you make in response to public comment. So that will be a more significant new filing. And then the filing after that is the one that comes in response to the legislative input through the legislative committee on administrative rules. And again, depending on how much they have to say about it and how much you choose to accept, that could look a bit different from the notice and comment file. Yep, okay. So we're very much at the starting line here. Brett, the starting line. There's a lot of amending that is at least available to be done if you choose to do that. Yep. Is there some sort of like widespread notice that we intend to do saying that these are available for viewing? There's a statutory, yeah. Yeah, so the Secretary of State's office is actually responsible for doing publications broadly. And I actually don't have right off the top of my head where they do that, but it's like they pay for advertising, basically. And that's part of their process. We are, you know, we'll pay them some money to do that for their regulations and they'll go ahead and take care of that. But of course, nothing stops you guys from doing whatever you want. Additionally, just noticing that there is going to be an official public notice that the Secretary of State's office is responsible for putting out. Okay, I just want to make sure that that was the same. Can I believe our integrated transfer thing? Just a little bit more, making sure I understand. Because what I thought we were talking about, and correct me if I'm wrong is there's been so many conversations lately. You know, plan counts go away in February and then the folks that can seek an integrated license, the medical dispensaries can grow once those plan counts disappear in anticipation of licensure in May, to get a license May 1st and then conduct a transfer. And I know you don't like that language. I thought we were allowing that transfer to happen when they receive their license at our discretion, not necessarily all the way till October, whenever they choose to. And at that point, cutting off that ability to do so. Am I making sense? So are you saying that what you thought was that when they got their integrated license, they could make one transfer then? Is that what you're saying? Yes. And not again until? Until we say that they can. I mean, it's certainly one way to go. I think that, you know, they're not gonna be able to grow enough to supply the entire market by the time of that initial transfer. You know, what is it February 1st? Is there plan counts are lifted? And then May 1st, their doors open. So I think that we would be looking at pretty much continuously approving transfers if we wanted to go that way, which we could do. We might have some other things going on that we wanna do instead. But I think, you know, in this early market, I think the things that we're requiring of them are paying $50,000 and we're requiring them to source 25% of their sales from small cultivators. I think those are the two things that we're the legislation does in order to kind of launch that first starter advantage that they're getting. You know, we don't wanna see lines around the block to the extent we can avoid it. We do want kind of, we do want the products hitting the shelves. I'm with you. I guess I was just a little anxious about processing the optics. I see the benefit of what you're saying in terms of having some awareness of what the availability of product is and making sure that there's no, like the mark is not flooded, like that there's no huge price fluctuation, that there's not too much that's grown or produced. By the integrated license fees. Yeah, I mean, there's only so much we can do on that respect. I know that we can have a very like heavy hand during that initial phase to really try and control price. I just don't know how good the three of us are gonna be at actually managing that. I think essentially there's going to be a shortage during that six month period, no matter what we do. And we would be accelerating that shortage by requiring pre-approval every time they wanna transfer. I think the intention of the legislation, of course, pretty clearly was to let them do this transfer pretty freely in that period to supply the market to make sure that there aren't drastic shortages. And then after a certain amount of time, they have to after that window closes October 1st when there's other retailers and there's more cultivation that they have to play by the same rule. They're on a level playing field with everyone else. The way you drafted it, let's say, and I'm not saying that I'm against, I'm just making sure I understand completely. It doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to grow an unlimited canopy if we're gonna use that language because you're gonna have this abundance of supply that you might not sell. And once October 1st hits, you won't be able to sell that into the adult use market. Essentially, yeah. I mean, again, you do get that carve out for what you can show was sold through the dispensaries, but anything, and then, you know, you can keep selling that through the dispensaries. But yeah, if you have a bunch more beyond that, you're capped. And I think when I was trying to write this and think through it based on the discussions and directives, I think there was two interests that we're trying to meet with this. One is to supply, you know, to the extent possible, and it may not be possible, but to the extent possible, have enough supply for reminders to buy who want to, to buy cannabis lawfully through a retail store before the broad retail market is open. That's interest one. And interest two is once the broad retail market is open, put everybody on an equal playing field, so it's a fair market for every participant. To the extent that the same rules apply to every participant. And so that's what this tries to do, is say, all right, up until October 1, there's only one way for Vermonters to get cannabis through lawfully, through purchase it lawfully through stores, and that's to be integrated to licensees, so just do what you can to supply it. Once October 1st hits, now we're gonna set an equal playing field for all market participants. And by that, I don't mean consumers, I mean the people trying to make money in the market. And that's what this tries to do, balance those two things. But yeah, I think you're right in the short answer. If somebody's wildly overbuilt their canopy capacity, they will effectively be prevented from using all that after October 1st. Okay, as long as that's the case. And there's not a lot of, after October 1st, there's not a lot of stuff that we don't know about that's being transferred in. And it's your feeling that demand will exceed or likely exceed supply from May to October versus supply exceeding demand so that there's so much supply that it makes it possible for other people to open. In October? Yeah. Sorry, I didn't follow that, and sorry, it's just my brain is slow right now. Okay, I think what I'm concerned about is so much supply from the integrated licenses that start in May, that it doesn't make business sense for anyone else to open because they're- No, I just, if we're looking at demand being on, you know, on average 450,000 square feet of canopy, the largest integrated licensee, and I know that, you know, slang there's all of this kind of act 250 stories going around, you know, if they maximize, I think they're the entire footprint of their facility that they're trying to build this 43,000 square feet, if they used all of that, you know, built canopy out to the edges of the building knowing that at soon that they would be limited in the future, so I don't think that they would even do that. They wouldn't even come close to meeting the demand of the state. That was my question. Yeah. And I don't know about the other three or the other integrated licensees if they have plans to expand or not. I just know about the one that's reported on. I just, but I don't think it's a good business decision to build out, you know, a grow that's larger than what you would be eventually regulated to. And if the three companies that have this kind of provision built in, this advantage built in, are all operating at what they expect our largest license here to be, then they're gonna fall well short of the demand. Okay. I'm okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood what was drafted and the reasoning for it. Maybe I misunderstood at various points along the way, the touchy, touch and go, you know, issue that we've been grappling with. Yeah. Okay. Should we vote on this? We wanna see the corrections based on, it's not gonna take long, just like we did last time. Is it worth doing a public comment period while you do that? Of course. That I leave to you. Yeah. Okay. Well, why don't, David, you get to work on that. And if you need longer, then we have public comment then we can take a break. I think we'll be ready in time. Okay. So why don't we open for public comment. If you joined via the link and would like to make a public comment, please raise your virtual hands. We'll start with the... Old growth organics up first. Old growth organics. Feel free to unmute yourself and join us by video if you'd like. Hi, thank you. Yeah, I shot my hand right up because usually I'm wired shot at this point. So if you see me again, I might be handed shot, but I'm dirt. I've had my break right now. So the timing was impeccable. You guys are amazing. That was a long day. I feel closer to all of you because I didn't see it in the whole time. But the biggest thing I wanted to comment on was the question of meeting criteria for equity and environmental impact and whether it was burdensome for small cultivators to meet this. And I think actually it wouldn't even just be small cultivators, but probably the mixed here also would apply to that question. And I think the best way forward would be to change or even create a definition of employee. You guys had touched on that when you were kind of going through the discussion. And I think you guys landed that you don't have a definition yet. But regardless, I would push to have seasonal workers excluded from that definition because that would I think fix the problem as far as meeting criteria for equity environmental impact because most small cultivators wouldn't have more than one employee if you guys bump it up to two or none. But assuming that small cultivators or mixed here wouldn't have an employee, two or even three isn't realistic. We have a small growing main right now. And it's just the two of us, but during harvest and everything, I mean, we have up to five people or they might be shifting in and out. So not only would it apply to that criteria, but also if we had to give those employees, workers' comp or all the other things that are required if you have an employee, that would also be really burdensome because you might have a trimmer that can come in for a day. So anyway, it's all of these things around seasonal employees and it would also fix the equity and environmental impact question. So, does that make sense? It does. It does, thank you. Okay. The other thing I wanted to mention was you guys had mentioned leaving or the social media that we wouldn't be able to post pictures on social media. I don't know how deep that goes, but I would suggest the possibility of leaving social media advertising policies up to those platforms rather than you guys putting that on there, if you can, just because social media is a lifeline for small businesses. So I know in other states, for example, you could get shut down easily if you're posting a lot of specifics like cannabis for sale or marijuana, this or that, but small businesses have a way of getting around that so that the algorithms don't pick that up and then you can still reach people. So maybe if you're worried about people that are 21 or under, what you could do is just make a requirement to set your page to private or write something that only 21 plus can enter, yada, yada, yada, because that's a real big lifeline for small businesses. And then the last thing, and you guys, again, I know you guys put a lot of thought into all of this. You take it all with a grain of salt, but it seemed like your, the transportation rules seemed a little excessive because it's not always so straightforward, exactly aware in how you're going to send out like samples, for example, it's just not always straightforward, who you're going to reach. So the GPS, for example, is like what really felt excessive. And I just wondered, thinking about it, like is GPS a requirement for transporting any other products in Vermont? You know, is it just marijuana that we're doing this with? Just food for thought, if we're trying to get around or break away from the stigma of what marijuana is, it just feels, it just has that kind of like sketchy feel that marijuana is a drug and you have to GPS it and track all of this stuff. It just all felt excessive, and I just wondered, do we do that with any other products? So, okay, that's it. Time for me to put my bands back on and I hope you guys get a snack break soon. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Next, we have Ben Mervis. Hi everyone. Seconding, Old Earth Organics, you are just incredible. This has been such a great long meeting, but so much included. I also second her concerns about the advertising limitations specific to social media. I've seen limitations set on not being able to advertise prices on social media and the social media platforms themselves usually say that you cannot market the sale of anything, but I do fear that not being able to show products will really limit everyone's ability to provide education and math to the public. I also would just ask that you consider when looking at the requirement for co-located licensees, the requirement of the distinct and identifiable spaces that it won't be overly burdensome that it also won't be interpreted to apply to things like loading days, safes, certain major physical aspects of the shared space that might be the reason that you need to be co-located or that you might offer space within your facility to another licensee. Now I have a couple of notes just specific to actual line items. I do have one that I'm not even sure what section this was. It was 2.3.5 and I just wrote down a note that specifically would be great if here product was not just limited to cultivators but to any license type. Also in section 2.3.9 I think it was with cultivator samples that that sample policy should be extended to every license type that might touch flour leading up to the point of retail. So wholesalers, product manufacturers who might be taking raw product and turning it into a finished product and might need to provide samples to vendors. With 2.8.3 and acquiring or recording visitor personal information, I would just ask if there's any option to include an opt in there for customers to be able to provide information that might be essential to the retail operation and product matching, keeping track of why, even if it's just something as simple as the reason that the customer is looking to purchase and consume cannabis. That might be a piece of personal information worth holding on to for retailers. And that's it. Thank you so much. Thanks Ben. Thank you. Thank you Ben. Anyone else would like to make a public comment? If you join by phone, you can hit star six to unmute yourself. Otherwise raise your kind of virtual hands there if you joined through the link. Well, David, how are you feeling? Ready to go. Okay, well, why don't we end public comment period then? I know it's been a long day for everyone. Thanks for sticking it out. And we'll just, David, have you review some of the edits or Bryn and we can vote. Do you want to go to 2.2. Do you want to eat? So the first one we're looking at here are some of your suggestions on co-location on suggestions, decisions on co-location. We'll get there in a moment. Here we go. So now near the bottom F and G, subsections F and G are where I tried to address. So I'll actually do G first. This is to the point regarding multiple retail cannabis establishments. We wanted to clarify that we're just talking about retail cannabis establishments before, which I think this says plainly, before there'd been ambiguity in how it was worded at the top, which I changed also. And it no longer reads as though retail cannabis establishment couldn't be located with some other license type. That was that fix. If you look at F, I added a sentence at the end of F, which captured what I thought was in your discussion. Just to be absolutely sure we have what we need. At its discretion, the board may require additional information of cannabis establishments to ensure compliance with this section. And that was to get at the point regarding this control and more than a license type issue, especially the issue with perhaps needing insight into rental agreements and things like that. There's a reason to believe that people are working around that. And then if we go to 2.3.2, this is a really clerical one. This is just making sure that I didn't act. You guys didn't discuss this, but this is just bringing this visitor section into consistency with the other visitor section, which basically says these three types of people arriving at cannabis establishments don't count as visitors. They're there for other reasons, like contractors who are doing work or designees or cannabis license agencies, agents making deliveries. So that's just putting the same language there that was in the other visitors section. And then go down to 2.8.7. This is another pretty small one, but this was, I think, just the making even more clear regarding consumer samples. These are, once these samples are out there, they're not to be used for either selling or some of us in some other way transferring to people who may be at the retail establishments. And then 2.9.3 was a sort of late-breaking addition from the, oh wait, no, I have that no, you're wrong. Sorry, go for it. That's been pretty, there's another one, proficiency. Wait, is that misnumbered? It is, we have to fix that. There's a numbering issue. So I'll do that, right? I think we can do that before we got there. There's Scriveners there, right? Yeah, so you can see the numbers, the point, the third decimal number is misnumbered after a few in this one section. Everything else is correct, don't worry. But anyway, so 2.9.3, which is not actually 2.9.3, it's more like, I don't know what it is, go up for a second. So it's like 2.7.8.9, yeah. Okay, 9. So anyway, we'll fix that. I think you can both understanding that we'll fix that. But this was an addition from Kerry at Department of Agriculture, just noting that this should be a requirement for laboratories, the proficiency issue. He had put that in rule one, but this, it fits better putting it here. Oh yeah, thanks for that. And then this is the table fixing that. So it's just human pathogens instead of the specific citations that were there before. And then we just have one more. This is the other ones. Or is it just human pathogens? I confirm Kerry. Gee, so this is the issue or the information issue that we discussed. The board at its discretion may require integrated licensees to provide the board with any records that might demonstrate compliance or non-compliance of this section, including the knowledge of sales and manufacturing. All right. Is that it? That's it. Well, just from my knowledge, could we return to the social media? Just because we got a couple of comments on it, again. Is it that you can't advertise sales or you can't advertise, or are we drawing a distinction there? Like stuff that you grow or you produce, you can still say. I think we have, I do like the idea of having a private account. We have to do something to ensure that we're compliant with the 21 and younger crowd, not being able to see it. So we have to do something around social media. It's sort of to say that they couldn't post pictures. They couldn't post pictures of product. Yeah, specific to products. But we should look at it specifically. There it is right there. Oh, section B. But it's specific to products. I mean, I think what we don't want is exactly what the comments are said is we don't want like a buy now or a shop now button, right? If this does, I would read this still to allow for some social media presence. Certainly it is specific products, but of course they still have to abide by the other provisions of the advertising restriction. Yeah. Would we run afoul of everything else in the work of the committee if we change the sentence to something like any images or other effects regarding sales pricing is otherwise prohibited. That way somebody could show the quality of a product with which they offer without actually advertising it for sale. Is this in the legislation? I don't know. I'm just trying to kind of figure out a... I almost feel like it doesn't make sense for us to change it on the fly right now. I think that we will, again, because of the process that David laid out for us, this will, we can spend a lot more time if this deserves, I think, if we don't try and change it right now. Take more formal comments on it. Okay. And then just thinking through some of the other comments that we got, I think in the retail, and Ben noticed something that I presented, which in a retail establishment cannot by themselves laterally keep folks information, but I would be in favor of somebody allowing somebody to keep their email address or something like that to send them. What do we say? You can't keep anything outside of what a normal retail, a non-cannabis retailer would. I think that's enough to allow. There's a provision unless the person gives permission. Okay, unless the person gives permission. Yeah, as long as there's that type of opt-in, and we talked about it in the context of delivery, if that does move forward, it would have to provide some other information besides just your photo ID at the time of purchase and cash or debit card. Yeah, and I hear what people are saying about GPS. I remember we debated this too, whether we need a GPS, whether it's the GPS that is like a low jack for your car. If you get, someone steals your car, you know, and you're transporting, you know where it ends up, or whether this is the actual kind of like Garmin GPS or it's your cell phone GPS. I think, again, just like this piece, we should think about it. We should revisit it. We've heard two public comments on it already. I'm sure we'll get more, and we can have a much kind of more in-depth conversation about whether that's necessary. Recognizing that, we specifically said that we could waive that provision. Yeah, using enforcement discretion. Yeah, certain stuff that we can. There are lots of organizations that use GPS to keep track of their assets. Yeah, yeah, it might be a good thing for larger shipments, and might not need it for smaller shipments. I think we can have a longer conversation about that. So I think I feel comfortable voting on this rule at this point. Is there any further discussion? Feel it. Okay, do you feel David and Brink, okay, with us voting at this point? Yes. Okay. All right, well, then I take a motion to approve proposed rule two. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Great job. This is, you know, it's amazing that we are here today. I really did not expect that to happen. I didn't expect a six hour meeting, but yeah. Yeah. And all the people who stuck with us. I know. Yeah, happy Thanksgiving. Happy early Hanukkah, and we will be filing these rules and making them available on our website by the end of the day today. Is that the plan? We can make the PDFs available as soon as we can up to Nellie here. And then the filings will be happening tomorrow officially. Okay. Nellie, do you think you can get them up before the end of the day? Yeah. Yeah, I can do that. Okay, so we'll put them up on our website, and then we will file them tomorrow. So thank you all again, and really terrific work all around. I will adjourn the meeting.