 Representative Ansel, I apologize, but I'm not finding the document. Maybe Graham can point me to it. If I can take. Graham, do you have it easily the document that you presented to us 54 to the conference committee. I did. I just sent it. So, okay. Yeah. I couldn't find the actual link to it. So I'm sorry. So it's not as easy as just clicking the link, but it sounds like about the conference committee online anyway. But go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, I couldn't find it. It sounds like representative Ansel did a great job of over viewing when I was going to sort of say, at least twice though. I mean you have as much of a grasp on these things as I do. So as representative Ansel discussed the Senate put forward a proposal. Yesterday, regarding the taxing of cannabis and it essentially what it boils down to is it's a it's a 20% overall tax on cannabis and what that brings out to us was 14% state excise tax and a 6% sales tax. So 14% state excise tax, 2% of that 14% or 200 basis points is what I've been saying to keep it a little bit clear is sort of set aside for localities. And so in effect what that means is that 12% a 12% excise tax will be available for state revenues and then 2% will be available for localities. So the 12% that's remaining for the state as was in the House bill originally 30% of that money would go to a substance misuse and prevention fund and 70% would be allocated to a general fund. So there are state licensing fees in the proposal. So to in order to achieve a license and, and cultivate or manufacture or have a retails at what an individual would have to apply to the state for licensing fees how are unlike in the House bill there are not. Jim has a question and I'm going to go to him so we can see if we can get that document up and take a second. Graham my recollection is when we heard about the financing breakdown and whatever from Stephanie way back when that the prevention fund money doesn't become available until roughly a year after sales occur. Is that still true. Great question so I think the, the committee is still trying to iron out how the, the, that issue gets played out the issue here at play here is that the board needs to be up and running by fiscal or in fiscal 21 and 22 and they're going to be creating a fee structure for the legislature to approve. And so obviously they have a budget and so what happens is that that board goes into deficit because there's no money flowing from the sale of cannabis to pay for that board or no fees being collected at that point so that the cannabis control board goes into deficit. So fiscal year so fiscal 21 and 22. And I think if I remember at the deficit, beginning in fiscal 23 was about 1.45 million. And then it's an outstanding question I think at this point from in the Senate's proposal, what came forward is how exactly that gets covered. So we're going to, we're going to collect a certain amount of revenue from the excise tax. And the question is, which pot helps pay back that that deficit there was some conversation in the committee yesterday that that all the funds might pay back that deficit but essentially that deficit needs to be repaid before any funds get made their money. So in theory it could be, you know, the prevention fund pays a portion of it the general fund pays a portion of it. And the local share the local fund pays a portion of it, or even the education fund because it gets the sales tax pays a portion of it but that little that wrinkle still needs to be ironed out. So it's a very good memory on your part. Graham, that document is up now so people may find it easier to take in if they see it while they're hearing it, would you mind sort of just walking through the document. So it wouldn't help to send Stephanie's document as well. Not at the moment. Let's, let's start with this and then we can look at Stephanie's because that's that next tier of issues, right, right. So just rewinding that what has been proposed by the Senate and the conference committee is a 14% state excise tax, but 2% of that 14% 200 basis points would be carved out and dedicated to localities. So what this means is that 12% remaining of the 12% that's left over is state revenue. 12% 30% would be allocated to the substance misuse information fund and 70% will be allocated to the general fund. This is what was the sort of split here is what came out of the original House bill. So that that remained. And then there's no bullet point here but 6% there are the 6% sales tax as well on the sale. So the cumulative tax rate on Kansas is 20% in this proposal. And then there are state licensing fees for individuals who establish retail outlets and who are cultivators and manufacturers. However, unlike in the House bill that passed there are no local licensing fees. Instead, there is the 2% of the 14% the revenues that will be dedicated to localities and as representative and so was alluding to the remaining issue is how that 2% pot of money gets allocated to municipalities and that was not. There was a question I'm sort of want to give him a chance to ask. I was going to ask about that 2% is that for the localities walked in. I'm trying to remember. So the, it's not that that's the issue. It's not clear who it's for. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, and there was some I think there's it still needs to be ironed out whether it's going to be an opt in or an opt out for localities. It's unclear how that money gets gets allocated. There was some talk about it being allocated by activity, but that was not. It's not clear exactly what that means. So I think the committee is still trying to die right now. So Joey, Joey. I just wanted if we, I can't control this document can we scroll it up. Thank you. Thank you. Um, unless there's any more questions, I can just overview some of the revenues here. And there may be questions. So I'm going to interrupt as they happen. So if you want to, if you want to ask a question, put your hand blue hand up because I can't see people at the moment and I will just jump in. Okay. I've worked. I can't all I can see the document here. So this this table here is sort of the all in revenue estimate. So this is the 14% excise tax plus the 6% sales tax plus any state licensing fees. So our assumption is that full retail sales won't come online until fiscal year 23. We'll receive a little bit of fee revenue from those integrated licenses from the medical dispensaries and fiscal year 22, although that timeline is, is going to be tight. And there's, there's still some questions about how quickly the board can get up and running so to the extent of the timeline. The changes these revenues will will absolutely change but in the first year of retail sales and fiscal year 23 the midpoint estimate. What we think will be about $6.9 million growing to a fully mature market about $14 million and fiscal year 24 and then fiscal year 25 will be $18.2 million. So that's the all in revenue. It's all the revenue that we will collect from, from the proposal. And then, if we scroll down a little bit sort of to the next two tables. This is how that money gets broken out to the various funds so the first table is the general. Great Robin has a question. Just a quick question. Is it safe to assume that those who have the local options tax that will have the 1% on this as well, not just the 6% sales. Yes, yes, that's correct. So for example here we're looking at the general fund and what this revenue is as a reminder is after the 2% part is taken out for the localities of 14% so essentially we're looking at an effective 12% effective tax rate. What is leftover and that 70% of that leftover is the general fund so again we don't have retail sales to fiscal year 23 so the money starts to flow the midpoint estimate for the general fund is $2.6 million growing to 5.6 and 24 and then 7.4 and 25. The next table is the education fund with from the 6% sales tax as representative shy setting any town with local option sales tax that's already in effect would would benefit from another 1% here. So the estimates $1.9 million and 23, 424.4 million dollars and 24 and 5.3 and 25 George has a question. Yeah, I don't recall the numbers that were in our proposal. Will you give those to us at some point here so we can compare the revenue estimates. Correct. Oh, yeah, I can. I mean what's going to the general fund was going to that fun. Yes, I don't recall what the word the tax rate I think is the same. No, it's not the same because we have 14% not 12 that got provided. That's correct. Yeah, the I'm what I'm saying is like the overall tax rate is the, the actual money is not the same. Right. Distribution is different. The distribution is different. Yeah. Right. And the other issue, not an issue, but Graham has updated the base. So the base sales, the total amount of sales, or total money that's coming in through sales is a little bit higher at this point based on new estimates not a lot but a little bit so it's hard to compare the numbers because they've shifted around a little bit in terms of a base. Exactly. Importantly, what we could what we can show is how much money is going to the general fund how much money is going to the prevention program programs. Yeah. There's also timing issues here we've pushed back the timeline relative to what was in the fiscal note that passed the house by about six months. So to account for the delay here plus any other two months or so for the pandemic. So it's another difference. Sorsha to the next page please. So the first table you'll see on this page is what the localities, this is this local pot of money that we've been talking about. Again, it's unclear how this money is going to get distributed amongst municipalities but the retail sales come online about $600,000 be available in 2023 1.3 will be available in 24 and 1.8 will be available in 25. And finally the misuse the substance abuse misuse and prevention fund. This is coming after the 2% local options taken out of the 14% excise time or start local option 2% portion of the for the localities is taken out of the 14% we have 1.1 million dollars in fiscal 23 2.4 24 and 3.2 and 25. So, so Graham the question I because it's it's the one comparable that I think it would make sense to me is if you look at the midpoint for fiscal 23, which is sort of the first money. So the current base that you're, you're using what's, what's the, what would, what is for, I'm sorry what is 30% of 14% that what would that figure be for prevention, if we weren't doing this 2% local share. 30% of 14%. Sorry, I'm trying to think of 22% I'm sorry. 30% I believe 30% of 14% is 4.2% I believe a 4. Right but it but I'm wondering what the dollars are we've got 1.1 million dollars going to prevention and as a midpoint for fiscal 23. If we didn't do the local share what would that figure be. So it's about $310,000 per on the tax. So if you didn't do the 2%. I'm just, I'm talking to this it may speak out and do a math out loud but $310,000 per per percentage point on the tax and so if you didn't do the local option or the local tax you would have $620,000 worth of available revenue. And 30% of that. And so about $300,000 would be available for the prevention fund, or $20,000 sorry, or $200,000 sorry, I think it's 200. It's really good if we actually somebody could calculate that we could actually see that figure because that's the part that I, I, I don't know how important that prevention money is to the house. But the 1.1 million is less than whatever it was we would have targeted for prevention, and I just can't I don't know what the different the delta is. Yeah, it's about $200,000 you're right. Okay, so that's one. So, so under our proposal that midpoint and fiscal 23 would be 1.3 million rather than 1.1 million. Is that right under you under what past the house, yes. There was no if there was no to 2%. Yeah. Okay. That's the piece that's been elusive. And it matters to some people. Sorry, Jim, I'm looking at the table and forgetting to. That's quite right. Thank you. I think the prevention fund is quite important, at least to me and a bunch of people who are in contact with me. And I'm not so much concerned about the dollar amount, although I would certainly agree that more is better. But my concern as I expressed earlier is if it's not available until 23, I think maybe we're going at the overall the overall big picture the little backwards here. I think the prevention money, at least some should be available from the get go. And so I'm just expressing that opinion to let everybody anybody out there. No. And actually I don't think that's a difference between the house and Senate I think both versions would have it start in 23. Is that right, Graham? Yeah, that's correct. The prevention money is not available until there are retail sales. Right. Under either version. Yeah. Okay. Did you get through this or I can't scroll it so. That is that is the end of my document. Yes. Okay. Are there other any other questions about this idea. You know, having gone around it a bit. I have to say that I still like what we did. Those local licensing fees are actually able to be targeted at the activity itself. I think they're, it's clear. And we heard from the municipalities that they were going to incur costs and licensing fees are the sort of typical way that we reimburse governmental agencies for the cost that they incur. So to me, it makes more sense, but this is an idea I said we'll look at it and consider it. And that's why I'm bringing it in here for people to help me think about it. Peter and Robin. Well, when our proposal came together, we allowed so to say that, as Graham has said, the local option tax would be in addition to whatever the state revenues sales tax is. So for those communities that have a local option tax, they obviously are advantaged. What I over communities who can't, who can't productively adopt that. What I'm hearing though is with the Senate proposal, not only are those communities advantaged in that respect but also they would participate in the divvying up of the 2% of the 14. And I guess my observation is that that even more the flip side disadvantages communities who are incapable or just not productive to have a local option tax I'm wondering whether or not if that's the way we have to go that essentially the divvying is net in respect to the local option tax so people don't get an add on out and add on. If you will for those folks who have a local options just seems in a way that the way that the way the proposals is structured at the moment, the cannabis board will come back next year with a proposal on how to distribute that money. It might be that the bill as the conference committee agrees on it would set some guidelines for that. It doesn't have to. So the way it gets distributed will be ultimately decided by the next legislature. Robin Emily George. Thank you staying with this. That sounds like the conference committee you said has not decided how how that 2% would be shared and how it would be distributed but the, the amount that I think I saw in grants, grams. Chart was that it peaks at 1.8 million in fiscal year 25 so it's not very much money that we're talking about this 2% if it's at 1.8 million. And then we also don't know what the licensing, the local licensing fees are but I wouldn't be any because it's going to be decided by the cannabis control board. Yes, the local licensing fees are not part of this proposal. Right, but that was part of the house proposal. Yes, right and so that, but that was going to be determined by the cannabis control board so there's sort of still a lot of unknown. The cannabis control board was going to make a recommendation the legislature would adopt those. So either way the legislature gets involved later on but we do know that the 2% isn't very much money and that's not until 2025. And it seems to me that being able to benefit the local communities that are willing to do this very specifically with the local licensing fees makes me sort of come around to that as well, especially since there's not this 2% isn't very much and we don't even know where it's going. Emily and George. All right, clarifying one more time the actual amount of the local licensing fees under the house proposal would be decided by the cannabis control board not by the communities. No, it would be decided by the legislature. The cannabis control board will make a recommendation the legislature will decide that there are real concerns about communities, making those fees so high. That is my real concern. Great. So that's not like they won't be able to do that. Great. And that's our proposal. That's what we did way back whenever we did it. George. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Senate proposal. I don't like the concept that the abuse prevention fund is going to get less money, no matter how much it is we're not putting enough in there anyway as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, you know the licensing fees are a fixed number, a predictable number, and as a municipality I'm thinking okay if I have to add police protection or, you know, others other things. I don't want to be stuck with a system that gives me money as it ramps up. I need to hire that person right in the beginning, which is what the licensing fees would would allow. You know, having the revenue ramping up to cover my costs really might be a problem. And it puts the municipalities in a funny position of rooting for more sales of marijuana, because the more sales the more local revenue they're going to get. Whereas the licensing fees can be calculated to cover the cost they're going to have, and they don't have any incentive to encourage more sales. So, you know, for those reasons I'm not, I'm not a fan of the Senate proposal I like ours much better with the local licensing fees being calculated you know somebody doing some research and figuring out how much those would need to be to cover the costs and then us having to approve that. Other other thoughts other questions. I don't know how big a sticking point this is for the Senate at this point. As I said I think they were starting to warm to the construct that we had in the bill. So it started feeling less negative about it I guess would be more accurate. But, so I just don't know how big, how big a deal this is. You know we'd like to get a bill across the finish line. The real issues in the conference committee have to do with the seatbelts and the opt in opt out and other issues that are really not in the jurisdiction of our committee so those may be bigger sticking points than this but but this is important because this is a structure that we're going to be living with for a period of time. Emily. I'm sorry that I couldn't watch the conference committees testimony but why does the Senate like the pooled idea. The one argument that we haven't talked about here that Jeanette White made is that the licensing fees are not going to grow over time. And the, the 2% presumably will as sales increase and my response to that is this has never been viewed as a as a revenue bonus for municipalities what we what we heard from them is that they were going to incur costs and we were trying to respond to that so that they wouldn't, they'd be able to recover the costs of enforcement and compliance but but not as a bonus but that that's the that's probably the biggest difference and the biggest reason why the Senate would like to see that. And won't the cost to municipalities grow over time to. They might and you can we can always revisit the fees. And we do also came up at the meeting. And I appreciate what George said about disincentives or incentives for people to do more but that's sort of how all syntaxes work doesn't it we have a very confused conversation about preventing something by taxing it and then benefiting from the excess of it. I think in the end just having some, you know, having this be out in the light instead of on the black market will help a lot regardless of where the money goes. Other other thoughts. Thank you. I helpful to me, some, definitely some observations that haven't occurred to me that I can take back. And, and we'll hear more about it, George. I had a chat up so it made it hard to unmute the. I just want to say something about the other piece and that is I hope very strongly that the House will hold firm on the seat belt rule we're going to have more. I mean it's clear from data from other states we're going to have more vehicle accidents. And you know I just I just hope the house will hold very strong on that point. Anyone else. Pat. Thanks. I'm probably going to get in trouble with my people for saying this but I'm with George. We worked very hard on the seat belt issue in the house and I really think it's a deal breaker for the Senate. I mean, I'm a total deal breaker that is saliva testing they don't want any part of. But I hope we hold strong on the seat belt part. Thank you. Thank you. Ready to move on. No, George, go ahead. Yeah, Pat, we may have found something they like less than seat belts in the saliva test. Maybe it's a trade off. I don't know how I characterize their level of not liking between those two. Those are those are big, big issues so is the opt in opt out a big issue. A big difference. So I think I think the money is going to be easier to resolve than those than those issues frankly. Okay, Tom, little we are