 Thank you. And welcome to the S54 Committee of Conference, our second meeting. And Graham Campbell is going to do a review of the tax and finances of S54. And he's ready. Thank you, Representative Gannon. I'm here to talk about the updated revenue estimates for the house and senate versions of S54 revenues and the house version of the sales tax revenue. I don't have a whole lot to say at this point about the fee revenue because they haven't been established by the board. So these are mostly going to be about the excise tax revenues in the bill. And before I dive into the estimates, Andrew, can you pull up the document just so the committee is looking at it or they can see. Can you email it as well so I can pull it up on my iPad? Graham, I've made you co-host if you'd like to go through it. Is this the one that was sent out earlier? Yes, you all should have it on our committee page. On the committee page. I've only got one device that works. So I would like it. Okay. There's probably a lot of people that don't have it. So if you could post it on the screen, it would be great for us. It's like to scroll. Those of us with very few devices that work outside. Andrea, I'm on my iPad. And so I don't have it pulled up on my computer. I will share my screen. Thank you, Andrea. Perfect. And I'll just, I guess I'll let you know when we'll scroll, but is everyone in the committee sort of able to see and follow along as I go here? Yes, thank you. Yes. Okay. So before I dive into the revenue estimates. I started working on these, I realized that the revenue estimates that I had done for each of versions, the bill were most likely outdated. I looked at my, my fiscal note for the Senate version of this bill and it was done in February of 2019. So what you're going to be seeing here are updates to the revenue estimates for both bills because the information used in the revenue estimates for the fiscal notes that were produced at the time that passed was is no longer up to date. So these revenue estimates are updated with new information. Prime mayor, the biggest updates include new information on per capita consumption for, for cannabis. There was a report done by a firm called Vincent, Vicente, Sederberg, which looked at Vermont's cannabis market and asked me a much higher per capita consumption rate than what we've been using in models. So we, we, we thought the report was useful and we added that to our model to, to which drove our consumption number a little bit higher. We also had updated revenue from Massachusetts. So Massachusetts at the time had done this for the house had just done its first year of cannabis, so they started in November 2018. So we had a year of full information, but we have several more months of information that will show that show Massachusetts markets maturing quite a bit, although it's a little bit skewed because of COVID. The months of April and May in Massachusetts were just zero sales. So the numbers are a little bit off for typically year two, but they show a maturing market as one would expect. We updated usage rates every year the National Survey on Drug Use and Health puts out a survey on cannabis usage in the state, which showed that in 2018, a modestly higher, higher percentage of individuals had used cannabis in the past month than the previous year. And then we updated prices for cannabis across the states. So those are the main drivers and I think the key results of these updates that the estimates are a little bit higher than they were as of March. In 2020, when I did that the house estimates and they're a little bit higher than back in February of 2019 when I did the Senate estimates. So, but I should emphasize that the timing of how this market will get set up is critical to how much revenue will come in. So, our, the estimates in this model assume that retail sales and the house version will begin in July of 2022 for those medical dispensaries that have applied and been accepted for those integrated licenses in November 2022 for all other retail establishments. And then the Senate version because they didn't have that integrated license beginning was just November 2022. And so that's, that's a pushback of the timeline for about six months, even though the difference between what I estimate for the, when the house bill passed and sort of when it could potentially pass now is about four months. We thought that generally the COVID-19 pandemic might slow things down even further so that just gives you a sense of when we think the first sale start happening and that's reflected in some of the estimates. So I guess before I go to some of the numbers that I need questions on this portion of the work. Okay, Andrew, can you scroll to the next page. So, this summarizes the revenue estimates for the house version of S54 and so the way these tables for both versions of the bill are sort of ordered is you'll see the top is the number of taxable sales per year that gives you a sense of what the market is and I always put that in these numbers because in the event that the communities want to just change the rate by a percentage point or two, they can easily just find out what revenue were raised by multiplying the rates times that taxable base there at the top. So, what we see here in S54 is a fiscal 21 and 22, we're looking at no revenue because the market's not quite set up. And once the market gets sort of online and fiscal 23, the first couple months are really just the integrated licenses for medical dispensaries, and the later I think it's eight months are full retail sales. And then it matures into a fully mature market by fiscal year 24. You can see in the red numbers that bomb each table what was estimated for back in February of 2020. So, you can see the difference for fiscal year 22 for taxable sales is $1.3 million and that's basically just the shifting of the medical dispensaries because in the back in March, there was a timeline that existed where they could plausibly get some sales in the back half of fiscal 22, we don't think that's possible anymore. So, what those taxable sales translate is essentially the first table multiplied by 14%. So, you'll see that in fiscal year 21 and 22, we don't anticipate any revenue from the excise tax, or the sales tax, which is the third table coming in. And really revenue starts to be generated in fiscal year 23. So the midpoint estimate for the house for a 14% excise tax is $4.4 million, fiscal 23 growing to 9.4 and fiscal 24 and 12.3 and fiscal 25. And you can see in the red that it's modestly high, that number, those numbers you see in the table are modestly higher than what they were in February 2020. And then the third table, we estimate zero. Can you go back to the house to the, to the, the excise tax revenue. Okay, so that's the second table on this sheet here. So, we predict that zero revenue will be generated in fiscal year 21 and 22, because we know retail sales, the market will still be getting set up. Am I confused by your terms, because you've got the sales was in the house was 6%. Right. We're raising more than revenue at 14%. Sorry. So the second table is the revenue from 14%. And the third table is how much revenue is going to be raised in from the sales tax. Okay, so the, the, the. Okay, so the 14 and the sales that's that's the net. Yeah, so if you want to know what the total revenue is for the, for the house bill, you would add the second table and the third table. So, okay, thanks. Yeah, so in total revenue for the house would be 4.4 for the midpoint in fiscal 23 would be 4.4 million dollars plus 1.9 so 6.4 million dollars. This is all very confusing. Oh, I see. So, the, the first table in millions goes between a low of 48 for a million and FY 24 and 90 million. And then you broke it out in the various categories in the house bill is that correct. The first table is the taxable sales. So that's the, like, that's the market. That's the amount of sales done by the retail establishment. And the reason I put that in there is it just, it allows for. Is there a place where you have the total revenue in the house bill and the Senate bill. Okay, the total revenues for the house bill be this would be not for the house bill but for the Senate bill. Yes, for the house bill. It's the sum of this of the second and third table. So, if you say. That is the number yeah for the revenue for the total for between both the exercise and the sales tax revenue but because they're split into two different funds. I put them into two separate tables. Well actually have four different funds. And there's the there's the prevention fund and the general fund as well. So the first two tables there are the sum, the sum of those two would be the total revenue and I can send a table showing the total revenue. The committee but I think that's what I'm most interested in under both first, what's the total revenue. And I jump in because if you're going to show that we should also even though you don't have a figure for it we should include the fees. Yeah, and the house version, even though we don't know what they are, if you're going to have a fall in figure it needs to at least note that the fees are going to be part of that. Right. Okay, I can create a total total revenue table but I'm yeah the total revenue, at least for the exercise and the sales tax for the house bill for the, for the midpoint estimate that we have here for fiscal year 23 would be $6.3 million. That's so much lower than every other states projections and what we've heard from everywhere else I don't understand it. Yeah, that's a good question. We keep referring to the four point for as the midpoint on the 14% exercise tax but you have 4.2 at the bottom. Yes. What's the just, I know it's not a lot but what's the discrepancy there. The discrepancy there is so the red the red line AC there is what I had estimated for the house bill in February of 2021 the bill passed. What the midpoint, the 4.4 is the latest estimate I just wanted to give a sense of the committee how the estimates change so it's gone up a little bit. It's confusing because what you normally would do is you look at the red figure, which is in italics as sort of your answer. What it is is history. Right. Yes, it's history. I apologize. Nor the red figures and focus on the black figures. Yes, I would if you are not concerned with how revenue, the revenues have changed and ignore the red figures completely. Okay. So if I were relabeling this, I would include in the third box where it says sales tax revenue education fund, I put 6% in there just because people are looking for the 14 and the six. But that's where the 6% figure falls. Right. Yes, that is the 6% sales tax figure. Thanks. Good. So, yes, the combined total tax rate on the retail sale and in the state of Vermont of the house bill would be would be 20% 14% for the excise tax and 6% for the sales tax. Thank you. Now, can I do the, the, the, the second, third, fourth tables would be total together. Is it just the second third. I mean, you've got this 30% of excise tax revenue is 30. Is that 30% of 3 million. That's 30% of the of the second table. Yeah, so, but it says 2 million 30% of 4 million is not 2 million. Excuse me and 30% of 2.9 million is not 2 million. Oh, it's the 6.8 million. Good Lord. What were you taking the prevention fund out of the excise tax or out of the sales tax and the prevention fund comes out of the excise tax revenue. Okay, so that would be make it to 6.8 30%. Yeah, so it's, it's. That's pretty piddling. Yeah, and the bottom two tables just show the version of the excise tax revenue which because the excise tax revenue is the 14% figure. And so that 14% number on that second table is going to get divided 30% to the prevention fund and 70% to the general fund. So 30% of the 4.4 million dollars in fiscal year 23 is 1.3 million dollars for the prevention fund and 3.1 million dollars for the general fund. And so there. So in some of the total revenue that we expect from the from 20% retail. Tax on retail sales from the house bill. If we, if we look at fiscal year 23, the midpoint would be 6.3 million dollars for the house for 20%. Are there any questions on these house estimates. I think they're just extremely low projections of income from everything I've seen over the years. And every, I just think that that way underestimated the income. But I felt that way beginning. Understood. There's a chart in the appendix I can then I can highlight at the end after I'm done with Senate that'll show how this compares to some other states. Okay. So, Andrew, if you can scroll to the next page. So just briefly, so they have the note, I have some notes here at the top. So there is additional fee revenue to be to be generated by both bills, but that we don't have in a sense what that fee schedule is going to be from the board. And so the fiscal note for both bills. And I think the language says the board has to establish revenues. Similar to the experience of Massachusetts. And which we sort of calculated to be roughly $500,000 $650,000 per year. In additional revenue to the sales to the excise and sales tax revenues here. There also is in the house bill. There are local option fees that are to be set by the board, but there haven't been set so we didn't really estimate because we have there's no, we didn't have a basis for what those fees would be, which municipalities might take it up. And so there is that there's potential for additional revenue a year on from the local fees, but we did not estimate those. Okay, jump in you call those local option fees is that is that what you meant. Sorry, maybe I don't, I don't quite know exactly what they should local fees may not local option. I think local fees I mean they're, they're just their fees that apply to all different stages of licenses so Right. Okay. Yeah, so they're they're not local option per se. They're just local. I apologize in the tax world. There are all the local stuff is an option so I just, it's like the two words go together. But yes, there is local fees they're not really local option. Okay, so moving along to the Senate version of the bill. So, again, as in the house part of this sheet, the first table is the taxable sales the taxable sales in the Senate are slightly lower in fiscal year 23 the first year because there's nothing in the Senate bill that allows for that early integrated license for the medical dispensaries so the number in the Senate bill is a little bit is 33.8 million dollars in fiscal year 23 because it's essentially once the market comes online it's it's just straight online there's no sort of stagger from the integrated licenses. And then the second table is the 16% excise tax revenues for the Senate version of the bill and the midpoint estimate for that 16% for fiscal year 23 is $4.8 million. And there's there's no sales tax applied to the Senate bill. There is a potential 2% local option tax revenue and so if assuming that every municipality that does look that has retail sales also has a local option tax on top, you're talking another $600,000 on top of that. In a sense, you can compare. If we had if I had a total revenue table here you can compare the total revenue in the house bills about 6.3, $3 million between the 20% tax and the Senate would be $4.8 million plus $600,000 so $5.4 million so a little bit lower in the Senate and that's largely because the overall tax rate on cannabis is lower in the Senate version than it is in the house. May I ask a question. You mentioned that your sales figures is different because of the start dates but you didn't adjust for consumption or sort of that the base based on the 20% versus the 18% my there has the similarity between these tax rates is not enough for me to apply sort of an elasticity factor where there would be a change in consumption. We I just haven't seen the evidence from what I've read that a significantly high or so if the difference between these two bills was 45 and 20, then there would be a difference, but not between 16% 20% there's just not been the evidence that I have seen to change that that shows that that is going to change significant behavior. And so, in effect, the only thing that's changed between these two bills for the taxable sales is the timeline of bills, not the actual underlying assumption. Thank you. And, and so, like, like I mentioned to the house we there is an additional $500 to $650,000 per year of fee revenue here. That's not being accounted for. Um, and maybe this is Michelle not you but I, when we went over that Senate bill was a sort of passing reference to fees but it wasn't really clearly articulated. I didn't expect that there was going to be this fee revenue in the Senate version of the bill, but maybe I missed something in the draft. What is that fee revenue coming from in the Senate version. I don't know that's for me or Michelle but I think if I recall the language is roughly similar for the fee for the fee revenue for the board itself for like paying for the board. I'm sorry so this is the state fee money. Yes. Yes, but not that there's no local fee here. There's no local fees in the Senate bill. I don't want to clarify that because I was going to ask that question. Yeah, thank you. Yes, there's 500 to $650,000 worth of state fee revenue to finance the board. And in the house there's local fees that are yet to be determined that are that would be that are in addition to that in the Senate there are no local fees. I think if we get to the point where we're preparing this for the floor and probably be good to specify that these are fees that go to the state. I agree. I just will get a remark that I think this is way underestimated in income from everything that I've seen. So I'd like to better understand the metrics behind your questions here. Absolutely. And maybe the next table, Andrew, he's true of the figure the next next page will handle it a little bit. So I prepared this chart to show comparisons of others, what other states have done. And so what this chart essentially shows is if we imagine what Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts and California had the same population as Vermont. And if they had the same 14% exercise tax list is just that just comparing the house but the Senate numbers are quite similar. Imagine those states had the same population and same tax rate as as what's being proposed in S54. This is how much revenue they would collect. The numbers for those states are based upon what they actually collected revenue. So what you see for Colorado that line is actuals revenues from their state but it's just normalized because Colorado has a much larger population than we do. And there's in their tax rate is significantly higher than what we would have. And so essentially it is normalizing all the sales of other states and comparing what these estimates are. So the green range here the bottom of it is the low and the top of it is the high. And so what what in effect this says if you look at the red line is that if we if our market ends up at the low range what will end up looking like is Massachusetts experience. If it ends up towards the high line it will end up more like Colorado's experience. So, these estimates if you normalize them by the population and the excise tax rate fall within the within the range of what other states have experienced with actual revenue now you'll hear from other states. That they've collected significantly higher revenues you know Colorado collects. I think north of $80 million a year in revenue. But that's because I mean they all they have a much higher tax rate and they have a much greater population. And so in order to compare what the investments are like to theirs. And so we sort of we sort of we've we normalize it by population and by our tax rates so in effect, these numbers end up being in the range of what other states are are experiencing at least these states. Graham can I ask a couple of questions. Sure. Is it okay. Yes, absolutely. Graham. My first question is based just on Vermont population and not on tourists coming here from other states, not from New Yorkers coming here to buy because there's no place in New York, New Hampshire coming here to buy because there's no place in New Hampshire. I know, or I don't know. I really don't know this. I've heard estimates that from a local representative that they've heard that 20 to 25% of the sales in Williamstown Massive Vermont residents. So the estimates that I've done do assume traveling travelers purchasing marijuana in the state. And it's, it's roughly about 10 to 15% of the overall market is from travelers. But the, the other thing to remember here is that it's difficult to to estimate the extent to which travelers will be purchasing marijuana in Vermont when Massachusetts, which is by far our biggest tourism state has legalized sales. So, and with a roughly similar tax rate. And so we have the model that I've built here assumes some travelers coming to Vermont and purchasing purchasing cannabis. So and the other thing too is, I only point out when our cigarette prices were competitive with New Hampshire. We in the south corner had had people from New York and Massachusetts coming here to buy cigarettes and alcohol. So while you may be looking at Massachusetts for you, we're looking in this area and john can attest to that Connecticut, New York and part of Massachusetts in the southwestern part of the state. So I, you know, I can remember back when we were competitive the number of people at our cigarette stores. And that's all changed. And I'm not complaining about the change. I'm just saying that that does affect revenues. Yeah, that you're absolutely right. And, and they're, that's the, I mean, quite frankly, that's one of the difficulties of making an attack estimate for cannabis revenues because there's so there's so many unknowns and every market is different. And so, you know, it's very well likely that, you know, New York residents will flood across the border into, you know, Southern Vermont, and, and purchase a lot of cannabis and with the only thing we just we rely as much as we can on information from other states and one of the illustrations that I had that was helpful for me doing this was the tuition of Washington, Oregon, Washington. I'm trying to remember I think Oregon went first with their with cannabis. Washington went first, Washington went what I can't remember which one first but they, they had a cross border issue, and they saw a significant sales happening. Once, once Oregon, when they lost that border, they lost that border advantage but you know just looking at this chart, you know, the estimates that we've come up with in this green range are, you know, they fall into the range. Yeah, I can't remember which one went first but Washington and Oregon both fall within this range and so, you know, we have another state with that had quite a bit of cross border competitiveness with two states that have relatively high usage rates. Vermont has the highest usage rate in the country, but these two states are towards the top. And so, they're sort of an illustrative example of potential border issues now it is possible that we might have more than, than, than those two states had more cross border effects, and it's, it is possible that the people who it because it when you're trying to estimate cannabis revenues that it's not just how many people is how much they will buy. And so, it could be a factor that more people will come but it could also be that they're purchasing significantly more cannabis than, than the cross border experience in Washington or so I won't rule it out. But that's why we put high and low around some of these to emphasize that uncertainty. And then may I ask a question. Sure correct. Yeah, I got a couple to go. Graham, I, I know that this is kind of outside of what we're actually talking about because we're talking about direct tax revenue from these sales but is there any way of estimating so if you look at the FY 23 the midpoint FY 23 the midpoint and then you take that amount and produce it by the two. I'm looking at the house version here. The, there's still a fair amount of income that's been generated for the retailers and the growers and stuff. Is there any way of estimating the kind of revenue that might come to the state from increased income taxes on on those new jobs and stuff or is that so far outside that we shouldn't even go there. And that doesn't do those second order effects, because it is difficult to estimate not just how many retail establishments we have that, you know, in that case like income taxes how will those profits be divided, will they go to hire people, will they go to lower income people but the additional thing too is that it is possible that a lot of because it's a startup market and there's a lot of upfront capital costs that the actual income that these people report might not be that what might not be positive because they're investing so much the beginning so it is it's sort of, it is difficult, there's lots of other other variables at play but it certainly once the market is much more mature. The, the state can count on probably some some income taxes, and to the extent that some of these establishments use buildings that are, you know, is more disrepair vacant. That might help our grand list in the future when I spoke to Colorado about some of these second term of second level effects. He sort of said the same thing I'm saying to you about income they don't really know whether how much income they're getting are corporate income tax revenue, but they said the biggest thing was that a lot of the, a lot of the growing operations in the retail sale were taking over warehouse that had been vacant, and so that had improved their grand list. But that didn't happen until two, three years down the line. So, I think, I think you're right to point out that there could, there should will be indirect revenues that'll come from this but those are not estimated for these two. Thank you. Rob, you had a question. Rob, I think you're muted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ram, a couple of questions around Colorado, Massachusetts at the time both of those states decided to go the retail route were there any ordering states that cannabis was legal in at the time do you, would you know, I don't believe there was for Colorado. And then for Massachusetts, I don't think so. Maine recently became legalized but they, I think, just started retail sales. What I'm trying to get at is the cross border sales that we would be potentially looking at for here in Vermont, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that those numbers were sort of baked in to the Colorado in Massachusetts numbers already, because a fair amount of their business or a percentage of their business came from out of state, other states. Yeah, I think that that's a correct statement that those states probably benefited quite a bit more than I can't say for sure what we're going to benefit from cross state sales we will certainly benefit. But to the level of Colorado which had a first mover advantage or in, like I said in the event in the situation of Washington, Oregon, one of those went first and early. They benefited significantly from cross border sales. In my professional judgment for working on this I don't think we will have the same level of cross border sales as those two were because we're there will now if this bill is passed it will now be three New England states where there'll be a legal retail market for cannabis. So it just seems and with with relatively similar tax rates I should add so it's not as if you know people are traveled would travel to Vermont to get a significantly better tax rate on cannabis and so Very good thank you. Matt, ask a question. Sure. Graham, can you remind me what the tax rate in Massachusetts main is the online tax rate. I think Massachusetts is. I think it's 10.75 but then I think there are local taxes on top of that which drive it much closer to like 16 to 20%. I don't quite remember mains off the top of my head but I can send that to the committee. Thanks. John. I think this is an appropriate place to make a comment since all of us have been accused of trying to go through this exercise of passing this tax and regulated system. We've had dollar signs in our eyes. And it is important to note that we don't really have a handle on how much is actually going to be produced as a result of this effort. But money was never at least in my eyes and I believe many other people's eyes, the main reason for going through this system. As Graham pointed out, we have the highest consumption rate per capita in this country. And one of that is coming from either underground sales or now cross border sales. And that underground sales has been the main concern. We want a place for people to be able to to purchase a safe product that has to be monitored. We want to generate a revenue stream whatever it is for the benefit of education and prevention and law enforcement. Those are the main objectives of this project, not the number of dollars that we will see. I suspect Dick is right that these are figures that are on the low side of what may end up being generated. But it really is important that we not leave this conversation. Leaving anybody with the impression that we are expecting grand amounts of money to come out of this and that's the reason we're driving this conversation. Thank you. Thank you. And I can just follow up on Senator or representative answers question. The sales, the tax in Maine is 10% for the sales tax. I want to plus there are other taxes on flowers and the trim and the seedlings so it's at least 10% plus there are taxes on the producers. Any other questions for Graham. I just like to comment and follow up on Joe's comment I think that sometimes we forget why we're doing something and I appreciate Joe raising that because in many ways this bill is more about consumer safety than it is about revenue. And I'm reminded that we have no idea what the product is people are buying unless they're buying it another state which has certified the product, etc. So, and but also I wanted to make sure I understand that in these revenues. These are net revenue, not revenue. And then we have to pay for the administration of the program, etc. my correct Graham. What you're saying is right. So these are just the revenues that we were. Can you show us in your models. The next time we look at something like this representative Ansel would like to see the what the fees might generate but I'd also like to see what we're getting to in terms of the number of people who are the cost of the administration from the all the way through. Yeah, maybe the, you know, the fees we currently get from the medical from the medical would be instructive. Yes, I we can certainly put that together. I think Stephanie Barry has put together a sheet that highlights. I don't think there's any plan to do away with the fees on the medical are there, Janet. I don't know. Any questions. Yes, go ahead. This is just I'm not sure who exactly this is for but so that I understand completely the house proposal here the 6% sales tax that goes to early education or before school and after school programs. That isn't replacing something that already exists in the education fund right this is new revenue that has been put into these sales that would go into funding a new set of programs and then and then at some point I would just like to hear how that decision was made as opposed to higher ed or any other decision but this is new funding right. Is that the way I understand this. Yes, it's new money to the education fund. Okay, it's not taking any money away. It's not replacing any money that currently exists in the education fund for that purpose. I, I can't, I can't answer that I'm not sure about that I, I know I understand the revenue side, much better than I understand the spending side. And so it's new revenue to the education fund, whether there are currently prevention programs that you know might get folded into this effort. I'm not sure. Now that but the prevention is different than the before school and after school the prevention comes out of the 14% excise tax early education programs come out of the 6% and what I'm wondering is, if we currently spend $100 on early right on before and after school programs, right and now we're going to spend $6,000, or $6. Are we reducing what we're currently spending by $6 so we're only spending 94, or is we are we going to be spending 106. That's not addressed in the bill as far as I know. Well, but it is important to know. You have some comment on this. Yes, I was just going to say section 17 C in the house version which was language that I believe was added in by appropriations does that the 6% goes to fund a grant program to start or expand after school and summer learning programs with a focus on increasing access and underserved areas of the state. So it could be going to expanding existing programs or starting new programs. But it is new revenue it wouldn't. Okay, got it. Thank you. It's impossible to know within any particular school budget whether it's going to replace any money. And we don't really control that. But the amount of money that the revenue is all new so there will be an additional whatever that figure is going out and grants for for before. Okay, so the appropriations committee so they were the ones that decided it should be early education instead of higher education or whatever. It was the education committee and the appropriations committee working together. But it's appropriations to add. Okay, thank you. Any more questions. I wonder if we could do go to breakout rooms. I think we can if you would like to. Thank you. Andrea. Yes, whenever you're ready. Senator Pearson could be invited to our breakout room. We'd appreciate that. I think Peggy is taking care of that. Okay. And I, how long would you like to go for? We would like the shelf for about 15 to 20 minutes and I'm sure you'd like her to john so. Are we talking about anything in particular dick here like what we talked about this morning. We're trying to one thing we're trying to do is summarize our position on areas where we haven't already provided you with a proposal. And then coming back at you with a summary of all of our proposals. And you'd be able to see where was still apart. And then go from there. So maybe if we were to all get back together at 1030 and give each, each breakout team 20 minutes to meet with Michelle that might be, I don't know. It's up to you what you want to do. I would, I would like to have Michelle for 20 minutes. And then maybe we talked amongst ourselves or whatever, but because this way we don't have anything to react to. Actually, we've given you a whole bunch of proposals. When. No. We gave you proposal after proposal. We disagreed with you. We disagreed with you. We've actually asked you to reconsider your position on seat belts, for example. Dick, I have an excellent memory is just really short. Well, then we will get it down on paper for you so you can react to all the proposal. I mean, we've given so much. I'm not sure there's anything left to give. I know, but Christmas is coming early this year for us, obviously. But I, I'm seriously, we, we have made a number of change, you know, said Senate's okay with this, okay with that, but I don't know if we've ever, if we've ever put it down on paper, what we're agreeing to and what we're not agreeing to at this point. You're right, but that would help me. John. Yes. And then you'd be able to see how much we've given Rob. Yes, Jeanette. So I would suggest that we, if we're going to get together individually and whether the house has anything to talk to each other about at this point is up to them, but we do, and we can have Michelle, but we would, there is no way Michelle would be able to get everything together by 1030 to present. So I would suggest that we do it and then we take a break. So that Michelle can prepare what we have and get it in writing and, and then we come back together like maybe at 11 or 1115 to give her time. Michelle. I would just, I actually do have. I have almost everything written. I think it's fine for, I think you guys can have a written proposal at 1030 to review and I can walk you through and then the house can maybe break out and respond and talk privately about that. Thank you. I didn't know you were that far. I should never doubted you. I think it's fine for, I think you guys can have a written proposal at 1030 to review and I can walk you through and then the house. I think it's fine for you to respond privately. And also I think you guys can have a written proposal at 1030 to review and I think it's fine for you to respond privately about that. Is that one thing? Thank you. I didn't know you were that far. I should never doubted you do underestimated her. Well, unless there's something going on that I don't know about. writing. I mean, we can chat. Yeah, I would agree with Janet. It would be nice to, as Michelle said, to have her in document to look at, to understand your position. Yes, as a house conference. I don't know how to organize the timing of that, but... Can I ask one technical question while I've got all of us still here? It has to do with current use and your expectation of a cultivator. Would the cultivator be under current use or not? If they were currently small producers say, would they be under current use or not? The land that's in cultivation isn't farming for the purpose of current use. They may have land in current use, but at least that's my understanding, Anthea. I don't know if you want to weigh in. A thousand acres wouldn't be current use. That would be regular... That's my understanding. That's also my understanding. Yeah. I mean, there are farmers who have other farm crops, so they may be in current use for those purposes. But if they pull out some acreage for cultivation of cannabis, that land wouldn't be eligible for current use. Okay. All right. So we're going to break until 1030 at the earliest. Is that my understanding? Sounds good. And at that point, there'll be a document that the house conferees can look at. Yes. I thought you were keeping track of all the things we gave. Well, we do, but we want to make sure we get everything correct. Okay. Cool. I was doing on a napkin, Dick, and I still had space left over. Oh, no. I hope you use both sides. All right. So we'll see you all back here at 1030. Everybody be back here at 1030. Yeah. We'll go... The house will go into breakout and just have a brief discussion. Immediately or at 1030? Immediately. Okay. All right. Immediately. Am I looking at the wrong formula because I get the potential timeline for S54? Is that what we're looking at? No, there's two documents. One is the proposal and the second is the timeline. The timeline, I'm not going to discuss now. I'm going to focus on just the proposal. The timeline, I wanted to start giving people an idea of what kind of dates we'd be looking at if you started to combine these things. And also because the last version was past in March, and we were looking at a June effective date, and now we're down the road, so everything's got to change. So I just wanted to start working with a timeline so people could start thinking about those things because it does affect things like the board reporting back on fees and things like that because they won't get going for a while. Yep. Thank you. Okay. We have the document up now. Right. Okay. So everybody ready? Yep. Yes. Okay. So we're taking a look at... This is the proposal from the Senate. And I'm sorry, I should have written that up at the top there. So on the first, with regard to the regulatory authority, the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment provided that the members that the governor selects for the board are confirmed by the Senate. Okay. Got it. The next one on the 12 member advisory committee that was not in the Senate version, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal of the inclusion of the advisory committee. Next, you both had an auditor report in your versions, but the House proposed the board's sunsetting the July 1st after receiving the auditor's report, and the Senate agrees with the House proposal of amendment. The next is that, as you know, the Senate version has the medical program moving over from the Department of Public Safety to the cannabis control board at some point, the House version does not address the medical program, and the Senate does not agree with that House proposal. They would like the medical program to move over to the board. Okay. Next, on page two on appropriation, you're pretty similar there with just a little bit of adjustment, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment with whatever tweaks have to be made for the delayed effective date, considering we're a few months down the road. On appeals, the Senate agrees with the House proposal. On licenses, the House added a sixth type of license, which are integrated licenses, which would be available just to those existing dispensaries, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal there. With regard to developing tiers for licensees, both versions had developing tiers for cultivators. The House added adding for retailers as well, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal. Moving on to page three, the Senate put in as a priority in licensing for Vermonters. The House took that out, but they put in something where you have the Agency of Commerce working with AG, providing business and technical assistance to Vermonters, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal. Next, you have qualifications specifically around business type of organization, what needs to be filed in an operating plan, things like that, and the Senate agrees to the House proposal. You'll see top of page four additional oversight requirements. The Senate agrees to the House proposal. Requirements for banking and financial transactions. The Senate agrees to the House proposal. So now we're going to skip down to page five in public records. The Senate agrees to the House proposal. And sorry, some of the lines are a little wonky. We were trying to work kind of quickly there in our breakout. So at the bottom of page five is the racial and social equity provisions. A lot of these are the same, but where there were differences, the Senate agrees to the House proposal. You'll see though at the end of that section, which is on page seven, there's one point where they didn't agree. And that just has to do with the Senate. The House proposal doesn't address the medical program at all. And in the Senate proposal, because they did move the medical program over to the board, they were looking at all of that. So they wanted to have consistency on the criminal background checks between the adult use and the medical program for dispensaries. So they wanted those to be consistent in terms of background checks. And then you'll see at the bottom of page seven in blue there, a note that the Senate wanted to raise the issue of cannabis expungement that passed in S-294. Go ahead. S-294, the Senate passed a major expungement bill. Unfortunately, it got over to the House and COVID hit, and the House Judiciary Committee was not able to take it up. At that time, I've been in conversations with Representative Grad about perhaps moving the cannabis expungement issues to another bill. We are in agreement that, given all the emails we received about social equity and racial justice, that this proposal, which decriminalizes the possession of marijuana from between two and one ounces, it then automatically expunges all marijuana convictions for possession of under two ounces of marijuana. You may remember in the past, before we passed marijuana legalization, the possession of one ounce or two ounce didn't matter. It was still a misdemeanor as long as it was under two ounces. And so in many cases, there were no tests to determine whether the person had an ounce and a half or one ounce or whatever. So that's the reason for that. And we feel that by expunging that, it's an important step in many of those racial justice emails that we've all received about why not do S54 and that you should wait until you've got the racial equities back. We think that with many of the additions that the House made, and with this addition, we've addressed some of those concerns. So it's not a part of our conference committee, and I'm not proposing it be part of this bill, but I wanted to raise that so the public's aware of that and that we are working with the House, this House judiciary on this issue. Okay. So just to be clear, Dick, you're not proposing to add S94 to S54? No. We're not proposing to add it. We're asking that this committee be aware of that and that as we look as we get emails from people, and I want to make clear, we're not adding it, we're not proposing to add it to this bill, but I hope you join us and encourage and supporting Representative Grad and trying to move that forward. Okay. Got it. Okay. I'm on page eight on local control on the issue of opt-in, opt-out. The Senate does not agree to the House proposal and would like to stay with the Senate version of the bill. Next, under local control with regard to the local permits or licenses that are issued by the municipality, so this is not talking about the board collected fees for licenses and money that would go back to the towns. This is kind of the little language that was in both bills with some small differences around the local folks maybe requiring someone who's a licensee to have a zoning permit or things like that. And so the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment. On the next one, on the issue of the board collecting and charging local fees that would then go back to the towns, the Senate does not agree to the House proposal. Next on page nine on advertising, the Senate proposes going with the version of advertising that was voted out of House government operations that was sent to the floor. So as you know, there was a floor amendment that passed in the House that banned all advertising, but there was quite a lot of language, substantive language that was in there that came out of GovOps, and the Senate would agree to that, but not to the ban. Next, at the Bama page nine on prohibited products, on the listed paper prohibited products, the Senate does not agree to the House proposal. They do not agree to the shift from 100 milligrams to 50 milligrams per package, or the shift from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams per serving. In regard... Excuse me, could... Dick, could you explain that for me? Why you disagree with that? We want to continue to discuss the prohibited products. Okay. You want to continue to discuss? Yeah. It's not... It's more of a... I think there's some of what we're all talking about the same thing in many ways, and we think it needs more discussion about what it exactly is our goal here, which I think is to keep these prohibited products away from kids and how much you put in, et cetera. So we just think it needs more discussion. Okay. We're... I think all agreed that we want to keep these products safe, and consumer safety is an important factor. So towards the bottom of page 10, so with respect to labeling, the Senate agrees with the House proposal of amendment provided that when the health warning... So the House has health warnings being developed by the Department of Health and adopted via rule by the board, and the Senate is proposing that the health warnings are developed by the board in consultation with the Department of Health and then adopted by rule. Okay. Page 11, small cultivators. There's a few things there. The Senate is agreeing to all of the House's proposals. Got that? Cultivation. I'm sorry? I just want to make sure they got the Senate agreed to all of that. Yep. Got it. So bottom page 11 on cultivation with regard to pesticides, the Senate agrees to the House proposal. And then coming down to the issue about whether or not cannabis cultivation is going to be regulated as farming or not, the Senate would like to have... to take some more time to discuss the issue with the... with the conferees and outside. And outside? Well, with the conferees and then amongst themselves with others trying to understand the implications of it. So I don't know. Let me just work. Some of us are concerned. Obviously, if you make it a farming issue, you take away the right to zone and the rights of municipalities and dealing with the product. But at the same time, a small cultivator who wants to do a small amount and may be currently in current use or may wish to take advantage of current use would be forced out of that program. So there's a lot of little side issues I think need discussion. It's not necessarily whether or not it should be classified as farming. Because again, there are differences. And then if you get the big cultivators or big users, then you've got other problems. So we just think we would like more discussion on the farming issue. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. So moving on to retail on page 13, the Senate agrees with the House proposal. Bottom of the page on employee training. Senate agrees with the House proposal. Page 14, the excise tax. The Senate is proposing a 14 percent cannabis excise tax on anything that's sold at a retail or retailer or integrated licensee provided that 2 percent is designated for municipalities that have a licensed cannabis establishment. And that money would be sent to those towns based on a formula that takes into account the number and type of licensees in that town and the impact on that town. Okay. And so would that be done through rulemaking? Or who would make that determination of how that money would be distributed? The board would make a recommendation to the legislature. Okay. Got it. Yep. So next on the 30 percent, so you'll recall that in the Senate version, all the monies, all the excise tax went into the general fund. In the House version, 30 percent would be dedicated to substance abuse, misuse prevention programming as recommended by the Substance Misuse Prevention Oversight and Advisory Council with the remaining monies going to the general funds. The Senate is okay with 30 percent going to be used for substance misuse prevention programming provided that there is a $10 million cap and also that it is, that that money goes to general fund and is earmarked for the prevention, but not necessarily designated specifically to that must be spent as required as recommended by the oversight and advisory council. So it would be up to the legislature to make that determination. They could take into consideration recommendations from the oversight and advisory council, but it would ultimately be up to the legislature to make the determination about how to use that substance misuse funding. Next page, page 15 on the sales tax. No sales tax in the Senate version. There was a 6 percent on the House proposal that would be used for grants for after-school and summer learning programs, and the Senate agrees with the House proposal. Next on there, local option. That is now, their proposal is that there would be no local option. They had a 2 percent. You guys, the House took it out. The Senate is proposing to address it through the 2 percent of the 14 percent in the excise tax, rather than it being a separate local option tax. So board reporting requirements. You'll see there at the bottom of page 15, Senate agrees with the House proposal provided that the board also recommends fees for the medical program. So again, they want the medical to be moving over to the board. So there's agreement all there. If you move to page 18, they do not agree, as we already discussed, local fees to be charged by the board of which monies would then be sent back to the towns. So instead of the local fees being collected, there'd be the 2 percent that then is distributed back to the towns according to a formula. So other board reporting requirements, the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment. May I ask a question about the local fees? Is the end result of the Senate's position here that municipalities would be prohibited from charging fees? No. Oh, I'm sorry, Jeanette. Did you want to answer, Jeanette? Jeanette, you want to answer? Municipalities are already allowed to charge fees like zoning permit fees. They charge, they get $100 back for licenses for liquor establishments. They can charge business annual personal property fees. So they would still be allowed to charge those fees. They aren't being prohibited from charging things that they already are allowed to charge. But this proposal would have set up the board to decide what fees and how much they were. Actually, the legislature. Yeah. On the local. Yeah. It wouldn't have been the board. It would have been the full legislature, but it would have been decided. Right. Yeah. Okay. So the other board reporting requirements, as I mentioned, the Senate agrees with the House proposal of amendment. The Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment with regard to the reporting back of environmental and energy issues provided that syncs with whatever is determined, whatever y'all land on with regard to the farming issue. Top of age 20 is that's the energy, which they agree to bottom of page 20. There's the House proposal around whether that having the board report back to the legislature about whether or not certain cannabis establishment licensees should be regulated as food manufacturing establishment or a food processor according to current law. And the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment. Moving on to existing medical dispensaries. We already talked about the Senate does not agree with the House proposal of leaving the medical program in the Department of Public Safety page 22. The House does agree to the House proposal of amendment with regard to adding a an integrated license in the adult use market for dispensaries. And it agrees with the priority licensing for the integrated licensees, small cultivators, and testing labs. Page 23, moving on to highway safety. The Senate agrees to the House proposal with regard to the required 16 hours of a ride training. The Senate does not agree to the provisions in the House proposal of amendment that pertain to saliva testing. The Senate does agree to the House proposal with regard to the codification of the presumptive admissibility of field sobriety tests and DREs. There's one provision at the bottom of page 23 that was in the House version. And this actually passed in the T bill. And so we don't need it any longer because it's already current law. So, Dick, could you explain the Senate's position on saliva testing? We oppose adding saliva. We've long held that saliva is not accurate. There is no value to it. We have seen that some states have gone and set an arbitrary limit, but it doesn't show impairment. It only shows that there is some sense that it's there. And so at this point, given that the Senate has opposed saliva and oppose the seat belts, we don't know where to turn in terms of the public safety issues that the House has presented other than to give to you these other provisions within the public safety realm, but that maintaining that saliva would be a tough sell for us on the Senate floor. And that seat belts is an impossible sell for us on the Senate floor. We leave those two items open. Okay. So top of page 24, Senate agrees to the House proposal with regard to somebody has to make arrangements for their own independent chemical chemical analysis and they agreed to it for an evidentiary sample of blood, but not for saliva because they're not agreeing to saliva. With regard to the DPS report, the Senate agrees to the House proposal of amendment with regard to the identifying a threshold level of THC in a person's bloodstream and the report to the General Assembly from DPS, the Senate agrees to the House proposal there. As Senator Sears just mentioned, the Senate does not agree to primary enforcement of seat belts. They do agree to the last with regard to the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council reports to the General Assembly. And that's it. So I appreciate Michelle, all that work and putting together our proposal. And if you would, you know, look at it, what we have done is given in many areas, we've agreed with the House. I think there's about eight areas we're still apart. I won't insult anybody by suggesting that they're not major issues. But we are actually much closer than many would believe. So we could get this done. But we need some re-evaluation by the House as to where you're at on the issues where we're remained far apart. Or actually, some of them were not far apart. We need to just have conversations about prohibited products. I think we're actually fairly close. All of us want to make sure that minors as well as consumers are protected with whatever we do here. I appreciate the Senate's work here and agreeing to many of the House positions. I thank you for that. And I do think we have covered a lot of ground and reached agreement on many things. And there are some issues we still need to have discussion on. And then there are some issues where we obviously disagree. But Janet or Rob, do you have any questions for the Senate? I don't have questions. I don't know whether it would be helpful for the House countries to get together for a few minutes. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I just want to make sure if we had any questions about the Senate positions that we try to get them answered. Rob, are you okay? I am okay. There's an expectation you think that we're going to get back together as a group today. What I think we should do is take a 20-minute break out so that the House can discuss the Senate proposal and then get back to the Senate with respect to our thoughts. That's perfect because my computer is running out of power and I've got to get powered up. Okay. The battery is running out of power. If the Senate wants to do a breakout too and just chat, I'm assuming you'd like Michelle with you. Yes, please. Peggy, if you could put us in a breakout room and then Joe, Jeanette and I can chat with you and talk about the weather or whatever. Actually, I think Andrea needs to do it. She'll do it. All right. Andrea and I wasn't sure. I don't know. So we now have to mute and then stop the video. And stop video. Thank you. I first of all want to thank the Senate for putting together this proposal. We just discussed it and while we have made progress in some areas, there are some areas that are deeply important to the House where we're still in disagreement. One of our top priorities is protecting consumers, not only for the use of cannabis through THC limits and other things, but making sure that our highways are safe, which includes making sure we don't have impaired drivers on the roads and that people are wearing seat belts that the public safety issues are critically important to the House. With respect to local control, we believe the House proposal there will lead to a more holistic regulation system where you don't have regulation varying from town to town. So we discussed that. Also, with respect to the taxes, you know, one question we had for you is the 2% that would go to local uses. Would that be out of the total 14% tax or out of the 14% after 30% was taken out for substance abuse funding? After the total 14? It would be the total 14. Senator Sears, may I speak to this? Yes, please. We originally didn't want any set-asides in our bill at all and just leave it up to the Appropriations Committee, but since you proposed setting aside 30% already for prevention, and we went along with that, we then proposed doing 2% of the total 14, not after the 30% is taken out. It's another set-aside. So now we've set aside 32%. Janet? Can I get clarification though? 30% is 30% of the revenue that comes in. The 2% that you're talking about are two basis points on the sales, basically. It's not 2% of the 14. It's not 2% of the 14%. It is. 2% of the 14. The way I understand this is there would be a 14% excise tax. Out of that, 30% would go to prevention and 2% to where does the 30% come out? That would be a tiny amount of money, the 2% of the 14. Graham, are you here? Can you explain that what I'm asking better than I just did? I think you're talking about, I thought anyway, that of the 14% that was raised in the excise tax, two basis points, 2% of that, which is, I don't know, can't do the math quickly enough, but it's what, 14% of the total, something like that, 12% of the total. Can I ask a question then for Graham? I thought that 14% is what the state was raising. That's not leaving the 6% aside. If the total sales, for example, were 31.4% in the mid FY23, that means that the state is generating 4.4 million for itself from the 14% tax. Of that 4.4%, 2% of that will go to the towns. That's a teeny amount of money. Well, for 2% of, how much is it? It's like $100,000, because you can explain what I'm asking better. It's about $100,000, yeah. But how would they generate more? I had understood it differently. So what I had understood is of the 14... I think so too. Actually, I heard what I'm thinking. Yeah. I guess I didn't understand what you were thinking. We had a 14% excess of that 14%, 2% of the 14%. Two basis points. Right. Two basis points. That's why Graham is going to explain it. Okay. So I think there's a confusion. So the one way I think Senator White is understanding it is that the 14% excess tax would raise $4.4 million in FY23. Of that, 2% would be dedicated to the local... That's one way of understanding it. I don't think that's what Representative Mansell is saying. That's not what I had understood. That would be hard to argue with, but it's a tiny amount of money. Yeah. And the amount of money that would go to the local option under what Senator White... There are the local funds under what Senator White is saying. It's about $100,000 in fiscal 23. What Senator Ansel is asking is, is it two... So there's 14%. Is it essentially like 12... If I'm understanding what you're saying or everything, is it like 12% excise and then 2% local option? That's what I had understood. And that's about $600,000 rather than $100,000. Yeah. That's the way I was figuring it. Okay. It's a big difference. And depending on which way you do it, it affects the 30% that goes to the prevention programs. Because if you just taken $100,000 out, it doesn't have much effect on the 30%. If you've taken $600,000 out, it starts to... Whichever generates more for the local municipalities is the way you want it. Yes. Thank you for picking that up. I was going to agree with the 2% of the... I understand you would have. Well, I feel like the fee is better, but anyway. Sorry, I jumped in. So no, no, that was, that was helpful because we're having some trouble understanding the Senate's position with respect to the excise tax. Now I think we have a better understanding of it. I think... Yes. Can I just ask a question then? And maybe this isn't the appropriate time, but I would like to understand more about what you're talking about with the fees. If you think the fees are going to generate much more revenue, I'd like... Oh, okay. I think they generate about the same. The $600,000 is the figure that is what the 2% would generate. I think that's right. And I think the fees are roughly in that neighborhood. It's really a question of... Local fees would generate $600,000? They're not set yet. So until they get set, it's hard to know. Could you just... I guess for my own edification, I need to have some understanding of what that means and how they are going to get set, how local fees could generate $600,000 without having a huge impact on the people who are the establishment owners. I mean, $600,000. Anyway, so if you could just help me understand that at some point. Yep. I don't know if anybody wants to weigh in on it now, but I'm happy to do something to come back. Thank you. So clearly we need to have more discussion around taxes. I mean, there's no doubt about that. I've already mentioned local control opt-in versus opt-out. So in the public safety issues. So what we would propose at this point is coming back with a counter proposal on next Monday from the House with respect to the issues that remain in disagreement between us. I just want to make clear that I don't see a far apart on prohibited products. There's any disagreement. We're just trying to work out details of amounts that you see being in and out. So we're not saying that we don't want to protect consumers. We're fine with protecting consumers. That's our goal. One of the reasons that Senator Benning pointed out to even do this bill is to provide a regulated product that we're all comfortable with. I kind of liken the current system to moonshine whiskey. We don't know what we're getting. And I wasn't alive during prohibition, I want to point out. But I've heard stories from my parents about it. And so I think that's, it's only the details of the prohibited products. I think we can come up very quickly through discussion on a prohibited product proposal. So we look forward to your proposal. So that I want to make clear. Secondly, roadside safety is a key issue from the Senate. We didn't put it in the bill, but we've been working on it for years. And we believe that's why we agreed with the A-Ride and so many other things. We agree that it's important. We just don't believe that saliva is at a point yet where it can be taken and used as evidentiary evidence because it doesn't tell us if the driver was impaired or not. That's our problem with saliva. It's not that we're against, we're against using a test that might be done. And then on seat belts, it's simply a, you know, you can look at, I'm not going to argue with you about it. It's just, I know, even if the three of us on the Senate panel were to agree to keep seat belts in, we'd get defeated on the Senate floor with our proposal. And none of the three of us are ready to support seat belts. That's just, I want to make clear. Can I just throw one other thing in saliva tests. As a criminal defense attorney, I have to tell juries all the time that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The saliva test as it's designed here comes in without any kind of triggering mechanism to indicate that there's intoxication. We just haven't reached consensus on that issue. So what you're actually doing is you are placing into the mix a procedure that shifts the burden of proof over to the defendant to say, well, yeah, I had THC in my system because I consumed two weeks ago. That is something that's very problematic when you are trying to deal with a criminal process that assumes a person is innocent. Because you've shifted that burden now over to the defendant to demonstrate it's not what it seems, folks. So from my perspective personally, that's one of my pet peeves with that issue. Can I add something here? And then I have to run because my Xfinity guy is here. And I have to go up. So I'm going to add two thoughts here. One is that even all of your safety, highway safety things are related somehow to cannabis itself, except for the seat belts that is not related at all to cannabis. It would have been very similar if we'd put in bicycle riders have to wear helmets. It's not related to cannabis. My second thought is if you could help me understand how the opt in, out, opt in, out, opt out option, how one would have regulations varying from town to town and the other one wouldn't. Because either one, you mentioned that you did not want to see regulations varying from town to town and either one would. So just said that, and then I'll see you on Monday, but I have to run. I think one of the big, big distinctions between opt in and opt out is the fact that with opt in, you know, you can have, you're not addressing the illicit market. And that's an important feature of this. I mean, we have two things, public safety and making sure that we get the illicit market to get regulated. I have to run because the guy is here too. I know. So when we can explain it in more detail. Tell me, okay. Well, I wanted to, the issue of the medical remaining with DPS. I, we have heard that DPS is not, doesn't, would like to get rid of the medical program and ship it somewhere. So if there's an alternative to DPS, we're all, we're happy to look at that. Right. And I think that's an issue that we can discuss. I just tried out meeting with you on the 31st. Yes, the 31st. Yes, it is. Next Monday. Time fly. Summer's over. Almost. But what I wanted to make sure that you understood what our top priorities are. I think we've known that. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. And actually, I don't think, yeah. Yeah, I think we're all in agreement on what the top priorities are. We've come down to six or seven issues that are outstanding. Right. Whether we can bridge those issues or not, we'll find out next Monday. That's right. And that's what we'll try to work on to give you a proposal you can think about. In the meantime, enjoy the week. I don't know if I really want to be inside all day next week, this week in Zoom sessions. But we'll say I'll see Janet in a little while, I guess. I want to remind you that you're actually outside in a Zoom function. You've got a pretty good office right there. I haven't figured out how to get into the pool and stay on Zoom for a meeting. I am inside. I know. No. Thank you. All right. Thanks, John. And thanks, Janet and Bob. I'll see you in a bit. Thanks. See you next week. See you all.