 in the office of the legislative council. This is your second look at H143, the underlying bill proposed to eliminate the required election of town agents and to replace that required election with the optional appointment of town agents. After hearing some testimony, the committee asked me to prepare an amendment to instead completely remove town agents from statute. Either as an elective position or as an optional appointed position. The reason being, there are not many town agents still in existence out there. And the testimony to towns and from a lot of the cities and towns indicated that town agents have largely been replaced by municipal attorneys. The first section repeals subdivision 11 and 17 BSA 2646 to remove the required election of town agents. As it currently stands, this is a position that must be elected unless the municipality has a charter indicating otherwise. Section two deals with town agents by another name. So part of my testimony in the underlying bill is that town agents have all sorts of names inside of the Vermont statutes, annotated and wanted VLCT highlighted as problematic is the reference here to an agent to convey real estate. So whenever the municipality wanted to convey a piece of land, the town agent or the agent to convey in real estate had to certify that transaction. This particular section did allow if there was no elected town agent or if the select board failed to a point one, that there be some sort of process for appointment. All of that is being replaced with select designation of a town agent for the purpose of the express purpose of conveying that piece of real estate. And at the end here with some cleanup, the requirement that that designation be certified to the town clerk remains. The next few sections are gonna be some clean poke. Mr. Harrison. Okay, so back on section two, where we wait right there, pick out elected or appoint staff. Let's say it's a very, very small town that I heard from earlier. Yes, VLCT, when they were testifying about this section, they all alluded to wanting to see some sort of insurance certification tied to this. But absent an example of where that is required for any other municipal officer, the way that this section had already been constructed is that the agent got the authority to convey real estate through the select board appointment or their election. There was no requirement for even a town agent who would have this responsibility to have a license to perform a specific function. The next few sections clean up parts of the tax title where the town agent was given specific duties. And in each instance, instead of the elected town agent being the officer that is gonna carry forward these duties, it will be an individual that is designated by the legislative body. So you'll see that here with reference to appeals from the listers to the grand list. In section four, this is again grand list appeal procedures. In many cases, the town agent wasn't the only officer that could carry forward this duty. So in those instances again, the legislative body is allowed to designate an agent. Section six begins some charter cleanup work. So there are charters out there that have their elected or appointed town agents expressly listed in their charter provisions. So one of the points I raised in my testimony in the committee is that if town agents were going to be completely eliminated from general law, then each charter town that had an officer in their charter, town agent in their charter was gonna have to come back to eliminate it. Otherwise they were going to have to continue with their election or appointing. I went through the charters. I found each charter municipality that had either a required elected or appointed town agent and reached out to those municipalities and had the direction of the chair and the vice chair to see whether they wanted to remove their town agent. So the first, South Burlington, that section six confirmed that they no longer wanted to have the required appointment of a city agent. In section seven, the town of Hardwick also confirmed that they no longer wanted to have the elected town agent. So South Burlington is identified here. The statute was Hardwick. For the reasons that when we do our charter amendments, we amend the entire chapter. It's because the chapter heading contains the municipality. So right off the bat, at the beginning of the bill, you would see the city of South Burlington or the town of Hardwick. And in this case, these are individual sections, so. So we just have to make sure we. Section eight is the town of Milton and thankfully there was an officer from that town available to directly respond to this. So the town had an interesting office of town attorney slash town agent. And the request was that the town agent portion was struck. Section nine is the town of Springfield. They indicated they no longer wanted to have an elected town agent. Section 10 is a bit more interesting than the previous. The town of Westford asked the town agent he struck from their list of appointed officers. And last year, the general assembly removed grand jurors as a required office. And when we reached out to Westford to see if they wanted to get rid of their town agent, they said, could you also get rid of the pesky grand juror? Because last year you passed it and we haven't had an opportunity to amend our charter to strike grand juror yet. I don't know if it was grand juror. No. Have you ever called upon it? No. Section 11 is for the village of Morrisville. And I don't know if any of you have contacted the village of Morrisville before, but the trustees of the village are essentially the operators of Morrisville, electric and light. So when you call, you go through their billing department to get all the trustees. And they indicated that they would prefer to go by the new general statute, allowing them to designate the individual to be conveying real estate on their behalf rather than having the specific charter provision required in that appointment or election. Section 12 contains a transitional provision. This sort of provision gets put into the bills that are eliminating offices and it protects the current term of an elected official so that they can continue in their elected office until it's expiration. And then the municipality will take into the general law. Finally, the effective date will be July 1st, 2018. Okay, cool. If they have some random community activity, if they do not have a charter provision that allows their legislative body to establish positions that are not required by law, they would not be able to create a town agent that no longer exists. And if they had one currently, and that term ends, the position ends, that's what makes you happy to be chairing. Please, I run the meeting off and enough. You go right ahead and finish this, baby. Well, there's no more discussion. You said you didn't know what to do with it. Pardon? You needed to know what to do with it. That should be automatic. It is, it is. But I'm trying to get it right. Yes. If it's appropriate, I would move that we approve the as amended and draft. One second. The luxury is some very talented secretary. You're getting ready for recording. She's got draft 2.1 and everything. So who made the motion? Mr. Harrison made the motion and Mr. Kitzmiller seconded it. I don't think we need a secondary. Makes me feel important. No. Oh, you are. There's a little line in the middle. Thanks, Jim. Thanks, I was going to do that. Kitzmiller. I was, but he was ready to call. Oh, yes. Yes. Claire. Yes. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. Yes. Elastic. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Brownout. Yes. Colston. Yes. Colburn-Hansett. Yes. And we'll hold it open for John, please. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair. Thank you. You want us to take over the campus? Well, we're on a roll. Motion to approve. Wait a minute. You haven't seen the leg strapped. So in response to a request from the Chair of Human Services, I requested that Michelle take the dispensaries language of S-54. And so just to help you understand what that, basically S-54 had contemplated taking the dispensaries out of DPS, moving them into the cannabis control board. So that while the cannabis control board is writing rules for the different kinds of licensed cannabis establishments, they could also be thinking about what makes sense to require of the medical dispensaries in the new landscape where we have retail sales. The Human Services Committee has a great deal of history with having established the medical marijuana registry system. And for a number of reasons, complications within their committee workload, they did not feel that they had the time to really think about what regulation of medical dispensaries looks like in a retail world. And so I think at some point the Chair just decided to say, Uncle, we don't have time to do this. We need to make the time to do it next year. So it's not the end of the world, and it doesn't mean that dispensaries couldn't catch up with what the new marketplace is going to look like if the Human Services Committee were to get on something in January when we get back here. It just means that they're kind of being left in this sort of awkward limbo where they're still going to be operating under these very restrictive prohibition era constraints around who can enter a medical dispensary and who can access and how a patient designates which dispensary they're going to do. So there's a few kind of odd regulatory differences between what we contemplated when they're all together on the cannabis board and leaving them at DPS. But it is not the end of the world, and so I expect that given my conversation with Ann yesterday that the Human Services Committee memo will at a minimum strip out the dispensary language and thank you for the prevention fund, they will say that. And they hopefully will also have had a chance to appreciate the good work that we did on advertising because that is also a concern of the Human Services Committee that we do everything that we can do to keep advertising the cannabis out of sight of people who are under age 21. And then they also wanted to ask some questions about the public consumption restrictions because we don't want to see public consumption of cannabis. And so Michelle and John are both over there right now helping them to understand how we've gotten to the very strict definition of public consumption and how we really expanded the restrictions on advertising and requiring pre-approval. And so my assumption is based on the conversation I had with Ann yesterday is that they will give us this memo essentially making official what she said about the committee not having time to do all of the work that would need to be done. And so we do have a draft that the committee across the hall is looking at right now that we will begin looking at 11 if Michelle is done across the way. And that draft will be basically all of the final components with a few of the little decision points that we needed to come back to. So that's the plan. Any questions about that? Well, so I guess the procedure here I'm just trying to understand because I know you had indicated yesterday you'd like to have us made public this out today and find with them. So the approach is to take everything out of the existing bill pertaining to the medical dispensaries. That's what they've asked us to do. Right. So I'm just from, I guess, a timing perspective and a timeline. So we're going to approach it from strictly the retail sale aspect of it and there won't be any transitional period. So I mean it's like from where we are to now all of a sudden we're going to talk about a board being able to stand up, a standalone retail establishment. Is that the sort of where we? Yes. So the extracting of the medical dispensaries really just means that we're leaving the medical dispensary language under DPS and we're leaving it alone. But we are still in the legs construct directing the board to create an integrated license so that the same entities who currently hold medical dispensary licenses under DPS will be able to have an integrated license under the cannabis control board. They could decide they don't want to do that. They could decide we just want to cultivate and manufacture and we're not going to do retail or whatever. I mean they could still decide to do other things. So the entities that are medical dispensaries under DPS could be integrated licenses under the cannabis control board and that does still get us the early cultivator license, the early integrated license so that those two are coming online at the same time. It doesn't, we stepped back from contemplating giving the dispensaries that kind of head start that 14 month head start because it was just becoming too complicated. DPS didn't want to touch the dispensaries if they were starting to grow for retail sale and moving them to the cannabis control board was problematic in that timeline. But the entity, not the dispensary but an entity that may indeed be the same people can acquire another license and still move in that silo. It's going to be, you know, until we bring them both together under the cannabis control board it's going to be two silos. And it is what it is. So let's say that I'm one of those licensed small growers. I'm going to get my license based on the same timeline. But who am I going to sell to? I mean, it was only the impression that the, sort of the transition would be the medical dispensaries with the retail arm. And now I'm going to have to, we're going to have to wait and sort of stand everybody up at the same time in that I as a small grower, well I guess we'd have to have a processor. I think what you'll see in the bill is that it allows for the small cultivator to sell to either the medical dispensary or the integrated license, which is the medical dispensary operating in the adult sale market. So if the medical dispensaries need product for their medical side, they would be allowed to buy from the cultivators as soon as those small cultivators have something to grow. They would also be able to buy that for their manufacturing process so that if medical dispensaries are trying to gear up and make some of the other cannabis products for consumption, that they would be able to acquire product from the small cultivators. The small cultivators are going to be under... Small cultivators, and everybody having to do with adult sale is going to be under the cannabis control board. So there will at some point be some kind of cross between the two small cultivators or some of the dispensaries? Yes. Okay. And my hope is that with a little more time to see the way the ship is moving that we'll have a little more engagement in what makes sense as far as ongoing regulation of medical dispensaries. Do we have a new timeline? I think that would help me. I have one copy of it right now. Michelle's going to bring copies at 11 or maybe she has sent it. I don't know if it's up on the site yet. So, yeah. So, is there a plan B that if the ship across the way doesn't sail in the direction that... I don't know. Well, I mean, I'm hearing you say that the medical dispensaries are still a winch pin to this whole thing, and I'm saying is there a way to get around that? Well, what makes sense? In an ideal world, we're looking at this from a policy perspective kind of more broadly than just looking at the medical dispensaries. What makes sense? Well, I mean, traditionally what we've been talking about I think makes the sense, but if that's going to prove to be an obstacle, then what would make sense is you stand the board up, they go through the rulemaking, you issue the licensing to the appropriate functions, growers, processes, whatever, and you go to a retail market. What does this do to our timeline that we had scheduled within the bill? So, this has the board opening up the application period for cultivators and integrated licenses in January of 21, so that they would, before February of 21, issueing licenses for those integrated entities and for the small cultivators, the licensing of the broader retail establishment wouldn't be until July of 2021. So, there wouldn't be issuing licenses for anybody other than the five integrated entities until July of 2021. But before that, cultivators would be able to sell to the integrated licenses or ultimately to the product manufacturers who will begin getting licenses in May. And the construct of staggering this was really that you have to get your cultivators on board growing first, and then you can kind of spread your workload out while you license the laboratories and the manufacturers and then the retailers. So, it is a slower timeline than we had contemplated when we were talking about trying to fast track the dispensaries into the adult sale. But this is still, I mean, this is a typical timeline when you look at what the other states who have gone to a retail market have done. It takes generally two years to get a system up and going. And so, we're still looking at a very typical timeline. So, this pushes everything, it looks like if I'm reading the part of timeline, it looks like it pushes it back about a year. Right, without the dispensaries first, it pushes back retail sales out of here. Which, you know, is not the end of the world. I mean, it's going to give heartburn to the committee across the hall, the appropriations committee, because they're going to be saying, what, how long are we floating the seats standing at the board? But on the other hand, it gives municipalities another, so then municipalities would have another election at town meeting day in order to decide whether they want to opt out before retail licenses are issued in July of that year. Is that the new one? Or is that the old one? This is the 24th. That's anyone? Oh, okay. Okay. Will it be on today's calendar? I mean, today's schedule? Yes. If she can type and talk at the same time. Okay. I looked for it, but I didn't see it. I see you haven't been involved in this at all. Who wants to report 143? Go wrong. Do it. Thank you. All right. I'm on today. Pressure one more time? Are you going to do a side-by-side so we can see more of it at the same time? I thought we'd have you come in. Yeah, I can't do that. Let's do the side-by-side here, Mr. Whiskey. Oh, he did it yesterday. That is very appropriate where we can compare the two. Do you? No, I'm not serious. Do you want a side-by-side of two timelines? Yeah. Can you see what changed? Yeah. That's a good one. I can't figure out what to ask that question. Here. And what? Now I have to find where I went. See? Are you talking about in general or just under the screen? No, we just draft it as opposed to as well. Thank you. I think in that session we can mix up the scene. Thanks for working with us. Next year. Next book is not a good comment. Which is which? I, too. I, too. Okay, so the one on the left is the most current one. Correct. Yeah? Very nice. Very nice job. Thanks for a very nice job. This one's certainly simpler. Wow. Could you with your handy-gandy side-by-sides? Oh, it's on her. What do you want to zero in on? Well, I think you want to be on the second page because the first page really doesn't change in that the board stands up in the fall of 19. Appoints its advisory committee in December of 19. January makes recommendations on fees but then begins its rulemaking process. So it's really in July 1 of 2020 the new fees would need to take effect that would be presented to the General Assembly next year. And then they would do final rules by December of 2020 so that they can begin the application period in January of 21. So how much influence does the committee across the way have as far as I guess they're going to weigh in rules and responsibility but would they have per view over like what agency has oversight as whether it be the board or Department of Public Safety? Right now they are essentially exercising that and whether it makes sense for it to continue beyond this year in that way is really the question that they're going to have to grapple with. How do you about the time more? How do you manage to digest it? All of the other dates beyond the January of 2020 could conceivably be changed. I mean you can imagine a scenario where the board gets stood up and points its executive director and realizes oh my god there's no way that we can fit this timeline so they come back to us next January and say we'd like you to give us an extra two months here or three months there. It just seems that from the date of issuing the cultivator license I think it's on February 15 to the time where it's available for retail is like five months in July. So what that recognizes is that I think that contemplates lifting the plant count for the integrated licensees earlier so that they probably will still have product ready to sell before before cultivators have product ready to to help provide for the retail market. What do you think Jim? Did the obvious visit delay? It's not something I'm hung up on. I want to start slow with some heavily regulated dispensaries and also a deal breaker for me. The Senate sort of landed in a similar they didn't contemplate the dispensers going first but they did contemplate them coming over so that the board could be figuring out how to regulate them at the same time and maybe this construct actually lightens the board's workload between now and as much as a year from now when we finally get something in motion. I guess the question mark and the worry is that there's been reluctance on the part of the Human Services Committee to do anything to change the medical system and it's unfortunate that we couldn't have a more robust conversation about what makes sense from what we've heard by hearing testimony from the dispensaries and what we've seen in going toward them that there is a question about how they will how they will be able to continue to exist to provide for medical patients if they're not given a way to get into the retail market. What I've seen though is the control board is making up when people can apply and what people do they actually could write something which allows the dispensary to move over and get licensed under them. Right, so I'm thinking of this now as two different names. There's a medical dispensary and there is a mirror entity which is that integrated licensing and so they're going to have to have a sort of a split personality for a while until we can get the folks across the hall to engage in what makes sense to move them over. And I agree with that and what I'm saying is that this control board could favor giving dispensaries a license sooner with what we were trying to do but they couldn't actually come up with a plan on how they did that. Well and the other thing that it does though is that we contemplated moving the DPS positions over into the cannabis control board which would be a benefit to stand up the activities of the board with positions that are already being funded through the medical dispensary fee structure. I suppose we can still get to that next year. So you would be a better person to judge the ramification but what if we I mean I understand that they might not be comfortable across the hall with the senate put in nor S117 which is in their committee possibility and I just throw this out taking the existing medical marijuana statutes and just throwing it as is into this section and putting it under like we had contemplated and you were the timeline issue would be a bit relieved the problem is that it would have the board enforcing a regulatory structure that is much more stringent than what we're contemplating and doesn't include some of the consumer protection aspects that we're contemplating for instance medical dispensaries are not required to test their product but the new regulated market is going to be required to test the product so do you have some product coming through the dispensary that isn't being tested because they're sitting under the old DPS rules or do you overlay them and say you know you need to operate under the strictest testing guidelines but also the strictest patient constraint guidelines so I mean it really is a it is an illogical space to be in I'm just asking the question I'm not hung up I think from what I'm hearing that there's a clear committee position here that we think bringing them out of DPS and making some logical sensible changes to their regulatory structure makes the most sense and what those logical regulatory changes are is technically the purview of the committee across the hall and they weren't ready to engage in the details of that so thus we have this strange situation, Allison we have the dispensary testimony where they were actually working for some of the things like the checking level TEC declining this of their patients they're asking for some of the stuff that we're putting in this bill which they will not get if they stay where they are so it's not that we're forcing them they're asking in addition to asking for that testing and consumer protection requirements they'd like to be relieved of some of the things like the patient has to declare which dispensary is their dispensary and thou shalt never go into another dispensary I mean that is kind of the epitome of the most nonsensical restriction that in the new regulatory landscape we would want to leave open I mean if you became a medical patient and you chose Montpelier because you were living in Barrie and then you moved to Rutland and all of a sudden you know in order to get what you need from your medical dispensary you're having to drive an hour and a half that's crazy makes no sense you could just sign up to go to Brandon you change that now I think the well I don't know if you can amend your registry but when you have to renew your registry every one or two years I can't remember which and when you renew I believe you can change dispensaries but I don't know whether you could say oh I'm moving from you know Franklin County to Wyndham County and I need to well let's take a 10 minute break so those sections of the bill have been all removed I think there's only one change we are making to the medical dispensary laws which is to allow them to start growing earlier yep so the so in here we call is that part of this proposal from the Cuban Senate and what you guys have all been working under and is that in the what was in there was that at the beginning of 21 the program shift from DPS over to be regulated by the board and then you have these new statutory schemes that would be more integrated with the commercial system and that the board would have been developing rules for the medical program at the same time as the commercial thinking that they're going to be a lot of overlap and so all of that is out so with respect to the current registry program and the dysregulation of the dispensaries that is all as far as this proposal is concerned that is all staying under DPS under those existing statutes under title 18 under the rules adopted by public safety and so what you will have is you will have that continue to operate under that system and then you will have a commercial system regulated by the board so you have two regulatory systems dispensary will be able to apply for an integrated license under the new commercial system but they would be doing that under the new regulatory system and they would run their dispensary under the whole system Questions? I guess I guess I would like to hear briefly DPS comments on this again just briefly the part about DPS that you are not interested in telling us so JP we have made this change upon the recommendation of the committee who has jurisdiction over the medical dispensary system and I don't know if in the services committee chose to take testimony from DPS did they take testimony from DPS? not today and they did take testimony last Thursday but it was only an explanation of basically how the process worked it was not to ask their opinions about this bill for Michelle about the timeline so the way just to think about how this will work is that the legislature may choose next year to come back and look at the medical registry and look at those statutes and look at maybe further integration or do something like that so that can be done in a future a future legislative year the issue is that if they are going to look at the integration at some point you still have to be real nice so you have the medical lagging behind what the commercial is but at some point the legislature does want to tackle that and look at having a unified regulatory system instead of having two regulatory systems you can do that it just won't be happening at the same time awesome but it's clear that the dispensary at some point can't apply from this regulatory board this new board other than to do sales and licensing it doesn't mean that the dispensary can't apply for those licenses it'd be just it's actually just leave it it's kind of just freezing that program but commercial will get up and running and those people who run the dispensary can apply into the new system under the commercial and so looking at the new timeline I'll go through this just quickly and then we'll start to walk through the bill so still kind of the general stuff around getting the board organized getting them rolling in the fall beginning to draft the rules now they're only drafting rules for the new commercial system not for the medical any longer developing a strategic plan for the second and third year rollout coming up with the proposal for fees I put in here because you've worked so much on the advisory committee I now have rather than the only the board appointing to the advisory committee you have independent folks appointing to the advisory committee so I thought you wanted to have some kind of date then not only obviously what it is but I thought you should have some kind of date where the other appointing authorities are told to make their appointments to the advisory committee when they're December 1st for appointing to the advisory committee then you have the same timeline with regard to January for reporting to the general assembly you have the same as the previous drafts for initiating rulemaking March 1st of next year a few things they have to report back to one of the new things is about whether or not cannabis product manufacturers should be considered through the manufacturing establishment for purposes of regulation by DOH July 1st of next year you have the new fees take effect November of next year you have the board reporting on a few things around outreach and training and employment the online ordering and delivery and additional types of licenses by the end of next year you'd see the final adoption of the rules and then in January of 21 you would have the application period would be open for cultivators and integrated licensees and we'll look a little more at the integrated license language we did last time but we'll take another peek at that and so again the five existing dispensaries would be able to apply for the integrated licenses in January of 2021 something I realize I should probably put in here in September of 20 so prior to dispensaries being able to apply for an integrated license four months before that the caps would be lifted for the dispensaries and so the dispensaries could start to cultivate product to be able to then transfer to an integrated licensee so that they would be able to start selling relatively quickly once they're licensed in 2021 so but again the integrated licensees and cultivators are on the same track in terms of timeline it also so then you have to start issuing those licenses no later than February 15 and then that opens an application period for testing labs we didn't want to kick the testing labs down too far because the cultivators will be able to have their products tested at an integrated licensee because they're allowed to test and they can test for other licensees but you might want other testing labs to be able to come online if there's others so you begin issuing licenses for labs in April and then you open the application period for product manufacturers and wholesalers at that time you begin issuing those licenses for product manufacturers and wholesalers in May open up for retailers in June and you begin issuing for retailers in July retailers can't be able, as soon as they're licensed they can start selling to the public if they have products and they're all ready to go so when you think about it you may have the first sales being from an integrated licensee of which there can only be a maximum of five you might see those as early as January, February 21 and then you'll see them as early as July of 21 for the new retailers so on that particular issue are we still setting the or is that going to come back to the recommendations that's going to be back with recommendations so I'm going to go through and I'm going to hit the highlights so I did not highlight all the stuff I removed from the bill there's like big swaths and then there was all integrated with just a lot of cross-references and stuff and I just thought it kind of cluttered up having to highlight all those but just know that anything relating to the existing medical registry or dispensaries operating as dispensaries serving patients is gone so first change is on page 2 on cannabis product and so Representative Fiannin had asked that I add something to address just to make absolutely clear that when you're talking about a cannabis product that it includes vaporizer cartridges that contain the oil that are used with battery powered devices because you wanted to make sure that it wasn't just the cannabis oil in them that was being tested because there's concerns with some, especially on the illegal market and then some that they were seeing actually that were tested in California that the actual mechanical device that contains the oil had lead or heavy metals in there that were not safe for people to be ingesting and so this is just a clarification that so by adding it to the definition of cannabis product it's clear that when they're testing products and there's requirements for testing products that they've taken to consideration that it's also that delivery device that contains the oil this is I just needed to amend the duties of the board so now it's just applying to the to the commercial system no longer so this process question we have open questions that I know what it says here I have suggested a different appointment process and I wondered if we're going to do these as we go through or if we're saving nose for a food fight at the end let's have a food fight at the end that's fine I mean I think what would be helpful is if we can get a first run through the bill understand what the structure of the bill is and then we can come back and do our final markup and vote and then we will tick off so if you can flag them for me that would be great so we will come back to the board so next is on the advisory committee so so talking with the chair and vice chair they asked me to look at so remember your previous versions said that the advisory committee shall contain people with certain expertise not not limited to that but should certain expertise should be convened on the advisory board and then they discussed with other folks about whether or not there should be certain people making those appointments so the way that this is structured is that so the advisory committee shall include at a minimum you have the governor appointing three of those people to the advisory committee and again remember this is not an exhaustive list this is just they have to have these folks on the governor appoints somebody with business management regulatory compliance someone in public health and a member with expertise in lab science and toxicology the house will appoint someone with expertise in systemic social justice and equity issues and someone with expertise in women and minority owned business ownership and experience still on there I'm sorry I thought that editing would pick that up so as it's a duplication no it's you know there's a couple things that are wrong there let's come back to that I need to take a look at that and see what happened there but basically what it does is it takes the list of folks that you all had on the last draft and divvies them up among the five appointing authorities that you have for the board so let me take a look at that and see where that gets screwed up Governor gets three appointments other folks get those appointments have to be made on or before December 1st of this year so that they can kind of get seated and be able to be there as a resource for the board as they initiate rulemaking board may appoint members in addition to those who are identified in subdivision one to not be construed in the board in any way and then the board may establish subcommittees within the advisory committee and just so our committee understands the committee across the hall wanted to be sure that the Department of Health would be able to help appoint somebody to the advisory commission of the advisory committee and so the governor does have that public health appointment to the advisory committee and that will be I'm sure in consultation with the experts of health no sorry Rob I'm just did I miss the discussion when we were going through and appointing the advisory committee members and I thought that did I miss that must be you did it was a in response to concerns that John and I were hearing outside of the committee when people started to realize that there was that the board was not this is your plant science expert business and regulatory expert this is your social justice expert and when they realized that we extracted that expertise and created advisory committee they wanted to make sure that different appointing entities control over different membership of that advisory committee so it is an attempt to hybridize the old version of the new version and still give different authorities the ability to to appoint people who will advise the board matter of fact we need to grant appointing authority to the junior member from very town to consult on delivery services to consult on delivery services okay thank you beautiful thank you not quite yet wrong room I fixed the glasses so that I can return them he flagged me down yesterday and he was like I want my glasses back and I said well how many pieces did you want them in because we have three pieces where yeah I wonder anything to do with this she also attributed a meeting to me that I had never had and I had to do some work to make sure nobody thought that I it's not in the bill this is all just you know scuttle butt around the building alright let's go back to the next page 16 so this is on the reporting section with the board coming back to you all next year is with a recommendation about whether or not the product manufacturer should be regulated by the department of health as other manufacturing establishments are so they would come back to you next beginning of March so ideally I'm envisioning I'm still here I'll be working on I'll be working on cannabis legislation next year and so you know whatever bill is being considered whatever if they come in and say you know absolutely these folks are making cookies it doesn't matter if it contains cannabis or not they should be inspected then you guys can slip that in whatever you guys are working on I also put on here for the date for November next year for the training and employment again I'm trying to stage it so it's not all front end where they're working on the heavy lift because the reality is they're not going to be engaging in any out retraining or employment programs until really the next year so I think it's still before anybody's license things like that so it just a little space for the board to be focused on the other things at the beginning so I believe that the vice chair brought up the issue of committee about wherever we have warnings that are listed that there will be additional warning that canovation abuse by women who are pregnant or breastfeeding so that is see that a few different places here is contained in an advertising section but it's also with regard to some labeling that you'll see later on we want to touch on so up to you whether or not you want to scope into the human services discussions while we're on advertising maybe it makes sense I think so so human services suggested two changes here to the warnings so number can you go to the warnings see okay there they are so for number two they're just like cannabis has intoxicating effects that may appear because concentration, coordination, judgment and you should not operate heavy equipment that's what they wanted that I see too so anybody want to say something about that you're going to go there I'd say heavy equipment is like big cranes and bulldozers I don't think there's a lot of motor vehicles and motorcycles it was heavy equipment it's machine units can you do a riding lawn mower that was their suggestion we could say vehicles or heavy equipment I think that's what they meant we don't want somebody driving a Prius to think that because it's light equipment that they somehow aren't good in that warning you also want to add a fork warning which is and we'll need to tweak this language because they weren't very specific but the use of cannabis may lead to a dependence in some adults in some adults there that's good they initially said they wanted their polluted ideas it causes psychosis or health problems and the health department came in and said this is the one thing that they would recommend is that rather than the other ones again when you have to make a distinction what's on cigarettes or what's on alcohol an issue because there's not testing and studies allowed on cannabis it's different so you don't have a surgeon general warning about certain things so the health department recommended the dependence one and I can work that language I can check in with Shayla she said it may lead to dependence in some adults I think the important thing is the factual if we're putting a warning label on that then becomes disproven by a study in a year or a year and a half makes no sense but yes so going to which is right under the highlighted one this is about advertising review see what it says the board may they recommended that to the board shall require a specific disclosure remain advertisement in a clear and conspicuous manner if the board determines the advertisement the faults are misleading without such an disclosure so from a legislative drafting standpoint I think it's fine because I think that the second parts of those sentences where it talks about if the board determines the advertisement would be faults or misleading I think it's fine to have a shout and I think the same on the road is that if I public health then they shall so I think it's fine questions committee I see a thumbs up when we have them we will include those changes one other not here to be able to mention so these are the changes so under rulemaking starting with page 30 going into page 31 these are the changes that you all discussed with David Hall and the other day we're dealing with clarification around information that is provided to the board and in what information would be part of being allowable under the public records request and what would be exempted so I'm assuming you all are all clear on that so is there anything in the application process for the decision on granting a license in Seattle that's going to be confusing or any other thing between the entity controlled by the the campus control board in terms of their actual structures that need to be different corporate entities or is that in any way that allows for the I'm asking because at this point it seems like all of a sudden they're controlling somebody that's growing and selling to somebody else it seems like there's been a period of time when I have missed this where DPS is going to be controlling some entity that's going to be growing and possibly selling to under a different license structure we're going to have one entity and they're going to operate under this system they're going to operate under a different system I think the cell is not going to be they're going to need some lawyer so let's do it that way so Michelle we should try to pick a logical stopping point that leaves the committee five minutes before lunch to go over something that's coming up on the floor sure let me scroll through there's just pregnant breastfeeding language adding it through the mornings something on the integrated licenses that represents Pearson who brought up around the location so when you think about the five individual types of licenses you can only have one location of each of those and then the question is like well you're an integrated licensee how does that apply to you so if you're an integrated licensee and you're allowed to do all of those please have to do them all under one roof or not and so I added language so that the integrated licensee will permit only one location for each of the type of activities permitted by the licensee cultivation wholesale product manufacturing retail sales and testing so they may choose so they could have a maximum of five places but they could only have one location where they would be doing point of sales they're probably just going to aggregate where they can so maybe they have their cultivation and product manufacturing in one place they're not even doing any wholesaling and then they're doing retail sales in some other location but it wouldn't restrict them to only one location to have to meet all of those needs does that make sense questions on that concept committee so I was trying to just make it similar to what other people could do so let's say if you didn't have an integrated licensee and a dispensary wanted to do all five things they get one of each five licenses and they could have five locations to do one to do each one of those activities this just it clarifies that's the step it's the same for them under the integrated can they have one place to do more than one thing sure on such an age bond page 41 this is just the PRA language tweak that y'all already approved yesterday there's a few little places in here that I was going through the bill that I thought just needed to be chewed up a little bit where you have around who can do what and who can sell to whom purchase from whom and the so I added and so when you're thinking about a dispensary so there's places in here where dispensaries can sell and purchase from some of these licensees but there were other places where it just didn't it didn't match up so it wasn't consistent so I just added it in there so just adding that a wholesaler is allowed to purchase from a dispensary same with a product manufacturer see that had there that they could sell but it didn't say that you could purchase and so in thinking about having the most viability for the dispensaries and being able to work between the dispensaries and then also being able to work with the other licensees of the commercial and also their integrated license or other integrated licensees adding um I don't know if it's the right place to ask this question and I think for some reason I think we've missed it but as far as transporting the product let's say that you know I'm a cultivator and I'm selling it to a wholesale no limits on how much of the product I'm supported at around the time well the port is going to adopt rules in regards to transportation and and what they can do around that so that's the port for you okay thank you so again retailer giving them the ability to purchase from a dispensary it might be that a dispensary carries a particular strain or a particular product that they make that a retailer may want to they want to carry as well and so allow them to be able to purchase that from a dispensary this is just a technical on the testing laboratory license um adding in there I think it was just an oversight that testing labs not only test cannabis but they also test cannabis products or other licensees or dispensaries so this is just on the section for implementation of the license and we'll go through this and then I'll maybe stop it with my day a good stopping point but just to review so as of September 1st of next year the dispensary caps on being able how much they can grow things like that would lift they would be permitted to then cultivate cannabis and produce products for the purpose of transferring or selling them to an integrated licensee after January 5th of 2021 so that's the time when those dispensaries could start applying for those integrated licenses so if you had a dispensary and then they obtained an integrated license they could then transfer or sell some flower or products to that to the integrated licensee that may be them as well or it could be another integrated licensee again maybe kind of sharing products saying I want to offer this and I don't grow this that sort of thing and so they would be able to do that so the caps would lift in the fall and then they could start transferring and selling each January once they're licensed under the new system and then this we just have about the timeline again I just want to point out that those integrated licenses were happening at the same time as the cultivation licenses and there's still the priority for the small cultivators that's in there I moved the testing labs I kind of moved those around again I'm trying to avoid having too many license applications at any one time integrated licenses and cultivators at the beginning I just bought a little bit down the road but not too far because if there are people who just want to obtain a testing lab we want to make sure there's as many testing labs before you have options as possible out there for licensees because everybody's going to be required to test their products and it's not going to AgLab because AgLab is only doing client's testing so it didn't want to push it out too far because you may have cultivators who are coming up with product kind of early on in the scheme of things and you want to give them as many testing opportunities as possible to say it's really hard to delete pages and pages but there's all the medical stuff that's out on the taxes I'll just say basically there's a lot of changes in with the tax stuff and that's just basically adding in that view I wanted you guys to be cool with the integrated license on the last draft now that you are you just incorporated that all into taxes because now the previous draft only had it for retailers now you have it for integrated licensees as well and that makes me think I've got to add that I don't know the difference in the municipal thing they want to ban them I'll check to make sure the integrated licensees are already in effect they're already in existence no that doesn't exist now just dispensaries so I would say a town could ban an integrated licensee you could make a policy decision that they can't and I can add that in there but because they would be one of the six types of licenses under the new commercial system but an integrated licensee just because it has the same owners and controlling principles as a dispensary does not make them a dispensary so with the tax stuff again I had to true that all up because it applies not to just the taxes collected by your retailer but taxes now that will be collected by an integrated licensee so there's a bunch of changes to the tax stuff but it's not really anything new substantively for you there's the and then I just added all of you have your misuse prevention stuff which we talked about quite a bit and then I added all the recommendations of the judiciary committee so those all go for about 15 pages and I added in the language on safety belts and their understanding I don't know did healthcare report to you guys yet so they're all good so I took the shading out for that so you've got your CVD FDA approved that's in there you have your ag lab changes those are all the same and then I just had to change the effective dates we made an action bill that was correct excellent so committee I'm going to ask you to use any free time that you have between now and when the floor is done to go through and flag the sections of the bill that you'd like us to have some more committee discussion on and we know what some of those decision points are that we've been leaving to come back to and so after the floor my intention is for us to come back and do a final markup and vote on this bill so if you need to find quiet space and want to spend some time going through the bill we will go through it more slowly this afternoon and take the opportunity to make sure that we are comfortable with the way the pieces fit together and we'll come back to our few decision points and make sense before we leave to little lunch we have a house bill that is back from the senate and I'm going to ask John to describe the voluminous changes that the senate made to the bill just think it's actually quite straightforward so that we can decide before we head to the floor whether we are going to concur 546 concur with further proposal of amendment not concur request a committee of conference or blow the hook enough thank you but this is the town clerk fee bill and as you can tell on the left is the two proposed amendments from the senate and basically what they are doing is adding a single word in two places which is the word time so that when it's in the endorsement section which is section 9 of the bill which is so when the clerk endorses a document recording they will put on the certificate not just the date but also the time