 Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 and extended again by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted by a remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner by emailing stevemccarthys.gov. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post on the Amherst website an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. And with that done, we'll take a roll call of attendance. Dylan. Here. Hallie. Here. Gaston. Here. And I'm here for here one absent. That being Doug, and we'll go to public comment. Is there anyone here for public comment, general public comment unrelated to anything on the agenda? Any participants? One attendee. See Anderson. Okay. If you do have a public comment unrelated to the agenda, just hit the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. If not, okay. So we'll go on to the next thing, which is discussion topics a marijuana regulation. So, I don't know if we want to do the conversation about the structure of the meeting or just guest on. Do you want to give us an overview of the document? It was very helpful. Thanks a lot. Sure. Well, I guess what I would suggest if, if it makes sense to everybody would be if Steve could share that issues list. I can explain how I set it up and, and, and how we might use it to organize our conversation. Okay, that's great. Steve, could you share the screen? I was actually, you guys see that. Yes. Great. And perfect. You, if you, you could even, you know, zoom in to fill the width of the page. If you, if you like, or, or, but in any case, what I've done here is organize three sources of issues in a table and the three sources are number one, the Worcester ordinance. Number two, existing host community agreements in Amherst and then number three, the draft regulation that Doug drafted. And so what I, I thought we might do is kind of go through the issues one by one. And then in that last column, we can make some notes that Steve might take down. Basically, do we think that the issue is one that should be in a bylaw? Or is it an issue that should be spelled out in a regulation? Or is it an issue that we don't want to address? Or that we wish to be able to address through our discretion. And then my, my idea is that when we go through the issues this way, we'll be able to say, okay, we want to cover these. Dozen issues in a, in a bylaw, we want to cover these other issues in a regulation and we want to be clear about our discretion to, you know, address these other kinds of issues as the need may come up. Okay, thanks. Sounds like a, sounds like a good plan. And then let me just add where a particular issue was addressed by more than one of these sources. Then you'll see that noted. So the first set of issues are coming from the Worcester ordinance, but then I made cross references where that same issue is addressed somewhere else. In particular, a few of those issues were addressed in, in Doug's regulation. So the first, the first big issue is what is the purpose of, you know, either the bylaw or are regulating. And as you'll see, I think what's interesting is the way that Worcester frames that. And we can compare it to what's in the current draft that that that Doug prepared. Yeah, I think this is great. Thank you for putting this together. I think this will be a good way to organize our thoughts on this. Yeah, it looks really good. So do you want to do just on a start at the top right now and go through it. So there. Did you go. The host community agreement pages. I mean, section is. Is that to be filled out? No, that's, it's just nothing there. Oh, I see, I see. Oh, they're the numbers. Okay. Right. That gets addressed on the, that comes next. I first did everything that's in the ordinance. Okay. In the Worcester ordinance. Okay. So I, I mean, I guess we're kind of, I'm just relocating now to my office fist fist fist fist fist fist. To allocate these issues. You know, and decide what's important to us. And, and where we think it fits if it's it. Okay. Great. Sounds good. What does everybody think? Do we want to just start at the top or purpose of by law regulations? Yeah, I think we should start. Okay, because I noticed like Doug's, Worcester's looks pretty thorough and then Doug's is just defining the process process for renewal, which seems to be that's more under regular, more under regulations, right? Compared to what Worcester has. Yeah, I think, I think that's, I think that's right, Marion that Doug, but you know, Doug emphasized a lot of the process issues that I think are for regulation, but he's also raising some substantive issues that that I think we want to discuss. Oh yeah, definitely. I'm going to be set up in my computer in just a sec. So, okay, give me a sec. Okay, sure. We can hold on. And one, one thing I'll note is that both the Worcester ordinance and the and Doug's draft regulation assumed that the establishments in question would also have a host community agreements. Right. And what I understand, Steve, is that when these expire, they're not going to be renewed if we have a licensing regime in place. Is that how you understand the idea? I think that is the intention. We'll have to see how completely practical that is, but I do believe that is the intention. And I know there's some changes the state's making with host community agreements. So, you know, if the state mandates them, then we may just kind of pare down to a de minimis host community agreement. But if we can get rid of them, I think the intention would be to replace them with these. Okay. Well, I mean, one question is do we feel like we need to put a cap on the number of licensees. My inclination would be no is it's already covered by zoning. Yeah. And especially since I think at least I see Worcester has it non-transferable. I mean, I think we want to avoid the problems we come into with liquor license quotas, not as much in Amherst, but in other towns. And if there was a cap and that would kind of lead to that, that problem even indirectly. Okay, so Steve, I wonder if I can ask you to make some notes as we're going through here. Yeah, sure. I think on the purpose we should come back to talk about that, but I think the answer there is going to be both that we want to address that at both levels. Yes. And, you know, slightly differently, but maybe we should come back because that's going to be an interesting conversation. I do want to point out that Worcester identified a few different kinds of considerations and I think they did a good job of spelling some of those out and we should try to do the same based on what we think is important. Yeah, I agree. I think that on the next line we've got a question mark based on what you've said, Steve, on the host community agreement, kind of to be determined maybe based on state law, number of licensees I think we're leaning towards no. The age I should have said there the ages of the licensee, and I assume that we also have. Yes, like that. I mean, this seems like yes and in the bylaw I would think right that the age of the licensee. Yeah. Now, the age of the licensee would that be every member of an LLC or every stockholder of a corporation or the manager. It's a it's a good question I think the Worcester ordinance was drafted as if there was a human licensee but I what I hear you saying that we're thinking of LLCs our business is being the licensee. So, maybe that's something to be maybe no question mark. I'm sorry, the age is a no question mark. Well, I would hear what what's what about what are the ABC regulations for an LLC holding an alcohol license. Do you have to be 20 to all the members have to be 21 and older. That is a good question. I don't. I think they have to be American citizens I don't know if they'll have to be over 21 but I could be wrong about that I'd have to check because I would try to mirror on some of these. Okay, relations here with the ABC. Yeah, so so say, you know conform to ABCC rules. Yeah, transferable that that seems like a pretty core core issue that would be in a bylaw. But I mean it we could say kind of bylaw subject to regulation of commission. I don't know what, what scope we would have to adjust that principle I mean I guess we would be what we would be the ones to approve a transfer if it were to get approved. So maybe that is subject to regulations. I think it might be good to disambiguate transfers as in somebody else's buying an existing business and transfers as in, I'm trying to buy somebody else's license because there's a scarcity. Okay, I think that I think that here the issue in the, I'm going to open it up but I think the issue here is of the license itself. So we could, we could add that to the to the left column Steve let me double check it. Yeah, that's the license in the Worcester in the Worcester. Yeah. So, I don't know if we want to if we should have that flat rule of no transfer transfer only subject to subject to the, the, the board the commission approval. I think you would want it to be subject to the board approval but I do think we just want to avoid the kind of quota system. Yeah. Okay, so then we can say, you know, put regulations there are subject to subject to commission slash regulations. The posting of licenses that seems very much like a regulation type thing, not a, not a bylaw. Yeah. So he also seems for for commission. Yeah, rex or slash commission. School distance. Now, there's a common. Yeah, there's a commonly. Oh, sorry term. I, I, is that in the, is that the CCC or is that already in the host community agreements I didn't catch that. That's in zoning as well. Okay. I would maybe suggest leaving that in zoning. Then, yeah, that makes sense. That's not so just say, they'll, you know, zoning or whatever. The, the emergency plan. I mean, I think it seems like the bylaw should maybe require it but bylaw, you know, as specified by regulations. Yeah. Yes. The, the. The SOPs is interesting because it wasn't specified in the, in the ordinance, what, what, what is involved there but it seems whatever it is would be for the commission for commission. Yeah. Standard operating procedures. Oh, it's sort of like, it's sort of like their management plan. And the other, I think, I think that that's the hang on. Where, where, where, let me see where I'm getting that from before the security plan. Yeah, what they have is, Oh, it's written operating procedures in accordance with and there's a CMR section that I guess we should cross reference here. It's a 935 CMR 500.105. 100.5. 500. Sorry, it's 935 CMR and then 500.105. Okay. Security plan seems like for regulations. Worcester had these prohibited times. I don't know if, if we feel like there have to be prohibited times. The permitted times are as specified on a license. So we would. It's the prohibited time kind of restricts the, the discretion of the commission. I don't know if I don't, I mean, I, I guess I would defer to the town. I mean, what, what, what do you think is our recommendation? Should there be kind of officially off limits times? I think that I'm going to say. I was going to say, I mean, I'm, I'm for keeping that just regs and giving us that flexibility to see what we do because it's the same we do with alcohol. Like if we, if we wanted to make it 2am, could we, or is that like something through a bylaw? State law prohibits liquor, lice, liquor being served between 2am and 8am or 8 or 10, I believe. And then the town can choose if they want to go up to 2 or not. And I think Amherst traditionally has, although they're actually the Amherst college licenses up until 2. But the new zoning bylaw says that they can only serve until 1am. But generally the state law has kind of prohibited times, if you will. Yeah, I mean, yeah, we're going to hit state, but is that like for, for liquor, is that something that, that is our discretion? You're saying that it's a bylaw that regulates liquor until 1? That's, well, it's actually this, well, the, the Amherst, the Amherst zoning bylaw just recently changed. And now it, now it prohibits alcohol service after 1. Although that only applies to things that are subject to zoning, which things on college campuses aren't. And this only came into effect less than a year ago. And I believe the Amherst college Schwemms pub as a license until 2am. Actually, even there are even some, some bars which do not, which do not have zoning permits that were done under the most recent zoning. So theoretically that could the time could maybe be changed if it doesn't, if the way there's only their zoning permit is written. That it does not really touch on times theoretically, you could go past that but it's it's covered in zoning. So it's kind of a differently overlapping thing, but the state law says there's no way you can go past you. No, I mean, I'd say my feeling on this one is just regulations because you have the town does want to adopt a bylaw where the state wants to prescribe it sure but otherwise I always for the flexibility. If somebody makes a good case for why it needs to be open at a certain time. Why don't we put like state state law question mark on this line on the prohibited times so we can kind of find out if there's anything. But otherwise it kind of just goes to the next line which is the license determines the permitted times. Yeah, the next row. So the permitted times will be by you know commission right commission to decide. Also, my, my colleague did send me along the age requirements for liquor licenses and that is, you have to every partner has to be 21 or over so. Okay. So, the, the Worcester, the Worcester law specifies no consumption. And what I do want to make sure we have on our radar, especially if we want to kind of start kind of being positioned to pave the way for for whatever like a cannabis cafes is what the summit lounge and Worcester has done and I know that we had looked at an article before but there's a an article from last summer that I think is sorry last November I think is newer than then what we have already looked at so I'm going to forward that article to to Steve, maybe so that we can look at it. The next time we talk, as we consider the possibility of, of a cannabis cafe. Is that the private club there. Yes, the summit lounge is the private club that is in in Worcester and has, you know, they're, they're operating in a space that is seems to be open, the article frames it as open due to loopholes but anyway it's a good source of both the considerations that they've considered but also the arguments for and against cannabis cafe so maybe we can come back to that but here the point is that the dispensaries have a kind of a no no on site consumption by the Worcester ordinance and so I I guess that the question is whether we want to open the door or to be poised. Let's put it that way in case things clear up a little bit more for cannabis cafes. I mean I go ahead. I like the idea of being able to do a cannabis cafe I guess the real question is how would we approach it by a bylaw or regs it seems like something that might have to be allowed by bylaw. But maybe regs I don't know what's your feeling on that one Steve do you think that's something substantial enough that it should be a bylaw. I think that the state law prohibits dispensaries from having any on site consumption. Although the summit was some allowance or some club is that's an interesting case if it's the same one I'm thinking of because they were just a club that just like the VFW or something with no liquor license but they would just you know say well you know smoking is allowed and smoke whatever you want and that was pretty much completely not subject to regulation then and I don't really think there's anything that that could be regulated about it. So the same thing happened excuse me if the same thing happened here say at the where's it the VFW is close what's the other one called the. Legion. Yeah. More complicated. They get smoking there right I'm sorry go ahead. It gets it more complicated with a liquor license I guess because there are conditions that can be put on a liquor license but. Right. So it's just like it's almost like an Elks club or something or where there's no with no liquor license just a private private club. So, is that I mean. Is that something we should. You know it's illegal by state law then we can't put it in here right but if it's something that we have that is happening in the club in Worcester should we not address that I think Dylan you suggested this before in our club regulations. Right. And just leave that kind of like the where we're flexible. So I know looking into this more with club regulations when it comes to a liquor license and yes they are being regulated. But like it'd be like if you if like me and you Mary and we were to rent out a space and just make it up a private club and you know we wanted to charge some. Monthly admission to people who want to help us rent out this space or what have you. You know nobody can really come in and regulate what we do in this area we're just renting out as kind of our our hangout spot. So in that way I think we really can't do anything about it and I really don't think you know when you kind of think about it like that that we would want to do anything about that. Kind of out of our right that would be addressed by the person who's renting this space right in the agreement like you're renting you can't do this this here we allow. So that's more of a private agreement. Exactly. Okay. How about we just which is good. Okay I just don't think it's one that would really have to really have to concern us. I think this is on the condition that should the state allow for cafes you know do we want to be in a position to say you know have already my thinking on this one is that should the state allow for it. Would like to see Amherst in a position to you know that that we as a commission and a board has already thought this out. And it's not something that's being just kind of thrown at us that we got to deal with because it's like we're talking about it now we can deal with it now and kind of figure out. If the state says no and that just happens for the next 20 30 years and then on the commission we wrote some you know bylaws or regs just in case. You know whatever but if it if it does come to fruition that we already have something in place that defines how we want to go about it I think would be a good idea. Should the state allow for cannabis cafes. Oh yeah I do I do agree it's good to be prepared but. How about we say kind of bylaw slash TBD slash see private clubs. Yes, yeah. Yeah I guess I would maybe just suggest taking a step back that you know no no commercial on site consumption without a license and if you know, and that may even with the cafes that may still be kept separate from dispensary it's a package store you can never drink there, but I mean the board may not even have to take take really a position on I mean theoretically that state allowed that you can get multiple licenses but. So maybe we could put like that in no on site consumption and Spencer is but for future whatever Gaston said to be D clubs. And we can talk about it. Yeah, my vision from here is that we've kind of given a roadmap for right. I mean I guess Dylan was the one volunteering to put in some energy here. To kind of run with these kind of the guidance that we're creating here. Yes, start assembling the documents. I think of employees. It's interesting to note that the, the, the Worcester ordinance actually had a hat requires employees to have this valid marijuana establishment registered agent cart. It's done by the CCC. I, I don't. I actually have to double check I don't I don't think the host community agreements had that, but and and Doug's regulation addresses training in section 15 but doesn't specifically require this so I don't know if we know it seems like maybe this can go in the. Regulation, I don't know if it's bylaw regulation what do you guys think. Yeah, I would say training as specified by the regulations. Yeah. I don't know. The CCC simply requires that all employees have this already and the Worcester ordinance was just restating that I don't understand that yet. Yeah, I don't know. I guess I have the same questions. I also don't know what categories of employees would need that I don't know if it would just be the sales people and the managers or if the janitor would need that too. I think this also brings up kind of a bigger question, which is often something you run into in local regulation is does the, does what the board want to restate everything that's in the law, or just, you know, that state law covers what it covers and the board is focused on what what's important to it. Yes, I agree so I looked it up and I think we should say. You know, by regulation, C, and I'll give you the, I'll give you the, the section reference Steve it's 935 CMR 500 dot 030 It applies with law I mean that's a give that's a gimme so I assume that that can be in the bylaw I mean it's just kind of standard language. Notice the Worcester ordinance gives the commission very broad rulemaking authority it says any rules and regulations it deems necessary to implement the section I mean that that is a good. broad delegation of authority. It's consistent well you know Doug was very expansive in his authorities. But I think something like this is going to be appropriate in the bylaw I mean we might tinker with the language the town council may have its own ideas but we need something like that in the bylaw for sure. The inspection rights, I don't know if I mean I guess, maybe that's bylaw worthy what do you guys think I mean it's. This kind of goes towards the safety plans and so on but. The license to though, I mean, I don't know what do you guys think. I'd say license but. I guess the bigger question is do we want any kind of specific operational stuff in the bylaw at all or really just kind of the authorization of the, of the entire. Yeah, I mean that that could be just like the board of like the town council authorizes the board of license commissioners to do mandate these things. I mean, I guess in, you know, the reality is, I mean, as I would imagine the inspect the department of inspection, the police department and the fire department don't need an additional source of authority to inspect these establishments do they. I think it would be good to put in I think something like that is in the host community agreements as well as like it could be wrong. But we'll see in the we'll see in a sec what's what's there. As we scroll down so I mean, maybe we can just put question mark for now to sort it out violations I. So what you know they're the bylaw is putting a cap on on what the commission can. So the penalties that the commission can assign. I, I mean, I guess we may not want to argue for having these caps, but to leave that in the regulation. I guess the town council may wish to impose caps I don't know what you all think about that. We'll be able to see what Doug is proposing when we when we scroll down a little bit. I mean, I'd be inclined to put as much as we can actually in the license and regulations instead of the bylaw. If we ever want to amend it. We don't have to go through town council. Okay. I'm going to go back to the plan to agree with you, Hallie. I do think that with with the violations. I think you have to put something about the non criminal disposition the way it's enforced in the bylaw. But we can probably just check in with council on exactly what needs to be in there. I don't know if the numbers would need to be in there. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So what we're now shifting. So, you know, so now has everything that's in the Worcester ordinance. So hopefully you found that a little easier to, to think about what's coming next are the issues that I kind of pulled from the host community agreements and what I've done is just kind of identify the issue in the left column and then if you, you know, those footnotes take you to the back of the document where is the actual text that I had circulated a couple weeks ago. You know, but the policy issues for us are, we want to perpetuate some of the commitments that the town had included in house community agreements. The first one on this list is hiring and sourcing locally so both employees and and procurement. Is that something we really can do through regulation. It's, you know, a requirement if Steve if you double click on that number two, it'll take you to the language. This is the language from the from host community agreements to give you an example. So it's, it's, you know, it's efforts. It's a best efforts type of requirement which I think probably is within our authority to say that you should make these best efforts. It's a very difficult requirement to enforce other than inviting a licensee to come and explain what their hiring practices are and we could be like wait but what are you doing to try to hire locally and they could say, there's nothing or we're doing this so that's how we could I think legitimately influence this but it still begs the question whether we want to kind of reassert this policy objective that was included in several of the host community agreements. So that's something like we do with a lunch, the food trucks right where we encourage the, the fuel source, and then we, and that's written in the regulations and then reiterated when we talk to the licensee the license application and that is something we could do. Certainly I think it's in our, I think it's in our authority, as I understand it to establish this best efforts kind of commitment. I think the question is just do we do we want to reaffirm this policy choice that was reflected in the host community agreements. I mean, I'll, I'll say I like keeping it in there the way that it worded. It's just yet that conversation kind of what we would like, but it's not tying anybody's not tying our hands or any applicants so I don't see I, I think the general idea that is good I like it. I'd say keep it. Yeah. Oh yeah I think we should keep it. Okay, so that's, that's going to be, I mean it seems like probably something for the regulations rather than the bylaw. Yes. Okay, and Steve why don't we actually take advantage and just scroll down from there because it's just the same issues so you know the next set of things are reporting requirements. And so, again, we could just basically take the same reporting requirements from the HCA's and and tinker with them. It does seem to me like something that would go in the regulation rather than the bylaw. Yes, I think keep it in the regulation. I don't think like any of these strips looking at the broad list there like any of them really be appropriate in the bylaws to the regulation I guess the question is just which one's the town what we want to keep. Okay. Reporting ones seem a little onerous compared to what we ask. I think it's just a little bit different. I mean, I'm not sure how to talk about it yet, but it's just like it has a thing where it's medically sold and then recreationally sold and that's a little bit different from alcohol, I think, and I'm not sure what that you know what the difference should make practically yet, but I guess I just like to think have a little more time to think about it. Why don't we make the note then kind of regulation slash conform to liquor, you know, conform to alcohol. Yeah. So that one I think we said yes, we, you know, regs, regs, you know, yeah. And some of that could be on the renewal. Yes. Yeah. All kind of the annual reporting requirements. While we're here I think without, you know, we'll, we'll, I think the next one is regulations on both of those by the way. We not only have the host community agreements as a source of language, we also have what Doug has put together and I have the section references there to Doug's bylaw. The issue about marketing that next one that Steve noted, we can go down and see the language and the HCA's. This one, I mean, I think it's interesting, but again, it's not something we're requiring of the liquor, and I don't know if this was actually done at all. So when I when I think we don't want to reaffirm our practices that weren't actually followed in the last few years. And I'm I suspect I'm wondering if the marketing is one of those that didn't actually get followed but I I'm ignorant about it so I kind of a policy question and what you what how relevant you all think it is whether these things were done or not. I really, I don't know. I don't know if I know I know physical marketing like signage would be covered by zoning as well already. Okay. I think that this clause purported to be broader. But I. Yeah, I mean I think it purported to be broader. And there's even a whole sentence especially about edibles which I don't, I mean. So I don't know, I guess I'm kind of seeing this is for me it's like a question mark but if it goes anywhere, it would seem to go in the regs but I don't know if it should I don't know what you guys think. Yeah, it should go in the regs. Okay, I think the. Okay, then public health educational efforts. I don't believe this was ever done. So it, you know that also sounds like something that would go. Yeah, these annual report regulations and then do we do we think that they're worth. Kind of reasserting these. These commitments and the diversion does seem to be important. You know, it's something that comes up in numerous places. There are I mean there are some good ideas in there. We talked about six or seven here. Well, both, I guess, seven just now. Version program is that something like a, what is that like a dare kind of thing. I think it's the concern about. It's, I think it's the concern about. Somebody buying, somebody buying the product, the product. Yeah, like going to someone else who wasn't licensed or to an adult. Got it. Okay, like, And it seems mis-titled to me. Because it's more just like a diversion prevention plan than like a town diversion program is being supported. Yeah. So patient. Do you want to. It might be good to change the word patient in a lot of these sections too. So that is that just can you go back there. Is it just for the medical. Recreation. I think it's for recreational too and the recreational too. Okay. Although it seems like it's pretty much written for medical because it's the medical acronym. You know, patient or. I don't know. Customer. Six strikes me as a little bit questionable seven. I think is, is, is good with a little bit of with some terminology changes and maybe changing the title because it's a, it's not really the town program. It's really their own policy. Right. And is that something that'd be required under the, the, was it standard operating procedure. So P. Yeah, that seems like it could be combined. You guys think about this one. I mean, again, you know, it's in the skit. It's kind of a, a hordatory principle. I, I, I, I, I, it seems reasonable to me. I would change the word talks about town to the commission. I guess that would be my take. I mean, what's the, what do we think is the actual. I don't know use of this going to be like, do we think that a resident is going to come to us and make a complaint about a. About a license holder and then are we. Is this just give it the authority to. To ask him to come before us to address the complaint. Like, what's, what's kind of the mechanism that this would be used in. So you mean sort of like a hearing. That's what I understand. Yeah, sort of like, and what would be the use. We might wind up with, with rental in the future. And also it's an avenue for I suppose residents to raise concerns and have a voice and the whole thing. So, I guess regulation, or do we need something in the bylaw giving us the authority to do that. I mean, I think it's regulation, if any, but Dylan, did you have thoughts about whether, you know, it seems kind of implicit whenever we're licensing anyone that we can call them in, but is it worth telling out any of this. I think it doesn't have to be its own separate item. I think it could be wrapped into the license at some point. Because I mean, I guess, I guess this is specifying because obviously if, you know, I think we're going to talk about or we've already talked about a little bit of how we handle violations and obviously we're going to be defining those procedures more thoroughly. But this section is really just if maybe they're not making any violations. But they're causing some grief among neighbors. This is really the mechanism in which to address that specifically. Like, I don't know, maybe people are buying marijuana walking right over to the sidewalk and then smoking it and it's aggravating neighbors like I don't know that's not necessarily a violation that they're doing because now they've purchased it. They've left the premises and now they're those people are just committing their own crime of smoking marijuana in public, but I know maybe the residents might want to bring that to our attention. Is that is that something that we do we care to have something like that in here. Don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but yeah, just over engineering something. I think, I think that this is valuable and kind of spelling out the, the intention of this kind of collaboration and but I would yeah just couple it with wherever we are clear in the regulations about being able to call the licensee and to talk to us. I think it, yeah, I mean, I guess it falls into kind of the spirit of what we're trying to do in other places like with the sourcing locally, like, we're not saying you must do this or lose your license but like hey if neighbors are complaining about you maybe you're not violating something in the regulations but you know we we'd want to talk to you about it before we go ahead and change the regulations kind of thing okay. Yeah, I guess in that spirit, I think I support something like this in there I think it makes sense. Okay. The regulations. Yep. Anything more but below this Steve. Oh yeah. This this on these are details about the emergency plan and so on that I mean I don't know if this is the right drafting but it's clearly it seems like something for the, for the regulations. I included the community impact fees annual contribution just because we're going to have to come up with a dollar value for the license and we can look at the way that the fees were being justified in the host community agreements. Okay. Steve, this contribution from the host community agreement didn't that get severely reduced by the CCC or. Yes, I believe there's a, I think it was a legislation that reduced it already and then CCC I have heard is also coming out with further changes to it shortly. I think this is the last item that I included for reference from the host community agreements and then the rest is basically just helping us see what was in Doug's draft. And by the nature of the document, what Doug drafted is very much regulation material because he was drafting a regulation. I would like to talk about some of the substantive issues raised by his draft, I think that in some sections, his drafting is a little bit gives us a little bit too much power, to be honest. I would consider changing some of the drafting but I think that he's given. He's created the document that can be the basis for the regulations that we need to come up with weaving in what we think from the Worcester should go in there and, and what we think from the HCA should survive. So, that's what's coming, we can go through them point by point now if, if we like to just kind of have some meeting of the minds about what's in there and what how we think things should actually work. Okay, it's five of 10 does anyone. What's everyone's time like you want to do this now or. I'm getting closer to when I have to wrap up I've still got a little bit more time though. Why don't we maybe take time now to just talk about what we want to have as follow up steps. And before we spend too much time talking about this. Yeah, public comment at some point. Oh yeah, what we can do that now. Okay. Is there anyone here for public comment I see one attendee. If you have public comment please raise your hand and Steve McCarthy can let you speak. Okay, okay. I guess no public comment. I, you know, the part of this it's going to require more work we can see based on what we wrote in the last column is going to be the regulation. The bit of it that would be the bylaws pretty is relatively straightforward. I'm happy to kind of take some lead in the bits that we think should go in the bylaw because to be honest the Worcester ordinance does a pretty good job so it's that's not a very heavy lift. The regulation is going to be the heavier lift. And so that's I'm happy. Dylan is still volunteering to take take a lead on on working on that document and I'm happy to support but I'd rather not be taking the lead with that. I think so I know the next between now and I think the next time we want to meet. I know I'm going to be busy, very busy, but I think I'll be able to get a little bit of it done between now and the next time we get going, at least get into some more preventable presentable form based on kind of what we've talked about here. So yeah, I'm definitely up for that. Okay, great. And then if it's me and Gaston who knows maybe you can I mean you can go collaborate Gaston and get a get a writing session. That's that would be good. That's I get motivated with that. Perfect. All right, fantastic. So did we want what's the next day that we have on let's let's agree about when we want to do this again. So the next day we have so we've got a meeting Tuesday the 17. And then the next date for this. I think part of the issue was we were, we have this existent extent subcommittee that we're not sure we want to keep so and then we thought that just doing a meeting like this, every other week at five on Thursday at the same time might work might work well and just Steve do you said that there were some issues about open meeting and the subcommittee right. And that you were a little worried about. Yeah, so I did look into that so I don't believe there's anything explicitly wrong with having a five member subcommittee. Although I would still probably advise against it because it just leads to more confusion with with posting for us and the public. The one of any different forum requirements anyway. So we can certainly just post meetings like this where this is the only real topic on the agenda. So is that time the question is, is that time going to work. Let's say on the 24th. So I know summer is a different thing from mornings, but like once the fall starts and school starts is going to be difficult. Yeah, I mean I'm going to I'll put it out there because we're talking about this specific issue and I think if we if we really are just focusing on this one issue in a couple of meetings, I think we can kind of get this done in a much more regional time frame of something like I think we're talking, you know, before the end of the year, I think we could probably be wrapped up with this issue requiring its own meetings I should say So I mean, I'll put it out there like if people even want to do something like a weekend day for a little bit here. I'd be into that I just know this is something I want to get focused to and it's just when we're in the daytime like that it's just it's just whether or not I can make it is then questionable and then if I have to be in the car as well. It's just so distracting to be focusing on the road and I'm going to contribute meaningfully to these discussions. So that's my take I don't know how everybody else feels about that. Okay, so just practically like for the next upcoming weeks like we have the meeting set Friday Thursday the 17th at five is our regular meeting. The next Thursday is the 24th at five o'clock. I mean it might be that we just have to find a time week by week that works for everybody I won't be able I won't be here on the 24th. But as long as there are three people that's fine. I will be here on the 24th. You won't. I will. Oh, you will. Okay. So if we want to put it out for these meetings here. I mean we could just do every time we meet. We then just pick the next meeting time sometime where we can all make it. How would people feel about something like a Sunday morning at some point. Do we like that or do we hate that I can't do Sunday mornings. Okay, but I can do. I usually do. I don't know weekends are generally not so great for me. A Saturday might work. Yeah. I work Saturday mornings. And I work earlier on Saturday mornings Sundays my only consistent day off. I don't work any weekday does that like an 8am 9am or not any weekday Monday Tuesday Fridays I could do mornings if we want to get together. I don't know if that works for anybody else. Are the Thursdays night I'm not being considered anymore. Thursday so Thursday at five is no good for anyone. I mean Dylan you're because you're taking it. They having a big role in this so. It's not that I can't do it. It's that I can't commit to doing it. Because it's yeah if I if I you know I'm in an appointment that goes till six o'clock or three o'clock that isn't that's just not uncommon and then even if I don't have that I have a six o'clock appointment and it just can make it. Make it difficult to consistently make these times. Okay, so what if we did like you suggested earlier week by week, like next week. What is what can you do. Or what can everyone do. How do people feel about for this this topic here because we've got a little bit ahead of us. What are people looking like mornings in September. Because I know I go camping after we have a regular meeting next week and then I go camping the week after. Okay. Then I would be we're into September at that point can anyone do a September morning. I don't I actually honestly don't know yet. So what about the week of that so that you're doing camping the 20th through the 26 you're going to be away. What about the week after that because we don't have a meeting, a regular meeting. That's 27 through the 31st. Is there anything going on or this the 27th through the the 2nd of September. That that is the week that I can. Oh it is week but the 24th. Yep. August 27th to September 2nd is when I was gone. The 20th through the 26th that we do have a. I mean we've got a regular meeting there and we could meet on this issue but I don't think, you know, I will have made any substantial efforts into the regulations by then we couldn't also put this out there too. We could just keep at the regular meeting and should we decide that we need another one of these meetings specifically for this issue because it sounds like now we've really gotten the roadmap of what we want to do here. So I think Steve is our regular meeting on the 17th and not the 24th. Our regular meeting is this week. Yep. It's this week. Okay. So we have we have a meeting Thursday and then no meeting the week after that but you don't that won't be enough time for you Dylan. So, and then the 20 27th year out of town. And then we go into September. And the 31st we do have an extra Thursday this month. There's a 31st. Will that give you enough time. Thank you. We're still still camping then. Oh, yeah. Okay. How about a preliminary report on the 7th at our regular meeting. Okay, sounds good. And then we can go from there. Excellent solution. Thanks, Gaston. Okay. All right. Great. I'd request to end here if we can. Yes. And suggest that we are not going to meet on the 24th. So we have a meeting on Thursday the 17th. No meeting on the 24th. No meeting on the 31st. And then preliminary discussion on September 7th at our regular meeting. All right. And we need a motion to adjourn. Let me just say I do not expect to be able to make it this Thursday. Okay. FYI for quorum. I'll be on the. Okay. Oh, and you know what, before we leave, do we want to acknowledge the public comment? We got the. Email just. Oh, yes, we did get a public comment. From what was. Renata. We're not a shepherd. So what do we need? Do we need to read that out or. In the minutes. What is the best policy for that? Steve. I think one, one comment shortly couldn't hurt to read it out. Yeah. Okay. Do you want to read it or should I read it? If you have it up, I can, I can pull it up. If not. Yeah. Why don't you pull it up? I don't have it with me. I got it. Do you want me to read it? Sure. All right. So we have. This was from Friday, August 11th. 2023. I'll be able to attend your meeting live. So I'm sending this email instead. My family is very concerned with the way marijuana is normalized in our society. We are very much in favor of its medical uses and agree. It is a good option to other pharmaceuticals. However, it is still a drug and should be treated as such with prescription safety measures and warnings. Having a dispensary at the end of the month. So I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. Having a dispensary at every corner and rampant use everywhere gives our younger residents the impression that it is of no consequence. The same way smoking is now frowned upon and public drinking is against the law. Why would marijuana use be any less harmful and regulated? You can't even share ibuprofen without fear of unintended consequences. Our schools and government are turning a blind eye to this public health crisis. It is still a drug. It is still a drug. Such as brain cell loss and diminished capacity and even drive under its influence putting other people in danger. Please take these concerns into account when dealing with license and regulations for something that should be treated as a drug. You wouldn't allow recreational use of cough syrup. So why marijuana? Please don't let the tax money. It brings to town be determining factor in your health. Thank you, Dylan. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to do? I was just going to say next time Doug is here, maybe we could remind him that there is that pot of money for the schools to possibly use in drug prevention education. Because I'd hate to see that just kind of sit there and not be used. Thank you. Thanks for keeping our attention on that, Hallie. I think we should at least try to connect with whoever is making decisions about it over the course of this process. And I know like PGO sometimes sponsor events. That might be. I mean, Steve, I don't know what the process is for community members or groups to access those funds. But just, you know, when we get a public comment, I always like to acknowledge it. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I think that was thanks so much. Yeah. Reminding us to do that. Very important. Okay, anything else? Move to adjourn. Thank you. Second. Thank you, Dylan. I'll take a vote Dylan. Hi, Hallie. Hi. Gaston. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. That is four to zero with one absent. We're adjourned at 10. Oh, nine. 8m 10. Oh, 10. Oh, 9am. Yes. Thanks everybody. See you on Thursday. Okay. Bye.