 Okay, we are now going to go on to S 25 and Michelle child is here. And Michelle can you tell the committee what what's happening or what the problem is and why we just got this. Sure. So is it. Do you guys like to share the see stuff on the screen or do you like consulting your own documents or what's your pleasure. We put it up on the screen. That's my screen sample. It's, yeah, it's, it's Friday afternoon you see how spin. I'm so excited everyone is you would prefer for to be on the screen everybody. Okay, sure. And there's a reasonable chance we're all looking at the same thing. Okay. Can everyone see this. I'm going to show you I'm going to walk you through the underlying judiciary and that work. So, so there are some fees in the in S 25. And this is in on two areas and this is the addition of advertising fees for that relate to the regulation of the new cannabis establishment will be coming online next year. So last year when Act 164 passed. I don't know if you recall but there was a there was a discrepancy or disagreement between the House and the Senate, with regard to the advertising language. The Senate had for some proposal, the House government operations kind of expanded that and put that on the floor but then on the House floor, an amendment passed banning all advertising. So, I went back to the Senate and there was a conference committee established. The Senate had some real concerns around constitutional issues of doing a straight up ban of advertising. And so the agreed upon language that was in the conference committee report was for the Attorney General's office was for the board, the cannabis control board working with the Attorney General's office to report back to the general assembly this April and then first, with regard to a proposal for regulating the advertisements for these new cannabis establishments in a way that kind of encompasses the principles at the act that the General Assembly put forth but, you know, to do it in a constitutionally defensible way. Unfortunately, we don't have a board yet. So, getting the board up and running has taken much longer than the timeline that you anticipated and put forth and act 164 and so there's no way, you know, because there's no board there's no way obviously you get those recommendations April 1. So what Senate judiciary decided to do is they took the House government operations proposal that was voted out of that committee and sent to the floor last year. And they've encompassed they've taken that and they've dropped that in as it passed House government operations and they've put that in S 25. I hear from the Attorney General's office that the Attorney General's office approved of the language and they felt as though it was defensible. And so that's what you have so I'm not going to go through the advertising language but I give you that backstory because one of the things that was contained in that proposal was a requirement that prior to a cannabis establishment, they were publishing their advertisements they had to submit them to the board for review and that there would be a cannabis advertising fee associated with that. And so what you have in section three and section four is addressing the advertising fee issues solely. You'll see in section three in the language I have up here. And if you're following along at home it's on page four. And you'll see just the addition of the fees going into the cannabis regulation fund the cannabis regulation fund is solely comprised of fees by the board, and that fund is what runs the regulatory program, all the tax money goes elsewhere so the program on straight up on the fees. So they're at they're adding it in section three. And then before this is the language the session law language that was an act 164 that directs the board to do the reporting. And so, again, this is this section is amending and adding that they would be reporting on the fees. And then I'm going to come back if I can I'm going to come back to this issue in a moment after Senator Pearson wants to talk to you about another proposal related to this and I can tie them together. Sir McDonald did you have a question. I'm just trying to find that just trying to find the build the mute button for me. No question. Senator Sorak and did you have a question. I do have a question it's not related to the language but I have a feeling it's going to be somewhat relevant to the rest of this bill. What was the requirement for when the board should have been appointed and what kind of timeframe, are we on now and is there a potential legal challenge to the delay. The timeline which I can, I have a timeline all spelled out I can provide that to you. The board was supposed to have been confirmed by the Senate by January 19. So if you got the names tomorrow, we have we have a confirmation period to go through to right. Right, right. And so, um, as I mentioned there isn't the board isn't seated yet. And so we are a few months behind and Senator Pearson is on the nominating committee so I would maybe defer to him, if you know to address the issues of the wise and how long it may take to get the board seated and such but there is, we are running at least a few months behind at this point. Thank you. The next changes. And this is a separate issue from advertising fees. And this is in section 11. And so one of the things that as 25 does is it addresses a few issues around social equity. And so you see in section 11. This has the office control board. They're reporting their recommendation on fees that they are to propose a plan for reducing or eliminating license fees for individuals from communities that have historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, or individuals that have been personally impacted by cannabis prohibition. And so that's what's in the bill. The issue that I'll just set up, I think for that is a big one is because of the delays. The general assembly is the one that sets the fees obviously it were in a bit of a pickle here. As to whether or not it's possible to roll out the program. The board is supposed to be next year because of because of these delays so the according to the act 164 timeline, the board is supposed to be accepted is supposed to finish their rulemaking and start accepting applications for the new, for the new licenses. As of next spring. And so if the general assembly adjourns this and doesn't have hasn't set the fees then it's not obviously functional. So, so the issue is just out there about what types of what kind of tweaks to act 164 or what, what you would include on an S 25, can you do to to still kind of hold out hope that you can still get these new cannabis businesses licensed. You know, close to the timeline that you've already set out, because you have to wait until obviously next January to establish the fees and then you'd have to push something through really quickly. And that doesn't really give applicants, a lot of time to consider, you know, the cost associated with the application and the licensing process. Adam. Sorry, I think Senator Pearson's been trying to talk for a while so I'll. Okay, I know Sandra Pearson has some proposed language so you have a question before. I do have a question if on the social equity fee part of it Michelle is, is there a definition anywhere for individuals that have been impacted by prohibition or anything or is it self certified or how do. There isn't and this has been, I imagine, if y'all and other committees have been kind of grappling with how do you identify this, this group. It's been a little tricky for folks there elsewhere in the bill it's, there's the creation of a cannabis business development fund. They specifically use a term around social equity applicants. But what they've done in S 25 is have the advisory committee that's within the board be making recommendations as to who qualifies as a social equity applicant, but that definition doesn't exist yet. And so, and there's just been a lot of discussion around how do you identify for who should qualify for the reduced fees and they don't want to wait to get a report back or anything like that they want it to be able to be for you guys to be able to consider those reduced or eliminated fees as soon as possible. And so there isn't a definition of that but the goal was to not limit it to just race or just people who might have a prior conviction, or things like that because it could there could be a wide array of ways in which someone could be negatively impacted by this prohibition and so they wanted to leave it to leave it a little bit open. So it would be up to the board to make a recommendation about who they think qualifies under that. Okay, so there may be some kind of application process or certification process or at least a definition process that the board. Yes, with okay. Yes, great. Yeah, thank you. Okay, Senator Pearson. So, just a question from Michelle and then I'm happy to get into my issue. If you're ready, ma'am chair. Yes, I think so. I think you said, when you're talking about the timeline that the original the law lays out this fee thing that the board was supposed to come to legislature I think April 1. And then start issuing permits. And you said, I think you said next spring but actually, if I recall some of the permits get issued, you know, for the grows and other processors. I think it's better than that right because the idea, as we conceived was that stores, at least integrated licenses could open as early as April 22. Right, I can't remember if they start accepting applicant I think they start accepting applications March 1 of next year. Okay. Except for the small office, the small Georgia so I still think of March spring, although I realize it doesn't count. It's small because there's some permits that start getting issued or accepted. So you need to have a fee I think by the time you accept an application, which is different from granting a permit. And I thought some of the permits might even be applications might come start coming in this fall. No, my totally miss her. Okay. No, I can email all of y'all in faith, the timeline while while we're discussing that Senator Hardy, among others will like that because it's a good chart if I recall. Yes, thank you. So the details of the timing are important. The details of the fees. So remember the fees are supposed to support the regulation the board itself their own staffing and infrastructure. They are meant to imagine to be offering different fees for different licenses. And then even some of those licenses say a growing license would have different tiers it's been imagined. And obviously if you have a big grow it's different fee than if you have a thousand square foot grow. The reason that we have wrestled with setting the fees is that we have wrestled with how much how many kinds of businesses do we want do we want to have five big ones and 100 little ones, etc etc figuring that balance out is tricky. Then figuring out how many you think we need versus how much money do we need to raise to get this whole thing going is even more tricky. What we face now is the choice of either us figuring it out, or not doing anything and losing an entire year where the board would come back to us in January for us to approve the fees. Neither of them seem practical to me we don't have the capability I don't think to figure it out. Because there's so many interconnected pieces, and I'm not interested, and I don't think others are interested now that we've taken this leap in losing another year. So what Michelle has kindly drafted some language, what I would propose we do is maintain that structure where the board comes up with a proposal for the fees. But since we won't be around to then approve them. They bring those that those proposed fees which are temporary fees for the first year to the joint fiscal committee. And only after the fiscal committee acts to approve them with those fees go into place so that the board could start accepting applications. And that's the concept that what we've got Michelle and and the I can walk us and the I can walk us through how it goes but that's what I'm hoping we can do because and if we don't want to do it here we could potentially still do it this year. But I like that this becomes the cannabis sort of update bill and his web together and I think that has some benefits for us as we head to the other body. So that's the concept and and appreciate folks thinking about it. Okay committee any questions. I'm not seeing any Michelle can you put the new wording up send her hearty. I was just going to ask if we could go through the amendment because there's a lot crossed out and I was wondering what's crossed out and what's new. Did you want me to just show you the timeline real quick on some of those dates or just go straight to the amendment. If you send us the timeline I can look at it on my own or on the side. Okay. If you send it to faith she'll send it to us. Yeah, and I send it to all of y'all as well as today, and they start accepting applications in April 1 of next year. And that is because we have to wait for the board to go through the rulemaking process adopt the rules, and in order so that everybody knows what roles they're, they're applying under so. Okay, I will share. Okay, so you should have Senator Pearson's amendment up I drafted it as a committee amendment just because I know everything's moving fast right now. So what this does is it strikes the, the section four in the judiciary proposal of amendment, which that section is amending section five of Act 164 from last year that required the board to report to you on April 1. They can't do it so it essentially strikes, strikes that language so if you see there and starting online. 19 is all of that language that struck through is all the all the stuff around fees that they were supposed to report to you on. But no don't worry because it's coming back in the second instance of amendment in section for a. And the alternative we came up with for your consideration is for the recommendations to go to the joint fiscal committee, instead of the General Assembly. And so you'll see there the new section for a and subsection a is that honor before August 1 of this year, the board would provide draft recommendations to the joint fiscal committee for its approval on the following and then there's the same list of items that was contained in Act 164 for reporting, plus the new language online 13 and 14 for including the advertising review fee. And so they would report to the committee as of August 1. Then on subsection be. You'll see on sorry I can't see my page numbers with the split screen but you'll see that within 30 days of receiving the proposal from the board, the committee shall review the recommendations at its regularly scheduled meeting and provide feedback to the board for any suggested and see the board shall revise the proposal if necessary to incorporate the committee's recommendations and present a revised draft for approval to the committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting. D states that the fees are to take effect upon approval by the committee. So the committee has to approve them and then they'll take effect. And then after that so that's just kind of a stop gap measure for this year so that the whole program doesn't come to a halt because there aren't any fees in the future, it'll just be part of the regular fee bill process. So it's Michelle. Yeah, I'm trying to line up the dates they have until August 1 to report to joint fiscal. Yes, memory serves me joint fiscal meets in July and November. I'm not clear if we have a meeting in October. So if it doesn't come in until August, we can't do it until November. I just want to make sure we get the dates. I didn't realize they I thought they had that they met more frequently but that was this past year we met weekly so I'm kind of thrown off the rate we may have a regular meeting in October. I mean you don't I just I just create that I mean you could say the board shall have a meeting specifically on this I mean you could put it for the July meeting but again with there's no board. Yeah, no let there will be let's just say they shall consider it joint fiscal shall consider it. Well, let's let me try emailing Steve Klein or Catherine and asking when we meet. I can look it up. So keep going and I'll. Okay, so the timing obviously you can play around with that you just want to make sure that we would we be safer to I see what you're doing Michelle and I liked the idea of you don't want to force them to meet specially but you also don't want the legislature suddenly to start delaying and so you've said within 30 days of receiving the proposal which keeps a little heat on the joint fiscal committee but if we took that 30 days out, then you know and frankly took out regularly scheduled meeting. Then you've left it firmly in the hands of the fiscal committee. And we're not in trouble if they meet on the 35th day or something. Be wiser madam chair. Yeah, I've just sent an email to Steve Klein just asking, there may, there may well be one in October. And if there is then it comes in in August we can do one in October and one in November. I also wonder Michelle about just saying September 1 because there's a lot of work that goes in before they craft these and it wouldn't shock me if joint fiscal didn't meet in August so No, we don't meet in August we meet in July, usually the end of July. So that's, may I suggest we make it September 1. We take out that 30 day stopwatch, and we just take out the regular scheduled meeting so that we're not binding ourselves in any weird way that we don't quite mean to. We give the board a little bit more time, and we make sure that the joint fiscal committee doesn't inadvertently trip some calendar, but we still have ourselves. You know we're not stuck in this weird time where we don't have anything sorted out because of the messed up timeline. This is an S bill right. So if there's an, yeah, if there's a problem it can get corrected. Our people are comfortable with those modifications. So we make it September 1. We take out the within 30 days and we take out regularly scheduled meeting so that it's just a little more fluid. I'm fine with that as long as Madam chair, since you're on the committee, you're okay with that. I mean, knowing that this isn't the last stop I'm okay with leaving it the way it is. And if it turns out the timeline doesn't work. Given the history of cannabis bills that'll be the least of the problems to correct. You know there's time to correct it. What I don't know. Yeah, if Steve Klein is sitting there watching his email anticipating my missive so. What happens if the names of the board further delayed. I mean at some point we're just pushing into January in terms of this question. But again, you know, we're trying to work. We're trying not to just sort of back into being a year late that's, that's my goal. If the board gets named this gives us time to move forward in our present timeframe. If the board doesn't get named. Then we got a whole new kettle of fish here, which does that work. The existing law, one that the legislature has to approve these fees. Is that the way it works now. They're bringing them to us by April 1st. So that would be a remarkable. Donald. I'm sure I believe existing law is that all fees must be approved by the legislature. I would count. I recounted a past the time when the legislature went and passed a statute that said that the taxes would be X if the federal government did why absent. And. That was challenged. It's constitutionality, but before the court, this case was heard, the legislature had resumed in January and retroactively, you know, and had approved the fees that had been established. That had been challenged. So I would suspect that I don't believe we can. Maybe we can. Delegate our taxing authority, but I'm not sure that these are there and yeah, you joined us. Can you help us. I brought in a visitor. I'm here for the record, and the extra Cooper from the office of legislative council filling in for Becky Wasserman who needed to be someplace else and draft a whole bunch of other stuff. So I'm here exclusively to answer this question and I consulted with Becky in advance. I'm not aware of the specific case that you are speaking of, but it does sound like it had to do with the authority to tax based on language in the 32 vsa section 603 subdivision one, and you'll see in the language that Michelle put up. I'm not withstood here. It says any new fees shall be established solely by act of the General Assembly, which will designate the service or product provided a regulatory function performed for which the fee is to be charged. So one, we're notwithstanding that to it's within the General Assembly's authority to set fees, which is being delegated to the joint fiscal committee. It's more specific than this general the General Assembly must set fees so the specific supersedes the general. And there are sort of two instances setting aside the fact that the joint fiscal committee has been used for the fee process on in other instances which is where this language is partially drawn from in subdivision to certain means that the fee calculations of fees is left to the joint fiscal committee in the ordinary course, and the approach that's being taken with the joint fiscal committee being sort of as the seal of approval of the General Assembly writ large when you're not in session is similar to the process that you have the IRF money with the joint fiscal committee sort of going through this money going back into the pot redistributing, which as your chair mentioned is is why the joint fiscal committee that so much over the last year. So we do think that this is something that is within the General Assembly's power to delegate to joint fiscal, and it would be within joint fiscal committees power to approve the fees under the sort of revamped timeline structure in the amendment. I'm sure that silenced me. That is a first senator. And can you stay with us for a while. Nice job. That is my full answer Michelle has all of the other answers for we'll find them for you. This was my I just want you to just the silent Senator McDonald so we get out of here before midnight. I think that someone challenges the legislature will probably come back in January and for stall work case. Okay, thank you for bringing in witness. And you are then providing a little bit of sort of consistency for the individuals who would be applying for these applications and I think Michelle said April, as to what those fees are apt to be if it does turn out. And we don't think it would that it would mean to be something that the General Assembly would adopt. Okay. So, so I did make those amendments as Senator Pearson just suggested you want me to pop those up on the screen just so you can see them. So, you'll see there so changing the August 1 to September 1. And then going down here and just instead of saying within the 30 days say upon receiving the proposal, the committee, oops, regularly scheduled that's got to go. Sorry. And provide feedback to the board and then see, I took out the language around the regularly scheduled meeting so. Right. And Michelle, you, for the committee's knowledge, you know, it's a little tricky. It's a little bit like the rules. When we're reviewing rules, the legislature can't direct changes but clearly here. The committee has to approve them. So if they say, geez, why didn't you do X, Y and Z, the board will be able to say, here's the updated version of our recommendation with X, Y and Z. And so the power retains with the Joint Fiscal Committee are sort of acting on our behalf. We thought that was well crafted as trying to hold on to that balance and not, you know, trip us up as much as we could think it through. And I had shared with Senator Pearson that something similar happens with the legislative review of judicial rules. The Joint Judicial Rules Committee has the ability to object to proposed court rules, but to try to avoid a last minute objection and stalemate. There's there's usually a dialogue between the court and the legislature and they send the proposed rules over and legislators can say this we'd like to tweak to that and then they go back and then they come back with it. It is the most boring committee I have ever served on as a non lawyer. I think it was my first year. Yeah, it is a bit of a niche. Yeah, I mean if you're not a lawyer you just kind of sit there and your head spins. It's even if you are. Yes, if you are it you like to get into that but I did want to let you know is that this is based loosely on something an existing launder title 22 with regard to the Vermont State Web portal is there's a process there and that was established and I think section 953 for something kind of similar to this where they're recommending things to Joint Fiscal Committee Joint Fiscal Committee has the ability to approve or reject so it's not exactly like that but just as another kind of some support for that this isn't creating something new that you've never done before. Thank you for your pleasure. Madam chair can I ask a question of Michelle. Is this the only thing in this bill that is relevant to the finance committee that we that we have to deal with today, or is there something else. It's just the, okay. Thanks. The advertising fee, the reduction for just historically disadvantaged, and then this proposal on top of that. Okay, but those two fees would be sort of incorporated into this process right. Yeah. Okay. Or all those provisions in in draft 2.1 1210 p.m. I've got 3.2. 3.2. Okay. Okay. 3.2 12 p.m. on the 12th or we have a different. 3.2. 317 p.m. I haven't emailed that out to folks I just did it while we were talking. So the one here says 319 2021. That's the same date. It's a 317 is the time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. But I need a motion. I think that. Chair, I'm happy to move that committee. A man approve. Well, no, a man S. 25 as it came to us with draft 3.2. Discussion. If not, I think Michelle, if you take that down, I can actually see if they're voting. Sorry. See them so they can vote. All right. Further discussion. If not, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Are there seven of us here? Yeah. So that carries 7, 0, 0. And Senator Pearson, I assume you're going to be the reporter. Sure. Happy to. Okay. And the report favorably when so amended. Yes. You made that motion, right? Okay. Further discussion. If not, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Okay. Hearing no negatives that carries 7, 0, 0. And we will send it to Senator Pearson. We can send it to Secretary Bloomer. And that's it. We were looking at a really light week next week, but I think we'll try and start. Working through some of Steve Whitaker's issues and that might tie up very well with the telecom plan that's coming. I'm going to set a bar at the last three years, maybe I'm not going back to sins of 1987. But I think we're going to have to see if we can figure out if there's something we can do going forward. Short of requiring the governor to put more people in there, which I think would help. You got three people in the, you know, the commissioners got two in herself working on broadband, which may be a source of some of the problems, but we shall see. That's a good weekend. We'll see everybody on Tuesday. At least that's my plan at this point. For me. I'm not here. I'll be in touch with Senator McDonald.