 I'll just take a quick roll based on what I see we have President Ashley Reynolds, Gary Giger, Jim Peppermore, Corman, Sel. Looks like Tim Wessel is now just joining us. No problem, no problem. We also have Jim Pliningen joining us, Ashley Manning, and Jim Pepper, is there anything else? We've got Julie is here, Julie Holder, and we've got just a handful of people from the public as well as one representative from the Department of Labor Control. Thank you. So what we're going to do, I know Kyla is our fearless leaders traveling today, but basically agenda and the PowerPoint that was disseminated, I just wanted to provide the summary for our alter cultivation security and please move it into your retail, but Jen's mostly going to handle that portion today. But I wanted to have Mark go through that. I know Carlson wanted to summary from us to just present some options. We're going to take a clean look at. So Mark, do you know how to do all the tech to be able to share? Put the slide, put the slide to the presentation. Yeah. I'm doing it now. Huh? I did, I'm putting it up. I learned last week on Monday what those were actually happening now. Can everybody see it? Okay, great. Yeah, Gina and I on this slide presentation said she's going to do some of it as well. And we talked an awful lot about outdoor security at our last meeting on Monday. And we had a very interesting discussion about the fencing and the need for it. But we'll just put it up here on this common outdoor security features. I mean, they're common around the country, perhaps in the Northeast. Doesn't mean they have to be, that Vermont has to follow suit there. Same with video surveillance systems and monitoring systems for the recordings, the video recordings. So Mark, you need to, you need to just move the different numbers. Okay, I can do that. Are there any features? Yeah. Okay, this is where I was starting in my discussion on Monday. We had the most interesting discussion of the fencing. But these are common. But one after another, whether they all add up, it can be pretty costly. So, you know, Kyle and the others that you want us to consider whether there might be, you know, alternatives that would be less burdens from both of just a plain regulatory point of view, but also a cost point of view. So, you know, rather than, I think there was some, some, seem to be some agreement among the subcommittee members that if you, you were out of sight of public property or public roads that perhaps Francis wouldn't be nearly as important. So, we started talking about, and then Kyle asked for some alternatives. Offenses or no offenses, or instead of offenses, maybe video surveillance. More than that, since that's actually either broadly, rather than video surveillance, how about other types of security-like motion-activated lights and alarms, and so forth. And rather than, rather than electronic systems, how about if your crops were out of, you know, outside the view of the public. Actually, they brought that up. And, you know, that's, maybe that's, you know, good enough. And then others, I think they carried, one brought up the notion that your cannabis crop is in greatest danger of threat theft during the last three weeks prior to harvesting. So, you know, maybe there would be temporary security solutions that are even less costly, if those are worth exploring. So, since we talked about this quite a bit, and since we wanted to focus down on, you know, the small cultivators in a more general way, and then move on to indoor security and retail security, I think I'll let you take these slides on with you, or unless you have seen them and you want to comment on them here. Gina, do you, I know you were talking about understanding the home grow and so forth that, you know, probably has the least level of security requirements and kind of building from there. Yeah, so I'm not, it just to take into consideration of time, I've added the homegrown slides, the medicinal and the hemp program slides for you that everyone can proceed yesterday, just sort of to understand what is happening in sort of different areas and also back level. The data that we've received from the Department of Agriculture is really saying that theft has really drastically decreased to almost none since homegrown was available. So, unless you have any questions, I'm going to start with small cultivators. Any questions before we move on? Okay, great. I know we're always saying, you know, how can we put a less burden on small cultivators of a thousand square feet? And with speaking with Kerry and David, you know, they've given us a lot of information about, you know, they feel that there needs to be the least restrictive of security guidelines on this. If someone could adhere to a block view access, you can't see this from the street, people don't know what's there. You know, oftentimes it is safeguarded by just where it is, you know, back in the house, back at the dwelling, no one can see it. You have permanent limited land access. Oftentimes, because of the liberal fire on laws, a lot of people are ready to go, you probably have a fire on there so you would assume that it's secure. Also, outdoor cannabis appears to be left on after than on indoor just because of it not being as rich as an indoor plant would be. And due to the size of the crop, an owner would really be able to see all four corners relatively easy and with the visual eye. But they do agree during the last three weeks, this is the most important time when these plants are becoming mature and have a high THC level in it. So, we just want to make you aware of those. So when we make these recommendations today, you're understanding why some things might be in view of a small cultivator versus the three to six thousand square feet might need more security. So our first recommendation is to have the eight foot high chain, link fences, eight foot security locks, video surveillance systems for keeping that footage for 90 days, having a low alarm system, motion activated flood lights at each access point, and timely reporting of thefts and losses to regulatory authorities. This is like the maximum security that someone should have. This is recommendation one, saying that no matter what tier level you are, you should be adhering to this. Now, the second recommendation with some people saying, do we really need fences, do we really not need fences is to say that if we can see you from the public area or from any other building, then you do not need a fence. But you still need a video surveillance system, an alarm system, flood lights, and obviously timely reporting of any thefts that may occur. After speaking with them, they recommended having seven security recommendations. So on the right hand side of the slide, you'll see what those are and that we separate this into different tier groups. Because the same security is not needed for 1000 square foot versus 3000 square foot versus 6000. So at the 1000 square foot, one, you need to choose one of these security measures. At 3000 square foot, you needed to have fencing because of the large space. You're not able to see every single point of your crop just by looking at it. So fencing is necessary. And also at 6000 square foot as well, you need fencing. At 3000, you choose two of these security recommendations and at 6000, you need three along with the fencing. The 1000 square foot cultivator could choose fencing and then they would need no other requirements if that's what they so choose. So seven security recommendations were video surveillance systems, alarm system, a photographic surveillance system that constantly is taking photographs, a motion activated flood light. And then wanted to include to make sure that you're allowed to face away from some aspects of the plan. So that we're not constantly being turned on by different animals and affecting the growth of a plan. And then security services, which means someone being present there or hiring a third party to have a physical presence, motion censored trail cameras, our seven control points of access. Along with this, during the last three weeks that there needed to be 24 hour attendance over the plan, regardless of your tier level, timely reporting of all your steps. And we really wanted to point out the reason for the three weeks before harvest is that THC is at its peak and it's the highest risk for theft. If your crop is visible from the street, a physical barrier of consumption must be created, fencing, hedge, a barn. If the facility experience a theft, you would need to include another level of security. So you would need to add on another security measure. And I think it's important for whatever recommendation is made that before license is granted that an inspector comes onto site to make sure about its visibility and accessibility. And if any additional security measures need to be added, that would be discussed with you and the inspector at that time. And that point of access to the cannabis crop and the GPS location both is needed during the application process. And then after the first growing season, that security and compliance must be reassessed. So that's part of recommendation three, but I really feel that this last slide is part of all the recommendation. So what is people's feelings? Ashley, how do you feel about recommendation one, two, and three? One, no, not in favor of that. Two, not in favor of that one either. Three, I like not any of this. But what you said before about, you can go to that other last slide 13. That right there, this looks sensible to me, especially if we're thinking about advocating for the small grower. You know, I know a lot of folks who are already perfectly set up to go just without being in plain sight. They're going to be at their home. So they're going to be growing in the backyard. They're going to be home all the time since they work from home. They'll obviously be home in the evening. And I think that that is a majority of our outdoor growers case. So I'm really concerned about adding all these additional costs in the first year. I think it's also very sensible that we're going to, you know, reconvene and follow a guideline after the first row. And then take it from there. But I think if we reduce as little or reduce as much of the barriers possible, including fencing, I mean, security equipment is so expensive. And with a friend and colleague of mine who have the company main craft cannabis, a medical cannabis company in Portland, Maine. And they specifically operate on the medical side growing indoors, which they have no oversight on, no regulation of any kind. They don't even have to have an alarm system, although their insurance company does require it. That their friends who are on the rec side and growing indoor, that most of them are returning back to the illicit market because the amount of oversight and regulation and cost for photos, for cameras, for lights, for security. And so knowing my constituents and my fellow cannabis colleagues, like I really, I really am not in favor of having to do any fencing. Definitely not any alarms or video equipment. Thank you. Thank you, Ashley. Those were really great points that you made. So motion centered trail cameras are controlled point of access. And you mentioned cost, but I feel even for the thousands square foot cultivator, you know, these may be some low really security risk, especially at night. We don't want someone to feel that they need to be up 24 hours a day. A motion centered trail camera, you know, can, it is really efficient, but can be, you know, really much lower cost than some of the other things that we're recommending. And in your perspective, do you think that, you know, that that is really not a huge burden for a thousand square foot cultivator to get? And if you don't know, we can pass that question along to someone else. I think my sense is pretty clear, you know, I think we should try it out for a year and reevaluate if it's just rampant, you know, that's one thing. But I mean, I think all of us as cultivators are are very aware of the risks. I don't think anyone's not aware of those last two to three weeks. I think many of us are going to do what we need and feel that we need to do. I just don't think it needs to be required the first year. So what is the security option that you think would be affordable for a thousand square foot cultivator site? And those last two to three weeks, more or less home or more or less in the area, frequently surveilling themselves. Okay. Thank you. And what are your thoughts? You know, when I saw fencing the fencing list of and sort of self-guided security cameras and self-guided lighting, for lack of a better term, I didn't think that was an unreasonable thing to have in place. I mean, it also depends on, I don't really know much about the zoning of these areas and what, how close to centers of population they can be. Do we have that information? No, we're developing those, the upper zones as well, Tim. Yeah, I mean, you know, because some of it's obviously overlapped. So I would ask from, like, municipalities' perspectives, are local police going to be expected to respond to theft calls? And if they are, then why wouldn't we establish some sort of base level of reasonable security that's not too expensive for a cultivator? Otherwise, it's just a free-for-all and local police are expected to find who done it when there's no, nothing stopping anybody from walking in and out with plants. So what is your recommendation for, for outdoor cultivation? Recommendation one, would everything? Recommendation two, video surveillance, alarms, flood lights. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would say. Recommendation three, which is, you know, seeing what fast-fix where you're living. I mean, obviously we can make edits to this depending on, you know, how close they are to, you know, a city or, you know, school zones, et cetera. I can't imagine anybody, even at the thousand-foot level, having a problem with fencing. But, yeah, I mean, I think. So would you like this, you like recommendation one? I mean, I think recommendation three is at least acknowledging that there's different situations concerning the different sides of the cultivation, right? And it's a pretty low bar from what I can see. You know, alarm systems, I don't know how effective that would be if it's out of the way from the people, you know. We all know how effective car alarms are, for instance. That's pretty cool. But, well, especially in cities, you know, you don't think, oh, no, cars. But everything else seems pretty reasonable. I just don't have enough, you know, experience to feel like I stick my feet in the sand for number one. So I would go with, you know, whatever the consensus is, whether it's three or two. And I sort of like the idea of it being scalable according to the scale of the operation. Okay, thank you. And Carrie, what are your thoughts? You're on me. Thank you. I'm still speaking without taking myself off you. We were trying to come up with something that addressed the concerns of the regulators, addressed the concerns of local constituents, as well as law enforcement. And I'm interested in hearing what people say. You know, my thoughts were that last slide, like, at the end, somebody needs to be on site. So if you're growing near your home, that's easy. If not, you better hire somebody or pitch your own tent in the field where it's growing. And I think that's going to be a larger deterrent than any of the other options. That seemed to be what worked for preventing that sort of, you know, pumpkins, as well as apples and other ag products was having a physical presence on site at the time or nearing harvest. And, you know, it's just something to think about. And I'm learning more and more from listening to what other people have to say. Thank you. Just for the record, which is your favorite recommendation? One, two, or three? I do like three because it's scalable and it fits what I believe Vermont agriculture or Vermont, the Vermont cannabis community can easily sort of meld into. And also sort of does put the onus on the grower to decide what level of security they want and they can't afford. My thought is, you know, if a grower does experience a theft and does report it, then your best management practices are to choose another one of the security methods to prevent the future theft. So it's scalable in that manner as well. Thank you, Karen. Ashley, I saw your handrails. Do you have a comment or question? I just was curious, because it looks like two things here of the thousand square foot cultivator may only choose fencing and preferred. Is that like a recommendation within a recommendation? Because then I see at the top it says thousand square foot only choose one. Because I'm with Kerry, like I think like, you know, the tiering system of the larger grows, you know, I could get on board with a three thousand square foot choosing one, a six thousand square foot choosing two items. But I really think we should go off of what happens in the first year. I mean, I'm not, this is my first time helping write policy, but like, I think anybody who's getting into this knows the risk. I'd be shocked if they didn't. And like, a lot of those items one through seven for recommended security, like some people are going to do all of them who have had experiences with theft. Is that going to be, are probably not. And so I just, I think we should try to really leave it up to the farmers knowing what their risk is. Just like, you know, getting into a car and putting your seat belt on or not, you know, you're assuming the risk. We want you to put your seat belt on. Does everybody know? But I mean, that's up to the person up to the holder. And I think we should put more trust into the cultivators and more trust in our community. I mean, this plant has been around. It's been accessible. We've talked all about how anybody wants to get cannabis. They can already. So I just don't think that is going to be a huge issue for us. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. After just to clarify, this is only there because fencing is not under one of the security recommendations. So someone may just like offense of their own habits. So they can choose fencing that wasn't here. Or they can choose one of these out of all three recommendations. Ashley would recommendation three be your favorite out of all three of them. Favorite if we could get rid of that thousands for having to do anything. I would rather put the choose one in a 3000 and choose up to two. Okay. I think that there needs to be a minimum baseline of security. And I think that's one of the recommendations that are being presented. Yes. Kerry, did you say something? I did. And Ashley, just for clarity. Where the order to choose one does the last does the recommendations for the last three weeks before harvest makes sense to you. Absolutely. Which we're all going to do anyway. So whether that's recommended or not, that is the norm for that type of year. So yes. And one of the things that we discussed with Gina was this all out of sight. So if you are in a tighter community, then you do need a fence to keep it out of sight. So it's sort of the attractive nuisance piece we want to prevent. And we talked about you can do that on your property with natural barriers, keeping it out of sight. Then you might not need a fence. But if you're in a more densely populated area, how are you going to keep it out of sight? And our default was offense. And that's not the chain. We just want to keep it out of sight. Yeah, agree. I think about it. I think that's going to be trickier than like here and still or Belmore. So yeah, I think that's extremely sensible. But I definitely don't want that chain like fence. I think, you know, regular snow fence, you know, chicken wire, I've seen the gamut. But yeah, I think that's sensible for those in higher populated. More for the off the street areas. So that's why you saw that in on the previous slide. We're trying to accommodate out of sight. So if it is a thousand square, then this is sort of a scalable thing that we're trying to accommodate for. So as long as we can keep it out of sight, whether that's a fence or some other way. And I think it is a fence in these areas of denser populated areas. You know, where I live, where you live, I know. Can I get Tom's Tom's hand just raised. Yeah. Thanks. I want to offer this perspective. Knowing and disclosing full well, this is coming from the NACP perspective opposite side of the spectrum from what Ashley is suggesting. And I think I made it this last meeting, but listen, listen, I get it if I'm a lawyer, I have and Chairman Peppers knows this and other attorneys. We have a tremendous amount of ethical rules that we have to navigate in raising the cost. Just a lot more difficult in general. But they're there for a reason. Not having fences going to be, as I said, a radical departure of what the regulations are in many, many other ways. So I just wanted to know that I know it's Vermont and you guys trust each other. It's different there and you want to have that. But just a couple of questions behind it. Ashley, I'll let you go as I get to those two questions. I think to Tim's point about the municipal concerns and you know, I've been hearing a lot of that from from my own local select board and planning commissions asking, you know, what should we be looking for? What should we be anticipating for extra need? And you know, to the point of being in areas that are more populated or someplace like Brattleboro. I mean, the town itself can decide what its sort of town requirements are. Is that not true? I thought that's the whole point of our village state that like, you know, you make these state guidelines, but towns can certainly say what they want to say, you know, or community and you're not going to have people at town meetings saying, you know, I can see this farm from my house and I don't like that. I can smell this farm from my house and I don't like that. But that's what town meetings for. That's, you know, it's grievances not for us to then change complete state policy based off of one town's concern of where someone's growing a plan or not. Well, just a point of information. That's not actually how it works in Vermont. The stateless, what kind of rules the towns can make. So I'll give you an example, which is actually very apropos of this discussion we're having. It's stunning, but in Vermont and in Brattleboro, if somebody goes into your backyard, which is not fenced, and goes into your car, which is not locked, they are not committing a crime. Did anybody know that? So you wouldn't know that until I found it. But it's literally not in state statute that entering someone's car that is unlocked is a crime. There's a loophole that maybe somebody should take care of at some point. But I would imagine that a lack of fencing makes it not a crime to steal cannabis. So I think somebody should check into that. And I think having a base level of security might really be a good thing for any kind of pulpit or grower to go into the business. Well, I think indicating that it's private property might do that. But one of the people I would really love to hear from is Jen. I know that you've done this in Massachusetts. Obviously, Vermont is a very different state. How do you feel about recommendation three? And you're on mute. You're hired me for my technological ability. I mean, the way that we consider it in Massachusetts was that this plant has a value to it. We have to think of the good and bad. We did require security for everything except home roads, because we obviously can't tell someone what to do with their home. And so for me, having a base level of security wasn't important. Massachusetts is very different. I mean, you have a very different way of thinking or way of doing things up in Vermont that I would guess that recommendation three might be more palatable to people. I have to think that as business owners, they're going to want to protect their product because that's how they're going to make their money. So the business owners are going to want to do something to protect that. But when we were doing this in Massachusetts, we wanted security. And that was part of it. And that's why fencing was the basic level of security that was required. So out of the seven security recommendations, I would be assuming motion-centered trail cameras or activated floodlights at censoring. Do you think that is enough of a basic level of protection for the state of Vermont? I couldn't say. I mean, I think that motion-centered lights is a deterrent effect in general. I don't think it's specific to cannabis. You know, you try to go somewhere and commit a crime and someone's light comes on and you're sort of deterred from that. But I really think that the commissioners... See, the other piece of this too is that the commissioners are going to have to decide what's going to be required to be enforced. So when your inspectors go out and inspect, should you have inspectors that are inspecting properties, is this going to be part of the package that they're inspecting that you actually have something? So I think the commissioners have to think of this at a higher level than maybe where the sub-community members are looking at it from. You know, and I do agree with Mr. Wessel, if there's going to be thefts, then the cost is going to come to the town. And so you may have additional police activity. You don't know that yet because it's not there. Well, thank you, Jen, for that information. I think it's really helpful. And just from a timing perspective, we really need to just keep this tabled and move on to a different topic. I'm going to hand this back to Pepper. Yeah, thank you for the conversation. I mean, these are really important input for the board to hear. I'm not going to weigh in because we will have this debate at some point as a board. But Tim, Kyle mentioned to me that you might have a specific update for the sub-community and I wanted to just offer you space to talk about that. I don't know if that's true or not. Kyle didn't tell me what it was about, but local issues, local. No. Oh, yes, but I was actually going to send it out in sort of just an email blast. Okay, sure. My perspective before, well, definitely before Wednesday. Okay. I appreciate that. And I think I was going to get something to Julie to tell them she's there, which is kind of describing that idea that I mentioned in a meeting about setting, speaking of tiers, setting tiers for municipalities just to make it clear what kinds of municipalities we have in Vermont. So I came up with a, along with BLCT came up with a four tier system. So I'm going to forward that to Julie as well. Okay, great. All right. Yeah, that's great. Well, I mean, I think that this is a really important conversation around outdoor security. I know that the members of the room, the members of the public here today care deeply about it. And I know that, you know, every cultivator cares deeply about what's going to be required and what costs it's going to be. I'm looking at the time. It looks like we have about eight minutes before public comment. Tom, I think, or Jen, I think there was going to be a conversation about indoor security today. Do you think eight minutes can do it? At least get the ball rolling. Yeah, okay. So I've been asked to talk about what we did in Massachusetts again, with regard to indoor security. And I have to say that at a base level, Massachusetts has general marijuana establishment security levels. And so there's a basic premise that you have to keep the product safe, you have to keep the employee safe, you have to keep the facility safe. There are some instances when it comes to indoor facilities, that there's a little bit of enhancement to that. You have to prevent loitering and ensure that only the individuals that are actually conducting business are there and that they're there for the amount of time that they're going to conduct their business. You have to secure all the entrances to the facility. You've got to store the finished product in a secure, safe, that is a way that prevents diversion and theft, and that is only accessible to certain people. And you have to ensure that the overall perimeter of the establishment is sufficiently sealed. So other than those types of things, you have to have the alarm systems, you have to have limited access areas. You have to make sure that nobody can see it from the outside of the building or from the street level. None of those things are really different when it comes to indoor facilities in Massachusetts. And I think one of the things that we really wanted to do was provide consistency. So we didn't want to say, okay, if you have an outdoor facility, you have to do X, if you have an indoor facility, you have to do Y. And so in our regulations, which is 935-CMR-500.110, they are the safety requirements for marijuana establishments in general. And then subsequent to that, you may have a little more of the outdoor and then a couple different ones for the indoor. The one thing about the indoor too is that we make sure that you have sort of duress alarms. So you have panic buttons. And those panic buttons will go over local public safety, so over right to your police department or at the closest law enforcement authority. We don't have sharers that patrol down Massachusetts. It's our police and state police. So the alarm would go straight to them and that would indicate that there's a problem. And again, you have to think about it. It's to keep the employees safe, the product safe and the building safe. And so we felt that taking those general steps would allow people to do that. I mean, I can take any questions that people have or sort of explain why we didn't do. Jen, I would say my question, which is always my question is, is there a rationale for waiving some of the security requirements for 1,000 square foot indoor cultivation? There can be a rationale. I mean, if you have a basic security system that people can't get in the building if you're not there, then I would assume that there is. We also have in our rights that if you want an alternative, you better provide the alternative. And then you can request that that be approved. So we give people the ability, because quite frankly, we were five people, right? We got into this and we're appointed and had to do this in a short amount of time. We know there are security experts out there that might know a different way to do it and that want to do it in a different way. Or maybe you have an MSO who comes in and has been doing it a certain way in a different state and it works for them. So we have the ability to ask for a different type of system that meets the standards. So when we were conducting, creating the licensing process, we knew that from micro girls up to the 100,000 square foot, there were going to be differences and that's why we allowed it for the requested change. Hey, Jen, Mark Gordon. I should maybe know a little bit more about this. I'm going to go look it up. Is our rules for liquor stores and micro breweries and micro distillers comparable? Or is there some kind of feeling on the part of the public that this is new, this is scary, and we've got to really turn these things into four knocks. I don't think either. Quite frankly, the public didn't get a ton of public comment when it came to us creating the first set of breaks. We literally had two and a half months to do it. So the way I saw it is the public could obviously email us at any point in time or didn't have the formal public comment periods. But what we were considering is the fact that this was going to be newly regulated products and this was federally illegal so we had all the obstacles that we, that alcohol doesn't have the benefit of, didn't have the federal government coming in with any type of money, any type of services, any type of everything. Personally, I didn't compare it to alcohol. This was something that we knew that we were charged with doing. And again, I want to remind you that we had a U.S. attorney general here in Massachusetts that was saying we're going after everybody if somebody screwed something. You know, that was the sudden fact that we were going after the blood tenders, we were going after the growers, we were going after everyone. And so we, as a commission, decided there was going to be a baseline set of security employee standards and that if you wanted to change that, you had the option to ask the commission. The other thing too was, we weren't sure in the beginning how many enforcement inspectors we had. So we didn't know where these guys were going to have to travel or how far away they were going to have to travel. Because originally our office was sighted in downtown Boston and I was giving them the Berkshires. I gave them the Berkshires back. And then once we got to a Wister and we got some of the personnel, it just became second nature. So there really wasn't a comparison to alcohol. There really wasn't a comparison of micro groups or breweries or any of that. It was, this is our charge. This is what the landscape is in the United States right now. We knew we were the first on the East Coast so we really tried to pay attention to the fact that New England was sort of clustered together. That's why you receive residency requirements for our micro groups. Because we did want people jumping from the board is to come in and start businesses and then go home. Because we felt the people of Massachusetts were on this initiative, 400 people of Massachusetts. We were doing the opposite of what Vermont was doing. We weren't welcoming everybody into the state. So some of this could could change this as a legalization changes. You have commissioners that have term limits. So anything is possible. I know that the commission is not going to do the regulatory change they talked about. So that's going to be another year out if anything changes. I will say the two subsequent changes that we had, this didn't come up. We didn't change it at all. But it wasn't a public sentiment that this is scary. This has to be locked up. It has to be for Knox. This was five commissioners saying, this is what we want to see our state program. Which I know is very different from the Senate in Vermont. Ashley, can I ask you a question? Sorry, Tim, go ahead. If you don't mind, just really quickly on the one point you made about the alarms that go back to police departments. I'm sure you all know what I'm going to say. So that's time, money, and taxpayer money on a local level. And as of yet, we have no support from the state of Vermont coming to us through taxes and fees. Mainloin, Massachusetts, local governments and excise tax up to 3% on the sales. Only for dispensers, town of dispensers. So if you're a town that has just cultivation, you don't get that 3%. Okay. That's a fair thing. But also, doesn't Massachusetts also have state revenues that fund public safety and municipal police training? That's what I've noted in my notes. So the municipal police training fund, some of that funding comes from the marijuana trust fund. And so as tax dollars are put into that, the legislature has to take those funds out and put them towards training. When we began, I think I've said this in different subcommittees, we needed three rounds of supplemental funding to get going. The commission didn't have the amount of funding that we needed to start. We weren't staffed the way Vermont is staffed when we started. And so if we didn't have the benefit of having consultants with us along the way, it was literally five people and five cubicles putting pen to paper. But you're right. We do have state funding for our training, municipal training, state training. I don't believe there has been a large number of those panic buttons used. I think it's just, if it's the last resort, that's what's going to happen. But you're right. And I think part of it was, the other thing to mention is that under the way that licensing happens in Massachusetts, anyone who enters, who wants to cite the cannabis establishment in a city or town, it doesn't matter what type of establishment or what city or town, you have to enter in what's called a host community agreement. So the controversial, it's controversial as the HCA that has to be entered in between the city or town and the entity trying to open. And under that, there are a lot of 3% each year for impacts to be in the town. Now, as a former senator, in a sort of rural suburban area, my question was, does your paving schedule have to be exited because now you have more cars on a specific road? Is there a stressor on public safety services that people are calling 911 because they're using it and they weren't educated and they're nervous? Just the typical thing that cities and towns have to account for. But now what has to happen is the city and town has to conclude that that happened. So there's really a tracking system to that. Sure. And I think the situation we're currently looking at, if everything, what we're having left, is that municipalities have no such issues. Exactly. I had a question for Ashley, but I don't want to take away from your time, Ashley. If you have questions for anyone else, or for Jan or for anyone. Well, I want to be conscious of what we're talking about too, but I just wanted to ask Jennifer, she doesn't have, they don't have a residency requirement in Massachusetts and how many times you guys have been sued because you do have residency requirements. The residency is only for the microbes. And so it's only for the really little guys. And I don't think we've been sued at all. And then the whole intent was we had farmers, but not in the farmers in Vermont, saying I just want a flood link. I just want a small flood link. They didn't want the big-grown facilities. And so the way that we said that was, okay, so we'll say you've got to have a residency requirement for the microbros, but anything above that. So the 25,000 to 5,000 square foot, you don't. And I really don't think anyone has sued us for that yet. Yeah. Did you have a question for me specifically? Yeah. Does your insurance policy for Elmore Mountain Therapeutics require minimum security standards? If somebody breaks in, that's not sure. It's just the actual facility itself and the people in it. All right, great. I will say I'm the only person who has set up my alarm. I also wanted to make note just on this line. As far as how the chain of command happens, when our alarm does go off, we're notified before the police also. And our situation was, but because we live so close, if the alarm is triggered, we come here first. We don't tell them to call the police first. If it's something that we can mediate ourselves, we do. If someone's in our facility, obviously there would be some work to be done there, but cops are not the first, or not the second or the first thing that would call on our alarm does go off. And I think in masks, the arrest alarm is like the last. I mean, you have to be in a pretty sketchy situation to set that off. There's a protocol for it. If the box alarm goes off, or if something alarm goes off, then the business has to address it, and they have to respond. But if you're in a situation where maybe they're getting robbed, or maybe there's somebody who feels very threatened by what happened, then that's the last resort. So there's a big protocol for you setting off the arrest fund. And also, Pepper, I just wanted to put on the record, our products are ensured, which is not under the same insurance policy that is our building policy. Thank you. Well, there's one member of the public that would like to make a comment today. So if there's nothing else, we can shift to that. Okay. Hey there, my name is Taylor Carpenter. I'm from Gaston Weed Company. So I just wanted to talk about, or just my opinion about the fencing on the outdoor cultivation. And I just think that it should definitely be a requirement for all. I think that it's, you know, even a thousand feet, you know, you're talking upwards of 100 pounds during harvest, and you know, at 2,000 a pound, that's over $200,000. And so I think on such a small area, and I think another really, like, you know, good purpose I can serve is, there's going to be so many of these thousand foot cultivation licenses, as I'm kind of aware of. And I think it could be really challenging to regulate, and how I, you know, regulate the whole thing, and whether people are splitting up, you know, 500 feet over there, or over there, and it's kind of like, that kind of reminds you a lot of, like, an illicit grow. And I think the fencing would really give you, like, a really easy way to, you know, regulate it. And one of what fencing here it is, you can do what you want in there. Because I think that, I think measuring a thousand feet out of door, too, it's like, what are you measuring by? You know, you're measuring by the root. You're measuring where the leaves come out, too. So I think the fencing can serve a lot of, you know, positive towards the regulatory things. And then I just wanted to add that I think that, you know, during those three slides of that, I think maybe of like doing recommendation three, but making the fencing requirement for all, so having to add maybe one more. Because I do think that a, you know, a 10,000 square foot outdoor cultivation should not have the, you know, same exact thing as a thousand. But I just wanted to say, I think fencing would be, you know, really a necessity in this. So thank you, and I appreciate your time. That's it for public comment, unless anyone has changed their minds. So I think, I think from my perspective, we're ready to do a term. Is that all right? Okay, well, I think, good bye. We'll carry where your vats are chimed in there. I was going to offer you a motion to do a term. Okay. Get a good one. Yeah. Thank you all. I want to take that one.