 Fantastic. Hi everyone thank you so much for joining us today. This is the end of week three on social equity and so I am Danita Scott and on behalf of the NACB each time we go through beginning of meeting we just take a quick moment to glance at what our milestones are. We have dates of October 1st for reducing our eliminating fees for social equity applicants and by the 15th to have a criteria for social equity applicants for the purpose of obtaining social equity loans and grants from the Cannabis Business Development Fund and then in November there'll be additional meetings on what is going to happen here in the design of social equity overall with the advisory stakeholders. Can everybody see the presentation deck with no issue? Okay fantastic. What I'm going to call this meeting to order and would like to begin with roll call from the NACB. I have Gina Cranwinkle, President, Jeffrey Gallego, Megan Howe and we also have John with us today. He'll be assisting in Megan's absence as she is upcoming to go out on leave John. Thank you so much. Then from the subcommittee Ashley Reynolds, visit Nader Hachim and Julio Thompson for the AG's office on behalf of TJ Reynolds. I'm president on behalf of TJ Donovan AG for Brown. I'm so sorry Ashley I just gave you a new I gave him a new last name my apologies. So and then from the cannabis control board I I know we have folks in the room if you'll let me know who's there. Yeah James Pepper, Julie Holbert's joining virtually and then we have about six or seven members of the public. Alright fantastic and I think Nellie is with us as well. So going in now we have roll call done. I would like to go to the latest public comment that was received and this is a summarization of it but I would like to remind everyone with this recording if you'd like to make public comments you can do so on the cannabis control board's website at ccb.vermont.gov and the exact address is on this slide but this comment came from Ron Williams and he asked the committee not to include a requirement of a one-year of residency prior to licensure and he asked that we modify to a simple state requirement residency period. He also asked that the committee not only that not only is the Vermont cannabis market equitable but that it remains attractive for young diverse communities that are under a representative and he reiterated that a one-year residency could prevent prevent them and other young people of color from potentially moving to the state and establishing long and fulfilling lives as Vermont cannabis entrepreneurs. He also noted that he and his team are self-funded with the help of family and friends and they are not accepting any venture capital which means they had a difficult time finding a location without the use of a mortgage paying for construction and other steps in the process of establishing a business. Beyond that the state is experiencing a housing crisis he wanted that noted and to have to deal with a one-year residency requirement could be a serious barrier at this point to any young company or any young person's journey. In closing he noted it would be a shame to see us and other people that look like us prevented from being a part of the Vermont cannabis market. He also noted that he has friends who would like to come up and participate but would like more assurance that there will be a place for them in the market and his hope is that the committee will do the right thing and make this an inclusive market for all. Again for any members of the public if you would like to submit public comments you may do so at ccb.vermont.gov. I just want to add something to this. This was a summarize version. We will be emailing the full version to everyone on the subcommittee and in addition to this he spoke at our last public comment so he then sent this in writing the following day to follow up on the public comments that he made on our Monday's call. Jeff so everybody's aware. Great thank you. So the next order of business is the approval of minutes from Monday September 20th. Can we get a motion to approve? Motion. And a second. Second. Thank you. Fantastic. So from there we're going to go to agenda item number one in the discussion desk which is defining social equity criteria for Vermont and I will go to this slide and I will be working in real time to make modifications as we need to which is why you're not seeing this in presentation format. Gina and Jeffrey I'll let you guys take it away. Thank you for that wonderful introduction. And we are getting to the exciting part. We might be able to vote on this today. One of the things we've gone over is who the social equity candidate is. We have determined that if they live in an opportunity zone they are a member of a five-path minority and then if they've been convicted of a cannabis related offense. One of the changes that I did make onto this is if earlier we had if it was for a nonviolent cannabis offense. Now going through legislation you know people can if they've had a violent offense put in to see if they can get that expunged and candidates are able to apply for a cannabis license. I'm not sure if they will get a cannabis license that they have a violent offense and we will also speak be speaking about what we believe the expungement record should be for. So for now I did take that nonviolent component out of this. And just saying that if anybody had been arrested convicted or incarcerated for a cannabis offense a misdemeanor or a felony. How does everybody feel about that? I'll start with you Ashley. Your thoughts? I think that looks good. Thank you. I agree I also think it looks good. And Helio? I'm comfortable with that. And so and this will also relate to anybody who is a member of an impacted family which we have the definition and have okay by definition on our last call that was voted in. Now the interesting part how do we feel about the residency requirements? Now we had made a determination last week that we wanted at least one year on Monday phone call. We started to discuss two to three year requirements. Ashley, you have a question? Oh no, I just wanted to be in line for public comment. So started rough. Okay. Okay. So I just want to go over that again. I think we have we do not have a government on this at all. And we have raised a number of questions, comparisons of what's being done in other states, issues about possible interstage commerce issues. Actually, you can make the first comments on this as you've had your hand raised and then would love to then go to Julio about this because I think he has really great expertise in this area. Thank you so much, Tina. Thank you. I just want to stress the importance of having some kind of a residency requirement. I would be remit as a native Vermonter to not feel that we are serving the Vermont people that have been affected by the war on drugs in a way that it has been prior to legalization. I think that if we do go forward with a residency requirement, I don't know if there's any other states that you know of where if someone still feels so they are social equity applicants couldn't go before the board for a public hearing to state their case and perhaps ways that residency requirements for for them. You know, I see the public comments. I see, you know, I would like to see diversity. I would like to see young people moving to Vermont. I would like to see there be a fair and equitable cannabis market. See what would prevent that particular entity and public comments from applying for a regular license and going through the regular way that all other Vermonters on an even playing field would be going through. So, I just want to stress that I'd like to make sure that Vermonters are getting a fair chance in this market and the folks that has been wronged by this prohibition. I think we need to make sure that Vermonters are protected. We've already let MSO's in. I know that there is some fear around any sort of residency requirements for any applicant at any level for any licensure in the cannabis market here in Vermont. I don't think that we should be afraid as committee members to have a residency requirement and be afraid that we're going to be sued. We've looked at other models that other states that have five of the last 10 years, 15 of the last 20 years, way more of a residency requirements than we're even contemplating here with just one year. And I would just like the committee members and the board to really look at how we are protecting Vermonters with this social equity. Kenneth, thank you. Thank you so much, Ashley, for those great points that you didn't make. I have one question. What would that amount of years you would prefer to have on this? Is that one year? Is that last time you mentioned two to three? I think two to three. Five would be ideal. I know that's what Colorado's doing. I don't know if there's that five that you could pull up so that we can reference again what the other residency requirements are for other states that we've been looking at models for awesome. And it should be right after it should be on top to NECA and right after our slide or before this slide. And what I really want to point out is that this is really for a designated opportunity zone. So I mean, my preference is that if you were going to have a residency requirement, it would be for your disproportionately impacted area, which we noted as the opportunity zone. So as Ashley was saying that in Colorado, if you live in a designated opportunity zone, you have to have at least live there for 15 years between 1980 and 2010. So as Ashley was saying, you know, having the two years or three year requirement for that one particular thing is quite less. On Illinois, I had five out of the last 10 years. Massachusetts is five out of the last 10 years. And they do specify for and those are all disproportionately impacted areas. But for drugs and fiction, you needed to reside there for the last year. And then in Michigan, they give points towards if you live in a disproportionately impacted area, but at least five to the 10 years, you get a 25% deduction on your application and licensing for that. Just hope we have just to go over that again. And I see Lindsay and Susanna have arrived. So hi to the both of you. So thank you again, Ashley, and for pointing out to review that. With that being said, there are cases that are popping up to, you know, debate residency requirements. I'm just going to pass along to Leo, you know, and to give us some information about that and your feelings about this topic. Sure. I mean, so the most recent trends in terms of legal challenges, dealing with residency requirements have all gone against having a residency requirement on the ground that it's an unconstitutional exercise of protectionism from state residents versus competitors from other states. Last month, the state of Maine's residency requirement was struck down by a court as a permanent junction as being unconstitutional. There are similar injunctions. I think there was one again in Missouri. And I think last meeting we talked about one that was entered against the city of Detroit. So, you know, looking at the social equity landscape for Vermonters, the criteria here allow any Vermonters who have been impacted by the Vermont criminal justice system to compete with other Vermonters. And the question is, you know, for participation in this new market, and the question is whether Vermont can legally create an artificial barrier that protects them from people who reside outside the state of Vermont or haven't been there a year. Maybe they've been here days or months, but otherwise made these four or five criteria. And so, you know, the picture doesn't look very, very promising for that. Notwithstanding what Colorado has done, it's Colorado just hasn't. No one challenged Colorado's law and that could happen and never or it could happen tomorrow. We don't know. Just two years ago that actually in Colorado, coincidentally, there was a case involving a Colorado law, which they passed, which required two years of residency for certain wine distributorship. And the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously, actually the vote was 8 to 0, said that that was unconstitutional violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. So that was a 2019 case. So, I mean, I have concerns about that and the prospects of litigation as possible. Vermont can be the first one to win. But, you know, the legal currents seem to be moving in the opposite direction. So I think when it comes to application for benefits or loans where the individual applicants are in a position to provide their story, I think making space for Vermonters or people who have been impacted by Vermont's criminal justice system as it relates to cannabis, I think should have the opportunity to tell that story and have that taken into consideration. But I think that just saying people who haven't been here a couple years, notwithstanding their other equities, just simply aren't eligible, even though they might be in Vermont now, I think is probably just directing to much of a barrier. Thank you. And what is your recommendation for residency or no residency, any residency? I think to be identified as a social equity candidate, there shouldn't be a residency. I think what's up here is a one-year residency requirement. I wouldn't support that. I would support that when social equity candidates are applying for benefits and their applications are looked at in light of the factors that they can identify that makes them eligible. For assistance, I think people who have been affected by the Vermont criminal justice system adversely, that should be an inquiry that's afforded or it should be made in the application process, but it should be a factor but not like an automatic disqualifier if someone doesn't have that story to tell. Thank you. I think that's a great point and we can create some, you know, example template of someone who would be applying to get, you know, access to education or some other benefits that are received to show the committee as well and using that as just something that enhances it as like maybe a merit-based system by some additional points for that. So thank you. Nader, how do you feel about the residency requirements? So I have a couple of thoughts floating around. You know, I appreciate what both Ashley and Julio have said and, you know, I understand the desire to support the monitors who have been living here for years, who have also been affected by the criminal justice system, but on the other hand, I also defer to Julio's experience and knowledge when it comes to the possible legal ramifications of this. And so, you know, where I'm coming from, I mean, my original thought was reducing it from a five-year requirement to a one-year requirement and then, and that stems from my experience in law enforcement when, you know, in when dealing with these cases, drug and addiction cases, you know, it's a the population that I dealt with was largely one that was transitory and, you know, not staying in one place for a long time. So living in Vermont for six months and then leaving Vermont for six months, that was largely what the population was. And so that's why I had my initial concerns about having a residency requirement. And, you know, now coupled with the concern about the litigation and the direction that it's going, that kind of creates a bit more concern regarding having a residency requirement. And so I think that Julio said something that I strongly agree with, which is, you know, sharing that story and having it be taken into consideration, but not creating that blanket residency requirement where it's a yes or a no. Does that make sense? Yes. And thank you, Nina. That was a good point of people moving. So just for the record, what is your recommendation? So no residency requirements? Is that your recommendation? I just want to state it for the record. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Is that not enough to get your opinion? Yeah. I think, sorry, first of all, for joining a bit late, starting a different agricultural conversation with different commission, but I suppose that what I would say is that if we did a residency requirement, I would like to see it being optional. I forget how Julio phrased it, but I appreciate how he said it, right? But it may be a factor, but not necessarily a requirement. But I would also be extremely comfortable with not having a residency requirement at all. Thank you so much. And Lindsay, how do you feel about this? Very essential. I'm meeting. I honestly, I need more time to reflect on this. As you know, I've been you know, not as dialed in to this, and I'm trying to sort of get up to speed and just taking in all of the points and everybody makes great points. So I really just prefer a little bit more time to think this through. Thank you so much. Thank you. And actually, after we've gone around and spoken to anybody, is there anything that you would like to add or any additional questions you may have? Just that the folks who have been a question that we impacted in Vermont and chose to stay regardless, I would like to see them get retribution for staying here. We know it's not easy living here under the best circumstances, continue to stand by wanting to allow homeowners to be at the forefront of this decision. Thank you. Thank you. So I will call this to a vote. Once we can, once they can just add the notes here. So if we can go back to slide seven. And so this is how the subcommittee social equity will be defining social equity candidate. Based on everyone's discussion right now, we will take out that there is a residency requirement based on Nader and Emilio's suggestions. We will note that if someone is applying for any grants or loans or additional access from the social equity fund to make it a point of adding it to their story and making sure that they get some additional merit for it, but it is not required to get benefit from social equity. So social equity applicants meets an applicant that meets at least one of the following criteria. One, listen in opportunity zones. We have stated those 25 opportunity zones in our previous slide. A member of the BIPOC Minority First, three convicted of a cannabis-related offense. So they have personally been arrested, convicted or incarcerated for a cannabis offense. So does that be a misdemeanor or felony? Or are a member of an impacted family? So some, you know, and we have that definition as well that we have folded on. So, Nader, how would you like to vote on the definition of a social equity candidate? I vote yes, and I tend to support him. Thank you. Ashley? Yes, but I think I will ask, I think a one-year residency requirement would have. We will note that for the minutes that you would still have like that. Thank you. And Julio, how would you like to vote on this? I would vote yes. Okay, thank you. So three guesses. So this will pass. So yeah, guys, you're met one of the things that were required so far. Breathe. You got one second before we move on to something else. But thank you so much. I think that this will be very helpful. Anything that you would like to add or comment before we move on to some, were we talking about fees and some fee waivers for social equity candidates? Okay, let's move on. Let's just go on to that, the 11th slide for one minute, Danika. Because we no longer have a residency requirement, we do not need proof. Well, I actually, we need proof of residency that they're living in Vermont to have as I would assume or establishing a business. And Jeffrey, I'm going to hand that over to you, proof of residency. Do we still need a proof of residency to prove that they live in Vermont? Or is it just that they're going to be operating in Vermont? Actually, I don't know the answer to that question right off the hand. And so that's a question. A question for the board is that to have a business in Vermont, do they need to be a resident to have a business at all? I don't know how to put the answer to that question, Gina. Hi, Suzanne, you have your hand raised. Thank you, Jeffrey. Yeah, I have a question about this. Is it that the applicant is the person or the applicant is the entity? Because if it's the entity, then are we requiring the entity to be dominant in Vermont? Or if it's a person or what if it's co-owned and one person meets the criteria? And I'm sorry if this is basic and I missed it. So that, so it would be an applicant. So it would be a person, but they can have that they would be establishing a business. So it would need to at least be 51% ownership for in order to establish a business there. But we're not sure in order to establish a business in Vermont is the question of what must someone live in Vermont to establish a business in Vermont. So Julio, do you know that? Or is anybody in the Vermont cannabis control board? So you have answers to those questions. If not, we will just readdress this next on our next fall. For a business entity, I don't know that you need to have a member be a resident of the store. I mean, there are multi-state retailers, for example, that are licensed to do, maybe licensed to do business or haven't an agent who could receive process if they were being sued, but may not have a place to live here. We have, you know, we have grocery stores and things like that on the border, multi-state businesses. But I think it might be something we might want to check with the general counsel here for the CCB on that kind of a foundational question I just found on the, I can't say definitively because I hadn't, you know, I have come up. I don't want to believe that you have to be a, I'm sorry. I'm going to say, I do not believe that you need to be a resident of Vermont to start a business here, but I think the Secretary of State's Office could help us with that as well. I would like to make a recommendation that if someone, a social equity candidate is going to apply for assistance in this program that they should be residing in Vermont. I mean, Nader, how do you feel about that? I agree with that. I think that makes sense. So are you, I mean, there are individual applicants and then there might be, you know, a business that does business in a joining state and so I don't understand what the proposed residency requirement would be for the business that 50% of that its majority shareholders live in Vermont or that it has Vermont employees? Or I'm a little confused by that. That's a social equity candidate. I mean, obviously the social equity candidate who wants a licensee would need to be residing in Vermont to get those benefits. There's no existing residency requirements that need to be had, but if they're getting the benefits that they are currently residents of the state of Vermont. So they just have to move to Vermont to get to actively participate that they can't be living in New York and receive these benefits. Yeah, I think for the social equity benefits, I think that's right. Okay. Thank you. So just for the record, Danica, we have three yeses that there is a residency requirement. So this is the proof of residency that we have gone over. I will note that I've added nine unnotarized affidavit from lease holding roommates because there was a question that, you know, if they were just in a roommate situation and were not on the lease, how we could address that. So we have a Vermont driver's license identification card, a disability identification card. We have a voter registration card, a signed lease agreement, or a property deed that includes the applicant's name, a voter registration card, a pay, checks the school district requirements, whatever their school district was required to show proof of address, a bank statement, a recent tax return, or an unnotarized affidavit from the lease holder, just verifying that this person lives with them. And then in addition, for proof of conviction, you would need court documents, probation documents, department of corrections documents, which all can be requested by the courts, which we've spoken to David here about already. Is everybody okay with these documents requiring them to provide for any social equity candidate? Ashley, I see you, your head. Yes, I support that. I support it. Thank you. Zalio? Looking at it, I guess I would want to know what counts as a recent tax return. Does that mean like a prior year or current year? I'm not sure how it's in this recent. I would say probably prior year, just in case we're not in, if taxes hadn't been filed for that year, unless you would like to get a present year. But it's, I think if all of the criteria are for the current year, I think that's fair. Okay, so let's put it for the current year, which could be last year's tax returns, just because we're on tax returns at just a year prior. Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. And later? I'll vote yes. Ashley, it's just with that one relation of all criteria being for the current year, if you can revoke on that. How long does it take to get proof of residency and for not? Does anybody know? A month? Six weeks? What does it take? I mean, if they show a signed lease, it's that day, I would imagine. I mean, I don't know. I would imagine in a few days you can show that you have leased an apartment or you're living with someone. And they only need to meet one of these requirements, A through I, or all of these requirements, A through I. One of those requirements. Can we often have them meet at least one or more of these requirements? I mean, so two requirements, a driver's license plus a bank statement. So two documentations. Or yeah, yeah, two requirements. Yeah, two of these requirements. Okay. Six, seven, eight, nine requirements. Yeah. So proof of residency will be two must admit two of the following documents. Yeah, I like that. And that must be in for the current year. So that I'm real quick so that I'm clear government issued ID for Montdriver's license that would I'm going to ask is that or ID is that the primary and then one additional or are we asking for a government issued ID and two additional any two? Any two of those? This is proof of residency, not necessarily proof of name. But yes, I can't remember if this has been brought up or not. But if we want to add a 10th option for a person in which they could provide utility bills as proof of residency, because if we're going to be requiring to I just want to make sure that we're doing people as many options as possible. You know, like when I had to get my license, I needed to in order to prove my residency, I had to bring some utility bills to prove that I was living where I'm living. So that's something that we could add or was there any? I think that's a great addition. Ashley, how do you feel about adding utility bill? Yeah, I think that's a good addition. Nader, but and again, we're talking about the proof of them living here, not of where they are conducting business, right? That's that's what I mean. Yeah, okay, that's in Vermont. Okay, yep, I support that. Okay, and Nader, with this addition, do you support the documentation? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have for the record that this is the supporting documentation that one must submit with their application to for the social equity benefit. Well, now we get to start talking about what those benefits may be. We have any comments or questions before we move on? Okay, so we had spoken about this on last week's call, but we weren't able to get into a vote yet. So we're going to just continue to go to the other slides. We spoke about the city of Denver, in Colorado, we spoke about Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and then we made our own recommendations here. So the recommendation was the application fee should be waived, and that we everyone seems to be in agreement with recommendation one, that the first year would be waived. The second year would be 25% of the fee, because we do not know what that fee is yet, and different licenses have different fees. The third year would be 50% of the fee. The fourth year would be 75% of the fee, and the fifth year would be full price. We did make a recommendation that someone could apply to the social equity fund for a waiver for the second year for either a reduced fee and or complete elimination of the second year fee. If they had a need and could show that need, but also were addressing how they were going to correct it. So if someone wrote in the second year that there were issues, building issues or delays or the reasoning why they were not able to afford to pay for their relicensing, they would be able to submit this waiver, but they would also need to say how they felt they were going to overcome those challenges and be able to be back on track as a business. So Danika, if you can just write that there, that second year waiver would be possible. I just want to discuss this again. Julio, were you raising your hand? I was turning off my camera. Okay, okay, thanks. But let's start. Julio, how do you feel about this recommendation that we had to step back that week? I would favor of the three, I guess, what's presented on the screen. In terms of the fee rate, I'm comfortable with recommendation one. I had at the last meeting suggested the opportunity for a fee waiver for SE candidates. I am also inclined to permit a fee reduction, but not an entire waiver for the third year. Again, you would have to be able to present a cause, but no reduction for years four or five there. Thank you. Nader, how do you feel about Julio's suggestion about the third year that it could be a reduction, but not that they would have to take something if there was need? Sorry, my internet. Okay, I think Nader's having some internet issues. I'm going to move on to actually- Sorry about that. Nader, is it working now? Yes, I think so, but I can't make any promises for the next 30 seconds. I support Julio's recommendation, so I'm going to get both of them. And actually, how do you feel about Julio's recommendation? I like that. And then are there any other states that do profit ceilings for year after year after year? I mean, the SE applicant is established. Okay, that's great. Now, you know, let's say they're now outpacing, you know, everyone else, you know, based off of their profits, like, should their fees continue to be waived or significantly reduced? I don't know if that's allowed. I mean, I feel like everything's going to be on the table. Everything's going to be transparent for us as the whole of this industry. Are there profit tax? No. But would you like to suggest one for this? This is an open- I mean, I guess I just want to try to prevent, yeah, prevent any sort of abuse of this. Because, I mean, as we know, I mean, the projections for Vermont's cannabis industry, I mean, I don't know where people pull these numbers from, but I mean, they're upwards of 250 million. And I feel like, you know, there should be some caps here on people's ability to profit. I think it's a good idea, Ashley, which you'd like to make a recommendation of what that cap would look like. Let me do a little more digging on other states and maybe you can do the same through NACB and see if that is exact being adapted anywhere else. But to my knowledge, there isn't a cap on it, but I would like to speak to Jeffrey about it. Jeffrey? Thank you. Yeah, I can just share with one of the conversations that's been happening in the market. Market structure subcommittee is the potential of production caps, not so much a profit cap, but just like trying to control the supply so that Vermont does not end up in the same position that Oregon did when their adult use market started. You know, everybody had a green thumb and they stood up with all this surplus and some of it went bad, a lot of people lost money. And so that was something that came up in market structure. So rather than limiting the amount of money someone can make, they're limiting the amount of, that's just a discussion that's happening in market structure. But I thought that was relevant to what just came up right now. Yeah, I agree with you, Jeffrey. And I do see it as, you know, two separate issues, but hopefully you guys can see where my concern is, is that, you know, this perfect scenario is you have this perfect special assembly applicant. They are reducing that, we're reducing these barriers. They're thriving. Everything's going great. Everyone's making money. Everyone's serving this community. And then at what point, you know, I feel like five years is a really long time as far as their runway is concerned. Not in the traditional sense of any other business. We're given a lot of other freedoms for having to show a profit or having to show any growth. But I'm curious if this runway of, you know, either one to five years could perhaps be shortened, or at least, you know, is there some sort of evaluation that we can do? I totally hear you, Jeffrey, on the growing capacity side of things and the amount of products that can go into the market. I definitely support canopies on that as well. But I don't know if there's any other, any other safeguards, you know, I just want to try to prevent any abuse of this program. I definitely agree with you. Actually, I think it's a very valid point that you make. We did five years because the resources that by that time, they should be up and running and in full support. We often know the second year, no one's making money second or third year, even fourth year, you know, cannabis is a very expensive industry. So, you know, we found that at the fifth year, they should be profitable and be able to be self-sustaining. I do see hands up, but we do definitely need to get to the public comment portion of this. And so, like, if we can just wait until after public comment and or this might need to be set aside into Monday's discussion, but I really appreciate the lively discussions we are having on it. So, Chairperson Pepper, I'm going to hand this over to you for the public comment portion. And if you could just put the person's name in the chat box, that would be very helpful for us. Can you pull the comment in the room? I didn't see any, yeah. Maybe you could just state your name for the record. Sure thing. Hi, my name is Ben Mervis. Thank you for the time, everybody, and thank you for your work to the committee or the subcommittee. My background is actually in public health through the Vermont Department of Health, and then I moved on to the Food and Drug Administration before entering cannabis about five years ago. I've worked in both California and Massachusetts markets and industries. Now I'm working with Craig Mitchell here on some social equity. We're exploring what a viable business model would look like in Vermont as a social equity applicant. Fortunately, with your approved, with your vote to approve the qualifications, we now can move forward confidently with him knowing that he'll qualify as a social equity applicant. And if anybody wants to catch up or missed it, he did submit a public comment on August 29th, just kind of stating his intentions as an advocate and an entrepreneur in the industry. There's a little bit of confusion on my end when it comes to the application fees. If we're talking about applications for a specific social equity license or if it's any social or if it would be a social equity applicant applying for all licenses. But with that in mind, we do have a few immediate suggestions or requests for the subcommittee to consider moving forward. And I understand this would be after you get through the first two reports that are due at the beginning of October. But our first is to develop social equity policies that would reduce barriers for applicants pursuing any of the general license types as opposed to a specific social equity license. We've seen this in other states and it can include something as simple as removing the requirement for a permanent address when you're applying for say a provisional license and then allowing that permanent address to come into effect when you apply for your final license. Our second suggestion is considering granting social equity applicants exclusivity on social consumption and delivery because both of those functions are so neatly tied to the community, to the destigmatization of cannabis within BIPOC communities and marginalized communities as a whole. You're talking about consumption, which is incredibly personal and then also inviting someone to your home. We also think it would be a great way to further healthy consumption habits within those communities. And then lastly, we're really aligned with everything we've heard from the CCB meetings so far with creating a unique industry here in Vermont. And as such, one of the things we think would make this the strongest social equity program in the country so far would be to create an integrated license for social equity applicants to kind of build their own application, their own license type that would be able to choose from a combination of cultivation, product manufacturing, wholesale, retail, delivery, and social consumption. So essentially giving social equity applicants the ability to build their own business at whatever scale but with unlimited opportunity because we think that is what will set the state up for great success. So thank you very much. Thank you. I'm just to clarify when we were talking about application, see it would be for any application or any license that they were choosing. Excellent. Thank you. Hey, it's Mark with the Racial Justice Alliance and the Cannabis Equity Coalition. And good afternoon. Our special shout out to Gina as usual. Thank you for your work. I think we are at conclusion of the notes that we'll be providing, the coalition, the notes that we'll be providing to this process, to the CCB as well as to this committee and other committees. I believe those will go out tomorrow or come out to you tomorrow and we'll set up some kind of coordination on further discussions. I wanted to talk a little bit about just the, there is a discussion on minimum amount of time that one would have to reside in the state to be considered a resident and I saw that was really thoroughly debated. And I understand who we owe the concern about the legal ramifications in the concern of airing on the side of caution. And I think the propensity, I should say, to air on the side of caution in terms of that being a requirement, but personally feel that if the, if that is the only reason is just because there's just a propensity to want to air on the side of caution with all other aspects of the argument being logical to certainly take that move, make that move, I think in cases like that, that we should have the courage to do the right thing as opposed to airing on the side of caution. So I just wanted to just bring that out as a point that I caught in the conversation just now. The question is, is it the right thing to do is to, as Ashley had pointed out very clearly, is to, you know, give it some time for as far as making sure that folks are required to be in place for a while before these benefits are available. So I'd strongly ask the CCB to consider, you know, I mean, I think even the IRS requires you to be in place for 183 days before they consider you to be a resident here. So I don't think that's unreasonable. So yeah, I'll just leave that there. There is still a conversation about, you know, you have reached a decision about equity applicants, that involves opportunity zones, that's, it seems to kind of forego the conversation that we were having about creating, creating programming that comes out of this, this taxation and regulation emerging market that would be directing resources into communities as opposed to at individuals. And I just, I said it last week when I was here, and I'll say it again, you know, CH414, the program that we put forward that would seek to reinvest in some of these communities to lift these communities up that have been impacted by this so-called war on drugs. And I think that opportunity lexicon was really derived from the research that we did in that work, largely like Illinois. And I just don't know how appropriate it is, respecting and understanding that you've already voted. I don't know that an opportunity zone for a social equity applicant is the right approach. So I don't mind being in the minority on that, but I just wanted to bring that out. I think opportunities zones certainly are relevant, but I think they should be more relevant in a conversation when we are directing, you know, a percentage of excise taxes towards a community for community revitalization, these communities that have been harmed by impact. So I hope we get to that conversation at some point. I want to lift up the, and we'll lift up further in moving forward the whole conversation on licenses like delivery licenses, like ideas like co-ops, and also ideas like equity applicant integrated licensing. We certainly support all of those, and you'll hear more from us on those ideas. I think they're great ideas. I'm thinking of the subcommittee for your work as usual. Thanks. And just so far for both public comments, we will be getting to other topics that you raised as soon as possible. Are there any other public comments in the room? That's it, Gina. Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Motion. Thank you, Ashley. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Nader. Well, this has been a great call. Thank you, everyone, and I appreciate your time, your advice, your wisdom, and I will see you on Monday.