 Okay, we're ready to go, Jacob. I'm here too. Perfect. So the call of the cannabis community to order at 1203 P.M. On the call today, we have Kyle Harris on the CCP. Kyle, do we have any members of the public with you today? We've got one member of the public and we're with me. We're Stephanie Smith and then the CCP. We have Janet Brown and Cole. Updates, everything was passed without too much consternation or discussion. Rather, I think everybody kind of recognized that there was additional application, and I can forward you the slide decks that we looked at and approved. But this was, Billy, thank you so much for your help on onsite water and wastewater and then we have to do municipal water and wastewater systems and what should be expected and what folks need to do from a local utility, local municipality perspective to include in their application. And I think we arrived at a consensus that the board can kind of develop a form letter to distribute out to local utilities and municipalities and kind of expedites, you know, that part of the process. We also, and Stephanie, a lot of what we are looking at is pretty similar to the program. I literally thought the way you guys do things was great. Looking for GIS coordinates, latitude, longitude, that type of stuff. Those basic understanding where your site is and how we can make sure we know specifically where your site is. In addition to requiring that, I also asked the board for approval on somebody drawing their cultivation site. In addition to providing coordinates, you know, with a scale, with a north arrow, just so we understand the property and where the site will be on property in addition to having those coordinates, knowing what you plan to do on your property within the bounds, not just of your total canopy site, but if you're drawing there where the drawing facility is, so on and so forth. And I'll forward around that slide there. We also did talk about a ways to, in our authorizing legislation, we need to figure out ways to prioritize licenses when we do receive them. One of the six required buckets of us is sustainability. So I started to put some thoughts on paper to help kickstart a discussion on what sustainability would look like. And I think what the board is interested in is refining those thoughts into kind of a scoring matrix that can kind of help guide discussion and understanding of cultivation practices, plans for the future, whether or not you're willing to be audited, all those kinds of things. And that was very conceptual from a board perspective on Friday. No decisions were really made. I think they liked the direction that that's going to go. And we're going to continue to talk about that in addition to the other six or other five buckets. And these are anywhere from your social equity status to whether you're in good standing with other state agencies. There's different, I don't have those in front of me. I apologize. But this sustainability concept of understanding how you intend to cultivate will mean something. And we've also kind of discussed recognizing that the priority license might mean something for this go around. But what's the impact and what's the benefit to it once we kind of, our market starts to be a little bit more mature. Because if there's not this bottleneck of applicants coming in, it might not be worth it to give us that information. So we did talk about developing like a Gold Star program or another sustainability program within the board that will mimic and look at, you know, stuff like, I know you're working with on the HEM program, Stephanie, that informal Vermont brand, how we can kind of let certain cultivators take advantage of the practices that they intend to employ. So that was a gist of what we discussed as a board and then I can forward that slide neck around it. I think it's on our website already, but I'll forward it to everybody here later today. Perfect. Stephanie, do you have any questions? Two, right, Stephanie? Stephanie, just for your knowledge on this specifically, Bryn has asked me to bring recommendations on pesticide usage and application to the full board on Friday. Because we're starting to really move aggressively with trying to get a direction for the way we want rulemaking to go. So if you and I need to have a one-off conversation at some point this week on that, or we can talk about it on Thursday as a board, my list is getting long in the teeth that I need to present on Wednesday and on Friday. But pesticides are one of them. So how we want to handle that would, and I can, if I'm not rushing this decision by any stretch, I'm just trying to mirror it to some of my timelines that we're going to be talking about as a board. And I can always request that be pushed to next week. We're going to this Wednesday-Friday board meeting schedule now, so just putting it on your radar. The conversation with Kerry and Kim Watson on Friday, and I need to follow up with Kerry because another one of the requests of Bryn for me to talk about on Friday is lab testing. So, you know, it's coming fast and furious. You and I should just have a conversation sometimes this week. Got you. Yep. That's good enough. I would say Stephanie, if I have trouble finding that, I'm sure you sent it to me over the last week or two. But I'll let you know if I can. There hasn't really been a whole lot of substantive conversation, but I would suggest that this committee make a recommendation on how to treat it. And I'll have to bring it to the full board. And that's something I have to do this coming Wednesday. So, a recommendation would be fantastic. Actually, any discussions on it? I'd love to hear Stephanie's perspective from how similar facilities in the HEM program did this before federal legalization on our pilot program. And then, you know, Billy, I would love to hear your thoughts and recommendations here. What I'm thinking is for my conversation with my other board members on Wednesday, I'm going to leave your letters there. Hopefully tomorrow, Jacob and I can kind of work to kind of put a bow on some of this discussion that we've been having. And then I'll give Dave a chair, general counsel, and brands of direction on how to kickstart the rulemaking process. And would love to bring in your experts if they have questions in trying to figure out certain directions the board wants to go down the road. That's kind of my general roadmap in my head. We've been careful with folks and with ourselves that we're trying to make decisions as a board right now, but they're just directional decisions, recognizing that there is going to be a lot more in the public input process as we move through rulemaking and some things could potentially change and the whole board will review all of the proposed rules once again with our subcommittees and advisory committees if not every specific subcommittee before we actually post things. Kind of clarification on the way the board wanted to do a couple things, and it comes from the on-site water side of the equation, Billy. The board thought, is recognizing there's a lot of burdens on small cultivators. We thought that 20,000 gallon per day trigger was appropriate. If anybody's hitting that, they of course need to supply all of the information that Bruce recommended. For small cultivators, they're not going to trigger that on the on-site part of our water discussion. If they want to supply us with that information, it would be included in that scoring sustainability matrix to strengthen their application, but not requiring it per se at the time of application. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that's fine. We've been added part of our application trying to recognize on-site water. If it's coming from groundwater, we don't need to see more information, but if you are doing service water withdrawals, we need to know a little bit more. But recognizing that that 20,000 foot or 25 employee threshold is something that's going to require a lot more information and then allowing folks to give us a lot of information up front so we understand things to better score their application from a priority perspective was kind of how we were thinking we could go. Let me list my laundry list that's giving me a tad bit of consternation really quick that I'm going to be talking about and a lot of it has to do with me having more conversations with folks. So we're going to be talking about I'm going to be presenting for the purposes of this committee waste disposal kind of directional signals for the board and for our rulemaking Wednesday, also baseline efficiency standards. So I know we had been kind of gotten what, 80, 85% of PSD's recommendations. I didn't know if it was worth trying to come to an agreement or a consensus that I think the last thing, and I don't have the document in front of me, Jacob, the last thing we needed to talk about was this data collection piece of the recommendations. That was kind of something that was left outstanding. But I want to make sure that I have good understanding of how Billy and Stephanie feel when it comes to efficiency standards and where we are with PSD's recommendations. With the PSD? PSD. Yeah, not necessarily on here, but energy efficiency. Where we left out the energy efficiency? Yeah, that's my recollection too. And if folks, I know Jacob had done some outreach so cultivators trying to recognize whether or not they could hit that standard that PSD had developed. I know PSD did their best recognizing they don't have a lot of expertise as it relates specifically to this crop. And I'd be in favor of proposing to my fellow board members the adjusted language that Jacob had provided. And Jacob wouldn't mind reading that again because I don't have the document in front of me. As one of the caveats to PSD's recommendations. Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're all still in consensus that that's a direction. A lot of that is probably more granular than what the board needs at this time can be developed through rulemaking. But I want to make sure that we're in agreement that PSD's recommendations for the most part are very spot on with some caveats through continued outreach with cannabis specific enterprises, organizations and cultivators to make some adjustments so that folks can achieve higher than the regulatory floor and take advantage of some efficiency rebates and incentives that might be offered through other state partners. I guess it would be helpful to be talking about doing a part that you're doing to kind of... Because again, I can foresee how prioritizing and going above and beyond and getting that sustainability score will be very beneficial, especially to outdoor growers that want to get their plants in the ground ASAP this coming season. But over the course of, again, as our market matures and those bottlenecks aren't going to be as real as they will be this coming spring, what are other incentives other than tax-based incentives that Jacob said that will push people into wanting to provide us this information and be in this Gold Star Club or whatever we may call it down the road to go in that direction to pull people with carrots into a more craft market, you know? I don't think you need one at this moment. I just want to put the bug in both of your ears on ways that if we were to develop some type of matrix over the next couple months to include in our application what are incentives that we can tell folks, hey, if you give us this information you're going to get... there's other things that we can do like if you do run to an enforcement issue, maybe you're still looked upon favorably within the CCB and with our partner organizations but what else can we provide as a state recognizing we can only do that in various ways? This is just priority information that you can give us that would help facilitate your application through the process. I don't think in our baseline application we're going to ask a cultivator about every single one of their cultivation practices but that's something that I've got to discuss with the board so if there's any thoughts that you all have on what we should ask at that operational level would be helpful but this is like what certifications are you going to work with a third party certifier are you going to get audited are you willing to do outside of regulation to show us that you're going for a top quality product? Share with you a copy of a document Yeah, absolutely. I think we're not trying to over complicate our thing that we have that expertise in house just trying to marry that recognition with some of our legislative mandates on prioritizing sustainability Go ahead, James. Yeah, no, this is conceptual nature at the moment that we'll be exploring over the course of the next couple months while we develop our application so that's all I've got for right now Tika, you and I should connect later today or tomorrow I'll make sure I've got the good direction of the subcommittee when I talk about certain things with the board over the course of this week I don't think we have anybody that has a public comment in the room Thanks everybody