Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is our friend. Where are welcome back. We welcome back. We are pivoting now to consumer protection and to another jurisdiction that we have in this committee, which is the cannabis industry. Maybe that's not a good way to put it, because we're not the grower we don't oversee the growers. We don't oversee the legal pieces, but we do oversee sort of the industry of cannabis. And as people may be aware of, there have been some changes and some movement on the federal fund and with the executive order that president has issued. So to update us really on what is coming at us possibly and what is coming at us in real time, we have our legislative council Tucker Anderson and the chair of cannabis control board with us to update us as to what they understand the challenges of that and what we need to do to rise to meet the moment and how we move forward with possibly a new federal framework. I hope that tees it up okay. Well Tucker and Pepper, we welcome you, and thank you very much for joining us and helping eliminate this moment. Okay.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel. And I'm James Tucker, chair of Kansas Control Board. And I guess as an opening note, wonderful setup, and this morning should be a calming ball on any concerns of the federal interplay with Vermont's state cannabis regulations. What I plan to do this morning is to highlight what has happened federally recently, what could happen in the future, what the impacts on state law would be, and then to set up a few discussions that the chair has asked me to key up specifically around things such as regional compacts related to cannabis regulation, and I don't know. Any color commentary?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: No, I mean, think what I would like to do is talk about some of the implications to our Vermont market of the various pathways that are starting to kind of form. I think, you know, no matter which way the federal government goes, it will have an impact on the Vermont market, and, you know, there's some things that are set to happen in the short term, and looking at the long term it's a little bit unpredictable, but we have this golden opportunity right now to prepare for in our state Congress.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is certainly how I'm doing, it's an opportunity to prepare. Great, take it over. Well,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: to start with the issue that you teed up initially, the executive order from December 18 related to increasing medical marijuana, cannabidiol, did I pronounce that right? Canibidiol?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yeah. Nabidiol, that's CBD. Nabidiol. Nissarius.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I had to try it at least once before I shortened it to CBD for This this is my first time presenting on this issue. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just say it one more time

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: for me drug ones or trying to pronounce it? I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: trying to pronounce it publicly.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There is an AI scribe that takes every moment of my testimony in legislative committees and turns it into newspaper articles, so I will refrain on my personal experiences, and I won't try it again. We'll say CD, and, the larger issue that you've brought up is potential reclassification, and I'll emphasize the word potential, and upfront state that there's an unknown time off associated with this, that there have been efforts around reclassification that are more than a year old. I think May 2024 was when this process originally initiated. Again, the executive order pushes for an accelerated timeline around reclassification from schedule one to schedule three for cannabis. So the executive order directs the AG to take all necessary steps to reclassify cannabis to schedule three. This really three legal consequences opens research opportunities around marijuana at the state level, allows state level operators to deduct certain business expenses from federal taxes, and may expand accepted medical use. A lot of that is contingent on rules that would be altered or adopted by other federal agencies. So something to keep in mind is that the current process is not siloed. It involves multiple stakeholders, and we're talking about primarily a DEA process with the attorney general that started in 2024. DEA. The steps and timeline that's involved here, First, there has to be a final rule drafted. It has to be what? A final rule drafted. Then there's interagency review of whatever the final rule is, and finally, publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, and an effective date, and in between, there could always be congressional action around this.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Interestingly, if it is interesting, the two appropriations chairs on the House and Senate at the federal level, when President Biden, former President Biden attempted to reschedule, or his AG attempted to reschedule. They put a rider into the both the continuing resolutions to block that effort. So congress can very easily get involved in this decision. However, those same two chairs have removed that rider from all the funding that is now that they can. Which has implications

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: right there. Right.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So it's it's looking like there this is there is a glide path to moving to schedule three. However, the first process was held up in a number of different lawsuits as well. So and there was a disagreement between HHS and ADA as to what, how to determine whether there are current medical exceptions for cannabis, which is a threshold question, or whether something should be scheduled one, two, three, or four, fives.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And as we begin this conversation, is everybody clear on the distinction between schedule one and schedule three? Or were you gonna touch on this?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It was not part of my outline, but Just briefly, one

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: means Schedule one means no currently accepted medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Schedule, all the rest of the schedules had at least one accepted medical use, which is determined by the FDA, and then varying degrees of abuse profile. So, to be, one being most restrictive, two being a little bit less restrictive, one has heroin, ecstasy, MDMA, two has cocaine, fentanyl, three has things like Tylenol with some basic steroids, things that oftentimes have a prescription.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Okay. The HHS analysis and the executive focus then on cannabis, cannabis drug products for treatment of chronic pain, but also for illness associated with anorexia. Right. It's kind of like the medical focus. The second part of the executive order that merits some discussion is queuing some action on CBD products in response to restrictions that are set to take place at the federal level in November 2026. So it's not effective yet, and I know the CCB presented on this and had some slides on some of the CBD products that start to, similar to flavored malt beverages in the alcoholic beverage landscape, start to appear to veer into other cannabis categories based on their concentration and content, and the proposed changes at the federal level taking effect in November, would limit the, milligrams per container to point four milligrams, and the executive order cues some of the administration's position on this, specifically on THC containing CBD products and full spectrum CBD products that includes acceptable levels of THC, and there's a bit of an unknown there that is worth flagging for you all, which is if there's going to be some amendment to this definition of what CBD is that involves tinkering with that milligram per container level, would that have an impact on the products that are available interstate containing certain levels of THC Go ahead. To Vermont consumers. And currently, just to remind us, we definitely said keep this in the forefront of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: our brains, what is the current Vermont level?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: The thresholds from a THC perspective between a non intoxicating hemp product and a intoxicating hemp product, which we just call a cannabis product. That's CBD,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is that not CBD?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It's delta-nine THC. It's one point five milligrams. Well, it's even below point five Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Of one point. Point four is a lot less.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. It essentially eliminates the hemp derived marketing.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And there's a specific statute in title seven that grants the control board the authority to apply those cannabis levels to the Delta products. That's correct.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yeah. The definition of hemp in both the agricultural statutes and the cannabis statutes define a hemp product that's below one point five milligrams, which is a rule that this seems to be adopted probably this time.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And again, for those of us who don't live in this world, differentiating THC and CBD.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So those are the two primary cannabinoids that are in the cannabis plant. It's widely considered that THC, Delta nine THC is the intoxicating cannabinoid and CBD has medical use, therapeutic uses for things like inflammation and other issues, but these are the two, and it's widely considered non intoxicating, or at least not impaired.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just how full is for those of us who live in this world? You're standing at Marfull.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Now to the layman or the lay log event, her stop and see if there's something in the car. Is she gonna be able to tell which is which?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: No. I mean, we have a product registry at Ross test. So if someone wanted to someone had a suspicious product, they could look to see, so they could scan the QR code and see if it's a registered product or not, but for all intents and purposes.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: If it's a nonregistered product or a product that's not required to be registered, it's produced in another state.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It wouldn't be under Vermont law.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It is very, very challenging, especially because the HempDry products, this point four milligram Would be so much less than what we've seen. There's a one year delay, so it hasn't actually taken It's effect, in 11/12/2026. So right now, we continue to live in this gray area where the hemp industry is calling these products, the Farm Bill compliant legal products. So these these issues are very hard to litigate, local law. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this is this is why we're we're having you because the implications here are big Right. For everything for for all products, all beverages, how we do business, how we bank, the whole nine yards. That's why we're having to get into seven years.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Is your proposal that we just simply stop regulating this for a

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: year while the federal government is spreading it? There is a desire amongst the hemp industry in Vermont to have a regulatory home. They are convinced that there's going to be a fix, especially, you know, with this executive order where President Trump directed his administration to work with Congress to establish a allowable THC threshold for hemp products. There's a feeling that that this is going to get there's gonna be a legislative fix federally. It's gonna kinda open the floodgates to low THC hemp products, and that so there's a desire in the hemp industry and the agricultural community to get ahead of this, to have

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Is it realistic that there would be a fix within a year given the fact that you have to adopt rules and all the things that go along with it? To then give us sufficient guidance to

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: be able to do something you need for it? Well, I think that what we can do is there has been a hemp pilot program at the Agency of Agriculture for a number of years. They've suspended it, but they have rules in place. They have, you know, they've since kind of evaporated, you know, because they suspended the program, but we could theoretically pick up the ball relatively quickly. And the nice part about the hemp industry in Vermont is they are holding themselves to a higher standard even without a regulatory authority overseeing them. You know, they're almost all current good manufacturing practice certified. They're making products that are compliant with the CCB rules. They're testing their products. They're they're begging for a regulatory home to legitimize what they're doing in this kind of absence of any agency overseeing it. So we have the infrastructure in place that had developed in 2020 that we could kinda switch back on. The agency back in motion to kinda get back into this space. But considering we're talking about THC and cannabinoids, the CCB is actually somewhat well positioned to step in. But it's all contingent upon what happens, I believe. There's point four of raising the Fed.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: There is no I was gonna say. Right. So let's keep going because I think we have to begin to appreciate some of the huge challenges that we faced with this and the opportunities.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And to get back to one of your questions about the distinction without a difference and some of the regulatory regulatory and enforcement challenges that come up here, one of the solutions that you get towed into here is ensuring that Title VII provides the CCP with adequate regulatory flexibility. If there are dramatic changes that impact the cannabis market, the emergency rulemaking potentially is an available option. And I highlight that because there are other areas in Vermont's control state model of the Department of Labor and Lottery where emergency rulemaking is used expressly for that purpose. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So, there are always other possibilities of dramatic changes. None of them appear to be things that would have happened at any point, unless don't have a crystal ball or the appropriate tea leaves or bones to cast on the table to predict the future, but it seems like there would be time to respond to, you know, changes in federal code, congressional action, Supreme Court challenges, other shifts in federal law that would create interstate commerce issues. So with that in mind, one of the things that the chair asked me to brief the committee on is the potential for interstate cooperation before you get to the point where there is a true federal interstate market, and that would require interstate agreements, potentially with neighboring states, and a term that can cause some consternation, compacts. Now, compact law can get complicated, and perhaps isn't well understood, largely because it's not acted upon frequently by the federal government, but to give you the kind of high level overview of some of the constitutional requirements that are involved. Interstate agreements that aggrandize state power, and start to encroach on federal power require congressional approval. However, the adoption of uniform or mirror statutes by states accompanied by agreements and without a centralized governing body typically do not require congressional approval. So there are multiple avenues that the state could take with respect to potential compacts. You have one road that leads to contingency based on congressional approval, and another road where Vermont and potentially a consortium of other states could adopt mirror laws, no requirement for congressional approval, and cooperation between those states to develop a regional market. There are costs and benefits associated with this. The obvious upfront cost is that if Vermont's primary concern is economic protectionism, well, opening up Vermont consumers to out of state products immediately eliminates some of the protectionist market if that's what is being developed. That is something that would be eliminated by interstate commerce at the federal level. Biggest benefit, based on the research that I've done ahead of time reading some very well written law review articles, is that there may be banking opportunities that could open up if you create regional compacts related cannabis. And I'm not gonna remember all of the qualifying terms around what these banks are, so please, banking industry, if you're watching, excuse my ignorance, but I believe that these would be referred to as multi state, non member chartered banks. So state chartered banks, multi state agreement, non members of the Federal Reserve. So if you have these state level banks that are non members of the Federal Reserve, and you have multi state cooperation where the state level regulation of those banks is accepted between all of the partner states, then banks from potentially larger, more well resourced states could open local branches in Vermont to get that support to the cannabis industry. That's the basic explanation of that one fourth in the potential region of the agreements. How do you get there? An interesting question, and it led me to review a whole bunch of very working compacts that Vermont is a part of. So, one example that I would point you to is the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. So how did that compact get developed? That was with Yankee when we were trying

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to figure out where our nuclear waste

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: was gonna go. Well, is low level radioactive So this is watch batteries. Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this is

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Oops. And other low level radioactive generating devices. This garbage that gets shipped elsewhere because it doesn't belong in the landfill. And Texas, the way that they approached this is they passed the compact, and then they opened it up to other member states. So the Texas legislature passes the compact, says, look at this wonderful interstate compact that is available, and they extended offers to Vermont and Maine, potentially odd partners for Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, but Vermont joined. Did Maine join? Maine was an initial member of the compact, but based on my discussions with your hardworking and excellent legislative council attorney Michael Brady, it sounds like Vermont and Texas are a dynamic duo. How? What interesting that thought is. Yes, indeed. I suspected that it's potentially alphabetical. We were just very close in the alphabet of Utah. Alright. Didn't join. Didn't join. Another example, and this is the congressional route, is the interstate school compacts that Vermont is a part of. So there's the New Hampshire Vermont Interstate School Contact. The way that that was developed is that the states had a commission. They adopted a uniformed mirror law that would be adopted by both states. It was contingent on congressional approval, and in 1967, Congress did in fact approve the New Hampshire Vermont Interstate School Compact. There's another Interstate School Compact, drafted with almost exactly the same language, adopted by New York and Vermont did not receive congressional approval as far as I can tell. There's no history notes of that, so it is not effective to the state. So just to highlight the dangers of this potential route. So may I just ask a question on that one? I thought that was a compact that what was the umbrella under which our school our cross border schools function. It is with New Hampshire. It is with New Hampshire. Probably But the York thing without that. There must be separate agreements, and I can crack open Title 16 again, but contingent on correctional approval, so that body of laws, as far as I can tell, not effective. Is the danger of having contingencies built into your state law. The A strong potential origin point at Regional Compact is the direction you would like to head in this committee for your interest in heading in, is to create a exploratory committee or commission that initially appoints members from the state of Vermont, and not the law, but the commission, its existence would be contingent on appointments from other states. So you create a commission, appoint Vermont's members, and say this commission will exist contingent upon appointments from, in the state, New York, Maine, New Jersey Right. Ohio. Invite the other states to appoint members and charge that commission with the duty of creating whatever the proposed uniform laws would be around the regional cannabis market.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which may realistically be, as we prepare for this coming down the road, may be the most realistic thing if we can. That may be the most realistic one. But we have a lot to iron out, regionally, as we look at this landscape. Banking, interstate commerce, protecting our craft market, all the things you and I talk about research, advertising, as well. That's a lot that we want to make sure we are in partly in the driver's seat on. And that is why we thought about creating table at which we have a place. And that is why this consideration of creating compact or permission to create the compact makes some sense because otherwise we're just going to be boldest. That that a a fair way

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: to put highlight the kind of biggest legal issue that is tackled by these sorts of agreements, particularly when we're talking about commodities and substances, it's importexport. Yes. Protecting the importation, exportation of goods. Thomas, did you have a question?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So you I don't think you said this. My apologies if you did. Do we have any reason to believe one of our neighbors, bigger neighbors in New York, Massachusetts, or otherwise is thinking about doing one of these contacts that we could ride their coattails on?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So this was Alrighty.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I don't know if we wanna be the in the driving seat on this. We're just small, and I don't know if we can sustain the cost that we associated with this expertise, but I'd be happy to be persuaded of that opinion. So

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: three West Coast states have already entered have already passed legislation to allow them to enter into an interstate compact with if certain triggering events occur, And as a result, Jersey has now introduced a bill that's being debated to allow the seeping of the New England Fund because they see they see the writing on the wall. If, you know, Oregon has has £2,000,000 structural oversupply of cannabis every year, they're desperate to, you know, flood our markets and the cost of energy costs and the cost of growing cannabis out west are much lower. And so New Jersey is thinking, well, okay, how do we set up a system to make sure we're not just opening the floodgates right away, that we're that we can enter into an interstate compact with this West Coast block that doesn't just go destroy, wipe out our heart.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So when I heard that, thought we can move with and do and work on something very similar. And this is why we are here in this. So, New Jersey New Jersey actually has a proposal in play.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It's a bill that's been introduced.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's a bill that's been introduced.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And it's been introduced in subsequent sessions, right? I think the first time it was brought up is 2023.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Exactly. Mean, from the regulatory coordination side of things, I mean, will take a lot. You need to figure out. It's gonna be huge. Right, if we were to start to trade with, or have interstate commerce with even just New England states, which tax rates apply, where's that tax being collected? Know, whose taxing standard apply, how do you coordinate track and trace for seed to seed tracking. These are all issues that need to be ironed out. You know, the one benefit that we have is I have a call monthly with my New England regulators, and we are actively trying to coordinate our regulation and address emerging issues similarly. So we already, there's groundwork that's already been laid from just a purely coordination aspect.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Even, may I just ask because New Hampshire's a bit of an outlier with surrounded by all of us who have legalized this market, they have it only legalized for medical. And so but they because they do at least that, are they part of

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: your of your group? No. They're not.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But they'd be key people to bring in office. Yeah. Right.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: We would certainly bring them in. They're just not part of our regulators to state.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Not them? Yeah, they've chosen not to. Yes. Okay, sorry, keep going then, apologies. That may need all to flag on a compact quarantine, if that is an area that I think people must read into. One thing that was noted around the time that sports bragering was being studied by this committee, is that whenever either an isolationist market or an expansive market is being considered as part of the model, one of the primary factors that is considered is the potential for market expansion, and what Senator Chittenden brought up about being a small state, One of the things that's considered every time Vermont takes the first step is whether there's more opportunity outside of the states or businesses that operate within the state. And and I think, to a team, they would all say, yes. There is, but we we wanna protect our brand. We wanna protect our craft business. We want how do we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do that if we don't get out ahead of it? And that's, I think, where we what we have to be thinking about here. But, you know, we've also but I think we've all we've identified the key areas that we would wanna be getting out ahead of in planning, which is protecting our market, banning our market. I mean, helping our market survive. I mean, it's part of what we're dealing with in these bills is how do we grow our market responsibly and and and protecting it all at the same time as we look at this travel landscape. I have banking, research, advertising, interstate commerce, and protecting our craft product. What else am I missing?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Any implications with respect to Canada?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Canada, I mean, there's always this conversation when we were rescheduling about what does this do for these international combatants, these international treaties that always have this, but there is an analysis that says, at the federal level, we fund the election house for congress, that there's no implications moving to schedule three for these international treaties. I don't know what it looks like if we have fully legalized. I think it's gonna get worked out. Canada is legal nationwide. They they they probably just cause the private function. So we're I don't know what it means for possible international trade.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thomas. Well, I'll just say with what chair pepper said to my question. I I have not a lot of appetite to be the front runner on this, to be the leader on this. I would be much more inclined to continue to work with our neighboring partners and have, if anything, get them to spend their their resources to start to stand this up. We just have too many fires in fire right now to commit scarce resources becoming a regional leader in developing this compact to try to get our neighbors. That's my reaction, but I'm anybody in YouTube will try to convince me otherwise, but that would be my my reaction to this notion.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I don't think we know yet what the resources would be in all fairness.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You just said

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I know. Did you share with

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: us what resources are today? To do to explore?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To explore. I mean, I think to explore it, to to set up a a commission with the other states, I think then we wouldn't have a better sense actually, Thomas, of what the resources would be entailed. But mostly, I think it's time and and and coordination for us to actually move this forward. But I'm very concerned about our just being bulldozed if this opens up without our thoughtfully working to anticipate it and protect it and plan and comfort. So I think we wanna be at that table. And I don't I think I'd like to appreciate more fully what the resources would be that before we make that decision, and that's why I sort of think I'm leaning to this the exploratory commission, which would at least help us and our regulars that are already speaking, seeking to navigate that path for us to have something to consider sometime either later this spring maybe or in January. I think this is exactly.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Are any of our neighbors trying to set up the tables to fit in the word of it?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Only in the sense that we are meeting with each other, but it's more around statutory, regulatory alignment regionally. It's not really about our track and trace systems be compatible with one another, because if there isn't a state congress, it's gonna be taxing the world. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: if you're meeting regularly, I think, just to tag on to Thomas' idea, I think or at least Thomas is concerned, I I would think that the natural thing that could happen would be for you to actually put this antenna up and ask, who has the appetite for this? What would it take? Who and what's our time frame? Because I think our time frame is actually quite tight. If this is all coming down the pike or at least a piece of it in November, we need to move. And, so I would with and I hope I mean, I'm just curious about if the committee would agree, but I I would hope you would raise this as a possibility with your fellow regulators and maybe with New Hampshire too, whoever receives that market, and ask who has the appetite for moving forward ex doing an exploratory commission on what what what be needed to go to Thomas' concern. I think that's a fair concern because all of us face this challenge of that Oregon product just swamping us all. And not just that, it's banking, research, advertising. It's a lot of stuff that opens up that if we aren't prepared. And, you know, I think we all need to be good girl scouts and boy scouts and be prepared. I think, really, this is a call to action, quite honestly. If we have taken such pains to develop this market, we either have to decide we wanna protect it or we want to just let it be obliterated. And it will be, I believe, if we don't actually cover the water here. I mean, am I wrong on that?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: No. Not at all. I mean I mean, the one x factor that we didn't talk about, you know, there's the, you know, rule making pathway to interstate commerce through the DEA and Department of Justice. There's the legislative path. You You know, you gotta remember back to 2013, you're when Colorado legalized, the only way that that actually happened was because of a guidance document that the department of justice was. I Different department of just A different Department of Justice, but you can see how just with the stroke of the pen Yeah. You can actually have legal interstate commerce. And, you know, the Department of Justice releases a new cold memo two point o that says trade between interstate commerce between two legal states is still is gonna be deprioritized for enforcement. It'll start happening, and you'll have a dormant commerce clause argument to Colorado state or for this Oregon saying that we are entitled to sell products in their states.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Anything further before we start? Something to keep in mind with some of the concerns that Senator Chittenden brought up is that you can have a first market versus last market analysis that comes in your way, and it's something that the General Assembly asked for in terms of sports wagering. Yes. That's right. By the time Vermont did its study, we were already last market, so it was effectively just a, what did we lose by not being first to market versus what did we gain or lose by being last to market. The analysis lined up with what ended up happening through the selection process for the sports wagering licensees, which is that the companies that were first to market in the most states were the ones that had the best offers and the most compelling applications when it came time for DLL to do their reviews. The last thing that I wanted to highlight for you all, very high level, is that as you're moving through the session and these conversations are happening, and you may also be considering alcoholic beverage proposals that are on the wall here or over in house gov ops, is that the conversations around interstate commerce between those two are the same from a constitutional perspective, but the regulatory posture of the state is different, but we do and the reason being is that The United States Constitution delegates authority specifically over alcoholic beverages to the states. So I wanted to flag that there's a different constitutional landscape between the two, and I'm flagging that just because a lot of the conversation around the market treats them as the same, and there's a different scope of state authority with alcoholic beverages.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It's a good point. They get lumped together a lot.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry. They get what? Together a lot?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: In the arguments and debates, it's often comparison between alcohol and pot, but you're right. The constitutional amendment in late twenties. You're gonna put it in a completely different dress code. Yep.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So, you know, I think it's important to just think about also just the differences between Vermont and New York and Massachusetts and some of our neighboring states, because if there is kind of flip switch version of legalization in interstate commerce, I think we need to be prepared to at least have the same kind of products and services as our neighbors So that people that, I mean, we are going to be a cannabis tourism magnet. We have a more exciting market, I can say that on the brand group, our neighboring states. In a lot of ways, we have a very strong backbone with, you know, 275% of our cultivators being tier one graft cultivators. But, you know, when someone's thinking of, you know, flying up to have a New England wedding in, you know, that involves cannabis. They can go to New York currently, but can't come to mind. So I think just making sure that we protect what we, part of the kind of protecting what we have is making sure that this market doesn't lag behind our neighbors, a couple of key areas. Of course, that's always a bit of a balance as to what does it take to implement these things, what are the potential public health and safety consequences of them. But I think what we've seen is our neighbors have been in the laboratories, experiments on a lot of these issues for years now, and a lot of the concerns that, you know, were originally put in place to prevent us from doing these things have not been realized.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, we've tried last year to lease prohibits and sadly, we have to review that again this year.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: So Senator Brock, last time I was here, you asked how much of the cannabis consuming population is remaining on the illicit market. Since just yesterday, received our initial report from our economists' updated market analysis. They had various ways of analyzing that question, but they found about 32% cannabis consumers in Vermont remain on their unregulated market. I think that's actually pretty, I think that's low because the way that they conducted their survey, they only looked at people that have consumed cannabis within the past thirty days, so not infrequent users. Also, there's a lot of good data from the RAN Corporation saying even on anonymous surveys, people under report when it comes to illicit activity. So I think, but they also looked at why people are staying on the illicit market, and overwhelmingly its price, The illicit market is always gonna be less expensive because there's not a tax that you pay percent, it doesn't have to be regulatory compliance bills. But price, convenience, a belief that regulated cannabis is big business, and products, mostly related to the state. So there are a few innovative ideas that have been debated in the legislature over the many years that cannabis has been debated. Almost all of them are included in the bill that was referred to your committee, S-two 78. And there are proposals aimed at reducing the cost of regulated cannabis, leveling the playing field with our neighboring states with respect to advertising, event licensing, consumption, addressing retail density and local control, and providing technical assistance for graft cultivators in the state. These are all incredibly important for the industry. They have the potential to significantly increase the revenue that's being brought in at the same time, and will capture, inevitably capture more of those consumers that are staying on the unregulated market. So, is the original rationale for even having a tax regulated Now it was an acknowledgement that prohibition not changing consumer behavior, it was just leading to people, essentially leading to where they're purchasing the product, is it regulated by a government? So, I just would love to take your direction as to how you want us to, in the future, discuss NS-two 78. What we can do, certainly, we've gone section by section through it at the board.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and we actually, I think that we'll have that conversation I think after we meet tomorrow and figure out both what we're able to do, what's realistic. I know the governor's office is looking at it too, and maybe weighing in as well. But I think we need to the most important players need to be the five of us who are meeting tomorrow Okay. To to walk through what's realistic given our time frame. The house could build a bit more time. Yeah. But what we wanna start what's realistic for us and what we can get done. And then those are two but so I I'd love to have that conversation, but let's have that conversation after we meet Yeah. Tomorrow. Okay. Because I I think I think my feeling.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: That's great. I started to compile a comparison chart of all the New England states with respect to potency gaps, serving sizes, transaction limits, event licensing, how they deal with the Do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you wanna just quickly look at that now, or do you wanna wait until we decide which sections?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I think what would be most useful is you direct me on to exactly which what areas of But where let's wait for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that direction and agreement on on that from tomorrow. I think I think it's fair to ask you too when you next meet, because I think this is to go back to the compact and working together and not being have our market negatively impacted by federal action. I think it it it at least I am saying, as me, Clarkson, wanting to protect this industry and wanting to be out ahead of the feds, or not out ahead of them, but just being prepared for them and protecting market and looking at all these issues. I would really like to ask you if you would initiate that conversation with your regulators to see what their appetite is and what are their concerns. Because I think they'll all have similar concerns. And and what would what time frame we think you know, what's their interest? What's their appetite? What are the resources that might be needed? And really come come back to us in the next week or two because we need to act on this to see what an exploratory commission could do because I don't think we have time in the next three months to come up with a compact. I mean, I think that's I mean, unless it comes to us overnight, we'll vlog. I I think that will be a huge lift. I mean, I may I may be wrong, but I think an exploratory commission that would come back to us ASAP with an idea of how we move forward together might make some sense understanding, I think Thomas' point is a good one. We your staff is small. Our budget's small. Our time is limited. What's realistic for us to do? But I think it would be negligent of us to not prepare for this moment.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I'm sorry. Is that fair? I can do that. Yep. I mean, we're in very close communication with our with our needs.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So Even if it were calling us about a whole meeting to discuss this because everyone of New Jersey is talking about it. Everyone is concerned now that this executive order has happened. This is not like no one's paying attention. Everyone's paying attention. And I I I just think and given how close the time frame is, I think I think we need to no matter how you feel about cannabis, I mean, I think this is a a moment in time that we need to be rise to the to the challenge. Is that fair? Fair. Okay. Mhmm. David, Thomas, thank you for your thoughts. I hope those are helpful. And

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: No. Just curious when we'll start discussing s two seventy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: In the next week. And once we're clear on the sections that we're gonna be taking up, and Pepper, obviously, will be in touch with you about that, then, Tucker, our days are probably Thursdays that we'll be doing that, and we are starting this in the Senate. And so we need to start we are open time next week. But if if you could have that conversation

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: with your Absolutely. Partner I mean

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the matter. Yeah.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: As you can imagine, the issues

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Not in crime.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Not in in crime. It was your choice. I took I took it to cruise ship with your partners across our region. I

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: absolutely will. I mean, the issues come up fast and furious, you know, every day, know, his work is not just the New England Post, it's the entire 26 states that have adult use, 40 that have medical use. We're in constant communication.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, and I'm just very concerned about the West having already gone there. Three states. Is it three states that's already joined? Yep.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: They haven't joined yet because it's triggered. They don't want be It's triggered by act. Conspiracy. Yeah. So, but they've all figured the the triggers out, and they've quietly been coordinating on Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. They're way ahead of us.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. That's very frustrating number of years ahead. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They always have been this On this issue, they have always been. Thank you. Anything else? Could we have about seven minutes before we turn to our committee bills that we are moving to introduce and then work on further? We have a bill, we have a vehicle for this conversation, so thank you. And, it's a brand vision. Take

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it. If I could submit that we move forward into the next agenda item, the superintendent's over the I got the lunch. Oh, we

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: got an extra idea. Now. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The superintendents, well, they are. I guess, did you guys invite it?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I was. I gotta go, like, soon. Sure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I had meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Let's gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you for your call, Randy, because we're sort of raising the new paragraph. I really I think we all appreciate your time and effort on this. And I know there are lots of people watching and more to follow. So thank you very much. You too. Okay. Great. Would you be kind of to let Ellen and Cam know that we're moving on this right now?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sure

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm sure

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm sure the board

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: of higher education. Okay. The of state senate. We have our lead sling advisory committee here at ten minutes at. K. Fifteen minutes away, so I don't here very soon. Sorry to keep having to leave this week, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You're fine. Father Thomas is here.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Gonna take off soon, but y'all can pass these committee bills out without me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. We can't. We need you. We need your vote. So these are committee bills. I'll just remind us we have two that we're looking at. All we're doing is getting them referred back to our committee for further work. We are looking, and anything is possible. So I would ask us all to view this as a template for work and not anything cut and dried yet. More there's life happening. So I would ask you've all been given the two latest drafts of which have these. Let's start with economic development bill, which is 15 pages. This book is 25 pages. You were sent it last night by Rick Segal, and it has all the changes that we agreed to. It includes and, again, it is just a draft blueprint for our work for the next few weeks. Our objective is to get this out by crossover. If people want to testify, I would ask thank you, Rick. We're talking about your bill. Oh, it's very long. Okay. Thank you for this latest draft. And so, again, with both these bills, these are blueprints for discussion. And I don't know if that a rate of discussion. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: for us to figure out what cut.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Drift past. Rick, would you like briefly to chat about what changed?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I'd be glad to.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: You have been sharing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On some things. We improved we incorporated your idea of the work that needed to be done by Department of Economic Development, going to the task force. We worked on improving it enough, and we can continue to work on it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But a lot of things got taken out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't think we took out a lot. Okay. Thank you, Thomas. Good luck.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Segal with the office of the lesser counsel. So highlights in yellow are the new additions to the bill. There were there was something removed. That's no It's gray. Oh, okay. Oh.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's just Right. So it's a new language. New language? I see gray, I think.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Gray. Different color. Good color.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, we're on the economic development, though.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're on draft 26 dash o seven five nine. 2.1. 2.1. Oh. At 8AM. The keeping 8AM. My and it's alright. Here you go. This is old. You 8AM. Just take that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Well, I okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the other one should say 09:10AM. Whatever. So let's start with draft two point eight.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: So if I may skip to what changed?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just change because we have people who need to Sure.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: So skip to page four, section four, clarifying the 200,000 allocated to the VORAC Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative, kind of expanding on what the study is. It is a recreation outdoor recreation impact study, economic impact study Yep. That will provide the state with information on how it can better support and benefit from the $2,100,000,000 outdoor recreation industry Right. Section five and six, no changes. Section seven is brand new, and this will lead to the task force that I'll talk about in a second. Section seven is the business resource study. The Commissioner of Economic Development and the Commissioner of Tourism and Marketing and Constitutional Stakeholders shall and this is kind of what was taken from the task force. One of their duties was moved to this, study. Identify the in state and out of state resources available to businesses at in state development, including startup, early stage, middle stage, and mature businesses, determine how the resources identified are currently promoted and marketed. Yep. And then provide a written report summarizing findings to the Business Development Task Force on or before October 1. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then that leads us into the task force, which will then consider that and move forward.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: On page six, just clarifying on line six and seven, the previous items of small businesses clarifying that it's this is meant for businesses at all stages of development, not just small business. On line seventeen eighteen, adding the state treasurer or designee as a member to the task force. Yep. Number four, replacing the secretary of ACCD with the commissioner of economic development or designee, because it'll be on the 70. That's the point of that, so they can also do that task force. Seven, eight, and nine are additions. The president, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce are designee, the executive director of the Vermont Future's Project are designated, and the CEO of Hula are designated. Those are all new additions to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the task force. And remember, we can change this once we take it off. It's just this is just for introduction.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Perfect.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's a good reminder.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's correct. Good reminder. We're gonna continue to work on this beginning

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I will I just I think we're gonna get them flat

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for putting in there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I we love Hoola. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know. But they represent so many businesses at different levels of startup. Right. Then I then I just that was a placeholder for somebody like this.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. And and I I don't I don't know of another incubator of their size and scale. Exactly. But I I just wonder if even as a placeholder Okay. We'll just say yeah. I just I'm very sensitive to when Burlington, you know, gets considered to be getting special treatment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm I'm

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: From the impoverished Park State. I fully recognize the placeholder concept.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So I'm just let me have said out loud, but Okay. I did not push for who I I appreciate it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is a document, though. It's it's

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: The living document.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Document. Thank you. Okay, let's keep going because we are really going run out of time here.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, so page seven continuing line 14. Again, the task force previously had the Aggregate and Resources job, which is now being done by the study of the two commissioners. Yeah. So instead, they will analyze the work before it's sent by the commissioners pursuant to the section seven. And then based upon that analysis, they will create an inventory of resources that would better serve business and be stage developments and determine and consultation with stakeholders how best to market and communicate that inventory. Yep. So those are the new additions to the new task force. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then access to capital continues and all the other things to address there. The one thing that we failed to get in here, which I've realized last night late after we'd already set this around, is how we better serve, and this is language we need to work on, how we also better enable business development around the state, to go to your point. And and I just I just that was a mess. So that will be something we discussed. In my notes. I think our RDCs think they do a lot of that at the moment, and I just would we'll we'll do okay. So then the last piece

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Adding the interim report Yeah. Before there's one final So the task force will have an interim report due November 15 this year, and the final report will be due November 15 Yeah. 2027.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the convention Center is next there. It's down there.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That did change. It's 14 meetings instead of six. Right. And then adding section 10 is Veggie repeal is still there. Repeal and the veggie employee owned, company, managed company is added. Enhanced

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: incentive. Yes.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Then I walked through this. Same exact location. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that is so I would this again, this is for everyone. I we 've probably said this, like, every day, but this is a placeholder for our work. This is a draft, a blueprint for our work for the next few weeks. We ask you to engage if you're interested in certain sections. And with that, I would ask for a motion for us to

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: What? Close

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: What is.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's just the name.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's just the It's not it's not that It's just an acronym.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Rest is the rest is the West Coast.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's not

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: an acronym.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's something. Yeah. Yeah. No. It's an yeah. Dave. So moved. Thank you. Second. Do we have to Second. Right. Would I ask the clerk for Rutland? Yes, ma'am. Not in. That's can't be, but a wonderful can't be. She'd be kind enough to call the room.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yes, ma'am. Any more

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: discussion? Oh, any more discussion? Thank you. Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. So I have many reservations about the bill, the content, the spending, etcetera, but I fully understand we need to place a work to continue this discussion in the committee bill, so I'm going to support it. And we do have.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate, and thank you for sharing. We've already heard some others. I think that's what this committee process is all about, but I think these are the biggest issues we have at the moment we can address and hopefully have action by town meeting so we can go ahead. Thank you. Senator Rutland. Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Chittenden is absent of working such. Senator Ram Hinsdale?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Clarkson? Yes. So four zero one. Thank you.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I'll have you sign this, madam chair, so I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: take it to Right. If you take it back, I think it's alleged counsel. Pam, can you join us? Because these guys are gonna leave, and I want to just cruise through our so thank you very much, Greg.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: hope you're feeling better. Thanks, man. Bye.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Could you sign the box?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's on top left.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Top left. Top Okay. Left. Top left. Okay.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. Ken, very quickly, this bill is our bigger bill. Again, this is blueprint for further discussion. We have And this is 2.3? This is 2 0.3 data. The time should be 09:10. And, Pam, I hate to ask you this, but if you can do it high level, you and Ellen, high level of what is in, what's out, and we will continue to work on all pieces of this.

[Pam (Legislative Counsel)]: So apologies for the the back and forth this morning. You should be looking at draft 2.3, as you mentioned, madam chair, dated 09:10 for this morning. There is a few changes and then some deletions from what we began to walk through Friday and Tuesday of this week. The first thing I will point you to is on page 17 in section nine. If you all recall, this was a task force. I highlighted some concerns about it being under Vermont House of Conservation Board They've highlighted same concerns. Yes. So this has been slightly retweeted. It is now under the sole, you know, authority and oversight and management from the Department of Aging and Independent Living. So it moved from the HCV and statute over to three BSA thirty ninety eight, which is where it should be appropriately for Dale, and then it's now a advisory council instead of a task force. So there's some slight tweaks to the language in sub A, so it's created for the purposes of identifying opportunities for increased alignment between human services programs and policies serving individuals who receive Medicaid funded developmental disability services and housing capital and supports of services programs. So my understanding is this is some language that had been worked on from some external stakeholders including the HCV. So that's primary change. And disabilities.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: That's the primary change there. And we would I'd like to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: thank everybody for their quick work on this, and it is something that they signed off on for us to get started on discussing

[Pam (Legislative Counsel)]: further. And then the other changes are removal of some sections, in particular, the the section related to housing by design from the AHCD. Right. Yeah.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The interim exemption, the extension sections, the opt in, opt out sections, those have been removed from the bill. Right. And then we've done some cleanup of the purpose statement and subjects, etcetera, to reflect the fact that those things have been removed. So now, only in our lane, we have asked that that's not so as a result, this bill will not be committed to the senate natural resources energy committee. They will be taking up and have already started to take testimony on the housing by design, and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that is gonna be the backbone I understand of their housing bill. They have agreed to take up and saying this publicly. They're agreed to take up and further discuss the opt in, opt out, and the interim exemption extension. And we will be having some joint meetings together on these issues, but they will be the lead on those needs. Those two people. Those two people. And the housing by design, which is gonna be the backbone of their housing bill. Okay. You know, the ones that we hadn't actually put in. Right. Yep. We we hadn't put in? No.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, you mean to this Yeah. This thought I thought one b and the exemption were in a draft of it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They were. And they that that the one the opt in opt out Yeah. As you know, and the and the The interim exemption. Extension. Extension. We're both pulled with agreement that they were going to be fully discussed, that we would and we and now I've approached the subject of joint hearings, which I've already done, and we're gonna be doing

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I It has to happen in a timely way. I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: mean, that's It's all gotta happen in a short we have five weeks to process.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's right. So I just

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: a lot of discussion on the media right now.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Sure. Absolute and I just would remind everybody, we have the appeals bill that they're working on that's coming to us also. So we have two big pieces of housing. They they have the appeals bill that's coming to us in natural resource. Correct. Okay. So they're starting it. That's the agreement. They're starting it, and we will get it next. So I would ask for, again, a temp a blueprint for discussion. We are not wedded.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Did the did is there a toolkit built that went to their committee?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: what that What is their vehicle for? They

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have the whole administration's bill. They have the administration's bill? Correct. Yeah. Did just vote out a committee bill based on the last group bill office for the post.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Because I know I I know I am aware of which people it is gets very important.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It does, but it they also, I would say, because they have committee bills. Mhmm. I mean, because they have real bills, they don't all need as full of mean, real bills. So We're gonna Yeah. But sadly, yeah Okay. With the challenge. So I would ask for a motion to move this. So moved. Thank you. Second. We don't really need a second. No, we don't. And our Rutland clerk, which would be kind of

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: small. If there's an opportunity for discussion, again I had about content and spending, but it doesn't work at all. Spending. Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it does spend. Wait. Say We'll my spread.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm glad you mentioned that, because I think I have already registered my deep reservations with the accelerator piece. Mhmm. That's good. Accelerator. Yeah. I I I I will just say it again so that everyone hears me share this reservation. The thing increasing the cost of manufactured housing is not the profit of manufacturing the housing. It is the lots that do not exist. It is the cost of the land. We have several examples of this, including us giving back FEMA trailers, free FEMA trailers, because no one was willing to cite them in their municipality. That is our problem. I will not support resources going to something this specific, but I do have language from the treasurer's office that gives them what they believe is a larger range of lending capacity for housing. They've been doing that very successfully and they're gonna come in and talk to us about that. And I get extremely nervous about starting to direct their spending and carve up that lending. So I will absolutely not support carving up the lending, especially for something that really I don't think it's a good use of the funds. But I would support it with substitute language that just gives the treasury more lending.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is what this bill that is the the venture we're

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: gonna I just wanna be very clear. I I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I I agree to hear you loud and clear. Thank you for sharing that. With that, I'm gonna ask the clerk call, Given I know you

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: have to leave. I'm gonna do a yes with similar kinds of reservations, but not necessarily on the same issue. Sure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We all have it. That's fair. Think everything

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Working with Senator Chittenden, Senator Ram Hinsdale.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Weeks, yes. Clarkson? Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Four zero one. Thank you very much. And with that, we will begin robust conversation. I'm sure our audience is eagerly anticipating that. Thank you very much. We move forward on housing and economic development. We'll see you all on the floor at 01:00. Thank you very much. Thank you to Ellen and Pam

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: particular