Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Welcome back to Southern Economic Development Housing and General Affairs again this Thursday, March 12, and we are in our, consumer protection and general head. So we are having voted out two bills. Thank you committee for doing that work. Really grateful. We are turning to cannabis and which is one that a bill s two seventy eight that we've been wrestling with. And I think we've gotten some hopefully good work and at least it is what it is, and we'll get it to the other party. So, however, we did not finish going through the last little bit of the bill. We had finished, I believe, on section 14, which was the vote the court piece was now that I think we struck yes. We struck the local voting, the municipal vote requirement, and we we now have a new section 14. So it is it is that correct, Pepper? Is that yes. That's what we so we are. Sorry. The new bill is confusing me because my numbers are, of course, based on the old apologies. So because my understanding is that the where we are was section 16, which was the two year product registration that that I believe that with the two year employee licenses, it was section 16 and the longer product registrations. And that is is that now with you? Section 12. That's the section 12. Okay. Because we cut out somewhat. Okay. Okay. So advertising is out of this now, and we're punting that at the house. Correct. Correct? Is that correct? Okay. Great. And so now we're at section 12, which is the municipal and I It's page 12. I see. We're at the bottom of page 12, sec section 12. So you And it's the is this the two year Yes. This is the product and employee two year. Yes. Hotpepper, come in if you could kind of identify with us on this because I have the Right. There's a proposal to take the employee licensure don't know. After you take it

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: away Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: There's a proposal to take this both to two year, and

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: there are some issues with that as Ibuprofen. Right? Okay. So for the record, James Pepper, chair of the cannabis control board, and I'm looking at the most recent draft 2.1 from 09:51PM last night. And, yes, I'm looking at section 12, which there's there's two fees that cannabis board assesses. One is for anyone who's plant hutching, it's working for a cannabis establishment, needs to get a background check and it's a employee ID card. And that's in currently an annual fee of $50. The proposal is to allow that to change that to a biennial fee and increase the rate to a $100. I just you know, there's we have no issue with that. We already only require people getting background checks to do their employee education once every two years. So this actually, in some ways, syncs up. So totally compliant from us, from our point of view. I I do just have a local note that anytime we have to change anything in our licensing portal, it costs us money and takes time. So this won't be an overnight decision, but it will but it will be easy enough to implement. It you know, what what it's a little bit more complicated, and I can I'll just speak to this as far as the product two year product registration option.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: It's nine. It's when you Five nine.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Is when you have an option. You have a drop down menu, and you can pick either one or two years. That's a lot more IT work on the back ends. So what this does, it just says, no. Employee IT card is

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: good for two years.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: It makes it much easier for us to do. On the product registration for two years, what this suggests is that for certain products that will remain shelf stable, the board has the discretion to offer them longer product registrations. So this is a little bit of a complicated issue here. We don't disagree that there's an administrative burden to registering products. It's also the cornerstone of a regulated market. This is where we look at test results. This is where we make sure that products are compliant with all the regulations and free from adulterants and they meet the potency caps and everything else. Certain products are absolutely gonna be shelf stable for two years. Tinctures, topicals, certain edibles, depending on how they're stored. Other products are not. I mean, a edible a gummy edible, could very likely sit on a shelf for two years, those properties without losing any potency, without without any of the adulteration concerns. A chocolate bar or a cookie, you know, something with a yeah. Yeah. It just won't. And so what this what and also beverages are in kind of a nano emulsion. Those emulsions separate over time. So what you have is the THC separates from the rest of the beverage. So what we're gonna have to do if we do implement this is we could just do kind of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: a

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: blanket, yeah, topicals and tinctures are okay for two years, but for everything else, we're gonna have to break it down by product type. And,

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: you

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: know, the only thing that I can imagine us doing, because there's no FDA involved. It's not a situation where we have, you know, this is us and our kind of neighboring cannabis control boards that are all grappling with this stuff, is we probably wanna do advanced stability testing certain on types of products. And if you can provide us with an advanced stability test saying that your product can sit on a shelf for two years, then okay, you can

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: have a two year product registration.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So, know, we're just I'm just trying to lay out what this is going to look like in real time. You know, if the idea is that $50 per year is too burdensome, well, we're gonna require some pretty burdensome, you know, proof that your product can have a two year product restoration. So this is just kind of a risk versus reward scenario. I've written a report about this. You gotta have it as part of my record. Know, and I just preface all of these decisions that if we have to have a complicated kind of logic tree drop down menu, oh, this when I'm registering a cookie, I need to register it as edible, but then to have a further drop down menu in edible with kind of a water pH of this because that's not gonna be shelf stable, and this is my storage conditions. So anyway, all I say is that this this section is a little bit problematic for the board from the implementation standpoint.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And if it's problematic, would you prefer we just do eight and not nine at the moment? And or is it is that

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: what you're recommending? That's our preference. I know that there's countervailing arguments on the other side, and I do acknowledge that this can be administratively burdensome. It doesn't seem like it is, but for a larger manufacturer that may have a 100 products, Keeping track of a 100 different product registrations every year is burdens of back and neck.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: That's burdensome for you too. It sounds like it's not like it's

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: a burden on both sides. It's for us, it's a lot easier than trying to have a very complicated every type of product has a different length of the product registration. I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: don't know if this makes it more complicated, but could you what if it said you could charge a higher one time fee for that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: For the two year? Of that product.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I what we would do is just put points to the actual licensee that's trying to register the product, provide that advanced utility.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: That's right.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So the fee's not really the problem. Okay. There is gonna be upfront IT costs.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Right. So, okay. Let me just understand. So right, I mean, now, it's once a year. Right.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: there's still probably a lot of complication just in once a year for what's stable for a whole year.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So for, the way that our testing works is you have the final form of testing that happens when you're registering products.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: If you make a giant run of products, then it gets tested, you know, we we take samples from the beginning, middle, and then we try and modernize them, we we get a test. The next time you make your next

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: A big year. You're like If you take samples for

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: multiple batches in a year. Uh-huh. So if you make, you know, 10,000 gummies a year, and then 10 another batch of 10,000 gummies, you have to test both of those batches, even if it's the same product or

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: same You the producer.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: You the producer. Uh-huh. And so we're getting testing at least once a year based upon this once a year product registration. Okay. But for the for the p for the larger manufacturers, we're getting multiple tests. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: What makes it hard to just extend that over two years? Like to say, okay, now you have to send us testing.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So, particularly, it's the idea of this to reduce the testing cost, which I think that's mostly what it is. There's an administrative burden of registering for a computer, but it's also, I want to run, make a larger batch, so I only have to test that batch once instead of having multiple And if it's good for two years, we're gonna see, inevitably see products sitting potentially in a warehouse for two years.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: And that's fine for certain types of products, but it's certainly not fine for others.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: But doesn't that allow you to say, they never work for cookies. We're never doing this for cookies.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: For something else.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: But if you think about, like, the DMV and like entering your product into an online portal, you need to, you know, we need to have a drop down menu saying what type of product Right. Because that's how it works now. So it's not fully be banned.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And you think that cost prohibitive or just gonna be a nine year period? Because that's why I'm wondering if a fee would help with the IT cost of that.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. We we we need I mean, essentially, what we would I mean, we could say just no edibles, get a two year product registration that we don't have to worry about.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: And then no beverages too because we know that some of them are in nano We have. Separate out.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: But you can you can say that with this language.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: We could say that, but we still need to kind of automate the licensing portal. So whatever that looks like, we need to have instead of just we need to have kind of logic tree options that people can select.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: But you could you could omit the logic tree options for all elements. That would still be your decision.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: We could do that under this language. Right. It's just So we don't have to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: add language. It's still up to your discretion.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: You're right. It would still be up to our discretion. I just wanna make sure everyone understands we're not the FDA. There's no there's no definitive consensus about what the expiration date or the best buy date of these products are. So your view is that still looking at it all once a year is the best way to maintain quality? Just to make sure that we have a test at least once a year, and we know what's in these products at least once a year.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Is it that important? Potentially, like, what if there was a fee that matched the time and effort it it took, but you've got to have a, like, a two year horizon I or

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: just wanna say that none of these fees actually accommodate the amount of work it takes to do. Yeah. And that was a conscious decision by the legislature that we can't voice the entire cost of regulation onto the industry, it would just make the whole industry very Right. Expensive, and only the kind of mega, know, operators would be able to participate.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: But we've made that worse, right? I I do think we should have that awareness as this goes forward. I was just talking to the lieutenant governor about this. I have realized that appropriations, after it left the policy committee, essentially said, we're gonna make you like most other departments and agencies, and you have to remit the entire ExideTech amount to the general fund. And then the governor now has control over what your budget is. That was a decision that I think had policy implications about how regulated and supported our market is, that the policy committees never made that decision.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Interesting.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Appreciate that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: On this section, we can return to this, put a pin in it, because I just wanna finish the rest of the bill. I think we have a bunch of pin areas to return to for discussion. I'm hoping they're gonna make significant process by progress by the vote.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Right. And the great news about the tail end of this bill, sections 13 So we're gonna put

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: a pin in number nine. I think we're all okay with number eight. It it sounds like there was no okay. With number eight in that. Now we'll move to sections 13 on. Thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: 17. I think the rest almost the eighteen, nineteen, 20 so everything up to 21. All of it's a lot of words on the paper. All it does is strike the word integrated license from everywhere it appears, title seven and title 32, and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: that's So it's a statutory claim. Right.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Right. If you want if you want the history less, I'm happy to provide it, but integrated licenses don't exist anymore to the standard. Right. So we're just striking them from statutes. Yeah. This is generally clean up. Wanna do it. It's fine. These can be laid as appendages and statutes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: No. Janet would have our you know, Janet wants to keep statutes clean and updated as we do the technical corrections. If they don't exist, they shouldn't be there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Can I just ask for Keith that you'd be doing something else before these technical sections are done? You sent an email to Tucker.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I have had an opportunity to

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: take it. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: But you may have that opportunity. Tucker doesn't have the opportunity to even look at it yet.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So So he's not here before noon? He's trying. Okay. But he is I just didn't know if there's something I should be doing to be helpful.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: But No. I think you're fine right where you are. It's good to have you right there. So it strikes me that sections 13 for 21 from what I'm hearing are statutory cleanup. We're getting rid of something that doesn't exist. Right? Is that correct? Yes. That is correct. Okay. Good. We love that. Okay. And then we get, however, to section 22.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Section 22, the cannabis business Which

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: is on k 20. I guess it's of the new bill of draft 2.1. Right?

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: It's also section 25

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: at the end of at the bottom of page in my day.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: That's just something. That so on page 20, lines four and five, that's also just a reference to In the gray. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So next we go to section 22 and this PPDF grants for cultivators and manufacturers. Right.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So the cannabis business development fund is a special fund that was economic development fund that was created, which is in this acknowledgement that none of the technical assistance business board, certainly at the federal level, also at state level, will support cannabis businesses because of their federal entanglements with federal funding, like, you know, all the working lanes enterprise board, the armed force liability. There's, you know, just all of the, you know, you guys just, I think, just put a bill on all the developments. Right. None of those folks Yes. We've Possibly the exception, although they haven't made their their decision yet, the legal fund that is law school. Yeah. None of them will touch on a cannabis business. Banks are not going to cannabis business largely. So you created a business development fund, and you've, over the past five years, put a total of $1,500,000

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Every year? No.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Was 5.1. Three contributions of $500,000 starting in point two. So it's $1,500,000

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: in it now?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So you get testimony from the ACCD, they administer the fund, they don't administer it, then by the end of the year

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: it will be zero. So it's been used as it

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: was designed. It has. And so the proposal here, as I recall, is to put million dollars in back into it, because I believe, right? And expand the universe of that are eligible to receive that. Right. And we have a report at our you guys asked us to write a report. You saw this the candidates go last year, you said, well, there's no economic development in this bill. Where where is that? And so but it was too late. The budget already passed, if you recall last year. And so you asked us to write a report with the support of ACC and the land item access opportunity board about what they would do with this money if they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Got it. And

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: so they said that they would kind of act as a pass through to some of these agencies that have expressed interest supporting cannabis businesses, like the law school, small business legal funds, like Rutland's Enterprise, they would they would act as a pass through. If there was money in the fund, they would Right. And what this so what section 22 does is it expands eligibility for this fund to tier one cultivators and manufacturers. It's the smallest tier, smallest businesses. Because right now it's just eligible for social equity advocates. Those are people that can demonstrate that they've been harmed historically by. So it's more of a. So this expands eligibility and instead of $500,000 it's it would be a one time contribution of a million dollars, and that's to just make sure that the original intent of this fund isn't diagnosed. Social equity still have the same kind of same opportunity from this fund that they had before because they're adding to a cohort of people. I think tier one cultivators, main factors, they they have in numbers. They just don't have a body top of head. Right. No. It's in our But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I remember that it's it's getting down to the bottom of the barrel. Right? Right. So that is what this one and I again, Ted is gonna come in, but I just would refer us all to Ted's fiscal note, which is does he even mention the million dollars? The appropriation he has here. Yeah. Under appropriations. Yeah. Okay. So and I'm just curious why if we have if we have 23,000,000 coming in from the excise tax, why do we not take it out of that fund?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: The excise tax used to be sequestered in a special funds. Last year, it was changed to Right. It's direct deposit. It's in general. There is no

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: After you take your expense. No. Oh, that's right. We did it just. Wasn't such a big fan of this. Right.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. So there's no pot of money to take.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So there's no pot

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: of money. I mean, can exercise that. Unless we say it for. You know how much it is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. Right. 20 well, just to remind everybody, it was it was estimated for f y twenty seven to be

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: 23,600,000.0.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: The question I have for you is if we identify in this bill that it comes off before it goes to the general fund, are we able to do that?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I don't I Ted would know the answer to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: that. Okay. I'd to ask because I think that's a question, right, that we might wanna consider for the other things.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: If the only thing that you always kinda wanna keep in mind is that anticipate the fight is you also, when you moved the money to vaginal funds, instead of just parking it into the cannabis regulation first, is you also said that the 30% contribution to prevention is calculated from the entirety, not just the unexpended. So you would you wanna make sure that, if you wanna hold the prevention money Right. To make sure you don't take 30% of that million dollars.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I appreciate, but we have other appropriations of this.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I just wanted to flag that because it's No. Would be Preventure would still be 30% from up for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: the entire The entire. Okay. So

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: the next that's the first appropriation. The second appropriation is? So this is 5.6 to the lane access, not the tuning board. How much did

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: have they used last? I mean, what

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: this is a lot of money. I don't know the answer to that. And I I just I I so

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I I know we I think we had talked to Tony about it. Kesha, do you recall? I mean, I can pull up my other cannabis.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Do you have the LAOBs money?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. How much did LAOB? Because this is a lot of money. The question no one else could want to write it this year. The question is, what did they spend last year? What was their appropriation last year? And Ted doesn't have that here.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I I mean, here's here's one of the problems. There was it was somewhere between 1 and 2,000,000, I believe. And let's just say somewhere between 1 and 2,000,000. The as I understand it, the budget office, which helped that money from them and asked them to go back and seek it in the budget adjustment. So, don't want to like speak for them. This is the amount of money they came in and talked about would allow them to do their resilience hubs and their work specific to the harm, the economic harm that the war on drugs has essentially caused many communities, many rural Right. No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I I appreciate their purpose. Yeah. The question is simply, this is a lot of money. And I don't recall them ever getting this much before. And so I would love to have Ted, Ted, if you're listening. And we will ask Ted what they got last year when they got it, when they got it. Do you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: want them floating around? Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And maybe We have their testimony in our file. And the point. The question is, I've got a fine, and I know we have it because it's here. But I think that amount is, think, for me, a question that's just a lot of money.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So the second half of the report you asked us to draft was, a, how much how much and to what purposes would of cannabis excise tax should go towards cannabis business? So you have that. The second half of that report was, how much should go towards community reinvestment through the L. And that's really what this is. And they and I think the 5.6 represents just a portion of the excise tax, similar to what you're doing for prevention.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: That's a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: commitment we made over and over again in our intent in the last decade that we've debated this. No. No. I I appreciate all that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: It's just we didn't set a a percent for that. We didn't it just still And that made a bit of a problem.

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Just Because most people who

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: here to buy more drugs do not wanna go into cannabis production. That's what

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: we found out is fewer people wanted to go into cannabis production. The

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And the LAOB is gonna join us soon. That I mean, they they're happy to just be sitting on the side if they plan.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Or they can just zoom in, and we can ask questions. They're walking here. They're in the building? They're close by. Oh, I didn't know where the cross was. Okay. Great. So then let's just put a pin in that. Thank you. I think that takes us to the end of bill. And now we can begin discussion on the three areas that we ask you to go back and you want a pepper, right? You just stay there because we

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Can I ask a process question? Do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: you Yes. I just want I just wanna clarify what those areas were.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Yes. Well, do you do you wanna have that discussion and then we email Tucker something?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yes. Okay. We don't wanna have Tucker waste. And Sophie's here also. So remember, Sophie's also

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I I didn't know. I I must say Yes. Over Are you helping? You're helping Tucker with this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: She's taking over for Tucker when he goes on paternity leave. She's dealing with this bill. She's getting booted up to speed.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: That's great. Okay. To brush. I don't even think I need So she'll be

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I'm just basically thanking her. Welcome to Kent. Yeah. Yeah. She's so excited.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: well, can go out is that potency so let me just go through this and clarify this so that we know what we're talking about. My understanding is that potency, they will come back to us maybe in an amendment. My understanding also is that my hope for triggers, if the federal action occurs, the the trigger discussion, Tucker doesn't have the time to grab that now, but that will come as an amendment also. So the governor could pull together a compact in a heartbeat, depending on the, the federal things it would trigger.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And somebody else is working on the triggers piece.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I am. I'm kind With Tucker and power. And we're we're use we're looking at what New Jersey is looking at. We're looking at the West Coast, and we're coming up with language that we will hope we can do as a committee, but we're gonna do that. Hopefully, it's an amendment. It doesn't have any money piece in it, so it could go without having to go to finance or approach. So I just wanted because I had so sold a number of you that I was hoping this would be part of the bill, but it it just don't we've run out of time. So my understanding is that you were working on events permits, delivery permits. Correct?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: That's right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Events permits, delivery permits, and advertising, we've decided we're gonna leave for the house to deal with. And the what was the third thing you were working on? Advertising business. We've decided this week. Okay. So advertising, we've decided to let go and do more work on in the house.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Yes, and we do have another we did return back to this. Part of the conversation about delivery and on-site consumption returns us back to the question of what we do about non operating towns, do we opt out towns. Right, exactly. And that returned us to the question of a local cannabis option, a cannabis local option tax. So I do think that just returns us to that discussion. We want, in my mind, we want on-site consumption pilot and delivery pilot to happen in places that don't have retail. And that gets us back to the question of how do you incentivize communities to do their own minor level of regulation and oversight. If they haven't voted to actually have it in the Exactly, that is they're allowing a one time permit for consumption, for a consumption event, for a delivery. Then really, this gets us back to the Amazon question. Like, we can't I I don't I don't think it's good policy to start saying you can't deliver in towns that have said no to retail. That that's a big kind of, like, consumer question of what decisions people can make from their own home.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: That's a that's a yeah. That's what we bump into with delivery. That is, I think, why I felt we haven't had the time to really dig into it and was happy to move ex the events, but not the delivery and let the house work further on delivery. It just needs some more time because that's a big question, isn't it? Mhmm. Which is, are you undermining the town's what's the right word? It's not. Not authority, not integrity, but their choice to not But that's a choice not

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: to retail. It's a choice not That's

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: a different choice.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Yeah. You can't smoke pot in your house. Like, I don't you know? I I think you could. There are dry towns to which alcohol is delivered. Exactly. So I I think You can't stop someone from getting something in the mail, I feel like.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And we can't. This is not will not be delivered by mail for those of you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: who are listening. But but wine and beer Yeah. Right. Absolutely. That's nice.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And they are able to be delivered to dry tents.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm. Amazon will look.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I mean, in a way, that could come before our craft market has the opportunity. But that's the problem.

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: We wanna protect our craft.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: You can

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: have THC beverages entering our state are not helping our craft. So given that challenge,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: what did you guys call?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So I I just need to back up for one second and just you know, you have this comparison chart that I provided.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Oh, let me

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: pull it out. Well, the one thing that's not on that comparison chart Oh, probably the one thing we need delivery.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Delivery's all good. Here?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yes. No. It is that we operate a very lean operation at the Kansas Control Board compared to all of our neighboring states. If you look at full time employees to licensees, that ratio for Maine, it's one to seven. For Massachusetts, it's one to five. For New Jersey, it's one to three. And for Vermont, it's one to 20. So Jeez. And if you just cut out our our lab and you just focused on the licensing and compliance staff, those numbers start to diverge even further. So I just need to make that clear that my opposition any sort of, you know, cold water that I might have is really based upon staffs

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: and capacity to not Which to me goes back to the excise tax question that we made a policy decision that affects public health and that affects commerce in the state in the, in the money committees, that I think deserves a second look because the governor is now controlling, saying, I want this to be safe and I, I don't want to do this and I don't want to do that, but then deciding that they have a slimmer budget than they need to do enforcement. So And we our intent was to not have that at the beginning. They are them independent for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: a reason. Right. And and sadly, having come under the governor's budgeting umbrella, you once you have advocated with with Adam for your slice of the pie, you aren't able to advocate with us for more.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Right. And we essentially, we need to be able to grow with the growing responsibilities in the growing market. And we're we don't really have that full ability. We're we we need it we made a pretty cogent case that we needed an attorney position last year Yeah. Given a number of licensing issue I mean, enforcement issues that we're we're facing, and it made it to the last day of the the last day of the legislature, and then it got taken out. So I just

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And you and if I could say, you could satisfy some of the appropriations concern, I'm I'm happy to have this conversation with them or others, you could satisfy some of that by asking that the unused portion be remitted quarterly or semi annually rather than annually. Like you could say, okay, could have your money sooner. We won't sequester it for a whole year, but don't take away our ability to have the money to to do this work well, especially if we're trying to pilot things.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. So So That goes that would be

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: With that context, I think the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I don't wanna derail this bill. I think those are bigger questions that we have to have Helps team. In within the Yeah. And the appropriations team because I think that would

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: No. I'm not at the Yeah. I would like to have a conversation with the budget.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yes. I mean, we fought this last year in in Darwin.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So Well, it's not unlike the ethics commission.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: If I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: may point out, the there was a huge republican effort to get an ethics commission. Now we are cutting it off at the knees by not funding it. So I I'm with you because I care a lot about the ethics commission, having to help create it, and now we are making basically neutralizing it by not funding it. So to the events To the events. Agree.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yes. So events, I think, is very important. I mean, we heard they need to do Which section? Sorry. This is section five.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: This is the new agree. Is it the new bill? We're on page what page are we on?

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Brief. Follow the brief.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So I think events in general are very important. I think this is I mean, you say that we need to get on a path towards destigmatizing and towards a little

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: bit more

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: normalization. And that we have a lot of tourists that come to this town or come to this state, and they're choosing between New York where they allow canvass weddings and events as festivals, and Vermont where they don't, when they want to have a wedding theater or have an event. We're starting to kind of lose ground to our neighbors. And and if you do wanna be on a path towards direct to consumer, if that is a desire, this is how we test it out. This is how we pilot. This is how we figure out how much staffing does it actually take. How much resources at the board do we actually need if we wanted to convert, you know, all of our cultivators into, you know, allow them to do direct. And so I think this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: is a very important policy. Thank you. We do. And just remind us, we passed this last year Right. For a a piece of this. And as I'm listening to you, it does strike me that there's a difference between private events like weddings and public events, and that maybe we should be permitting 10 of each of the you know, that that look for the pilot. Maybe we should be separating those out because a wedding is not a public event. Right? Maybe we should be separating out public and private events.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I And I did that.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yes. I I think that's something that we did actually speak about that, you know, will will go in. Behind closed doors. Is that yes. Like, if we only have 10 of these, it'll

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: be Great

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: minds are Yeah. Yeah. We've we've to work together for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: a long time. Yeah. So right. I think what

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: we came down to in the kind of behind, you know, we asked us to work together.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yes. Don't worry. No. Thank you.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: To increase the number to 15 so that towns so that every county and possibly two in Chittenden County, we have an opportunity.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. If we For

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: the record, I didn't just say in

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Chittenden County, but it's likely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So where is that number, dear?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: It's that's a Tucker

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Oh, okay. So we haven't changed that yet. This the event sections are still as they were. Mhmm. Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Well, right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Because we haven't Okay. So I would just boldly propose that we do 10 of each. 10 private events and 10 public events. And

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: and I know the expectation is to do these quickly. I just wanna say that that's, again, just comes down to the status. Like, if we find that if we find that we actually have a very light touch on these, which, you know, DLL only goes to about a quarter of their special events, and it's all kind of based upon risk and is this person have a track record with us, you know, they kind of spot check. California does does the same. They attend about a court. If we find that there's there's a very light touch from a regular court standpoint Yes. Where we can kind of push off a lot of the concerns to the licensee or to to the permittee, and we could probably do one quickly, but I just wanted to set the expectation. Right. We gotta kinda do one and see how it goes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: No. I I appreciate that, but yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And we were also going to direct Tucker to do what we do in alcohol, which is you can't be operating your retail and your consumption license at the same time. So this is coming up with the alcohol bill. You have a wine store on one side and a restaurant on the other. You have a wedding occurring or if you have a big event occurring where you have a catering license or a consumption license, you have to shut down your retail side at that time.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And only be stirring Mhmm. Fly out of the vent. Exactly. Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: And that and it is just one of the questions I was gonna have for for you because you have a one license slash one location per entity. So if you have a retailer that can sell in two different spots simultaneously, it would be a violation of that law. So so so you need to just tell me one way or the other whether you because you think that this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Does that does that make sense to align? It does. Yes. Yes. Then let's just say it. Alright. Sorry.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. And I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: mean That remains I think that

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: makes Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Otherwise, I think this language does I mean, we were we took a hand in drafting this language. So I think what it does is it requires local sign off and any conditions locals want to place the event or event, and they come to us. And then we can further condition if we feel like they've missed something that we need. You did your blood vendors get a over consumption drink or something along those lines, something that the founder may not be thinking about. And then, and and then, you know, it authorized to get moving quickly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. So with I would entertain the separation of private and public events because I feel they're very different. They are. And our wedding planners, I think, would love to be able to They would. Try 10 private.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: When this was being debated last year, they we worked with them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yes. I know. But I think that when you talk you know, when you talk about those, they're very different. Right. Okay. Great. On so any questions on events? Because I think our then with those changes, events are in pretty good shape. Thomas? Hi, Randy.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So We have a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: question. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: So, really, section 10, I just wanted to I don't remember you saying it, chair pepper, but I sent an email to seeing you and, Randy Tucker. We're just proposing on section 10 for giving municipal authorities more, clear guidance that they can regulate time, place, and manner that we've also had a grandfather clause because a concern was raised that if this goes into effect, they did a municipality. I would think they would do this, but then they could zone out of existence and existing operations. So just allowing that existing operators, would be able to continue to operate. So you can still change the zoning, but they think that operator could continue to function. Right. That's Correct. You have anything to add, but I just think that would

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: be useful language to revise. Sorry. That's not in events, though.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: No. That's the section 10.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Oh, Chittenden

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: jumping ahead. Can we can we just put a pin on that till we get through events?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: I thought you were wrapping up the whole bill.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: My bad. Just been No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: No. But, Thomas Chittenden has has an an addition. Addition. So So I No. Noted that. Jeffrey, did you have a thought on events before we leave events?

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Thanks, chair. For the record, Jeffrey from Rutland Road Association.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I'm just

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: recalling our conversation. And may maybe that's reflected in what Tucker's bringing forward, but there was discretion, everybody, to narrow the the scope of the event permit to be eligible to produce. So while it's important, for instance, to, you know, have weddings and ensure that those wedding event planners are based upon it, we also need to center, we believe, small producers, which is which is the going back to the original wall. Well, someone stated that it yeah. Exactly. It was to support small producers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Was to showcase our craft cannabis.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Exactly. And and so what what I ask is these two things are not at odds. Let's marry them together when we move forward with these concepts, which means centering small producers to make sure that they're able to Oh, you had concept. Thought about that for the events for the farmers markets that they would be for tier one,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: tier two. And then we talked about That's what we had talked about. Yes. You had. That also Sorry. So the addition David? Quick question. Are you saying

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: that the event permits would only be permissible for small producers? Yeah. So for other small biz not just a clarification.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Right. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I I don't think so because I I think you if you have a farmer's market, you want a range, but I think given a preference or priority to I think that's what we talked about. Was it

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: A preference priority, and this comes up for me again in in a section that I have tried to leave agriculture out of on cannabis co ops because that is the best way for smaller producers be able to have some preference to deliver or to have on-site consumption events, but to be kind of prepared to do all that comes along with that. So I want us to think, you know, less about who do we exclude because we were talking about, you know, Magic Man and Essex Experience has been a great retail partner. I would I would wanna say you can't have your store open, but you can do a parking lot concert, you know, where the brewery does parking lot concerts all the time, not at the same time. But, like, I don't want to exclude the retailers who could shut down their operation and be operating a be operating as as an event.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: But if we align with alcohol, as you previously suggested, you would have to figure that out per permit for this class.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: The language allows any cannabis anyone with cannabis license is eligible for an event. We would have to determine ultimately what these events are for life. But the the only thing that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I We're talking about 10 private permits, 10 public permits because they're different events. And we're also talking about giving some preference to our craft growers Seth, that just a dangerous thing? Should we not be

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: doing that? Well, listen. Whether or not you do that, all I need is clarity as whether two retail every a single retailer can operate in two locations the same time. Right. To the extent that, you know, we care about whether and to the extent that there should be a preference, we'll do it however we want us. If you say only tier one cultivators can hold these events or tier one and tier two, then that's how we'll operate. So, okay, David, you had a thought?

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: No, just that at this point, every grower is either a state or local, very local grower. Not sure why we need this sanction at this space, maybe in the future. Anyway, that's just my first washes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: It was kind of the distinction between grower, manufacturer, and retailer, not small or large.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Sure is that explicitly the producers are excluded from this concept as well, in that same for the vein. I think that Producing or excluded? They're not excluded.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: They're not excluded.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: They're explicitly excluded. Exactly.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Right, right.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Exactly. So,

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: okay. Which they are under this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Which they are under this proposal. Okay. So I think we have at least semblance of agreement on events. Is that am I hearing?

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: What about the law school? Why limit why excluded producers for these?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We're not. We're including No. Yes. We're including the whole. You're right. The question is gonna be called that's why I want trigger language on the on the federal action and what we do if the feds had and that and we'll work on that as an amendment, which is what Tucker and Lee talked about last night. Okay. So we're in agreement on delivery. Let's just sum I mean, on events. We'll sum that up. We'll have to do 10 private event pilots, 10 public events, and I think otherwise it's unchanged. Is that correct?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: That's right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. Delivery.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So delivery, as I was alluding to yesterday, delivery I mean, the the point of sale is most heavily regulated portion of our rules. This is why we require, point of sale system that can automatically all regularly with our inventory tracks. That's why we have cameras and security insurance. You know? It's all regulatory piece. It's trying to protect that point of sale and make sure that, you know, the seed to sale tracking sale is a very critical piece of that. So delivery certainly just makes me a little bit more nervous as to how we're gonna ensure that we're meeting all of the same regulatory requirements as a VTEC sale. But that being said, every other state has this where we're the only state, as far as I know, that doesn't do delivery or for adult use. So it can be done. I just wanna just reiterate the Gestatin concerns.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And just we, you know,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I think I talked about

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: this with Deborah somewhere, but I wanna remind people we're also a state where a quarter of the population report not being able to get to the grocery store or doctor's appointment because they don't have access to a vehicle. We're in a incredibly rural state and the intent here is to try and make sure people far outside of the realm of cannabis retailers have some access. And so that's where our language starts to steer things.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I think the language here I mean, I obviously if you look at the kind of provisions that you give us, explicit rulemaking authority on certain issues in title seven for the various license types. This has a blanket, you know, granted authority, but, you know, there are certain, like, nuanced details about delivery that sometimes, you know, I guess we're gonna have to figure out. I'm happy to go into those, although I don't wanna confuse the conversation. If we feel like this if Tucker feels like this fish sufficient grant of authority to the board to determine things like how long campus can be stored in a delivery vehicle, and it'd be kind of a band that just sits in one place where the license can establish as a totally different part of the state. Or, you know, just can you have five minutes if you're a cultivator? You know, if this if it says in this language that that we have discretion to develop procedures around, you know, these deliveries and security requirements and things along those that nature. If that's sufficiently broad to kind of help us shape what this these deliveries actually look like, what what's allowed and what's not, then I have a lot more comfort. A lot of my questions get answered. I do have one unresolved question about this proposal, which is where is the sale taking place for the purposes of octane You mean it's a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: take place at the door, or is it taking place

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: At the location of the the the cultivator or the person who's doing the deliver.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And our cannabis sale I mean, the prop they're not able to be done with credit card. Is that right?

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: In most cases, no. So the challenge is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: then you can't phone in an order and have it delivered.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Correct. You would have you what would what you would need to do if you're a cultivator It's up and down. Of sale system that you could call into. You could give your credit your debit card number of the phone.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So debit cards were If

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: I may, correct me if I'm wrong, Pepper. Did the the board develop direct sales regulations for the propagator license and seeds to be direct directly sold

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: to producers? They sell to other licensees. Directly to the public, though. Just the seeds, which the deed Right. Determined are

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: hemp, not cannabis. Right. They actually slipped that very recently. But the point is, you all did begin to at least engage direct sales through seeds for propagators because seeds are empty. Right. No.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I understand that. They're not amethyst. Right. So we don't have any I mean, we don't have any authority

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: over the entity.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: So those transactions are presumably.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I assume so.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: But you're not subject to opt in opt out because they're not in cannabis. So my question is, for the purposes of local option taxes in opt in opt out, is the sale happening at the door of the consumer or is it happening at the physical address of I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: it has to happen at the of the producer and consume of the grower.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Would that be okay now? So if that person is in an opt out town, are they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: eligible to seek a permit? They it's just, again, to go back to opt in, opt out. They're opting out of of having a retail establishment. They're not opting out of individual purchasing things. So I think that we have to hold the line at that, and I I see our lunch council nodding his head. Okay. So I have to hold the line there. Okay.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: So I

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: just wanna make sure that's clear.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I I think we need to make it clear. Right. We can clarify that in this language.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So you said alcohol or something?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. And then just one other I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: don't pay for those alcohol deliveries. Those are paid for whenever you bought them.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Other issue, which is just a technical correction that doesn't even need to be dealt with here, dealt with in the finance. This goes to finance script then. It's Well is that the only people authorized to collect cannabis excise tax, not other taxes, are licensed retailers that seek this authorization with commissioner of taxes. So that if they we need to add any delivery permittees to that authorization, authorization, which is in just adding a few words to. Yeah. And that that's universal to both this and the.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: And and sure. Sorry. I'm glad you. And and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: There's no mirror than, like, coming out of a driveway.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Correct me if I'm wrong, Carter, but I I do believe that we also discussed narrowing this delivery permit to small producers to sort of lighten the conversation and simplify the concept. Removing retailers from the equation brings in a bunch of, other components that we need to discuss, which are important. We should talk about them. But just for the sake of getting this out this session, I think that focusing on and, again, getting back to intent, small producers and narrowing that scope lightens the the concept and makes it more comfortable. So that's something we discussed. In in a little room.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. Okay. And so Kesha and Pepper, how do you you're weighing up? That means that limiting the ten ten permits to tier one growers and producers? Magnetizers. Correct. Magnetization. Yeah. To me, they all have the same thing. I'm in the. So

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: is it purely a policy choice for you all? I mean, one thing that it does by doing that is you don't have this question about whether a retailer with a truck, for instance, you know, has their storefront in Middlebury, but it's, has a truck with a wholesale license down in Brattleboro, whether they're essentially violating the one location for anything.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. Got it. So if we did limit it to and is that correct with tier one and tier two? Yes. I'm I'm fine with that for the for it's a pilot. I'm I'm fine with that.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: It's, it's still 10. David Ramsey? I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: had, I think I'd suggest 15 because then you could, you could have a co op in a county say, you know, you guys get together and figure out how to how to do this. Two for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Chittenden County and one

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: for No. I mean, actually, probably less for Chittenden County because they have rebates. Yeah. Absolutely. It would be more for the I don't want women to ask it. I mean, they don't want to get mad at me, but our rural place in America, people would have to drive over a 100 miles to access a retailer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: 15 meaning two could be in one of them. Yeah. They could be in the Northeast. Exactly. Which is big.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Windsor County, which is largest county by way.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Windsor County, 977 square miles is the largest county in Vermont. That's your fact that which aptly patient remembered because she's good at that remembering those facts.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I didn't know exactly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So are we looking at increasing this to 15?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Without objection.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Is that a problem for the admissions? It's all gonna be a challenge.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Well, just like with the events, we'll do this, we'll roll it out in a way that we can handle. It's not mandate to do 15 as far

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: as I can tell.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: It's okay. It's sure that

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: we aren't imposing something that will cause you both the need for additional resources, the need to deploy resources differently than you think are are prudent. Is it prudent for us to do 15, or is it better for us to do 10 is the question to ask you. From your perspective.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: One per county does seem sort of fair if we can. Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. I mean, we'll we'll roll it out in a way that makes sense

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: for us. And it's a may.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Don't get to 15 because of resource issues, but then having the discretion is important.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Then we'll unleash Jeffrey and Graham on the governor's office for the budgetary process next year for for more This is a challenge. We want things to be underfunded. Okay. So I hear 15. I hear that that's at least advancing it to the house is a good idea. Is that okay? K? Just

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: I'll just add that because that being needs to be said that the optics of weed delivery is, kind of it's very unusual. Strikes me the wrong way. But even everybody else around us is doing it, Really want to be safe. It does. It just just it's balanced.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So I you know, as you know, we are in the Adirondacks a lot. I have never seen a Wee delivery truck in the Adirondacks, and we have producers in the Adirondacks. I've just never seen it, but maybe I'm just not.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: You know, I'll add to this. Our initial concept for this section or the recommendation was to include on-site as an option, So we're not pigeonholing necessarily producers to for instance, there are more producers in in the list that have neighbors in remote areas. We're talking like a mile or two from their facility, from their barn, that would love buy directly from them in a well regulated manner and not drive, say, thirty minutes to a retail shop to have to get that same product from their neighbor. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We'll have that opportunity for that discussion in the next.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Okay. Direct sales, completely different topic, which we're perfectly happy to address. Driving weed to a phone delivery or something, just strikes me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Well, will remind us that we drive alcohol everywhere.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: I'll push him back. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: for me, alcohol is so much more devastating to the public first than to private lives that it is just incalculable. I would I think we took I can put down there. So So 15 are okay? Right.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Sure. Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Anything else on this line with pepper that you wanna?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: No, I don't think so. As long as I have a conversation with Tucker that the granted authority for this procedure adoption is sufficient, broad, then I'm okay. I do want to just correct the record. We're not the only state that doesn't have delivery, but we're the only way

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Well, that's okay, because we're mostly looking at the region.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Alright. Was advertising the last Advertising, we've decided to punt to the house.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. Well,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: and I'll just remind piece after having this discussion outside of the committee as well. I don't even see it as necessarily punting to the house. I'm satisfied that CCB is doing the best they can internally to expedite the process and limit the need to go over every detail, try to make templates approved, etcetera, and that they're still catching things as the health narrative changes that need to be caught. So I care about this issue into the future, but I'm willing to let it go entirely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. Tucker?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Point of clarification on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: what punting to

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: the house means for purposes of what I have

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Well, right. I would say, like Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: You could just add that punting to the house. That's how The house shall conduct a The house shall do address all the areas that we pulled within this bill.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: It's being taken out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: It's being taken out, period. It's being taken out without further comment. Thank you very much.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. Ted will be with us at 11:30. At the latest. Oh, that may appear at any moment then. Maybe not then. Give it like fifteen minutes. Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So the only other thing that I wanted to mention, which does not need to be dealt with in this draft, is that with the Department of Tax, which has three cleanup provisions that they have asked to have included. They're all canvas related. Are they drafted? They're drafted. They didn't make it into this draft, or perhaps the finance community can look at them. They're prepared to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Will they propose them to the tax to the finance committee?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yeah. Absolutely. They're prepared to testify on them. They've really they've been all approved by the administration, and they're just merely technical fixes that just clarify where you know, sort of how to do certain

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I mean, I'm happy. Yeah. What what is the public tax? Tax has three clarifications. Finance to do. Right. I mean, we can either write to finance or if they're I would just write till finance.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: They're all tax. They're all germane to tax issues. If they were going to be included in miscellaneous tax bill, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Happy to include that in Because they

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: have the word canvass and sometimes things get attached in miscellaneous bills. I wanted any canvas removed.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So your friends suffer from the LIV.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: No. They have the amendments.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. They they'll propose Oh.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: To the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Sorry. I I totally missed your arrival.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Saw We amends the finance. They can come in, propose it as So if that works. Otherwise, they can wait till the house.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I mean, I'm happy to include them if they're drafted and we're willing to have the discussion after

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: we think of the LAO base committee as well. I think I I think I sent them just, by the way, here's the language, here's the rationale from the tax department. If I haven't, I will, but I think, you know

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: But wait, if we have it, I would think we should put it on here. Rather than getting it to tax, the tax is gonna come back and ask this committee.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So I think, David, you had a question, then we just ran through those tax provisions quickly, and then if you sent them to Tucker, we could just include them in the next draft that Tucker's already working on. David?

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: So Senator Chittenden had mentioned something about Section 10, which is regulation by local

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Oh, yes.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: He has an addition.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Yeah. And, I was just curious. We kind of have been dancing with this language for a while, and I'm wondering where what in drafts 2.1, page 12, paragraph d, what we're doing there? What's the intent? Okay. So is this the new draft? This is it. Okay. And what page are you on?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Well Sorry. I I'm sorry. Thought you were trying to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: go somewhere. Thomas. Could you text Thomas and ask him?

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: So this is not the opt in opt out conversation anymore that seems to have worked I into think what it says is no municipality shall prohibit a cannabis operation by ordinance. Is that

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Tucker. Doctor. Anderson, Legislative Counsel. That is actually current state of the law, and it doesn't change under the amendments of Subsection B. What Senator Chittenden had asked for a couple times and the committee consented to was clarification here because the current language in that subsection D is being misconstrued by municipalities. Subsection D in its current form prohibits what's known as effective prohibition, which is adopting an ordinance or a bylaw that completely eliminates the possibility of a cannabis establishment operating in a town that has opted

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Ah, can't zone them out. Right?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Like shelters. They can't zone them out. Exactly what happened Just perilable shelters. Which was the original cannabis regulatory act was being discussed. The concern was that you would have the vendors approve the operation of cannabis establishments, and then the legislative body would essentially overturn that vote by adopting an ordinance or a bylaw to prohibit the operation of the establishments. But what was being confused is that some municipalities interpreted the subsection to essentially say, you can't have any bylaw that would prohibit the operation of an individual cannabis establishment. So you can't have a bylaw that zones out a part of your town Yeah. They opted it. And then displaces a cannabis establishment. Yeah. It wasn't it doesn't reflect the actual structure of the current law. Certainly doesn't reflect the intent. So this clarifies that these are bylaws and ordinances that is completely prohibited. So effectively, you're not in an ordinance to say cannabis establishments shall not operate, but then the town has started to grow.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. We've texted Thomas to come back. We'll go to Thomas's proposal because he has an additional proposal, zygdalin. Right? Are you okay with that? This just means the pound that is opted in cannot zone

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Where's the opted part? In this language,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: if you have the It's already opted in.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: It's in a separate section, which is seven PSA section eight sixty three. Which you refer, should we hear this part? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So did we, we have not yet taken out the opt in or out rate, like, the the vote that the town has to take.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We did take that out yesterday.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Oh. I had proposed we push it to twenty thirty, but that was I don't remember what Thomas said.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We can discuss that again when he comes in. So let's just think no. Because I wanna get Jean up here and not Because

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: the discussion really illuminated that it is not as easy as 50 people get it on their agenda. The select board has a lot of power over saying it does not advance to the voters.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. But I, in my modest experience in Windsor County, have not seen a select work make that decision once a petition.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Oh, I I mean

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I You have. I have. Yeah. Okay. So it's from what I understand, we have Chittenden's proposal. We have opt in and opt out maybe to review again, although I thought we had decided to pull that. Again, it could be a house discussion for further discussion.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Most recently, a lot of this has come up around the conflict with Gaza has come up around Pali Palestinian territory. Yes. There have been many municipalities asked to consider, making a statement on on that question. So I just wouldn't want the conversation to become, oh, life it's it's either easy to get something on a ballot or that we just anticipate that, this will go smoothly in every community because that would essentially be taking a lot of power that the select board has away and they are exercising that power right now. And however people feel about that, that power is important. Right? This is like a valid item versus the Okay. We make these things difficult for a reason and we'll be debating that entirely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. So you're gonna get one more bite of this apple with a date of an an out date of 2030. The LAOB money, so we're gonna have Gene come up and chat in a sec, and the Chittenden, as I recall, those are the three decisions we still need to make.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: The tax provisions, if you would.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So tell me. Yes. And then

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: we could add the tax let's talk about the tax provisions quickly and then we're going

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: to turn to Gene. All right,

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: and this is coming directly from the tax department. So one is allowing cannabis retailers that have a medical use endorsement and are authorized to not collect cannabis excise tax on medical sales to medical patients, they can they have to submit that information to the Department of Taxes. Department of Taxes for the sake of our enforcement actions, which is a separate license, would like to be able to share that information with the CCP. Sometimes when people haven't paid taxes, they have a process, but it's also a category one violation. Which need to be in contact about that. Yeah. Is about them being authorizing them to share certain very narrow set of Taxes, one. One is about out of the door cannabis growers who qualify for current use sales tax exemptions. So you have a section of the law that says that outdoor cultivators who initiate growing outdoors are not gonna be excluded from current use, but are otherwise eligible. And there's no real clarity around what initiate growing beans or in statute what outdoor cultivation means. Like outdoor cultivators that, you know, use lights, have a greenhouse, a year round greenhouse that use lights by more regulation or not have to recall the acres. But we all know the current use is, know, 25 acres or the actual

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. This is a very small area of land anyway, so I can't imagine.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: It's it's it's really what you guys said is your that part of that 25 acres can also be your outdoor cultivation. That that seems logical. But because the way that it's drafted, they're just not sure what initiates growing means versus outdoor. Preparing the ground, putting the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: seeds in and growing it.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: So they have a rationale here that they that I'm happy to send to you or you could have, their policy person come in and explain why this is

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: a thing to them.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: But this is really just they're doing things a certain way. The assumption is they're doing it correctly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Do we have language to clarify Yes. Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Yep. And this is just making sure that the way that they're administering this now is actually what is intended by the legislature. I think it's pretty straightforward. Okay. Good. They don't want to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: speak And what's the third one?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: The third is relating to people that are claiming a cost of goods sold deduction on their on their cost of goods sold deduction on their Vermont tax returns. They're not, Canada's business is not allowed to claim it their federal tax returns. And they're also claiming the household, oh, gotta be here, the property tax credit, and how to calculate what the appropriate Right, I will again send you the rationale and the explanation and the language for all these, and I know that the Department of Taxes will be very willing to come in after I know the time.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We could contact Sarah Mirholt if you wanted and see if they wanted to weigh in on these cannabis I will. Tax provisions before mid before midnight. Before noon. Mhmm. It's Abby Sheppard who Abby Sheppard. Oh, Abby Sheppard. One of our former people that the tax department coach. Punting coach.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Have been assured that these have all been vetted by the administration through their normal legislative process. Yes. And that they're all nonconvergible.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Abby Shepard is the one. And if J b b a b b y, and it's Shepherd with r a r u.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: And that's it. Yeah. This is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So if for the next draft, because I I know I I feel like they're ready to go with the next draft, maybe even if we could have this by noon. I'm just set getting set, you know, getting the energy vibe from that corner. Ready to go. Yeah. Yeah. You're ready to go. I'm fine with putting those tax provisions in if it and then it just felt didn't get ghost to finance anyway. So

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I will send you the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: If there is a policy component to Wagons' tax provisions. Yeah, that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: sounds like there's a huge one. Just sounds like it's clarifying the current use piece and it allows, continues to allow them to claim these things on their Vermont income tax. Is that right?

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I, that's what it sounds like to me, but, Abby may have, I'm happy to send you the, the rationales they provided. Where

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: is, That is my question. Did you text it?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I did. Then Krem, you want me to call him?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. That'd be great. Okay. So if if it's okay with everybody, let's include those three tax provisions. We'll hear more, we hope. And, Pepper, thank you. I think if you don't mind changing places with Gene, we're gonna hear Ed Barnett will be here any minute to go over the the note he's already sent us the fiscal note. But, Jean, welcome. Thank you, Randy. Okay. Oh, good. We had a question, yes, about your ask of 5,600,000.0 for this year because it's in this Jerry Lee budget here, it's a big ask, and we know that in the past, you've sort of gotten 1 to 2,000,000. And so we're just curious how we landed on this and why. Great. Okay. So I mean, I can't quite find it quickly. Got it. Well, thank goodness. I could get there quickly.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Yeah. And But, Jean, I don't wanna miss I don't wanna misrepresent that thing. But, I mean, you I don't know what like, just don't confirm or deny it. You can't on the record. But you had trouble getting the appropriation that we had put in the budget for you. In

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: sorry. Which appropriation? Last year. Last year. Okay. You're saying we had trouble in the sense that we had to work like that. Right? From from

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: the budget office? Like, it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: wasn't Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I'll put

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: flow it in freely to you as Yes, we had

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: got it. Okay, let me give a little bit

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: of background. Yeah, we don't have a lot of time because we have Chittenden's proposal.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I didn't want that to be out in the out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right, no. And so, if you could kind of clarify last year's Absolutely. Talent and this year's

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Yes. And for the record, my name is Jean Hamilton. I am one of the co directors of the Land Access and Opportunity Board. And what I can show you here to start with is our FY '27 budget.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: You make that bigger because

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: out of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: us, we do

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: this. I'm confused Yeah, Yes. By much

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: no, I'm not really well Thomas will show you that.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Slideshow there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Slideshow, got it. Okay.

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Okay, so here is our FY twenty seven budget. This is our, our full operating and program budget is 3.2. I believe the 5.6 that is in this bill, in this appropriation, represents the 25% recommendation from the CCB for what to allocate of the excise tax for social equity investments. So that is what the 5,600,000.0 is. Our budget for FY27 is 3.2. That is what we really need to get this year to continue the successful momentum we have with these programs that are being launched. Within these programs are some grant funds, grant and loan funds. So for example, we are right now putting finishing touches on a beginning developer, sorry, small scale developer fund full of funds that is woven into the administration's Homes For All initiative and our beginning developer training program. This is something we've never even gotten to talk to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: you all about, but we

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: would love to. This is a fund that could absolutely absorb and deploy more than $400,000 in FY twenty seven. Similarly, have in this proposal for FY27 community disaster readiness grants, you may have been seeing circulating, there are community resilience grants. In our first round, we have received a request from 37 community organizations. Those are $50,000 grants. We are very oversubscribed. So that is another place that if you all could see the benefit of allocating that 25% of the social equity money from cannabis to social equity investments, we could absolutely increase and deploy that full 5.6 into housing and community resilience investments. So that's where we are for FY '27. And then let me just show

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: you, sorry, we're gonna have to That helps me big time. Okay, great. Helps. I'm sorry, we're here.

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: So here is the kind of situation on where we have been. Yeah, so clarify last So what happened last year is last year we were, received 1.63 appropriated from the base fund. That was a big year for us. The reason that we came in with that budget proposal last year is because we were carrying forward a balance from the prior year as we have been building and setting up the LEOB. We did not run around and spend money that we were not yet prepared to spend, but we were building programming anticipating that this money would carry forward. In August, the administration paused and told us that that $1,000,000 FY '25 appropriation was now reverted. It was some of the language that we received from them was that maybe the statutory language around the appropriation made it sound as though the $1,000,000 was for board administration and not for programming. And so they wanted to clarify that language, which we did through the Budget Adjustment Act process. So now? Yes. So it has now, I think the PAA passed, right? Update me. And it's passed. Great. So the $1,000,000 has been returned to our budget for FY '26, which is wonderful because we have an FY '26 that spends down about $3,200,000 We are in the process and have just launched many programs. So you'll see, we were the first staff hire way back in January 2020. Can I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: pause you and say there are, you know, there are two co directors who largely then have responsibility for making sure their budget is funded? Yes. And that was a lot of your time and energy to make sure you got the money that we had

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: allocated. Just happened as we were hiring free staff so that we could launch the programs that we have been building with the administration, with community partners, and with literal on the ground community members for the prior eighteen months. These are well vetted programs that a lot of people have bought into. And in August, just as we were hiring staff to launch those programs, our money got put on hold and then we had to do a lot of organizing and conversations with DFM, who was great to work with, and of course, both appropriations committees as we prepared to come in this session and focus on getting that million dollars back through the BAA. So it has taken quite a bit time. Did come out of delay in our launching, but our programs are launching. They're really exciting and I would love to talk with every single one of you about how these programs are showing up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: At Cross River Women's. Great. That would be great. But I think for our understanding Yep. The 25% of the excise tax, which in statute, we had we had put the LA given the LAOB 25% in statute? No. It's just that the CCB recommends?

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: The CCB was founded with a pillar of social equity that was my understanding and intention of establishing the regulated legal marketplace was to reinvest in the social impacts of the prior approach

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Their to recommendation is

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: And then CCB this year specifically did really an excellent job, thank you commissioners, in their report that they submitted to you all that really defines why this is important and how this money is going to be invested in the most strategic places that uplift our communities that are really struggling. Housing, economic opportunity, jobs opportunities. Resilience. This is the number one key to prevention. It's housing stability and economic And I will just

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: say, having been here from bunch of that debate this summer also, we had always talked about getting to the point where we were investing beyond social equity cannabis businesses in repairing the harm done by the criminalization of cannabis. That was, and not forcing everyone to go into cannabis to have to do that. That was the intent throughout. We set money aside for healthcare, but there was discussion every single year about why we were gonna follow through on our commitment to social.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So this is a huge move going forward.

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: As a huge move, Andrew, if I can add one more thing, something that was exciting for me to come into conversation with the CCB is this has been a recommendation they've made every year, these investments should happen. Up until the LAAOT was operational, there was not really an easy way to do that. Like, where would those investments go? But thanks to you all, you created a highly functional board that has engaged the communities that are most impacted by the criminalization of cannabis and are actually doing this hard work researching and developing programs that directly improve and remedy these forms.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Thanks so. I hear you. We're so grateful for your break. Thank you very much. It's terrific. Clement, just two quick points. Jeffrey, and then we're gonna turn to Ted because it's a perfect segue to Ted.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Two quick points.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: One of the most common statements we hear from participants, licensed participants in this adult use market, is they wanna see their hard earned tax dollars to good use, and I think there's nothing more American than that. Secondly, secondly, we feel 25% is more than reasonable. New York state appropriates 40%. So Oh, that's

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: so just wanna say that. It's exciting.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Wow. That is really helpful. So Tucker has left the room. Are we expecting Tucker back? And it's not Pepper. Can you She's

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: a chair.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Ted, you have something you need to scoop juice? Why don't you come up and let's just quickly go through the money? Yep. Because then we're gonna go to Thomas' piece, which I it does it have a money impact? No. I don't. Okay. Ted, let's just go through your piece here. I I I think we've already made the decision to keep the excise tax as it is. Clearly one of the major reasons we just heard, keep that well funded. So would you be kind enough to go through your fiscal note? Sure. But maybe

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: I am alone.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: While he's doing that, can I just say, I, I was going to ask for a second bite of the apple to lower the excise tax by 1% and spell out in the bill a specific cannabis local option tax? As we are discussing communities that are, have not opted in, still being asked to take on a portion of the market with events or those kinds of things. They have long, I mean, most communities have long said, problem is, you know, failure takes all of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: the resources we might have to do this otherwise. I hear you. I just, I'm pretty clear on where the administration is on this. And I really feel that I mean, if if we can make that face in in in finance if they want but at this point in this year, take out, 1% of this at the moment is just, I think, particularly just having heard the need, the good work of the LAOB, I think that I I think local excise local option taxes are always gonna have to be on top of what exists, and that's one of the things local option people voting on those are finding out. I mean, I I really feel that we should be keeping this at at where we are. And if the prevention piece is so important and the LAOB work is important, the things we fund out of this are important. I just anyway and I'm I'm pretty clear that from what I understand, this was very important to the governor to keep the prevention as fully financed as we can. So I am sympathetic, but I I think at this moment, if the if it if that discussion surfaces and finance again, fine. But I think that it's getting anybody else?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: It's a tough year to talk about

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yes. Yes. And we so Ted.

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: Sure. Deb Barnett, director of school office. Hello again. So I the document that y'all have is reflective of draft 1.1, which included the decrease in Canada's XFX percent or 14%. So, you can disregard the first bullet. The second bullet is the main piece wanted to talk with you all today. It there are a lot of changes in the bill that are designed to I understand that increase the potential size of the market. Right? So drawing more people into the market either through event fragments or change the potency caps. I did the control board generously allowed me to chat with their economist, and we both agreed that it would be quite hard to forecast.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: The potency caps are gonna come back to us in an amendment for us to chat about next week. Okay. I I think

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I I think so. I was just thinking in my head, I want Senator Chittenden to work on that with me because I don't want to break something that doesn't have majority support of the committee, but I think we've got the nuance about that.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Just like to add, I think it's optimistic to think that the cannabis market is going to expand because of any of these efforts. I think the dynamics do change, but I don't think the market's going to.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Okay, well we have data year after year from the CCV about where we do lose people to the illicit market, I I don't want to keep rehashing that we have some of this information.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: No. No. We do have this information. Yeah. It's like we're

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: we try not to be optimistic. We try to be accurate, but that's based on good data running.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And the CCB has asked us to do I mean, they have supported this thing, but we're gonna come back to that next week so we don't aren't set on that. And the event permits are now ten and ten, 10 private events, 10 public events.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Delivery permits are now 15.

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: Great. And so, yeah, for the next section, right, you would adjust the mass. Instead of a maximum of $10,000 annually, would be $20,000 annually, the amounts that would go to municipalities and the regulation fund would be doubled. Delivery permits, if those are 15, that's $1,500 annually, and this is for two years. They're still pilots. Correct? Right. Yes. Okay. So is so those are the fee changes. Would also note that the it's the employee permits are still biannual as opposed to annual. It just changes it doesn't change the amount of money. It just changed when it hit the regulation Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: The are two years, and one of our discussion points is the number nine, the product piece.

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: Yep. And, yes, there are two appropriation bill. Well, in the appropriations section, there is a transfer from the general fund to the cannabis cannabis business development fund. I think the most recent transfer was $500,000, and this is one of the miscellaneous bills. I can't remember whether it was last year or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: the year before.

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: And then yeah. So there's an appropriation of $56,000,000 to the LAOB. So, yes, sorry that this document is a little dated compared to what you're considering, but just the the main point is, yes, reflective of general JFO practice, trying to understand behavior change. It's really hard. One of the things I chatted with the economist is when folks are in the illicit market, it's hard to know what's the thing that would bring them into the regulated adult use market. Is it really so are they really constrained on potency? Are they really constrained on price because they're getting it from a friend or some, you know, like, some sort who's doing homegrown? Right? It's it's very hard to know what's that thing that will pull people into the regulated market. So we wouldn't be able to forecast any market size adjustments one way or another.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Thank you, Tucker, I think are there any questions for Ted? Thank you. That's helpful. We appreciate. Thomas, you have a proposal. Tucker, would you like to take the seat?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Then we Set this up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Helping So

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: this is really a minor thing, and this is just a piece that let me do a little more formal introduction. Why I support, section 10 is I was served on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: the So section 10 in the new bill or the older? What is the

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Why okay. This is what I support. Enabling So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: it's section 10 in draft 2.1 or section 10

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Is it the local government time, place, and manner of cannabis retail?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. This is It is

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: section 10 in tooth number. Correct.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I actually have something in front of me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: This is good. You see, this is sometimes useful to have a picture.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: So what I like about this is, I served on the South Burlington City Council for eight years. And during that time, there were advocates that wanted to bring forward the notion to put before the voters they'd opt in. I did not support it at that time. And one of the reasons why I didn't, and I think other counselors shared this opinion, was that we were under the impression, be it right or wrong, that should we opt in, that we would not have as a counsel the ability to choose the kind place and manner where we would want, I'm going to call them, pot stores or dispensaries as he was more appropriately would call in South Burlington. We have elementary schools along major marketing and marketing districts, so we just wanted that capacity. So I don't know if that is a true or false interpretation, but it was an impression that was had in the councils out there. What I understand about this language is it would more explicitly clearly state that municipalities would have the ability to zone for areas where dispensaries and operations could occur. But I fully support this language because I think that would give allay concerns and there might be a dispersion and less congestion and there might be, instead of having 14 pot stores in Burlington and done in South Burlington, maybe it would just spread out where naturally it could have pot stores. A concern was raised with this language, that I was hoping Tucker might be able to illustrate that if this goes forward, it could, mean that a municipality that has already opted in so my intent is all about just making it more reasonable for cities that would could opt in would opt in to be able to choose where possible czar. This might have a unintended bad consequence of a city like Burlington or that has already opted in where a city could then zone out of existence where a pot store or a dispensary is operating and that can be problematic for a variety of reasons because they already have guests there. So I was caught by Chair Pepper, maybe you can speak to this, that it would be useful or important to have some kind of caveat to grandfather in existing dispensaries, retail establishment, or otherwise, so that it's clear that if a municipality has opted in and has a pots for there, this would not allow a municipality to forcefully give up their investments in time and physical spaces.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. And we discussed such thing while you were out of Rome, that that this, that means that a town couldn't zone them out of existence. It in an opt in town, you couldn't zone out.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Would defer to Chuck or whatever they think, but I just want one So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: does this language reflect that?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Good morning, Greg Anderson, Legislative Counsel. I think it would be helpful if we took this in little chunks and then built up to the possibility of a grandfathering clause in the subsection. So, to start, what the scope of local authority in the section deals with, once you've gotten to the optic, is conditions on the issuance of an individual license for a cannabis establishment. Now, municipalities do have by law authority related to zoning for operations of businesses, including cannabis establishments within their municipality. Staff is permanently available to assist throughout the community. What these subsections deal with is the ability of the municipality to condition the conditions of the license noncompliance with those bylaws, and under current law, ordinances that regulate signs or public nuisances, who's very limited under 02/1991. Those are the two avenues of regulatory authority, either the entire universe of bylaws under 24 BSA4414, or those two specific types of ordinances. If a cannabis establishment does not comply with those bodies of law in an opt in municipality, when they go for renewal, their license can be suspended or revoked by the cannabis mutual order, not the municipality. Just to put that out. With the amendments in front of you, there's an expansion of the conditions that can be placed by the municipality. The expansion isn't in the bylaw authority, because it was already the entirety of that section. The expansion is in the ordinance It allows any ordinance that a municipality has adopted under '20 four BSA 2291, or under an individual charter authority for a municipality to be applied as a condition of electric license. So, with that potential expansion, the question has come up as to whether that should be applied to all cannabis establishments who are coming up for renewal in a given year, or whether existing licensees should be grandfathered and exempted from those conditions, and that it would only be for new licenses issued from the date of an ad afterwards. I can give you one example. So can

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I just, does that mean something in an established business couldn't be moved if they changed the ordinance? Or if they changed the zone?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: That means that for those cannabis establishments that exist right now as we sit in this room, when they come up for renewal Right. If this were to pass, they would not be required to comply with any conditions, except for those that exist currently, which would be ordinances, regulating signs, or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: public nuisances. Which existed when they

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: were audited. Correct. And that for any new licenses that CCB is going to grant with any municipality, municipality could, or those new licenses, apply these new conditions. And 2291 doesn't come up often in this community, does come up pretty often in Senate government operations. It does. You know, is a fairly, slightly enumerated list of powers. It does cover things like public consumption. Specifically alcoholic beverages, but I can note there are quite a few. There's 43 individual pieces of inventory in that section. It could be applied to a license. I can give you one example that I know of, of language that did something similar for a particular area of regulation, and deals with preemption and preservation of certain types of operations, and that is shooting ranges.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Shooting Shooting ranges, this was a big, oh, this was a big All municipal

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: corporations in the state are preempted from regulating firearms, heat pumps, firearms, or certain things related to shooting. The preservation of existing shooting wreckages, and the fact that they don't have to comply with certain types of municipal bylaws, municipal regulation, the way that the General Assembly achieved that is that they added a clause stating that existing shooting ranges would be exempt. The court interpreted that to be all shooting ranges that had been established in fact by the date of enactment, which is something that you could do here. You probably have a separate subsection that's broken out, essentially saying that all existing licensees are exempted from these regulatory conditions, and that would get it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Sapphire proposing.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: I I unless the lawyer says that that's a bad way to go, that seems fine to me, and I welcome Chair Pepper to China. That's the best thoughts.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I don't deal with the goods and bads.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: To your to Senator Chittenden's point, we have been asked by the league and towns over and over again what their authority is here. People with zoning administrators, like in South Burlington, that have been there for seventeen years, don't understand where their authority ends, starts on some of these issues. So anything to clarify that and make the relationship between cannabis businesses in the towns more harmonious to me is a good thing, especially with related to retail density and the kind of, you know, the lag, the lack of clarity here, I think, leads to contributing factors, the fact that there are, that we have these areas of concern. So, I agree. This is a policy decision. How much local control are you giving to selectors over cannabis establishments? Purely policy decision, but I know it's a sticking point. We don't know how to advise the towns. The league sometimes hasn't given them clear advice. No offense to them. It's an unclear section of law. So to my intent, and I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: think it's captured here, is for towns that operate, k, that give that community as much control over the time, place, and manner of those establishments as possible.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: But they can't zone them out?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Yeah. Well, I would say new ones, they can zone out areas, but I I just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: don't want Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: That's my intent. Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And does that language that you just suggested, Tucker, support that intent?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So the language that is already in subdivision d one clarifies that, which was already a part of the underlying law. Right. And if you wanted to add a grandfathering provision for the part of this section of the bill that expands the conditions that could be placed on a permit, I can absolutely.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: But Chair Pepper's point, I certainly won't with that.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Clarity.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Chair, can I ask you? Absolutely. Jeffrey, when you're behind me, you gotta do exactly that. Go for it.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: I'm wondering, we would have concerns about this proposal if it would if it was not limited to retailers. So we're thinking, like, growers and producers have the ability to operate at their home. Just wanna make sure that they're not included to this new proposal.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Retailers can be sometimes growers, so if we just do retailers, that would still allow them to keep growing.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: And I see the word cannabis establishments, and I know that that's a broad term, so that's why I was asking.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: But that's existing often, so I thought it's, if you want a further carve out in the grandfathering, which is the operating provision you're discussing adding, you can certainly draft it that way.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Okay. I don't know if people linked it somewhere else from after a conversation yesterday, I remember. But we were trying to make sure that we didn't harm indoor cultivation. No,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I thought it was about making sure in opt in towns that we don't zone the opportunity to have if retail or

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: a town could say you are, this is a residential area, and you now can grow plants inside your own home.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Sophie, can you go back up to me for one moment? Okay. We took the bites. We're still chewing. Scroll down just a little bit. This is the biggest substantive change that you're looking at, and it is the, in the current language, the only substantive change that you're looking Right now, by law requirements apply universally as conditions on the issuance of permits for any type of cannabis exemption. That is the current status of the law. What is being changed here is that the application of ordinances as conditions on the issuance of the local permit are restricted to only two types of ordinances, regulating signs or regulating public uses. And there's even a carve out in public nuisance one for outdoor cultivators. If this is not reflective of the policy choices that you wanna make, if you wanna keep the restriction on local conditions to adjust to those ordinances, regulating signs are public nuisances, you can get rid of that strike all, strike through in those terms, keep the current status of the law, clarify the language in Subdivision D1, and the grandfathering provision is not necessary. Because previous names still be qualified. Yep. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Great. So to the concern raised by Chair Pember, then that world Burlington could then instead say, you know, Pine Street, we don't want pod stores here, all pod stores have to close. They wouldn't be able to do that. Now,

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: getting into specific yes or no's on that is a more complicated legal analysis, because again, there are constitutional protections around things like spot zoning or totally prohibited zoning where you effectively prohibit Right, and that's what I thought. I didn't get at. That is covered in D1.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right, that's what I thought.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Is a big or break, it just seems like good policy. That's what I'm trying

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: to think of, Doctor. Herrera.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Can we hear from Pepper? Because I I mean, this was in my mind a big discussion that I've lost track of now of making sure that in the future, you can't you can't zone out private cultivation indoors. Yeah, I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: don't remember that person. I didn't think we could.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: That's the existing current law, but it's about the effect of totally prohibiting the establishments, operation of cannabis establishments within the society. It would be helpful if I can follow-up with an explanation of the current status of this section of law.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Are you just saying we wouldn't harm indoor cultivators with this language?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: If we take the strike out.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: What what I'm indicating is that there's only one change in current to current law, and that is the striking of those terms in subsection B. That'd be ND1. That's the change. So, you're eliminating, there is a limitation the types that of can be tied as conditions for the issuance of the local permit. There's currently a limitation. You are eliminating that limitation, and you are saying that a municipality, when they're issuing the local permit, can apply a condition for compliance with any ordinance that the municipality has adopted. So this would But if you get rid of that strike, and you just maintain the current status of the law with respect to both ordinances and zoning bylaws, and So this is less restrictive, or is this more

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: restrictive? Okay. But we On who? Right. In fact, I think still says except that ordinances may not regulate public nuisances as applied to outdoor cultivators.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: This is less restrictive on the municipalities, so it could then be more restrictive should they so choose.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: If you that's an excellent way Yeah. So to preserve the protect the indoor cultivators would be to add them there as well.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I know that was an alternative to something else we were talking about.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: And that that's exactly our concern. I mean Yeah. A case the use case here would be we have a local talented legacy producer who wants to pay taxes. They wanna engage the agency and get licensed, and then they go to seek that license, and the town is telling them through this expanded authority that they can't operate out of their own. Right. When the state has determined that that's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And we have seen fights about homegrown.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. So we're homegrown pervading. So couldn't we just simply add or indoor? You could.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: And we would add manufacturing to that. The whole occupancy exemption is really a moment of progress for the state when it comes to the state

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: the state. Right. So we wanna protect that, if that makes sense. We've allowed that for almost over a decade. Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: I think this is worth continuing the conversation into the house. So if there's language that's somewhere in the ballpark of that to move this forward, I I support

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: But you you don't you were because in this section, I think we were still trying to achieve municipal regulation and oversight of retail. Excuse me. That's their that's most municipalities' major concern. Like agriculture, indoor cultivation and manufacturing just bothers people, you know? But, I mean, like, that shouldn't be a reason that an entire residential area can now no longer include indoor cultivation or manufacturing.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Sure. So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: we're on the same page that we are narrowly trying to impact time, place, and manner of recount.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Public facing promoted posters. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: this language does not achieve that as written.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: But I believe that I have sufficient instruction to be able to give you what you are seeking. Thank you. Okay. So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And it's not tomorrow.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Well, we're getting housing out tomorrow. David? Just one

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: quick question. And that was in the grandfathering of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: current businesses who are operating otherwise. So we're wanting to add that language, the grandfathering of current businesses.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Think he had an answer. We don't need to do that, but I agree

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: that That was my understanding.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Can't do grandfathered in and not be able

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: to be shut down this. Tucker, can you reiterate

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: that it we taking un unstriking this language?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. If the intent of the committee is to maintain the current structure and not alter it, my understanding of what the committee is trying to prevent is an expansion of municipal authority that is applied to current That is what? Applied to current places. Okay. If you eliminate that strike through, municipal authority stays exactly the same, with some added clarity, and you don't need to grandfather current Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So we keep D1 as

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: it is. However, I am also hearing that there is, You want to make the policy choice of adding the indoor cultivators to the exception from the application of public nuisance ordinances as a condition of their license. If there's something that's not currently in the law, they would be subject to those conditions. And I can certainly add that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I hear what you're saying, that that is not the exact policy choice we are trying to make, which is if there is an indoor cultivator who is actual I mean, but this is where we had a problem with outdoor cultivators. Instead of narrowly achieving some kind of reduction in nuisance for outdoor cannabis cultivation, we lost the right to farm in your backyard. I mean, this was like, we have serious unintended consequences when we touch cultivation and manufacturing. And that was a huge, I think, unintended consequence of us trying to do buffers, etcetera, etcetera. We should take some responsibility for, like, we forced a Supreme Court case in a way that had huge consequences for cultivation of any plant or product in someone's home. So that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't want to have huge unintended consequences in any direction. I think our intent was to try to narrowly ensure that we maintain the status quo for existing retailers and we allow municipalities to have more control over retail siding without zoning it out

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: of existence. Right. Without zoning it

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: out of existence. But we do not want to impact existing municipal authority over nuisances or, you know, give them further reach to to zone out the existence of cultivation and manufacturing.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: I agree with you, Justin.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. But that takes us back to this thing about what we have and just try just It sounds

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: like lawyers now. Like, don't know.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Make or break for you. We wanna just it is too complicated. I just I think No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: No. I you've got I think you've got what you need at the moment. You've got it. But we've some other things. But we've locked them out. So the question is then, Tucker, do we I guess, I'm, which I fully understand. Do we add or indoor cultivation?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Or manufacturing. Or manufacturing. Are we But then we're then we're taking a municipality's ability away to regulate what they feel might be a public nuisance related to those activities. That is correct. So that's the problem.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Now, to be clear, you're not taking away their ability to regulate or abate the nuisance. You're taking away the municipality's ability to condition compliance with that ordinance, that public nuisance ordinance. So, they can still apply a fine. They can still go to, if there is a sufficiently public nuisance that meets the constitutional standard and municipalities adopting ordinance under 02/1991,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: subject

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: to age 13, they can still evade public nuisance. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So they can't preemptively say, this is

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: the nuisance. Say, do not renew their license. Right. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So so they're they can't preemptively say, these activities are a nuisance. They can fine them for what is determined to be a nuisance. But does it open the door for more people to complain that it's a nuisance?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: There are because that's exactly

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: what she does with the doctor's treatment. Well, again, that's

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: the current state of the law. So if you're trying to carve out the indoor pulpitos and manufacturers from the possibility that their license could be contingent on complying public basis ordinances, and you would add indoor pulpivators to the manufacturers to the case of treatment. Municipalities are still fully capable of adopting ordinances, imposing fines, abating nuisances, adopting bylaws. It's just about whether a license can be suspended or revoked by the Cannabis Control Board based on any municipality saying, hey, this licensee is not complying with our local work system. Bylaws, we could set definitively Thanks, though. The law, the entirety of section 4,414 Mhmm. Wise, municipality say, Hey, they're not complying with the guidelines we've adopted under this section. Hold their license up until get into compliance. They can do that with their zoning right now. Yeah. And they can do the same with public nuisances and signs.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I mean, so I don't wanna lose track of this because

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So and we need to make a decision on this because we have to make our decisions on this bill because we have old housing and I mean, it's cannabis to all.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Outdoor cultivation right now is severely hampered by local government that doesn't want them there or neighbor complaints. Like, I have seen this in our district. We have had this conversation, not just about a clustered area, but an area zoned for farming where we're very clear that anywhere that allows for agriculture should be also allowing for cannabis. And that upended all of agriculture law for us to try and resolve that matter. I am concerned right now that even as it stands, we have we have incoherence that relies on neighbor complaints and someone doesn't like the smell of something to drive outdoor cultivation out of certain communities and that that could now apply to indoor cultivation and manufacturing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: We don't want that. I don't I don't want that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I mean, we try to be very narrow in our thing about the buffers to avoid

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Right. That. So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: So I need a lot of lawyers to, like, tell me what will happen.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I think our Tucker and Pepper's clear on what we're hoping to accomplish.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I believe so.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Because And so could we come up with language that satisfies this without our are we okay understanding where you want us where we wanna go on this at the moment? I feel okay. Okay.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: I I feel okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: I got Great. So then we have two and I just I'm gonna ask you your indulgence in just, like, five, four minutes. We have the tax provision for adding. Tucker getting those. We will we opt in, opt out is the only last discussion point for our next draft and because I'm really gonna wanna hope we can vote on the next draft. So the opt in, opt out discussion, I thought we had settled on it coming out, but Kesha also proposed that we give towns until 2030 to make this decision.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: And I just assumed that whoever comes back next year that decide to

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: put it on 2028

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: or 2030. Don't know if we need that this time in 2026. We're gonna park her out four years from now.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. Because we're we're really what understanding is you wanted to call the question.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: Right. On that As town's making The policy effect of that is giving them four years to think about it instead of just saying, like, in 2028, I might advocate for 2032 because it's saying you don't just have one or two years to contemplate having an orderly conversation about this. You have four years.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And Yeah. But then they'll lose sight of it, I think.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: The other point I made was I I would just go off to take this up because this seems to be in their daily break, and I don't know what the implications are. It be worse.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: There'll be many. What was the thing? What's what's the end of this? The apparent

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: mean, so we we never took significant testimony, but we heard there were towns that have said, okay, maybe 50 or a 100 of you got together and said we want the ballot item, but we still say no.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Jeffrey, you wanna weigh in on this?

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: Yes. So the reason why the that you retail option reform is important for the industry, is because there's very much a structural bottleneck. There's too much product being made. It's not reaching the consumer. It is not reaching the consumer. And what I mean by that is there's about what we estimate, we've only captured about maybe 40% of the customer base in the state. And that means that we're allowing the the illicit market to outcompete us. This is a mechanism to not just onboard more tax revenue, but also get at the intent of the original statute, which is to allow for small producers to effectively

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: This cannot be overstated. I want to remind people this is the language for alcohol from the sixties. They like, when you have a patchwork of access and laws, you push people to get on the roads and make less positive decisions than accessing something local.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: To your point, the 1932, we repealed the constitutional amendment banning alcohol and then the sixties. So that's like a thirty year time.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I have tried to say every day to everyone, let's please leap over the hundred years of prohibition that has led us to continue to do alcohol every year and upkeep

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: And I've got it for that.

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: What's compounding this issue is and I I don't wanna impugn the agency at all, there is a there is a pause on retail licenses and that we're going on for maybe two years now. Don't quote me on that. Right. And that that is that is compounding this issue for producers and also customers. Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And where a significant portion of a town has said, we want this to come to a vote, and there are five, three, eight people who can say no. They won't be on the ballot.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: Maybe elected officials in town.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yes. Because when

[Jean Hamilton, Co-Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: the Yeah. And and we stopped

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: We stopped allowing them to do that for alcohol some point.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: What was mister public health. One the other day, or yesterday, whenever the hell it was, was that even with the petition, which we agree is not onerous, even with the petition, there is no requirement for a select board to then put it on the ballot. That's right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: To to that point, do do you see a way that's something I would support is making it easier for petitions to force this on the ballot. Is is that something that's doable?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. That is doable. That I could That is doable, but that's a go ops issue. There you go. Just in general.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: I would support making it so that a certain percentage of the voter

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: I think it force Well, but I think if you said it was a go a go ops issue, you'd be opening up the the conversation about all ballot items. I think what we're saying well, because California

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: is That's what I would think.

[Sen. David Weeks, Clerk]: I don't like having people there.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Is because this is an issue

[Ed Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office (Fiscal Analyst)]: that goes well

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: beyond cannabis. I don't wanna do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: it all about that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: And right. Anyone who's been on gov ops has had this debate. I've been on GovOps.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I've seen it.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Lord, let me come back. I might ask to be on the GovOps in the afternoon, so I'd love to dig into it then. But for now, I feel like I would love for your committee to go

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: The box is a great I I would only want this very narrow opportunity for this one issue because we have not all other ballot issues have an opt in opt out provision in law. So I I think this is a special case. And if we could do that, then then it would go. It might go to come up or it might not, depending on how the chair feels about whether he'd like to have a fly by on it. My guess is our chair would probably not have a fly by on this, but I'm just chatting with him because he sits next to me. For many years, he sat next to me.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: If you're relining that language, I would just advocate for a contours where it's a percentage of the registered voters rather than a flat 50. Because that 50 means different things. If

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: there isn't a flat

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: 50, it's a percentage of

[Jeffrey (last name unknown), Rutland Road Association]: the population. 5%. Yeah. Registered voters. Yeah. 5%. Of registered voters. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Current law is 5% of registered voters. Tucker, we could draft language. I would be happy to to do that because if that's the bottleneck, that's the real bottleneck is that select warrants. If a proper petition has been filed, then the vote should be called. Are people okay with that? Okay. Great. So ladies and gentlemen, we will have a new draft with the proposals and the work that's been done. Thank you all for sticking with this. It's a I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: just don't you know how sometimes our protap will be like, you didn't mention it on time, so it's over. I wanna make sure the co ops piece people understand what I'm trying to achieve there, and that's in the next bill.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I can certainly draft that to the committee, and to explain how that would be drafted. That's okay. Advance? Yes. Currently, there is a cooperative corporation structure under which certain types of agricultural corporations can join and organize, register with the Secretary of State's office. This will allow cannabis cultivators to form a cooperative corporation. So it would either be in order to not chafe against any federal agricultural constraints, it would either be creating a new section in Title VII that replicates the cooperative corporation structure and allows cannabis cultivators to form those corporations, or it would just be a one line section in Title VII separate from the current structure that says, yes, cannabis cultivators can organize under that title Thanks

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: for raising this. From what I understand of this, I fully support this. I think it will help these small growers start to share full resources and might also start to defrag industry. I don't think it will expand use of marijuana. So if this if there's capacity to to take this on, I have constituent that's made a really strong base that this would just help a small guy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Okay. Small ladies. Small ladies.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: Small

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: small people. Small people. Only small people. That's what co ops do. I think it would be

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: pre collective power of the community.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Member]: We could give the house some more stuff to work on.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So let's for the next draft, if if it's a simple one liner, let's add it. I know that this is a big that would I know that that's a big call for cultivators. Let's take what we have. I think we've addressed all the phony issues. We've taken out things that were tough for people. We have a couple of things that may be amendments. But and the federal piece, how we respond with the regional compact, that's one of them. If there's federal action and the other is possibly potency, although we're not gonna go spending a lot of effort on potency if it can't get out of this committee. So, those are amendments. Those are for would be for next week. Right now, I think you've got everything you need for a new draft. Right? Yes. And the question is, what is your life like? What is my life like? What's your life like for draft? Yesterday was. And no. The question is realistically quite

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yesterday, someone invited me to an fifteen meeting, and I said I'll be there in ten minutes. And then another person reminded me that they were talking about 08:15 in the morning. So how is my life right now? It's a little

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Yeah. Yeah. A little varied. So you're in demand is the whole point of my comments. You're in a high demand as we get towards. It's for tomorrow morning. It will absolutely ready tomorrow morning. So why don't we okay. This is my proposal that we start with cannabis, maybe not at 08:15, but at 08:30.

[James Pepper, Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board]: Is that called the awakened things? Sorry. Sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: Sorry. There isn't cannabis yet that's the equivalent of rental. In fact, it

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Member]: has the opposite effect of rental, I think.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Chair]: So the question is, at 08:30, would you be able to have a new draft for us by 08:30? Yes. Thank you. Will do cannabis at 08:30, and then we will vote on that, and then we will move to housing, and we will vote on that. It's by twenty the five four, we will come back during lunch. So What? People hear me. If we don't finish on housing, we will come back during lunch to finish outshakes. Okay? Inspection. Because we're getting everything out of here. We're It's a temporary home here, and we're moving it out. Thank you. We're going offline. Good work, everybody.