Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Heard her on Vermont Public this morning talking about manufactured housing. Did you hear her this morning on Yes.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Anyway, she

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: was there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thanks for being right. Good morning, everybody. Welcome back to Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs. We've had an incredibly productive week, and we are gonna end it productively, I hope, as well. We have two bills that we are hoping that we will be getting out hopefully by 11:30 this morning. We are gonna begin with the cannabis bills and look at the revisions that were made overnight by our astonishing and tireless legislative council and executive director of the CCB or I don't know what my parents' proper title is, but, anyway, whatever pepper is. What is your title? Chair. Chair. Chair. Chair of the CCB. They've worked really hard along with a lot of the stakeholders to get us to a point, hopefully, where she can get yes on this bill because this is this is an important economic sector to Vermont and one we both want to protect and enable so that it in the near future and as we look at federal descheduling. So that is certainly the intent behind a lot of our emergency. Tucker, if you'd be kind enough to go through. Kiera has kindly passed out a draft, a new draft. Tucker, if you'd be kind enough to go through what we've agreed to thus far and what the changes are that you have with you. Absolutely.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So good morning to our Anderson Legislative Counsel. You should have in Part D Drive 3.1 of the committee strike all items as two seventy eight. Yeah. Right. So, from that document, and per the Chair's request, I'll go through the sections to indicate the current agreements and achievements that were made from draft 2.1. So, section one increases the packaging.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Are we gonna pull these sections out? Is that what we're doing already? Yes. We're good with that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think we need to I my understanding is we are good with everything that's still in here. Gotcha. Is that your understanding, counselor? Yes. We are nodding, so I assume that's the answer. And my understanding is that we're fine with everything that's in it so far. There are still things for discussion, but that mostly we are okay with where we are. Is that your understanding?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that our understanding? Well well, let's I think so, but let's go

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: through Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, absolutely. That's what we're doing.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Sections two, three, and four all deal with increasing the transaction limits and the associated possession limits. Right. And within that, there was a question that came up from a member of the committee just asking me to confirm that the five to ten gram increase in sections three and four are for the possession of hashish. They do not relate to the edibles content. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: There is no dealing with edibles in this bill, which will make my friend from South Carolina's a mess.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Section I do represent another community.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I should probably always We're

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: on page three. Moving on to page four, section five contains the event permits, and there is a, there are a couple changes in here. Based on the committee's discussion yesterday, the first I'll point you to is in subsection C, which covers permit restrictions. Yeah. It's on page five, vary per sentence. Annually, the board shall issue not more than 10 permits for public events and 10 permits for private events. I did chat with a grammar expert in drafting operations last night, very late to Unit, and asked whether a fronted adverbial is in fact a temporal limitation, answer So was that is 20 permits issued per year, 10 public, 10 private limits. So instead, the language will read 20 permits? It reads exactly how it is the draft subsection C and F highlighted sentence. Annually, the Board shall issue not awards content permits with Okay. Public

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Perfect. Thanks.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Further on, this is Remember, this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is a pilot. Pilot, everybody.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: May I ask this? Yeah. So those permits issued, but they're the year might overlap. So it doesn't really matter. They they they issue the permit this year, but the event might be the twelfth year because there's gonna be a plan for this survey. It's about the permit issuance date, not the event itself. So there could be 30 events once you're because the permits are It is. Alright.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: No. The oral limit is attached to the board's issuance. Right.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Actually, regarding wedding permit, if I'm reading this correctly, you can get a wedding permit in which at that wedding event, cannabis is provided, or you could have, presumably, I don't know what's called a permitted section,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: you can't go serve alcohol at that event. Is that right? That is correct. That's a restriction in the restrictions section. So someone who wants a wedding,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: and the wedding is a large enough event that it has cannabis users and it has alcohol users, you've got to make a choice as to which one of your relatives you allow to attend your wedding.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's the choice, I think, of the people who are giving it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Or you have to establish different premises for the two different licenses. So the restriction in that sentence, and I'll direct everyone to where that's located in subsection c. Good. Third sentence on line 15, an event permit shall not be issued for a location at which alcoholic beverages are sold or furnished for non premises consumption. So, you'd have to have two separate locations at the venue, so three two separate places. But conceivably, you could have two separate locations, but we're not that far apart. Sure.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Right. I mean, it's sort Without transit, presumably between the two, I'll get a drink here, then I'll smoke spot, and then I'll get back to the tree.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's one of the issues that the cannabis control board is gonna have to look at as they issue these permits. I mean, that It

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: seems very common, it seems also that the popularity of this is applied in terms of having such an event if it's

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: a family in that way. Well, in both the consensus here, there's a requirement for licensing education, which is something that we discuss in the context of the alcoholic beverages regulations, that if you could have an individual who is consuming multiple different substances and licensing education requires them prior to selling whatever the underlying substances, alcohol beverages, and so that's the seller about which whether that's Then

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that would be the caterer. I mean, in a wedding situation, that would

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: be a caterer. And assuming there's an alcoholic beverage license involved as well, that licensee also has an obligation to evaluate whether it's appropriate to furnish alcoholic beverages.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's it's an issue that has to

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: be worked out for me, and and that's current law. Right?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I mean, they can't do that. So I think that that is something that every person who's wanting to give a wedding that includes this would have to address and would have to address what the board and the board will have

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: to figure that out. I can't and don't want to speak for the Department of Liquor and Lottery, but I recall that the new licensee education that was developed maybe five years ago includes training on evaluating whether a customer is under the influence of other substances besides other Right. That's the part of the journey. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Good good question, Randy. One that the the bride and the groom are gonna have to take on board and discuss with the CCB. Okay. Next peep let's keep moving.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Next highlighted portion in

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: subsection. First of

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: all, are we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: okay with these changes? Can we say yes to these changes? Because I think they reflect our conversation.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So the second sentence, the second change to highlight for you with the restrictions, this is based on discussion that happened yesterday. The cannabis retailer that holds an event for men shall not conduct sales at his licensed retail location and the permitted event of brewing this labor. So he can't operate the licenses and permit for sales at the exact same time.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. I think that reflects what we talked about.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just for clarity, is there a sales event going on, potentially going on at the permitted The permitted event side of it?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: At a public event. Yes. So yeah. Because if it's a farmer's market, they'll be selling for some places.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. This is the dual location problem.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm fine with it, but I think it was Senator Ron that raised it. I'm not sure that this addresses her concern. So in Essex, there's a store that has they do these things out in the parking lot. So if that store wanted to host an event in the Essex Outlet Center, they could sell in the store while it event is outside.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Because it's co located. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: And then

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I think.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It's good. This makes sense. But they can't sell in the storefront. But right up front, they've got a big event.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Does it make sense, or is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that the letter of the law? Wait. Let's let Tucker answer because I thought we then if it was if it was co located that you could do that, that you could keep all the events. Sure. Am I wrong? Sales.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I I am ambivalent to this. I just don't know if this is addressing the concern she raised. So

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the prohibition is from selling at the licensed retail location and the permitted event at the same time. So if the licensed location Yep. Retail location includes that outdoor portion.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm glad they own or it's

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: They have the one. So it's this big outlet center. They do testicles out of the parking lot, like literally right in front of their store, but it's a bunch of submerged

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Is that the permitted location as far as their original license, their underlying license,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: if it is, it's what I would defer on any questions about the current practice under the licenses that exist right now without the memberment to the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, have Julie too. We have two thirds of the cannabis can go forward. It's good to have you both. Pepper, would you, or Julie, would you like to answer that and what we might add to make that colocation if there, what would you or would that be considered in

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: the permit issuance? For the record, James Petford, Chairman of Kansas Control Board, and this is trying to address the issue that you have an anti franchising law which says that a retailer can't operate in two locations simultaneously. This is just trying to honor the spirit of that law. A retailer theoretically could get a special event permit to have inside their store, and then this kind of becomes smooth. But if they want to move outside of the store at all, they have to close the store down while that event while sales are happening elsewhere.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Sparky.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Doesn't make sense to me that that would practically how it would have to be, but if this makes the franchising more happy and change the pepper happy, then I'm good with it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not sure it makes them happy, but it it's yeah.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: This was the this was the issue that's in a row in sale.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It is. And I thought, is it is there no, colocation of being adjacent property that we could consider? Could we build that into your ability to make that I mean, you could make that decision now, couldn't you, if it was colocated?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: This is a pretty broad grant of authority. Right. So we could say if it's adjacent property that it just reasonably makes sense to leave historical property. Could we add that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: somewhere that made any sense?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Any good law that doesn't make sense. Something

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. Don't be so cynical, senator Brock. Very unusual. Many of our laws make sense to some. To some extent. To some extent. Well, we hope a lot because otherwise we're wasting our time. It's

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: still is, but I don't have a major concern with this. This is what we need to do to

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think thank you for thank you for pointing it out. Think This is the time to catch it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: A language fix would need to add an exception clause at the end, stating that, except for sales conducted at a permitted event location that is continuous

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: with a licensed retail location. Thank you. That would, I mean, does that language work for you?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It's fine. I mean, we've had to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: deal It's broad enough for you to be able to make Yeah, right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Jeffrey, you have your hand up. Welcome.

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Chair. I wish I could be there with everybody. Can you hear me okay? Yes. We're you're fine. Terrific. Just two brief comments on this section. Tucker, thank you for your work and everybody involved, and I just wanna say I appreciate the energy that this committee is putting behind February. Two items briefly. The fee is a little high. We had asked that it keep to the fee for that was in the first version of the bill, recall version one point o. This was $500, thousand dollars exceeds the price of a license for some small cultivators. So we would ask you consider that. And then lastly, if if it's possible to have some sort of safeguard or mechanism that prevents this event permit, which can be successful just from you know, we we wanna have some parity there. So cult we understand producers are eligible to pull the permit, but we would wanna avoid, like, just wholesalers or retailers only getting access if there's some sort of mechanism to ensure that Careful. Exactly. So I'll stop there. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's fair to ask because we don't want just 10 retailers asking to have stuff out in their parking lot. This was really was initially designed to be for our craft, to grower, our craft cannabis industry to have farmers markets or markets where they could have several craft growers selling their work, their their product together. So Pepper or Tucker, do we have language that might ensure, that we have parity between retailers and growers? Is that is that the right term, growers? I know there's manufacturers and producers, but pairing with Goleman of those three options, retailers, growers, growers, I think. Somebody help me. There are three options What what are we asking for?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Two immediate solutions that come to mind. First is building out in the restriction section a restriction on the, number of permits that the board can issue to a particular license category. So you all would have to make policy choice. I could draft a limitation right there. The other option is that the permitting selection process is a discretionary part of the procedures that the board is directed to adopt. So you could add to the procedure section a requirement that the board Balance. Balance.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That might make the most sense. Let's just do that and let the board, balance between retailers and growers, manufacturers, and producers. David?

[David Silberman (cannabis advocate/attorney)]: I just want to mention one licensed category that does not often get mentioned, but does exist. There are businesses that are wholesalers, and they should also be able to participate in this process to apply for an event permit.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So balance between what are between retailers, growers, producers, manufacturers, and wholesalers?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yes. I'll make sure. Yeah. There's yes, yeah, I mean you don't need the labs, but labs probably don't need to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: get Yeah, no, the I'm

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: not interested in labs having. So just cultivators, manufacturers, wholesalers, retail.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, great. Thank you, Tucker. Balance, and that's in the procedures section, Add balance. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you, Jeffrey. On Jeffrey's second point, the thousand dollars, this was set by this was originally the draft payment application in our in our working group over I mean, I don't know where that thousand dollars came from. Thomas, you had a thought.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: In the interest of time, can we just pop that to senate finance, and we'll talk about it then? Good. Fine. Very cool.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Because it needs taking your time on reviewing all these permits. I mean, I'm happy to take it to 500, so if you could let's flag it for finance. Is that okay? Team? Weeks?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yes. If you wanna put a

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: 500 too, I'm here to ask. Let's drop it and then still think of.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. You could drop it and then have the discussion. Why don't we drop it and have the discussion? Look at 500 and then we can come back. We don't wanna make it prohibitively expensive. We wanna we're we're getting a pilot, so we're wanting

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: more license. What? A one time event compared to a license. Yes. I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think that has to be fair. Agreed. Thank you. Jeffrey, thank you. Okay. If we're okay with that, let's go with 500. So that's three changes here so far. The 500 balance and the The The new language about except for right. For the wedding.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I highlighted for you there were no substantive changes here, but I reorganized the attuning clause subsection at And make it a little more clear because it's for some reason, I have isolated associated forms on its own. Made no sense. So I believe that also highlighted it because there were questions from the CCP about the breadth and scope of this authority, and for these procedures, this isn't including clause, but it's not limited. These are things that you all are calling out as things that are incorporated within the discretion that the CCP has, and it includes broadly security requirements and and then site restrictions. Were the two things that the committee decided to call out and expressively, but it's not exhaustive. Thanks. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Are we okay with events as edited? Okay? We can okay. Great.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's move to delivery permits. Under the delivery permits, we're on page seven. This has been updated to allow the board to grant delivery permits to tier one perimeters and tier one mani baggers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And just remind us again, for people who don't live in this world, tier one are small craft growers.

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There is a specific statutory definition. Yeah, no, that's pepper.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Yes, they are.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's what we get We're to not, yeah, retailers have so much, yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Are these cultivators manufacturers delivering straight to consumer? No. Is this delivery permit gonna be allowing them to sell directly to consumers? Yes. From their licensed location directly to consumers.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So they have to deliver the.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So this is direct to sales? Direct sales? Manufacturers? Yes. We don't have that now?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Correct. Is it if I let just see how it works.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Pepper and Julie, comments on this? I know. This is a hard this is a hard section for you because it it's a it's a big step in a direction we haven't gone. And and so I you talked eloquently yesterday about it. What are your No. I mean As redrafted, are you okay with trying this as a pilot?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Right. Yes. I just I what I wanted to just, you know, make clear yesterday and today is it's a discretionary grant of no more than 15 annually. We're gonna have to roll this out slowly and Yeah. And see how it goes. I just don't want the expectation that there's going to be 15 of these, you know, immediately. Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yes. I know we've talked about this lot, but just so they're gonna have to upscale on what it takes to, like, check the whole process. That's all part of what you're gonna do with the. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We can't have and to go to David Weeks' concern, we can't, in January, be trying to add an inspector who's gonna be overseeing online and delivery sales with nicotine that are young people and also not do this in a thoughtful way. I mean, they're inconsistent. We wanna be consistent. And thoughtful delivery that's controlled in a thoughtful way is what you're that's the challenge, figuring that out. So, Jeffrey, there's your challenge. With power and Julie. Yes. Jeffrey, oh, you have another, Jeffrey.

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Thank you, Chair. We had talked about committee including tier two cultivators and manufacturers. Both are considered small. Statutorily, it's only one, but so that so that the consideration I'm asking of this committee, if appropriate, would be just to include that second tier. So tier one and tier two cultivators and manufacturers for this delivery permit.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: How many more does that loop into the because I I agree. That was the conversation, I believe, was for tier one and tier two. But the further discussion of the small group may have been that tier two adds an enormous number.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I I was looking at these numbers yesterday. Don't quote me, but it's around 200, I think, tier one, and then you add 50 more tier twos. So it's not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: if you're already at 200, it's not onerous to consider maybe another 15 and it's only 15 curtains. It it's It's not like all these people are

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: gonna be able to do this. Right. And we do have a tier two manufacturing license, but I don't think that that's for plastics. I mean, I didn't quite hear where Jeffrey landed on tier two product manufacturers. This includes tier one cultivators and tier one manufacturers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Like You're just asking for and I believe the conversation had been around tier one and tier two. Correct. About tier one and tier two growers and manufacturers?

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Correct. To be clear, that's what we are asking. And remind you know, reminding the committee this concept is limited to the number of right? A fixed number each year. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that exponentially add more than the 50? That's

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: I mean, yes. I mean, we have quite a few tier two manufacturers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It'll create a lot. Oh,

[Julie Hulburd (Member, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Julie Hilbert for the cannabis control board, it's just gonna create

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a lot more competition for those

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: 15 delivery permits, That's just, I would see it more like we're not gonna have to issue more, there will be a lot more

[Julie Hulburd (Member, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: competition the tier

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: one. Is that okay with you, Jeffrey? More competition?

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Yes, we're hearing from producers that's what they would prefer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, then let's include them. Change number four. We're we're we're working our way through this. Right. Sorry. We are on page seven where you you you actually, we've had constructive changes. So if you were okay. Yeah. Because I that was, I believe, our conversation. Okay, so that's Tucker. You wanna keep going?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the next change is in subsection D. Again, I reorganized the including clause syncors based on questions about the scope here and called out specific parts of the preceding elements in the section to make sure that they were covered in this including clause, such as storage and security requirements. There were questions that came up about whether the scope of the procedure authority would include whether a cannabis could be stored in the nucleus. So that is included expressly in discretion within the procedure of the Thank patient for you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great, okay. Are we all okay with that? Great. Okay. Let's cruise to section seven. Okay.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Here's our bottom. Yep. A few sections here, eight, and nine. In these sections, there's some conforming updates within title 32 to ensure that the permit holders, both for the event permit and the delivery permit, are called out as licensees that will pay various taxes to the tax department.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Pat, you have five minutes.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I have five minutes. May

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we interrupt just briefly as we consider this bill? Can you join us right there? Wait a minute. Don't move, Tucker. Oh, for ten minutes, five minutes. I love Ted, but for five minutes, you've been satisfied here. So Ted has done some additional work that we've asked him to do Yeah. On after the LAOB discussion yesterday. And, I just wanted Ted to update us. I asked Ted, given our conversation with LAOB, what was in what the LAOB had gotten last year, what the what they're in the governor's budget for this year, what their budget is, and I'd just love to have you share that with the committee. Sure. I the email that Thomas has somewhere.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: For the record, temporary fiscal office.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: My computer is dead. It's a perpetually You want to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just see your own demo?

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: oh, that works too.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I have it

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: on my phone. I have it on paper. So it looks like based on research that I did last night that in the governor's recommended budget, there is 1,680,000,000.00 in base funding for the LAOB that appears in the VHCb b eight eleven secondtion of

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: budget. One point six eight?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: One point six eight. So that's base funding. They in their budget testimony, and I think they also shared with you all yesterday that their total budget that they're looking for in fiscal year twenty seven is $3,200,000. So the delta between that 3.2 that they're looking for and what they received at base is about $1,500,000. So that is the the general look and what I was able to see. There is I can provide some historical expenditure information for the LAOB, if that

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: would be helpful, but No, I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think we got some great information yesterday from Jean, so we have. But I think that this is helpful because I know there's some concern about the section this section, and and certainly 5.6 is a lot more money than we had we're getting anybody else. This helps put it a little in perspective, which is useful. Any questions for you? Thank you for making time for us. Of course. Really appreciate it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I'll do anything else. So we should continue to discuss it. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. No problem. Thank you for I hope that break was helpful, Tucker, for in other ways. But thank you.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Of course. Let me know if you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: need Oh, anything well, we will. Thank you. Okay. So

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 11 n, section 11. This is the regulation by local government section that was discussed for quite a while yesterday. So first, you'll see subsection a has made an appearance. It was not in the previous draft, and that is because within these subsections that deal with the votes, the opt in votes within municipalities, there's some language highlighted at the end of that first subdivision. States that a proposal to fold a vote pursuant to the subsection may be made by the legislative body of the municipality or by petition of 5% of the voters of the municipality. This is language borrowed from various versions of title 17, including the charter amendment process, So it reflects the ability of both the legislative body to put an opt in vote on the ballot, but also for voters to petition directly to have this placed on the ballot. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that gives pro, that is framed in a very positive way rather than negating as like, warrior's authority. It's just great. I think that's, as much as we can do that, that's good. Pepper and Julie okay? Nothing from Jeffrey, so you must be okay with that, I assume. Right.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Looks good.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Jeffrey, I am liking your logo, which I haven't really fully appreciated even though I've seen it on printed stuff, but the dove with the cannabis is charm.

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: I appreciate that. I'll pass it off to the designer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Tucker, next

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: change. On page 12 in subsection b, subsection b is the section that deals with what conditions can be placed on the issuance of the local license. It was the substantive discussion yesterday. First, this has been broken up into subdivisions to make the large subsection more digestible, easier to understand what those conditions are under current law. The bank decided yesterday to maintain the status quo, which includes adding any of the bylaw zoning requirements under 4414, as I conditioned, that is against current law. It eliminates the expansion of the ordinance authority as a condition on the local license, and as a reminder from yesterday, ordinances still apply to these entities. Right. It's just about the conviction on the local license. You asked me yesterday to add indoor cultivators to the exception to ordinance, ordinances related to public nuisances as a condition on the issuance of the license. So now, indoor and outdoor cultivators are covered. I broke it into individual subdivisions because the outdoor cultivator provisions are conditioned to uncompliance with the required agricultural practices, it's my understanding that the RAPs do not apply to indoor spaces. Thank

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thank you very much for this. If the VLCT is watching this, I hope they chime in to see if this actually helps clarify what I heard as a lack of clear clarity on what local boards do have the authority to do, but that can all be done in the house. So let's just

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: do this part. Thank you.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Josh.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I I think of it. Well, at this point, Josh and Sam, you know, they're they're paid to practice, so they know this isn't play. I I figured they'll have a second many other bites of this apple or at this bud. Many other bites of the buds. Yeah. Maybe not. They did. Bite at the brownie. Bites. Bites. Bites. I'm sorry. It's it's Friday morning. Now what can I say? It's five hours of sleep, so it's a little punchy. So next change is It's

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: on page 21. Thank you. Are the new, tax provisions. Oh, sorry. Jeffrey, do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you have something before we leave this section?

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Apologies, I did. Sorry to catch you at the tail end there. Just looking at the carve outs for local control, I see that indoor cultivators is there. I recall we also included, at least in discussion, manufacturers. Is because the indoor cultivator and the tier one manufacturer, they're both able to operate out of their home. So we want to try to make sure that that's still possible without disrupting that, if that makes sense. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you. I think I'm going to turn to Julie and pepper on that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This doesn't change our rules around what is allowed, how we license people. So I wouldn't think it would,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think it would interrupt, I don't think it would, I

[Julie Hulburd (Member, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: don't think it's an issue, guess.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, it's a non issue. So Tucker, where would we add that? Right there, indoor.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And to be clear, this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is tier one manufacturers. Is that right, Jeffrey? Tier one. Yeah. Thumbs up. Okay. Thank you, Tucker. David, I'm sorry.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You're you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: are behind that. I know. I know.

[David Silberman (cannabis advocate/attorney)]: Before you move to page 21, there was a change here from the previous draft around, the product registration. I would argue that the language that was in there previously was permissive for the board to figure out if possible how to do a multiyear product registration where it makes sense. That's been eliminated here. I didn't know if that was a decision that hadn't been made as of yesterday, but it's not included in this draft, the language that was in there. You have the the biannual licensing fees included, which is fine for the employee licenses, but the product registration fee is just didn't know if that was a decision that you had made. If it is, it is, but I just wanted to point

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that out. Page 17. Or page 14. Page 14. So there second I actually don't think we made a final decision on this. I know it was more challenging and have that they that it that was that was a thought still in play, I think. Is that fair? Or it's it's this is definitely, David, as you

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: know, the more challenging part Understood.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The CCB. And I think for the I think the CCB would my memory of that conversation was that that they would prefer us not to change it, that there were some challenges in separating out shelf life, what had sustained shelf life for two years, and what was needing to be reviewed every year. Would it make sense to keep it as it is with asking the CCB to come back to us next year with a proposal on how to address that?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: And that they've sort

[David Silberman (cannabis advocate/attorney)]: of done that year after year.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On how to deal with this on the product. Shoveling.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: We had to do a fear report last year where I touched on this because this is I don't remember. Relayed him. Right. Well, it's essentially the same testimony that I

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: provided yesterday. Yep.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which is it's hard. I mean, the testimony is would take time.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: It involves question, a, there's an IT cost. So there's just gonna a cost to it. B, because there are there is no FDA involved, it's going to involve us developing things along the lines of expiration dates for various types of cannabis products. Currently, there there are none across the state. They're This is an area where there's a lot of research going on. And you start to add up what we're going to require of a licensee, submit advanced stability test results for every product that they want and extend their product registration for and include expiration dates and things like that. I mean and then there's the IT burden on us. It's it's just is the is the outcome worth the worth the kind of reduction to administrative burden? So that's the, that's, those are the two, that's what you're trying to balance here by doing this. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I assume it would be an additional burden of time and energy, or maybe not. Maybe that's the point is it's reduced time and burden on manufacturers. Is that right?

[David Silberman (cannabis advocate/attorney)]: Yeah. And the and the if I may, just the last thing. I don't need to belabor this, obviously, you've heard from the board. But they I mean, the language as you had drafted yesterday was permissive. It said the board may, and it didn't require it didn't say shall. It didn't set any time frame. It said it may extend product registrations, you know, based on I I don't have the exact language, but so So But I just wanted to point out that this No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. You're right. Section nine is out. We I don't think we've made a full decision on that. It's So I thank you for flagging that. Yep. Committee, if the board if it's permissive, the board could and I don't wanna speak for because two thirds of them are here. But the board could conceivably say we're gonna deal with x number of products this year. I mean, you don't need to necessarily do the whole kit and caboodle in one year. Right?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: We would have to upgrade the licensing portal if we're gonna do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which you're already gonna have to upgrade for the employees. Right?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: The employee we can do on the back end and just say that your renewal your your renewal email that goes out and telling you to renew is gonna go out in year two instead of year one. But if we have it, if we have a two year product registration option for certain types of products, then the you know, you're gonna have to be able to choose between a one year or two years. There's going to be an IT cost to to do it.

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Any thoughts?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I would just, I would encourage us to leave in the permissive language for now as another place we could point to the need to restore more control over the budget to the CCB. That here we are saying we're trying to create a coherent and fair and streamlined market that works better for our small businesses, and we lost the ability to do a lot of that good work with this change. We don't actually, I think,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have language in this bill at the moment and may have to leave to the house about but it could be done in finance about the control of the the CCB budget Yeah. Giving it back to CCB.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I thought we talked to the chairs of the money committees Well, that's this separately. I just think, you know, we're asking them to both create a safe regulated market and a fair consistent and, like, user friendly market, and they're doing it with less budgetary control. All the time. So I would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: propose that we keep nine back put nine back in apologies, and that we continue to work on it and make it work for the CCB a little bit better in that regard, but also let the work on it continue.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: Is that okay? It's well, I mean, again, this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is I know. It's gonna be a challenge. It's permissive, but it's I I I appreciate the challenge here. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yeah. I don't think that, you

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: know, this should be kicked off by asking some questions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't I think just the small house this is a bigger conversation.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And the Brooks is the group that made the change, so they're familiar enough with conversation that I think Okay.

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

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It was a kind of budgetary change, not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a revenue change. The revenue They didn't make a product discussion change. They made a where the CCB, how the CCB could Disabled it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sequester and then remit their funds. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Are we okay with putting it back in and we know the conversation is full going forward? Okay. We have fifteen minutes left. If we can finish up so the rest okay. Mister Twenty one. Counselor. Counselor

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Anderson. Counselor Anderson, present. Page 21. Starts a series of And remember, most of this is statutory changes up until this point, right? I mean, they're just statutory. You're talking about the technical corrections? Yeah. Many of the sections that follow, the section that was just discussed are the integrated license cleanup sections, eliminating references to integrated license.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I just want to remind everybody as we go forward. Looks like we're flipping through a lot of pages, but it's Julie, do have a thought? No. Okay. You're just leaning into the conversation. I just like phone says. Almost as good as a hand up is a lean in, you know? Sorry. Top of page 21.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, new section 24, and the next couple sections again came from tax, and they may have more context for this. So, first, an amendment to 32 VSA 6,061 definitions amending the series of qualifications under the modified adjusted gross income definition for federal adjusted gross income, and adds a new subdivision F, stating that with the inclusion of any federal deduction from credit, that the claimant would have been allowed for the cultivation, testing, processing, sale of cannabis for cannabis products, as authorized under Title VII, FLAT 4.6 of the C. 88. This is cannabis business expense deductions. Or state income Right. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think we're all fine with that. It's a business that needs to be a parody there.

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: When you say Tax parody.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: When you say came

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: from tax, that's the tax department. Correct.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is the we took remember, we were gonna add three provisions that the tax department requested, and we said, oh, let's add them here. And Randy said, oh, let's not wait till finance. Let's add them here, and

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: then we can have that conversation. Okay. The next one is An amendment within title seven in the cannabis statutes to a section of law dealing with land use standards for the cultivation of cannabis that amends in subsection F, Notwithstanding for subsection A, which I did not include for context, but I should have one. A cultivator licensed under this chapter, Golden State's Campus Outdoors, and currently, this applies to on a parcel of land that is struck, so it would now be as defined in rule by the CCB pursuant to section eight eighty one.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, they're they're they're okay with it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. And then I, for reference, where this applies, subdivisions three and four, eligibility to enroll in Introduce Value Appraisal Program, and exemptions from certain tax submissions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I have to say, when I chaired the Introduce Value Appraisal Task Force in 2007, I never would have thought we would be having this discussion. It's great. Things change. I mean, it takes Twenty years? Decades, two decades, but they do change. Thank you. Sorry. Just the one plus of institutional memories you can actually remember when we were having school. We can see things change. Right? It's great. Okay, section 26.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, something that I'm a little more comfortable with, confidentiality. So 32 DSA section thirty one zero two governing the confidentiality of tax records, specifically subsection e, which allows the commissioner to discretionarily share certain tax record information. A new exemption to the general rule of confidentiality is added to allow the commissioner to share confidential tax information with the cannabis control board for purposes of administering cannabis excise tax, the sales and use tax, and the exemptions to those taxes as they apply to

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, so page 23, right at the top, this is new, citing, here we all are. Section So 20 this is not from tax, is that correct? That is right, so you can move beyond taxes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're under tax in a taxless section. Excellent.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Make sure that taxes are always there, but this has a new 70 S.

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: 904C. This follows Title VII statutes related to cultivators and cultivators. But this is our focus here in economic development is for corporations and what we allow here, it's not an agricultural decision. This is a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: how they organize as a business. Mhmm. Hear Right. That? Just felt I had to say that out loud. The

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: new 904c establishes cannabis cultivator cooperative corporations. States that licensed cannabis cultivators may form a cannabis cultivator cooperative corporation pursuant to 11BSA Chapter seven, which governs general cooperative corporations and cooperative associations

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: in

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the same manner as other associations or persons engaged in the production of agricultural or antiraptive products. Now, within that chapter seven, specifically in subchapter two, currently this is available to other agricultural producers, but the definition of agriculture for purposes of that subchapter does not include cannabis cultivation. This is being added to title seven to allow cannabis cultivators to access this form of corporate registration without having to directly amend the definition of agricultural. And it gives them a different name as well. All seas. Because what is that name? The Cannabis Cultivator Cooperative Corporation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's seed of the fourth power. Wow. Great. Okay. Thank you.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The last set of names is the Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Sorry. Very awesome. What what matter of fact does it does it have? Does it change the permitting Service. What what does it do with it?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I actually Thomas?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I'm glad to see this language, and I'm welcome to hear more thoughts on it. I I don't see the downside of all being of other opinions, but the upside is

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: it's just for small farmers, but

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: they get a share. So we got two farmer to imagine a municipality or even a county where there's more by not contiguous farms that wanna share a tracker. So if they are a cannabis cooperative they can then buy the tractor and then have that be part of the cooperative and appropriate portions of it to their expenses. So it just allows for them to collaborate while still maintaining their independence.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And share business expenses. I mean

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: That sounds good. I could kinda pivot to the CCB. Is there any that any real net effect from the of the board? A net effect from the perspective of them? Numbers of permits or Oh. I really don't know. I mean, it all sounds good. It's reasonable. But what's the

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: What I see happening here is a bunch of small cultivators getting a cooperative manufacturing license that would allow them to just have a single extractor and they could bulk purchase packaging and have all kind of a single brand. We have enabled this through our regulations,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: but this has been a roadblock for people to actually do to make that. Great. Good.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: One of the primary benefits of the collaborative structure as well is that you can break out ownership interests in the agreements between the various different entities so that the cooperative corporation is acquiring assets. You know, the classic example, I'm pretty sure there's only two of these cooperatives that exist in the industry,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you have AcreMart. Have Plastic extension.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: You know, bottling and sterilizing locations that are cooperatively owned and each individual dairy farm that's separately incorporated has a share that is proportional to the amount they are contributing to the water.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We also see this in the arts world and the craft world, that there are a couple of these.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Great. You're at the end of the changes, the effective dates, some things to note in here, the effective date section becomes effective on passage, and the reason for that is that you have, with some of the tax changes that I flagged, a retroactive provision. So in subsection b, section 24 related to the household income cannabis business expenses deduction takes effect retroactively on 01/01/2025 or household income received beginning in the 2025 calendar year and applies to property tax credit claims filed on and after 01/01/2026. Everything else in the bill takes effect on July 1. Thank you. Thanks. I think if we are able, and I know you have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a busy morning, If we can make those changes, we have one last decision point, I believe. Tell me if I'm wrong. But I think we have the money decision points that we want to finally confirm because those were outstanding. Is there any other decision point we haven't made? Because I think we are pretty good on everything else. Is that right? Any thoughts? This is your moment. And remember, this conversation is just beginning. Now it goes to other committees and into the house. So

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Are we just relatively okay on time,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm sure. We're we're we're

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: gonna pivot to housing in a minute.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But Senator Ram was here earlier with that example with the contiguous land. I'd love

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: to hear

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: her reaction.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: All of this. We hope we saw a lot of right now. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So this is, the magic fan example. So allowing for the events permits. I forget what page that was on, but we were Tucker P and L.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I have a subsection c.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Page five subsection c. I'm sorry. Think it's fine, but I I was it was channeling my intercacia. Oh, me too. Right. So right here, does a cannabis retailer hold an event permit shall not conduct sales at a licensed retail location and the permitted event contemporaneous? Contemporaries. And instead, I believe you're gonna what what are you what are you gonna add in order to allow for an example with a store that is contiguous or has a space in front of it that might have an event that they could still operate and sell from the store while the event is occurring in very close proximity to their store?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I make a statement that I was gonna make otherwise that might solve this?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: He has a language You have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do a line. You wanna hear the line? We're gonna propose.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So the cannabis retailer that holds an event or mention, shall not conduct sales at the cannabis retail location and the permitted event at Rainesley, Comma, except for sales conducted from a permitted event location that is contiguous with the license location.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Mean, like, it's fine if if Tucker likes it. I guess what I would say is we just did the same we constructed the same language for alcohol, and we did it in a different way. I believe that they have to subsume their permit. They could still only be operating one permit at a time and an event permit is more like a catering permit than a retail permit. So the CCB is gonna decide what can be done with an event permit, which might look different than what can be done with transport. They can't really transport their retail permit with a Which what you're saying.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It's actually a different dynamic. Okay. Because the issue that you're pointing to that exists in the alcoholic beverage statutes is when two different licensees are attempting to conduct sales at the same location. The holder of a caterer's license cannot cater within a first or third class license location. Mhmm. You can't have two on-site licenses operating within the same Right. Licensed space. We what

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we kind of just said they like, let's say they were catering a wedding on their front lawn and they had a wine shop inside. They, regardless of contiguous nature of the property, they would have or they were doing it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: at Art's Riot next door or something, so it's not contiguous.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They would have to subsume their retail license. That's what that's what DLL wanted is you can't you know, they're often at different times of day, but you can't be I mean, right now, they they it's a good question for the alcohol thing.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Are you comfortable enough with the continuous piece? Should be

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: in this

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: conversation Yeah. I like learning out of this stuff, and I just wanna make sure we're doing the same thing.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Where my mind went with the continuous language, which you're likely familiar with, is that you're dealing with the same underlying licensee.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Wouldn't have to get another

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: This is the same structure in alcoholic beverages that applies to manufacturers who pull a fourth class license in order to serve samples at their manufacturing location. And they're allowed to do it outside of the manufacturing space provided it is on land that is continuous with their Right,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: but we're allowing them to do events only if they, only if they are not operating a retail license.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Except if it's contiguous, they would be able to keep the retail location open and pull an event permit for some contiguous part of their property outside of the license. Excuse me.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, that's not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: what we're saying to them. I don't think. I think that's alcohol. Well, that was the example you gave.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We don't care about alcohol.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we we I I think Fine. I love her nerding out. Yeah. Just she's channeling her former inner house self.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, we also have to deal with alcohol.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. No. And and we're getting an alcohol bill as we know. So I'm okay with this at the moment with this new language and getting it out to Sure. For the month. So the decision point I believe that we have left are the two money pieces. To me, the milling which I would point us to at sec on page 23. Think we're we couldn't tell on everything else, And I would say I know this this section, particularly me, was a challenge for some members of our committee. I would argue that it's an existing board that is doing good work. This is more money than we're giving anybody else, and it's more money than their budget. And we're I I feel comfortable reducing it, particularly given the million dollars to the ACCD to continue the business development fund and because that's almost used up, and we real that has been proven to be very helpful as well. So those two arms of support for our the communities that were disproportionately affected. I I'm comfortable with. The question is the amount of money, and I I would ask what is the committee. And I I know there's a a vote that has been expressed as contingent on this. And so I'm concerned because I I think we have general support for this bill, but I also would if we can get to yes, I would really love to get the yes on b on line 11. So we heard that their budget is that they have a $1,000,006.08 is in the budget. We can advocate strongly for that. Their their budget is 3,200,000.0, and so, obviously, they needed another million 5 to meet their budget. So if one advocated for 3.2, it strikes me that there are two choices. I mean, there are choices in between, but that one choice would be to advocate for the budget, the total budget of 3,200,000.0 or advocate for the additional 1,500,000.0, which is less than the base funding. It's just to fill that up that three the gap between three point two and one point six eight, which is already in the governor's budget. David, welcome. We're not quite to housing. We're getting there. We're just finishing up on cannabis. What are people's thoughts on this? And I will just ask them. David, you are the one who had the most challenge with this session, so let me know what you think.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. So if yeah. I I'm I'm struggling with this one. I I understand this is a a nonprofit trying to do good work. What I saw yesterday in their budget was that they they had a $1,700,000 Propriation? No. Line item for salaries. For their staff salaries which is roughly $101,170,000. It's 1,700,000.0. 170,000 per FTE. They had 10 FTEs. I I I don't well, I understand they're doing, you know, good social equity work. If you reflect on the other parts of the state's budget, let's call it roughly $3,000,000,000 where we address housing, health care, social equity entitlements for the entire state. I'm just finding this excessive and well I really don't want to go beyond the governor's request and I don't see why we should be providing additional funds in the name social equity when in fact majority of that budget current budget is absorbed by their labor funds, their salaries. That's my head point of hesitation.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I asked Kierra to see if we can get Jean or Arnella on Zoom because I don't want to speak for them. I think one of the issues was was backfilling for last year where they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think they got their money. They're all set. Right?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The pressure Yeah. Got their money

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in the BAA, and that they're all set going forward.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I just don't I don't know how much of the 1,700,000.0 of salary was? I I can't believe that's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just salaries. Like, I thought that was the It's just the 1,700,000.0. Did you have? Do we have some presentation yesterday? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Could you pull that up? Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Let's just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: go to Jean's presentation from yesterday.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to send

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: me? Are you about to?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Okay. You're done.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then let's pull up genes per thing for me.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That sounds right for 10 FTE. I didn't know.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It does sound. Yeah. My bad.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I mean the numbers all work out. The entire effort of the nonprofit to be absorbed by salaries before they even contribute to social equity is really disturbing.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, mean they are contributing to social equity because they do a lot of facilitation, communication outreach that in the past we've relied somewhat on VCRD or other entities to bring community partners out to make sure we're directing other funds properly. So if you want to treat it as a percentage, it's less of a percentage if you look at overall what they eventually hope to be able to get out the door, but they're standing up these programs right now. So for example, the small developer, the housing for all program. They need someone who's first finding small developers, ensuring they know what other dollars are available to them, and then granting them dollars to become successful small developers.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So labor is happening. The other half of point is we have so many other programs that are already well funded that address a lot of the social equity issues, which I believe this one organization is also addressing. I just find this kind

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't think anyone else is addressing what they're addressing, which was our intent for about a decade, since 2016 at least with the first cannabis bill, major cannabis bill. The Keep going and get

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to the money piece.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I thought we were on the money.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're on the money.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, just keep going there. I'm like,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I mean Yeah. No. Okay. We're with care. So is it possible care to pull make that a little bigger for us to see? The And pull it up a tiny bit so we can

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What the CCB has highlighted in multiple reports is that we've long had an intent to go beyond social equity as a cannabis business to social equity as a commitment to repairing economic

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: harm,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that the war on drugs caused many people to lose opportunity, to lose land, to lose generational wealth building. And since 2016, we have been having that conversation in the public sphere about what it would look like to use dollars from cannabis, where we're now paying to consumers and people who might have faced this in I the

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: understand, and I've heard that argument on many occasions. I just feel we've addressed that elsewhere in the budget, in the state's budget. Where? I think the majority of our treasury is dedicated towards social work and and providing lift for those who have been economically disadvantaged. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think the question is, are we linking a high tax, like a high tax that we put on cannabis, which does make it difficult for people to make a full living in this business, are have we directed enough of a very high tax on this specific product that has caused so much economic damage to the people who were most impacted. I'm gonna interrupt. Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And have Jane's here. Jane come and answer. Jane, we got your budget pulled up, but if you'd like to just Jane, welcome.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Hello. Thank you. Hamilton from the Land Access and Opportunity Board. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. We are discussing the the last that's left in the cannabis bill is your appropriation, which they has is at 5,600,000.0, which given the rest of what we are have been able to appropriate or thought we could appropriate for other things is very high, particularly in relation to your budget. Yes. So we would just like to ask you, I think that it's a a a little bit of a sticking point for a couple members. And so we we just would love to actually, I think the first one is David has a question about your staffing and how are are I I think your first question is on your staff.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well yeah again it's a question maybe it's their data that the line item for staffing and fringes for 10 up teams is 1,700,000.0. That's the entire governor's budget input for the for the organization. It's 170,000 per individual. I'm sure that varies from high and low low end putting on who those 10 are. It absorbs I believe what you had last year and what the governor's staff was willing to provide for this year. It just begs the question of how much is enough and what's appropriate.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, I'm happy to

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: answer that. So that 1.7 does include all of our staffing costs. It also includes all of our general operating expenses and all of our board expenses. So it allows us to convene our board and also to pay for our office and our overhead, our supplies, our staff mileage

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: and board. That's what overhead is.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Yeah, exactly. So that's our core operating expenses.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And that incredibly successful in bringing stakeholders to the table who have needed to be at the table for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a long time to direct these funds. Wow. No. I I appreciate that. So what is helpful, I think, for this discussion is that those are your operating expenses. That's not just salaries. Because I think That's right. Because it's under the line of salaries. I mean, I can't

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Is it? Sorry. Hold on. Let me look in.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So the book is line item of the stopping pause. That's okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I understand what it administration is different from just staffing.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Don't you think? Fixed cost, like

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: No. What we do in business for the labor line item, it's it's the labor cost plus all the fringes on top. I I understand want.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Got it. Got it. Okay, sorry,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: sorry, sorry. I did miss Jake that. So sorry to interrupt.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, Jean.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: No, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I'm so sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, it's okay. Go for it.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: So our salary ranges, if it is helpful to know, range from 70,000 to 97,000. Those are the annual compensations of our staff people. We do have some significant overhead. We do access all of VHCb's administrative capacity through our overhead, which is why we've been able to, in just two short years, get ready to launch this much money in grant making and also all of the other programming we're doing right now. So the 170, I know it kind of sounds like, oh, that's a high salary, but actually a lot of that is the fuller administrative capacity we are accessing through general counsel, a full finance office with a CFO that has the systems to move hundreds of millions of dollars of state and public dollars. So I can see why it's a little bit like, oh, this sounds high, but when you consider what we are able to move administratively within these salaries, it's quite reasonable and actually very modest for the work we've done.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Are you saying that this number includes general counsel? Yes,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it does.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And is that an outside entity, an outside provider, or is that a salary position?

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: That is a position within VHCb. So VHCb has, I think it's one, one counsel, one FTE general counsel who serves for all the contracting and the grant agreements and then, you know, whatever else VHCb does. But because we are attached to VHCb for their administrative services, we have access to the full finance office, the legal counsel, plus all of the HR. Those are services we access from VHCb within this salary item.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, Jean. We are gonna need to turn here to Okay. But my question is for you. And I think because I think we have a getting to, yes, BOMA care supporting the governor's budget, your line item in the governor's budget for base funding of 1,680,000.00. Mhmm. My my question to you is, if we approve that and go forward, the additional 1.5 you need to meet your budget could be in one time money. I assume you're advocating for that at the moment the appropriate That committees. Is that is correct. Okay. So, I would if we approve the 1.68 that's in the government's budget now in this, and I've also worked to advocate for that 1,500,000 additional that you need.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I because I I I I see your and hear your needs and appreciate fully those. But I think for us, quite honestly, to move this bill Mhmm. They have to begin there and advocate strongly for the one time additional piece.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Thank you. This is our budget for FY '27, this is the budget we are really hoping to fund so that we continued momentum on this work, especially these programs. If, can I have like sixty seconds to talk about the programs? I gotta say one sentence.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Your programs are terrific and we're absolutely getting to make some people more comfortable, sixty seconds, that's it.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Last day of CrossTalk,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're just bringing forward. Okay.

[Jean Hamilton (Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: I just wanna say that so the programs I'm really excited to speak with each of you about these programs. These programs are not just equity or justice programs. These are programs that are actually making other investments, other government investments more and so I really encourage, especially folks who are really aligned with the administration strategy to contact the agencies, contact those staff and say, Hey, what's it like to work with the LEOB? In particular, I'd recommend reaching out to the DHCD team and also the folks at ANR because we have worked closely with both. So that's it, just like, I think you all are gonna be really excited about this work when you see what we're doing. It's really impactful and like good for community, the whole community. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, Jean. That was great. That was sixty seconds perfectly. Thank Thank you. Great. So I I I think at the moment, I would hope that this would mean we could get this bill out that with a new draft number. And if you, Tucker, can come back to us with what are your suggestions? Am I doing anything? Is Your your time is as tough as our time.

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: on last couple minutes of discussion, am I doing anything with the appropriation section?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. After changing, I believe, the LIOB to the governor's budget amount, which is 1.68, and we will actively advocate for additional one time honey.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: That is for purposes of base operating expenses for administrative costs, because right now, the appropriation is 5.6 for purposes of loans, grants, and financial assistance under the loans, grants, and assistance programs in title 10. So I'm assuming that based on the discussion that loan program

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would just do appropriate to provide an access and opportunity board period, and that we won't and then I think

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's a one time expenditure. So I mean, it's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a base budget invest it's a base fund according to base budget. The 1.68 is base budget. This base budget.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That that would just be affirming what's in a budget conversation with I just wanna say I'm not gonna belabor this, but if what we're saying is that essentially taking that section out because that's rants and loans and one time fund is what gets two members of the committee to yes. I understand, but I wanna add to what Jean said in terms of housing and resilience and other things. We are going to get the cost to the state of what occurred in South Burlington on Tuesday because of a complete breakdown in community and policing and trust, and it's gonna be very expensive. It it will probably approach the cost, you know, of of a whole year's worth of work for one horrific, damaging night in our district. So when they say they're doing deep resilience work and bringing together community members and stakeholders and municipalities, like law enforcement and town management and schools, It's expensive if we don't do that work and we're going to see that in the budget as we move forward and as guidance shows up in our state.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Committee, tell me how you're feeling here because we we could know, I I I I hear you. Jean, I hear you as well. I also know we're in we're in a position of we're in a tight you know, we're you know, it's just tight, and I'm I'm you know, while we could get this bill out three two, if if we can, it would be great to get it out five zero. My understanding is we will that this is a a key point in this discussion. Is that correct? Or am I am am I going out on a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It better be that key point.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: The only

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. That I I need to be this far.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Because I need to hear that it's the only point. Still left. Okay. So I would propose that at the moment, again, this is just the first stop for this bill, and that this bill will have opportunities for further discussion both in appropriations, and I'm committed to advocating for the additional 1,500,000 for one time, which we can also consider in an amendment to either to the housing bill or to this as as we look at amendments for next week. So I I think, Tucker, what your the next draft will have is 1.68 and just ended at the end of

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the Rutland Access Bills Board. And in fact, it has been done. And I sent a highlighted copy of draft 3.2 to Kira and View. So it is available to the committee when you would like to review and digest. You're referring to the stockers? Department. Referring to the No. To the 78 strike all.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if that is the case, if we I have to if that is being printed, we could go we could actually vote on this now. Promotion. What, sir? You need promotion. I'm looking for motion

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: On draft number

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On draft number 3.2. I think we've addressed all the concerns. I and I think if people are okay, the draft 3.2 is coming to us. Tucker, that was amazing. It has. Has. Has the

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: exception that I read to the committee a moment ago, and it has the language within the event permit procedures that you asked for, spreading that for the permitting selection procedures, the board shall include a requirement that permits are issued equitably among cannabis establishment license categories.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Right. Are we comfortable for the motion now?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. And Tony's bringing I can move around the right now. We're not before motion.

[David Silberman (cannabis advocate/attorney)]: Ahead. Just because I haven't seen it and I can't see it. I just wanted to make sure how the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is it on our website? She just posted it on our website. It's on the website.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Thank you. Yep.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Happy to come back after the housing too. What do wanna do about your

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think let's just part medium.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I would move favorably s

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: 21.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: S two seventy eight.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: S two seventy eight draft 3.2, timestamps, ten, fifteen, five, four ish. On March 13.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Where the March 13?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: 09:17AM. I'm at 09:17AM.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: My wife's saying there's also an extra I would just like to say my court is around. Thank you for that motion. I'd just like to say before this vote, I appreciate the work on this bill. This bill is much more wholesome than I had thought we might end up with. And so I am really grateful to all of you for your extension of faith and belief in this economic sector and in supporting it as it goes forward and doing the best we can to help it flourish and thrive. And I know there's some additional challenges. I also am really interested in work going forward and how we better prepare for the federal schedule, which we'll be working on hopefully in the next week. So thank you, committee. I appreciate your work on this. Mister Clark, would you be kind enough to call the roll? Senator Rutland?

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

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Yes. Senator Lee? Yes. Senator Robinson? Yeah. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: thank you committee and Kesha, would you be kind enough to report this bill? I would be kind. It's your baby. It's your third baby here.

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. It is. And although happily, I didn't have to preside while you had it. I mean, I did preside while you had it. It was all like right here. So and if you need help on any sections, I think some of us are happy to help. Great. Because these are big bills, and they're hard for any one person to do. Thank you, everybody. We are gonna take a five minute break, and then we're gonna return to housing, and we are thank you, cannabis control board. Thank you, advocates. Thank you, growers, producers, manufacturers. Thank you, Jeffrey.

[Jeffrey (cannabis industry advocate, remote)]: Take care, everybody.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep. And have a good weekend. And thank you.