Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We are live. Are live. Let me find what I mean. Agenda. What what? Oh. Thank you. Lunch. And we are starting today we started out with a wide agenda. We have age two thirty seven. As we work through this week, I'm just gonna take up the age bills as they come in. These have been sitting here for a while. We're gonna just walk through with staff and then we'll decide what we want to take up and when we want to take it up. So, we're gonna start with H237, Act relating to prescribing by doctoral level psychologist. This went through health and welfare. I actually thought it was an S bill, but apparently it went there last year, it paid back this year, so we now have it. And Enola is working on a tight schedule and he said he has one of the shortest fiscal reports. So we'll hear from him and then spend more time with Katie going through the bill.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Great. For the record, the fiscal note is three sentences. Three paragraphs, three sentences. Wow. There actually was not a fiscal note until this morning when the other day Charlotte said, Can you come testify on this bill? And I was like, What bill? And I looked it up, talked to OPR, and I was like, Oh, it should have a fiscal note. So I got this far. But although the word de minimis or de maximus, neither of which are in fiscal of anywhere, that is the effect. So I will let Katie talk about the specifics of it. Yeah. But the bill proposes an authorized prescribing by doctor level psychologist. So I reached out to OPR and said, what's the impact? And so they said, they're saying, colleges looking to obtain prescribing specialty that would be required to pay a $100 fee upon initial application for the specialty, and then there are no actual renewal fees after that. So there would be some people who would apply, maybe make a few $100, know, it's not gonna get a lot of money. And then on the appropriation, there's no appropriation in the bill. They do anticipate there'd be some startup costs, maybe as much as $4,000 which is de minimis, and can be covered within their funding.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Did this go through health and welfare? Yeah. Yes. Oh, it did. I'm sorry.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: But I missed that too. This is first one testifying.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, and I voted yes. I voted yes, and I'm reporting the bill, so that's helpful. Thank you. Senator Chittenden, you're

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: It was directed to legal entity of de minimis and de maximus, but the practical sense is it's actually the term material versus de minimis.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, no. Fan college professor

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So would it be I have the

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: word in

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the immaterial be the symbol the synonym

[Randy Brock (Member)]: of de minimis? That's a good question.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna Google that. Okay.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And what was the square something that Sandra Watson was asking?

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: The abbreviation

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: or the upper quartile. This was the conversation before it's all entered the room where you're talking about non de minimis.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, could start getting into the hypotenuse theory.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That's why we have staff to explain these things

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: to us. He didn't explain it to me.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The word is deminims.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Immaterial.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Fourth immaterial. It's about $4,000 to set it up, assuming that there are problems that we might change or request at some point.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They're not asking for appropriation at this time.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: At this time.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It can be fulfilled within their existing budget, especially. Right.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: They got too much money.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, it's minimus. It becomes a rounding, you know?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Noah.

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Thank you for having me, Aaron. I appreciate it.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I was gonna put back with this back and forth, but we just moving this.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we're looking at H237. This is prescribing by a doctoral level psychologist. As the name implies, this would allow individuals who are already licensed by OPR as psychologists and who are operating at a doctoral level would be able to prescribe. The way they would prescribe is under, with a collaborating relationship. So, would work with, or I don't wanna say under, but they would collaborate with a psychiatrist and they'd be able to prescribe the same types of medications that the psychiatrist regularly prescribes. The collaborating agreement between the two would be filed with the board of psychologists, and this would essentially be an extra specialty that a psychologist could have. So, first, in section one, we're in our chapter on Psychologists entitled 26, and we are adding a definition, several definitions at the top of page two. Collaborating practitioner, as I said, means a physician licensed to practice medicine with a specialty in psychiatry. There's a reference to DSM, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. Prescribing psychologist means a licensed doctoral level psychologist has undergone specialized training, has passed an examination as determined by rule, and has received current prescribing specialty pursuant to a section that we haven't looked at yet, that has not been revoked or suspended by the board. Prescriptive authority, I'll skip down to that one, seventeen, means the authority to prescribe discontinue prescription drugs solely for the purpose of diagnosing, treating, or managing a condition recognized in the DSM. Prescriptive authority excludes the authority to dispense, administer, distribute prescription drugs, prescribe or discontinue prescription drugs for patients who are less than 18 years of age or over 80 years of age or pregnant. And then we move to section two. This is powers and duties of the board of psychologists. So there's some changes here. Right now one of the duties, sorry, this is the rule making. So the board has the authority to adopt including rules that, so in subdivision two, currently, making on explaining complaint and appeal procedures to licensees, applicants, the public, that has struck out, and there is new language around regulating prescribing psychologist licensees, the setting of clinical rotations, and respective authority, including designation of conditions and drugs excluded from the authority, as well as the requirement for the prescribing of particular drugs. And also, regulating collaborative practice agreements pursuant to this section on the specialty that we haven't looked at yet. Including collaborating practitioner qualifications and competency evaluations. So, get to section four. This is the new section in the chapter on psychologists that all the other language keeps cross referencing to. So, this first in subsection A sets out the authority or the specialty that a psychologist doctor can apply to the board for the specialty. The application shall be made in a manner approved by the board, including the payment of any required In subsection B, specialty by an examination, the psychologist doctorate is eligible for the prescribing specialty if that person holds a current license to practice psychology at a doctoral level, successfully completed a post doctoral training program in psychopharmacology designated by the American Psychological Association, our successor, has completed clinical rotations over a total of not less than fourteen months in not less than nine practice settings, including psychiatry, pediatrics, geriatrics, family medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, surgery, and one elective. Has completed a national certifying exam. Meets other requirements required by rule. And then we have criteria for the prescribing of medication itself. So there has to be that collaborative written agreement between the psychologist and the psychiatrist. In subdivision two, the issuance of prescription authority by the collaborating practitioner to a prescribing psychologist shall only include prescription drugs for the treatment of mental health conditions that the collaborating practitioner generally provides to patients in a normal course of practice. The collaborating practitioner is filing that collaborative agreement with the board. Issuance of prescribing authority for schedule two through five controlled substances shall identify the specific controlled substance by brand name or generic name, and prescription or administration of a controlled substance by injection is not allowed under this section. And then we have the specialty by endorsement that the director may upon payment of the required fee grant a prescribing specialty without examination if the applicant holds an active psychologist prescribing authority in another US or Canadian jurisdiction. And at the top of page six, the requirements for psychologist prescribing authority in that jurisdiction in the judgment of the director of OPR are substantially equivalent to the requirements in this section. Terms of effective dates,

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: oh, we never updated the effective dates. This section But we can do that. Katie, also thought we added something about primary care providers. No? I don't remember that. I don't remember that. Okay. Maybe I have to wait to the group. That's another one. Let me

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: check my notes, but yeah, I'm surprised that we haven't got this. So this came over last year, And so in theory, everything would be pushed back year. So a would be 07/01/2026 and subsection b would be 2027. Let me just check my notes to make sure that wasn't. We're good, doc.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Does your community make changes to them, Martine? We made the school amendment. Because this is the as passed by the house version. Yeah. Okay. We did. Let me see my files.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Earlier in presentation, were just age limitations, and then you 18 and over 80. Is that right? Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Would that take, could you, Doctor. Chittenden?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I will. Do I call up the current version? Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Take the breath. No. This That was a fast. Yeah. I just breathing. It was a lot of I didn't know that we made any changes.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I thought I thought we made some small changes. I'm not remembering a a PCP, though, but let me take another look.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Did we do a section four reporting for the OTRS to submit a report to Health and Welfare?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That was added and sent to Health and

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Welfare. Okay, yep. Effective dates are sevenonetwenty six and sevenonetwenty nine.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, good. We did catch it.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. You're just looking at the wrong Okay, No, you're the reporter, right? Yeah. So you've got the notes from what because what we had on our website is AskPass by House. Yep. And that's not I'm sorry. I pulled it up from it. So paid and just gotta find I haven't. I don't know. How many bills did we put out that last day? About six? A lot. Why people might get confused about the version twenty two and twenty three? Uh-oh. I think I'm being That was a marathon day for putting bills out. There are no short ones.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So, is draft 2.1 of Health and Welfare reports, I apologize. Trying to remember now where the changes were. I don't think there are any changes in the definitions. Where there were changes, this is the language you were referring to.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Excludes authority to.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So essentially, 18 79 is who the doctoral level prescribing psychologist can prescribe for unless the person is pregnant.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Well, just wanted to be, I understand a juvenile, I understand someone who's pregnant has a medical condition, but where did 80 come from?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm trying to remember. It wasn't discussed very much in Senate Health and Welfare. It must have come from House Healthcare last year, so I don't have, you know, I haven't worked on it recently. I do feel like I remember that maybe there was a different age to start, and they changed it, but I'd have to look back Which an arbitrary construct. I think they had a lower age to start with. Don't quote me on that. I would have to go back. I remember that there may have been a little bit of conversation on that piece last year.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: I just had the 80, obviously, because I'm 80. Then why? I know a lot of people who are 60 that I would say that that ought to apply to. Think.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I don't know, because we didn't make that change in health and welfare. All I can say is we were trying to thread the needle between allowing this to happen and making sure that we

[Randy Brock (Member)]: If there was some cogent reason for doing it, I can understand if there was some medical reason for doing it.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, and pediatrics and geriatrics are two separate areas of study. But that doesn't usually start at 80. Geriatric starts Like 45, 25. My god. Yeah. Well, we have Jen Cohen comes in, the Office of Professional Regulation.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: She's doing anything like you do with, all judges must retire at the age of 70, but why? Yeah. Because some judges at 60 who are senile, and there are others at 95 who are still on the bench.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Some Indians are super seniors. They're super seniors.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: That just seems like arbitrary.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Define that.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Unless there's some medical reason that someone can justify and document it with evidence, You which is

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: why can you do her. We her. And we can do further investigation or what would No. This is an age. We can sit on this Oh. Until we find out. I'll get you an answer on Yeah. I'll get you an answer. Okay. You should be able to Anyway, don't need that. Can you just get testimony too? Yeah, the Psychologist Association or whatever.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Presumably there be some medical evidence that says that's bonafide reason for doing that.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah, sure there is. I don't think it was arbitrary actually. We'll find out. Thank you. I'll be prepared for that question. Okay. And the dates are fixed. Yeah. Okay. We're gonna look for the question five over 80. What is different from what I

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: just walked you through is where we have the different specialty Oh, here it is. So this at the top of page five is completed clinical rotations over a total of not less than fourteen months and not less than five practice areas, including psychiatry, geriatrics, family or internal medicine, emergency medicine, and neurology. That is No, I knew you practicing. What was it not in the other one?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. This has changed. You're limited to the age of 80, but you have to have practice, five practice settings, which includes a geriatric And practice I think that

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: was in the bill that came over.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Pediatrics is not the Pediatrics was in the other one. No, yeah. It does talk about family medicine.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the previous one, I think it said nine practice areas, so this list was shortened in Senate Health and Welfare. Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: So

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: that was one of the changes. And then this reporting requirement was added by Senate Health and Welfare. Of course. So on or before 11/15/2032, OPR assisted a written report to the policy committees regarding the number of psychologists with prescribing specialty, the status of available collaborative practitioners, and whether any updates to the qualifications of prescribing psychologists are necessary to expand access to care while also ensuring public protection. And then we have effective dates, which are happily updated to July '26, and the other one is July '29. So that was pushed out of it. Do you

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: think we should prescribe the word reading?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: From the collaborative agreement or the report? Report.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Interpreted down.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: How many pages of reports would you like It to go through with took a whole day just to list the reports.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sometimes for clarity, some committees say, shall present, so that it's clear it's not expected to be written. We could just strike written. It might still result in a written report.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm not sure. If we do this, we should be committing to check back in. We can ask who these are, because it's an OPR report. So, with Janet here, let's ask her. They might have their own. It's only one, right? It's not a name. We definitely need more reports. We need more. Love reports. I know you.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Certification, somebody has a register report.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That was six reports. No. It's like Which one? The one who never put in this. Oh, that was a question I asked in committee when I was on screen.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Oh, that's anxious. Yeah. And it got struck. Yeah.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. So we need to check on that you're gonna do a practice setting with geriatrics, but you can't prescribe to anyone over 80 why that is in there. We understand pediatrics. And why 80 is the cutoff date? If it's geriatrics, it should be '70 or '75 or I don't know. Maybe they're getting it mixed up with hospice. I but we we should clarify that. And See, we can get that. Would ask yeah. Yeah. We can ask professional regulation when they wanna do

[Randy Brock (Member)]: We do

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: not have gen calling scheduled until 02:30. Can I ask a question? I is there anything in the bill that requires that if if you're prescribing to a patient that they have to be a patient that you're seeing for regular therapy? Or is it just No. He just specifies that. I don't remember seeing I know that that's one of the concerns by people I've heard from that. So, we'll replace therapy. Like, psychotic psychologists are good at that. They're good at talk therapy or whatever, and that's what they do, but they we let them prescribe, and

[Randy Brock (Member)]: they wouldn't do that anymore.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: They would just prescribe it. And and not in every case. I'm not saying cross court, but that's a clear assertive. You've you've sexual gonna get this section criteria. Okay. Yeah. Don't know. Well, it's pretty I would I would think, though, I voted against this because I wasn't comfortable. I wanna make sure that psychologist has they said, well, it's with the psychiatrist, but I don't know if a psychiatrist of private practice has access to UVMC's health care records. They're outside of network. I don't think they do, which means we wouldn't know You'd have to request me. All of the medications I might be on. And if you can prescribe for someone you're not seeing regularly, it's not a regular patient. Opens up the potential for abuse. If somebody can just go with it and you can't be prescribed, and these I was told by my local doctor that I have a lot of respect for. Did a lot of work with this committee, is working with pharmaceutical regulation, that this would be schedule one and two drugs. So that might be something to see if we can get some guardrails for. Yeah. I mean, if we're gonna get testimony, we can ask those questions. Right now, we just this is we've got LVR. Today, or? Today, but then we can decide who else we would like to hear from. I do want to just back to the question of how many people will actually get this certification or license. I think it's now in seven states, but it may be even higher than that. They're only actively about 300 to three fifty, although other data points say two twenty five to two fifty. And in the whole country, only 500 individuals have passed that examination. So it's not I don't think it will be a huge uptake in the state of Vermont. But even if a few folks have access to it, it can really help, especially in rural areas where it's hard to find a provider. So we have a provider shortage, and this is one of the Why problems a psychiatrist in this state is difficult. Child psychiatrist is pretty close to impossible. Yeah, you'd have to have a psychiatrist who is willing to supervise several psychologists in order to put in dent in some of the backlog. Okay. If

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: you are looking for people to testify, I have somebody that reached out

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: to me in Burlington who's a practitioner who has inserted with this bill as well.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Now we need we will hear from somebody advocates too. I'm sure. I don't know that we need to litigate the whole thing. No, it's just It's just I think get unanswered questions. If we need some help with wall therapy, we do need to look at it. Because this is another one. All you need is one thing to go wrong and it will somebody

[Randy Brock (Member)]: hurt.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Was the committee about 40 one or

[Randy Brock (Member)]: 40 two? 41. Right?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I was the only one. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you, Katie. You're welcome. Erin can't get her in the. I mean, not not Erin. Jen. I just sent a message. I'll make an Okay. Response. We have penciled in, but maybe Senator Chittenden there is an amendment floating around to the cannabis bill. Somebody was supposed to introduce an economic development and failed, and I got told it Friday afternoon after we had left on Thursday, whenever day we wrapped up. Okay. So, Senator Chittenden is trying to see if it's possible. Have we been able to get ahold of Pepper? I can reach out to him if want him here at 03:00 also. Yeah, we can get him. Let me do this. Because the cannabis bill's on the floor tomorrow, right? Yep. Okay. So we have got someone who's closing a property at two but can zoom in at three. So we're try to listen to this.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: So this did already come up in our committee, it was that really late day around 05:45 before we were trying to get out of your crossover week. This is continuation of the discussion we had one year ago. This came up. We it's has to do with the fees we charge out for earlers. We asked for a report from the cannabis control board, and that is in our it was posted, I wanna say, last Thursday. I'm looking at it now. I have it in front of me, but the cannabis control board was looking at our, and appropriations related to growing permits. I wasn't here when retail when recreational marijuana was legalized, and, I will have the impression, though, that this was an unchartered territory and a lot of the PEs were established based on expected thoughts and not necessarily grounded in the actual yields or the cost to grow things. And so this has been advocated for I want to say at least for the last two years but the amendment that is going to see before you and that we have a Grover, Sam Belavance, who I believe is from Grand Isles is going to testify to this and it's also going to illustrate what's in the report that was on our committee page last Thursday at Navy Charlotte speaking it up and putting it on today's it's this right here if if that's possible. It just speaks to the fact that, again, I'm not necessarily advocating for this. I'm just trying to honor the request that this does make sense, that growers, that this would only apply to people that grow marijuana outdoors entirely. This would not apply to indoor cultivators nor mixed use cultivators that use the combination. So this is just people that are tilling the soil, that are growing crops. What my sense is, we have a lot of tax policies in the state to benefit and reward farmers that tend to the land. And so this if you look at our fee structure, which is outlined in the amendment, it is pretty daunting to see how much we're charging people to grow stuff in in using their land, and one of the arguments that motivated me to at least bring forward this discussion is that what other crop do we really charge people to be able to grow at the these levels? I get that marijuana is different. It's a different type of topic. Cannabis. Cannabis. So all I'm saying is I think it is worth the conversation about recalibrating our outdoor growing fees in light of the very materially fact based report from the cannabis control board that a, indoor cultivators, which we're not touching those fees, they yield four to six times as much as outdoor growers, so their fees are fine as is, but when you think about it, an outdoor grower in Vermont has a pretty tough go at it. They get one season. If the frost comes too soon, it kills their buds. And and if you look at these speeds that we're charging, it's just I would say it is disproportionate to what they can actually glean from the ground, and so I thought it would be worth bringing forward. To that end, since this originated in Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs, I did have this discussion with them first on the premise that if they supported it, then I'd bring it here, and then I would bring it to appropriations. Economic Development, we all signed on to it. So right now, this amendment has all five members of the Senate Economic Development Committee on board with it, but we recognize this would affect the revenues of the state and to the tune of since it's just outdoor growers. I have from an email, but not a fiscal note yet between a 100 and a $120,000. We don't contemplate how to fill that hole. That's just left to be undecided, and that's why I want to bring it to these committees. One last thing I'd want to just put out there before I stop talking, it came up in committee. Right now, the amendment contemplates effective for next year, but it was suggested by some that maybe this might make more sense and I look to those that have been serving longer than I, that if we are supportive of recalibrating, recognizing the tough go that growers have, we could push this out a year and that might make the conversation a little bit easier for this and that way you can reach them back next year and wanna push this out again, that could be another discussion. Did I miss anything Senator Brock? No, I that's right.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: I think what we heard in economic development from quite a number of smaller growers just indicating the difficulty they have in staying in business at this point and the fee was significant in relation to that. I would prefer if we just went ahead and said, Well, any vegetable we don't like, like beets, we'll put a fee of $100,000 on it too. Question doesn't really make sense.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: To have any fee?

[Randy Brock (Member)]: No, to have a fee that high compared to everything else. Well, the amendment,

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: it still has fees. It just cuts

[Randy Brock (Member)]: out Yeah, it has fees, and the fees, obviously, there are additional costs associated with cannabis that don't exist with beets and asparagus and so on. Recognize that. The fees are both still quite high in comparison. And it does appear that these new tests only have occurred to have an adverse effect on people who are the smaller growers who we had intended with this bill and the fee structure for the health of the village.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: Well, I have a question, I don't wanna it's tangentially related, but let me let the conversation play out before I ask my questions.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Because I don't want to stop. Who's gonna have me to get someone to talk to us about the fees? I that should be the cannabis could cohort, so we got an email out. He can be here at three. He will be here at three. Okay. So we will hear from them. Okay. And who would be joining us?

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: Ted Barnett. So

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Ted could be here to talk to us about cannabis around three. Well, see if we can't take a look at this. Okay. We are out then, be back here about five minutes. Did you want

[Randy Brock (Member)]: Oh, perfect. Okay. Oh.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: Well, I think let me ask Tom a question. He came by the. We don't have to You got

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: jump in

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: the break. Okay. Okay.

[Randy Brock (Member)]: See, therapy?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Alright. He's asking it oh, you're asking it now. Alright.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: No. Go on break, and then we'll ask Tom.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I mean, I'm willing to just Wait. Can I just clarify for one?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Because I probably had a witness coming in

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: at 02:30 on the other bill. Is Jen Collins is here

[Randy Brock (Member)]: at

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: 02:30. We need to be back at

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: 02:30. Okay. We can. Sorry to be back at 02:30.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: If you all wanna listen to this, you don't have to.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Actually, do all.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Come on. Let's listen to

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the question.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: I'm back to the delivery permit where it says that this is for tier one and tier two cultivators. And I I don't understand whether tier one and tier two means indoor or outdoor, but I think it means small. Small. So and I noticed that we're only that the board is only gonna issue 15 of these delivery permits a year. With my mind, what I'm thinking is if I've got a tier one grower out there that's small outdoors, and then I have another tier one grower that's small outdoors, but it's also licensed as a retail establishment. As far as those 15 delivery permits, in my mind, just my perspective, I would rather prioritize the person who's just a tier one grower because the retail person already has a way to sell their stuff.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thought there was language in there that does that, that says Well, that

[Randy Brock (Member)]: I I looked back, and

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: I didn't see it, but maybe I'm just reading it.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, I remember that Pepper said that it would be not, there was something about retail, if you're a retail person and you do delivery, you have to have like two people in the car, you have to have a car owned by the retail business.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: But I think that's true for anybody.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Not very many people did it. This would change that. This would be the tier one that doesn't have retail and wants to deliver it to its 10 best customers on Friday night.

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: Right. But I think that I would I'm thinking of, like, this like, I've got farmers. They're small. They're tier one. They have a little pot. Little pot. They all they can do right now is to sell it to a retailer at a wholesale price, and what they want is a retail price. Way they can get the retail price is through delivery under this construct. However, there's only 15 permits annually. Can we, should we, how would we prioritize that those people that are just our small tier one, tier two farmers, that they are prioritized to receive these delivery permits?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: All right, let's talk

[Martine Larocque Gulick (Member)]: We have peppers here. Pepper, please.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Me in. That's just kinda my thought. And Yeah. Did they did you talk about We

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: did, and I'm rereading the language now to see if it overlays that intent or that interest They're not syncing yet, but do you have a chart of Chair Peptune?

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Is that a Doctor. Chair Peptune? Is that report that you were mentioning, is that done by the cannabis control board? Okay, and are they recommending different fees in it?

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: He is ambivalent. I won't speak for him, I will say I recollect in some ambivalence.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Because my recollection of when they set the fee, it wasn't just random. We got a ton of testimony on the fees, and they're they were Okay. There were reasons behind all.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Page eight is where he speaks to it as a consideration of the legislature.

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay and the foreign has Everything.

[Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: But this would not be a committee amendment. This is right now an amendment with five senators' names on it, and if

[Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We don't have the bill, so we can't do it. Right. Okay. Everything is is on the, it's on our website. You can read it. You have about fifteen minutes left. And

[Noah (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: He wants to