January 9, 2023 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] We are recording. Okay, welcome to the city of Boulder's Cannabis licensing and Advisory Board meeting for the first meeting and 2023 and We have Caitlin admirably, taking over John's spot. for the next 3 months. Is that right, Caitlin? Or okay? And then we also have Sandra. How do you pronounce your last name? I should have asked you this the other day. Hi, there! Sandra Younges. Okay. that I was just gonna say the same thing. You want us to tell who you are. Yes, absolutely so. hello to everybody. I know some of you from working with you in the past. It's great to see you all again. so I am filling in temporarily. for Kathy Haddock, who is unavailable, so I will be covering tonight's meeting. and thank you

[1:00] all right. Caitlin. I need to get the agenda up here, but I assume the next thing is reading rules of order and stuff like that. Yes, we will start with our agenda. Item number one instructions for virtual meeting, and and i'm just going to share my screen to show there was a decorum. and I will read these out all right. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, limited experiences, and political perspectives. More about this vision in the projects, community, and future process coming from on our website, which is Boulder, Colorado, Gov. The following are examples of rules of to form found in the holder, Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting

[2:04] all of our marks and testimony should be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to contact the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to sign up to speak, only using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently. Only audio testimony is permitted online. and everyone should be able to rename themselves. And, my sweetie. Yeah. yes. Next we have a Member Ro call you to speak your presence aloud. we have Member Anderson present Member Green. President Bye Sharkey, again present to your conspiracy.

[3:00] Present member below present member, noble present ex officio, Thompson present. and then Member Christina's accent and exhibition Member Bailey for today. Okay, You all have gotten the minutes from the December fifth meeting. Does anyone have any comments, or oh, a lot of you on your hand up there. Yeah, I didn't know if it's gonna be that time. I just couldn't open the reading packet, the Pdf file. I tried saving it to my computer and opening it. I was just wondering if anybody else had that problem, or if I should just assume it's a my computer problem. I opened the meeting packet. No problem. I did not have problems stuff, but you can. If you go through the web page you'd think you should be able to go in that way. Ca: then you want to post that in chat. I think that's a a suitable re way, our suitable thing. We could put it in chat.

[4:02] Everybody has the access to the same website, anyway. So that was the reading packet problem. Yes, all your packets are going online as well. Okay, so next thing on. Oh, wait. Sorry we didn't finish so you may or may not abstain, I guess. because that's where the minutes would have been right. Or was it in the meeting packet? Okay. So you did see them, or should that might have seen them any other, any discussion or concerns. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve this. Someone feels moved to that Brian motions to prove the December meeting minutes a second hope. Stacy. Is that second?

[5:02] Okay, anyone opposed to our abstaining. Okay, Back to the agenda. The next thing is public comments. Yeah. So next is agenda. Item 2 general public comments for the Board. If anyone is here in the waiting room to make public comment for the board. Please use the raise hand function. You can also give me a thumbs up. If that works, I see one. Let me get our it's still a minute time here. Okay. I'm just gonna share our timer and my. I will ask you to Good afternoon members of the Cloud. my name is Jonathan Singer, and I am now in a new role as a senior director of policy and programs for the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. Many hold on 1 min. Caitlin, do we not have one on? I know Jonathan is experienced as speaking in front of us.

[6:17] but do we have rules that we usually read before the public comments. Yes, as long as they're following our yeah, our the border rules for appearing at public meetings, and that's fine for actual public comment, since it's not, you know, testimony. Then they just okay. I apologize, Jonathan. Why, Don't, you start again. You're You're a great start. you got. You got me on such a role now, so i'll I'll reintroduce myself again. So Jonathan Singer and I wanted to reintroduce myself my new role as the senior director of policy programs with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce.

[7:01] but also, wanted to speak a little bit to some of the new individuals here who are sitting with the cloud, at least new to me, as the senior architect of the legislation that enabled the local regulation of Cannabis hospitality. I I did this for a couple of reasons, as a former social case worker who spent over 15 years in the field, working with in youth, prevention as well as people struggling with substance. Dependence. I truly believe that the best thing that we can do is regulate this by taking it out of the shadows and providing people with safe options where they can make educated decisions. That being said, I want to express my appreciation for Clouds efforts over the last several years in providing the mandated or the Clouds mandate to bring information back to the City Council on how to best proceed in this process. there's a couple of things that I wanted to highlight today, specifically. but the the biggest thing 2 biggest things is this: One is the the Boulder Chamber does support a smart, carefully regulated system

[8:08] that allows for the existence of cannabis hospitality. the first reason for this is because we already know that public consumption is happening. we also know that when things are well regulated, like they are for liquor here in Colorado and in boulder that things proceed in a more safe, more controlled manner. The second reason is this: we've done a little bit of a bat and switch when it comes to to cannabis when I say we i'm speaking for for myself, my former role as a legislator. the voter said, Yes, we want people to be able to legally consume cannabis. What we didn't do necessarily is create a venue for that to happen, especially for tourists who are coming here. and also for renters who may not own their residents, and may not be able to consume in their own place, and put their own housing at risk.

[9:00] in terms of a little bit of housekeeping. The one thing that I would recommend in terms of what the cloud could do is really to amend the ordinance requiring a direct representative in the cannabis industry to sit on the Cloud have a residential requirement in the city of Boulder. We know the city of Boulder is a very expensive place. There are a lot of people who do business in Boulder who cannot afford to live here who would provide critical information to this to this board, and be able to provide very good inside information on how to proceed in a way that is implementable for everyone. So I will I will leave it at that. But also say, I thank you for your time, and while I may not be able to remain here for the duration. I'm happy to take any questions later on and discuss the with you later. Thank you again. So, Jonathan, what we you what we've been doing most recently is allowing people to ask questions. right after the person's 3 min

[10:00] so if you're okay with that I' to stick around, of course. Does anyone? And Michael joined us that people might have noticed. Does anyone have questions for Mr. Singer? Heaven Yeah, Jonathan, Nice to meet you. Thank you for Thank you for speaking. I appreciate you taking the time. I. My immediate question is right there at the end you said something to the effect of allowing a cloud industry or a cloud participant from the industry that is not a resident of the city. Is that accurate? Is that what you were getting at there? Yeah. yeah, exactly. It would be. And and yeah, thank you, Mr. Anderson, for the question. yeah, I I I don't have a problem with having a preference for somebody who is a city resident. But as long as their business is doing business within the city of boulder boundaries. What I would hate to see is sort of a a situation where the cloud is not, or the city council is not able to pick from a large group of people because of the restrictive Residency requirements.

[11:08] I couldn't agree more, and i'm I am on this board because I am one of few who is a resident. But I think the reality is that if I think that if we look around a lot of our city staff we're going to find that most of them don't live in the city. I think it's reasonable for us to modify our internal rules to allow for industry participant as industry participant. I think it's a It will increase the candidate pool dramatically. It's not just Alana and I anymore. If that rule changes, so I support what you're asking for, Mr. Singer. I appreciate it. Others with questions. I have a few and one would be a follow up for Evans question if we liberalized.

[12:01] if, if if city council so chose to liberalize the restrictions that you have to live in the city of Boulder, in order to serve on this board. it seems like it would be prudent to allow non- industry. Folks who go to live in the city boulder also is that would you make, would you? You don't have the same tied to the community we if, if if I were to move out of this next month. it wouldn't change the fact that I'm still an employer of 65 people in the city. If you're an outside resident, you don't have the same tie to the community that a business owner who doesn't live here but operates here every day, does so. I would. I would say that I would disagree with you, Tom. I don't think that that should be opened up to the public, but it should be opened up to industry industry. Owners who own businesses in this city. I think it's no less important to have the voice of the guy who is main businesses in Denver, but they have a satellite operation here.

[13:06] That's honestly. I think it's gonna it's going to increase one. It's going to increase the demand, for I was in my position. probably going to increase the sophistication of the individual who's going to get on this board, and perhaps they'll be slightly more diplomatic than me, and be more productive than I have been here, so I I hope that we can take the best candidate, not necessarily on their residency, but on the fact that they pay a hell of a lot of taxes in this city doesn't matter where they live. They're still paying a ton to the city, and they deserve a chance to be on this board. so it's kind of hard. I was going to try to wait. Stay away from specifics. But But what the heck Allison Bailey is not a resident of Boulder, and she has some very special associations with the city and county, and as well as some special I don't know skills and health education, and I would

[14:03] I don't know. I guess we give it time for qualification is because of her health participation. That's that is a qualification that allows her to not be a resident, but in terms of just the public spots on this board. I think. if if you, if you have a special qualification that justifies you being on the board Great. But the general public doesn't really have the same need to participate in local boulder politics. Okay, I'm not gonna go to Jeff yet. But, Robin. thank you, Chair cutsman, and thank you for those comments, Evan and Mr. Singer. I I just would ask that we we commit to our what we've talked about and sticking with the agenda. I think we're not supposed to go off on tangents. We're supposed to hear what people have to say, and then there's going to be a time, and I think we'll all have a lot to say about local control, the you know, and the Board make up just a request chair. Thank you. Well, actually, I was just gonna suggest that

[15:03] We could put that towards the end for future topics to to be discussed in future meetings. So thank you for that suggestion. I don't want to belabor this. But Jonathan, we don't usually have an opportunity to have you sitting here virtually, and i'm trying to remember your tenure in the State Legislature. Can you? Can you refresh. Yeah, yeah, I'm also trying to remember it now as a recovering lawmaker. No, I am just just to be clear. I'm a resident of one. I work from the boulder chamber, so i'm not angling to be on on the cloud here that wasn't my my ploy here today. But but in in in all seriousness. I was. I was elected in 2,012, and I served from January of 2,012 through through the end of 2,020, so 8 and a half years, almost 9 years in the State Legislature. In this lecture, where I chair the Public Health Care and Human Services Committee and the Local Government Committee, as well as the Committee on Persons with mental illness, the Criminal justice system.

[16:07] Oh, thank you, so all of us may or may not have had time to work on our input into our Google document, which is all the positions that are the reasons why we took the positions that we did in the different votes, and in doing so, while I was reading through the Colorado clean indoor act, which, as you remember it was before your time back in 2,006 but then it was revised, and I believe 2,000 15,015 and 2,019, and it was somewhere around 13 or 15 that were probably during your tenure that cannabis was added to smoke, or you know, before it was just tobacco. and then Cannabis was added, and then 2,019. it was amended, as you probably know. that to for several we are in several directions, but one was to allow for Cannabis hospitality. Basically I mean before

[17:07] the hospitality suite concept was approved in 2,020. I believe it was actually the 2,019 was the same year for both the amendments to the color of a clean air act as as well as the hospitality. It was kind of a you know. Double double dip there. so I guess. Can you? Then, in a real like in a nutshell, you know, in a short paragraph. Why were those changes made in 2,019, allowing cannabis to be consumed in what in the future would be hospitality suites. Yeah, a couple of things one is there were. There were 2 updates, right? It was. It was for the allowance of of Canada's hospitality, and the second thing was, an update to the Colorado clean indoor and the update in 2,019 to the Colorado, clean, indoor or clean indoor. Eric was solely not based on on what was going on in the world of Cannabis hospitality.

[18:05] That was one small part of the update there. and it was a bill that I voted for That being said the idea here was to allow these 2 parallel lines to to move in concert with each other. because the real impetus behind the Colorado clean indoor Air Act was was the overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoke was something that was inherently carcinogenic. and cannabis smoke is qualitatively different. and we do now that people are consuming cannabis. and we don't have a place for them to consume. And while it is legal for somebody to consume nicotine products in their home. and if they're a renter. It is not necessarily the case. If you're a renter and you're consuming a cannabis product. So there are a lot of little details, and I won't re reiterate some of the issues with tourism as well. that we wanted to make sure that people were able to to enjoy and invite.

[19:10] and you know I I can today walk outside and smoke a cigarette on the sidewalk. Public consumption with cannabis is still strictly forbidden. It's illegal. So so they are too similar, but different conversations that need to happen in parallel with each other. Hmm. Okay. thanks. And any other questions or okay. Then thank you for your comments today, Jonathan, and sounds good to see you. let's go on to Mr. Guard. Thank you. I'll stay within the title, and it's i'm pretty familiar with how long 3 min last year. I wasn't going to speak to about anything. But Mr. Singer brings up a point, and I've been approached

[20:04] to participate as a board member for Cloud many times. What prohibits me from being able to do that is that I live across the street from country, the Country Club, not in the Country Club, which puts me in on Incorporated Boulder County. Although my my official address. My business address is on 26 and Spruce Street. so you know it's it's these quirks I think that create an issue. I've spent the last 10 years, working with council, working with map, working with cloud working on issues the very issues we work on here, and I do my best through your offices here to do that work. But I have always believe, and others have supported, that I would be doing more good. at least in their opinion, by being on the board, and perhaps the line to be drawn is not industry or not industry. But maybe, whether you own and operate a business within the city, I mean. I think it's about being vested. we had an attorney on the on the map.

[21:09] who was really just trying to make connections with marijuana businesses here in Boulder he did not attend many of the meetings, or would send a surrogate into attendance instead, when it turned out that that was not going to be a a good marketing thing. But again, I think you know it. It. It is something that I think Mr. Singer brings a good point to, and is that you want people on the cloud who are vested in the issues. Who are you know, who care about it, and I think allison's a great example. because she brings so much to the board. My, every one of her discussions. I've come away learning something I didn't know, but I do think there may be some some lines that could be drawn about, at least with the industry seats, if not others, I mean I I I like fairness on these things, but something, I think, should come up for consideration. Obviously, I suggested lots of people to be on the board, and Evan was one of the people that I said, hey, you should be on the board.

[22:13] But at this, at the same time, you know. I do believe that if you have a vested interest in the subject, and you're going to be a helpful participant, maybe just being one across the street from the country Club instead of in it might not, should maybe prohibit you from being able to be on the board. So thank you. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Guard? Sandra. Oh, thank you. Chair. I don't have a question. I just have a comment with respect to this discussion, and I just want to be clear for those that may not know that the requirement for City residency on a board is based on our charter and Any changes to our charter would require an election. So it's not an easy fix. I just want you to understand that in the context of this discussion, and it also feels a little bit like

[23:16] It might be outside the scope right now of of of the purview of this particular board. But the other thing I wanted to clarify as well is that with respect to exopicio, they are not required to be within the City Residency, and that's the a distinction. I'm not sure that was clear or discussed here, or probably known to everyone. So I just thought I mentioned that. Thanks. Sandra. Can I ask a follow up question? Hello. Okay, Yes. So. Does that mean something very

[24:00] to find in the charter also? Or is there a potential to maybe expand the role of the exhibition right to my knowledge there isn't any definition in our code for ex officio. We've always interpreted it as non-voting member We have that scenario. In other words, and that's the precedence that we've taken is that they're just simply not voting members, but they contribute to the discussion and to the Board Boards understanding and knowledge within a particular area of specialty. So this is not necessarily a question for Jeff, but because it could be for Jeff or Jonathan. But I was reading somebody's opinion piece when I was going through all the Colorado clean, and your stuff that, someone suggested as it is in some communities, and I wish I i'm not sure if it's officially

[25:06] legal in parts of New York City that you can smoke marijuana openly, but it sure seemed like that last time I was in New York City. If if i'm not, i'm not actually suggesting this, but it it's more of a hypothetical. If public consumption were legal. Then there'd be less reason to have possibly correct. Jeff. Thank you, Tom. The bottom line is with this. Is that? Yes, of course, that it would be the case. The reason that I brought hospitality lounges and advocated for them is because so many people don't want to be walking up and down the Pearl Street Mall, and smelling that of the businesses. It's sort of a good neighbor thing I wasn't as concerned about the profitability of the businesses, but the impact that that that open consumption

[26:00] really has on people who don't want to participate in that. I mean you. You shouldn't have to. You know worry about that. And that's what ends up happening now. Because again the police have actual real problems all over the place, and they're not enforcing at at the campus level, or on the street, or in Pearl Street, or anything any kind of public consumption. So if they see you doing it, they'll tell you to put it out. But the penalties are so low now that it's not worth clogging up the court system to to to do the ticket. So we have de facto public consumption. Now, I just thought by bringing it indoors and by bringing it into a safer environment like that. It would have less of an impact. Be a better neighbor policy, I think really, for the cannabis folks who are forward and also keeping being respectful of people who don't want that in their in their face like that. It's Stacey. You have our Dr. Green. Yeah, we can do Stacey, I think, unless you're okay. so I really feel strongly against public consumption. But I am, I think, as everyone knows it, relatively speaking, with the right provisions and safeguards in place

[27:10] in favor of the hospitality establishments, I think, at least from my standpoint, one of the reasons I am in support, and I think this was already said was to try and get it off the streets. I mean, I think a lot about youth walking around. If there's public consumption that just really in my mind opens the door to a lot more problems with youth use as opposed to trying to like Mr. Singer had said Streamline. This put it in an environment where there is a set of controls in place, we do have an opportunity to educate patrons. Granted, youth would not be allowed in these establishments, at least with what we've been voting so far. But it would really be, in my opinion, the absolutely wrong move to just make public consumption legal and boulder. As it is, I think people, I I think this regard just said, like visitors, or what not, to the State.

[28:04] people come here and wonder if it is already allowed, because there is already a lot of it that goes on, even though it's not technically legal. And like, we were just hearing the police mostly just kind of slap on the wrist, If that it, it just feels like the totally wrong direction to be moving to start allowing people to smoke, and on the street as opposed to having these, you know, very controlled environments where we could at least have some semblance of say, and what's going on, and who's doing it? Okay, just to restate for the record. I was not advocating that. So I want to make that perfectly clear. I and I would also remind us, as Robin did, that we want to get to content. so. But go ahead.

[29:01] We are. We are here to follow the charge of regulating marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol, not in a manner similar to tobacco. So we don't, allow drinking on the street we shouldn't allow smoking on the street. That's it. Okay? Any other questions. Otherwise, I think we will close public comment. caitlin. Nobody else has their hands raised, or make that make that official y'all. We can call one more time If you are here to get public comment, you can raise your hand, otherwise we will move on. and I see no other answer is, so we can move on to agenda. Item 3 policy suggestion forums received for the January meeting, and there were none received for January. So, we can move on to agenda before which is border marijuana, hospitality, City provisions continue discussions in all hand. Well, actually, we remember we changed the agenda. Order a little bit

[30:03] matters from senior console. Yes, thank you so much for the reminder. So, we will be changing the agenda slightly. So we're gonna jump down to agenda. Item Number 5 matters from Senior Council, because I will leave you that Council has some comments regarding something specific on the agenda. on the just an Fy. The meeting agenda that was sent out in everybody's meeting packet has it number 4 matters from Senior Council. So that's the thanks I was looking at the original agenda. You're in the spotlight for a second. For a moment, whatever as many moments, if you want. Thanks, Tom. I I I guess I i'm not sure exactly

[31:01] what it is that the ford would like me to discuss. I have heard through the great find that there are issues related to conflict of interest. I can talk about that if that's the issue. I've heard to the Greg by other issues. So I I think really this is the opportunity for the Board to ask if there are any questions or issues that they would like me to apply about. Well, also, maybe to give. I maybe I should have created the atmosphere for a second, because Brian and I, as the chair and vice chair often are, always do meet with city staff prior to the meeting, and we come up with an agenda and during that meeting to discuss the agenda I think it was both of us, Brian and I asked Sandra if she would be willing to talk about the conflict of interest issue that came up last time, and then i'm just gonna

[32:05] leave the door open for a second issue that we talked about that day when we plan this meeting about whether it Yes, one can revoke anything. But is it wise to revo One or more things. Remember that discussion. So i'm happy to discuss any issues that the Board has. I I know that Kathy had a provided some legal advice in in October 2120, 21 meeting. I reviewed that meeting. I reviewed the documents related to that meeting. I I don't have anything more to add except that I agree with Kathy has advice. and and perhaps taking a step back, I would say that typically if there is someone that believes that there is a potential conflict of interest issue that that be raised individually with the attorney that's representing the Board. So.

[33:14] but in the best of scenarios, you know. If you thought that there was a conflict, or if you you yourself were concerned about the potential for a conflict of interest, you would bring it up with the attorney with the city that represents this board, and have an opportunity to have a discussion about whether or not there may be a conflict, and to get a recommendation from the city attorney. so that's the the best scenario. every code of conduct. Analysis is very specific, and so it's not just that we have these canned answers. They really have to be applied to every

[34:04] product. Specific circumstance related to the individual. And It's also a decision that the person holds, whether or not to recuse themselves, we provide the legal advice, and in circumstances. But where the person seeks the legal advice of this city attorney, it provides a safe harbor for any sort of repercussions or sanctions that may be imposed on the individual. so, as I mentioned before, I I went through, and I reviewed everything. I agree with Kathy's recommendation. and that's pretty much all I have to say about it. Okay. Questions. Okay.

[35:01] Hi, Sandra, how you doing good? I had a question about that just in terms of you know, if if it's the on recommendation of of the the person present like an attorney of present, that that's for the board. I'm. Also known as Kathy in this in this situation, if if the recommendation is to step out of a conversation, but you disagree and you decide to stay against the advice of the attorney? and that's what you're saying in terms of you. Would you know any kind of repercussions, or whatever it would be you, you run the risk of having those repercussions and not having the protections. And then, if say you do take it right it which has happened in this case. You do take the advice of the attorney, and then get different legal advice, saying that you didn't have to, because it wasn't specifically referencing something that was within that scope.

[36:04] And then you want to then have your voice heard on that matter. That only that only applies is from the city attorney. So a a person can get their own label advice. No one is far from doing that, and it's up to them whether they want to take that legal advice. Not but the only legal advice that quote unquote counts in terms of protection or from the city attorney. Okay. those mostly answers my question. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. I think we're ready to move on. Okay, and then so referencing the annotating agenda. So thank you for worrying about can be Hold on a second, Did we? Were we talking about the other topic that that you guys had brought up.

[37:03] Tommy? You brought 2 topics, and we just talked about the one i'm not saying we have to, because I don't know what the reference is, but well, it'll either come up or it Won't: come up. Okay. in the interest of moving on and Sandra's. No, we are, you know, willing and able to participate at any point in time that we need further discussion. So yeah. Brian, I'm blocking on. Why we moved. Well, actually a lot of you had some things that we were talking about members of the Board. Somebody else texted me about something. I'm trying to remember what it looks like. Evan had matters as well, but I do have matters if we're moving to the next agenda. Item.

[38:04] Brian, was there anything you and I that to bring up at this point in time? Maybe only the prop 122 conversation we might be having. But that's just only developed the last couple of days here. But there's nothing new on that only that we'll be meeting with folks from the ropa and prop up 122 organizer potentially that we go to the 23, and I guess the other thing at some point we were going to mention that you and I visited stella's cochino cucino, and got a tour and it's an interesting facility. Anyone has any questions. I'd be glad to answer that what I was invited, and I decided to invite Brian with me and even they were carefully enough to make sure that we we weren't violating the rules by having 2 people there.

[39:05] but we we knew that ahead of time. So Alando, did you want to say anything? Including something about what you and I just discovered, and what you discovered and pointed to my attention. I'll leave that to you, Tom. I do. You have a matter that I've been trying to raise for the last 3 meetings, though, so I do appreciate the the time. I respectfully did not go with this item. After 2 of our members have left the meeting last month out of no president of the Board. Just my own desire to have the full board here. so I shared Jeff Guards advice to me regarding how I should evaluate matters that come before the Board with regard to my position

[40:01] in a cannabis company boulder. and as a we talked about as a board in the last month's meeting. It's just interpretation goes further, and is remnant of the original advice. I was given by the city attorney's office when I joined this board. it differentiates in that just by being an incidental member of a group of people that could potentially benefit. That is not a criteria of conflict of interest. in as much as I. A lot of Malone and my company cannot benefit from the availability of hospitality. Establishments in boulder 150 We would require other things in order to benefit such as increased square footage of cultivation facilities. That's a single policy measure that would directly benefit me in my business here in Boulder and, as you'll know, I submitted that in a policy suggestion form at the beginning of my time on Cloud, and then I've never raised it since, because I realized we could have a conversation, but i'd be recused from it because there's no way I could constantly up keep that policy because I would be the first one to want to benefit from it.

[41:17] I don't find a concentrate permission in the hospitality to be anything of the sort, and I think my role rather implores me to be a voting member on that. And so I would like to raise a motion to revo on allowing concentrates the same language of the original motion to allow my vote on the matter to be recorded. and that's my first matter. I guess. What was it? I think it was you that asked of the conversation that we had planning this meeting is that. I think, to what we discussed is that in order for a new vote to be done.

[42:02] then first, the Board needs to vote as to whether a new board our new vote can be done. Yup. So my motion is to see if a majority of the Board members would allow a revo or would support a revo so that I could memorialize my position on that vote. I'll just jump in from the procedure. Perspective the only way for a reconsideration on a motion is for someone, as the prevailing side of the motion passed with the subsequent meeting to make that motion to have a second, and then for that motion to be approved. There's also the issue that we talked about during retreat about i'm not taking away from your motion, but we talked about 3. What was the term pre something motion? This is the third meeting i'm trying to raise this topic. I don't think i'm springing any surprises on you.

[43:06] Oh, okay. So just to sign this point, the only person who voted in favor of the previous motion that I want us to revisit was no longer a member of this board, so there's in fact, no one on this board who voted affirmatively for the motion, so she didn't say affirmatively, she said, prevailing, so that would be the no votes. And listen. You guys can say no, but I want to let you know where I stand on the fact that I recuse myself during that meeting. I wanted to provide the context for the benefit of Evan, as well as every other member as well as future members that are in my position. I think it should be clarifying and helpful to think about that different lens as to whether somebody is incidentally part of a group that could potentially benefit versus 100

[44:00] being an an exclusive member of that group that would definitively benefit. Well, if I'm understanding you correctly, You You're just regarding the advice and and making a unilateral personal decision. I'm not fully disregarding. I've had meetings with Kathy specifically regarding my position in the industry and that conflict of interest title. It was a separate meeting, and it was not recorded, and it wasn't part of that vote recording. But I did my I did do research and seek to learn from her and from the city attorney's office about conflict of interest. I'm. In an incredibly unique position, as I hope everybody on this board can appreciate. that I'm. Being called to support the activity of this policy board because of where I come from in this industry. I did take Kathy's advice, and the advice I received from her at the beginning of my time here on club, actually alliance with the advice I see from Jeff Guard. It just happens to be distinct from the advice she gave me in the moment one

[45:08] during that meeting. Well, and I listen to the meeting, and she denied that she gave you any advice that you just described. So I it's obviously I. I can't speak for Kathy and it, you know I. All I know is that I have analyzed and reviewed the law and the facts and the situation, and and I agree with the recommendation recusal. based on your unique circumstances. I've even gone back and looked at other situations where we have given advice to members on planning board and otherwise and and I do believe that your situation would fall within that that category. I really appreciate everything that you have to say and share as well as Kathy. I am aware that this is my decision to make. This is an incredibly unique situation, and I do not find myself in conflict with this vote. I do not find any way that I could benefit

[46:13] from voting in favor of this, and I ultimately have to make the call myself. And really just we can. We as quickly as my board members want to try men? before I go to Evans first, and then Stacy, and then Kate another option for you to register your concerns and our thinking, or even discuss the issue of recruiting recusal. I I didn't hit refresh on this Google Doc, but I don't. I see that you did not comment on that topic yet. At least not that I can find. and that would be another way for you to. You know how many words we are allowed 150,

[47:01] whoever knows. Thanks, Tom Evan. Yeah, I obviously I agree with Alana's stance on this. I think that the reality is what Brian just brought up. Kind of got passed over, but it is absolutely true that. there is. I was not a participant in that vote, nor was Alana, and given that there the individual who product or who voted for it is not here today. I in in the process of going through and making my comments for these recommendations, I think I noted something in here, and unfortunately, I didn't have the ability to share this with all of you immediately. till I got Allison's permission to copy into that thing this afternoon. but I think there's a there's a there's a technical calculation that we're not making with the language that was used in that.

[48:00] and I think it. It renders the recommendation one way or the other kind of a moot point. Concentrates are much more complicated than just the term concentrate. I think, when when this conversation was at the conversation related to dabbing and rigs and the the traditional smoking of concentrates. But it did not go around. The conversation of vaporizers and vaporizers are the dominant force when it comes to concentrate consumption, most especially when it comes to concentrate consumption in a socially acceptable manner with 35 plus year old adults. I think that what we chose to prohibit was actually the primary mode of consumption preferred by the average 35 plus consumer in our entire city. The idea that we would not be allowed to have vaporizer pens inside of one of these hospitality

[49:01] operations, to mandate somebody, to combust flower incredibly misguided, and I don't think it was the intention of this board to prohibit the least offensive of these second-hand smokes. If you want to call them that I think we need to consider a little more deeply the detail of what we're recommending here, and I made a motion that I shared with all of you earlier that we will get to soon enough. But I think it's an appropriate thing for us to look a little more closely at this subject before we pass off recommendations that would be hard to explain if somebody were to ask. Why did we ban dabbing while simultaneously banned. a the lowest dose form of administration that we have available to us. So I wanted to bring it up later, but because Alan brought it up. Now. I I I think it's it's worth mentioning. So. Stacy. I appreciate all the comments on this.

[50:04] I think in past meetings Kathy had led us to believe that we could always have additional votes. So like, if we want to get more granular on this, like Evan is saying, might be helpful and given what he's saying, I agree, maybe we do need to, you know, break this out into more detail, but those would look more like additional votes as opposed to re-voting, and a lot of my question to you would be, I I mean, just from my own understanding. I I just am not totally clear why you want to revoke on it because of what I'm. Hearing Council say, you know, like theoretically, could put you at rest. Number One and number 2. I'm. Looking at the members who were against, and unless something has changed, if those same members who are here today are still against. then the votes probably gonna look the same, and the only difference with you taking on this risk, then, would be having recorded that you were either for or against it. So I guess I just want to understand from you a little more, why you would want to re-vote on this like. Why is that

[51:14] a big deal in it unless like we were sitting here in a situation where, and I don't mean to assume everyone's voting on this the same way. So I apologize if i'm doing that. But that is true that it wouldn't change anything like we'd re-vote, and very potentially it would still fail, because the members who voted against it maybe would vote the same way. So I guess that's why i'm not understanding why we would want to do that. And then, you know, to Evan's Point. Maybe we do need to get more detailed votes and break this out more clearly. I would just add one thing from my medical perspective on concentrates in general and dosing. They are not a lower form of dosing like

[52:04] it. It doesn't matter like there, that's just not actually accurate. And I I think that's an important point like we're even in a vate pen format you're still dealing with a 90%, or roughly, say 70 to 90 ish concentrate material. And when you calculate dosing, medicinally speaking, the concentration of the medicine, or in this case recreational product has to be taken into account as part of the equation. So it doesn't matter if you're taking a half a hit right like off of 8 pan, it still could be a higher dose than a flower material. My concern against this. The reason I voted the way I did was because there is so much unknown. We don't know that it's safer. So, even though there is massive usage. Of this I agree that clearly seems to be a majorly preferred method. It feels like Everywhere I go I see people using these, whether that's tobacco or cannabis, or both.

[53:03] The the jury is out on it. We don't know like a it. What if this is like the sixties and we didn't know you know, about tobacco the way we do. Now and then we're saying, okay, let's use that in our establishments, at least for me. A big part of the hospitality. Conversation is saying, okay, like we don't have settled science. But let's do the best that we can with the science that does exist right. And where there is a lot of question, I wouldn't want to put that out there for our community and support it for our community, or make members of our community, even if it wasn't, you know. Maybe it was an assumption. Think that if somebody saying, yeah, this is safe and fine, just do it this way, so I I guess my first question along I would be like, you know. Why do you feel so committed to re voting on this? And then the other part would be. Would it make more sense just to maybe

[54:04] start making new motions like Evan is saying for this, you know more line by line if we have to go on these products more specifically. Yeah. thanks, Stacey and everyone. I do want to clarify what's driving this, and it's kind of one of the less desirable characteristics of mine, which is that i'm just procedurally, incredibly attentive and nerdy around procedures and want to make sure that certainly myself as an exemplar for those who will come after me that i'm providing the best example possible. And I regret recusing myself in that moment. So it's hard for me to feel like I have. I've done the best job possible, and you know, set the right precedent for these industry seats, and this incredibly unique board, and this incredibly unique time, this partly community, so on and so forth.

[55:00] And then your voting record as a board member is essentially your job. So it's I. I feel like I want to, You know, vindicate myself, and the the mistake that I made as well as fulfill my responsibility to the highest possible level. I did 0 lobbying on to members around this vote ever, never, ever, ever have I, or would I lobby, you guys to vote one way or another on a on a matter like this that tends to be controversial as well as Me tied up in the center of it. So has nothing to do with any anticipation of a change of vote. But I do appreciate the question. and then I mean I just. I have another matter, but i'll raise it later, and it comes back to something else that you said Stacey. But i'll let everyone else keep going. Kate, and before I I've got Kate Robin, then Evan. I would just advise. Let's be brief, everyone.

[56:00] so we can move on. Well, i'm not super concise, Tom, so i'll do my best. But I I just wanna I just want to say that like i'm gonna i'm gonna really drive just this. I have more comments about all the things that are being talked about. But I really want to just talk about what a lot of brought up and I just want to say that I don't think it's our job to tell her whether she should or she shouldn't. She gets the advice that she would get, and then she makes the choice for herself. We can bring it up, and we think it's a a conflict of interest. The attorney can say what they think, and if she wants to re-vote, then I mean, i'm not a voting member, so it doesn't really like My opinion is that we should let whoever who decides that they want to vote vote, and if that means a revoked, then we should take a remote in this specific example. It's like telling somebody that works at a brewery that's on the alcohol the liquor board that they can't talk about whether or not, a bar should serve beer like this is, this is really like a very basic thing. So that's my opinion on this specific example. But I really think that we should focus on?

[57:05] How do we want to deal with revolt? And if a if a member asks or a vote. and is it really our position to tell that person whether or not they should take the risk or not. That's their choice. so that's my opinion from that. Robert. Thanks. I actually really agree with Kate on that. I With respect, Helena. I I did feel like that was a conflict of interest, being the product category. That was. But I appreciate your perspective on that. If you wanted to take another revo and we came to a way to do that, i'm comfortable with that. I also just want to thank Stacy for her comments on the concentrate issue, and some of the things that Evan brought forward. The language in that motion is very specific. It it says, marijuana concentrates, and that's a state definition, and it's not a method or a delivery system. It's actually talking about the state definition of marijuana concentrates. So there was some care and thought that was put into that for what it's worth.

[58:08] Those are my comments. Thank you. Evan. I I appreciate everybody's opinion on this. Obviously it's an emotional thing as much as a technical thing. I think I have to bring up the question of. I have a license in every category in the city. Alana has a license for cultivation and for production. The the the argument that she would have to recuse herself over the conversation about marijuana, concentrate would imply that I would have to recuse myself over the conversation of marijuana, flower and marijuana concentrate and marijuana, edibles, and marijuana retail erez agmoni, and that's just not the purpose. I don't believe that that is the purpose of this board. If we are going to make the argument that the industry representatives must recuse themselves from any category of voting that would include their own businesses. One

[59:11] a a mit ctl. And I don't think that I was selected for this board to recuse myself from every vote which is, I mean, in looking back at the proposal we're about to make to the city. I'd have to recuse myself from every single one of these, because, of course, they they could in some way 150 if I voted, or if I voted in one direction or the other. benefit my business. Of course they can. That's that's what we're here to do. I produce every single one of these types of products, so do I have to remove myself from voting on every single one of these is that is, that the opinion of the the board and the city attorney's office i'm gonna jump past Stacy for Sandra. Yeah, thank you. Chair. I just want to address Evans question. And I think that first of all, it needs to be on a case by case basis. And simply by by virtue of you being a representative as industry. Doesn't. does create some issues, and we have to analyze them

[60:15] actually. And there are many issues in which you can provide your perspective as an industry representative that Don't impact directly, financially the fact of what products are sold. So you know, there there's lots of other areas that you all have already talked about That impact. the question of whether or not there should be hospitality establishments within the city of boulder, and they don't all relate to the products that will be allowed to be sold. Stacy just given everything, everyone saying, I think, Kate said it first, that we shouldn't stand in the way of people voting. We've heard Council's opinion. It sounds like all of us.

[61:09] or supportive of a revo. So if i'm understanding that one of us who voted against it has to motion to re-vote. Then i'll make the motion to revo on this issue. Sandra, did you you still have your hand up. I don't know if it's newly up or not up from before. In that case, Michael. Yeah, thanks and thanks, everybody for your comments. I mean, I gotta be honest with you guys. I'm sitting here listening to this conversation. I'm i'm pretty shocked. to me it seems like we, as a board, have been assigned an attorney to advise us on what is within the parameters of the city charter what's within the city regulations?

[62:00] And if there's an issue with respect to a conflict of interest, and we have a city attorney telling us that Yes, they believe that there is a conflict, and that a member should recuse themselves. It seems to me that we are certainly calling into question the integrity of the votes that we're putting forward when we have members who are going against against the advice of our own attorney. so if that's what this board elects to do, I certainly hope that at the very least it's noted in any recommendation that goes forward. That that was that that person voted against the advice of the city attorney. I I think i'm sorry. I just want to be clear, Sandra. You had said earlier that if if the member wishes to not recuse themselves, say and vote, despite like Michael, saying your very clear advice. That's their choice to do so. Is that right? Or do they have this correct?

[63:00] So then, Michael, i'm. That's the only way. I'm just sitting here thinking like we're just talking in circles. Should we revoke? Because, like I was saying earlier, it doesn't. I'm gonna be surprised if the vote turns out differently, and then maybe we could be done with this. Alana can be on record. That's her. Risk her choice, and we can move on right. And and Stacey, I totally agree with you. But you know what frankly a lot of. If you want your position to be known, we can put that on the record. You've already come forward and said that you would have voted differently, and that you're not going to follow the advice of this city attorney, and that you've received contrary advice from your own attorney or from Jeff Guard. I mean. The reality is. you know, as a lawyer. I know this, but the reality is you can always get a different opinion from what somewhat from what other some other lawyer is giving you. So that's a we will run into that same issue every time. If we're going to have this debate on whether or not we're going to follow the city attorney's advice, because if if the city attorney comes to me and says, Michael, you need to recuse yourself. I can guarantee you. I can run out and hire someone else to give me contrary advice. So I I think we're like we we are. We are going down a very slippery slope. If we are not going to be following the advice of our own city attorney, and and I'm not trying to take away from your position along, and how you feel about this.

[64:17] I do appreciate where you're coming from. I I certainly recognize that this is your family's livelihood, but I think that the same goal that you're trying to accomplish can certainly be, but be made by putting it on the record that you know you received other advice. You would have voted differently if you were able to vote, or if you participated in that boat. I I just I mean I I just. and not like in the direction that we are headed in. If we are now going to be recalling every vote, because the city attorney told somebody that they feel about. You know someone should recuse themselves. I would just comment, and i'm having a tough time with the Internet that there's a reason that it's up to the individual to recuse themselves. This comes down to

[65:01] you, too. Reality at the end of the day. which is why I think it's probably on the member i'm having tough time with the Internet. Sorry, And I know I have a conscience, Michael, and I know that I cannot directly benefit from my participation in this vote, and I know that you have feel very strongly. You can just dialogue with me if you're just responding to me. but it it's because there's a burden of proof. And, like Evan said, if if the city attorney's office was going to tell me that this was a conflict, then so would the vote to allow flower. so would every other vote. and i'm not willing to recuse myself from every single vote. on this board. I don't think that's my job. My duty, my responsibility. So let's disagree an, and and I think that sums it up a lot. I think you know we can agree to disagree. I I certainly do not agree with your position that you know, and and particularly with with Evans position, I do think that you know to to what Saunders said.

[66:10] This is a case by case basis. And yes, if we are going to be voting on an issue that's going to impact one of Evan's businesses. If we are going to do this right. And, Ilona, you said you're a stickler for following procedure. Then each one of those votes should go back to the city attorney, and we should be seeking the advice. Is there a conflict of interest? And if there is, and you or Evan, or whoever that person is, decides not to follow that advice, and and you want to cast your vote. You know that's on you. So I just want to clarify process at this point. Sorry if i'm jumping to queue. This is the best way that we had a motion. We have a second, so we are in a discussion face now, but should sort of keep an eye on sort of coming to calling for a vote at some point. Do we have a second, or we have. We have a motion and a motion.

[67:03] I believe I didn't hear any seconds. but i'm not sure that i'll all on as much on a lot of exactly what your what was your motion? I think you're right, Tom. I believe it was Stacey's motion, and I don't think that I've heard a second. I want to clarify also in making that motion that I, 100% agree with Michael on this, that if if the city attorney, I said on other boards, and there's votes that I wish I could participate in, because I do want my opinion heard, because it feels pretty important for that topic on whatever the details. But we have the like. You said your policy person a lot, and these policies are in place for a reason. And so it really like as much as I want to like. Say, okay, let's just re-vote and move on with this. So we can actually get to the rest of our agenda, and not keep talking about this and reading about it in our package week after week.

[68:05] I I really am against the idea of this particular thing. My motion to revoke is simply for getting through this and moving on. And if you want to take on the risk that would be your choice. But I really want to be clear that I am a 100% on the same page as what Michael just said like. If you are supposed to be recruiting yourself according to council for this board specifically. and it makes sense to do so. It there's reasons for that. It puts yourself at risk. It may, but other for unforeseen consequences at risk. So I just want to move on from this however, we need to do that. so Sandra does the second need to come from someone who was voted in the majority prevailing side? Yes. that's my

[69:01] okay when you have your hand up. But you took it back down. not to complicate things. But I just want to add that I really appreciate the discussion that we've had today, and I think that I really think the board's better off, that we've. you know, all shared a variety of perspectives on this and I know there's lots of other matters too. I have also. I'm not saying we would or should, or could; but if i'm not mistaken, green dot lab now sales flower or produces not sales. Excuse me, grows. Oh. we have been growing flower since 2,013, and we've been recognized as a breeder, genetics. house, and cultivator for a very long time

[70:03] from flower as well as Evan might have the same. Well, but I guess. should it be interesting for someone to draw the line like. If we want to keep going with this conversation on conflict, then it would be interesting to hear somebody explain where we benefit. and how from this out. because I would seem there. Evan. I absolutely load that we are having this conversation. so i'm going to make it even worse by bringing up the fact that we have to look at every person on this call right now who is a voting member, and we have to consider who could benefit from of a one way or the other. And, Robin. I hate to bring you into this on a personal level, but I have to ask

[71:00] you do work for a political individual. Yes. yeah, I do. But i'm not here in that capacity in any way, shape or form. I have my own experience, Evan. I'm not here on repa Mobile's behalf, not in any way, shape or form. In fact, in many of these issues we have disagreements. I'm here for myself. Okay? Well. I can say that as an owner of 14, or I do not have a hand in making the operational business decisions for the company anymore. About a year and a half ago I stepped down in that capacity. So perhaps there's a specific argument that could be made there, but I think it's a dangerous conversation for us to invite industry participants. and then tell them that they can't vote related to the operations of the reason why they're there it's. It's very difficult. And this is we're going back and forth around this. But the reality is. I think, that council should be asked for their formal opinion about whether or not the industry, participants on cloud should have a vote in subject matters related to the products that they produce 150

[72:10] Mit. C. And I think that we keep going back and forth. But we have yet to ask counsel that question directly. and I know that the city attorney's office has an opinion about it, but I believe at the end of the day the Council are the people who selected us. The city attorneys didn't choose alana and I the actually ev. But I did create. I did help create the ordinance that created this board, so i'm very much aware of the discussions that were held or surrounding it. And so I don't think that just because we decided our council decided, Excuse me that they were going to have industry representatives, they decided to throw out the code of conduct.

[73:02] So there are real reasons why the code of conduct is there, and we should evaluate them on a case by case basis. I welcome you to meet with me individually, so we could talk through these issues. I don't think this is a great use of time right now. Personally, I think the chair or vice chair needs to call for a second to see if there's a second on this motion, and we're on I'm gonna I I agree, and I still have heard no other, no second. So, Michael. just real quick. Alan and Evan, I. I agree with you specifically a lot of your point that you know. I think that this issue needs to be clarified because I I do find it surprising that Council data point industries. You know industry representatives to this board and give them voting power on this board, and I do think that it is confusing. I just tend to be a stickler for rules, and and I tend to fall more to if there's a potential conflict of interest, and we seek the advice of council and council tells us Yes, there is. There is a conflict. I would like to see this board follow that advice.

[74:14] Again, if if we're not following that advice, I think it calls into question the integrity of the board. But I I do agree with you that this issue needs to be. It needs to be clear to all of us, because I don't think that it is. Yeah, I I think at the end of the day there was an inaccurate, or there was an inconsistent application here. If we were supposed to recuse ourselves, then we should be required to have recused ourselves on every one of these votes. We voted on very specific things. Kathy's fully aware that Alana has a flower license. Why did she not speak her desire to have a lot of recuse herself when that subject came up. It's it's the the the inconsistency of the application is the thing that brings great concern to me If I was told right out of the gate. Hey, You're basically ex officio. then, that's different. But that's not what I was asked to do so. I'd love to get an opinion on this, but I do really want to move on because I got other things I want to talk about.

[75:04] please. Stacy. I think what Sandra said is that we're supposed to do it on a case by case basis. I don't think there's meant to be a general rule that industry members can't vote on, you know, issues pertaining in some way to their topic. I I think it is case by case, so you know it would be nice to hear more about it. But, i'm going to withdraw my motion at this point, and I really hope we can move on. which is what I was gonna do soon next, Anyways, if there's no second, then the motion dies. So this point of order is still a standing motion from Alana to revisit It didn't seem valid, based on what Sandra said. So maybe there's an easy way. We can clear it. That's correct. Thank you. Yeah. Because the motion would have to come from

[76:01] one of the members that voted in the majority. to first even bring up a. Which is what Stacey do. Right? Okay, If I recall Yeah, and that I figured to myself like I said, If Alana wants to take on that risk that's up to her. But I think, after hearing what Michael said, that we have all this documented. Anyone who's interested in historically going through all this will see very clearly that alone I was very much against having to recuse herself. And if that that's why I asked Alana, Why do? Why are we even thinking about this. And so if that's the reason that you know she wanted to make sure she was on record accordingly. I I agree with Michael. That's real clearly there at this point. And the answer, Evan, the reason that even came up during the issue of constraints, and why it was applied inconsistently. If you listen to the

[77:05] the audio from the October 2,021 meeting, which admittedly it's hard to listen to, because the audio was not there were times where I actually asked you to repeat what you said a alana during that meeting, and then, when you repeated what you said, the audio to replay. I still couldn't understand. so that's another issue altogether. But Several of us listen to the audio from that meeting, and and that's why it came up under the issue of concentrates. 7 verses didn't come up under flower. So anyways with no Brian, are you okay with? There's no second and no appropriate motion. As I said earlier, Alana, I would want you to or invite you to

[78:00] I'll put all of your comments in the Google document. Thanks, Tom, do we have? I was under the impression that you date was January third. Did we get an extension to 3 desk meeting? Where is there another update. It's it's a it's a You can update someone to get to that agenda. I yeah, I actually didn't finish all my comments. So I think it's a fluid document right now. So Is there anything else like our members from the Board or Evan? Are you What what you were hoping to bring up. Was there a time in the agenda that you were going to bring up what you wanted to bring up? I assumed it would be during the forget the exact term. But yes, the from members, from matters matters from the chair and members of the board. Yeah, that was kind of the

[79:01] The thought to bring up! Bring up these things now. But the reality is, I think it's more important for us to move to the marijuana hospitality, city provisions, and then continued discussion there. I think the document that we have in front of us now, that's kind of the collective collective notes of everybody is the is the point of, or it contains all of the conversation. I'd like to be able to have. I don't know exactly how we want to approach that. But there are a couple of issues I I wanted to bring to everybody's attention and see if there was an interest in a few additional motions before we make our final final recommendations to the to the Council. The there are some, some technicalities, I think, that got overlooked, and I at least want to bring them up for discussion if I can. Okay, so as the chair. I'm: just looking at time. Is now 423. We'll be talking for some time do you? Wanna we to just choose an arbitrary break time and about

[80:02] 40 ish minutes. or do you want to always best, right? Yeah. I mean, I All right. So that's a good segue. But how do you want? Do you want to start up the to start off the topic of I just want to just want to make sure that everyone had a chance that if there are other numbers, or if you wanted to bring anything up. Yeah, I I did have I did have something to bring up that I like. Talked about a couple of times in different situations, but Haven't been able to be here when we talked about it. there was something I talked about at the beginning. I I can't. I can't remember what it was. And then I also put it into the retreat. Information? I had. I mean it kind of lends itself to the conversation about ex officio members and what they can and can't do in terms of obviously not voting but I had asked a question on whether or not ex to show members could make motions or provide seconds. and

[81:09] I haven't heard whether or not that that is something that is allowed or not, or if it's something that we could request, if it's something that the board could do, or if it's something that no boards can have done I had talked I'd sent a message to, I think Kathy and and Shawn back in the day. Just say like, could I just make a motion and then not make seconds. So therefore someone on the board would have to make a decision. on whether or not it would move forward so anyway. that was my question, because it's never really been directly in. and I've asked it a few times Kathy or Sandra. Do you want to. He will need to answer you now, Kate. if you if you know the answer, I mean I I've asked it a couple of times. I I do think that that's part of the procedure process, and it would be akin to voting so I would say the answer would be No.

[82:05] and I think historically that's been the precedent as well with other boards and commissions that have like the official numbers on them. Okay? Well, thank you. and then secondly, we had talked about last time kind of just I mean, I know we're not quite moving to hospitality quite yet, but we will be we did talk about going one section at a time, so it'll be pretty easy to stop one section and take a break when it of those motions is finished talking about. Well, I would remind all of us that we're there, that when we're at the top of the discussion topic about the age 25. I'm not mistaken. You suggest you made a suggestion, Kate, and then somebody else made the motion. Or you you You crystallized the discussion

[83:00] that had been occurring. and suggested: Well, why, Don't, we just, you know, have a h for 25, and then somebody else made the motion. I I did not make a motion of any kind of that matter. I I asked to have a conversation about that. so i'm not i'm not exactly sure what you're referring to other than like. Yes, I have an influence on the conversation. I appreciate that opportunity. Okay. Okay, So. Brian, did you get your answer? Is there anybody else members of the board. which would ordinarily be towards the end of the agenda, which is, we move things up and move things around a little bit. Okay. then, in that case, let's move on to the Hospitality City provisions continued discussion.

[84:03] And then, having you kind of did a nice segue there, I thought, but that I was gonna use utilize. I guess I I would love to hear how we should go about this section of the of the meeting. obviously a potential for a lot of rabbit holes. So I don't want to. I don't want to promote that. But how how do you propose? We we continue this discussion on these provisions? Obviously a lot of people have been able to make the comments at this point. What do we? How do we? How do we go forward from here. Tom? Well, there's a lot of different ways. I I don't want to belabor this on how we do it. But I mean we can just take a document and put it up on the screen

[85:00] share screen and go through it. I mean everybody else can. You can also keep it on their screen. But for those that can't. I the public has access, don't they? Yeah, the public doesn't have access to the comments, though. So I want to remind everybody that we we didn't use comments because they are not available to the the non editors. So okay, right. Yeah, I just want to clarify. I share Evan Member Anderson is concerned that what is our goal and sort of going through this document? Is it to revo, and you should be single items on them with the spectrum. Does it just review each Other's arguments? I would just want to sort of have a a common understanding of what our goal Here is the next 2 h of working with this document. From what our goal is at the end of those 2 h of accomplish.

[86:00] Do you? Do you want to answer that yourself, Brian? First? But I I generally have that question. Okay, Kate wants to he's got her hand up. yeah, I think that if I remember correctly from the last meeting, I, my understanding was we were going to go through, and while we were going through this document, if we did have comments that we wanted to leave, we obviously couldn't leave them, but we were going to talk through it in this meeting. So my assumption was that what that meant was we would go through line by line. The motion and talk about the language of the motion, the whether or not you know anybody had any concerns about whether the vote was correct or it was adequately like like prescribed in this document. because remember, this is a summary of the motion. They're not exact language of the motion, and so the hope was that we would make sure that the language reflects what we all believe to be true of the motion that was made. I did not think that we were going to be going through it all and talking about each other's responses, because I thought that that was just

[87:02] what our opinions were. that was my understanding. If there was a concern about a a a comment being made. I I I didn't think that that was what we were getting at with this document. I thought it was the language of the motion, and making sure it's clear, making sure that the vote was right, and any kind of concerns that we had with with that kind of thing. That was my understanding of what we were doing with this document today, but that that sounds right, and I I think we kind of agreed that if there was a glaring error that we were might ask the person who wrote such a statement. Are you sure about that. Yeah. So maybe it Won't be so hard to go through. did. How did you feel about sharing screen so the the public can see a comments. Anybody have comments that they don't want? I mean, it's gonna come out anyways, right.

[88:04] Sandra agreement. This documents already been made available to the public. the link to the documents in the I believe the meeting packet too late. or I guess you can change your comments. Sure. Okay. Caitlin. Do you want to. Does that sound? Okay. So method share screen? Yeah. I mean someone anyone can read along with it. If you don't want to share the screen. I think sharing the screen would be helpful for something. We are looking at the same thing at the same time. for sure. And then, just to clarify. You would like to see the lab hospitality Motions document shared for this the duration of the discussion.

[89:03] yeah. cool right here. And then, if anyone is looking for it. It is in the cloud reading packet on page. It's on page 20, 3, yeah. 20. Oh, work. Excuse me. and i'll share it right now. Okay, hopefully, everyone can see one reality is that the reading packet may not have the most recent edits. Oh, Evan, where are we? It's just the link, Tom. It's not the document itself. So it is the most recent.

[90:04] So this right here is open to the actual document where you all have been okay. And Evan and I and a couple of city staff are aware of the fact that Evan was not able to access the document. until just or what? Or do you still don't? Now do you have access to that? Alison got me access like 15 min before the meeting started. So I've copied all of my responses in there, and they are all in line with everyone else's. I believe i'm actually the final comment in each of the each of the motions. Okay, good. All right. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that your comments were represented. They are. They're in there. Okay. So now it's okay, even like at the very beginning it talks about language of the motion

[91:01] for the on the August second. 2,021. Yeah, I think we just need to say what that I I couldn't find that anywhere where Mobile bring your own was disallowed. Was that a cloud motion. Or is that just something that was already in place? I kind of remember having a motion. I've already got it. and i'm assuming that's the correct date. Anyone. perhaps Staff could go back and do some research and see what the motion language was or listen to to and come back with that That would be super helpful. Thanks, Sandra Licensing can help with that.

[92:02] and the timeframe of that will be between now and next meeting. or what? What would be that timeframe. You can't find it quickly, can you? We could probably figure it out by the end of the week and email it to I mean, Typically, we've been working with Allison on this document. We would send our comments to her. But if someone else wants to 7 for Allison and make that change for us. since Alison's out of the office. That might be helpful. Tom, I can send it directly to you if you're willing to do that. The the August, or it would you? You could send what directly to me what we find when we listen to the august hearing, as far as the exact language of that motion. Okay. sure one, You could send it to both Brian and I, maybe sure.

[93:00] So you yeah, it's a unanimous vote. So it's not that consequential to the exactly so. Well, and and I guess I would say I I don't know what the timeframe is in which you want. This document approved. But if you wanted the entire board to look at it and approve what was found then that would happen at the next meeting. But. unless this board was okay with whatever was found in, since it's a unanimous but I guess it i'm not sure exactly what to take on a message of that. But I did here. Robin, that if it's unanimous I mean it can be added later. But we do want to make sure it's accurate. Kate. Yeah, i'm looking at the meeting minutes from the August meeting from 2,021, and it says number Keegan moved Green seconded. That cloud would not recommend that the city of Boulder explore mobile hospitality, or bringing your own cannabis, retail hospitality establishments at this time Motion past 7 0

[94:13] is what the note says. So yeah. Kate, could you plug that into that little summary spot there? Because we're all Still, considering this document, it's still live. Everything is under consideration. Thank you. Hey, how do you get? Besides, listening to the audio. I just pulled up the September meeting meeting packet the meeting minutes from the previous meeting is in there. and that is the language that was used. in the summary of the meeting minutes. Okay?

[95:09] Well, I was going back through the months of 2021 trying to listen to recordings. Looking at the minutes I noticed I and do not see? Am I just missing it? But I don't see any minutes from the November meeting. Let me check on that, Tom and i'll get right back to you. Okay. It's not that relevant to right here and now in a moment. right? So maybe the subject should be up out. Be in line with the things below it

[96:04] versus opt-in versus opt out. or it doesn't say it. Opt out What's that? Because it's it's the very first thing it's so I just I can change the language if you want. I can say Cloud recommends opting out of mobile hospitality. But it was more like this one Here it was it at this time, so I just want to make sure that was captured. Okay, no, I I just changed it while you we're working on the other part.

[97:00] Maybe you format. Do you want them all to say? Cloud recommends so that it's consistent in this in the subject. This is not a subject line i'm talking about in the motion. right? That was what you were working on talking about the subject line. Okay? Well, she's working on that. Does anybody have any other concerns about anything on that first page.

[98:13] I see that there was this motion for the opt into retail hospitality and sales to say, at the end of the motion the license would be governed by city laws applicable to all of their marijuana businesses. We may just want to clean up that language since we do have further recommendations myself. What would you propose? Yeah. okay. I was just reflecting the The comment that was made about

[99:05] opt into the State opt into Canada's Hospital and sales establishment establishments, but the license would be governed by city laws. would be removed unless we want to say that the license would be governed by city laws applicable to other businesses except as as defined by you know what I mean, I I the the one piece was just that to all of their businesses as well as that's all I was. Are you here? Good! There we go. Sorry about that. Sorry, Kat, I was paying attention a lot I got cast out, and

[100:01] no, she's back. so I miss what you said. Sorry. there I it's actually a lot of comment about the opt-in to retail hospitality and sales about whether or not it should be so. It says club recommends the Boulder City council that marijuana Provisions of the boulder Device Code be amended for the city to opt in to the State law to allow marijuana consumption businesses. It's not consumption. Businesses it's hospitality. and sales establishments. So the language, just to be clear that that we're talking about hospitality and sales not about Mobile, or bring your own. And then that last sentence. It says they will be governed by all of the businesses. But there are edits that we're making to it, and we're making more restrictions, or that that that that piece of language was just a little bit confusing. and it looks like I've been suggested that we could just delete

[101:01] yeah. And as you can see on the screen, it's not viewed as delete. Hmm. Yeah. See which? Okay, yeah. What I suggested there is that the license would be governed by city laws so little weird to say applicable to all other marijuana businesses, because there's several motions further down this document that treat hospitality businesses different than other marijuana businesses. So if we just got rid of applicable to all the marijuana businesses, I think the license would be governed by city laws. We're going to pass laws to regulate the whole part of it, or the whole bit of it. But it's not going to be the exact, same as other marijuana businesses. So I think if we strike that last from applicable to businesses, we get to the intent of what we were going for there. or what you guys were going for. I wasn't even part of it. So I was going to ask Sandra if if there was language that we could use, because the license would be governed by city laws applicable to all the mayor of one of businesses, except

[102:08] that specific ones we make to hospitality. Right? I mean, I do think that is important to say, because you think the the intent of the motion was to have it abide by other marijuana and business laws. So I think that the well, if we could just take one step back, i'm sorry, because i'm just stepping in here, so i'm not sure where you guys are with this document. But if this document is intended to go to Council in terms of your recommendations. I I think if you're going to be changing the motion language, like the heading motion to me would indicate the actual motion that was made. If it if you're going back and changing them. just for clarity's sake, that that's fine. But I would maybe in the heading say something like motion summarized, or something like that. So it doesn't

[103:07] sort of. You have the perception that that was the actual motion that was load it on. And then your other question I had to do with the license. The license would be governed by city of laws applicable to all other marijuana businesses. I mean. that seems like a given. But if that's not the case, like if it's the case in some, but not others. then you would want to address that in every single motion. but I don't know. Like does it apply? It was the intent that it would be applied to every one of these different issues.

[104:05] I lost you. I lost the basis. I I lost your direction of that question. Not sure. I understand what you're you're asking. Okay, do you want to ask the question in the end, or I I mean I can try and answer it again. I'm just. I'm not sure if i'm answering the right question. I just want to clarify that this isn't the motion language. So yeah, summary is way more appropriate because none of these are the actual motion language. Even the earlier part of this, so I think that that update makes it better should we see summary of motion just to even make it more rhetorically correct. and I was just like on the same topic kind of thinking. Since we do have other of these items. Me, you know, like that. Come back to what Kate was asking Sandra about. You know

[105:05] the marijuana business laws. Should we just say you have something along the lines of pending other recommendations, and then, like. When those happen, we can actually reference them there. You know what I mean, like if there's like Evans, that there's other ones that are more specific down the list. So maybe just saying, You know, as we are just making recommendations to council anyway. some language saying, you know current laws pending further recommendations from this board. See below, or I don't know something like that. or you could even say that the license would be governed by applicable city laws. I don't know if that covers it or not. But I think there's been some discussion of in correct me if i'm wrong, maybe making some amendments that would be specific to these hospitality places that wouldn't necessarily apply to other marijuana businesses that currently exist.

[106:09] Did Allison is the one who put this whole thing together. Correct. Is that is that right? Or was that set? Was that staff? If it was Allison in in conjunction with each other. Yeah, can you? Yeah. So we will work from the city attorney's office. put together this summary. the motion summary, and these are literally, I think, copy and pasted from all of our minutes, which were approved by the board. That's where the the motions came from, and then I think Allison took that summary document and created a more extensive memo for providing each of you an opportunity to comment on that. So it was a partnership between staff and okay. And do we have to make a motion to say it. Does anybody have an issue with just leaving it as it As it is.

[107:05] I don't think so. I I do think that the clarification of marijuana like it should say hospitality and sales businesses of consumption, because that's not accurate. Yeah, I mean, I would edit it. Go for it, Kate, is. This is a collaborative document. I I have no problem. I'm not changing anything without Everyone's so back you got the ex officio I don't know whatever you don't want to get too involved in terms. If Allison wrote it, then you can change it. Yeah. Oh. going back to what? I asked earlier. While we're working on that one does anybody have concerns also of what what's on this page I do.

[108:05] I do want to mention. Well, i'm trying to. So, Brian, you made the motion. You were getting tired of making the motions in that October meeting. if you remember. it's like, Why do I have to make all the motions You didn't say that way. But and I thought you did an admirable job actually. But I kind of remember in the flower motion, or at least of the certainly the discussion. But the flower motion that's something about. If ventilate because it, we we had a discussion, and we many of us said we're kind of tied ties into ventilation. And it was something along the line Brian, of if ventilation problems can be addressed or solved, or Do you remember anything like that. Isn't, that the motion on may second

[109:01] it's let's see hold on that way Too many more windows open. It's the clean indoor Air act motion specifically sought to address that. I mean. I agree with Tom that they were parallel concerns. It would seem out of character for me to sort of create a double barrel motion like that. That has 2 matters in it. But I I agree that they are shared concerns. I like simple motions. I remember in your in your comments here that's That's when I was reminded. Actually when I was reading your comments up, and no, you're I mean I'm i'm. Jumping the gun to page whatever that is. 3, 4 share resp. It would be so helpful if we can go through this in a organized manner, kind of from thing to thing to thing. You're talking to page 4 and

[110:06] no i'm. But i'm concerned as to whether the motion actually the summary of the motion is completely accurate from the minutes. Would you like me to read it from the minutes. I I have the ministry in front of me. but minutes are brief. Usually I I listen to the the discussion. Last night for several hours I was in and out because I had to leave my office because I had really bad reception. Can you just fill me in on what we're up to. and we're on page one, and I was just asking at the bottom of page one where it talks about marijuana hour, which past 4 to 3. I I hear what Brian saying that he doubts that he would have made a motion that has something contingent on something

[111:00] what I kind of remember it being that flower would be approved if the ventilation problems can be solved. And I Yes, I do know that the it's down below. In the May discussion also. I mean, I just suggesting is that we would need to go and be. Listen to each one of these. If you have a different recollection, which is certainly I don't know that's the best use of our time right now. I would, just as the motion is written, following the same process by which these other motions were extracted. I think we should. Just so. Maybe if you have a different recollection, we can comment that out. We can revisit that offline. Okay, what I'm reading the May one, I guess. Some content with that. What do you mean? The May one? And he This is what Robin just complained about jumping to another page. It's not on May 5, 2, 22 there. There was a motion that is summarized about the cleaning or Air Act.

[112:10] so i'll recommend that we we. We come to that when we get to that. So if we're done with page one, let's move to page 2. Yes. Are people okay with me, changing where it says, marijuana, consumption businesses to the marijuana, hospitality and sales businesses? Yes, definitely. Is that across the board. So everybody agree that that's a since those are the only business types that we're allowing cool great. Now, kristen briefly, and also given the fact that it's almost 5 o'clock. I saw you on briefly with your hand up. And did you want to say something.

[113:00] Kristen? She just message me that she stepped away for just a second. So is she. What? So you have to wait for just a second. Oh, okay. Well, this might be a really good time to have a a 10 min break. How's that sound? All right? 4 57 caitlin Start the timer we'll come back at 5 o 7, Hey, Tom, should we be prepared to be? Are we going through this document? The entire document? I don't think we're going to make it through. But the key. The key part is the first part, because after that it's People's comments. Okay. So we're going to align on the motion summary language, I think, Kate suggested. Okay, Did I capture that? Yeah, I think the the goal was to make sure that we're all I wasn't serious. 4, 4, 5, 5, or 7. Okay, See, you soon

[114:00] got it.

[115:36] I'm back. But i'm gonna turn my video off so I can still finish eating here without you having to watch. Thank you. I was just during the 10 min I was listening to the October minutes

[116:04] segment. there was actually a There were some discussion about. Are we referring to hemp also. that makes things confusing. Tom. And what context were we referring to him? Well, we were actually wanted to crystallize the motion language for the bottom one on the page, one about the flower discussion. Wow, And I know Kate's Kate, and say she didn't say it, but I was just listening to you, Kate. I didn't say that I didn't say anything. are you. you know. Find out this chair thing sometimes. Then

[117:02] what I do it. Our audio really is not good sometimes. right? Oh, well. okay. So we're on Case 2: right? Yeah. So again, our task is, we on page 2 review the motion summaries to share it it some reason motions anybody change that I can change it. I did have a question that I wanted to ask everyone go ahead. Okay. I was hoping that we could add numbers to these because the the bullet point thing and the like, trying to refer to which ones we're referring to is is really

[118:04] going to be very hard to reference. That's kind of nice. Do you think it's not enough room on this table. But if there were. or maybe we could just put it in. hey, Brian, I mean just before you do that all I mean we might be adding some, My. might we not? Or what I thought I heard discussion about adding. Oh, oh, we already did that. I see sorry. Just call it like a new column reference number, or something like that. Well, what we could we could put it under, I mean Brian's Already Brian's putting it in the subject. If everybody can see that on page one he was putting motion 0, one motion 0 to If people are open to that. That could be the way to do, and then I would say we should try to do that

[119:00] when we get to the bottom, that they should be there the same once the correspondence once the document is finished, then we might like, maybe even in the box where it says boat we could. We could list the pages where the comments are for that motion. How's that? So if you wanted to make it really helpful, you could even hyperlink to the discussion. I think we heard that we can't. We couldn't do that for some reason. I think, if we, if you make the motions each a sub header, you can easily link to some headers in the document. It's super easy. I can easily do that. if people. I think we can't link out of this document, but we can certainly hyperlink inside of it to just jump to the right just to the the discussion that's later in the document. Yeah.

[120:03] the way it looks like he's about to the document will probably figure it out on its own, because it's already set up as a outline format. So if you put headers in there it'll probably pop up on the left side all right. Sorry a lot of people said what I was gonna do, but I didn't know what I was gonna do. So you want me to make headers for each of the summary motions so that there's a table of contents. Yeah, I'm going to see something real quick and see if this does it. Yeah, making the motion as the header. we can do it. If you just use the dropdown where it says Normal text, highlight motion. One right. I can highlight. I can do header 3. And this. and then we can.

[121:01] My life. I do this all I do better in the spreadsheets. We don't have to way of me to do this, so let's go into page 2 out. I think you all may may know I have. I have something to bring up here. Obviously, I already brought it up once, but I want to bring it up again, and I have language written. I'm not really sure. I I know we're supposed to be presenting motions with language. I have a language I don't know how you would like me to present it. I can certainly copy it here. We discussing motions before we before one that makes the motion would be ideal. But what are you thinking? in in regards to this, I I just think that we need to give an opportunity to differentiate between dabbing and high high milligram. Consumption versus the lowest milligram consumption per per draw, which is fape pens. I think the reality is that most

[122:14] I actually just verified with a friend of mine who works for Bdsa. The Analytics company that's based out of based on a boulder actually right over in in gun barrel. but they are. They are national national Clearing house for data in this industry, essentially, and we're we're talking about the second most common consumption method is the non-combustion method is vaporization, and I understand what Stacy said earlier, and there is still very very high potency material side of vape pens. But I think that to lump vate pens and to Robin's Point earlier. There is 2 classifications when it comes to potency testing and how you deal with getting certified. Yes, they are Both marijuana concentrates from raw material like raw dabbing material versus

[123:04] controlled release vaporizer pens. But we have to get them tested separately for a good reason, and on average, when we're talking about a normal, they then they have somewhere between 150 and 200 draws in a half a mill and a half a so essentially. What you end up with is an average of around 2 milligrams to 3 milligrams per draw. The average flower bowl is about 10 times that many milligrams. The average DAB is 3 times that many milligrams. So to group that together is dangerous because they're not even remotely the same thing. I think the the vast majority of vaporizer pen users are not even remotely interested in dabbing, and many of them are not even interested in combusting flower at all, we're eliminating a third of our potential market, and perhaps even more. The the social licensing of vaporizing

[124:02] is much, much higher. I mean, walk into the Boulder theater or the fox on any night, and they will stop you from smoking weed and talk to you while you hit your vape pen in front of them. It's not. It is not a it's not a we know that it's happening already, and the reality is that by providing some venue for people to consume in the way that they choose to When that method is not combustion. I think we should. I think we should allow it, and I think it's a it's a reasonable, a reasonable thing for us to consider when it's the method of consumption or the choice. The chosen method of consumption for a huge percentage of our potential customers. The reality is, we have to make this business a business, because if we don't, then they're not going to be around for very long, and most of us will have wasted our time having this conversation, so I strongly advocate that we we take up the conversation of differentiating dabable material from vaporizer pens, because they are very, very different.

[125:05] So I have language for a proposal there. I don't know where to show it to you guys. But anything. Tom. Yeah, you there. I didn't realize I've been talking this whole time, and i'm on mute oops. I I did, an Evan just kidding so I was gonna call on Robin because I saw her and go up while you were talking, and then I was going to respond to what you said. If that's okay. certainly. Yeah. thanks for that, input Evan. I'm willing to look at any motion. I will just say, though hearkening back to the conversation around this particular motion motion Number 5 marijuana concentrates

[126:01] that it was a thoughtful and in-depth conversation, and we decided at that point not to talk about delivery systems, because it's a different conversation. We went with the state definition of marijuana concentrates as what we looked at in this particular motion if you want to bring a different motion, and I think that's what you're suggesting. That's fine. But I just I hope that you can see and understand why we honed in on marijuana concentrates specifically as what we were debating in that motion. and for a variety of reasons the vote went the way that it did. Stacy touched on a lot of those earlier. You can correct me if i'm wrong, but flower can be consumed in many different again. But the the the vast, vast majority of vaporizers are full of a concentrate at this point, and not a fly work. That's a it's a that existed for a time, Tom, but it is really I don't. I don't even know of any stores that sell flower vaporizers anymore. At this point.

[127:10] Okay, Stacey. I think Robin is making a really important point that we are going with the State definition. But I also hear what Evan saying, because the reality is that he's right, that this is, or fate. Pens with concentrate material are the most popular. However, we're not from what i'm understanding. So far the way we want this to look, going to allow people to bring their own personal devices into the facilities to be using them. So theoretically speaking, someone could walk like. Let's say you're a vape pen or somebody is a vap pen user all the time they walk into one of these places. Do you think they're not gonna want to smoke flower just because they can't use their vape pen and like. And if so, do you really see that as a major challenge to the effective management, or like

[128:06] business of the hospitality places, because I kind of see people who use vape heads, and from at least my professional experience and and personal experience talking a lot of people. The reality is, most people like them, because they don't have an odor so like your example of in the Fox Theater. You know the reason they probably are overlooked. It's just more subtle. It's not like when people smoke, you know, smoke a joint where it's like this giant cloud of smoke. You can't miss it. So I think a lot of people choose them because they're more subtle. They could do it without having to like. stink up the entire place where they are, they could do it without having to smell like it. Maybe when they go back to whatever they were doing so, these places would be establishments where you can use cannabis. So a lot of those issues wouldn't necessarily be there, and i'd like to think that some of these Vate pen users might walk in try smoking flower, if that's what they're doing there, anyway, and actually revisit the idea that maybe that's an acceptable form of cannabis usage.

[129:12] despite the social trend towards all these, concentrate and vate pens and whatnot I I mean, that's maybe medical opinion coming in there, and I do worry about these types of materials a lot. So I I mean, that's certainly coming through, and at least the way i'm looking at this and voting on some of these items. But I I don't. I guess i'm just curious if you think that's like a major impediment to these businesses functioning, if the the reality is that it is not socially acceptable. And even though we want to believe that it is here, it is still not socially acceptable to blow a cloud of smoke in somebody's face inside of a business. It's just not. It is absolutely acceptable in this community right now, in many, many settings

[130:06] to politely hit a vape pen while you're sitting there having a cup of coffee standard public setting right. This would be like, I don't know if you ever were in Amsterdam during the era of coffee shops. But that's like my mind heavily when i'm picturing these things right, and in that those they didn't have any special air filtration. Some of them were kind of smoky, but you know people were sitting there smoking joints primarily. I don't. I mean, okay, this was like a really, really long time ago that I was there. So I can't say and remember all the devices people were using. But you know this was in the era before all of those things came onto the market, so i'd like to think that people would walk into these places. I I have to imagine. At least this is I'm. Not an industry person, so maybe my opinion is not as valid on this, but I would imagine most people would be happy to go smoke a joint in one of these hospitality places, even if they're a regular Vate Pen, user maybe there is a subset of people who really truly believe they're like doing their health a service by avoiding smoking flowers

[131:12] as opposed to, you know, and like using vaporizer devices, maybe one day we'll find out they're right. Maybe we're going to find out they're completely wrong. The point is, we don't know, and I think that was why we voted the way we did when we did on this or some of us. Anyway, I can speak for my own, but I hear you and I I understand this vote. I I did. I did my research on what you guys voted on, I totally understand, and I I actually slightly revisited the language I would like to propose as a motion, because I think the what Robin said is absolutely true. That is, marijuana. Concentrates are a category, and it has a reasonable definition, I think what I would like to propose is is an exclusion or an exemption for a delivery, a specific delivery method Inside of these establishments we can ban all concentrates, but for the

[132:03] marijuana vaporizers exempted in that. I promise my language is better than that. When I can show it to you you'll see. Cloud recommends that electronically powered marijuana vaporizers be an exempted delivery method and hospitality establishments. If If we're dialing on this is it okay Tom, for me to speak up. yeah. I would like you to, because what I would say, Evan, is that. and I want you to get right back to your motion, so I don't want to take up too much time, but you know there are impacts to the other votes. Once we once we, as a group, said Marijuana. Concentrates as defined by the State, are not going to be included in this round up of what would be allowed then. You had people considering things like impaired driving, for instance. and if you exempted a delivery device to include a marijuana, concentrate

[133:03] that may change how people feel about how they voted on some of the impaired driving things because they might have a greater concern. I mean it. Could it impact it could impact a lot of emotions around. I mean, are you talking about? Which would your desire to be to create a motion? 20, Yes. and oh. Before I call on Stacy. Can you read what you just said before? What what you were intending? But I mean I. You say this motion 20. I have the language written. I might as well present you guys with that

[134:03] You want to send it also to caitlin. Maybe some point in time. Later we can put it up on the screen. I mean. I can put it up on the screen for you right now. I have control over the document that she's looking at. Would it be preferred if I just put it on the screen? I heard at least one person complained that we weren't going in order? I understand that. But if we want to show the language of it, I can just show you on the screen right now what it would be if we want to say that it's motion 20. Then let's scroll to motion 20, and just wanted to clarify something that Evan had said earlier, as far as the dosing because I had brought that up before You had compared, you know, somebody smoking an entire bowl to using these bait pads and maybe taking a hit. I don't think that's a fair comparison, so I think we would have to do one hit off a bowl or joint to one hit off of vape pen. Now my experience professionally is, the people who are inclined to smoke an entire bowl are the same people who are inclined to suck down the cartridges and those VPN

[135:21] in like an ungodly amount of time. So I I think we need to stay consistent if we're talking about dosing language because one hit off. You know whether it's this bay pad with the concentrate in it. One hit off. Join our bowl. Those would be where we want to prepare a full full smoked or a whole joint smoked. You know, a a couple of hits off of vape pad. Now, you know, there's also a lot of other information that I know in our retreat. I remember Michael was saying he doesn't know a lot about this stuff, but the big pen material like the concentrate material also has a faster, like faster or higher peak.

[136:07] and it does maybe wear off a little bit faster. But that seems at least, anecdotally speaking to be very user dependent on that person's like if they're a heavy user versus a light, user etc. So I I think we just should keep it consistent. For now, like if we're talking about dosing like one hit off, whatever our V, you know, device or a vehicle is rather than saying, yeah, if you smoke the whole thing, it's more. I think that it's. I think that with there, okay, so there's a reason why we have equivalencies. There's a reason why you have only a limitation of 2 grams and a half a gram of concentrate just for simple math for everybody to here. Right now we have a lot of strains that are 30. You're allowed to buy 2 grams of flour. If you consume the entirety of what you're allowed to purchase during one visit you have just consumed 600 milligram

[137:00] of concentrate or 600 milligrams of Thc. Concentrates are limited at a half a gram in the exact same sales setting, so to assume that you could exceed. I mean, that's over unity. The the maximum concentrate, even if it's 95% is still only 400 7,990 milligrams. So we already have an equivalent. The state has provided the equivalencies. So that's for purchasing. If I am it is. It is so that here we're talking about like people sitting in a hospitality social club and using it. And so then it's more dosing, like literally like per dose like if I had a patient in front of me doing a study. And I wanted to compare, you know, effects of a concentrate versus the of the flower goes for dose. It doesn't matter what the State limited and how they got there is it's like literally like how much does their blood level go up

[138:02] from using one hit off whatever mechanism, so it it's it. It gets really confusing, I think, and I understand what you're saying as far as the purchase allowances. But I don't really think that pertains to this particular discussion. I mean, maybe it'd be useful to have someone like cinnamon. Come back and talk to us about that kind of stuff, and educate some more. But I I think that we, for this discussion of hospitality establishments need to be consistent, and our comparisons like dosing wise. And if we, if we are voting to limit concentrates from being allowed, then we are making a call to protect the patron. Yeah. if we're making that call, we've already chosen what their limit of I mean, you're not allowed to buy too much alcohol. Well, unfortunately you are. That is, up to the decision of the It is up to the decision of the bartender how much you're allowed to drink. But

[139:02] in this setting we are already putting a cap on people. Why do we need to put an additional cap? We are putting a cap of 450 milligrams, roughly with a half a gram of concentrate being a limit that they can purchase. We're allowing 600 600 5,700 milligrams of power to be sold to somebody. We're already protecting them. We should allow them to make their own choice about their delivery method. Michael, my vote that's that's my position. On this You obviously disagree, and I respect your opinion enormously. You are a doctor. I recognize that. But I also know that this is, we have to vote. We have to vote to support the industry if I would like to, and I think that this this prohibition is a big one. It really changes the it changes the face of hospitality in a huge way. It turns it into the thing that we don't want it to be, which is the the grungy joints and the the dirty cafes in Amsterdam. That is not what this needs to be. If we

[140:02] have any expectation that it's going to be successful. I I think that one of the things that we did talk about during that meeting was, we're just opening like theoretically opening the doors right. This isn't like permanent. Never allow this or that. It's just to get the ball rolling. If city council decides to go forward with it anyway, right, and I think the idea was given especially right now the highly contentious nature of marijuana concentrates on in many regards right, and it's very political, as you know the idea was Well, let's start with something less contentious, less political. See how things go, and we can always make changes later. I don't think this was. At least this is my understanding wasn't intended as a like. We're never going to allow this or that. There'll never be vate pens. It's going to be a dirty facility. I think there's ways that we've been talking about subsequent to this

[141:03] motion, 5 about in your air quality, what would be required with venting, and all that kind of stuff that pertains to your concerns about turning it into a grungy place. Hopefully, nothing would ever be like Amsterdam, because, as i'm sure anyone who was there can att there a lot of other caveats to that city that fortunately, don't apply your. I just wanted to share that it always really really surprised me when I remember that we're talking about 25 year olds in this conversation. It's. I remember, at the beginning of the board. I remember Robin saying, and please, i'm not trying to quote you. I I might get this wrong, but I remember saying to like Cannabis people. We're not trying to take away access for legal adults. And we're talking about the pens the most ubiquitous thing for 25, and up and I just want to share my

[142:04] continued surprise, that we are regulating the use of the most popular product for over a decade in Colorado, among responsible adults and and prohibiting a product for 25 year olds in a just. I hope that I have everybody really reflects on on what 18 to 25 year olds are allowed to do otherwise. And how this really comes across to a broad section of our community. Right? I just wanted to echo, would agree with the some of the things that Number Green has said that I think my motivation here is the one real policy environment where we can show that we're doing things slowly, responsibly. I think one of the first things that we you teach anyone who's

[143:00] trying to a first time Consumer cannabis is, you know, always this go they'll go slow. And so and by that same sort of logic, you know that's the way that i'm approaching my votes here at the proceed with hospitality is that I think there's really exciting things in the product space of concentrates. I think there are really exciting things to be done with edibles in a hospitality setting, but the same time they have different kinds of risk profiles. That suggests that, you know those are decisions that should be revisited after we really get our footing. Thus, by using just more conventional, well understood kinds of products. And so to say, that we're never gonna do under 25, or that we're never going to do concentrate. It's certainly not the intent of my votes. I think those should be decisions that we continue to revisit and and made it should be revisited. but i'd say for an opening bid for creating a policy environment for hospitality. my motivation continues to be that we should do conventional forms of consumption, using well understood kinds of products and and routes of administration.

[144:09] and then at until regulators us as well as licenses. I really understand, like how this is gonna work, what the market is like. and then we can begin to sort of think about changing some of these other kinds of policy considerations. Let me go other than to go back to the document, and then, when it's time to make your motion happen when we get down to number 20 or 19. Well, I I I will at least let you know that I cut my motions in half. I've decided to eliminate 2 that I really wanted to bring, but right now they are already in the document as motion 20 and 21, so

[145:04] I've had my piece. I I believe we should be voting on that motion when we get to it, and I have the language in here, for you guys review it's in motion 20, and then motion 21 is the other one, but we'll get there shortly. so I see. Where Where Did you put it? Page 5 in the table? Yeah, it's. I put it in the table. It's below the yellow highlight. Okay, now, okay. When I scroll down, and then I scroll back up. Then it was there. Okay? First it wasn't, then okay, Got it all right. Can we go back up to to try to make it through some of this more, Some more of this I should say. Yeah. Motion 5. That's what we just discussed. I know. But is there anything

[146:02] as this is written here right now? What was voted on might remind us, Brian, Your hand is up. Is it still up from before? Is it. No? Okay. Sorry about that. We're good there as it was about it. I mean, I just ask. i'm, i'm alone at this stage that as a document. It's going to go for city council. There's a no queue that i'll under queues. I don't know if you'd want to change the language here, or the record, and i'll add my notes if we're allowed to after the meeting. Yeah, I I totally anticipate that people can still add things. Say regretfully. Just getting okay.

[147:07] motion 6 something I was thinking about. Okay, Go on. Yup 6. I know what I was thinking. Should we have the top the topic headings. or the the box headings on the top of each page to the subject, summaries of motions. etc., to try to make it easy. Maybe I don't know we wanted to that now. I mean, My only thing is that if we add some brian's already on it, yeah. or somebody was. things could shift. So yeah, if you put it in as a header, you as a as that, or whatever we can do it. But it'll be not yet. Okay, All right, Hold off on that. Then

[148:02] for you. okay, 6 as okay, son. Hearing none. Number 7. Okay, If You' me to i'm a little confused by this one, and I like i'm not. I don't think there's a a way to change this. But can somebody clarify what's exactly going on here not intended for liquid consumption, shall be one of the permitted types of products allowed. Okay, Well, Drake's Motion 8. So we just separated out edibles. It's both solid, and so 7 is solids. A is liquids. Both are edibles. So you're not allowed to have gummies, but you can have so does that what we're saying.

[149:04] That's 7. 8, 8. Yes. that's what it was voted. I do. I mean, this is not a motion, and i'm going to bring up again. I got no dog in this fight. I don't I don't consume edibles in any capacity. but gummy's make up like half of the edible market. They are absolutely the preferred method of consumption. Drinks is a very, very small piece of the consumption market. I onset is no faster one way or the other. Trust me, that's the the delivery method inside of your salary. Glands is just as fast as drinking. It's actually faster if you dissolve it in your math than it is putting it into your belly. So I I just don't understand where the logic was in this one. why do we want to prohibit gummies. Can somebody speak to that?

[150:00] My recall, my mute or no? Now my recall is that before we heard somebody somebody said that there's some new things in development, or maybe already available that have quicker onset and and shorter durations. But our biggest concern, from what I call from the discussion was, we were worried about people doing edibles, and then having a delayed effect while they're driving home. But there's nothing to support. The idea that a drink is activated any faster. That that's just not true, I promise, I think clinically, they are seen as a faster onset. like a Again, i'm speaking medically, not recreationally, although I think we can probably make the extension that the liquids, the drinks are absorbed faster

[151:04] at least. Again, it's probably anecdotal, because we don't really have great research on these things. But I think what Tom was just saying, if my memory serves was part of our discussion, that if you know somebody takes edible of, say, 10 milligrams, the serving size that is for sale. that very well may not take effect, and in a significant way, until after they potentially have left the establishment, and would maybe be behind the wheel of a car walking into a bar and then mixing alcohol with it. I hear what you're saying, as far as sales are concerned, from dispensaries. But again, I think we want to try and keep these separate, because I definitely know a lot about what people are buying medically from Dispenser is in, I guess, recreationally, too. And you're right. There is a huge market for these solid forms of edibles, gummies, or whatever. But I think a lot of that usage. The intent of it would not pertain to a social club hospitality, environment. A lot of people use it for sleep. We use it for other, you know, not

[152:14] approved by the state of Colorado medical type conditions. i'm not disputing this at all, Stacy. I think we should. The only thing I would bring up is sublinguals if we want to. If the theory was, let's promote the thing that goes faster. I totally agree with that edibles. If you chew an edible and swallow it right to your gut, it can be very, very slow. but if you dissolve the sugary candy in your lip, it goes really fast. What I would recommend is that perhaps we make a statement supporting sublingual delivery methods, because that is the fastest possible way it's Depository sublingual is the fastest, so like. Hopefully that's not going to come up in the hospitality.

[153:02] I I think now I know you're not arguing. I'm just trying to explain what I recall. You know as some of the logic behind, at least some of our voting on that specific motion. But I hear what you're saying, and maybe we do need another motion about sibling. Well, specifically, because I don't remember. maybe somebody correct me if i'm wrong that we actually talked about that type of product. I don't recall us bringing that up anymore. Where would you put it, or would you put it totally independent of the other 2? Yeah, I think it's independent. Yeah, I think it's just an additional category. I mean, we're talking about marijuana edibles, but then differentiating beverages and edibles. I think we can add and say that the sublingual is is the fastest. I mean the dissolved strips or tincture. and I think the other plus side to that is, generally speaking, they're pretty low dose thc so like, if you have somebody coming from I shouldn't stereotype but Kentucky as a first time cannabis user that could be a nice option for a low dose introductory or introduction. So

[154:13] I think it's a good thought. Well, we're at it. Is there anything else on the horizon? But I see Kate's hand up to? I I was just gonna say that that just to differentiate. I know we did talk about some lingu we didn't pursue a motion on that, but that was part of the conversation, and the beverages piece, we did specifically say, with the the definition of liquid edible products. We use that definition from the State, and what we wanted to do is say, we we were okay with beverages, but not food based things like oils and peanut butters and those kinds of things. I know we made a distinction about those 2 things. What? Which is Why, you see liquid above right edible is not intended for liquid, and then beverages we didn't come back to teachers at all. I do. Also

[155:02] I I want to make a a suggestion that clarifications I think we should consider in this part, but I do think we should try to get through the motions that are already here before we start talking about new motions that we want to make. I know that we're trying to do clarifications, but I think it'd be really great if we could get through what this document has before we start adding. And you think it like stay stating that we should talk about tinctures? Great. But let's not have that necessarily. That conversation. Now, obviously you guys, can. You all can do what you what you want to do. I'm just suggesting that maybe we get through the 17 motions that we have here. Make sure the language is good for the ones that we're voted on, and then we can move into potentially adding more to it. I think that we really could get through this document, at least from the motions perspective today, and that would be awesome. Okay, how our teachers consume. Kate. Oh, okay, all right. So it's same as okay. So I go back to my question. I I agree with you.

[156:00] Let's do that. Are there any other things that are on the horizon, or maybe already like nasal nasal sprays. I'm assuming there's no I drops reckless repositories. Is there anything else? I'm not where we didn't talk about transdermals. We didn't talk about a lot of the audited products involved in inhalers and different kinds of things. I I think that Yes, there are nasal sprays that are are are are being that are part of audited products. So yes, there are other product categories that we did not address the motion. The 20 motions in the 20 numbers. Bye. Alright. So we are on 7, I believe. Yeah, we're coming out of 7 and 8. Okay.

[157:01] So far, so good. Number 9 9 is purely a style thing. Just make sure that capitalization for retail Marijuana hospital Sales establishment is capitalized, and the other one. It's a silly, superficial style thing. Do you want me to do that for the rest? But I changed because I did not do that to see it. Oh. I would just make them all lowercase unless this read again. In in preparing for this meeting i'd look at the a little bit about the hospitality suites in Hollywood. and I saw a a billboard that, like huge one of those huge Bill roadside billboards for one of the hospitality suites. It was kind of interesting.

[158:07] Didn't have a whole lot health education on that billboard. Number 10. That vote correct on Number 10. Was it 6, 0 or 7 0? I mean. I can check the vote from the notes, but I would say if there was probably it was probably 6, because I wasn't in the meeting on November. First. I was dealing with a sick kid. so that's why I will decide that has on any of these 2,021, though that was before here. Yeah, that's before my time.

[159:01] This is where the the minute I'm. Still wondering about the recordings there. November 2021, but not the minutes. Now you can find the minutes always in the next Month's meeting packet it says, 6 0 for the Just where we run 2 months, 6 to 0 on the promotion Number 10. Did we go 2 months without minutes? Is that the time we may have skipped a meeting right in there like to send a meeting 21. They have been skipped. Yeah, because I'm not finding minutes from November December or January.

[160:00] like I I've already looked at November meeting minutes and December meeting minutes on the whole city of older website. really because i'm in there. So the motion past 6 to 0. I think Kristy was absent potentially. All right. Number we on 11. No, Tim. we're on what I mean. 6 is 6. 0 is 10. Yeah. I don't know it's off my page. Now it's like that was 10. Okay, all right, then. Motion 11. I did. Wanna I mean. Obviously this is not me. So, alana. You can speak to it, but but

[161:03] a lot of left the meeting. She didn't. Yeah, this wasn't a recusal here, right. It's it's the end of the meeting I left at 6 Pm. And then Member noble move Number Green seconded, and Keegan had stained. How would you like? How would you like it to be represented. Delete it I it. We never say when people are absent, and we didn't say when there was a absence on the one before that. so do we count my extension as a pro. Yeah, it goes to the prevailing. Okay. Okay, so any concerns on 11 other than that. Okay, absolutely absolutely

[162:02] massive, massive concerns. With that I wish that I had been able to participate in that vote. I think we are doing a massive disservice. By doing this, I think that we are defining a privileged class that has never been created before. We are refusing service to people that we have already voted have the right to do this. and it is. I think, this is a terrible. This is the this is the worst recommendation, in my opinion, that we are making to the city right now. This is, if there is. If there is one individual thing, I believe will destroy this potential for this to work at all. It's this. The purpose of this discussion is just to make sure that we're capturing what what happened. and what what what the motion was, and what the vote was. I know I wasn't here, so i'm just same as what I said to a lot of earlier that you get a chance to for your.

[163:00] I didn't see it yet. So your comments. And Robin. thank you, Chair. I just really I appreciate your passion so much, Evan. I know how you feel about this. I feel passionately about it as well. If we could please hold the conversation to the way that the record is reflected here, and then, if you have another motion or something else to bring later, that would help move this along. Thank you. so where that was where we now? That was 1112. No. Is that was it correct? That was 5 0. We had 2 people out. 2 of you still have hands up. By the way. I normally I can go in and take people's hands down, but not this meeting.

[164:01] I'll pick some for you that caitlin. Thank you. Okay. what I say. Number 13 now. is anybody double checking these votes? The 5 0 and 6 here. We just said that we would if somebody thought there was a missed vote or something like that. Then we would either ask the city to go back through the record and find out where we could look at the minutes. we didn't, we? We specifically said we didn't necessarily want the city staff to go through every single one, unless we thought there was an error from minutes. Yeah, and it probably doesn't matter that much. But it's just the very first motion. That was 7. 0 was written at 6 0 on again, as I just said, probably doesn't matter that much. It's unanimous. I think the language is a little weird.

[165:01] I think. Just saying a plan for safe transportation of impaired clients might better reflect the motion for safe transportation so striking that provisions plan. I agree it's just a clarifying grammatical issue. I I support along this. Yeah. it's extra verbiage. Maybe it's just for the safe transportation of impaired clients and delete that provisions Okay. good. 14

[166:01] Yeah, I do want to dig into this one and make sure that we really intended to cut off consumption. I think we intended to cut off sales and potentially allow people to can finish finish the products that they had at that time. I suspect you're right actually. but I don't I cannot see the minutes for that month, either. If I, if I can jump in. My intention with this particular vote, was that there would be time for that at 10 Pm. Was the cutoff for consumption and sales. That's what I understood the most. You, my my focus here was impaired driving, and that was my motivation in this particular boat

[167:00] I had the same understanding, same attention as the early side, was the question that I had when I was reading everybody's notes today. I was wondering why the 10 am. I understand? The 10 am. To 12. Well, 12 am. Businesses close 10 P. M. Last call kind of situation that makes sense to me. But why the 10 am opening time when we have a state state timing of 7 am. What? What's the what's the motivation for the early morning prohibition. We were keeping it consistent with something, but I don't remember what time do marijuana stores open. 7 am. Is on there, allowed. and the bars open. 7 am. Kevin is this is the 7 am. In the city of Boulder. Are you saying that that the State allows for that the State says you've got to be close between 2 am. And 7 am.

[168:10] City of Boulder allows marijuana businesses to open as early as 7 am. And close as late as 10. Pm. I believe. Hmm. Sorry I just want to on. So day after 10 Pm. So what time is it at the end to 10. Pm. There you go. So 8 am. Instead of 10 am. That would be the that would be the difference. There. I just. I I think that if we're talking about businesses, I think Alana made the comment about branch establishments. We're kind of following that same alcohol model. Why, why would you not want a brunch establishment that had a smoking area to be allowed to be open during branch? So I would say, if 8 am. Is the time that all the rest of the marijuana businesses are allowed to open. Perhaps that would be the if there was, if if the intent was that it be aligned with other marijuana businesses. 8 am. Is the right time. Not 10. Am.

[169:13] Christian. Is that correct about alcohol? Also. let me check the liquor code real quick, just like make sure I give you the right information. We need a new motion if we do want to change it. So then we just added to our list of, you know, follow up motions like we were saying earlier, just to kind of keep moving. Yeah, I don't know you're keeping a list. I am. Actually, it's it's a running total at the end of this. But i'm just noticing like the buff is open at 7 am. A lot of the other breakfast giants the place on pearl, the snooze. Same kind of situation. So alcohol service at 7 am. So

[170:07] okay to put it on the list because this is what we voted, I believe. Yeah, I I believe it. I found the minutes language, and it says, if i'm a chairman motion for hospitality establishments to have hours of operations from 10 am. To 12 am. But to stop service at 10 Pm. There she and second, that motion passes forward to 2. I don't recall us talking about stopping consumption at 10 Pm. I know not, saying, I remember every single thing we've talked about. But Do you want to make sure that that's that that was intended to include consumption? Because there's clearly an opportunity, if they're being served up until 10, to finish their products until midnight.

[171:03] and also just trying to be accurate on what we thought we were voting, on which the only way to do that is to listen to the audio from that meeting. My recollection of that was also that it was. It was just for sales when people were discussing it. and I I don't know I I don't remember talking about this, but I feel like if we did mention consumption, something would have been said along the lines of of, you know, May, that's gonna be very difficult for for business owners to be able to stop right. So if you serve, you can serve until 9, you know, like 9, 59. You know that person just starting a joint. Let's say or something to to smoke or beverage, or whatever you know. Products, we allow

[172:01] it's just going to be really hard to say. You have to survey and finish at the same time. so I I I don't remember having that conversation, which is why, based on the note the the minute saying, Stop service. I don't. I don't actually think that we talked about it being consumption. I it again intention of the moment, and of the vote matters so. But I just wanted to say that that was my recollection as well. Rejection? Right? Okay. What couple of Some of us will double check the audio right? We're gonna get down to a motion. 23 that clarifies this. If we don't want to try and mess with what's already there. Sure. because you can't, it's not that easy to listen to the audio, i'll tell you, after doing it last night. Yeah, I think we can run this. Run this again and see. 8 am. To 12 am. And

[173:01] stop at 10. Stop sales at 10. I think it's impossible to stop sales and consumption. That's I mean that's like giving everybody last call and making them slam their beer, which it's not logical. Okay, Number 15. Just for a note. I highlighted hospitality establishments because I didn't know if the intention of the motion was to include all hospitality, or just if I should be putting in the marijuana, hospitality, and sales businesses into the next 2, so I can easily just switch those, but I didn't want to do it without fully understanding what the intention once. and we note the consumption in red, or put a comment. So you mean like, change it, and then highlight it. or

[174:03] why not make it consistent and still highlight? How's that so? Sure. Just like 15? Yeah. hey? Just you want to repeat again, you highlighted something here in red, and you're just suggesting. Do you want to changes to be consistent with hospitality and sales businesses? I I thought we were moving on to 15, so I I I didn't change I I if we're not done with 14 I don't want to start 15. So all right, i'll sleep. Move on the 15. Hey? Can you restate again like what? Why, you highlighted hospital, I established this here?

[175:04] Yeah, so I mean it. Just sat on here. Cloud recommends waiting to license hospital establishments until roadside tools. I just I was moving with you. You all had asked me to change everything to marijuana, hospitality, and sales businesses, and I just wanted to make sure that I should do that for these 2, because the the language was different than the other ones, and I just want to be consistent. So. before doing it I just want to make sure that i'm supposed to do it right, I think. Yeah, you should do that great. Any other concerns about 15, then 16.

[176:09] I think the language of 16 is something rather critical. I remember noting something about this. Yeah. So 16 has a little bit of language that I want to make sure that the motion itself actually lines up with what we're summarizing here? to ensure. Responders are safe from health impacts of second-hand smoke. That as As a phrase is very very hard to enforce. Did we specifically say, did you guys specifically say in this one? This was the last meeting before I joined one. That to keep the term safe is just a very difficult thing to enforce. generally you have a standard here, I mean I You'll see in my notes if you read them. But I did make reference to the Colorado. Whoa! What is it? It is the mechanical code, 2,021 for the State of Colorado, for smoking rooms. I will tell you. I I know what the standard is, because this is what it used to be for us inside of our gardens

[177:14] mit what you have to do, I will remind, or i'll let everybody know. I promise it's. It is 3 times the amount of air required for any other type of business that is not an embalming facility or a battery manufacturing plant. The standard is extremely high, but it does exist, and I gave the link my notes. So if anybody wants to look at that there you can check it out. But I think if we're gonna make a recommendation, we should make a specific one, and safe, for I mean all of your notes. Note the same thing. There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke.

[178:02] so we should just set a standard, and let people understand that our standard is very high. If you choose to step inside of a smoking area, you are being protected to a certain degree, but you are not 100% safe. There's no way to do that. What about protected using that term? You just used? It's fine by me. I just don't know exactly what the that you are protected I mean protected to the standard that we've already established for smoking rooms. I mean. I think that it does exist, and I gave you guys like. So I think we should use it, because that's the reference that we need to make. The State does not mandate, that the State says that we are exempt now, and we can actually have like you. You don't have to clean the air that much. You we're exempted from the clean indoor Air Act. So some municipalities may allow people to have hot box rooms. It's entirely possible that's not what our intent is so we should give the standard for filtration

[179:05] again. It's in my notes. I don't wanna I this is what got voted on, but I think for clarity's sake this could be something that we revisit and provide a standard. Provide the actual filtration standard. I was just gonna clarify. Give you get you up to date on where this particular motion came from. We heard from a wide variety of stakeholders on this issue, and there were several cloud members who were concerned about workers. Several of us agree with you. There is no way to bring forward something that will keep people safe. We're asking Council to act. Look at that issue about it, and this doesn't prescribe a certain development. And if you want to bring another motion, that does that, I think you can, but that is what the intention of this motion was that it is our priority to keep workers safe

[180:01] from the effects of secondhand smoke. and that was open to some level of interpretation, because there wasn't a a a standard where people could agree on what was safe or not safe. And I think your recognition that there really is no safe level of second-hand smoke is a good one. But that was the motion, and I think you know if you want to bring something else that sets a standard. Let's do that in a minute. Cool. All right. 70, Robin. You still have your hand up.

[181:01] Kristen, Does that? 17? What does that mean to you as a city staff person? Yeah. the way I understand that is When we're looking at zoning for hospitality businesses. You would use the same categories in the the land. Use like there's a table in the land Use code that out lines so any requirements for different types of businesses. It, My understanding is we would use the requirements outlined for bars, restaurants, and taverns. So we're looking at zoning for hospitality. Okay. You remember, were you here for that? Were you here in August? I was yeah. Was that table shown or discussed.

[182:01] Yeah, it's. It was a it was a table that was in our packet. that Kathy and and Staff had made. That was like more limited than the entire land use, or the 18 so we should. same as we took a lot of off if to make it consistent right 19.

[183:08] That's a standard term for the city is that I just I remember that's a term of art that we use for liquor licensing. Okay. So if somebody were going to open the bar or bar and restaurants some place where there's like in the middle of Martin Acres. which i'm not sure you could even do. But you know some place where there is no bar. and there'd be a what to call needs and desires hearing correct. Okay. Okay. Or I made it down to the end of emotions as they were. Do we need to talk about the let's say table, the zoning conversation

[184:05] these that are highlighted. I think it is procedural about whether or not when we send this off to the Council. I agree with Robin's comment about it doesn't really seem like they should be included. I agree also the next 4 you mean, or just the first 2. Or what do you mean? There's 3 sorry it goes on to another page for me. So how can we put them? Not call that and put them on the very bottom or something? Is there any purpose in doing that. Okay?

[185:00] Excellent. All that work. So all right to answer a lot of concern earlier on. And also I I was hoping to still finish the things that I had not finished. which means we'd have to vote on this. I don't know the meeting. Yeah, if you notice the date on there, I am recognizing the time right now. We have 45 min left. But. I added, I don't know what date in February we're meeting, but perhaps it would be better to bring these bring these to a vote at that point. I know everybody's getting tired, so I would assume everyone is they not matter at all. But I I don't know that these need to be in this particular document. At this point.

[186:11] Any moves to vote on these right now I will remove them and send them around so that they can be included in the packet. Yup. Well. you can leave them in there right now. This is. or I don't think we're voting on this finished document yet so probably easier to leave them where they are. Your chair. I I I can identify them as very much not to be. It's certainly an easy place for everybody to look at the language I would propose for us to vote on next meeting. I would just suggest we make it clear because it is a public document. We don't want to create any confusion chair. That that's was the only reason it

[187:04] like, put a a buffer between motion 19, and I haven't seen it for post-motions. But I think this should how about a I don't know how to easily put a line. Oh, there, okay, I haven't done it. Everyone. It's too fast for me. You have 23 and 23, and you have them both. So our store. Ours. Hmm.

[188:06] Is that the date for the next meeting as the first Monday in February? So at some point time, maybe this is that's a really good Segue, for it has been been proposed by at least one person. maybe more that those that could and wanted to meet in person. But I also. Don't know the status Christians or status for any hybrid meetings at this point in time. Not at this time. No, I don't have any updates on that. Hmm. Okay. So it's. Either it's all or not. The city Council is in person right? This. But the public is now coming. you know. I'm not sure, Tom, i'll have to look into that. I get back to you.

[189:04] I don't know about now, but the city council would meet, and then public could watch Virtually I can try and address your question. so Council is having study sessions virtually. everyone's virtual. and then their regular business meetings. our virtual as well as in person. so they've had folks attend the meeting as well, I believe. Hey, Sandy, See that again. They've had individuals like the public at the meetings as well as up here virtually. and I mean business meetings. It's it's kind of been haphazard. It sort of depends on whether, like if there was a one that was weather related where they just, you know.

[190:03] I would think, reverted back to just virtual, even even though it was a business meeting. Okay. so no no hybrids at this point in time. Well, what do you mean by hybrid? I mean in person, and some people are attending virtually. Yes, I believe that they have had those, you know I have to confirm. I I I honestly i'm not sure. or you were told some who knows when 6 to 12 months ago or so, that when we asked about it that that that can be done. there was some. I'm sorry it's not here, and and and there may be times that somebody might not be able to make it, because they're had a positive Covid test, or whatever

[191:05] you all should not make a decision based on me. No, I'm sure there's other people that may need to, or may be required to, because of health status or me want to attend virtually unless we're here differently, at least. For now we're virtual right? Correct? Okay. All right. So Those that want to can still go in and change their comments, or add comments, or whatever do you want us to?

[192:02] Would you like us to have comments on the proposed motions. Also. if we have time. I'm. I'm. I'm all up for the discussion as much as you guys want to do. My procedural questions. Did we have other things on the agenda for February? that this would be. I want to discuss these motions. maybe not tonight, maybe partially tonight. but would this be displacing anything that was planned for a February meeting? We do not have anything special plan for the February meeting, so we were just planning on reviewing that hospitality memo, and anything else the Board would like to discuss. Okay. My suggestion would be that if we wanted to round out. Is it worth

[193:01] going through folks arguments? Frozen? Con. Not for looking? Excuse me, but like the arguments for the motions to sort of the next part of this document. any kind of way straw poll, or what do you mean? Right? If folks had a chance to review other people's arguments that they wanted to get feedback, or just use commenting, or do that in the future. Use our time now, or I would suggest, because there's so much there to do that on people's own time, and we're not going to make it through much. I was wondering about a straw call on some of that proposed options without making it official. Tell me, I think that's a great idea. Take it up privately. Okay. Is that what you're suggesting? And then I'm also looking at today's agenda and making sure how much time do you need much time with Kristen

[194:03] for today matters from the regulatory licensing office. That's that's the future top right topics for future cloud meetings. I had a item to raise and not the gender topic. If we go there. Okay. 626. Is everybody okay till 7? I know I I sometimes like to let people leave at 6, 30, but i'll stay until 7 of others can. That's what you're referring to. What would take us to 7. Oh, like straw polls on the proposed motions. It Can I jump in? I i'm not sure a stroke is really appropriate. There are some proposed motions that would be considered motions for reconsideration on the original motion.

[195:02] and they have to go through that whole process that I explained earlier about the prevailing member must make that motion, and second, and all that. So I think it would be a little bit premature to do that well. But if there was nothing official about it. that's where a straw was very unofficial right? But you're rolling to actions into 1. One action is changing an original motion for reconsideration. and then the second part being approving or finding out. you know. i'm certainly maybe to discuss it. But I think the only thing that's actually up for reconsideration is the store hours. I think the rest is just clarifications on previously voted motions. Certainly the store hours is a new motion, but

[196:01] the rest of them, I think, or the store hours, is a reconsideration of emotion that was already passed. It's just I think there was a a technical mistake in that one, but I think the other 4 are actually new motions. Okay, you had your hand up. I was just saying, maybe we could just make sure we know which ones are reconsiderations versus which ones are going to be new motion, so that we do know exactly what we're doing in February, because we I I don't think that we have time other than clarifications of these motions that we could talk about now without getting too far into the weeds on anything. but that's just my opinion. I think that the best thing would be to what's What's something that we are going to have to have the you know the yeah for reconsideration versus a brand new motion, and as an exception I would assume an exception would be a a separate new motion. Yeah, that in my mind I don't know that's a that's a legal question, right?

[197:03] Yeah. I mean, Sandra, do you like based on these other than the of operations? Do you see any other ones that would be up for reconsideration in in which we would have to go through the process that you explained earlier. Andrew, and you sorry I forgot to unmute. I guess it's getting a little late. I Haven't had an opportunity to look at these individually, so just request an opportunity to do that. So in in the next month, as we're considering them. I I guess, from either Evan or whoever wants to speak I would have questions

[198:02] only because I just don't know on on motion 20 Is that? Does that look at concentration or intake or delivery method in my mind. What that specifically referring to is is vaporizer pens. That is not a iable device, not a torch-powered device, not a combustion method, but a I mean we. We can get into the specifics of what it actually is, but it's a low voltage vaporization product. So it's a temperature vaporization somewhere between 280 and 450 degrees. It is not combustion. Hmm. I don't know how specific. You want me to get on that I don't. I don't want to get confusing with the language, but from a functional perspective it's it's we already can't exceed half a gram. So we don't need to clarify that what we would be saying by doing by passing in this motion in my mind is that vape pens of half a gram or smaller increment would be approved

[199:09] as an exemption to the prohibition on marijuana. Concentrate what would be helpful, I think, is, if on these new proposed motions, if you can refer back to the original motion trying to amend our change. certainly I can. I I will add the detail into this. Just the number, you know 5, or whatever it is. Kate, You had your hand up just considerations, I mean, they, the State uses the term vaporizer to delivery device. And there's I. I do think, there, if if this is a hospitality and sales establishment, I don't know how that I mean.

[200:01] Would that then be disposable? V. Pens that you're talking about? Or could it be? And are you going to set it? Could be it could be. It could be either, in my opinion. I mean. yeah, I think the disposable of a pen should be banned from the earth. But yeah. they're the worst of the worst, but I think they're worth considering. I think the City Council is not going to have a choice but to consider them. I think they should be outright banned. I'd be happy to make a motion to say single use disposable. Vaporizers are explicitly forbidden. But that's a I would not make friends my industry by doing that. They are the highest profitability product in the market, but they are awful. So i'd be happy to exempt them, and say those are prohibited, but reusable vape devices are allowed. I I think that's a little. It's a little granular for what we're trying to do here. But I I think by this would exempt

[201:01] those disposable vapes by by the language that's here right now. So for the novice in the crowd. What's in in a nutshell. What's awful about? They are single-use batteries, so generally they're smaller increment 0 point 5 or 0 point 3 gram, as opposed to a half a gram, and they are a battery attached to a chamber that cannot be separated. So your typical vape device is either a 510 thread, or a proprietary attachment that allows you to have a battery that can be recharged attached to a cartridge. That is single use. So the small piece of plastic, with a tiny little piece of metal on it that you smoke a half a gram from, or that you vaporize a half a gram from goes in the garbage, and you replace that. But you don't have to replace the battery every time. Single-use disposables are battery and cartridge all in one and basically.

[202:05] you can consume it in 30 min, and then have something about the size of a double, a battery to throw away. So I can tell you after trying to start a recycling program for them a couple years ago. They are. They're the most environmentally damaging thing, the industry does. Okay, that's my that's my take on it. It is. does it? With this address, relative concentration or relative intake, relative no, they're still allowed to have. I mean, if if we're, if we're exempting it, it would still fall under 500 million or 500 milligram by mass, half a gram increment limitation that the State already has in place. So I'm. Obviously I'm. I'm just gonna admit my naivete. But when we do a tour of your facility, ivana.

[203:01] and we saw them making concentrates, and and I don't know if it was you that said it, or someone said that the concentrate can be, you know, greater than 60% concentrated, or 70, or whatever you could phone a blank, whatever number would this be included? This doesn't address potency? So a half gram is 500 milligrams, right? So if it's 60% Thc: 60 of that 500 milligrams is the amount of Thc. Yeah. if we're talking technicalities here, the absolute purest form of Thc. A. That you could have would become fully decarboxylated. So a half a gram cartridge at most is only allowed to be, is only chemically capable of being 87. Point 5% bio available Thc: so

[204:00] 500 milligrams it's it's better to think about it. I think when I try to explain this to people. It's a half a gram of weight, but it's about somewhere between 2 thirds and 3 quarters of a gram worth of Thc. Was there any new laws within the past year that affected this only in medical. So in in medical sales quantities, maybe, Robin, you can speak to this a little bit more. I'm not familiar with what may have passed in the last year or so. But is there anything regulating potency caps at this point? There is nothing regulating potency caps. Yeah. So you distill it, and that's as close to pure as you can get and that's at most. I don't know 87 and a half. So I think the important thing to do here is to really look at the state definition of regulated medical I mean, excuse me, regulated marijuana concentrates, so that the whole board has the benefit of really understanding what it was we excluded in that original motion.

[205:17] this a proposal sort of works around and brings regulated marijuana. Concentrate into the hospitality space. and I think I want to make sure that everybody on the board understands that that's what they're voting to do if they if they support that motion. the original intent of leaving regulated marijuana concentrate out of hospitality establishments, was it go slow idea and mitigation for impossible impaired driving problems. I know we go back to this comparison to alcohol, but this is not alcohol. It's. It's just

[206:02] regulated. Marijuana. Concentrate. It's something different. And as Dr. Green pointed out, there are very serious concerns with this, and people come at it from a lot of different angles and experiences. So I I look forward to the debate later, if that's what we're going to do unless we're going to keep talking about it now. Oh, because I was actually going to ask a question next about Number 21. All years. Is this allowed by hospitality? Well, that was create, or that was voted on in 2,020. Yes. yeah. So this is, think, the the potential for this situation. We exempted it from the city. But the the other form of hospitality license would be the best way to think about this. It was a mobile hospitality license where you basically would corral people outside and allow them to smoke outside of a bus or on a bus.

[207:00] that is the that is the other hospitality license category. I think. it would be approved. It can be approved. if we create some exemptions, being outside makes it very difficult to prevent the smell from reaching the public, but it does prevent it is very possible to prevent the visibility of this. Now, as I wrote this, I kind of considered several different layers where where this line should get drawn. I think there there is a special case where it's appropriate to have a hospitality license that has an outdoor smoking area. It isn't necessarily appropriate that every business that is allowed to have it indoor could appropriately have it outdoor as well. Take, for example. Oh, let's think about this: the outdoor patio at the Chop house on Walnut. That space could very well be blocked off from visibility from outside, but it's going to directly impact the access to many of the adjacent businesses.

[208:09] The alternative to that would be a place like the Rio where they could put a place on the roof, a space on the roof for outdoor consumption, and wall it off so that it wouldn't be visible, and simultaneously the smoke would not be directly affecting public access to buildings. This is very complicated, but I think it's worthwhile to bring up because we are. We are saying smoking. Flower is okay. But then we're contemplating how difficult it is to clean the air to make it safe. So I think it's worthwhile for us to consider under special circumstances, allowing outdoor consumption, because I think nobody argues that it's by and by a mile much safer to consume in an outdoor setting for the second-hand smoke situation for people around you, so I think it's worth considering that perhaps we we allow

[209:01] outdoor so long as it is not visible under the same expectation that it be far enough away from public access to buildings to not impair. People walk or do not affect or be available to people walking into a door. We do it with tobacco, so we certainly do it with marijuana as well. So is there a a motion, a current motion that that parallels with. Would this be? No, that One's that one's completely new, because right now we've only contemplated indoor consumption. So I just wanted to make sure that that was the case. So a corollary question to that which i'm not sure who Kristen might be the best person to answer this. There was some discussion in in times past. and it's not really our per view, or our mission, or it' be Mission creep

[210:01] because it would be zoning. But there was some discussion that hospital the establishments would not be able to be on the first floor. Around places like. Am I remembering right? I know that that was a discussion point, but i'm not sure that we actually made any. The what this would relate to is the zoning restrictions. So there was a conversation about whether or not we were allowed to make any recommendations about zoning modification. So right now the marijuana businesses are all under it. regulated zones that we're allowed to be in the Brewery Tavern restaurant that we made would impact zoning. That's why some of those procedural votes were in there. So we're not I I don't and correct me. If i'm wrong here, I don't think we actually did exclude them from the first floor on Pearl Street, or did we

[211:04] is what's her name? Stella is allowed to be on the first floor. I know that's not a hospitality business, but the theory was that it was going to be. Is that on the first floor? Well, having been there, Brian and I, we can attest to the fact that it is on first floor. Yes. right right. When we went to the meeting they said they wanted to apply for a variance for that. So but again, that's are outside of our Yeah. Yeah. yeah. But I think, what is that? That question came up in the zoning conversation, because if we treat them as bars, taverns, and brew pubs, or whatever they are allowed on the first floor. But marijuana retail is not allowed on the first floor of Pearl Street. So Okay, so, Kate, you kind of commented on. I mean so going on to 22 year sublingual and 23

[212:00] no, just 22 that there are some inhalers, and maybe some nasal products in the works. or that they wouldn't qualify as a they're called in the in the code they're called audited products. I know that. So this is. Will there need to be another proposed motion to address other ones other modes. I mean, if there's an interest for people to add those. Then you could put a motion together for that. I don't know that that's yeah. Okay, You use the term, all the good products. Right? Yeah, I did. Yeah. I don't think we need to get into that as much as it is an important consideration. It Hasn't made much traction in the industry. Yet there's a couple of categories of audited products. They require special testing. They require a special delivery mechanism certifications.

[213:02] and they are generally just asking if there were other products that there's a special category at the Med level that says these are the These are the special types of products and inhalers, as one of them dry inhalers is one of them. Subling will. Under that, too. I don't know to be completely honest. There's not yeah. The sublingles are. They're under edibles, but they're not generally. I don't know exactly how the State defines subling will, but it's like dissolves under the tone not meant to be consumed through the digestive chair. Act. There's tinctures are like that. There's like does tongue. Dissolves like like breath, strict kind of material. And then there's also like sugar pill material that can be used for very, very low dose like one, and 2 milligrams small dosing, so not huge, but they should be allowed, because they are really small and really fast.

[214:04] Alright, 23 is pretty straightforward. We'll discuss that next time. 24 anybody have any concerns any questions so can we go back. Well, 23 is straightforward. I'm sorry, but for 22 is, is that a motion to amend? Over 3 years is a new motion, since we're talking about. I don't. I don't know how we would wanna classify this. We because we specified a couple of different categories up at the top. So this would be a new one. Sublingles would kind of, in my mind, be, in addition to marijuana edibles, in addition to marijuana topicals, and in addition to marijuana beverages. I mean. they're all considered infused products. This gets it's really a different thing. I mean it's, you know. Stacy can comment about this also. But you know, nitroglycerin. That was a way to get Nitro into somebody's body really quickly

[215:01] when they needed it. because they're having engine or a heart attack. I think, since we already put that beverages out of marijuana edibles, and it's considered a liquid, I think that there is an argument to be made that it would be considered a separate motion. in my opinion. Okay. I agree. So i'm looking at 2122, and 23 being my motions. Does anyone disagree with that. I think 23 is a reconsideration, because it's just changing the hours that we already voted on. Well. okay, i'm sorry. I you mean 2020, 21 and 22. I've got 21 and 20 to the. because 24 would be referring to the ventilation conversation that says safe right, which is number 16.

[216:05] That's an amendment. Yeah. So well, so that's I see that as a reconsideration. Of number. 16. Yeah. Okay. okay. There are 25 there's no 25. What? That's for you to add, Tom. Okay, and i'm sorry. Can we go back to 23 because 23 is actually a reconsideration of the store. Hours. I guess and 20 is a reconsideration.

[217:03] Yeah, it would be an exception to 5, which is the concentrates. Okay. and that reference. We can look at that reference on 24. Yeah. So that that reference on 24 will take you to the 21 Colorado Colorado or Colorado Mechanical code the table table 403, 3, 1, one, maybe a third of the way scrolling down that page when you can come to that link. Yeah, that that table basically goes through all the usages and the what is the what is the occupancy, classification, and then based on that occupancy classification? What is the mandatory outdoor airflow. So that's the critical. It's the second column in the the second really third column

[218:03] in the table. If you're opening it up and specifically refers to the amount of outdoor air that needs to be supplied per person who is occupying the space. So we have. We have occupancy standards per 1,000 square feet for every facility and building in the city. based on that occupancy standard for the size of the room. What is the Cfm mandated to bring in fresh air from outside. What this code, if you look deeply into it, what it actually says is that you have a minimum of 60 cubic feet per minute per person coming into the room. Anything in excess of that can be recirculated. So what that gets at, and it's very. It's very important for this, because generally, if you just apply this base standard of 60 Cfm. It means 60 Cfm. In 60 cfm. Out, and filtering that air on the way out is extremely extremely expensive. Imagine what happens when you're inside of a space like this that has

[219:05] 5 degree 10 degree air coming in the week before Christmas, and you have 60 cfm. Per occupant that you have to heat and or cool in the in the summer. What you need to do, and what we what we learned when we were first building the original gardens in Boulder was that you need to have makeup air, and then you need to have fresh air, and when you can recirculate that makeup there, you can temper the temperature of the room, and you can filter the particulates that are in the room. So this standard is very specific. It is a very good standard. It is also an extremely difficult to meet standards very expensive, but it already exists, and it is the number one way to limit the liability associated with allowing people to smoke inside. So i'm an advocate for this high standard, because I believe that it is necessary to for the industry further on down the line. If we, if we apply this standard and don't, let people breathe in secondhand smoke. We will be

[220:04] a leader where we are not obligated to be. The State does not mandate this, but I think we should. Okay before we go even any further on it. Did you still have a I'm sorry that it's 8 min. It's okay for the next agenda. I don't. Okay? Well, I think we let's move on to the last agenda item unless anyone's opposed to doing that. No, I appreciate you for providing that information and research up, and i'll look into it and check with my sources. That's good. It's really expensive. There's one thing for a lot of businesses, but if we do it. Then we're we're protected. Okay. Great? Well, it's Kristin. I don't know. Let her go ahead. Kristen you got the floor.

[221:01] Thank you. I don't really have a lot this agenda item. But if anyone has any suggestions for future topics for cloud meetings, i'd love to hear them. I just thought maybe. Oh, sorry! No! You go. You go. I was just making my my time. I've heard people mention from our retreat. so I think, before the retreat. And then today's meeting about speakers and education, and I wanted to bring that topic up again. Robin raised it around Ch. As I raised it around concentrates. I think those are really really good topics that the Board should receive education on Stacy raised the research from Cu. I don't know if there's any updates that send them they well in can can't have on the research. But I was going to throw out the idea of using a couple of meetings out. maybe like April. for at some educational opportunities for the board, and

[222:02] I thought, i'd like to advocate for just some base like one on one concentrate education from one of our local licenses. My people team will be happy to present on that. but I just don't recall that we've really received it. I know I was really tepid to offer it at the beginning. So share just wanted to things things to unfold. but now years in. I think it's holding us back, because I notice that there's, you know, a just a a gap of knowledge and language, and our awareness and understanding around concentrates, and so definitely wanted to advocate for some concentrate education. I thought maybe April would be a good time, because we'll be through hospitality. but I also thought maybe we could Do you like an educational. You know a couple of other topics that people think are important. That was my contribution for this item.

[223:02] Thanks, Lana. I did that that to our list. Okay, Kate. hey? I was gonna say to also add potentially for discussion topics on social equity. We had talked about it briefly at 1 point, but we haven't really come back to that, and I just curious how the board felt about that. so let me add that to the future topics list. And then I was gonna ask if people were okay with removing the hospitality resource document from the packets, since it takes up a lot of space, and we don't really do use it anymore. Sure, you know, we all know where to find it in every other packet for the past. Thank you for doing that. It was you. And who wasn't there a fellow Robert.

[224:02] Same concentrates social equity. my interest in bringing Chs is forward, and I talk to Evan a little bit about. This offline is, I think there's a huge opportunity for community education, and preventing an enormous amount of suffering and expense in people who are unaware. so I really do hope for that opportunity, and my question would be. Are we trying to finish our recommendations to City Council on hospitality by the March meeting? And then we can do some of this planning. I think Alana mentioned April. I think that's, you know, would be a good goal in terms of timing to try to get get this work complete. It's been a big slog. And yeah, And the it Council. So we can move on to some of these other really important and exciting topics. Caitlin, what's the deadline for submission for reading packet?

[225:06] I'll defer to Kristen on what we think, because I think we had original deadlines and those since passed. So I think the new deadlines would be up to. You guys. All right. I'm sorry I missed. That is the question. When is the deadline to include materials in the reading packet. we're talking about the February meeting. Correct? Oh, i'm sorry I thought the question was deadlines, for when we would want to send hospitality to city council. No, just for the deadlines, for the being in the reading packet for the February meeting on February sixth. So the deadline for reading packet will be January 20, third. Okay. So you have 14 days.

[226:03] so can everybody try to add their comments as best possible. Rob in your hand is still up. How are you thinking? Wrap up our hospitality motion comments? January By January 20, third. Yeah. Now that doesn't mean we'll get to all the I mean the proposed motion. Follow after. Okay. Anybody else have anything else, Brian. Any articles? Okay. Any reason not to adjourn 2 min 1 min early.

[227:01] but then it also says that his seat is a so does he need to reapply or not? I know it's not my question to ask, but i'm curious about the board make up. I had a question offline with Andrew or Kristen. I can't remember that we would discuss it offline. I think that's a question that needs to be brought back and addressed by so. And I don't know the answer to that right at the top. Okay. but you're in the same shoes, right? Well, yeah, so my chair was 2,020 to 2,023. But it it says your turn was 2020, 2022, so that would have been. you know, meant that you re-applied last year when she didn't so is it supposed to say 23 on the website and the website's wrong kristen. Can you follow up with John Morris on this

[228:02] Yeah, and absolutely. And I and I do believe that there is a type of one website, because the report that John Worse provided to us about the terms of board members states that both Alana and Tom's terms expire on March 30, first 2,023. So I think it's just a typo on the website. It. Does that answer your question. Yeah. I know that the dialing is just approaching. So just wanted to kind of bring attention to that. There is a deadline right there also per application or no. it's the end of the month of this month. Okay. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn Brian motions to adjourn

[229:01] any second on that 7 s, any opposition or abstention from that. All right. Well, Happy New Year someday we'll meet in person. maybe. or something. She. whatever figure out something, they will have another retreat. Good night, bye. That.