April 3, 2023 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:18] Good afternoon, everyone. The time is now 304 Pm. And we will begin with virtual instructions for virtual meeting and rules of decorum. Miss Kellogg will be displaying these on the screen for us to view. Thank you. Public participation at Cannabis licensing and advisory meetings. The city has engaged with the community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for the community, members, staff and Board Commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the projects, community engagement process can be found at the web link posted here.

[1:16] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder, Revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall 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 conduct a meeting are prohibited participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name that they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently. Only only audio testimony is permitted online. Thank you, Caitlin.

[2:03] We will now have the swearing in of new board members. Thank you, Kristen. Just a moment swearing in materials. Welcome, Ethan Daniel to the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board, and we're excited that Tom is going to be with us for another term. Tom. I know you've already been sworn in once before. but we were instructed to. Where are you in again? So thanks for your patience with that. and Brian has to do it. Then I have to do it. Sorry. Just a moment. I'm having some technical issues here.

[3:21] Okay, Tom, we'll go ahead and start with you, so would you like me to read it to you, and you can repeat, or would you like to just read the script that was in the packet for yourself. I'll just go ahead and pull it up on the screen here. Okay. all right. And when you're ready, Tom, you can just read the oath of office and we'll get you supported. Do you get share screen? Is that I? Yeah. Okay.

[4:01] All right. So you don't need You don't need to read it first. I can just read it. Okay, what's Why is it? What what do I have? A choice of a firm or okay? I, Thomas Clinton do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, and in the State of Colorado, and the charter and ordinances of the city of Boulder. and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a number of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board, which I am about to enter. Thank you, Tom. Welcome back to another term. I'll get this over to you, the docusign, so you can sign it as well. Okay. Okay. And then, Ethan. We've got you up next. So if you could just do the same, Ethan, and just read this section on the screen, and we'll get you this morning as well. Great! Can you hear me?

[5:00] Yes. all right. I, Ethan Daniel, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America end of the State of Colorado, and the Charter, and the ordinances of the city of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board, which I am about to enter. Thank you very much. Welcome to Cloud Ethan. I'll do the same. I'll send this to you via Jackie Sign, so you can sign it, and we'll save it in our records. Thank you so much on behalf of all of us. Welcome, Ethan also. Right perfect. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the agenda is Member roll, call, roll call Member Anderson. No. See him in the room yet I do not either member Christie

[6:00] present Member Daniel present Member Green. Awesome member of Vice Chair Keegan. Present chair, Coonsman. president. Chair Noble. I'm Sorry Member noble robin, you're muted present. Thank you. Ex Official Member Thompson present. and as noted previously. Ex official Member Bailey will be joining us later. All right. I just sent Evan a text. so we'll see all right. Thank you. Continuing is the approval of Cannabis licensing and Advisory board meeting minutes from March sixth 2,023.

[7:09] All right. Are there any comments or suggestions? Changes recommended changes? Anything. if not i'll entertain a motion, to approve anyone. All motion to approve That was Stacy in a second by 9 s. Brian, Anyone opposed or upstanding this Ethan supposed to. So you vote at all, or to the abstain, or technically what? What's the right thing? Oh, sorry! Should Ethan

[8:05] vote or abstain, or how should it He's a member now, so he should. Well, actually, i'm sorry you're right. Because of the fact that this was from a previous meeting, he probably should abstain, because he's not able to verify whether or not I, meeting minutes are accurate. So thank you for calling. Sorry you can just being technically correct. Okay, they their past. And next is I'm looking at it right here. All right, General public comments. Is that am I reading it correctly? Yes. all right. Who want which Kristen wants to address the public.

[9:04] I can do so. So this is the time for general public comment. Public comments will be limited to up to 3 min per speaker. You may choose to raise your hand by using the reactions button at the bottom of the screen. If you are calling in by phone. you can use, I believe it's Star 9. We called in the order that you raise your hand. Is there anyone for general public comment? Do I see anyone for general public comment? Sure couldn't. But at this time I see no one for general public comment. Would you like me to call one more time?

[10:01] We have 4, just checking the 4 of you that are to Sarah's law and Jeffrey anyone i'm trying to call Evan. I I texted him, but i'm trying to call an awesome. You may be on a plane or something or whatever. Yeah. I got. I didn't get through. So. anyway, he did not signal any that he would be late or anything like that, right? I didn't receive any emails. It's the same. Yeah. Okay. Just from Allison. Okay, in that case, let's go on to. Are there any policy suggestion forms? We did not receive any policy. Suggestion forms for this April meeting.

[11:03] All right, and then we have orientation for new Board members. I apologize. I did not miss. I I was unable to make the planning meeting for this meeting. So what did you folks work out? This is Brian, so I just thought that one that even could introduce himself, and to share a little bit about his background and interest that bring him to our board. And then I think that we as a board, could just orient Ethan to work that's already been completed, that you may or may not know about. and then running kind of history, or if give him an opportunity to ask any questions of us that you might want to. I mean to put you a lot too much there, either, but it's all the process of bringing you on board just for staff. I see that evidence in the waiting room. Oh. got it. But I guess. Ethan, yeah, if you wanted to. Just introduce yourself and say a bit about

[12:04] what brings you here and your background and all all that before you start it. Evan, Can you hear your your mute if you can hear? Hmm. Okay. Well. there we go. I, the host that you host, had to let me on mute. Sorry. Okay. Just a catch up where we've we've made it through the first. A few items, including there were no public comments. and we were just about to hear a little bit about Ethan. and and he and I were both sworn in and his new members. This is Tom. We don't have your video. So i'm assuming you could see everything.

[13:00] Oh, there you are. Okay, all right, Ethan. Who are you? Hey? Guys? Ethan Daniel, I am the cultivation program manager here@green.labs. I've been working in the cannabis industry since 2,015 held multiple different occupations within the industry from Harvester in the early days worked my way up through cultivation, and now I'm. Handling management of the cultivation team as well as moving into compliance oversight. Here at Green dot. I've been living in the city of Boulder since 2,010 when I moved to attend C. Boulder, i'm an art graduate there, and fell in love with the city.

[14:00] and never left ever since. You know, my passion for the cannabis movement is a main driver, for why i'm here I have a a 10 month old, daughter, and you know we intend on living in this community for the foreseeable future. So you know her. Her future in this community is another big reason as to why I wanted to be more involved with this advisory board specifically pertaining to my occupation and and the family that i've started in this community other than that. I've been living in in Boulder since 99 or sorry i've been living in Colorado since 99. We've frequently visited. Boulder had some family in here. And yeah. love love the the community, the lifestyle, and everything that it has to offer, and looking forward to many, many more years.

[15:11] Maybe we could just go around the Horn, and other men's support just to be themselves for the benefit of even each one. It take 30 s. We'll start with you, Tom. Okay, I'm. A retired physician or semi retired physician. I was the medical director at the soon Health Center on campus, and I still chair the the board that reviews research there, and I have a number of other hats, including this hat. and I have been on this board for the past 3 years, and for the past 2 Ish have been the chair, but we also just. We also talked about. Maybe you know, opening that up to you know, a revo or a new new blood, or whatever. If anybody wants to be the chair.

[16:00] so I i'll leave it at that, Brian, you want to go next. Oh, yeah, I'm Brian Keegan. I'm a professor department of Information Science to see Boulder. I think I became in this industry first, probably by way of stereotype, that I was coming here, moving here to Boulder in 2,016. I was just curious what was going on with data science and the cannabis industry, and that that an area of research for me and my students and collaborators. and I, grateful to have the opportunity to help translate research findings wherever they might come from, and to help translate and triangulate those as they impact. The and I have a or a son will be 4 in 2 weeks. Well, I can go around, Evan. Do you want to?

[17:01] Can you hear? Yeah, i'm Evan Anderson? I'm a founder of 14 or then friends of Dave and Alana for the entirety of our tenure here as cannabis owners in the city of Boulder. So i'm familiar with your organization. You do great work so nice to meet you, and I am this board in a way to facilitate the kind of integration of what the what the voter has decided to do with cannabis trying to facilitate how that gets enacted. And I've been a part of that in the cannabis world since before the cannabis regulatory bodies existed 14 or began as a caregiver operation in 2,000. And so we kind of predated the the regulatory system, and we have kind of participated in the formation of it, some would say, at the bleeding edge. So I am here to try and inform this Inform this process as much as I can from my experience, and try and facilitate the the will of the voter and the benefit of the industry. So

[18:10] nice to meet you. Glad to have you and and I did not keep in the same vein. But Avenue also have kids. I do. I've lived in Boulder since the orientation in the dorms in 2,002 so got married Here I've got. My wife is a veterinarian in South Boulder, and we have a 5 and 7 year old at Creekside, here in in South Pole. They're also an acre, so i'm i'm a i'm a i'm a life, or spent more time here than anywhere else on the planet. So. Michael, I've got you next on my screen. Sure. Hey, Ethan, Welcome to the board. Glad to have you. I'm my Christy. I'm. An attorney. I have offices in California.

[19:01] I have the fortunate luck to be able to live in boulder and practice in California, and I was appointed to the board in January, or I moved to Boulder in January, 2,018 was appointed to the Board when it formulated. and and sort of have an eye toward trying to make sure that whatever recommendations we send for it to counsel that we're keeping a close eye on how that's impacting the youth folder. I have a 14 year old at Boulder High as a freshman. and a 12 year old or 11 year old, turning 12. Who's at Lydia, and will be transitioning into middle school and Casey and again, welcome. Glad to have you. Stacy. Hello! I'm. Stacey Green. First of all, thank you for joining this board. I know it takes a lot of extra time and energy, so that's really appreciated that you're willing to put that in.

[20:03] Let's see. I've been a long time. Boulder resident too. Pretty much what I've been called a wife, or since the late nineties. Also see you. Grad. I'm a physician. Now I have a a private practice here in Boulder over. I guess it's been more than 10 years. I've been particularly interested in medical cannabis and all applications of it. That's kind of blended for me into public health as well. I've volunteered my time on various boards related to mostly medical cannabis in the past. and then in the last few years kind of brought in that a little bit. This board and I'm. Also a member of the State Board of Health. So just enjoy seeing the intersection. I guess my work as a physician, and more of that, like public health application so over the last few years as recreational canvas became a reality here in Colorado. That's kind of

[21:07] just become a big blend when I join this board, I think I wanted to bring a more of a neutral party viewpoint, because I see both sides of this coin very, very strongly, so to speak, and really think there's a way through all of those differences by like sitting here as we do, spending time thinking through these issues. the realities of them, not just what we want, and you know, hope for, and see if we can make it the best case scenario for all interested parties, because I really do believe that's possible. Like most other members, i'm also a parent. I have 4 kids here. ranging an age from 8 to or almost 8 to 15, so at all the different levels. This does affect me also as a citizen here in Boulder, so i'd like to think my place here on the board is to kind of be more of a liaison in that way between different interest groups. And

[22:10] I like, I said, I think there is really a way to get all needs met if we just do it in a thoughtful way. Robin. it's nice to meet you. Thank you for agreeing to serve on the board. My name is Robin Noble. I represent the community position on club. and I think the main reason I'm here is that my family has some significant downside lived experience. My children are 24 and 21, so they've been through sort of the teenage gamut in the boulder community, both of them. you know, sort of hit a sweet spot of a lot of excitement around cannabis, and maybe some misunderstandings about

[23:00] a drug being, you know, medicine and not understanding downside risk. So I think what I'm here to do is to try to really bring that voice. And the voice of other families, I know, had some downside experiences and find ways to make sure we're connecting with people, and being transparent. I tend to be cannabis more through a lens of like tobacco than I do alcohol at this point. and that's been something that I've required through conversations on the board. Yeah, I think. And then in my job I work for the State Legislature. I'm. A legislative aid to representative, Juda Mobile. who represents District 49, and I'm really active in progressive Democratic politics in boulder and statewide. So that's me nice to meet you.

[24:05] You. Me. Hello, Hi, Ethan! Nice to see you again. I i'm sorry my camera is off tonight. I I've been having some problems with my Internet. And I have a bit of a migraine, so i'm not mad about it. But Ethan and I actually met at the farm a number of years ago, so I've had a pleasure of working with him. But it's been several years I've been in the canvas industry and answer this space since 2,014 prior to that worked in management and operations across multiple industries, education, compliance, operation, management, all that wanted to be part of the industry, kind of breaking down the stigma, help, educate and improve things. After working at the farm, I I've been doing some consulting and now working with simplifier, which is a compliance staff software as a service company as a manager there. I'm. Here in this board for a number of reasons, you know one continuity. I was on the map for a few years for the entirety of that. And then, obviously the Board since March of 2020,

[25:07] another reason for education and compliance to help, kind of legitimize and move the industry forward through smart legislation, and lastly, to to be a part of local government and and and public policy, and to be a part of that. So that's me, and happy to see you again. And thanks for for doing this. I think maybe we should do a real quick once we're on the staff, too. So so he knows who's who on set up? Who wants to go first? I'm happy to start. Hi Ethan! My name is Kristen Shangara, I'm. The licensing manager at the City of Folder. and Hi i'm Kristen Teag not to complicate things any further. But i'm the licensing analyst with the city of Boulder. We also have 2 other licensing. Excuse me, 2 other licensing specialists named Caitlin, Kellogg, and John Eastlas.

[26:05] who sometimes support this board as well as you'll likely be working with each of the different licensing team members that different points of time still have an opportunity to meet them later. Hi. Hi, Ethan, I'm Sandra, Jonas, deputy city attorney, currently acting city attorney. and we're lots of different hats. I am temporarily filling in for this board we're down a couple of attorneys that we're hiring at our office, and so we expect that there will be another attorney who would be taking my place in the near future. and I've been with the city for over 20 years also was involved in the marijuana advisory panel. So I have some background there. And yeah, welcome.

[27:04] Thank you. Okay. Hello, Officer Pam, Jr. I'm. The Marijuana Enforcement officer for the City of Boulder Police Department. and we'll be joined a little bit later by Allison Bailey, who county public health. And I think that's it right. Missing Buddy. All right, Brian. I'll let you take over. Yeah, I just wanted to open this up in terms of one, if but even back on the hot seat, if there like any questions you wanted to like, ask for, or as we like to dive into things, and then to if I will maybe put you in the hot seat after you can, as a chance to ask some questions if you just wanted to.

[28:03] if you can in 60 s. summarize the work that the ports done in the last for years for sure. i'll let i'll let you then go ahead and ask any questions first, and then when we finish that face all that time, just give a summary of what we've done. Maybe that's over that Just wanted to say Thank you so much for the introductions. It's great to meet you all good to see you again, Kate, and it's a pleasure to serve amongst you at this time. I don't want to bog down the process with with questions. We have official orientation for a new Board members, I think on the fifteenth I'm. Sure most of my questions will be answered at that time so happy. Just so roll through it here with y'all, and if if I do have any questions i'll, I'll raise my hand at the time.

[29:09] Alright. Thanks. What have you done for 3 years we 3 years. Well, we've been through some transitions. We started off with a few different people. One person left us fairly quickly within for 6 months somebody who was a veteran and a strong user for marijuana. Use medical marijuana for veterans and then trying to remember why Oops and I also, and my mouse keeps going off, so I I need to change batteries, which I will do in a moment. But you know. So we've spent. I'd say the lion's share of our time discussing the hospitality

[30:00] business recommendations that are ready to be unveiled at City Council. You You saw that in the packet. I'm sure it goes on for a a number of pages, and you have seen the motions that we have negotiated and voted on, and and and then we also determined that we would have each individual board member would have the opportunity to give their positions if they wanted to, on each of the motions. and that's what follows. After the initial table summary, but that that's really been the I mean, really the lion's share of what we have spent the last, I mean. It really took at least 18 months to to work that through. and and that will be going to city council in the next 2 weeks. I believe that. Right, Kristen.

[31:01] yeah, just to make sure. And all right. I'm: I'm mouseless right now for a moment, so I can't even click on. I can't even click on the summary that I was gonna do. So i'm gonna I'm gonna go into the kitchen and get some new battery. Brian. I'm to you back to me. All right. Thanks, Tom. I I don't know if there were. We don't need to revisit all of that, but I think it's worth just touching on that, as new members come in. This is sort of acknowledged the work that's been done. and so I think when Tom gets back I think we're ready to move on to agenda and 5 here. That was just the if I may to. I just wanted to also mention that you know, I think that as a member to just knowing that, you know we have also had presentations from different people, you know, stakeholders around the the industry. A different topics over the course of the last 3 years. I wasn't here from the beginning, but there were a lot of conversations and and kind of structuring kind of around what the industry

[32:11] is, and different things about educational things, about the industry. And since we did the hospitality a lot of things about. you know, we we kind of focused our time on kind of transportation and driving on the influence and focused on kind of hearing about ventilation and and talking through those things. But I think, from from my perspective just coming on, I think, knowing what resources we have, and you know, asking for speakers, or asking for more information on certain things is a is a big part of kind of being a part of this, making sure that we're all on the same page about what we're talking about contextually. We also did talk about delivery for a number of of weeks or a number of months, sorry, and decided not to move that forward, so just wanted to add the those 2 things in there for context as well like he was always Kate. You have an encyclopedic memory.

[33:02] Yeah, and we've also been. and a mouse. and and what and a mouse. Hmm. We've been blessed, you know. Initially, we did not have any non voting members, and then city console. I don't remember it was our recommendation, but we we encouraged having 2 more members, and so both Allison and Kate have been invaluable. Oh! And adding another point of view, and. as Kate just said, we've had a number of really interesting speakers from different parts of the country, really as well as nearby. and we've been entertaining recently ideas for additional speakers to continue to educate us. especially as we move forward beyond this. So we're kind of at a juncture, a little bit moving into. Correct me if i'm wrong. Brian and Michael and Sandra, the Quasi

[34:05] official functioning or Future of potential future functioning of the cloud. And hmm. I don't know. I can't think of much else. I'm. Assuming that a lot of may have filled you in a little bit. Yeah, that she did. Yes. one of my one of that, as everybody knows. One thing I like to do, Kate, Kate and I have never met in person, because Kate's, now in Michigan. Still right? That is true. Say: yes. yeah, I'm still in Michigan.

[35:02] Some people have done several times, and some people we haven't had a chance to. But but at least once. So think about that and and everybody, you know. I I've always encouraged everybody to get together. Yeah. So you're gonna learn this on. I think it's the fifteenth that what you said you know that anything more than 2 members of this board constitutes an official meeting, and so therefore, you know, it needs to be open to the public. And so, in other words. that that includes emails like, if you you can't send an email blast to the whole board. You can send it to the staff. and they can send it to the whole board. But no 3 of us. It's the same rules for city console if 3 of us meet somewhere, and then it's an official making. So it's a weird. quirky thing. But you'll get used to that.

[36:02] And Tom. Just so, you know there will be a Board Commission training session. I believe it's on April fifteenth for all in board numbers. So you don't get the benefit of all that stuff and more. I may be there. I'm supposed to work right that day, but we'll see there was only one choice right? If I remember. I think so. Okay. back to the agenda here, which I always say in every meeting that I wish I had 3 monitors. I don't who's got the agenda. Yeah. Sorry. Next to Jen to I up here is discussing the by possible Dialary Recognition City Council, I believe

[37:04] staff. and at least one or 2 board members wanted to sort of. We visit the document in some capacity. So i'll turn that over, I think, to Sam Andrew: yeah. Yeah, thank you, Brian. I'm: happy to t this up. So at the last meeting the Cloud members were ready to provide the recommendations to council and staff, offered to put it in the right format. and provide sort of an introductory paragraph or 2, and attach all the recommendations as created by this board couple of things. So this is scheduled for April twentieth. and there was possibility that there was going to be a presentation on that date under matters

[38:03] from a city manager that has now changed to a memo. And so the memo will be important, obviously, to provide the information that this board. these appropriate and we did get some comments related to E. C. That those folks want to provide. and then it will be up to the for in consensus to approve that, and then we'll be able to submit it to the Council packet for April twentyth. and so I think that all of you should have received an updated version of that memo. Really, the only changes are in format because it was moved from a presentation to an informational packet memo. So

[39:16] everything else should be the same. We didn't change anything in terms of the the substance of the introductory portion. So with that I will hand it back to the chair to address any potential changes. Robin, you're happy and thank you, Sandra, for being available to talk with me after the reading packet came out. That was super helpful. and I wanted to say that on the executive summary that's in your meeting packet on pages 8 and 9, the executive summary that the staff wrote, and this is certainly. you know, not a criticism of what Staff has put forward. I think

[40:11] I think it misses, though some of the nuance of the conversation, and we had some long conversations about how is it that we, as a group. communicate with council on what took place here over the last 2 years in a way that is a helpful to them. and be really captures the substance and the nuance of our conversation and my feeling. When reading the executive summary. I felt that it was it sort of communicated that we had reached a consensus and we're speaking with one voice about the opt-in recommendation. and that being said, we did have a vote of 5, 2 on opting in, so I have some different text that I would appreciate your consideration of, and I just wondered, Kristen, if you can pull that up

[41:13] on the shared screen and see if we could think about. you know, making sure that this executive summary covers the full picture of our conversation, and as somebody who writes an awful lot of reports. executive summaries are really important, because when you're getting materials in front of super busy people Sometimes that is the main thing that they're going to have time to look at. So I think it's important to get this right. My screen. This. This is a little bit hard to read, and I wonder, Kristen, if you might bring up the clean text first.

[42:01] and then maybe we could go back to this red line. That shows the differences between the 2 language blocks. and it's page 7 and 8 of the meeting packet. Not 8 or not. 8 9. Thank you. Chair. Sorry about that. So I My suggestion would be that we take this text and replace. Use it to replace the current text. And why, Don't, we just give everybody a minute or 2 to read it. The first paragraph is the same as what the city staff has.

[43:37] and I should say I should have said this right up front that I, Michael, Christie, and I worked on this together. Both had a similar feeling that the fullness of the discussion was not coming through in the original draft. Is there any way we can make the text bigger? Let me see what I can do.

[44:01] It's tough because it's an email. I could send it to you as a Google dock. If that helps kristen. you just control scroll up. It'll get bigger, too. Is that they gonna? That's a little better or go to 2 to 300. No. you want to highlight the key differences in the first paragraph. If there are, there are no differences in the first paragraph chair. Okay. The first paragraph is the same. The second paragraph and I don't know. Maybe, Kristen, we should go to the red line at this point.

[45:01] Okay, that's the first paragraph. So again, no changes there in the in the second paragraph I won't narrate this. I think it's pretty obvious, so i'll let you look at that.

[46:17] I I personally have my concerns because we chose to, not with the second vote in our emotions that did not pass. because it really was 5, 2, and 1 4 3, and so i'm not sure what. even stating what the vote was. because it changed over a 2 month period of time. So I guess I I would be in favor of something like the vote was divided the past.

[47:15] and I guess, while I'm still talking on the third paragraph, i'm not sure unless there's some in in that vein of trying to make it as easy to read as possible. unless there's some reason that we need to say who forwarded, and who secretly seconded on the third paragraph. I'm. Not sure why we need to have that information. It's just extraneous nothing against our champion motioner and the person that seconded it. But oh, actually keep Ryan. You did not motion that one, did you?

[48:03] We let him a lot of take that one. Yeah. My primary question for Number Noble is just, I think the the differences between the that third paragraph, or the largest, I I think that. Well, what's your concern with the staff language? And the third paragraph. that same kind of performer just calling attention to just procedure all sorts of issues. But there's one here for, remember, Noble and yeah, that okay. Thank you for asking that, Brian. That's a good question, I can tell you the but the it's so hard to see here. If I could just speak from my notes if you don't mind. But the things that that stood out for me that I felt misrepresented. What we maybe wanted to put forward. Here was the first sentence of the second paragraph in the original class chose to vet the opt-in option after receiving several policy suggestions and comments from community members, attorneys and businesses in boulder.

[49:08] To me. The construction of that sentence really infers that all of the evidence and the stakeholder input pushes towards of vetting the opt-in option. And I, My feeling was that stakeholder input varied. We had. We had some consistent input from industry business owners and employees. but we had really varied stakeholder input from a lot of different groups. Whether it was. you know, people concerned about secondhand smoke or parents concerned about youth, influence, or law enforcement concerned about impaired driving, so I I didn't like that first sentence. That was one thing I was trying to address, and that's why I did include a little bit of a summary of who we heard from.

[50:02] because I thought that was probably what the staff was trying to do. But I just wanted to change the construction of that a little bit. and then the other sentence that I found a little off kilter was the first sentence of the third Paragraph Club is pleased to provide its recommendations to city council. and then it goes on that the provision do X, Y. And Z, and that just doesn't feel accurate to me. I'm not. I don't want them to get the impression from reading that sentence that i'm pleased and excited, to to go into to to opt into hospitality. So i'd i'd really like to see that changed as well, and I think as a function of the good faith that it required for this group to put in the enormous amount of work on this document.

[51:04] I would suggest that we stay in that vein and make sure that the executive summary, while true to the opt in vote of 5, 2, which is very strong. still capture the nuance in the effort that we put into digging in. Does that answer you, Brian? No, I I understand completely what you're saying. and so certainly we could strike a term like, please, if not, all the Board members are pleased. I understand position on that completely. Just seems like there is other procedural information in this third paragraph that I would defer to city Staff that we write these for counsel regularly to make sure that that consistency that was present. It's just my primary concern, but I agree with Member Noble, if a word like, please. I'm not trying to reduce all this sort of the change you made to this single word. I apologize if that's what you're taking away from this. But I think if there were sorts of

[52:07] edits like that that we could make or be introduced a sentence that sort of captured, the fullness of the different stakeholders we spoke to. I would welcome those kinds of changes, but I just want to balance those interests against having that executive summary that reads, you know that's to be consistent and effective way. That other executive summaries that the counselor receives, that that, consisting of these present stacy. I appreciate all of everyone's ideas here, I guess. My first question that's coming to my mind is whether we voted to have city staff put together. The executive summary. Did we vote on that? I don't remember. So that's one question. And if so, I feel like there was discussion, and whether we voted or not

[53:00] about that option, and I believe part of the reasoning. If, again, my reserves was that there, if we, as members, write this without a doubt, it's likely to take on more of a specific perspective, whatever that might be depending on who writes it. And I think the hope was that if City Staff wrote it, it would be just more pragmatic as opposed to wanting, You know, each of our personal views to be represented in some way in this executive summary, so that kind of was one part of it for me, feeling like all right. Well, I think if we agreed to have city staff rate at we've already discussed the why. and then, if we did vote on it, would we need to all agree or vote, or whatever to alter it to something else that more specifically

[54:03] second paragraph. I I would probably, if we were going to start now discussing how to amend these edits. There are some other things like I would say, okay, like, I want to strike certain sentences that you know Robin's version is adding, etc. So we probably need to get into a bigger discussion down, or maybe give all of us an opportunity to go back and add our comments and edit it. I guess we could do that now. But you know I that brings me back my first point of like. Well, isn't this why we ask for staff to come in and do this, and then You know, as far as what you were saying, Robin, with, you know, a certain language used. I think it's fair for us to have an opportunity to go back like you're saying. If the word pleased is not representative in some way or just it doesn't feel, appropriate that we should have a chance to. You know, say things like that. I think that's really fair. So that's kind of my 2 cents on this, because it feels like if we're about to jump in to like examining the new language.

[55:10] There's a few other questions i'd want to understand better first. If I understand correctly, we did vote to allow staff to right bye the preamble, or whatever we're calling this and and then read. we would discuss it in this meeting, just as we are prior to that vote. Did we discuss the why? You know the benefit would be to having staff right at versus us. To this. because I feel like that discussion went down I could again be imagining that. But I think the idea was to avoid this type of situation where you know one or more members wants boarding change for X, you know, for their perspective. I think my take on the first draft that staff root. Actually, I I would also probably do it. You know, a couple of small, and it's like Robin was suggesting, maybe like in a semantic way. But other than that I felt like it did a pretty good job of saying, Look!

[56:17] There was a lot that went into this, and it's not as simple as anything that could be represented in in this executive summary, so like. Here's all that information, and all of us have taken the time to submit our comments and thoughts on each of these motions to make sure that's in there, and I do appreciate that. Sure. An executive summary would be. you know, for some very busy people. The only thing that's looked at. But at the same time i'd like to have faith that with this particular issue that clearly is really complex, and this staff's version of the Executive, I, I think, does make that clear enough that they would delve further as needed.

[57:00] Michael. I I probably will not come across as being as diplomatic as Robin in her words, but I mean honestly and and frankly, I I felt like in this is not the trying to be critical of staff. and I certainly appreciate the efforts, and putting this together, it takes a lot of the burden off of us to try to come up with language that works. But When I. When I first read this. I felt like I was reading something that we were presenting to council that came across as we were all united on cloud, and we're happy and pleased to put forward these recommendations, and I did not feel like it was an UN. Well, I don't want to say that it was biased. But I think that the appearance, at least from my perspective was that

[58:01] I didn't feel like the language was neutral, and I felt like that. The language that Robin is proposing is much more neutral, as opposed to sort of putting forth this presentation in this cover letter that lab is sending this to you Council as a united front. And oh, by the way below, or how we each voted on each of these different motions. I just felt like the initial cover letter could have come across as being a lot more neutral. So I am. I am not happy with the way that this this cover letter is drafted. I I do feel like again, from my perspective, or, in my opinion, it sounds like it's slanted to be very much in favor of of deregulation, or less regulation and pro industry. And if I had my brothers, I would like to see language that's a lot more neutral, and I felt that that Robin did an excellent job in putting forth something that is more neutral, and and we had gone back and forth.

[59:02] Robin had taken out language that I had proposed, and I agreed that the language I was proposing was probably too strong. It would be met with a lot of resistance. And then Robin even toned down Drafts initial draft that she had done to try to make tea this up in a way that would make it appear to be as neutral as possible, and I think she's done an excellent job, and I would support that. We do change the language because i'm not comfortable with the way that it's currently written. and I I understand that we had put that burden on staff to do. And again I appreciate the work. But if we are going to tweet the language, I would like to see it more neutral. 8, I guess. My first question is, is, do we need to take a vote to make edits, so I guess that would be my first. My first statement is that maybe there needs to be a vote on on whether to make edits. I I also want to say that, like I I I do think well actually not. I'm just gonna leave it at that. That'll be my my comment for now.

[60:07] Good point. I guess I have my hand up. and Kate, you probably remember exactly, but I remember in our initial public comments. The first I think you were here the first public comments. I think it was 1716. They couldn't get a whole lot closer. you know. 1716 in support of us. continuing discussion or opting in to discussing. and then so I guess i'm on the side of Robin and Michael in terms of it it if we're representing the city and the people that showed up then it was pretty divided.

[61:01] Kevin. Heaven. we're in Boston. You guys can hear me right. No, I can't hear you, Evan. See you now. even though you're not mute. Let's let's try. Try unmuting and our muting and unmeting again. Not Try

[62:00] I can't hear you. Do you want to try coming back in? It's interesting that we can see you. Oh, there you are! There it is. I don't know why that switch guys. I apologize. I I gotta say I I agree with Michael and Robin here. I do agree. I do agree that this was a pretty bitter, that bitter but heated dispute, and I do think the original text Well, I think it's as good in terms of expressing what happened as staff could be reasonably asked to do. I do think there's there's a better representation of what actually occurred in the words that Robin chose there, and I don't think that the modifications have any substantive change to the recommendations. I think I do agree with you, Robin. Yes, this the executive summary is incredibly important. But

[63:06] a table of very simple votes and relatively simple language in those votes, I think, will represent exactly what happened here, and I think your words describe it in the executive submarine are fair, so I support. Change in it. Welcome this year also. Okay. I'll go back to Kate's suggestion. I'm Sandra, what do you think? Do we need a you to modify? We are a to allow modified. I think that's one way to find consensus, or you can use a show of hands or folks that want to make changes. Well, even Stacey suggested that she might appreciate some other little modifications, and I would appreciate other little modifications, too.

[64:00] I I guess if we're like the question, should we just vote first. that we agree to modify our former vote, which was to have staff? Do this. It feels like we probably need to agree on that first, and then another vote, maybe on how like, if we're all gonna whoever wants to. But more words, or write an email, or whatever it might be like. We've done for other things. But maybe we need to consider those separately. I have a question just because I did understand that we voted to have the staff write it, but it wasn't clear to me as though it seems like it is to many of you. It wasn't clear to me that we were saying That would be it. In other words, I I we knew that they were going to be writing it, and I think as and I discussed this with Sandra when I called her so did, or do we still have an opportunity to weigh in. and Sandra correct me if i'm wrong. But I understood that you felt that we did have an opportunity to weigh in

[65:02] to sorry I was on mute. So what I did say is that you'll have an opportunity to bring up that issue and see if the board is willing to make those changes. But I think I do think that decisions delays with the board. Okay, Brian. So I know that maybe there's a consensus to edit this side of not speaking for that consensus existing or not. I just want to remind the Board as a matter of order, that staff is invited, that this document be presented to City Council on April twentieth, so like any as we make need to happen. Staff can correct me like today or by some day, and we need to have a boat sort of approving those edits in a public meeting, and so just want to emphasize the time of the essence to get these edits in, so that this can be a finalized document that goes before city, council

[66:00] or otherwise. We need to reschedule the council meetings for this business. Thank you, Brian. That's a great point. There are deadlines that we have to meet. So if this is going to move forward on February twentieth in front of Council. Then. Yes, the changes would need to be finalized and approved by this board tonight. April Twentieth You me? Oh, yeah. Otherwise the top April twentieth. Okay. I guess I had a question about what what Brian had had talked about earlier with the city staff, just in terms of especially the third paragraph that just has some things about like. you know that this license would be governed by city laws applicable to other canvas businesses. It talks about the boulder revised coast and code. Are there things in there that we should make sure that we have.

[67:01] just because of consistency or yeah, just trying to to get a guess for that. I think that I mean, I think there's based on what i'm hearing. I think there's enough people that want to see things change that we should just. you know, move towards making those changes and trying to do it as as efficiently as possible. Obviously, we've already agreed, or maybe not. But we've agreed that that first paragraph looks good. I think there's some things tweaking wise that we can easily come to with that second paragraph like Robin. I think we could, I think, debate you use the word debate. I think we could say conversation, even though you know it's semantics right? We could stay debate. But if we're trying to be more neutral, maybe that's a better way. If we're talking about stakeholders, i'd love to see all of them presented in the same way, instead of dividing them the way that I think that they have been divided in that sentence. I think it could just say stakeholders and list them instead of kind of the 2 different designations. That second paragraph and that third paragraph I didn't have enough time to really look at kind of the nuance of it. But I I don't think there's so like, I think, to to Evan's Point. I think that they're not

[68:10] overly skewed in in another direction. I do think that I I can see, you know. Maybe obviously the pleased is just, you know it's just a word choice right that we can easily change. So I think there's a number of things that we can do pretty pretty easily. I I you know by that you added the 2 public hearings, I think, adding the stakeholders in the discussion that we had with people that presented was good. I do wonder I can't remember if there were actually policy suggestions at the beginning from community members, attorneys, and businesses, and wondering whether that initial sentence was actually necessary in terms of preempting our conversations about opting in. So I i'm you know i'm I'm. Having conversations now that that just assuming that we're going to make changes, because I think that that's the direction that most of the Board members that I'm hearing from are at least wanting to do so. I guess we could just go paragraph by paragraph and talk about

[69:03] each part of it. I don't think it should take very long, I think, overall it's yeah, I think there are some things that we can talk about like. Let's talk about the first sentence, or whatever, and just move and try to move forward. But well, if you guys, I I've written down all those things that you, said Kate, and I think those are good suggestions. And if you want to just give me 5 or 10 min to go offline to create a Google doc and try to get it as close to that as possible. And then we could come back online and do a drafting session together. That might be an efficient way to do it. That's we could take an early break. How many minutes Exactly. Do you feel? What were you gonna say, Brian.

[70:00] Great Brian. But yeah, it's gonna invite the board to sort of consider like either an easy option where we try to just do like a simple word swap, or like adding a simple line or sort of a hard version, which is, I think, what Robins have want line here is that we sort of start with the current staff version. Robin makes the edits in the Google Doc that she and Michael would like to see. And then, if other people wanted to make other line edits, and then we could sort of in that document together, and like edit that together, and then approve that together in some time, but I recognize that that takes some technical scale and time. I want to make sure that we do that right first time. So, Robin, if that's direction. What the board wants to go is more hard about versus an easy mode to swap. In a word. I want to get a consensus for the board. but and also make sure if Rob is in a position that she feels comfortable to sort of pull together that Google document. I do. Totally. Yeah, I'm: good with those Google docs. So no problem but

[71:05] and it it may be simpler to to start from a place where we I it feels like we're closer like. And what I heard you say, Brian and Kate was that in the third paragraph we need to hang on to some of the technical things that were listed. We can pop those back in. I heard Kate say that separating this list of stakeholders. you know, kind of creates an Us. Versus them things. So just listing them out a little more clearly across the top. Yeah, so maybe we can start. We've made some progress just in this conversation alone, and then come back and look at the Google Doc and be able to draft together. Hey to you? Okay, You had your hand up, but I took it back down. Yeah. Well, I was just, you know, wrestling with the ideas it would it make more sense to I? I I do have city staff be the one to put it up up on the screen, so that I doesn't have to. It has to be able to be viewed by the

[72:11] the public while we're doing it. So I just wanna make sure that whatever we do, we obviously have the ability to do that. Oh, yeah, no, it, Would it? Definitely? I suggest we that Robin should copy the current staff version of the latest staff version the Google Document Make introduced the changes she and Michael developed share that city staff to share on a screen. I know that one might take a couple of minutes here. Is that worth taking a break, for is that less I I recognize Robin will be preoccupied with that. So I don't want to move on other matters She might be interested in talking about as well I know it might matter. 6 might be something about. So i'm just trying to think through the procedures here I've had ever seen. If it if it's helpful to I mean I do have the word document of this

[73:04] memo, and I have Robins changes so it might be faster, Robin, if you'd like me to try to incorporate your proposed changes into deadlines. I'm i'm happy to do that if that's helpful. So the original document did not say what the boat was. Is it necessary to say what the boat was? Because there were 2 different folks? So i'm also advocating for not having that going with the original document of not including that. And then I don't. Is it necessary to say who motion? And who seconded? That just complicates the text? May I make a suggestion? So before you get into the details of the text that you're changing.

[74:03] are you? Are you? Okay? With Kristen Oven Ford? And her suggestion of adding those changes in try changes to the original memo. And that way we'll have one document to work from. Does anybody object to that alright, great. So let's do that. Give Kristen a minute or 2 to do that. and then it'll be up to the board if you want to take time and in terms of a break, to think about your thoughts, about what you might want to change, or we can work through it. you know. Well, it's online. And Brian I also was looking at the agenda. If there's anything else that could be. but everybody on the board probably wants to be part. It's kind of a national break that Staff and I discussed, and planning meeting that we sort of discussed these matters through agenda and 6, and then we have a break, and then sort of have a large discussion about on the official responsibilities is the full balance after the break.

[75:15] Hi, Kate. I I did a question for Sandra. I understand how about just the difference between the 2, the the the new memo that went out via email just before the meeting. and just wanted to did really just the the main difference is, the the next steps versus the questions for Council and responses to questions. Right? Is that is that the main? Well, it's it's a little bit so. Yes and no. This was going to be a a presentation where there would be some kind of. you know, back and forth with council a little bit. It wasn't a public hearing, or anything like that just preliminarily to share the information, and because it was a presentation. It would be an opportunity to get some feedback on direction in terms of next steps

[76:05] that can still be accomplished through this memo. It's just, you know. We don't have the ability to provide those detailed questions because there won't be any opportunity for that back and forth. and that will be a public meeting when the thing is red or one not Well, so it's part of the the packets. There goes to the public. The the meeting itself is public, but it's it's not going to be an item that will be raised for discussion. It will be read by the Council members and by the public as well, and then. you know. there will be an opportunity for a Council member to bring it up in terms of

[77:05] the Council Agenda Committee, or in some other format, if there is any interest in bringing it forward. So it's kind of the first step of many steps. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did they give you enough time, Kristen? I i'm working on it. But i'll give you a few more minutes. Oh, can we go on to a different topic. Oh, you're working on that. A good topic might be the discussion around concentrates. If you'd like to move on to that. Okay. that concentrates and then come back to okay and again apologies. But I wasn't that planning meeting out of town what what was?

[78:01] And I see a lot of in the room. What was the discussion? So one of the items that when we were sharing ideas about what the Board business the Board should take up next was the matter of concentrates, whether how to be regulated out. We should have different kinds of health campaigns for young people that many matters that kind of touched on concentrate. So really, this is not to have that whole discussion now, but rather to sort of provide some guidance to staff about speakers or other kinds of resources for future meetings or future reading packets. To better understand concentrates. One concrete thing that I would I would make a motion for. But i'll just introduce first is that there is a city law that bars former staff as excuse these former Board members from speaking before the board for a period of 12 months. So what that would mean concretely is that a lot is now allowed to speak to us

[79:06] to a year before our port for a period of 12 months. and so we can. City council can wave that prohibition by a vote, by city council. And so one concrete thing I would, if I or to think about is, if we wouldn't want to discuss concentrates, I would also what like to have. I want to be part of that conversation for that to happen. City council actually needs to pick a vote to overturn this prohibition of 4 board members not appearing before the Board for a period of 12 months. But so 2 pieces there again, the first piece here just about what are matters that you would the Board would like to consider, or an issue of concentrates. and how we prioritize those. The second would be on this matter of allowing a line to appear before the board as a speaker. and it's kind of capacity.

[80:03] hey? Would Council just have to allow it for this one instance, or to overturn the You know the the large part of not allowing board members to. Yes, so I can, of course, correct me. But just reading her email over a device code to 7, 5 E. We have this former participation, former employees or officials. So up here before our City Board Commission, this provision may be waved by the City Council by appointment or vote. so I think to your question, hey? It doesn't require them like writing. You lost just that in the single instance for a long, I think we need to sort of permit so potentially if we did a motion, saying that we would like her to come in to speak before her 12 months, that they could use that as a way to wave it. Is that right? Sandra? Yeah, that's correct. And I think I would add to that, you know, if you want it to be specific only for this one particular time, for this one particular matter.

[81:02] that that's fine, or it could just be in general waiting that prohibition for the year. So if you wanted her to come back, and another time you'd you'd still be able to do that if if it were presented in that way. Great. Thank you. We have, I would say, like, let's open it up for, like what are matters regarding concentrates that you would like to have speakers resources, conversations about and future meetings. Hey? Yeah, Just just to reiterate, I think one of the main things that we wanted to talk about. We're we're about milligrams and dosage and use, and i'm talking about Nano emotions and and the different types of of concentrates that exist. I think there's a lot of of conversation about them and around them, and then a lot of corrections, and all in different corrections. I think an overview of what concentrates are and what they aren't.

[82:11] and then kind of the nuances of different different types, and in in ways that they're produced would be was part of this, I think suggestion Again, I wasn't at the the retreat, but I I that was kind of one of the main components of it to one of them. Robin. Yeah. And we've discussed this before, that the sees School of Public Health is a doing a look at all the literature to see draw some conclusions around, concentrates in terms of health downside risk, especially to younger people, and that report keeps getting promised and pushed off a little bit longer, so i'm not exactly sure where it is. I think we had expected it in January. If Allison Bailey is on the call, I don't know Allison, if you have

[83:16] an eta, I know you guys are are watching and waiting for that. But I do think that that those folks to present their report, and there's no guarantees that that's going to come in and say. Oh, yeah, there's a lot of problems. I mean it. I think it's would be worthwhile to all of us to hear, because a lot of people are waiting to hear that particular report. So I think that would be interesting. And there was just one other group that I had mentioned, and that's It's a CD. Phg group that measures health impacts of cannabis in the Colorado marketplace, and they put out a couple of reports and the Lana shared a couple of those with us 2 months ago

[84:09] with the cover sheet that I felt skewed that a little bit, and and you know I think it would be worthwhile for the Board if we do look at concentrates to read what that State group has put out, and, you know, come prepared to have further discussions on what that might mean or actions we could take. and one way or another. Okay. yeah, I was just thinking, I mean, you know, These kinds of topics I feel like are always good with with more than one presenter, and I I like panels of 3 of 2 or 3. If we wanted to have, you know, a couple of people present and have like a time limit where you like. You go back

[85:01] 15 min presentation, and we're gonna give you. You know all of us can provide. You know questions that we have, you know, to to city staff about those things, and then we can have them answer them and ask them. A. Q. A. I'm. Just thinking procedurally right. I think, that it's necessary. I think, that we've had enough conversations about this topic that there's enough, I think I I I don't want to go as far as confusion, but I think I I would say, like the misinformation and differing understanding of, of, of of of things. So I think it's worth having the conversation. I also think I think it's it's worth having a want to be one of those people. I think we all know her. I think we she's a one of the experts in her field, I think. And Personally, I know that she loves education, and so I think that she has materials that she could help to do this. So yeah, some of the people that Rob Robin is talking about. I think I want to. So I you know i'm in support of all that. But i'll I'll stop talking for a while. So you all can talk.

[86:08] Yeah. So i'm grateful for Robin, identifying both this an shoots report authors and some capacity to Cdp. She others. It's a capacity. Obama. If the Board and the city Council like to bring her back in the next 12 months, I would also be great. Are there other stakeholders or perspectives that Aren't represented with at least those 3 or Sonas Robin, or anyone else. Do you know who are all members of the panel and shoes panel. Yeah, yeah, there's a list. There's a website up it. When we take a break i'll grab the the link and and pop it in the chat.

[87:00] Awesome. Just entered. I just it. Could. I wanted to take one step back. Brian. to get your take if we were, if we had a mindset of let's begin with. The end in mind is is part of that. hey? We got to make sure we're all on the same page with understanding what these products. Our and Ps. I really like that framing better than there are misunderstandings. I think a lot of us come with a different experience of these drugs, and it doesn't necessarily mean that there's ignorance, so to speak. But just to back up a little bit if we're trying to get on the same page around definitions and uses, and that sort of thing. I think there's some value to that. I would hope also that the expiration could be some of the conclusions. These folks have drawn good or bad.

[88:03] and and what that might mean for policies locally. So I agree. I've renewable that I think that some basic definitions. I think I can concentrate covers of a broad swat, the different class of products and those products you can see in the different ways, and have different kinds of risks. So I think, just having more clarity about all of those, I think, having conversations from experts who are engaged in research about these kinds of matters and writing reports about this you welcome. I imagine that having a perspective of people in industry who are. and growing and distilling, and all that sorts of amazing things that they do are also so present in that conversation. I want to make sure that that is capturing a representative breadth of perspectives, and if the members of the board, one of the other perspectives, represented as well

[89:03] for this kind of definitional conversation to help us. As for our agenda about how we want to consider this matter going forward. I can't remember who we suggested 3 speakers, but I kinda like that idea. If everybody agrees along those one, Allison. Not that you're in the room. Do you know what we're talking about? I don't, but i'm listening closely to you. Catch up so it's. Item 5 on the agenda discussion regarding concentrates, and I don't know at what point on you. You walked in the virtual room. but Brian mentioned a city rule that someone that served on a board cannot participate on the board for a for a year. Up to a year. There I go after their board membership unless allow, unless specifically allowed by city council.

[90:05] So that's one thing we haven't have to do, if all of us going to speak to us. and then maybe it was. Was it Robin? Was it you that suggested? Maybe a or or Kate? I think it's maybe Kate 3 speakers, and maybe Robin obviously is a proponent. I would suggest. Then, if there's someone who can represent an opposing issue or a different point of view, and then someone in neutral. What do you think, Gaussian? I think it sounds great to get a variety of perspectives. You have any suggestions for speakers? I don't off the top of my head. Maybe she does.

[91:00] No, no, I was just. Robin had a question to know if you knew anything more about the report that was supposed to be coming out from? Was it an shoots? I'm on so right from the Public Health report that was mandated by HP. 2213, 17, and I know you said that you were that y'all were anticipating that, and the last meeting they had. They pushed it off a little further, so I just didn't know if you'd heard. I don't have any other updated information waiting for those for those updates. I can reach out to one of our state contacts and just see if there's any other a better timeline. But last I heard was the same thing. It was just pushed out a little further. but with no definite timing.

[92:00] All right, so i'll just move then on to the second matter on agenda. Item 6 here, just regarding former Number Malone. So I would motion that this Board petition, City Council to wave the rule. Brc. 2 7 5, E. Are in the participation of former officials or employees appearing before the cloud. Not for let them alone. I apologize. I was trying to capture that vice chair, Keegan, would you mind repeating that? Let me write this down so that i'm not which is what we're not supposed to be doing. Well, he's writing that down. Does a lot of have the option of giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down and reactions. It's only a thumbs up. you know. See a thumbs down.

[93:01] I mean she's offered it before. and so I I I think you can safely assume that that she's available. I I have had some conversations with her, so I don't think that that's really necessary. Okay, alright. it's never good to make any assumptions. Is it? Is it, Alison? Do you know, or or K, or anyone? Is it known publicly? Is on that commission? Is the list somewhere on a web page. I'm putting it in the chat, Tom. Okay, I I don't know if we can use the chat. Can we use the Chat Kristen. Can I share it with you through an email? And you could maybe share it with the group.

[94:01] I can try. Even after 3 years. It still has not figured out why I have a problem sharing, but I will do my very best. and Ethan has his hand up, so i'm. I'm glad to call on Ethan. and I just wanted to say that I know a lot of is willing to present on the matter, and it should City Council. I'm not against waving the code that she does have other individuals that she would trust to present on a concentrates as well. Okay, thank you. And Robin, You said, Yes. it's it is available. Yeah, I just sent it to the Christians and see if they can share it with us. So it's trying to Google it, but I couldn't find it. If you look up the Scientific Review Council.

[95:05] see you School of Public Health, you should get to it. Did you send it to both of us, or just to Kristen Shengaras that to both. Hmm. My email is on a 30 s delay. So I can it sorry about that. You should have it here. and I wrote down my motion. I just sent that to the licensing online. Oh, okay. Which would you prefer to address first on what? Because I got them. They came in at exactly the same time. It doesn't matter. Pick them up about a client. all right. but you know, by the way, so i'm just well go ahead.

[96:03] All right. Let me open up since, said alphabetically. We will go with Member Keegan's first. All right. So I motion that the Cloud Petition City Council to wave the prohibition on their boulder device code to 7, 5, e, and allow a lot of Malone to appear before the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board. A second. That. and I apologize when i'm sharing. I can't see who seconded I was. Anderson. Thank you. Do you need to put any timelines on that that question for me? Time. Yeah. like the statue just reads as a 12 month prohibition. So I would say, not really. Just ask that prohibition to be way. So

[97:04] okay. all right. So that was motion was made and seconded. Is there any further discussion. I'll just ask, is there any opposition to that? Hearing the opposition that passes? I can't see everybody's face right now on the to me? Okay? And then the second thing you have in front of you is a list. Yes, that's popping up right now. which, while you're popping it up, I mean at least one person who's previously spoke here can't touch some on the board.

[98:07] A guy that used to be the acting. Well correct me if i'm wrong, Alison, what was Chris or Bina's role? He's a medical director of Boulder County Public Health and at Burnfield Public Health. Yeah, okay. And I apologize for the option. Member Noble, Did you want me to just open this up and scroll down so everybody can see? Or did you want me to just put the link out to everyone or well Chair cutsman's walking through it. Now I I don't know if you want it on the screen chair, or if you're just thinking about different folks there. Awesome, Jim, Have you looked up. did you, Google? Once, Robin? Said she. Did I? I stopped my Googling, but she found it first.

[99:01] Okay, I mean several of the names I know. I can definitely help share it and just scroll through slowly. So everybody has a chance to look at the names. Yeah, yeah, that's probably good to you. Just a full list, because it seems like it was a bigger. I think it was 21 members. Please let me know if i'm going too fast. or we can look at each one of them. The first one seems rather interesting. I've I've heard the name David Brumble, but I don't know he's it's probably a high-powered person being the chief medical officer at children's for for clarity are we looking for

[100:00] people to come. Speak about this, or what is the purpose of this? Well, let me just say that I I think Tom wanted to look at the list to see who might be a good speaker, but I would caution that we should wait until their report is published. Because I just don't think that anybody's going to be able to, so you know. Speak on it until you know we should wait until the report comes out would be my feeling, and then I have a feeling. Having listened to some of these conversations and meetings, the ones that have been public is, there is going to be. you know, some messaging that comes out of this informal messaging, and they probably will offer up opportunities to have a presentation would be my thought. So. So I don't know that we need to just cherry pick one speaker or so. But you know, let's provide the link to people so you can peruse it and just have it in mind would be my suggestion.

[101:00] Okay, we can provide the link and the next reading packet definitely. Well, they can also. before we wait for them to produce the report. We've been waiting a few months already, and it could be a few more or 4 or 5 more. Who knows? It could be a while. We've already heard from Kent once before. Allison. Do you think we might have heard from Chris or Vina at some point in time? I I seem to think he was a speaker at 1 point in time with our for us even a 3 min public comment speaker. maybe a public comment. I'm I don't. I don't think a presentation. No, i'm not. I'm not thinking about this presentation. I'm thinking you might have gone on very first large public comment moments about

[102:00] hospitality. Not sure. Okay. So currently, i'm on medical toxicologists moving on to a neurologist. I mean. So, Robin, I I i'm feeling if if if we? So it's gonna take it. What at least a month to get approval for a lot of to speak is that roughly. that's from that's roughly correct. I mean, it's gotta go in front of a business council meeting, and the next one wouldn't be until April twentieth. So that's the earliest that it could happen. Well, we probably should ask these if If there's anyone that we are going to ask, you probably should ask them and see if they'd be willing to do it First.

[103:12] Sandra, I have a question if I provide the link in an email to Cloud members and include that email in the next packet. Would that be sufficient? Yes. okay. So I can do that. I can email this link too. Well. Brian. I just want to make sure Kristen has any information she needs. Sandra. Oh, so then, yeah, Chris, to go ahead and email it to us. I would just remind you couldn't spend that all right. I'm sorry I want to check in

[104:05] with Kristen. This is manager. If we're ready to look at that document, yet i'm ready. Whatever you are. Okay? Well, before we switch gears again to reiterate. I would advocate for, like Ilana can't. and and maybe Chris or be not who asked over experience and some me he's a pretty reasonable guy. and probably is quite knowledgeable about the topic. Now, if they say no, then back to the drawing board. and they don't have to speak about

[105:00] what the what the commission, or what what is it called commission? I don't have to address, that they can just address the topic or educate, help educate us on the topic of concentrates. So I thought that was the purpose. Am I right about that? I agree with Member Noble that there might be messaging that comes out with this report, and that if it doesn't get a point of contact, if they have a expert, and or if we just invite their chair. Those are all kinds of options. But I would defer to the availability of this people and that then Yeah, and i'm sorry, I interrupted you, Brian, but I was just gonna say they're just not going to share a lot of the substance of the report until it's widely distributed. So.

[106:02] and and that's when we want to have the opportunity to talk to them about what they, what the conclusions were that they they've drawn. because those will have policy implications that even the State Legislature will be curious about. and so that will be kind of an inflection point for for our board if we are going to look at concentrates, and if we are going to take some sort of meaningful action in terms of policy locally. so I think you know we're kind of talking about 2 things we're talking about a primer on concentrates. and maybe we get that primer from Alana in the near term. But we have this presentation from the School of Public Health when they actually draw some conclusions based on data. I guess I was going on. Kate's suggestion that it's nice to hear

[107:02] in a primer to hear from more than one person. and she suggested 3. I I didn't mean that it had to be at the same time I was just suggesting that perspectives are good. So this the that still fits the the idea of what I was thinking, and to also, reader at re reiterator to to follow up my comment about misinformation wasn't about ignorance or anything that matter. It was just about understanding, concentrates and and thc and milligrams and dosage is not easy, and we have talked about it in different ways. We've talked about beverages, we have talked about edibles in in ways that that that are different when there's a lot of similarities. But there are some some nuances, so I apologize for the word choice, but no intention of that to be the interpretation or that turn. No worries, Kate. Thank you. Okay.

[108:01] I believe we passed the motion right. I mean, it was unanimous that we move beyond that. So, Kristen and I still don't want to put you your last name. So Kristen c. No problem. I'll go ahead and share my screen with the red lines. so I did not make any changes to the first paragraph for the that. The discussion so far, and then following that, or their red lines from Robin. and those are the only changes I've made so far.

[109:24] Start with a suggestion chair. Tell me more what you mean. Well, I guess I would go back to something, Kate said. which was in the fourth line of the second paragraph that we don't divide out the stakeholders in. you know, a. For and against sort of things. So maybe the line reads club heard from stakeholders, including cannabis, businesses, comma industry, lobbyists, comma public health stakeholders.

[110:01] comma or just public health, law, enforcement. and parents blah blah blah blah. So in other words, you would strike the first and perfect, and then the second phrase it would you that it Are we? Are we going to try to word Smith this right now before a break? I'd like to. Yeah. get this ready to go. So we have another business. Okay.

[111:00] I still don't think it's accurate to say I I don't think it's necessary and or accurate to say what the vote was. It was. It was a close vote. and the Board decided to opt in to further discussion, or. if I may, I think it, it could say the club voted to opt in to what's the language? Recreational marijuana establishments? Hospitality. What's the But we could just say that. And then you get rid of the number. and because we did vote to opt in to retail hospitality in sales. we kill Marijuana hospital in sales businesses. Specifically.

[112:02] you reading from the motion. I am. I'd still like to say that that boat was divided. The next next line is still there. Well, but it's 2 separate sentences, so that second sentence based is not necessarily inclusive of the vote to Octave.

[113:02] We don't want to give the numbers we could say. you know, on a divided I a divided vote. The result was that that Flab would recommend to the city that they opt into retail marijuana hospitality. Sandra. Yes, thank you, Chair. I I was just thinking that you might just be able to just say that the vote was not unanimous. and then you could still have the second sentence. which would. you know, Inform the first sentence, and then the other thing, I would add, is that just from a kind of a procedural perspective. there needs to be some reference to attachment a, and that was taken out.

[114:05] That's yeah. You could say this about. And other votes are represented in appendix or in attachment a. And still say it in the third paragraph as well. I'm sorry, I Kate. I didn't follow that. Did you want to add I mentioned up in paragraph 2 preferencing attachment a, or somewhere in a different part of the document. whatever the the the whichever the board decides. I was just offering it as a another option if if folks don't like them so just trying to move things along, that's all. So

[115:00] how's it reading? How did it read down below? I think the suggestion that Kate, perhaps, is making is that Sandra mentioned? We need to reference attachment a. So, I think, in here. and Michael's recommending that, like we had the the vote wasn't unanimous. We could just tie these things together. It's like these boats, not all those for unanimous and like the summary of these votes and their ration. Now, to summarize and attachment. A like cloud was divided on several matters. These motions and their votes and rationals are summarized, and attachment a got that, Kristen?

[116:02] And my! Am I adding it to the right spot, Brian? This works for me. always controlling your fine editing. Okay. I kind of cut off the beginning of this sentence. So are we deleting this text. Hold on. Michael. I think you could still say sorry. Oh. I mean I I I i'm fine with Sandra's recommended change that you have the separate sentence. The vote was not unanimous.

[117:02] Yeah. okay. hey? Did you want to say something, Kate? Nope. Okay. And we put your hand out. I'm: good with either keeping the sentence or moving what she has highlighted right now. I just i'm just removing. Yeah, we can strike the sentence highlighted. Okay. you scroll down now. little bit.

[118:12] I guess i'll ask one more time. Is it necessary to have a motion in a second. Just populates unnecessarily. Agree with that, Tom. I think that whole just repeating the motion. Really it doesn't say much. I think you could just start with club, therefore submits and appreciate your consideration of it. I'm. I'm just not sure that that's saying anything of value to the Council. and you want to keep this short and sweet. I mean, it did include the actual language of the motion which talked about advancing into ordinance for implementation, prioritizing this and city councils and city staff's work plans which was part of the motion, so that I I think I think I understand staff wanting to reflect what we said, since the entire attachment a. Is this telling everyone exactly what we were thinking about each part of it? So I think that I I do say I I I would not remove. That whole thing.

[119:11] I guess, is my point. I think the motion is important to say cloud grease to submit. It's recommendation based on the following motion: I don't think it needs to say, Member Malone motioned, and Keegan seconded, but it could include that motion language. Yeah, I i'm trying to keep it simple. And then the strike Member Malone and Member Keegan seconded My question still stands for this third paragraph has just procedural language about govern by city laws and

[120:05] official recommendations. This needs to be included as a matter of procedure, or clarity, or consistency? Or is there an intent to rationale for Stripina. I don't think it's necessary from a procedural perspective. Yeah. I don't know the intent behind striking it, though it gets a little redundant. That was My intent in the original draft was just that. You know we covered up on these things didn't didn't necessarily need to come back and cover off again.

[121:03] Brian, you have your hand up still. all right. Can we look at a clean version right now? See if it reads? Well. anybody have any comments about those first 2 paragraphs.

[122:10] hearing none, Can we scroll down? I'm. Not opposed to what it says in next steps. But is that necessary? And they they probably know what the processes it is necessary. We need to give them some direction. Okay.

[123:05] this Can you scroll up just a little bit, so I can see the bottom of the last. Yeah, the last. Yeah, that's good. Thank you. And after he's done with that. can you go back to the bottom of that paragraph you you can go down. Thank you. Thank you, Kristen. That's a different terminology. Then, above opt into marijuana, social consumption, or in people also do that in their own homes. The terminology you gave earlier K. Is not this. I agree? This last sentence should say, marijuana, recreational marijuana, hospitality, or that language was

[124:09] retail marijuana. and not to throw another wrench in this, and maybe Evan or Ethan, You'd be best to apply on this. But I have been approached by people just a handful of people who have told me that it is derogatory to use the term marijuana. Should we be referring, replacing marijuana with cannabis at all times. Yes, 100%. That would be very much appreciated. I agree with that as well. I'd love to hear more about that when the time is right, as a derogatory term use stolen from Spanish to discuss some of the first individuals who are prosecuted for using the cannabis plant in the United States. It is a very derogatory term, most especially if you are a Hispanic individual. So

[125:20] this cannabis cannabis is totally acceptable. Binomial. No binomial nomenclature based in Latin is not offensive to anyone, or at least it shouldn't be as canvas inclusive enough to i'm. Not suggesting marijuana. Cannabis is the term nothing else appropriate period Hem, in the generalized department is not referring to anything. It is he Hemp simply has a legal definition of cannabis sativa, 100.3 by dry mass. determined cannabis. Okay? So we should. Probably that must be appropriate.

[126:02] I'd like standard away in on that. Just because if we're changing the terminology. it it isn't exactly what was voted on. and also the term marijuana is what's used to our border Revised code. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying on a technical level. That's the way that this is defined. So I like Sarah to weigh in on that if she could. Thanks, Kristen. I also don't have any objection to the term of cannabis. However, I do think it may create some confusion for Council members who are as well versed in this area, and there might be a better opportunity to share that knowledge in another format. and it's right there it it's right there in our name. I understand that. But

[127:04] Our code is called the Marijuana code. and this would be part of the Marijuana code. so I mean it. It's up to to this board. However, you want to move forward with that if you want to change the name and provide an explanation, but just doing that on its own. To me it seems like it would create some confusion. I saw Kate first. But, Kate, did you? You withdraw your with your and I mean in terms of I. I I was just gonna say that in terms of how we deal with it on a kind of the compliance law side of it is that if we're talking about retail marijuana, hospitality and sales. Businesses like that is the term used by the State. So I do think that using that term which is defined is is important, because they there's a reference there if they were to look that up. And so I I think.

[128:01] although I think cannabis, if we're using the term as a as a board, saying, we're talking. We should be talking about cannabis and not marijuana. But I think that if we're using a term that is defined that we want people to be able to look up the the definition to we need to use. In my opinion, the language that is used in the code. Do I think that we could talk about, you know, like changing the the Boulder code to say cannabis. the canvas code as opposed to marijuana code like absolutely. But I think if we're just talking about cannabis in general as the board, we should talk about cannabis, but I think that if it's a a defined term that we want to use. I think that the the using the word marijuana, unfortunately, is acceptable from a legal perspective. I think, because that is defined as that. Kristen. Can you scroll up to the beginning of the document again?

[129:00] Yeah, okay. right. Oh, I I k already captured what I wanted to say, I think, that just to reiterate that we should use the legal language, the state it's already to find should sort of be compliant with the code as it's already written down. and it's both of this. It says it uses the term marijuana, which is a problematic term. But I think that is a fight for another day, and I would welcome the sport undertaking efforts to strip the firm from our legal code. But again. for the purposes of this memo is executive summary. I think we should keep it in marijuana any others. So, Sandra. I don't think we've had this discussion. I might have had it with your predecessor. But once upon a time we had a discussion, maybe even before I was a chair. But I think it was after that many

[130:01] boards and commissions do not encourage, or do not expect the chair person to make motions. so I have refrained from making the oceans pretty much my whole 10 year. Which is why Brian's made you know the line to share emotions. What's your thoughts on that? I'm just i'm looking at Robert's rules of orders, different websites, and they go all over the place. Are you asking specific to this motion, or just in general in general, with respect to city business? Okay? Well, in general you're right. That I think most for us and commissions cheers, don't make the motions. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about that. But that's generally been the practice. Okay, so we have the same or same understanding that.

[131:01] Okay. So i'll entertain a motion if if discussion, if we've had finished discussion. Robin, or you have your hand up. I would move that the board adopt the new executive summary that we've worked on just now. Okay, is there a second on that. Ethan? Is your it's your chance to be the your first second. How? I? Second. Yeah, I don't want to put any pressure on you, though. Okay, we have a a motion and a second Kate comments. Did Did Stacey drop off, or is she still here? I only asked because she was, you know, at the beginning of this I I just want to make sure that that there she is. I see her okay. I just wanted to to. I mean, now we're that we're in discussion. I think I just wanted to make sure like the things that you were

[132:06] thinking about. I know yours is procedural as well as yeah. This procedure all like I wasn't sure if we could just do this or needed to vote like we've already kind of gone over all that. That was my biggest question. And then I think that we're sitting here all kind of contributing addresses the other areas of concern versus somebody taking it home and doing it themselves. So so far I'm. On the same page I I didn't really have any issues with that second paragraph my question with that third one was more along the same lines as everyone's already been questioning, which is like, Well, what do we really need to have there versus not? Did we edit out things that we needed? And why and yeah, other than that, I don't really have any like semantic concerns as much as wanting to make sure everybody feels the same like like If Robin was worried that the language was portraying something other than objective viewpoint, I think it's important. We hear from anybody like that who has those concerns. So

[133:10] it sounds like we're pretty good in that regard, especially doing this together. I didn't have anything else that I wanted to discuss. I just want to thank you. Okay. Any other discussion just wanted to say sincerely, Thank you all very much for being open to a change here and talking it through. I think there's a lot of. I think the feeling that all of us can stand behind. What we're sending forward is good, even though on some of these things we're deeply divided and and just really appreciate the conversation, and being able to get this to a good place. So thank you all. Can we do this by consensus, or do you want to go? Person by person?

[134:03] Sandra? I I don't think you need to. Yeah. I don't think you need to go. Okay, Any extension or opposition approving. Okay. how about we take a break? I see thumbs up double thumbs up even sometimes. All right. Now. We're doing 9 min in the spirit of what I always do 5 27. Alright, See you soon.

[144:23] We do one of those bonding activities like. What did you do on your break just kidding? I was in Toronto. you just you went on to Toronto during your break while that's cool. Take time at the 9 min break. Not during your night. It was much more exciting to talk about my most recent break. So Toronto's a nice place is your fun.

[145:00] I did. One of the benefits of moving back to Michigan. Is that your close to to Canada and Canadian troubles. Yeah. right across the border, is Windsor. he said. I can't remember. Sorry. Wasn't it a little confusing during the pandemic, which maybe Allison can correct me if i'm wrong. But all indications is that the pandemic is soon to be over. According to the official sources. I forgot what was it? County public health. It issued some kind of edict, or it's started from it, flows down. Yeah. So from the Fed to the State to us. So once those things happen then. Yes, all of the pieces that the county had been doing in terms of the extra supportive benefits and things like Snap and expanded eligibility to Medicaid need to change because of

[146:09] yeah changes on the declaration of a disaster. Just gonna put a lot of folks in a really tough spot. Yeah. alright. so do we. did we pretty much finish this. I is item Number 5 discussion regarding concentrates. What would you say? I think one more suggestion. It's really small. Would Would you mind? Nope. Okay. The only other suggestion I had was, I wondered if you could put a small amount of spacing in between the bullet points in the discussion. Just even just 3 points, I think, would make it a little easier for the Council to read

[147:01] the way. It is right now where it's just single-spaced, and I know this will make the document slightly longer. But I do think it will be easier to read. and you can take or leave that suggestion. I mean like one and a half lines. It's like, or 2 yeah, either like a 6 point or 1.5 lines. It's measured differently by different work processing things, but just a monica of air in between the bullet points, I think, would make the document much more readable was that? Would that allow them to read between the lines better or just right between the lines. I think it would help them to see what it is we are doing with those bullet points, because otherwise you could face a page like that as a reader. And just think you've got to read chapters in chapters and books versus snippets, which is what we've provided. but they have to present that way.

[148:02] And you're just talking about the executive of something. No, i'm talking about the comments that are bullet pointed in the document. So yeah, exactly right. Whoever's pulled that up. So between, for instance, support Member Green and the next person who comments just again, Just be a modicum of space there, whether it's a 6.12 point, one and a half line, something like that is terrific, I think. See what they just did. Yeah. Kristen did. That is, anyone opposed to that? I don't think I need a motion or a second or vote. Okay. we can make those changes. Thank you.

[149:02] Do you want to have the executive summary like? No, okay. All right, Just check it. Okay. So back to my question on Number 5. Have we finished for now discussion regarding concentrates? Okay. My question was just in reference to the the waiver for a lot of the present. Is that something that we have to? Is that something that that staff will just do with the the the April twentieth meeting, and request that, or what's the process for the waiver Request? Yes, I can answer that. Thank you for the question, Kate. This the board has already moved to a proof that action, and so I will work to get it on the April twentieth agenda.

[150:02] I don't think that will be an issue to to add it to the agenda, but I can't guarantee it, but I will do my best to make sure that it gets on my agenda, and then it will be part of the Council, Count consent agenda. And you know, if there are any questions by Council, they'll ask, and i'll provide some background on why this is coming forward. and it will either be approved or not at that meeting. great. And then in terms of the concentrate discussion, Tom, I think. based on what I heard. It seems like we're trying to get 2 or 3 P. Speakers. We want to wait for the report to come out for some of it, and we are willing to have a lot to come present when or if it's approved. And so I would assume that we wouldn't talk about. We just push it to the next meeting

[151:00] to talk about again. if it is approved. So that might be part of your planning meeting that you all have sounds good. so it can go on to 6. Item 6. I I just have one more quick thing on that concentrate. I topic of speakers. I definitely in in favor of the idea of having a long account. But i'd also be curious for us to get to hear from somebody who could speak more on the like other side of, like all concerns from a you know, public health state. I know we're waiting for some of the data, the report, etc., but there might be like, an I I guess maybe i'll just have to brain for a little on that. But you know we're seeing a lot of concerns. Health concerns mental health in particular, related to concentrate use. And if we're here, considering.

[152:01] you know, should this be brought to our venues, if folder goes forward with it. I think that's an important part for us to at least be educated on right like what is going on, and I I don't know that the Public health report would fully, it included. Maybe I mean if Robin you might know like. if i'm wrong with it. It's good enough on that. But I guess that feels really important to me, because I feel like that. Other things are more known entities as far as risk, and you know risk management is concerned, because really that's what it comes down to. But with concentrates with these potential health concerns in my mind that's a whole, another arena, so I feel like it would be important for us all to be educated from more than just the perspective of you know. What are these products? Are they safe as far as we know? How are they made from a manufacturing standpoint? You know the definitions of them, which is obviously a really important thing that I know.

[153:05] You know, a line could really get into like the details to give us an education at that level which is huge. But I also feel like having someone speak on this other aspect. But I don't know who to say, yeah. I would really second that Stacy, because I think that the The School of Health is looking at past data and studies, and I think it would be very interesting to have somebody in who is hopefully open on on the, you know, open to marijuana, being legal, but also possibly seeing what they're seeing in a in a mental health practice currently. And you might be that like. And who is that to speak? I don't know. Yeah. I could provide you with some ideas to think about, but I think you vetting

[154:00] would probably be the right way to bring somebody to to that part of the conversation. I think that there are concerns we need to pay attention to when we're talking about social clubs and hospitality that use. This brings our work into the public health arena, and so that makes it feel more important that we hear from all of this like, what are these potential concerns? Not necessarily on, you know, in favor of? Or, again, so much is just like Here's what we think, and actually the public health data. Also the the report I submit. I think it was last month's reading packet from the State. you know, if you really look at that, it's really at at least in my perspective. It's very skewed by Covid. And yet one thing that still seems to like, even with, let's say, Covid did confound the data that we're seeing.

[155:07] It still appears that this is the concentrate question is maybe the most important public health trend in cannabis that we're seeing, and so regardless what side you take on that it's like emerging in the data as like something we really do need to be thinking about and talking about. So that's my part of this is like feeling like, okay, let's be sure. We consider that, too, because I hate to, you know not not to say that you know smoking flower cannabis has no public health concerns. I'm not saying that, however, there's additional unknown and potentially more significant concerns that maybe are trending. And I feel like we just need to hear about those and make our own decisions from all of our individual backgrounds like what to do with that information, but to at least hear about it.

[156:00] Yeah. And I think what i'm trying to say is that I think You're probably the right person on the board, in my opinion, to that that medical professional out, because I think you would do a good job bringing somebody who didn't have bias on the base question, but could really just speak to what they're seeing day to day simple. And even when you're looking at what seems like objective data, right? And so I think it's possible like we can. Maybe if you and I want to work on it, maybe, or anyone else interested to. It might come to more than one speaker, though, to get to what we're looking for objectively. How about I was gonna propose that you and I, Stacy. because I was going to reach out to Kent and Chris Orina, and maybe another physician, Lisa Katina. and because she testified.

[157:05] and in when when this came up in front of the State Legislature, she testified. She's a physician in town here. She's a dermatologist now. Yeah, but she has some very She She has some opinions, I guess. but I wasn't gonna ask her to be a speaker. I was gonna ask her who she would recommend. Yeah, I I think that it would be great if it was somebody local, but it doesn't have to be because we're on zoom, anyway. Right? Yeah. Oh, I could ask all 3. Yeah, I mean, I think some you know from some of what I've seen. There's a lot of interesting. We're coming out of other parts of the country, too, now that there's more traction with cannabis laws elsewhere besides Colorado. So you know, I think we can search more comprehensively if we want. If we've already heard from people that in our circle here in Colorado.

[158:05] Yeah, we can ask you that. And then Robin, or if I, if everyone's okay, then maybe I can work on that. That sounds good, and we can all sorry we can all work on it right as long as we like. Send emails through staff to communicate, like if anyone else is like, think of someone that might be able to weigh in on this that they know of. It's not that Tom and I have to just pick it right. We can here from whoever as long as we do it through the proper means. I I have some concerns about that. I just. I don't want to run into any open meeting law problems. And so I really recommend that you all work either independently or in groups of 2, but not do the email string, because that can quickly

[159:06] take the wrong world. So sorry I don't, not trying to be difficult, but well, so if other members have ideas for speakers of this particular area, can they send those to staff to be? Thank you. No, of course. Okay. Now i'm moving on to Number 6. Okay. Who is going to t this off? I don't have a it's like kristen on the quasi judicial. Let's say you every hand it that was from before already. Great. Well, good evening. Everyone

[160:02] We are presenting today an introduction to quasi-judicial licensing duties for the cannabis licensing and Advisory Board. A copy of this Powerpoint was included in your packet, but we'll go ahead and run through it today as well. So the first slide here is referring to a folder revised code, 2, 3 dash 25, which is the ordinance that created cloud this ordinary ordinance specifies that cloud shall be responsible for both advisory and licensing duties. that licensing duties are to be based in over time in that cloud shall determine the scope of the licensing duties and the timeline for phasing them in. and in the meantime Staff will continue to handle licensing duties until class decides otherwise. So this is a reference to the ordinance. That's kind of the foundation that the conversation we're having today.

[161:04] So there's really 2 main decisions for cloud regarding your licensing duties, the scope and the timeline. So when we're talking about scope, we're asking what types of applications this cloud want to review, and which applications should staff continue to process administratively. And then, as far as the timeline. When does Cloud want to begin handling these licensing duties, so those those are the 2 main decisions that we're presenting to cloud today. So you might be wondering what are the licensing duties that we're referring to, and just generally speaking, we're talking about reviewing cannabis, license applications and determining whether or not to issue a license. So we've provided an overview of the types of license applications that we process here at the city of Folder. This includes new applications, renewals, license transfers.

[162:03] and maintenance applications. And when we use the term maintenance applications that's kind of the catch all for any changes to existing licenses which can include ownership, changes. modifications, name changes, things of that nature. So these are the types of license applications that we process. This is an overview of our current marijuana licensing program. As of today, we have a total of 70 marijuana licenses and city of folder. Most are recreational dispensaries, and cultivations. But we also have infused product manufacturers, medical cultivation and medical wellness centers. The Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board is responsible for marijuana licensing, and licensing. But as of today we only have one license in the city of Holder, so we just provided a summary on

[163:00] marijuana licensing for that, since that's the bulk of our work right now related to Cloud. and then this is an example of the volume of applications that we process. These are the numbers from 2,022, just to kind of give you an idea of our annual application volume. So last year we processed 83 renewals, 33 maintenance applications. We issued 6 new licenses and 5 license transfers. So when we refer to licensing duties, this kind of gets you an idea of the volume of each application type that we process at the city of Boulder. We wanted to share some information related to the beverage licensing authority that might help guide you in in your decision. The Dla is the local licensing authority for licensing in the city of Boulder, and they've been operating as a quasi judicial board for many years. So they have a lot of practice in this area.

[164:04] and the way that Bla has decided to handle their liquor licensing is that there's there's some licensing matters that are brought to the Bla in a public meeting. and then some licensing manner matters that are handled administratively by staff. So the types of licensing matters that are handled, handled by Bla, include new liquor licenses. modifications, and enforcement. So for new liquor licenses. all new licenses are required to have a public hearing, and demonstrate needs and desires per State law. So that's a requirement for liquor licensing under the State laws, and that's not currently a requirement, for you know one of licenses in Colorado, but it is something that local jurisdictions they require. if we choose to.

[165:00] and then Bla also sets the boundaries for the needs and desires, petitioning in their meetings. and then they hold the public hearing for all new licenses in the city of Boulder. and it's a similar process for modifications where they set the boundaries in the public hearing, and then actually hold it here on the application. Excuse me. Ela also handles all enforcement matters for liquor licensing. They determine whether a violation has occurred and assessed any penalties as needed. And this is one thing that is different between cloud and be away, because the ordinance that created cloud, which I referenced earlier. specifically excludes enforcement from the licensing duties for cloud. So if that's something that cloud were to take on it would require a code change. But it is something that you. Why is currently handling So these are all of the licensing duties that elite handles. and then these are the licensing duties that do a has delegated to staff

[166:11] on. So the Bla has delegated to staff license transfers, maintenance applications. and renewals. So All of these applications are currently processed administratively by staff without a public hearing. and there are some exceptions to that rule. For example. late file renewal applications may go to a BA. Delay hearing, depending on how frequently, frequently the applicant is filed a late application. and then the Bla also makes any decisions related to good moral character. So, for example. when we're running background checks on applicants, if it comes back with a criminal history that may preclude them from being able to hold a license, and the Dla reviews the background check results to determine whether the applicant is a good moral character, and staff does not make those types of decisions.

[167:08] And then, in in addition to that staff can schedule a hearing for any application as needed, if we feel like, there's a special circumstance in which a decision should be made by the La instead of staff. So we always have that ability to schedule hearings as needed. Okay. So if Cloud does decide to face in the licensing duties it's likely going to change the format of your meeting. So we wanted to provide an example of what Dela meetings look like just to kind of give you an idea of the time commitments for these public public hearings. So an average Bla hearing typically includes about 3 to 5 agenda items, and runs for about 4 to 5 h. Sometimes they can run late if you have a really contentious hearing, but that's kind of the average timeline

[168:05] for new license applications. The boundary setting takes about 15 min, maybe less. and then the public, hearing itself last about an hour. On average, it can really vary, depending on the application. But that's that's kind of an average. And then the hearings for modifications of renewals are a little bit shorter, those typically last about 30 min for each of them. The item we also provide hearing packets for every Vla hearing. They're really similar to the packets you're currently receiving for cloud, but they contain much more detailed information, so that the Bla can review all of the application materials prior to a hearing, and be prepared for that. Hearing. So we provided an example of a bla packet. You click on the link. It'll take you to the vla packet for October, 2,022.

[169:04] So you can kind of get a sense of the volume of information that the la is required to view prior to their meetings, because they do spend probably a lot more time preparing for their their public hearing than than you might for a class meeting. So just kind of to be aware of what that looks like. and then we also provide a link to the a hearing. If you wanted to kind of listen to it and get a sense of how the bla handles their hearings. and then you can also. They're always able to attend as a virtual bla hearing. They meet on the third Wednesday of the month at 3 Pm. And the link to those meetings are available on the regulatory licensing division website. If you ever want to watch a a virtual meeting and see how those are handled by.

[170:00] So we just wanted to provide a suggestion on the timeline to phase in the licensing duties. Our suggestion would be to phase in these duties gradually over time. We would recommend beginning with new license applications, and then checking in after 6 months, or a certain amount of time to decide whether to add more licensing duties and and what other applications you might want to review. It can be renewals, transfers, maintenance, etc. So just a recommendation from staff, and it's up to Cloud to kind of make that decision. So the next steps for a cloud. Now that you have kind of a a quick overview of the licensing program and examples of quasi judicial licensing duties. the next steps are to determine the scope and the timeline. So again, what types of applications does cop want to review which applications should be handled by staff? And what's your your ideal timeline for facing in these licensing duties.

[171:14] and that's the end. Does anyone have any questions? Is that your screen saver? Sorry that was my wallet nice? I like that beautiful photo. Thanks, Kristen questions. I think, in the middle. Oh, go ahead. Yeah. So thank you for that presentation, Kristen. I was wondering like on these hearings with these there'd be a need to schedule hearings above and beyond our current monthly

[172:03] frequency. Or if you just say a little bit more, what would we have just a one month meeting with certain? Would that meet the regulatory needs of your office? Or would we be looking at more meetings in the month it goes. That depends a lot on the scope of licensing duties that you'd like to take on. So, for example. if you looked at the application volume for 2,022, we issued 6 new marijuana licenses. If the board wanted to begin with just new applications, that kind of gives you a general idea of the application volume for for new licenses. So 23 is the same. Then you could expect maybe 6 new license applications in a year. If that was the case. we could probably fit those into your regular meetings if you wanted to take on more responsibilities, that

[173:02] it would just depend on. You know how many applications, but how many types of applications do you want to review? And then we would kind of go from there as far as scheduling. So really, I'm sorry. That's not a clear answer really just depends on the scope of duties that you'd like to take on. Sure, of course. Yeah, I just want to point out to the board that I just click through the bla October 1,922 packet. It's a 190 So this is considerable change in our reading packet volume as well. So okay. okay, you had your end up. Oh, here we go. Sorry. I thought I hit the button, but I had the wrong one. Yeah. So my questions about the hearings as well, just in terms of since public hearings aren't required, for I need into their hearings are required for marijuana businesses at this point, unless that's changed. I know that we added it for hospitality if that goes through. But what would that look like then? For

[174:11] our board in terms of hearing like you know what I mean? I I think i'm just i'm trying to to to understand what? Because it will be different. If there's I mean, yeah, will there be a public hearing? Similarly so? Are we now changing the requirement for new applicants in a way. because of that. Sandra. Did you want to speak to that? Sure. So I I I think i'm understanding your question, Kate. But you. I think your question is whether or not any action with with respect to licensing would require a public hearing. Is that right? Yeah. For for I mean the you know you went over the the bla kind of what they do. Obviously, we're we're different, and there may not be a public hearing. So in terms of timeframes. How would this go like? Here's a presentation of information, and therefore

[175:07] would you require a public hearing, even though this is not required by the law. Yeah, actually. it is required under the cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board 2 3 25, G. Since, prior to making any recommendation or taking action. The Advisory Board hold the public hearing. So actually, you do need to do that, and it's very important to do that from a due process standpoint in order for all voices to be heard. Does that happen now with new licenses? I don't believe so, but that doesn't that requirement isn't part. They there's a different process for them, so they still have the ability to appeal any decision.

[176:01] So those 2 process items are addressed. but specific to the Board. It requires a hearing, not for for staff. Okay? Other questions. Thank you. I have a a good amount of facilitation. but you know, for to get under way in other words, would there be somebody here who really walked us through all the steps and that sort of thing of evaluating a license application? And I mean, I'm assuming Sandra and you, Kristen, would be here to to do that. Is that right?

[177:00] Yeah. So there there would be a significant amount of training prior to to taking on this from a legal perspective, I myself, or another attorney from our office, would provide that, you know guidance and training, and certainly would be available for questions outside of the meeting, if you needed additional support. But obviously we would be here during the meeting as well for any questions procedural questions Members take on any sort of personal liability for decisions they make in on those sorts of licensing decisions, and I I can't really envision any certain scenarios, but I just wondered if, like a Bla person has ever been sued based on a vote. So the Bla. There have been challenges to the la decisions.

[178:03] I don't recall it's specific. The only members or named in the lawsuit. or if it was just the the whole board. But certainly the city represents board members in their official capacity. So. to answer your question, there is a possibility of that. Yes. Brian, you had a question before, did you? No, I was just echo. I remember. Noble, it already asked that that, like i'd want my hand held. I'll see how Preston reads an application, and how we hear you an application and things like that. What is the alcohol license, alcohol, licensing board doing with respect to coming back to real meetings? And how would that dovetail if we went back to real meetings which is

[179:05] not cited. But so Bla has not made a decision yet on how they like to proceed with meeting in person again, or transitioning to hybrid or keeping their meetings virtual. So they. their plan was to wait. They have. They have one vacancy on their board right now, and their plan was to wait until that vacancy was filled. and they onboarded a new member and then made that decision as a group. Unfortunately, the la did not receive any applicants for that vacant position, so they won't be able to onboard a new number until later this summer. so we'll be having that conversation with them at their next meeting, if they want to make a decision with that vacancy, or wait until they on board a new member. So that's a long way of saying they Haven't decided. Yet.

[180:03] Okay, how do you envision it would work if we we haven't had this discussion yet in detail if we went to hybrid meetings. So there's this kind of a separate argument. I'm sorry to jump in, Kristen, and forgive me if you want to have anything i'd appreciate it. But I think what you're getting at Tom is whether or not there would be any concerns with heavy licensing public hearings remotely, and the answer to that is no there aren't any legal concerns. Okay. alright. I actually just pulled up the city code that covering support 2, 3, 25. Another subsection, e. It says licensing duties are to be facing over time to face and period. She'll

[181:01] be no less than 6 months, no longer than 2 years from the day of the Advisory Board's first meeting after formation. It has been more than 2 years. I just want to make sure that staff in the city. And so the time and facing this, simply determined by the so we can push that out. I guess I just want to make sure that we need to give any cover. The city in light of the statue that we have adopted this according to the letter of the law. What's that written in Pre Covid, though i'm aware of that? Thank you, Brian. And I think as long as the board is making some progress towards that, I think we'll be okay. I appreciate that. Thanks. hey? I have a

[182:01] That's another question. That might be odd, and maybe you don't want to answer, but is for us doing some of these things. Does this save you time, or is it more time to facilitate and make it happen for us to do more things. because obviously, I think part of this is us to to to help. You know some of the the reasoning for doing this was to to kind of get different perspectives, and and. you know, get the call it kind of the public hearing kind of idea about certain larger licensing things. I mean, I think that we you know in in in my I don't know if I memory serves me correctly in terms of map. But you know we talked about all all all these things, you know, we had talked about new licenses, major modifications more so than like the minor ones. We had talked about Enforcement, but obviously that didn't, you know. Make the cut in the end. And then you know the license transfers and renewals, and all of that, I I guess from my perspective I knew part of it was to not only get more perspective and to help make decisions in a more collaborative way, but also to to

[183:06] to save the city. Some effort at least that was, you know, my recollection, part of the discussion. So I guess my question is, is, does this add a lot of time exponentially. Or is it it not it Relatively not, or minimal, I guess. Yeah, that's a good question, Kate. So again, it really comes down to the scope of the licensing duties that clot takes on. But I can tell you for staff we we have certain steps that we take between application, intake and license issuance, and we will still be doing all of those steps, and then we will be adding more steps to prepare the packet and facilitate the public hearing and help the you know kind of be a liaison with the applicant through the public process. So

[184:02] so to answer your question, it doesn't it doesn't cut down on our workload. But we're we're, you know. We're here to to carry out whatever guidance and whatever decisions you make. So that's That's something that we'll deal with when the time comes. Okay, Thank you. Yeah. And just to has city staff thought about what thing I mean. We've talked about it a like years ago, but has city set to like thought about what parts of the applications, or what types of applications it makes. You know a lot of sense for for us to take on or a board to take on. I know you know. New licensure obviously was a big one, just because it it impacts a larger part of the community, you know, changes right, those kind of changes. But I don't know if the city is has talked about that in terms of where they think a board or a

[185:00] a public hearing would be beneficial at certain stages. The process. I mean, like we like, we said in our suggestion, new license applications would probably be the place the best place to begin. because a lot of times these are new businesses coming to open up in the in the city. And if you look at the way that Dla handle that process, it's really an opportunity for them to not only review the application, but also provide some friendly like compliance reminders to licenses like there's some dialogue that occurs that I think benefits, licenses that are new to this video boulder is how to be successful when they're operating a business. So I think there's definitely a lot to be gained from public hearings for new applications. and then, like you mentioned, Kate, like major modifications, might be something that Cloud wants to review down the line. If someone's making a really

[186:01] drastic change to to something that they presented to clap originally. And now they're deviating from it. You might want to review that and and make sure that you're still comfortable with the changes that are being proposed. As far as renewals. I would say that's probably at the bottom of the priority list in Staff's opinion, just because typically those are dealing with businesses that have been operating generally like very compliantly, with no issues. And they're just, you know, renewing their license for another year, and that's not necessarily something that would benefit from an annual public hearing, and it would create a lot of extra work. When you look at the volume of Excuse me, the volume of renewals that we process. So. So, Kate, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's kind of like a breakdown of our recommendations. Yeah, that definitely helps. And also I I think I I want to also say it's totally possible for us to just take a piece of applications to like, write it If, say, we just wanted to see certain

[187:06] procedures or plans that we have interest in, because we've talked a lot about that. And in in this board, over the course of delivery and hospitality, talking about transportation plans or good neighbor plans, and that kind of thing just wanted to to is that possible for us to like, break it down into. or what it is it more of a collective review? The this type of application. Kate, are you suggesting that you would only have public hearing some like certain types of licenses, instead of like, for example, a hospitality only, or something like that. Is it possible for us to just do public hearings on certain topics of an application as opposed to the entire application? I'll just jump in here and say, that would be really problematic. It yeah, it's hard to piecemeal

[188:02] something like that. Okay, yeah, that's why that's my only question. Cool. Thanks any other questions. What's the next step. Kristen? We are just looking for some direction from Cloud on the scope of applications. You'd like to review what you'd like Staff to continue processing administratively, and your ideal timeline to start facing in those licensing duties. Ethan. on average, what's the volume of new applications you receive per month.

[189:07] So last year we issued 6 new license applications that that kind of gives you an idea of the volume. It can really fluctuate, and it's hard to come up with an average over the past few years, especially with the pandemic. I don't think it's been an average past few years, but i'd hate to like. Rely on those numbers. That's Why, I felt like 2022 was probably a good representation of what we would expect to see going forward if we were to look at a recent past license application, and maybe approval. How voluminous or the is the documentation? It depends on the applicant. But that's definitely something that we could

[190:00] prepare for for the Board to review to get a sense of what an application looks like on the average. I guess I don't. I don't want to just make up a number. I'm sorry I need to kind of run through them. I assume we're not talking about one page. But I hope we're not talking about 200 pages. They they can be sometimes with really complex ownership structures. You do see. really like the applications, because applicants are required to disclose the ownership structure is all of the ownership documents. Things like these agreements can also be lengthy, and then disclosures related to like personal histories and financial disclosures, can. if that can, all add up to like a pretty long document. Hmm. So before I call on K. I'd say if you wanted us to embrace it with enthusiasm. Then you show us an easy one.

[191:02] right, Kate. I was just gonna ask how you know we had talked about obviously being there. There's there there being more training right before this would happen. And then obviously thinking about going into summer months and people not necessarily being present. And so i'm just, you know, thinking about timeframes, and also kind of just trying to move the discussion forward to in terms of what how everybody feels about all of this. I don't know if everybody wants to give their opinions of what how they feel about this licensing part, and when they're, you know, like when when they would want to get started. But yeah, I just think that there's how long or how many meetings do you for see us needing to like 3 or 4 meetings to kind of go over applications is let's say, let's say, okay, let's hypothetically say we're just doing new licenses, because we just want to bite off something small and something that we can handle. So say we do new licenses.

[192:00] What would that training and preparation part look like what would be the earliest timeframe that we could take one? That's a good question, Kate, and I think it would depend on whether the board wanted to focus exclusively on that training, or if you wanted to have just one agenda item on your meeting for training, and then also continue to discuss your advisory duties. I would say either way, it's probably going to be at least a few meetings for us to kind of complete that training. And then. if you're also still handling like a lot of advisory duties and rescheduling public speakers, it could take even longer than that, just depending on how much time of each meeting we can dedicate towards that training. Okay, thanks. Problem.

[193:00] So as we've just wrapped up this, you know very long discussion on hospitality. And now we're talking about taking on a new phase in in this board's timeframe around licensing. It just occurs to me that we should be thoughtful, and this might be a good moment to to think about. What do our meetings look like? You know we talked about covering one subject we've we've sort of had on the periphery for a while, and that's understanding concentrates better. And we've had some other subjects come up. I for a long time. I'm hoping that we could talk about cannabis, hyper-mesis syndrome and possible action steps that we could take locally. And so you know. I wonder if we have these panel slash education

[194:00] components of our meeting, and we put a timeframe on those that's pretty solid. because and if that's something of value that we want to keep having for this next year, and maybe we just look forward one year. Then we know we're going to have an hour on every agenda to start phasing in. He's licensing duties which i'm very comfortable doing. I feel like the staff has shown us that they will support us and help us and train us and make sure that we're doing the right things. So i'm very comfortable moving forward with that, I just think as a group, we have to decide how we want to use the time that we have, and generally it's been 4 h. I think some people would like to keep to 3 and a half. I'm probably in that camp. and then and then we're backwards a little bit. So i'd like to keep the advisory education peace

[195:01] in our meetings as well. Just building on Robin's comment. There, Kristen, could you? Just so. An application comes into your office. What was sort of that you would sort of probably do you have some kinds of checks, and then you would sort of if the collaborative tick, like new licenses, or something like that, but that that'd be kind of like an additional sort of a part of our meeting pack. It would be everything in that application. And then in the meeting we would have these kinds of the advisory face, the meeting, and the kind of the quasi judicial face of the meeting is there? I got anything wrong, all of that, or just could you explain a little bit about that? How does an application become a license?

[196:00] Sure? So when we receive an application, we would go through a lot of different steps to sort of make sure that it was complete and ready for a public hearing. so that we're not wasting anyone's time by scheduling something that we don't think it's going to be prepared to pass. So we'd be just, you know, going through our processes to to get the application ready. Make sure it's complete. There's a lot of back and forth with the applicant, and then, once it's ready to go, we'd schedule the public hearing for you all to review it and and make a final determination. And then, once we get your approval, the way that we do it with licensing is at that time you know. The final step is an inspection with Staff. where we actually go, and toward the facility and make sure that it's built the way that they said it would be, and you know, address any issues in person, and then we would issue the license at that time.

[197:02] Does that answer your question? Yeah. So this is my question that I think just like on the lab side that like. Is there anything about how the meetings would be structured or run in a way that would be to change like this. I think one thing that you product that's like definitely sailing it for a lot of us. I think the Member nobles point about making sure that what we want our meetings to look like that we retain this kind of component of advising and education. I agree that should become like I I what what I signed up for, but and what would we invention that we would still have, I guess, for us to decide. I put, you know, a tough spot. but that would still spend 2 h on that kind of advisory kind of capacity, and then we would have like a 4 h on top of that, maybe for this licensing process like you, said Brian. It really depends on the direction that you all would like to go in, and and how much you'd like to see on your agendas.

[198:06] If you want to combine public hearings for applications with advisory discussions, and that would obviously be a longer meeting. Then, focusing on just advisory or just licensing and just going back to our application volume for new license applications. Last year we issued 6 new licenses. So if that were to continue, that would mean that. you know, in theory, every other month could be maybe a a public hearing or something like that. So it'd be kind of staggered if you did start with new licenses it's not like there would be a new application for you to review at every meeting, so you you likely would have extra time to focus on those advisory duties. If that's what you want it to do just to clarify that? Does the blaz operate on a monthly frequency, or do they have some other?

[199:03] They do. They operate monthly, and they're almost a 100% licensing duties. It's very rare for them to spend time on advisory type discussion, so they meet monthly and almost exclusively make licensing decisions in those meetings. Thank you. Is there a specific kind of direction Staff needs from our board to proceed. if you like a new training us for new applications. it would be helpful to, though if there's a consensus amongst the board, that that is where you want to begin with new applications, and that will kind of help us develop a training plan and a timeline for that process.

[200:00] Thank you. One there or not. We read the fine print. It's what we signed up for. So the city's plan for us to do this over it's time to it will work. Is there any reason to believe that the frequency of applications, or a number of applications will change either for less or more especially. Oh, i'm! I'll sleep at that. Open it Well, there is a possibility, if no, No, I was just thinking. If we add hospitality. the licensing world changes enormously, and that's a totally novel world where I like, I I will say, as an operator in the market. You

[201:01] We're pretty well saturated here. The new license applications are often, I believe, and cursing can correct me if i'm wrong here. It was kind of a a function of attrition and new licenses coming in. But I don't know how many genuinely new operations from a cultivation and retail perspective we could possibly have in the city. but we would certainly see a a massive influx of hospitality licenses where our regulations to be adopted in whole. I think there's if they, If if Council hacks them up a bit and changes our recommendations for the actual regulations for hospitality, we might see less. I think the the industry's perspective was that the positions that were being taken in the city were prohibitive to us, being able to actually begin hospitality. But I think that if we. if our recommendations are adopted as recommended, there will be a massive influx of hospitality applications in the city, and they will be very complicated.

[202:01] and you're talking. Those are big. I mean. I was gonna add that through the original when we first started recreational in the City of Boulder we had a pretty. We had a pretty well established process for licensing and applications, and it still took well over 10 months just for the city to get the initial recreational applications issued. and I know that Staff got buried by them because there was more than there probably would be for hospitality in the recreational world. We were talking probably close to 100 applicants for new licenses, and most of them are really complicated conversions. But we're talking a completely new zoning class based on our recommendations. So the the licensing for hospitality would be a huge like, whether it's for staff or for us. It's it's it's a big ask. Oh, that I know how complicated the applications are, and I know how complicated it is when we move into new zoning districts and new license classes, and I can assure you that's a big job

[203:04] you were. Now. Is that your I'm assuming that? Yes, of course it's my my little ones jumping around in the back. Well, unless someone's opposed. I think we're in obligated to take a first step moving forward. Kristen. that that's up to the board, and if you feel like you need some more time, I mean, I know it's getting close to 6 30, if you want to continue this discussion and kind of. I think, through what we presented to you today, and and look through the the Powerpoint and the links that were provided. We could put this on the agenda for for next month, if you want to continue this discussion, or if you're ready to make a decision. Now that's that's great, too. So it's up to the board. Well, I was hope, especially if our meetings could in in future potentially get longer, and

[204:03] I would love to get people out here early today. So that's another idea to take a look at stuff. Think about it for a month. Come back and revisit it next month. Yeah. So I just emphasize to the Board Members do the homework, if like looking at those via meetings and packet, and then come back next, meeting with like a suggestions to staff about what we want to take up. Yeah. okay, you have your hand up. I I guess I thought that that's what this was this. I mean, I I went through the packet. And yeah, I mean, whatever with board wants to do, I feel like we could. Whatever the Board wants to do. I think that we could also say. Let's go with new applications, and as recommended, and let them start building the training plan. And you know we, you know, I think at least 2 of the people that I've mentioned something. You know. We say

[205:10] half the meeting, at least topic wise is advisory, and half the meeting is licensing like a new license training, and we move forward with that. But I I don't I don't vote here. I would just say that, speaking Personally, i'd be ready to begin training next meeting for May on new application review for myself. But I want other members to be. How about a thumbs up right or some neutral. I see 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay, that's a majority

[206:01] that count as a vote, Sandra. Sure. it's consensus, and it works Okay. all right. So training plan, Kristen Kristen. whatever. We will put something together for you for the next meeting. Alright, Are we ready to move on to Item Number 7. I can. I just add that it would be helpful for the Board to come back and provide some guidance on this first question that Kristen presented in terms of the scope. So if you can give that some thought, and come back at some point and share that with us, I think that would be helpful, and and being able to prepare staff perspective and the range would include on scope.

[207:01] What would you say? The range. the range of are you talking about taking over. taking over the process you bought eventually, or taking over what? So it' be. Be more specific. Okay. Does the board want to take on the recommendation of. you know, doing new licenses in in terms of their, you know licensing function, or is it some other? Is it something else that they want to take on. I forget all the the different choices that Kristen laid out. There's also another choice which is all licenses but hospitality. If that were to pass. I mean, that's a long road ahead in terms of that, even becoming an ordinance. And in passing so there! There's just lots of different ways to look at this.

[208:06] Does that help? Oh, yeah, I'm trying to find what the Powerpoint is it on? I'm looking for Green pack, and i'm not finding it. Where is it that there's some page 34 of the media packet on the meeting? Okay. And I think Tom, we we've talked a little bit about, you know, starting with new applications. But I think what what Sandra saying is that we are are talking about. Are we? What types of licenses within the city? And are we going to say all licenses like cultivation, manufacturing. retail? Or are we just going to say, retail all retail new applications? And then, when you know, if hospitality passes, then we'll do. You know we'll do hospitality. which you know obviously wouldn't be for a long time. But that's what she. I think she's talking about like within that scope. I mean, I think, that we

[209:03] based on what. But I mean the hesitation that I feel from what the conversation is about, I feel like new applications is probably all we want to take on. And just see how that feels. And so right now there's not hospitality, right? So we could say, for now we're going to take on all new license applications. or we could say, just retail whatever you all want to do but like. And then one hospitality passes. If it does, then we can revisit whether or not we want to do everything, or maybe we change our mind and say, now, we're just gonna do hospitality because of X Y and Z. Well, we have some time before that becomes a reality. Right? Right? Exactly. Yeah. So do we have to give you more guidance today, Kristen.

[210:00] And when we start with what? What? In front of you. and then we adapt to the situation. What I'm hearing is that there's a consensus from the board that you'd like to begin with new license applications. Is that correct? I believe so. So we will go ahead and start developing some training plans based on that. And if that is going to change, or if you want to provide greater detail to the types of new license applications. Please let us know. Okay. any more on that. That's all from staff. Thank you. Okay. So you're up next, Anyways. I think I've talked enough tonight, so I don't have anything to add. Thank you.

[211:05] Got to go back and find my agenda regulatory licensing offices again. We've kind of touched on agenda topics. What else do you want? What else did you want to talk about? Well, we have our list of future agenda topics. So we'd like to get a little bit of guidance from the board on what you'd like to see for your agenda next month, so i'll go ahead and share this ongoing list that we have, and if there's anything in particular that you'd like to put on the agenda for the next meeting that would be really helpful to here.

[212:03] Also, if there's anything you'd like to add to this list is there more is if you scroll down as I, as I figured this morning. It's yeah, Robin. Thank you. I know this list is not in any particular order, but I would so love to put together a presentation on cannabis hyper-mesis syndrome and do it in a panel type. Presentation. And what I would suggest is that that I could speak and tell you this. The more details on the story of what happened to my person, and what what he experienced, and then what we learned from there

[213:02] and then also have somebody maybe from Cdph E. Or an er doc kind of discuss what they're seeing in the er and the work to develop a code for cannabis hyper-mesis, and then I would love to invite. And I I don't know if maybe Evan has an idea on this, but maybe somebody from the responsible Retailers Association. who might be willing to engage with us in a brainstorm about a Psa. Because and when you learn more about the syndrome, you'll understand, but Chs is incredibly treatable. It's very. It's very easy to treat the person who's experiencing it believes that there's a chance it could be caused by their use of use of cannabis and a Psa could be really helpful to that end. There's a lot of mixed messaging and confusion. I would say that prolongs these illnesses

[214:08] at great financial cost to families, and a lot of suffering really for people. So I know many of you have some experiences you might be able to share. I would envision this being a 40 min presentation with a bit of a brainstorm toward the end. and i'd be glad to try to pull that together for May or for June. I'd love June, but if we needed to do if we needed something for me, I could do that and Kristen, you have control of the screen right now. Is that right? Yes. it was R. Response. Something related to responsible retailers. Yes, and that's Nathan Nathan Dewey and I don't know if Nathan is an expert in that specific topic, Robin, so

[215:07] we could reach out to him. But you might want someone. If that's the subject matter. There may be a better contact for you. I mean. It might be really nice to have a introduction if somebody could introduce me and to him to just talk about what what i'm hoping to bring forward in a presentation and see if he has any interest in engaging absolutely, Robin, i'd be happy to make that introduction. So I heard you talking about the future meeting, not next meeting. Brian is there. I know that I I didn't get a chance to read everything about that article you sent around about new technologies to measure intoxication. Is there anything substantive that

[216:01] could be brought to the forefront? Is this the red safety literature of you. I I I just include that reading packet. I wasn't prepared to talk about that for a holidaying portion of the meeting. Okay. I don't see a base hand up. What I else is there anything to be expected to? I apologize. I'm trying to get Allison to be co-hosted she can, so she can unmute herself. I don't have permissions to do that. However. she does say she's back, but not as host, so she can't unmute. She agrees with Robin's idea for presentation. However, that's the only email I have. Oh. let's see if I can do this, and then get someone to make her co-host. I'm not the host. So I can't do that.

[217:01] Sorry about that Kristen. Thanks. Yeah, Sorry. Just to go back. I wanted to just echo. I think Robins idea for a presentation would be would be really great and helpful for the board. I know that's a conversation that a lot of folks in the community are having, I think it'd be really informative to here the personal experience, and also some of the other what folks are seeing, either in ers or other medical professionals, or on cannabis hyper I that's a that's a really good idea. and definitely support it. And time to your question I can't speak specifically to what Elizabeth would have to share. She's. But there is a new cycle of the substance, education, and awareness grants through the city of Folder. So if that was something that the Board was interested in, I'm. Sure she could. Either they do a report every year that could be provided, or perhaps somebody from that group could come and share what the current projects are and what they're working on. If that was interesting.

[218:06] you want to check with her. do you have you interact with her? Hard to unmute these days? I I could send her an email shows for the city of Boulder. so I don't know if that would be more. If Kristen, you'd prefer to do that. But I would be. I can definitely connect with her if that's easier. Sorry you're Yeah, I'm happy to reach out to Elizabeth If there's a consensus that we'd like to have her present at the next meeting. If she does have information to present, which i'm. I think she likely would. That would be helpful to have some dates to run past her and and see if she's available. That's the direction we're going in.

[219:02] Okay, do you want to check it with her? Sure. So i'll check with her to see if she's available to present at the May meeting. Yeah, Can you scroll down to the bottom? There was one one or 2 more things down there didn't? Try and to make the news in the past couple of weeks moving to a new job or something, or I remember seeing his name somewhere. I I think he was just promoted so. Oh. or this link to me still with Colorado office, academic development, international trade. Do you think you'd have anything so? Anybody know him

[220:01] just in that professional capacity, but, like he had been directing the sort of the social equity initiative at the State leveled out, or the Governor's office. So our Board wanted to engage in topics around social equity. you would be one of the experts of the State on it. Anyone else know any better than Ryan which sounds like this business related. But ever present topic. Anybody else have any ideas for next meeting.

[221:07] Okay? Oh. somewhere I can't see the whole. I can't see a party right now. It's not okay. It was you mentioned earlier in today's meeting the possibility of phasing out Marijuana language in favor of cannabis. It'd be nice to to revisit that at some point in the future I don't know if it has to be the next meeting. or how pressing of a subject that really is but just out of respect, for you know the industry and the way that that affects certain cultures. provided that we are still in alignment with state regulations that do use marijuana terminology

[222:07] with that dovetail, with Tristan Watkins from the Cannabis business office and issues of self commercial equity like an overloaded meeting to me. I definitely think we could probably spend an hour talking with Staff about. Where does marijuana show up in the city code? I wouldn't need to change it. And again, like I said, I can share the lines with What's that? How much we put that on top, or a topic list to be addressed soon, not necessarily. Next session. We've added it to the list. It's all kind of on there, but you just added specifics. The other parts are on there.

[223:00] Put it on the top of the list. I didn't hear any concrete suggestions for next time. Stacy. You want me to suggest something for next meeting. I don't know I I No one else has come up with a concrete suggestion for next meeting. Yet if that's not something that would require work, you don't have the time to do before next meeting. Maybe that would be a good way to time it. I could actually pull it together for next meeting. I mean. I'm curious, because I I know it's a heavy influence on Robin's decision making, etc. And so you know I at least it would help us, I think, to hear the experience of a very important stakeholder in this case.

[224:11] who is influential? I I've been wondering to be honest. You know what. as pushed your opinion where it is, so I think it would be really useful otherwise what else? I have to keep thinking about that so, Robin? I'm now hearing you say something other than I? I heard you say, May or June. Are you okay? Wow. When did that happen? No, it happens quick. Yeah. All right. Do you want to do something? Maybe not a 40 min thing. Or

[225:01] Ethan? Yeah, I think just determining what other subjects we're going to tackle? We we first kind of need to consider how much of the licensing training is going to cut into our time. Yeah over wellness. hey? Yeah, I was gonna to echo that I was gonna ask Kristen how long we should reserve for that for next meeting, and you know we don't always have to fill meetings if we have a short meeting, because we don't have, we don't need to be pulling things, and you know there's a lot of time between now and the reading packet. So you know, Robin, if you don't have time to pull it together, you have a couple of weeks to figure out whether you do or you don't, and I wouldn't, you know. No, no need to push it. I know it's been something that that you've wanted to share, and you've been wanting to hear, and and now is the time. But don't

[226:00] don't rush it right. Do it the way you want to, and the way you intend to. So whatever that looks like. But I think that we can. You know we we don't have to have a full meeting every time. If we don't, have We don't have it, you know. but we do have this licensing training already, and and if the C woman comes back and has. you know, Elizabeth Crow has something that was something that we talked about. So at that point. If we have that we have the the C conversation, the licensing and Robin's presentation, we're we're full at that point. So okay, I'm taking those last for proposals as a consensus motion Robin can put something together. She has 2 weeks to to figure that out.

[227:00] and if not, then we're good. And if Elizabeth Crow. which Kristen is going to check with. I think just an a note for Elizabeth. I think it'll be helpful if there were specific questions or items that the Board had to think of tickets point about being able to to use the board's time. Well, and to use this this time Well. how is it listed? I can't it's Oh, there it is. Okay. She kind of did that. What about a year to 2 ago? Yeah, just to add that to Allison's point, I would say like, if the Board can request an update on you know city's efforts related to substance education programs.

[228:01] and Robin and i'm just wondering if maybe that's a separate meeting. If we're, you know, setting our meetings up where you have a subject that has a presentation, and then a portion of it for training, and then a portion of it eventually, for considering a license application. Maybe one subject matters enough. unless, of course, there's some sense of urgency that we need to cover, too. But I think just having the one is a better. That's what I would prefer. Okay. I really was trying to get you folks out early tonight. Hi. when we're thinking of these topics to put on agendas, especially for the main meeting. since the main meeting is Monday, May First Staff have to have the agenda

[229:02] finalized, and to the daily camera by April twelfth. just to give you guys kind of a timeframe. It's 9 days from now. Hmm. Okay. Your timeline just got shorter, Robin. I'm comfortable with that. I mean, i'm comfortable to committing to bringing a presentation. I think. Right? Yeah. Okay. Brian. Did you guys have a discussion about 9 to 2. So on holding an election for a chair and vice chair. I don't think our board has ever passed any resolution, or policy, or anything sort of governing. How long our terms of as shared Vice chair. Are they staggered? How we want to conduct elections? And so I think that's just a matter that we should discuss at a future meeting.

[230:05] now that we've got Ethan on board, and a lot of our terms are sort of not pushed out for a couple of more years. It's against the matter that we should discuss unless I got something wrong in that statement. Staff. Is there any rules governing how we should elect our Chair and Vice chair of the Board. There are no rules related to the frequency it's common for the Via. For example, when they add new members to take that opportunity to vote on the chair and vice chair, even if there's no change. But that's not something that's mandated by the current rules for a cloud. so we can discuss that next month. Yes, so I would just invite us all to think about how we want to conduct elections for chair and vice chair going forward if you want to be candidates. so on. We can revisit this in May.

[231:05] Okay, and then 9, 3. What's that about? Zoom format change. Alright, yeah. So the zoom format is gonna change in starting in May. So right now we're conducting hearings on through Zoom Meetings. and the city is requiring that all boards go to conducting hearings through Zoom Webinar. So you guys are gonna see your meeting look a little bit different. It's gonna take a little bit longer for you to get added into the meeting as a presenter is what the Board members will look like, so I don't know if anyone has ever attended a Zoom Webinar. If you're interested in kind of seeing what I would look like. Zoom itself has like a ton of trainings on everything that they offer, so you can check it out on your website you want. I also can provide some links in next month, so that you can kind of be prepared for what I will look like.

[232:08] but members of the public will no longer have, like their little box with their name on it, with their camera turned off. Members of the public will just be in like a public viewing room. Essentially they won't, be able to turn their cameras on, or unmute themselves. and only board members will be able to turn their cameras on and unmute themselves. Once promoted to what is called presenter. that is what they call it in Webinar. So I just wanted you guys to know that the format will be changing. It's not any different for you all. Once you're in there as presenter it will just look different. You won't really see it won't look the same as it does now. You won't be able to see everyone's name like you can currently. except for unless they are presenters to you. what Board members are there? But you won't necessarily be able to see what members, but public rather. And then

[233:05] the other thing about this that's really important, for everyone to know is that you once you're entering into the meeting. The meeting is started, so there's not going to be a waiting room for me, the host to like, let people in. So once you're in there, and once I promote us presenter like anything you say, or anything that's on your camera, or anything like that will be seen by anyone, including members of the building that are in meeting, so there's not going to be like a free, like little meeting waiting room type of thing. It'll just go right to the meeting, so I just wanted everyone to be aware that it's gonna change. It's not going to be any different for you all. But I will put some links in there, so you can kind of see what it's going to look like. and then your commands and things like that will pretty much be the same, like your view on mute will be the same, but it will look a little bit different in terms of what members of the public are here.

[234:00] and when you enter the meeting. Anyone can see or hear you immediately. If you have any questions about that, I feel for you to let me know. You can also send me an email. Can I still be in the tea house? I think you will still have some background Option? Yes. you know, way back, when it was shipped over here in 2,000, and it was in 2,343 pieces, and initially, people were concerned that there were going to be listening devices planted in the tea house that would listen to people sitting and drinking their tea. So there was a bit of a political fight about that. But times have changed. It's a cool place, though. Yeah, now, we just carry around the listening devices in our pocket.

[235:01] Thank you, Evan. All right. Anybody have any other items, right? Anyone. I just share this article in the reading packet. This is a nice review article on I think it's 30 different studies that the relationship between cannabis, legalization and road safety. And so, again, sort of 22 of the each study has different pros and cons limitations and opportunities. But against it's just like a nice kind of review and sympathetic across all these articles and scholarship about the relationship and Cannabis legalization top line finding is that it's just a number of studies. 22, of the 29 study showed negative effective legalization on road safety. And 7 studies show no increase in traffic accidents or number of possible visits following legalization, and they unpack that different kinds of ways. But again, I share this. It's like a nice kind of way to sort of both synthesize literature and sort of think about questions that we should be asking of our police and other public safety officers.

[236:11] Did you have any more. Did you want to bring up the other issue about the I also asked Staff to look into this matter of cycling frog beverages, and I will for you off to their gate neck. Who did the letter on this? Is she still on the call? So there you can, under the 2,018 hep law you can. This company is selling that beverages that can say 5 milligrams of Thc. But outside of regulated marijuana businesses, and again, this is a loophole that has to do with these being classified as hemp products with less than point 3 Tc. By driveway. But this is like a matter that I want it to spring before the board

[237:00] that there are 2 c. And F. Beverages that are available outside of regulated marijuana cannabis businesses. By virtue of this 28 team, he Bill, loophole up, regulating. You'd see by dry weight what kind of businesses are selling them anybody that wants to. This is a big, this is a huge problem. They they by accident made drinks and edibles, drinks and gummies legal. You know this this is this is a technical screw up on the Federal Government's part. The memo that came out from Da basically said that we're going to enforce the Cea definition of what hemp versus cannabis is and hemp is anything that is 0 point, 3% by dry mass or less. And since edibles and drinks have such a large mass to them, they've created a ratio potential where you can have a product that is 10 milligrams.

[238:08] and it weighs 330 grams and or whatever the math is. And now they're legal, so I mean you can buy them in truck stops in Kansas, and they're still Thc. so it's nothing we can. Probably the the state of Colorado has essentially already made them illegal for us to bring into our operations at all. We can't. They can't break the threshold of any of our license businesses, but they also can't. as current standing can't be regulated out of just your local convenience Store selling you So it's a it's a problem. But it's not one that we can fix. It's basically the entire backbone of the northeast gray market at this point is being held up by this loophole. So the Federal Government is very keen on it. They've issued several memos saying, hey! We might have screwed up here, but they haven't done anything to back away from it because it's going to require them to change the definition of the controlled Substances Act.

[239:11] So the Csa. We haven't changed those definitions since the 70 S. And we're probably not going to for this. So it's a complicated situation. Anybody else have better hearing on the outside. There's another. There's been an alarm. And then what is going on outside? Yeah. this morning I don't think that was a test. They didn't say testing. Okay, thank you. Anybody else, or we're after time.

[240:00] so I love a motion to adjourn a motion to adjourn. Who said that? And anyone opposed to standing. And thank you, Ethan, for joining us. and we'll see you in. There is now. They're talking again. Alright, See you next one.