February 5, 2024 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] So. February fifth. Meeting of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board for the City of Boulder and Let's go ahead and start with the instructions for virtual meeting and rules of decorum. Thank you. Good afternoon. The information is for public participation at beverage, licensing authority and cannabis licensing advisory meetings the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:04] More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found at the link shown on your screen. 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 the 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 the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online for the public. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:08] Would you like to go ahead and do roll call. you know, and before you start as I mentioned, Robin Nobel Gibbon will be joining us hopefully when the next 6 or 7 min. And then. Brian, do you want me to state the reality, or do you want to state it yourself? Oh, I just wanted to share that. I want Day 4 of Covid. So I might be kind of in or out. So. But hang it in there. It's you have the nice pillow effect behind you. Okay, so Kristen given that member, Christy. present sorry member, Daniel. present Member Green. Here. Vice chair Keegan. present

[3:00] chair, Kuntzmann. present. and it was noted that Member Noble will be arriving late. Ex officio member Thompson. Present. Thank you. We have a quorum. Okay? You want to introduce the other people in the virtual room first, or do you want to go on to the approve of the 2 sets of minutes? Certainly I can do the introductions. I will let them speak if they choose to from the city attorney's office, we have the new deputy City attorney, Roberto Ramirez. Mr. Ramirez, would you like to make any comment to the board. Good afternoon. I'm happy to be joining you. Thank you. And from the City regulatory licensing division we have our city licensing one of our city licensing specialists. Sabrina Regna, Sabrina. hey, everyone! She's going to be shadowing me over in the next several months on cloud activities and processes and procedures. So you'll be seeing things come across from her. In the next coming months.

[4:13] Okay, welcome to both of you and Thanks for joining us, and you'll let's go ahead and look at the minutes from the December fourth and the January eighth meeting. Any costs for concern, any corrections. and if not, let's vote on each one separately. I'll I'll take a motion for December minutes. Brian. Motions to approve the December minutes any second on that. Ethan seconds. That's Ethan, Ethan, your microphone is very distant.

[5:02] By the way, all you want to do a hand vote Kristen, or just a Rna. An irony would be a okay. Anyone opposed or abstaining? Okay, the ayes will have it. and then a motion for the January E minutes. If no one has any concerns Brian motions to approve the January minutes. and second on that Ethan seconds. That's better. Gotta lean in any anyone opposed or abstaining. And the ayes have it. Let's go on to general public comments for the board. Do we have any?

[6:07] We do have attendees in our waiting room. so if you would like to make public comment during this time for the board. Please use the raise your hand. Feature located in your meeting link web page. At the moment comments will be restricted to 3 min per speaker. Is there anyone for general public comment? Last call, general public comment for the cannabis. Licensing advisory board chair Kunsman. I'm not seeing any hands raised. We can close the general public comment. Section. There is one item I would like to note. We did receive last month

[7:04] a resignation for ex officio member Bailey. It was in time to be include for her seat to be included in the Board recruitment, which we will talk about further in the agenda under regulatory licensing matters. Okay, next on the published agendas matters from the cannabis Enforcement officer. But, Pam, are you gonna be able to stay a little bit on today that we could go with the Mvd. Folks first. cause I suspect Robin, and would like to be here for your moment in the sun would help if I unmute my microphone. Yes, that would be fine. Okay. And of course, obviously, you can stay and ask questions of Med, too. Asking questions. They haven't told us that yet. Alright, then let's go on to agenda, item number 4, and save 3 for a moment

[8:07] presentation from the Med Marijuana Enforcement Division. Do folks want to introduce yourselves? Sure. I'll just kick this off here. My name is Chris Fourier. I'm the deputy director of policy and regulatory affairs at the division. Joining me today are the investigators from our Longmont Fuel office. which overseas boulder as part of their area of responsibility. Obviously. so that I'm gonna turn it over to Keith so the team can introduce themselves. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Keith credits. I'm the agent in charge at the Med. I over receive both the Longmont, which is Northern Colorado and the Lakewood Field offices which covers the Metro Denver area. So with that I'll pass it on to Supervisor Selego. I'm supervisory criminal investigator, Melissa Sligo. You've probably seen me out at some of the businesses and around the area, and I supervise in our Longmont office

[9:07] and on our team. We have our compliance. Investigator Michelle, Sebastian and a criminal investigator, Alexander Thompson. So hopefully they can kind of come on camera and at least show their faces. See who they are. Hi, good afternoon. I'm Michelle Sebesian compliance investigator of the long Minefield office. Is Alexandra. Excuse me, did she join without an made attachment to her name? I have an Alexandra in the waiting room. I'm gonna admit that would be her. It says that she didn't get it approved. Oh, I yeah, I just said Alexandra. We I thought, might. She might just be a a public attendee.

[10:02] Okay, she should be able to. Hi, everybody! I'm Alexandra. I'm my criminal investigator out of the Walmart office as well. I apologize. I didn't attach Mv. To my name, so I made a little bit more difficult. That's alright perfectly fine. Thanks right with that. If it's alright, we can go ahead and kick off our presentation. Keith, would you be able to share your screen alright, and I can see it if you're able to get into presentation mode. Alright.

[11:00] So today, we're going to provide an overview of some of the rules that went into effect. On January eighth of this year there will be some new and revised rules which we won't be covering in our presentation today. However, if at any time after today's presentation, you come across a rule or a rule change that you would like additional clarity on. Don't hesitate to reach out to us or submit a question on our website using Mdm, we're always happy to help. Also, as we move through this presentation. If at any time you have a question. Please raise your hand or speak up. We don't need to wait until the end for questions. Yeah. As regards our new and revised rules. The first time you probably noticed is that the effective date was January 8, instead of January first, which is historically, when our new rules go into effect. This was in response to stakeholder comments, about the difficulty of implementing rules. On January one, the day in which the division offices are closed and no one's available without any questions. So this year, we started that on January eighth.

[12:03] So we're gonna start our presentation today by covering the implementation of Senate Bill 2, 71. The bill has 3 main components that required rule changes. First, it classifies hemp-derived and marijuana derived cannabis into 3 classifications. non intoxicating, potentially intoxicating and intoxicating canvanoids. It also allows for cultivation facility to bring in seeds, immature plants and genetic material from outside entities and licensed individuals. and finally, the bill authorizes the State licensing authority to promulgate rules, either allowing or prohibiting the production of synthetic cannabinoids. And this bill affected multiple rule series. 100 300 400 500 600 series. It was pretty expansive. So with that we will go ahead and dive into the rules. So with Rule 3, 1, 10, and Keith, I think you need to hit it. One more, few more times.

[13:05] So jumping into the rules with Rule 3, 1, 10 d. Some context here. So Senate Bill 2, 71 included what's called a safe harbor provision. This allows hemp derived product manufacturers located in Colorado to manufacture hemp, drive products that would not be permitted for sale in our State, but can be exported to a state that does not prohibit their sale. So the passing of this bill, the Med. Wanted to ensure clarity of our rules, so rule 3, 1, 10 d. States a regulated marijuana business may not possess or transfer safe harbor hemp, products. Bexes rule 3, 1,005 d. 4. This rule added requirements for labeling of genetic material prior to to the transfer to another regulated marijuana business, such that it must contain at least the license number of the transfer and cultivation.

[14:00] So rule 3, 8, 18, 2. This added genetic material to the minimum tracking requirements, inventory tracking requirements. so any genetic material received must be immediately entered into the State inventory tracking system as an immature plant batch. and 3, 8, 25 c. 3. Similarly. this adds a requirement that testing facilities must enter all transfers of genetic material into the inventory tracking system. Rule 3. Dash 9 of 5 b. 33. This identifies what information is required to be obtained by the licensee for source, genetic material. the name, address, license, registration or permit identification of the party supplying the genetic material. All certificates of analysis, if available. and all records that document the chain of custody, how it came into the regulated sector

[15:00] so rule 3, 35 g. Point 5. This rule relates to the production of semi-synthetic cannabinoids. It specifies that only research and development licenses may manufacture semisynthetic cannabinoids, and that no licensees can manufacture produce possess or transfer synthetic cannabinoids so synthetics completely banned. And only research and development can produce semi synthetic canvas. So rules 5, 2, 0, 5, 6, 2, 0 5, 6, 7, 0 5 and 6, 7, 0 5. These allow medical or retail cultivation facilities, or an accelerator cultivator to transfer immature plants, seeds, and genetic material to any other cultivation. Facility next slide. Thank you. Rule 6,405 H. Similarly, this rule now allows a testing facility to transfer immature plants, seeds, and genetic material to another cultivation, facility.

[16:06] Additionally, importantly, here, the rule makes it a conflict of interest for a testing facility to perform testing or another facility that it has transferred immature plants, seeds, or genetic material to so rules 5, 2, 0, 5, g. 2 and 6, 2 0 5 h. So these 2 rule changes are significant. These allow medical and retail cultivation facilities to obtain immature plants, seeds, and genetic material. As we've been talking about from another licensed facility operating outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado or from an employee licensee. They cannot, however, obtain any of these items internationally so, and there is a push for that to be expanded. We did hear from stakeholders wanting to allow for seeds and mature plants, genetic materials to come in from another country. But that's that's not where we landed on this one.

[17:05] So one last thing before we dive into some of the other final adopted rules. Senate Bill 2, 71 also requires the division to submit a report to the General Assembly, analyzing the feasibility of establishing a standing committee that would evaluate canonoids and canvas drive products for the purpose of determining and making recommendations regarding their safety profiles and their potential for intoxication. We've already started that process of developing that report. We are anticipating having 2 public stakeholder meetings in March. Specifically, regarding this report. we haven't announced it yet, but intend to send that announcement out this week. So if you are interested. Please keep your eye out. If you haven't signed up for our email list, I'd encourage you to head to our website and do so. And with that I will turn it over to Melissa. Thanks, Chris. So with our final adopted rules section, we did not include It'll show we did not include part one in our rule review. Today, however, we would like to point out there have been several new definitions or clarifications to definitions in this rule making session, we added the following definitions for genetic material hemp, hemp, product, intoxicating cannabinoid, microbial control, step.

[18:23] notice of destruction, notice of embargo, safe harbor, hemp, product, semi synthetic, cannabinoid and synthetic, synthetic cannabinoid. We clarified the following definitions, yes. Oh, hold on 1 s, Kate Scott. Yeah. I was just wondering if you could briefly explain. The difference between the synthetic versus the semi synthetic cannabinoids to the to the board. Just so we understand a little bit more about. Is that possible? I'm going to jump in on Melissa's behalf. We have a couple staff scientists who definitely would be able to explain that I don't think right now. Any of us would be in a good place to, but we could certainly follow up with the board, if that's possible. Via email.

[19:07] Yeah, I mean II would be interested to to know to more, know more about that. We'll definitely get that over then. thanks for jumping in. I couldn't see hands and stuff. So we also clarified the following definitions, adverse health event to include an unexpected health condition. decontamination to indicate following a failed test employee license to remove references to key licenses and support licenses, remediation to indicate following a failed test and retail marijuana removed industrial from the definition rule 2. Dash 2, 45 c. 2. This rule was clarified regarding when a change is exempt from a change of owner, notification needs to be filed.

[20:06] all changes require notification except when the change is due to a change in passive beneficial ownership. Rule 2, 45 c. 4. Rule was clarified to notify the Med. Within 45 days of the removal of any executive officers or board members. Previously we had a time requirement to notify an addition of an executive officer or board member, but not the removal rule 2. Dash, 2, 75, a 2. This rule was clarified to allow a temporary appointee to file either a request for finding of suitability, or, if they have already been found suitable, a change of ownership application. This change may not necessarily change the current practices, but just makes it more express in rule. And we're gonna go back to you, Chris. Thanks, Wilson, before we move forward with the presentation, even though I don't think I'm equipped to elaborate on it. I did want to read the definitions for synthetic and semi synthetic.

[21:08] So a semisynthetic cannabinoid means a substance that is created by a chemical reaction that converts one canvanoid extracted from a cannabis plant directly into a different canvas canvanoid. It includes cannonoids, such as Cbn that was produced by the conversion of Cbd and semi synthetic canvanoid does not include cannabinoids produced via decarboxylation of naturally occurring acidic forms of canvinoids, such as tetrahydro, cannabinolic acid into the corresponding neutral cannonoids, such as Thc. For the use of heat or light, without the use of chemical reagents or catalysts and the results in no other chemical change. And as for synthetic cannonoids. that is, a cannonoid-like compound that was produced by using chemical synthesis, chemical modification or chemical perversion, including by using in vitro biosynthesis or other bio conversion. Of such a method.

[22:03] it does not include a compound produced through the decarboxylation of naturally occurring canvanoids from their acidic forms. It also does not include naturally semi-synthetic cannabinoids. Hopefully, that's helpful. But with that we will go ahead and continue with our presentation. So rule 3, 1 10 c. Here. This rule clarifies that natural medicine is prohibited. It cannot be transferred on a licensed premises, or in a vehicle. Additionally, any of our business licensees cannot also hold natural medicine license. This arose from a stakeholder request for clarity on specifically natural medicine. Some stakeholders found it duplicative, as we already have the ban on non marijuana consumables and retail stores. But responding to that request for clarity, we thought that would be helpful included. It's rule 3, 2, 25, b, 4. So some of the next series of rules that we're going to talk about are arise from our attempt to find rule efficiencies for industry stakeholders.

[23:04] This last summer we went through a fee evaluation resulting in new fee rules that did raise the fees. And obviously the industry is kind of in a struggling place. Right now, economic environment is not great. So what we wanted to do is find rule efficiencies that maybe could reduce some of that burden. So this will specifically video surveillance backup battery requirements were reduced from 4 h to 2 h. and for video surveillance rule 3, dash 2, 25, the retention period has been decreased from 40 days to 30 days. This may change. This change may require investigators for video surveillance tapes sooner than they did previously. But otherwise not a big burden on the division going to rule 3, dash 3, 20

[24:02] next slide. So these rule changes arose out of the science and policy workgroups recommendations. We now have the microbial control stop, which is a defined term now. And it's a regulated process now. So this is where a business treats all of its flour after harvest. But prior to sending it for testing. So this was already occurring, and it wasn't against the rules. But now we've kind of regulated this step. and put some guardrails in here. So these 6 methods right here that you can see on the screen are the only approved methods for microbial control steps and decontamination. At this time. the licensees do have the ability to request that the division approve other methods. But for now these are the 6 that are outlined in rule and approved. So this rule 3, dash 3, 20 C and E also came out of a science and policy work group recommendation.

[25:05] C specifies safety measures that must be taken when using a microbial control step or decontamination. and E provides an avenue for stakeholders to request a new method as discussed for microbial control, step and decontamination to be considered for approval by the division. Well, 3. Dash 3, 20 d. Also science and policy work group recommendation. So this rule now requires that decontamination method used, whatever decontamination method is used must be documented in metric for packages that have been decontaminated. For those who don't know. Decontamination is the neutralization or removal of dangerous substances or other contaminants from the marijuana without changing the product type as opposed to remediation, which also neutralizes or removes dangerous substances. But does change the product type. And I see we have a question. Hi, there, yeah, just a question on this decamp decontamination sort of being connected into metric.

[26:05] Would this kind of notice or flag ever kind of appear to the end consumer like, if you were buying a product, would say that this product was decontaminated by this method or that wouldn't appear to consumer good question. And we'll actually get to that on a future slide. Alright. Thanks. there we go. So 325 B. We did clarify rule, adding that in the production of regulated marijuana this is prohibited chemicals. We added this clarification, because, you know, the these chemicals can be introduced at manufacture licenses as well as cultivations. And additionally, we added regulated marijuana products and hemp products on which any of the prohibited chemicals is detected is a violation of the rule. Rule 3D. 3 3D. One b. This was also assigned some policywork group recommendation. This added standard operating procedure requirements for decontamination and microbial control step methods

[27:14] rule 3, dash, 335 d. This was an external suggestion. That we receive from stakeholders so based on stakeholder feedback, on soft confections and the requirement for the universal symbol to be stamped on them. Often soft confection products lose their shape, rendering a universal symbol unrecognizable. I know we've come across this in many of our investigations. It's a very testing to do with these types of products. So what we've done is we've allowed for the printing of the universal symbol on the individual wrapper of the product for soft confections as opposed to requiring it being stamped with the universal symbol. Rule 3. Dash 8, 0 5. This removes the reference to RFID and replaces it with inventory tracking system.

[28:02] So this is an initial step to broaden our competitive solicitation process for a new contract in the future. For the inventory tracking system. However, we do want to be very clear, because there has been some confusion on this. The change in language throughout the Revised rules, eliminating the references to RFID does not remove the current requirement for RFID tags. Obviously, that is, all. Metrics still provide reason for that is, the department. Revenue and metric are currently under contract until October 20 sixth, and the terms of the contract do include RFID inventory tracking through Rule 3. Dash 805 d. 2. This also came from an external suggestion. so the rule has been revised to require that plants need to be tagged once they reach 15 inches tall or 15 inches wide, as opposed to the previous requirement of 8 inches tall or 8 inches wide. However, with that said. the immature plant is still defined in statute, so an immature plant is still one that is 8 inches tall or 8 inches wide, and will need to be accounted for an inventory track, consistent according to their rules, even though it does not yet need to be individually tagged, it needs to be individually tagged once it reaches 15 inches tall or wide

[29:20] through 395, a 2, and 395 B. These are more rule efficiency changes. So we looked at our record retention requirements at a review of those rules, and some these new rules are going to require the majority of records to be kept for the current year, and the previous year, with a few exceptions, that we will cover on the next slide. So in 3 9 0 5 B point 5 we did add a section for records required for 3 years partially required by statute, for example, tax documents, and books and records sufficient to show fully the business transactions of each licensee.

[30:00] those arise from a statute. But all of these are records that through our process determined did need a longer requirement than them. Current year and previous year. So rule 3, 9 20 d. This adds that a licensee must report a fire on a license premises to the rule. This came about actually from a local licensing authority who had a licensee, failed to not only call the fire department, but also failed to contact the local licensing authority. Failure to notify can be problematic, because we want to ensure that the consumer we want to ensure the consumer safety of any marijuana on the premises is good as well as ensure the integrity and security of the facility. So this was A loophole that I don't think had been contemplated until that situation came up. But now it is a requirementual. It's rule 3, 1015 e. This is a new rule that was deemed necessary after making changes to decontamination and adding microbial control step methods. Kind of going back to the discussion earlier.

[31:04] So this rule is going to require decontaminated products to have a division approved label, beginning on July first, 2,025 for consumer awareness. We're going to be working with stakeholders in the future to help the division. Of the design of this decontamination label. So that's something that will be in process. But the extended date is to give us time to work through that and and then that requirement will be going to effect. And so with that, I will turn it back to Melissa. having some problems with my mouse. Now. thanks, Chris. So rule 4, 1, 20, b. 6. This also came from the science and policy workgroup, as many others did. It specifies the fee required to utilize, to utilize reduced testing allowance, or Rta, which becomes effective. January eighth, 2024. In addition, the license is required to provide an attestation form with the fee.

[32:10] Note this attestation, form and fee are license specific. A separate attestation or fee is not required for each contamination test type and is required every 12 months. This new fee is to address the additional division resources that are used due to the compliance issues related to RTA. I just want to note here that the division has extended the deadline for submission of the attestation form and fee to February 20 ninth, 2024. Rule 4, 1 20 b. One B, another one from the science and policy Work Group. This rule outlines the parameters of how a licensee may achieve Rta for microbial contamination testing. If the licensee has a hazard analysis and critical control point, or Hassab system containing elements defined in as TM.

[33:06] It that that one's written on the slide for you. D. 82, 50, 19. So the astm is standard practice for cleaning and disinfection at a marijuana cultivation, facility. The rule revisions draw on the principles of the Hassip, which is a system designed to identify and mitigate sources of contamination before contamination occurs. hasap is required by the FDA. And Usda. In meat and juice production is utilized throughout the food industry and the principles of Hassap are applied even more broadly across industries. This rule goes into effect on July first, 2024. As part of the implementation aspect of this rule we are working with Astm to provide a copy of the manual for public inspection. At each of the Med offices.

[34:00] Rule 4, dash 1, 20 B, one additional science and policy workgroup. This rule was revised to ensure all harvest batches are cultivated and processed in the same manner, to be eligible, to obtain and maintain a reduced testing allowance. including the same growth. Media lighting pesticides, drying, trimming, and packaging procedures. Rule 4, 1, 20 b. One c. Another. Science and policy workgroup to achieve. RTA. For microbial contaminants, a cultivation facility must conduct an internal audit to assess that they are in substantial compliance. This internal audit will be performed and scored per the rubric listed in Rule 4, 1, 20 b. One BI. The little one. This rule also goes into effect on July first, 2,024 rule 4. Dash 1, 20 F. 3. Rule was added to address reauthorization of Rta. After a failed internal audit or a failed MED. Inspection.

[35:10] If a cultivation facility fails, then the licensee must correct the identified deficiencies, complete. A new internal audit, complete a new attestation form and follow reauthorization procedures. I'm going to go ahead and hand it back over to Chris. Right? Rule 6105 v. This allows retail marijuana stores to transfer retail marijuana to other retail marijuana businesses. This is actually an oversight in our rules that was brought to our attention. You couldn't transfer product from one store, one retail store to another. And you know an example that someone had reached out that multiple stores needed to shift inventory around, because one was, you know, being very successful, the other one was kind of slow, so

[36:01] we made sure to modify the rules to allow for that will 6, 925 G. So this was an external suggestion. Regarding our hospitality rules. So for the hospitality licenses, daily sales summits have been increased which will create a parity between the hospitality and sales licenses and the hospitality licenses which consumer can bring the entire daily sales limit for them to consume on site. This will also bring consistency between retail stores and hospitality licenses. They're not identical. The concentrate limit is lower for the hospitality and sales business than a retail store based on stakeholder feedback, but the flour and edible limits are the same. So 6, 9, 25 b. This was another external suggestion. So we've added a requirement to rule that at least a portion of the product someone purchases at a hospital and sales license must be consumed on site. This is just to ensure the hospitality and sales businesses don't also become another form of retail stores.

[37:14] Rule 6 s. 9, 25 h. One. Another external suggestion. So we clarified the rule to require that the licensees standard operating procedures include a process to ensure the consumer does not exceed the sales, limitation and provisions for sharing of retail marijuana and rule 6, 9 0 5. Q. Another external suggestion. So this is a new requirement, so that licensed hospitality businesses have to provide consumers with information regarding safe transportation. which also must be reflected in their standard operating procedures. After hearing a lot of feedback regarding the various methods that licenses might want to utilize for providing information, including pamphlets. QR. Codes, flyers. We didn't take the step of mandating how a licensing must provide that information about safe transportation, just that they do so, and that it's reflected in standard operating procedures.

[38:07] At this time, we're exploring how the division can maybe support this requirement by providing examples or guidance. But that's something you know, we're working on for in the future. So rule 6 s. 9, 25 8.5. We added the tangible educational resource requirements to the hospitality and sales businesses, to align them with retail and medical marijuana stores. So if someone's purchasing concentrate, the hospitaline sales business will be required to provide them with a tangible educational resource. And that that resource came out of House Bill 2113, 17, all right. Next. This was also a stakeholder suggestion. We had a stakeholder reach out, wanting to open a Spa, a Spa hospitality and sales license. and after kind of reviewing the rules and working through it with the the potential applicant.

[39:00] We didn't really see a way, a path forward for that model. So through our rulemaking session here. And Tom, I'll get to right after this if that works. No problem, though. So we're introducing the Spa business model here and we'll go through some of the changes that allow for that. But but yeah, this is this came out of a stakeholder request, Tom. And on the previous slide. Now, I'm only reading the summary of Hospital 2113, 17. But it doesn't go into much detail. The tangible educational resource. Is there more. Is there more comprehensive description of what that is? Yeah. So tangible. Educational resource is well, obviously mandated by 1,317. The div the division developed the tangible educational resource. And it's available on our website for licensees. So it's it's the same resource for everyone across the board

[40:01] And like, I said, retail and medical marijuana stores have been handing it out now for a couple of years. Okay. thank you. Yep. So going on to rule 6, 9, 2, 6 B next slide. So under these new Spa rules, massage therapists must be licensed not only by the Med. But also by the department of regulatory agencies. This was something that was discussed by stakeholders during rulemaking. But, you know, ensuring that we have people over the age of 21, and then we have the, you know, the line of sight to employees on a license premises. We did land that the massage therapist would need to be licensed by the Med as well. yeah. And just to make sure, you know, we've got that line of sight and that regulatory hook. and several other things. I wish I could see the comparison of what was before versus now. So I'm assuming on that last issue that

[41:01] massage therapists. If they were going to work in a hospitality or small business, then so previously our rules. our rules didn't really complement this or consider this business model when we introduced the hospitality sales licenses. So there was no discussion of massage therapists previous to this rule, linking session because it just wasn't contemplated. So If someone had attempted to open a Spa or salon type business previously. since the massage therapist would be working as an employee of the business, they still would have had to been license. So okay, thank you. Yeah. And and just for information, some of the requirements that made this not feasible. The big one was video surveillance. Obviously, people getting massages that kind of conflicts with you know, Dora's rules or or massage therapist rules on that. So that's kind of what that was the impetus for addressing this through

[42:03] so moving on to Rule 6, 9, 30 B+B, 2 so to allow for this business model, we clarified the rule by removing the requirement for a consumer to consume in a restricted access area and this also allows a massage therapist therapist to apply topical product. So this is part of that having a space where the product could be consumed in the form of an application of topicals without being under video surveillance. So rule 6, 9, 26, c, does address the video surveillance directly. So under this new rule, consumption areas for massage services are not required to be under video surveillance. However, all points of ingress and egress to those rooms must be under video surveillance. and additionally, no additional consumption is allowed within massage services, rooms strictly the application of topical products, no smoking in those rooms, no consumption available, or anything like that.

[43:06] So rules 6, dash 9 40 c point 5 and 2 2 60 d. 2. This was another external suggestion from stakeholders moving on from Spa concepts. So for right now for our hospitality licenses who have a mobile premises previously they were hired to get a poc permit before they submitted their application, their initial application, and that was very difficult for some of them. There was a little bit of a chicken egg thing going on with poc, so what we've done? We've revised the rule now so that they must receive the Poc permit prior to becoming operational and this mirror some of the requirements, our rules, for example, for delivery licenses or for hospitality licenses. They also have to go through responsible vendor training. But we don't require that at the time of application we just require prior to operation.

[44:02] Right? So we're going to finish today by going over House Bill 1021, and the rule changes that arose from that. So this bill, it clarifies the authority for the division to issue an administrative hold on the movement of medical or retail marijuana, pending an investigation into alleged violations of the code or rules, and it further authorizes an embargo of regulated marijuana when there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that the health, safety, or welfare of the public imperative requires emergency action. and the bill also allows for an order of destruction of embargoed-regulated marijuana after notice and an opportunity for hearing. Hey, Chris? Sorry. I've just been deliberating about something a few slides ago. It was part 6, rule 6, 9, 26 d. Yes. one more back, I think.

[45:01] Do you know what the what II know? This is primarily about video surveillance? But do you know what the thinking was to not allow additional consumption in the massage service rooms? I think we wanted to be consistent with how we're currently treating hospitality and sales, licenses and hospitality licenses as well as or just hospitalized and see sorry, but being consistent with that in our previous rule, that consumption of you know, edibles, flower vapes, etc., concentrate. Occurs in a restricted access area and restricted access areas are required to be under video surveillance that way. That helps us. If, for example, we had an underage sale at a hospitality and sales license, we would have the video evidence. So having that on video, like, I said, it's consistent. It helps for regulations having it in the Spa room, obviously a conflict. But that's why no additional consumption in there that said, there's nothing against someone consuming in the restricted access area before their massage.

[46:10] Okay, thank you. So back to house build 1021. We're gonna start with Rule 8, 1, 10 B point 5. So this is our embargo section. And it's pretty similar to our administrative hold. Paragraph which we'll go over next. But this is split into 3 parts. There's the notice of embargo, the effects of embargo, and the release or destruction of regulated marijuana subject to embargo so directly from the bill language, the division can embargo regulated marijuana, when quote, there are objective and reasonable grounds. To believe that the health, safety, or welfare of the public imperatively requires emergency action so similar to the process for administrative holds a division investigator may issue a notice of embargo identifying which regulated marijuana is subject to the embargo, and the senior director will issue a concise statement afterwards that includes the reason or reasons for the embargo.

[47:07] While subject to embargo, the regulated marijuana in question must be physically segregated and safeguarded. It can't be transferred or transported. It can, however, be destroyed with advance approval from the division and in coordination with the division. And I just wanna pause here and talk a little bit about the embargo tool. This is really helpful for us, because, you know, we've had cases where a rule violation did not occur, or at least we had no indication that a rule violation had occurred, but the product was dangerous. Say, it was a had something in it that wasn't contemplated under our rules at the time, and I know we usually point back to the Evali crisis where people were getting sick from babes. People were dying. And it was due to a specific ingredient, something that our rules didn't cover. Fortunately, in the State of Colorado we didn't have any reported deaths, and we did implement some emergency rules as quickly as we could to make sure those products were off the shelves. But this now gives us the ability to put those products on hold while we work through it, to mitigate any ongoing or future harm and remove them from the stream of commerce.

[48:09] Brian. So would this just be embargoing marijuana products. So I'm thinking of an example where, let's say, a pesticide is sort of discovered to be like a risk to consumers. Would you be embargoing the pesticides? Or would you be embargoing the like marijuana products that were treated with the pesticide? So we would be embargoing the products treated with the pesticide. This is pretty similar to an administrative. Hold. The difference as as we'll walk through it is that the embargo is focused on. There's a threat to public health and safety. And the administrative hold is focused on. We're investigating a violation. And we need to preserve this marijuana while we conduct our investigation. And the follow up, what would that as that's written like? How would that determination be made? Is that just an agency determination that, like this is a public health risk, or that, would that come through some other kind of agency? Determination? Yeah, that that would be an agency determination.

[49:07] if if we wanted to place something under embargo, or if we wanted to place something on administrative hold, it really depends on the facts and circumstances of the specific situation. Okay, thank you. Yup, the only thing I was gonna add is embargo is a tool that the Department of Public Health and Environment has had for some time, and used with much success to make sure that, you know we only have safe products on super shelves. So with that, we'll move on to rule 8, minus 110 B. Also from house build 121 and this one's all about the administrative holds. So v. One. A clarifies that administrative holds are used to prevent the destruction of evidence, diversion, or other threats to public safety, pending an investigation of an alleged violation of the code or rule. and B, one B expands the concise statement issued to a licensee for anyone not familiar. After we place a product on administrative hold. We follow that up with a concise statement that outlines the reasons for the hold.

[50:01] So we've expanded the concise statement, and in addition to explaining the reasons for the hold, we're adding an estimated timeframe for the investigation to be complete. With that said, if the timeframe is adjusted for what you know different changing circumstances. As the investigation proceeds, the division must provide the licensee with written notice of the extension of the estimated timeframe through 8, 1, 10 b. 2 E, also from house build 1021. So this covers the effects of an administrative hold. They're the same as currently outlined in rule without substantive changes, except that B, 2 E explicitly gives the license the authority to destroy marijuana on hold. If there is no longer need to preserve evidence with advance approval from and in coordination with, the division. This was generally already our practice, but this just makes it more explicit and outlined.

[51:00] So 8, 1, 10 b. 3. This covers how an administrative hold can end. So these include the State licensing authority, or the investigator lifting the hold. It could be by agreement through the State licensing authority and the licensee to lift it, perhaps pursuant to a settlement or it could be by expiration after 120 days. So this requirement was not previously a rule. But now we have put an expiration date on an administrative hold of 120 days from the time of the hold being placed. unless the hold is extended by the State licensing authority. Such an order to extend will identify the reasons for the extension, and B. 3D. On the next slide here covers the factors that the State licensing authority must consider when deciding to extend again the need to preserve evidence, existence of newer continued threat to version failure to cooperate with division investigators. failure to maintain security and inventory controls, including record keeping. video, surveillance, etc.

[52:02] Failure to maintain all state or local required licenses and the licensees current tax noncompliance. So if an administrative hold is going to be extended past the 120 days. The State licensing authority has to take these factors into consideration and identify the reasons for the extension. So slide 50 or sorry rule 8, 220 B. 4. This is more procedural. If we issue a notice of destruction on an embargo that is obviously subject to a hearing before a hearings officer. So what we've done is kind of made it similar to our other procedures for requesting hearings must be made within 60 days of service must be submitted by mail or hand delivered. and if a licensee receives a notice of destruction from embargo marijuana. and also has a pending administrative action. The licensee will have one hearing scheduled with the Hearings division just to consolidate resources and make that easier for all parties involved.

[53:07] So those are all of the rule updates that we have today trying to keep it under an hour. Are there any questions. Yes, I'm Brian. Yeah, I guess this is not related to the presentation you had. But it's maybe a $420,000 question relating to just the contingencies that the Med has. If there's any kind of rescheduling or descheduling that happens at the Federal level, and what kinds of considerations, if that scenario played out that you have in mind as a as a and like how that might trickle down a local constituencies like us. Yeah, I don't really have anything at this time. I think I can share on that but I can say that it's definitely something we're looking at and working on recognizing that that may be a consideration in your future here. Alright, thank you.

[54:01] Any other questions. All right. Well, thank you all for having us today. And hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Well, Chris, before you go. So we were holding off on approving a policy request form because of it was singular, and just one little part of what you discussed in in your slides. It has to do. I'm trying to pull it up here. it's it's the amount of time to save video files. I can't find it right now, but I remember going from 40 to 30 days. and and the reason why we held off on discussing it last time, or

[55:00] even just approving it, because it seems like a pretty simple change, I'll admit. We're we're expecting. There may be a whole list of things that we may need to change folder. you know. Revised codes. your thoughts on that, or is I mean, I can't advise on. If you know you should adopt any other of our rule efficiencies, or anything like that. But you know, we did cover. I think all of the rule efficiency changes today that we implemented but we also are going to be holding some efficiencies work groups over the next few months. where? It's gonna be an ongoing discussion. We may have other future changes as well. and so business owners might attend such such sessions, and and they might come back with a whole bunch of recommendations, because it's gonna happen on every municipality that

[56:01] I don't know. At least it could be every municipality in Colorado, really. which is just gonna pull you stretched then. But oops! You know, we're just trying to deal with it right here in Boulder. So right? Yeah. And if you want to mirror it, or or, you know, go a different direction. I think that's that's up to boulder alright anybody else with questions. I just wanted to thank you. For the presentation and for putting it together. I know that it's a ton of stuff that changed so to be able to do that, even the way that you did as efficiently as you did. That's pretty impressive. So appreciate that you guys did that and appreciate your time. Thanks. Like, I said, if there's any questions about anyone we didn't cover today, or once we did that come up later, feel free to reach out. and we're echo what Kate said.

[57:02] Oh, sorry. I couldn't tell whether I was meeting or not. I would echo what case? I think? Who would be the main contact person if we you know, I think for now I probably would be. And I don't have chat access. But I can follow up with an email to kristen my contact information. That's helpful. Okay, great. Alright, thank you all so much. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Should. Member Noble did join the meeting at 3 25. If you would like to reverse back. Excuse me back to agenda. Item number 3 matters from the cannabis Enforcement officer.

[58:00] Yeah, we held off Robin on doing. I'm so sorry. I'm really sorry about that. I'm sorry, Pam. Thank you very much. Okay. You wanna go ahead and okay. for some reason, the past 3 weeks we've seen a big decrease in the number of seized fake ids. All the dispensaries are talking about it when I go and visit them on my weekly basis, and we don't know why. but that's a good thing. Hopefully. process 22, 2 were issued summonses, and 6 were sent to see restorative justice. So we'll see if that trend continues for this upcoming month. Getting ready in the next week or 2. Once we solidify some dates, I'm going to do a joint compliance check with the State mad.

[59:06] And then I'm going to do to just city-based. So gonna really load up on those compliance checks over the next couple months. Robin, do you wanna not everybody on the board knows the question that you asked staff, including Robin, I mean, including Pam. Yeah. I had asked a question that some parents had asked me about. An establishment that I shared with Pam, that a they suspect of doing selling illegally to kids, and I wanted to make her aware of that and get an update on some of her plans for compliance. It sounds like you might be looking at that place. And

[60:01] yeah. is that where you're at, Pam? Or well, I can only speak in general terms historically. On the hill we usually get complaints of a variety of nature from 3 different headshop slash tobacco license holders up there. The there's one that historically keeps coming up. So we're brainstorming. And we're gonna do a multi focal attack for less of a but lack of a better word on that establishment and see if we can't get them to get back into the fold and play by the rules. Okay, thank you. Because II think one of the people I spoke with said she was frustrated because she had heard back that there really wasn't anything that you guys could do.

[61:04] It was a little bit of a confusing thing for her. And so it sounds like you're looking at it. And I'm really glad to hear that I that seems like the right next step. Yeah, there's there's different approaches by involving different agencies including a few of the State agencies, because they have more enforcement authority. and they've always been involved on a on a different level. We're just now kind of all getting together and opening our communication lines. More, there actually is enforcement taking place. We just don't always talk to each other on a quick enough basis, so that we can provide that information to concern citizens. Okay? Well, I'm glad I and I'm glad you're in touch with the parents as well, and I know a few of the parents had been asked, would your kid talk with us? And from the thread. I saw. Kids do not want to do that. So it's really tricky. But it does sound like that

[62:14] particular place is a real problem, or at least. and the conversations that we're that I was that I heard. So yeah, and these types of complaints. And for us to do an effective investigation we really need. And still let us interview. it just helps us expand our investigation and have the documentation and proof. We need to move forward either in the civil or criminal arena. But you know II understand the parents hesitancies. you know. It's up to them so well. Thank you very much for that update. I'm glad you're looking love to hear from you again. If there's more to share next time. Thank you so much, you're welcome.

[63:13] that's all, I have any other questions. Okay, thanks, Officer. Goodnight. Let's see. Next agenda. Item, do we have? Oh, is waiting room. Oh. Christiana is not going to be able to attend the meeting today.

[64:00] but she did include a memo kind of outlining needs and desires petitioning for liquor, licensing as well as some example, petition materials, or what? What? Exactly that looks like. So if you have any questions, Staff is happy to help try to answer those today, or if you have questions specifically for Christiana, we can ask her to come back to a future meeting. Andy, you can go ahead. Yeah. Now. Something came up. That was an emergency. So I I'm sorry about that, and she apologizes. should free up some time for tonight, but she said she'd be welcome to come back next month or the month after, if the board wanted. So I think an interactive session would be a lot more helpful than just reading through that attachments. and neither I mean, I know Roberto's, you know, new to the game, but neither, you know, Roberto would wanna try to put on her.

[65:06] or I. I don't think so. I think Bla is unique and she can. She's gonna speak to that a lot better than at least I can. So okay, it's 4, 13. I think we can go ahead and go on to policy. Suggestion forms the first policy. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, go ahead. The first policy suggestion form was from native roots regarding medical wellness centers. This has been continued a couple of times, and from a June fifth packet submission. And Andy, if I'm not mistaken, you've been looking in. Are you been thinking about this and researching this tee it up? Yeah, yeah. So this was and I should thank my colleague reward as well. Who's on but we did a pretty deep dive into legislative history to try to hunt down. Why this particular.

[66:09] I guess rule came into effect. the log in the short of it. So this is, if you recall this is the separate consultation room for medical marijuana facilities. And it's part of the Wellness Center definition. And so what we believe happened. Excuse me, I'm recovering from something as well here. So if I cough, I apologize. But this drives from it's 6, 14 is the actual location within the the boulder revised Code. and it requires that the business quote includes a secure and locked medical marijuana dispensary room. one or more private rooms for consultation on the medical use of marijuana or other services and a separate reception area for screening of patients and waiting for nonpatients.

[67:09] And so we dove into sort of the history of the ordinances surrounding this. and the best we could tell. We also spoke with some colleagues. The best we could tell is that this is really a carryover of when when medical marijuana was first getting I shouldn't say first getting introduced, but it was being treated like massage and acupuncture, and a run with therapy, and some of these other sort of medical tangential uses. And so, for purposes of the boulder zoning code. those got lumped in together. and so I believe the actual policy suggestion form mentioned essentially, why? Why do we have this? Because we're not allowed under law to. you know, make recommendations or give medical advice as part of these consultations, and so, or as part of this.

[68:06] excuse me as part of the dispensation, and so the long and the short of it is, is that And I'll I'll kick it over for Rewa in case she wants to provide additional thoughts. But we didn't see anything under State law that would prohibit cloud from recommending to change the Boulder City Council. That would obviously be the Boulder City Council's prerogative whether to take that up. And I. We also have some thoughts about the process the Board might use for pushing policy suggestion forms through. Sort of I guess a more robust consideration process in the future, but I mean, suffice it to say we didn't see any reason why that can be removed. It would. It would just take a little bit of A little bit of drafty. Know how cause that kind of requirement is built into a few different parts within the boulder revised Code. So. Maria, do you have anything to add, or any clarifications or anything?

[69:06] No, I don't have anything to add that II did. You just hit on it what I was thinking that you know it. A a other portions of the code are are intertwined with this, you know specifically title 9, that was all. Thank you. Any more thoughts on streamlining a process. So I have thoughts on that, unless we wants to go first you want me to go. I was just I was actually just gonna ask about title 9. Is that referring to like wellness centers or the personal service side of it. Is that where the tie is? That's the let me pull it up here. the personal service side. Yeah. Okay.

[70:00] thanks. Yeah. So that's anyway. And in response to Chairman Kunstmann's question, you know. the the Board has at least my understanding is, the Board has sort of it gets a policy suggestion form discusses it, and then I think we know that as part of the Board's authority, you can make recommendations to counsel but I don't know how much thought has been put into what that process should look like on a recurring basis. And when that suggestion to counsel should occur. And so that's a little timely, because I know with Council going on their retreat soon, they've specifically asked the boards to comment on what you're working on and to provide an update. So

[71:00] I think Rewa Roberto and I were discussing it would be helpful for the Board to have a set process where, when a policy suggestion form comes in. And this is just me spit balling. As to what kind of we thought the process could look like. You know it comes in comes in for initial discussion, for by the Board members. if the Board thinks they want to evaluate it further than they could task staff in the city attorneys office with evaluating the operational impact of the change that may be requested by the policy suggestion form, along with legally, whether the change would be permitted, or if there's any legal pitfalls associated with it. The next meeting we could come back and report on that. and then, if the Board still wanted to pursue it, or consider it, that the Board would then hold a public hearing to facilitate sort of that public comment and public involvement process on that particular topic following that public hearing, then the Board would make a decision just like it normally would, and if the decision is to recommend a change.

[72:07] then that would be slotted for What? Whenever, if you were, gonna do it semi annually or annually, like kind of a com. A single recommendation to council, containing all the changes that the Board discussed went through, considered. And you're getting them in front of the Council at hopefully an opportune time. But in any event, in a way that's gonna make it. So they whatever they're focused on, they can focus on this and hit everything at the same time hopefully. and move on so that that's in a nutshell. What? At least, I thought the process could look like. I think the public comment. Portion is really important. That's the one of the main reasons why this board is here is to hear public comment and perspectives. So facilitating that public comment. But just having some sort of a consistent process where these policy forms can get can get moved through. So

[73:04] I know that was, I know that was a lot of verbiage. But that's something that's been percolating in our minds that I just wanted to throw to just to be concrete. So if we took this I heard what you just said, and you took this policy suggestion form about consultation room. would it? Then also, once it gets to city council do, then they have to have another public comment before they can make a change, or they'd have to if they were gonna make a change to ordinance, they'd have to go through the regular ordinance process with Rewa. I just saw you on muted, do you? Wanna no, I was just gonna say, yeah, they have to do the regular ordinance process which requires 2 ratings of an ordinance, one on consent. And normally, unless it's administrative in nature, and I don't think this would necessarily be administrative in nature.

[74:01] would require a public hearing. I know I'm purposely discussing. We're only discussing the consultation room situation right now. But if we jump for a moment to the 40 day to 30 day, is that an administrative change? I don't think I'm sorry. Go ahead. I don't think anything marijuana related would be administrative in nature. Necessarily. Ii think it would be of great interest to the public and and the council. But but of course I leave that up to the attorneys. and and it could, I mean, part of the public hearing process would be, as as far as cloud goes. would be one to be able to take it to council and describe that it all already has gone through a public hearing process. 2 public hearings generally with government are designed to help decision makers make them inform informed decisions. So you all.

[75:04] as part of your recommendation, you would hopefully hear from both sides. If it's not a controversial issue. such as the 40 to 30 day, that may not be a controversial issue. you might get no public comment, which is fine. But there might be issues that are maybe end up being surprisingly you know, controversial, and there might be members of the public or businesses that come in with very valid. intelligent insights that then alter what you want to recommend to council. So that's kind of the the underlying rationale be between or behind going that additional step, if that makes sense. Sure. Yeah, II understand. Okay, hmm. what? So do you want to do? You want to? Say anything more specifically about the consultation room requirement, then.

[76:01] other than the process that you described it. I'm excuse me, I'm so sorry. I'm okay. It doesn't look like fun. So from a staff. Oh, go ahead, Robin. Thank you, Tom. I just have a question, Andy. So you just talked through the history of where that you know where the current rule is, and why you. I think I heard you say operationally, it didn't feel like a big problem to change it. But I'm thinking back to when we looked at social consumption, and we had sort of a written opinion from the city staff. That was, that was actually a recommendation not to opt in for a variety of reasons. And I just wonder if the staff would issue an opinion on these things. if if that's a possibility, because while that, you know, kind of overview of how

[77:03] how the rule came about and what you think this change would or wouldn't do. I just wonder if there's things that we're not able to imagine as an unintended thing, and I'd like to make sure we're covering those bases before we make a recommendation to counsel. Yeah, II can't speak for Staff, but I mean, we're happy to like any sort of recurring form that you would like us to complete or something like that to contain an explanation about sort of either CEO slots or staff slots. That's the whatever works for the board. So Kristen or Kristen Auriwa, do you want to weigh in. or Kate, or or add your hand up there, Kate.

[78:02] Oh, I'll wait for them to respond. I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Okay. no, go ahead get done. I was just gonna say that we in the in the Po policy suggestion forms there is the the staff use only section of the the form, and if we do decide to move forward, then maybe we just adjust. I mean, it says, you know, approved action to be taken. If any right continued information, and then it says, denied, if it conflicts with state, or exceeds funding resources, limits so on and so forth. needs additional clarification or justification. And then a comment section, you know, maybe there's something specifically you know, like recommendation. If that's what you're talking about, Robin. And then it could just say, You know. you know the.

[79:00] And maybe there's some language that that the city could use, that that reflects no concern, or you know, like, yes, like, we don't have an opinion, but you know there's no operational impact, or whatever the language would be. That y'all would would want to do, but I think that we already have at least the form has a pro, you know, has that information there, and it would be a written record of what it is. So I think we could just use that. But I like the idea for the process. And I think that just, you know, defining the components of what part of the process we're in and how we move through it. I think all of that makes a lot of sense. I also think from a operational standpoint. The consultation room, I think, is, you know, II think there is really know current, I mean, I don't know any any place that is using it. I don't know all of the operators in in Boulder, of course. But I know that that when working at the farm we had a space that was there, and we never used it for over 5 years. At route

[80:05] at the medical facility. It was there. It was a room that was open, no storage, not anything. It was just a room that sat there open with a a table and chairs. And I do think that the language in H. 2, 6, 14, 7 h. 2 does kind of lead itself to to giving suggestions or recommendations to patients about how to use the product in ways that that is a little bit too far, I think, in my opinion. and I think that we should, you know, stay away from that as much as possible, and my thought for this process was always has always been kind of the same, which is at some point I think we do need to in terms of. I know that we don't have the ability to talk about title 9 or go into that. But I think that you know at some point I think marijuana dispensaries probably need its own category. to, you know. Figure out where that goes. I know that we've talked about. Is it personal use? Is it a well in the center? Is it a brew pub or liquor store is there like? Where would you put it? And I think that you know at some point I do think that it's gonna be around and the thought should should be to to finding a pro an appropriate place for it. And I don't know that another category fits into ensuring that it's not in certain areas of

[81:20] in the city. Thanks, Kate. We might, one might have to change the order of of the items on that page for or the staff use only page like they could have comments like pre decision comments. and then the proof continue or deny. And then another space for comments. If other comments are needed at that point. what do you think about that. Andy? And our

[82:03] any staff? You hope? II think that could work. I don't know if Roberto has thoughts on that. I You know the the attorneys like to get your perspective, too, before we, we sort of apply on things. So that's always helpful. So but any sort of pre decisional analysis is fine, too. So maybe it's certain questions about conflict and about operational impact and about, you know, like the the maybe the the prior stuff is that right? What are the you know? Potential impacts of making this change. And the history as to why it's there, right? That part of it could be required on the form and then maybe it's not a suggestion, suggestion or recommendation from the city. But it's it's just, hey, we've checked these 3 boxes. And now it's your turn to have the conversation.

[83:02] I think that sounds like a good idea. Is this a form that's used for other boards? No, it's not when the cloud was in its inception. We were tasked to find a way for policy suggestions. And this form, this is actually the third version of that form. Nope. Robin, you had your hand up. Thank you. Yeah, II just feel like, you know, we don't have a robust process to move these things through. And it I don't know. It feels like businesses won't come to us and ask us for and I see Ethan nodding his head. And so we do. I think II love Kate's suggestion that that form that's already in place. Just get amended a little bit, and maybe what I would suggest is that the staff provide context. And maybe that's history or context. And

[84:03] what the staff thinks about the change, positive or negative. And then if they have questions, the clap needs to deliberate. We could do that as well. But then we could actually have something actionable. And I wanna go back really quickly to something that Andy was talking about in terms of a larger process. So we have a couple of conversations going on right now. We have a couple of policy suggestion forms we're talking about hopefully at the next meeting, the possibility of doing and needs and desires hearing for new licenses, those kinds of things. And I think we do need to say, let's look at our calendar and have a set of suggestions to give to counsel. You know, once every 6 months, or once a year, or something like that, so that we can work in a more productive way, because otherwise it just feels sort of not productive.

[85:00] We're just floating. Yeah. here here. Well. our planning meeting, I I mean an analogy to we don't want to be considered like the when somebody applies for a. A, a. a permit to do some alterations on their house. You know how people in Boulder like to complain about how long that process or the their business. To how long that process takes we should try to make it crystal clear how the process is gonna play out. It's okay. What were the 3 elements that consequences historic history of how? No. The situation ended up the way it did. What was the third component?

[86:02] Just thoughts from staff? Or I think you covered it? I mean, context and history is kind of one component conflict question mark, is the second one. And then potential impact was positive or negative if there are any. Those are the 3 that I identified, not to say that they're the only ones, but just the ones that I thought of just now. Yeah, anybody else have any other ideas on what to add, for because we make a version, 4 of them policy request folder. Can I jump in. I? The only thing, I think would be some clarification around this idea that we will brought up. Is this an administrative change, or is it a an ordinance change, I think, just to be clear on. That would give people some sense of timing and then also, if the staff really just there is a denied thing on here. And so if it didn't work to be clear on that, too, just more clarity, more transparency.

[87:20] Well. can we go ahead and discuss as a board? This policy suggestion form the first one, I mean one that's been on our that was presented back in April of I mean 23. Tom. III think you obviously can. I? Just I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to at least open it up for public comment at some point like have it as a separate agenda item for public comment, with some sort of notion that you're gonna be adding it, or consideration for adding to, for recommending change to city council, or something to that effect. Just so. The the public has a chance to come in and speak before

[88:12] before the Board deliberates and sort of makes a decision whether it's going to move forward or not. Well, I assume that we were going to be doing that. maybe next meeting. Oh, okay, if it goes forward. I mean was, if if if public was paying attention. it was in the packet, you know, and even someone from native roots could have made a public comment. But if they didn't even feel motivated to make a public comment. I wonder how many other I mean, I'm not, gonna you know, assume nobody's gonna do public comment. But but we can make it more obvious next meeting

[89:01] anyone's thoughts on just the policy suggestion form as written. go ahead, Ethan. Can you hear me? All right? Yup. Great I support it, and I'm I think you know we we discuss this when it was originally introduced. native roots representation, I think, said their bit. They they probably are just hoping that you know the policy, suggestion, form, and the process surrounding that is going to proceed as it should. But anything that can bring the the Brc. Closer to alignment with the Me. D's role set. That's that's a win in my book. It helps to alleviate any sources of confusion. so fully support it. I'd I'd like to see this move forward. And if we need to outline a a streamlined process for

[90:10] policy suggestion forms to get pushed all the way through to city council. You know. Let's let's make sure that's a priority. Can you forgot who asked. Maybe, Kate. you talked about or you asked. Title 9, is land use code in boulder revised codes. Is that correct? Yes, yeah. So you can answer that, too. But yes, title. Mine is land use code and or sub chapter that is applicable. So I was trying to find it. I guess. cause they enlisted in their

[91:04] in their policy review form. So it's it's the the in the State. The city can answer. That's better than I can. But there's a table under Chapter 6 use standards that has personal service, notated and delineated that shows which zoning districts allow for that type of facility to be in which district and and so personal services. What has you know? It also has some is a separate section, something about the the square footage limitations as well. Which is like 1,500 square feet. In a, in a different chapter, or actually in a different section of the chapter, and basically in 6, 16 7 B, the location. It says that personal sur personal service use is for a retail marijuana or recreational marijuana center and so, because it's defined as such. It's it's pinged around. But that's gonna be. I'll I'll leave that for the for the city. But that's the

[92:10] the non-legalized way that I've I've been learned to or been taught to understand it. Go ahead, Andy. Yeah, no, I was just gonna add the the planning board. and ria correct me if this is wrong, but I'm I'm pretty sure the Planning board has oversight over all Title 6 issues. I'm I am. I am. I'm speculating there, but I suffice it to say that if it's zoning, there's another board that a recommendation we need to go through. If we were gonna make suggested changes to this. 9, 6 one. So that's why I think we're gonna the thought is, we could just restrict the changes that are needed to chapter 6, or I'm sorry. Not. Chapter 6,

[93:02] the marijuana code. 6, 14. Dash 7, 7. Yeah. There were any changes that were suggested for title 9, because, you know, the cloud doesn't have any any review over over Title 9, you know, planning would be involved. We would, of course, get our planning attorneys involved as well. If there were suggested changes to Title 9. Go ahead, Kate. I just have a question for for city staff. Then, if the recommendation would be to go through with this, then what would be the recommendation to untangle this strictly within 6, 14, and 6, 16 to make it so it was just something that we could recommend from a cloud perspective without

[94:02] having to work through the title. 9 portion of that. Would that just be an exception. Yeah. So what I was thinking is. there's, I think there's like 2 sections we'd have to draft the the ordinance language. I mean, we'd have to get into it and see what needs to change. But as a general rule of thumb legislation that's modified after other like legislation. If there's a conflict. then the the most recent modification prevails. So we would just explicitly stay. You know this does not require a consultation room or something to that effect. if we needed to remedy that so that could be one approach. But another approach could be just to get it in from the planning board. Which we very well just might do. That would take a little bit more time, but that would probably be prudent in case we needed to make any additional changes, or they wanted to weigh in.

[95:03] Yeah, Andy, just I mean, there, there's a lot of history here. This is back to marijuana advisory panel days. This conversation has been had for years about the consultation room, and there has been a kind of a Ping Pong battle of where where this conversation belongs, and planning board says it's with us and and we've been told that it's with them. And so how do we? If we wanna III struggle with this particular form because I feel like it's just been something that we've added back and forth, and there's been no way to have a real conversation about what or where it could go, and who should be the one to address it? So I apologize. If there's frustration on my end of kind of like trying to understand what what we could do but just trying to. We're going to. If we keep getting it, we need to have a process to filter certain things like this because we we do come across other things in Title 9, 2. And if there's just like an avenue, we could say, Okay, well, we have a recommendation, or we have a suggestion, and then we pass it along to the the planning board. Great. But right now it's just been.

[96:10] It's just been. We've got walls on both sides. Yeah. And III hear that. You know the you can always just make whatever recommendation you want to make to council, and they they have the authority to approve it outright. But it could get to council, and they could decide. Well, they wanna send it back down to planning board or planning board might get wind of it and think, well, why didn't this come to us. So there's kind of a I mean, I don't see what would stop you all from if you wanted to send this to planning board first and say, this is a referral that we've decided this would be prudent, and we're asking for your blessing and just have that added as an item. so I think that's something that Kristen Chengiris and our office can accomplish if that's the route that you wanted to go.

[97:07] Yeah, I appreciate that I also would also say that I don't know. III haven't. I don't have these pulled up right now. But the marijuana advisory panel had recommendations that came to this board at the very beginning, some of which were the title 9 recommended changes that were supposed to get on planning boards. Calendar at some point. And I know that it was. It keeps getting put further and down the list because it's less of a priority, which fine we've already. I just worry that this this might already be on there. And so we're talking about a topic that we have already addressed, and we've already put recommendations for, at least from some panel or board in the past. And so if we're talking around something that's already on the plan that just hasn't been addressed. Then we may be wasting our time. Rua. Did you want to say something since you came back on

[98:00] well, and and to add, I mean the Brc. Does state that the Advisory Board shall not involve itself any re any review into the land use regulations, which is that title 9. So obviously that came up at 1 point earlier. But you know that doesn't mean you all can't make a recommendation to planning board or make a recommendation for a change to 614. So was there. Just we haven't heard from a few people, Brian. You I know you have reason to be quite, but any thoughts, and Stacy and Michael any no, I would just add that, like I understand the kind of administrative ambiguity around this. But then I think that. We do have a responsibility. Just kind of echoing what? Kate said.

[99:01] The folks who are submitting these public comment forms that we that we should be responsive to them in some kind of way. That's like actionable rather than getting ping pong. So I would be able. I would like to sort of either. Bring a close, draw this to a close in some kind of way, where we sort of make a recommendation to planning board to sort of consider this, and like it's the balls in your court where statutory statutorially prevent it from like considering this looks you really need to sort of lead on this. Now be kind of the recommendation I'm like leaning towards, but I'm like open to other suggestions. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you in general support of the change. II support the the general policy suggestion that I think that as Kate and others kind of alluded to. I don't think that mer, like cannabis businesses, should even maintain the appearance of trying to provide medical advice, so the more that we can do to sort of strip that out

[100:01] or the appearance that you can receive medical advice at a dispensary would. I'm completely in support of Stacy. Your thoughts. I agree. It seems like this person or constituents should be able to have an actionable way of having their concerns noted and dealt with. that sounds pretty reasonable. II just don't really have the answer for that, you know. I'm not really sure the best way of dealing with it. Michael. Any. Sit down. Yep, I'm here. No, I don't have any comment. I'm still like sort of processing this in my mind as to what's the best way to address it in general, you're not opposed to the concept as suggested by the

[101:05] policy suggestion, for I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to it. No. okay. I'm just not sure, what's the best way to go about doing this or handling this? Yeah. Tom, yeah, thank you. I mean, I'd like to just make a suggestion that we ask the staff to go back to the policy suggestion form and provide us with the information and writing that we just talked about, which would be context for the decision, and their recommendation, or positives or negatives. And then and this again is just all in relationship to Title 6 the suggestions that they're making there, I mean for me. I need to, you know. I want to look at this a little more carefully. I think

[102:08] there is confusion for consumers sometimes around this idea of medicine and the the land use code. I understand it's at play here. But if we're taking out these different sections. I wanna understand what continues to make this a medical facility? Because if you take out again section 2, 6, 14, 7 h. 2, basically what the Code says now is that the business provides caregiver services, including knowledgeable concent consultation on the effects of a mountain forms of ingestion of different types of marijuana for medical use. So if we take that out and take these other things out, what continues to make a medical marijuana center, a medical marijuana center. And is that potentially positive or negative? And if that's the case, maybe the it's a bigger land use question, which is just, we're gonna have dispensaries that can do this and be more clear to the consuming public.

[103:22] because, you know, part of what's written here seems to create an expectation that you could get that advice at a medical center. So if we're taking those things away, what's the consumer? Expectation and understanding? Because people are uninitiated sometimes, and we don't want to create that confusion. So again, my suggestion would be that we ask the staff to go back to the policy suggestion forms provide us the information on the rewritten form that we're asking for, and then we could take action at the next meeting.

[104:16] Who would, Andy? Who is it you, or who who would have to did. Do you have enough clarification from Robin as to just describe? I think so. What I'm hearing is we should go back, maybe. Revise. and CEO should work with staff to revise the policy, suggestion, form. and then come back with a written set of recommendations or a written set of. I guess analysis that you all could then apply and make a decision on. Is that correct? Yeah. And I mean, I'm not asking for an encyclopedia. I don't think anybody here, you know, needs a massive amount of work. But what is? Where does the city stand? Where does the city staff stand on this particular question.

[105:09] And yeah. okay, that would be helpful. That's that's fine in in our view. I don't know, Kristen, if you have thoughts on it for Kristin Tig. I think that's fine, too. I just wanna clarify. Are you asking for us to do that for this particular policy suggestion, form, or all policy suggestion forms that we've received. What's the scope of the request? Guess, speaking as the chair, II think it's 2 parts. One is redoing the policy suggestion forms about it as a comment period that leads into our decision, making with the 3 elements that Kate proposed. And then, I think, just with respect to moving forward on the 2 items in front of us today.

[106:06] the same kind of information that would be on future policy suggestion forms for each of those 2 items. Does that sound right, Robin? Yeah. And I think I hope I'm not wrong on this. But I believe these are the 2 policy suggestion forms where we have people waiting for a response. Yeah. Ones from April thirteenth, 2,023. And once November twentieth. 2023. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. The second one, just in my humble opinion, should be easy, because it's just really to make it in line with the Revised Med rules that we just heard about.

[107:04] It may be easy, but that's where having that sort of written part of the process. Okay, how's that sound to you like all of it. Sure? Why not? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm a non voting member. You all can. You know you all can make decisions. No, I mean, I think that it makes sense. II guess I'm I'm always just curious. Yeah, I mean, II think that what I'm hearing is that people don't have enough information to vote on or to make recommendations on either of these. So I think that if we need more information, then we should get it so that people feel ready to vote and make change or not. Okay.

[108:00] And then can I ask one more quick question. Sorry, but with respect to a public hearing. So we have our meeting. Say, let's we get these back next week with a little more context from the staff. We wouldn't be able to make a recommendation at that point or or take a vote because we hadn't noticed a public hearing specific to this issue, or is noticing the public comment period in our regular meeting enough, Andy, can you clarify that? Yeah. So so there's a distinction between public hearings and quasi judicial hearings. I think for this it would just be like a public comment period. with notice of the topic and the decision to be rendered. So it's not the full admission of parties or anything like that. There are no parties. There are. No. you know, there's no individual that's had a license that's at issue. So I just wanna clarify that. So the idea would be.

[109:00] you know, a month in advance, or or for the agenda. It'd be part of the agenda which gets published in the newspaper as well as online, and then you would offer it up as an opportunity before you deliberate it, to hear any other thoughts about it, and I to to the chair's point. The you may not get any public comments. But you might get people, especially if it's material to industry or material to public interest, or you know who whomever is interested, you might get people who want to come in and opine on it and so that that would be the the idea is to just give some advance notice. You're gonna you're gonna issue a formal decision on this at some point or during that meeting following public hearing. I guess to take Robin's question. 1 point further is. could we. if we ask for

[110:03] yours and city staffs comments on each of these issues for the next meeting. Can we also have public comment at the next meeting? Yeah. okay? Because I'm I'm I am all for what Ethan said. you know. Try to make this as user friendly as possible. but yet, you know. in the interests of everybody else that presented, you know, making sure we daughter eyes and cross. Rt's right. Do we have to have a motion to do what we just said? II don't think so. You can. We can just work with staff to get it set up. So okay. does anyone want to make any specific comments

[111:03] about either of the 2 suggestion forms. III would like to make comment about the video surveillance just quickly, just about the 40 to 30 days. I think, from a an operator. Perspective. It. It's really about when when the the State was talking about, you know, like making efficiencies or helping because of the financial climate of of things and inflation, and and what some of the businesses are dealing with, I think. from somebody who's worked in in a business before between the difference between 30 and 40 days is is substantial. To be able to hold that you need a certain number of of they're called upcs and different. You know things to be able to hold for backups in order so to to make sure that you have enough storage capacity within your facility. And otherwise, you know, without the

[112:02] I mean again, like, what's the difference between 30 and 40? Is it really one big piece of unit, you know equipment, or is it? You know II can't. I can't speak to that portion of it. But what I can say is that it is a financial you know burden the longer that you have to keep recordings and the likelihood that we had people coming in looking for something that happened, you know, past that 30 day, Mark was typically just an inspector who was asking to see you know whether or not. You had 40 days. It wasn't that there was something they were looking into, or that they needed to find that information. But there are typical things, too, where they can require you to. It's a whole different information. If there's an investigation looming like, Hey, you know, can you record or get a copy of this recording from this day we are looking into it, and so that you can hold it. For, you know, months after that date. So whether it's 30 or 40, II mean, I think that's where it's just like, is it? Does it matter to boulder those 10 days? Is there value in keeping those 10 days. Additional recording of all of your cameras across the facility. And is the the potential financial burden on the operator worth.

[113:15] You know the the the benefit of having it. Right? So that's all i'll see thank you, any other comments about either one of the 2. Policy suggestion forms. Go ahead, Robin. I guess I would just add, I appreciate that background, Kate. I'd love to hear from Ethan as well. If you have any more perspective to offer Ethan on that particular question, and then I don't know if Pam or some other person who might wanna access. you know, a 30 fifth day of of tape or not tape, but recording if that actually, if there's any data that shows us that's ever been useful and

[114:06] worth worthwhile of a change. I I don't wanna be onerous, but I do. I do wonder about why was it 40 in the first place, and has it ever been useful? Yeah, I don't have too much else to add on to Kate's statements. that's that's pretty much it cut and dry like it's it's memory. That requires energy and that costs money to keep it around and additional equipment to keep on site. there's there's absolutely a cost associated with it. From an operator's perspective anytime that we've ever had to access our cameras. it's always been, you know. within a matter of hours, you know, 12 to 24 h at most, where we needed to review something that happened. I and my time in the industry. I've never had to go back 40 days.

[115:12] I don't haven't even had an inspector. Ask me to go back that far. and you have a number of cameras, that green dot. Oh, yeah, yeah. And Pam, I don't think Pam was with us anymore. No, I don't think she is. But I wonder if licensing do you guys have to access these recordings for any thing I'd licensing? Related. we have access video surveillance footage for enforcement matters. And we did check in with Officer Geniac on this proposal when it first came through, and she was supportive of

[116:01] making the change to live the State scheduled. if you'd like more detail on that. I'm sure she'd happy to be to elaborate on that at the next meeting. Okay. so staff and our attorneys give any more clarification, or we move on and maybe take a very short break. I got to get the agenda back up here again. But There's not gonna be much long, much more in the meeting. We could also just forge on finish early. I'm gonna take a flavor of the room for John or John, Michael says, or John. okay, that's for John.

[117:04] and that would be matters from the city attorney. Agenda. 807. Yeah, thanks. I've done plenty of talking this meeting. So but you know, Roberto, in in our meeting planning meeting, Roberto gave a little yeah, or a paragraph of his trajectory, which Some of you might like to hear what I got to hear in our planning meeting. Do you want? Are you up for that, Roberto. Certainly. So Hi, everybody again. Roberto Ramirez. I am not from Colorado, but I got stationed here when I was on active duty in the Air Force back in 2,001 so I have. I just started my 20 fourth year in the Air Force between active duty and the reserves and I've served in all sorts of capacities here in the Us. All over Asia, all over Europe and South America.

[118:12] I spent 10 years with the city attorney's office in Nevada. and the last 7 years I was a district court judge in the Seventeenth Judicial district. so Adams County and Broomfield County, I left the bench to join the city attorney's office, but I am still a judge. In the United States Air Force. I'm a Federal Court of Appeals, Judge. So in Washington, DC. And I kind of split my time between the 2 jobs super excited to be here with you guys? Great. Thank you. Anyone with questions. Hmm! Sure, if I could just note that Roberto will be taking over legal advisory

[119:01] duties for the board. So we our office has had some reshuffling, and there's sort of an examination of alignment of skill sets, and Roberto is a former judge, which is incredible. I he! You know that's he's a district court judge. which is not an easy accolade to obtain. And so he brings a lot of skills and experience with that perspective as well. And so the plan is for me to at some point here, roll off of this board, though I think there's probably some help I can provide moving forward. But I think, for meetings moving forward. I'll be probably in attendance at the next one and supporting the next one. But Roberto is going to be the primary general counsel for this board. Moving forward, which I really appreciate it. I think it's a really good. is going to be a really good asset for the hearings. So yeah, I appreciate it. So

[120:06] okay. anything else, for I will. I will stay on and support Roberto. Just Fyi. Okay, that's good. Was there? Was that in question? No, I just wanted to let everybody know that I I'm going to tag along with Roberto and stay with y'all so alright cool then, if with nothing else than matters from the regulatory licensing top licensing office. Sorry I can't say that. Yeah, I'm happy to take this one. So couple of things on our agenda for today. Just a reminder about board recruitment. So the application window for board recruitment did close on the twenty-ninth

[121:00] we received 4 applications for cloud, which is a really great turnout. The next step is for Council interviews, which will take place in mid-february, and then Council will appoint the new members at their council meeting on March seventh. and then the effective date for the terms for the new members will be on April first. Any questions about that yeah point of clarification. So with Alison vacating will either. Well, any of these. If someone takes Evans seat or it's chosen for admin seat. will some of the other applicants be considered for the ex officio. Yes. good. and I'll just chime in. II looked at the applications. I'm not sort of reviewing these in any official capacity. This is but that 3 of them are from industry, 3 of the 4 so

[122:08] for whatever concerns that we might have had in the past about the difficulties from recruiting, from industry to fill that seat. I'm grateful for Staff, and whoever else was able to sort of ensure that we had got 3 competitive looking candidates for that seat. Does that mean? It's Ethan, too. Is that open to all of us, Brian? I didn't. I wasn't aware that we could see the applicant. I will text you a link. Okay, thank you. I did try. Thank you for the recognition. Well, I was. I was approached a few times, and I think I don't know. I don't know who the applicants are, but I'm guessing that 2 of them might. 2 of the 4 might have least checked in with me.

[123:03] But I don't know that cause. I don't know who ended up applying. So I'm not taking credit away from you, Ethan. you get all the credit and the staff alright. So anything else. Kristen. See? Christine? T. Yeah. The other thing I was gonna mention Kristin T. Shared an exhibit with everyone this morning. City Council is requesting feedback from all of our city boards and commissions. They've asked for the top 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on clouds, mind and the top 2 or 3 items con class work plan for the upcoming year. So the feedback to counsel can take any written format. It can be a letter letter or a memo there's no specific format that's required as long as it's written. And councils most interested in hearing from the Board as a whole. But you can acknowledge any dissenting or minority opinions and the written feedback. So the deadline for this request is March 22. We don't have a lot of time to pull something together.

[124:13] but we have this meeting and next meeting to have that discussion. If the Board does want to provide feedback, to counsel any questions or comments on that. Thank you. Is the board interested in providing feedback? Is that something that we should have on the agenda for March mean other than the process provided are in addition to the process provided. Yeah. So so if the board does want to provide feedback, it's going to need to be like a unified letter or memo that represents

[125:02] a consensus from the board. So if that's something that you'd like to put on the next agenda for March to carve out some time to to have that discussion. Pull something together. We can add that to the agenda. It's optional you're not required to, but it is like a really good opportunity to provide feedback to counsel. If the Board's interested sort of stap, just looking for direction as to whether that's something you want to pursue. And if that's something that we should put on the agenda for the March meeting. I've not looked at that site yet. Does it ask you to identify which board you're on? So it's yes, it will ask for cloud as a whole. to to come together as a group and provide this feedback as a group. It's not individual feedback. Okay? And but so it also will be able to parse out which

[126:00] recommendation, or which suggestions, or which concerns, came from which order commission? Yes, it will be very clear. What cloud top priorities are. and there will be some general document that that we can access that cause. Maybe we didn't think of something that came up from somebody on the alcohol board, or somebody on the planning board, or whatever. So there's no template that's been provided. It's it's pretty open ended. However, Cloud wants to provide that feedback. If you want to put together a letter or a memo it's not like a form that you fill out and submit to council. I'll take a look at it. Oh, Robert Oops! Sorry about that. So something along the lines of giving the Council an overview of what we've been working on like is the Council aware that we're about to take on more responsibility in terms of hearings? I would think that giving them an update on that work would be important, and then

[127:17] in terms of next week. If we carve out some time to talk about this. I mean, I have some suggestions for what I think we might be wanting to work on over the next 6 months or so. Should we each bring a couple of ideas to discuss during that because we are a little bit. We don't. We don't have that knowledge right now. I mean, II do think we. We each need to come with some specific ideas, maybe for discussion next week. And this could actually be very valuable to us going forward this exercise. And so I'd I'd love to do it. I'd love to have a little more direction for us. I think.

[128:00] You know, we've been so busy learning about the hearing process that we haven't necessarily set our own work plan or goals. And so if we could use this as an opportunity to do that, I think that could be really helpful. so yeah, I'd love to come with a short list of things that are on my mind, and maybe just have that conversation. Would you like that ahead of time. Kristen C. Or Kristen? T, or. yeah, there's a couple of ways we can do this. If if board members want to email us individually with your top 2 or 3 items. we can try to put something together like draft something before the next meeting and present it to the board, and that way you have like a document to start from or if you'd rather be a conversation amongst the board. You can have that conversation in March. We just don't. We won't really have a lot of time after the March meeting to put together a document for the Board to review. So if you want it to be

[129:02] drafted before the next meeting to review as a group, then it would be better for you all to send those suggestions to us ahead of time. I guess it depends how, if the Board wants to review a draft document at the next meeting or not. hey? II was just gonna suggest, is there a way that the staff could oop? Did I go out? Okay? Sorry did. Could the staff like put together like a draft memo? Right? That kind of had just had openings for the couple of topics for the community issues and a couple of topics for the you know, the 2 topics that we're working on. And so there was a draft memo kind of. you know. Discussing, maybe where we're at or I again, I don't really know. But typically there's like a memo like to Tom's point about like a form right? There's no form, but like, typically, there's like a structure to that memo. So we could just see, you know visually what it would look like. And then we could just

[130:03] all come to the meeting with some ideas. To have the conversation, and then we'd know kind of how we were plugging it in and we could just type it in, or who, you know, one of the city staff could type it in as we agree to it, and we could see it live. Shared on screen and just show this is what's gonna be, you know, as part of it. So then there'd be this framework. We would all come with our ideas, and then, by the end of the meeting it could be like a working session. By the end of the meeting we have something that we can. Sure. Yeah, we could absolutely put together a template and include that in the next packet. Christine, Dick. that's all. Go ahead, Kristin. Oh, you're muted sorry there's some big background going on behind me. so yeah, as Kristen said, we can definitely put together a template of some sort. But if you're going to email potential suggestions, I would like to remind that the

[131:03] deadline for packet materials is technically Monday, February nineteenth, which is a city holiday. So we would be needing to have that memo final drafted for inclusion in the packet to review and work on at the March meeting. you know, we'd have to finalize that document on or before the twentieth of February. just to keep that in mind, you don't have any key items that they and thinking about because I have 2, that one that's already been mentioned today. I can't remember who mentioned it. Maybe Rewa, but maybe. for recommendations went in front of city council, maybe twice a year rather than once a year.

[132:02] At least think that through. And then. second thing. So I don't forget I'm thinking that anybody who leaves the board either early or decides not to reapply, decide, or or just times out, that they, you know. be given the opportunity to do like an accident interview or the exit set of comments, you know, with their suggestions or their insight. I think that could be helpful. Ethan. first thing that came to my mind was, is this a good opportunity for us to get the hospitality recommendations back in front of council, or and would that be outside of the scope of this request? Put it on the list?

[133:08] Any other thoughts anybody wants to share now, before I mean they can. You can write them down and send an email to the staff to Robin. The things that are on my mind are the I've been thinking more and more about the needs and desires survey that the bla does as something that would be really add a lot of validity to the licensing process in boulder for any kind of marijuana business. And I think that's really something that the Board should look at. I know we didn't have a chance to get the get our questions answered today, but that's something I'm really interested in for lots of reasons. I am hoping that we don't go back to council with social around social consumption, but I certainly understand other board members desire to do that, and I think it's worth a conversation. And I think back to what you started with Tom about a little more of a clear process for our board, so that we are actually doing something and are responsive to

[134:23] the people who are asking us for help. So yeah. those would kind of be my top. 3 things anyone else. You're keeping note of all these. either. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Not go ahead, Kate. I'll just echo echo with what Robin said. I think some kind of like annual work plan for us would be could be something that we talk about, things that we're we want to work on, whether it's process for handling such suggestion forms or process. For how do we determine? You know what our policy, you know, work is going to be like year to year, but creating some kind of more structure. To kind of our, I mean, we took, you know originally these 2 big ideas of or 2 big changes with delivery and hospitality. And now we're kind of just.

[135:27] you know, getting information and moving into the closet judicial. And so it's, I think, to Robin's Point. I think it's it's it would be a great time to, you know, in the next few meetings, or whatever to have discussions about how to formalize a process for this. so I can echo that I don't have my annotated agenda. What's buried underneath things. I'm assuming it has something about. What are we gonna talk about next time.

[136:04] or what are we? What's on the on the list that we need to do next time. And then we're I have a mental list of what can you go over? What right now, what we've been talking about so that we don't hold ourselves on the annotated agenda. Chair councilman. All we have is a placeholder for agenda topics for future cloud meetings. And then, when you provide those to us, I do make note of that. In the packet. We do have our list of items. suggestions for future cloud meetings. The current topics on that list are social equity connected businesses currently participating in social equity transition to a quasi judicial role which is noted as ongoing discussion topics on education programs as to youth prevention and public health education

[137:06] updates on latest research and how it may impact policy specifically directed at edibles. We did have a partial present. Coverage of this with the presentation from Ms. Malone from green dot labs. Previously we have a notation for discussion topics for legislative and rule making updates from the State with a notation that that is ongoing as well as ongoing feedback from industry for suggested policy changes. Thanks. Just in case anybody needs to know that's on. Page 10 has a list of potential speakers, too. Rather short list. But alright. So just for next meeting. We're moving.

[138:00] no, I just buried Christian's just buried this agenda. Christiana's presentation. We're gonna do that next time. Okay. we're going to have feedback from staff on the 2 all suggest suggestion forms. and then have. do we have to have 2? I assume we have to have 2 specific public comment periods for one for each of them as as well as general public comment. Andy, you're mute, maybe. Yeah. yeah, you can just run them back to back with each decision. So open up for public comment. Take the public comment, and then go into your deliberation for the topic, and then for the next agenda item, open it up for public comment. take it, and then move into deliberations. So

[139:02] okay? And then there's recommendation recommendations from the staff or just thoughts from the staff, or excuse me, thoughts from the members and our staff on future direction. Future plans. What else is Goodsman Map ask you to restate that I didn't quite. Robin's probably better than I am. We were just gonna have time to discuss the submission of a memo to city Council for their retreat. Oh, so it's the Council Directive. Thank you. With input from them. You know all, all that want to have input. Okay? Am I forgetting something

[140:02] that we also plan for next month. That is all I have captured. Okay. alright. Were there any other comments from members. excellent issue or otherwise? future direction of clap even earlier in the meeting, Andy, you had kind of verbally giving us an outline of how you would envision the streamlining process of of making recommendations to City Council. Is that something that we could get ironed out or in writing for the next meeting to to review and help help start pushing that towards materialization.

[141:03] Yeah, I'm I'm happy to prepare a draft for the board to discuss and maybe implement. And if if there was an approved process in place, then maybe that could help make sure everybody's kind of keeping track on things. And even if an approval happens well before memo generation and submission to council whenever that is like. So be it. But everybody will kind of know what that process is. So yeah, absolutely. I just want to make sure everybody else is in agreement on that, too. I didn't hear any comments to the comments to the opposition of that. Okay. no, I'm ready to move on to the next comment I don't want. If anybody had any comments on that. I don't wanna jump in too soon. but I just wanted to ask about, you know, post

[142:06] the Med conversation. I mean, we did, you know, have a QA. With them. But we didn't really have any discussion about anything that may need to be discussed or otherwise. So I just wanted to mention, too. I don't know if anybody had any thoughts on on those kinds of things. but I just realized that we had this big presentation, talked about all these things and didn't have a conversation about maybe what things we could discuss further. So I don't know if people want to do that but I just wanted to to draw attention to it cause, I think, in the past we had talked about a presentation and QA. And then a discussion. And I think we just jump past that discussion portion of that. So just yeah, that's good point prominent. I'm glad you brought that up, Kate. I mean the one thing that came to mind for me as we were going through these detailed changes from Med is that

[143:07] my understanding is that Boulder has to adhere to what med Med rules are, and then we can go a bit further. So the alignment. if something is misaligned, it would be bolder. Needing to pull something back is my understanding. But again, we'd wanna look at the specific thing. But I did appreciate the presentation. I don't feel a sense of insecurity that we're out of whack, because again, anything that they say is something that we're beholden to, we can just go a bit further. So I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Well, they did. I forgot how they said it. But there's there's gonna be some forums that business owners may attend.

[144:01] It sounds like I don't know if those Ethan or maybe Kate, would those be announced? How would how would business owners know about that forms? But they talked about? I think they were forums about future changes. So you know, they have work groups throughout the year, and they have, you know, sessions for the next like the annual legislation changes. I don't know if they plan to do that anymore regularly. I know in the past you could just find it on the website, and then you can sign up for their email updates. Anybody on the board could also sign up for that. It's not license specific. So that's typically how people are and informed. okay, Ethan Dejonah. Oh, hey? Nailed it. Okay? Kristen. T. Yes. The Mr. Poir with did send us over an email with some information and some links to items that he referenced in their presentation today. That will be included in the next packet.

[145:13] Okay? Okay, your questions salient in that. I mean. you know, as we talked about in the last, or maybe the last 2 meetings that we're wondering if there's gonna be more policy. Suggestion forms at one fall in, or, you know. being made to have something fall in line with new recommendations. Right? That's what we were concerned about, or I think that you know the the the hope was is that we'd be able to identify if there were any conflicts or things that we wanted to discuss. Obviously, we've been, you know, notified of the recordings, which is a big one. So that's obviously had a suggestion form. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody submitted one for a spa and and thought of it differently than hospitality. But maybe they would think of it as the same. But I you know that's something that that they talked about.

[146:16] We've talked previously about hemp and kind of how to to handle that in boulder so they have different definitions for safe harbor hemp products and semi synthetic which I think would be could be something that we wanted to look into. I know that in the past we talked about hemp and how to how to handle some of the other you know, psychoactive components that are that are in the market, that are are not as regulated as as phc, so just wanted to draw attention to. There were things in the presentation today that that could have an impact that boulder might wanna take in a a, a perspective on. But nothing. You know nothing that I heard or saw that would be conflicting, you know of of. You know, even the 40 30 days is not really a conflicting thing. Right boulders allowed to be more restrictive. So there's no

[147:04] true conflict, in my opinion. There. I do wanna say that with hospitality like their changes to consumption and hospitality. Things may change the way that we had presented a recommendation about hospitality. They talked about safe transportation requirements. They talked about a portion of the area, for, you know, like for you know, like it has to be con. Some of it has to be consumed on site. They change the limits to what people can purchase. So I think that there are things that that are changing that could impact those things. But again, that's just I was really happy with the presentation, because, you know. all in all, I think there's no conflict. But there, there are things that we could potentially bring up as discussion points, but just wanted to see if anybody else did. Hmm.

[148:16] hey, Tom, I think you're muted move too soon. I was. I was thinking there might be some more questions the end. And so I tried to ask questions during. And and, Tom, I'm not suggesting that we reopen the conversation. II merely was just saying, if we're talking about, if you wanna bring up a topic for next time, it could be a reflection of what we heard or we could just, you know, people could continue to think about what they heard. And if anybody has a topic next time that we could bring it up at that point. I just wanted to make a matters from the the board. Right? Let's just this section. So I just wanted to bring it up.

[149:01] Okay. maybe I'll use that as a segue to officially transition to the agenda. Item 9. Any other matters from Brian Vice chair, or like members of the board. No articles were submitted. Sorry. I'll know homework this month. Okay? Well, then, we might have an early meeting then early ending to the media, I should say. Okay, any motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn Robin. Second on that Brian seconds Robin's motion. any opposition. and thank you to all our committee.

[150:01] new and existing staff and attorneys. Thanks for all that you do, thanks to all the Board members. Thanks, staff, thank you, Borden. Thank you. Bye, bye.