April 1, 2024 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Alright ready when you are chair consmen. and being careful not to make it sound like any kind of April fools. Joke! Welcome to the city of Boulder cannabis, Licensing Advisory Board. I saw some really good April fools jokes today, but this is not one. And appreciate you all being here and let's go ahead and start with the rules of decorum and. Certainly. Instructions for Virtual Meeting. Good afternoon. 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

[1:00] and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found at the link 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 this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this 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.

[2:03] Okay, so we have 2 new members. Welcome to both Adam and Jacques and Kristen. T. Are you doing the honors? I assume. Yes, yes, we will. So we are going to have the welcome and swearing in of new board members Adam Foster as marijuana industry member. and please, if I butcher your name, let me know. Jacques de Colo. That's great. Thank you. Welcome. So let's start with Mr. Foster. Mr. Foster, can you raise your right hand and repeat after me? I state your name. Hi Adam, Foster. Do solemnly swear or affirm. Do you sell them, licare, or affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America.

[3:02] And of the State of Colorado. And of the State of Colorado. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. Of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board. which I am about to enter. Of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board, which I am about to enter. Thank you very much. Would you like to give a brief introduction? Member Foster. Thank you. Yeah, I'll I'll keep it. Brief, I appreciate it. I'm I'm very happy to be joining the group and and feel enthusiastic about serving on the board. Briefly, I'm a 2 time cu graduate. I went here as an undergrad in the nineties. Got an anthropology degree came back for a law degree in the early 2 thousands and then I moved back to Denver and was down in Denver for quite a while

[4:08] and then my wife actually grew up in Boulder, went to Boulder high, really wanted to move back. So we did move back in in 2021 and in terms of and and have been very happy to be back. We're we're down in South Boulder kind of like table mesa and Broadway area. I've been a lawyer since 2,004. I've been working on cannabis and cannabis policy since 2,010. So really back when they passed the the first comprehensive State law in Colorado, had my own law firm for a while, worked at a a couple of different firms in different contexts. and went in house with a cannabis company silver stem, fine cannabis back in 2022. My employer is part of a joint venture, and owns half of a processing facility

[5:00] up on 50 Fifth and a Rapa ho! And we're making concentrates and all the kinds of cool products up there. And I've been learning a lot about that part of the industry. But like, I say, you know, it have have quite a bit of cannabis experience and some policy experience, but also very much looking forward to learning from this group and and giving back to the community. And my preferred pronouns are, are he him and his? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. Miss mr. Dekalo, would you please raise your right hand and repeat after me? I state your name. Hi, Jacques Dicaro. Do solemnly swear or affirm. Do solemnly swear, or firm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. And of the State of Colorado.

[6:00] End of the State of Colorado. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. Of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board, which I am about to enter. Of a member of the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board, which I am about to enter. Great. Thank you. Ex officio. Member Dakalo, would you like to give a brief introduction. Yeah, So my name is Dr. Carlo born and raised in boulder. I'm actually really excited about this board, because it ties into what I got my bachelor's degree, and I went to Western Washington University, which was a liberal art school where I gotta do interdisciplinary studies and focus my major on hemp. It was titled hemp policy and sustainability. Understanding the legality of cannabis from when it was made, or when it was first taxed in 1917, up until

[7:11] the farm bill in 2,018, and then also researched wash. I was familiar with Washington's cannabis policies, cause that's where I was going to school and tying it into that. So I'm excited to learn more about Colorado, as I am familiar with it. I've read through the documents that were emailed out last week. So I'm just excited to learn more and give back to boulders. Community. I think cannabis culture is a huge thing in Boulder certainly grew up around it. And I think it's time that we bring the sustainable aspect of hemp more forward in the cannabis community? And so I'm really looking forward to see how we can tie that in. Wonderful. Thank you. Ex officio member decalo chair constrain. When you're ready I can call roll. Sure, and on behalf of all the members of the Board. Welcome to both of you. And we look forward to getting to know you both better. Adam, you go. Oh, hey!

[8:09] It's gotta learn that hand up thing. Alright. So let's do. Let's go ahead and do roll. Call. Certainly member Christy. Present. Thank you. Member Foster. Present. Vice chair, Keegan. Present. Chair kunstman. Present. Member, noble. Present. Ex officio member Thompson. present and ex officio member to Callo. Present. I did receive an email from Member Green regarding her absence today. And she might be popping in and out, or what would. 0. Assessment. Okay, alright. Sounded like she had a part time conflict, but maybe a whole time. Conflict.

[9:02] Yeah, I did not get an indication as such. We have a quorum. Okay, good. Let's go ahead and start with next agenda. Item, general public comments for the Board. Hmm pardon me, share, concern. Am I looking. Naturally approval of the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board. Oh, that was hiding in between the sorry about that. You're right. Does anyone have any comments, corrections. additions, subtractions to the minutes from the March fourth meeting. hearing none can I have a motion to approve. Right motions to prove the march for me. Minutes. And a second on that. I'll second that. Okay? And then Kristen and or Andy, maybe, more importantly, should the new members abstain.

[10:04] I'm assuming. yep, yeah, that's good. Do we still have a quorum. If the 2 new members are the one voting member abstained. Yeah. Okay, cool. Alright. you want a hand vote. Kristen. I would prefer a roll call. Please. Okay. go ahead and. Member Christy. Brute. Member Foster. I'm sorry. Member Keegan. Roofs. Remember kunswan. Fruit! Vernal. Approved. I apologize. Was that member noble that was seconded. That's right. That's correct. And the record will reflect. Member Foster abstained. Okay, thank you. Alright. Now. Sorry. General. Public comments for the board, I

[11:02] jumping the gun. That's all right. One here. Okay. this is the time for general public comments to the board. If you are in the waiting room, and would like to make a general comment. Public comment to the board comments will be limited to 3 min. You can indicate you're in desire to speak by raising your hand by using the raise your hand. Feature. Is there anyone who wishes to make public comments at this time last call for public comment. Sherkinsman, I'm not seeing any. Okay? Well, let's close that agenda. Item, matters from the cannabis Enforcement officer. Good afternoon board. So I've done one more round of compliance checks and all the dispensaries

[12:02] past. And Robin, I believe a couple of meetings in the past you'd asked for DU id marijuana arrests. and I have that information for March. We had 4 3 were just under the influence of marijuana, and the fourth one was under marijuana plus other drugs. So I know you had asked for that information in the past. Thank you for that. Were those were those stings, or were they just routine stocks. Officers watching traffic violations, and then pulling them over and finding out they were driving under the influence. And that was over the last month or so, or what we. Yes, just for March. Is that pretty typical. That's actually hi for the marijuana.

[13:01] Compared to alcohol, there's no comparison, because the alcohol is like 10 to one. So. And is that just an assessment that's done at the roadside, or. It was admission of some of the drivers, and then a result of the the chemical tests results back from the laboratory. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Pam. Those are blood tests the test you're talking about. Yes, sir. So those are people that were brought back to the station, or they tested on roadside. They they do the standard field sobriety tests out in the field, and then based on it the total circumstances. They're brought back here so that trained medical professional can come. Do the blood drawn.

[14:04] It's kind of a leading question. Apologies upfront. But Would it be helpful to Enforcement officers to have field? trying to think of what the right term is. A breathalyzer test for for THC. Those. And works that you're aware of. Well, I'm not aware if they're in the works. And and as even with liquor, we have portable breath tests, but they are not admissible in court. So we we try to train our officers not to get. not to depend on their decision, based on a Ppt. But on what are you seeing. you know, for the entitle. the the entire thing that's going on in front of them. So. Hmm! So do you think a sobriety or roadside sobriety test is, gonna be better?

[15:03] Are are more admissible? And. Well, the the roadside maneuvers are admissible. It's any portable chemical test is not admissible in court. Interesting. Okay. 1 one of our previous presenters. I think she's come twice. Actually. cinnamon Bidwell. it's working on a breathalyzer. Thc test. but I don't know how that's gonna play out. So that. That would be up to our legislators. So it's got a lot more work to do before ready for prime time. So. Yeah. The FYI okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions. officer, can you see, I always butcher your name, and so I I prefer just to call you Pam. That's okay. So. Let me say, exhausted instead of try to. I mean, all is not hard, but you know.

[16:01] good. Anything will work alright. Any other questions for Pam. Okay, thank you. So now we're on to agenda. Item 4. I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kristen. T although I guess you're the only Kristen today. Right? So and so policy suggestions from fresh baked Llc about. Yes. Bruce. This is the public comment for the policy suggestion form received from fresh baked Llc. Regarding cannabis drive throughs. So step 2 in the policy suggestion process. Yes. you wanna see if there's any public commenters. But I'm going to be doing if there is anyone here to make public comment for the policy suggestion, form and agenda. Item number 4 suggestion from fresh baked Llc. To allow cannabis drive through.

[17:02] Please reuse the raise hand feature. Public comments will be limited to 3 min with a Google timer on screen. Do I have any comments? Chair Kunzman. I'm not seeing any comments at this time. Okay? So let's go on to agenda. Item, we'll close that agenda. Item, 5 information. Point of point of clarification with our steps for our process. Yeah, I'll I'll I'll jump in. I chair. Kunstman. This is obviously a a new process for us. But the the second cloud meeting. So what I believe the Board resolved, and I apologize. I was obviously not at the last meeting. But the the Board resolved that you would take public comments, and after public comments you would deliberate and decide whether to

[18:04] a advance the proposed change to your next memorandum to council. or be not at the proposed changes. And so if there's reason to table this or delay this, that's that's fine. But I just wanted to reference that that portion and see if the board is ready to to do something with this. So and if and if I may, chair kinsman, I just wanted to say real quickly to Member Foster and Member Ticolo, I'm Andy Frohar, my colleague, and I reward support this board. I have now moved off of this board. So I'm just pinching for your real council Roberto Ramirez. And remember, Foster, we had a case against each other. I don't know if you remember that that was years ago. But it's a pleasure to see you again. You're one of the few opposing attorneys that I am legitimately happy to see again. No, I just I'm just. It really was a pleasure working with you and

[19:05] so I just wanted to say Hi again. And just yeah, it's good to see you like. Yeah, thanks, thanks so much. No, it's it's very nice to see you. And it's I'll I'll keep it brief. It's it's funny, though, because I I was dealing with years ago, when when Roberto was was with the city of Nevada kind of a land use issue. And and then, when I heard his name, I felt it was the similar thing. I I said, Well, you know. Gosh! I got along very well with him, and and felt like he was, had a good head on his shoulders, and that the board will be well served, and I you know it's great to see. I feel the same way about yourself. Thank you. Yeah. But so yeah, just context, I'm I'm the backup. So, but yeah. So so that is, if if the board's ready to go ahead and. That's delay. Operate on. Make a decision. On the drive throughs.

[20:00] On the drive through policy, suggestion form, and that would be whether to advance it and go ahead and prepare a draft for the next memorandum to council, or to to to not further pursue this. So. Okay. I Brian. Yeah, I just want clarify. There is a on page 22 of the reading packet. There is a again, like under our new process here. There is like a staff memorandum staff analysis here. So I didn't know if when was the right point to broach that staff analysis is be now or later. Yes, now. Yeah, let's do it now. Who wants to do that. or just one of the staff want to summarize. I mean. 22, cause I'm not seeing that on 22. It's actually on 23 chair. Just the subject starts on 22,

[21:03] and I guess I would ask, are you asking for comments on what the city submitted here? Or are you asking for somebody from the staff to reiterate. I think, to start with. Is there anybody from the staff that wants to reiterate highlights, or whatever? Andy, were you involved in the. I I was not. Rea came off mute. But I'm I mean I can recap our analysis unless we would like to to take over. Of. Oh, no, you you can recap, I mean, if I if I have anything to add I I'm not shy. Go right ahead. Yeah, I I think the the essence is you know, there's nothing that would prohibit cloud from making the recommendation to council to implement. A change. I think the crux of it is is drive throughs are already. Oh, I guess there's 2 fold, I mean, obviously there's the implications of

[22:00] getting approved for a drive through which would go through the planning board. And so the I think Rewa said it best when she told me earlier today. You know, there's already so few spaces in which marijuana businesses can be licensed. There's probably even fewer spaces in which drive throughs are authorized. And so I don't know what the impact would be of this approval. But this would definitely have a planning component, because there's exterior distribution of product. And there's an impact on the facilities on the outside. So I I think that's kind of the the nuts and bolts of everybody. Do you have anything to add to that, or. Yeah, a drop there window would be considered. An additional use. therefore, would have to go through youth. Review. It's not that they're prohibited because they're not prohibited. You, you know. Drive throughs are not prohibited, but again.

[23:04] and exist just because you have an existing business doesn't mean you can automatically have a drive through. It's a completely separate use there who has to go through a separate approval process. Is this an issue? Go ahead. I think that just reviewing what the was in the So I've written the name of the policy suggestion form that they did provide fresh baked, did provide some. Some suggested changes to municipal code. Did Staff have any opinions on the merits of their proposed additions to municipal code. No, we we don't have any of those at this time. but. I think. Yeah, Brian, if if we were gonna go pursue this, I think in the informational memorandum, we would need to delve into that a little bit deeper.

[24:06] there's cause there is a pretty big insert that they've suggested with the drive up window. yeah, I I think we would want to write pretty much. Write that from scratch, if it was something that you all wanted to pursue. So I'm glad that they provided their perspective on what would be included. But I think we'd want to suggest alternative language. Sure. And so, like the matters we're considering is like one within our review whether or not we'd wanna sort of pursue adding language to or making a suggestion. The city council that they add language permitting. These kind of drive throughs within the marijuana cannabis code. and then 2 is a separate matters is like a policy matter. Do we wanna recommend moving forward? This is a policy to suggest or invest staff. The council resources that.

[25:03] Right. I see Adam Sandler. Thank you. So I I had a couple of different thoughts about this. I I guess one is that There were interim marijuana Enforcement division rules for kind of during the middle of the the pandemic for a curbside delivery, and and they were talking about some alternative types of delivery during the pandemic. So if this is something that the Board wants to move forward with looking at those interim rules might be useful. I believe. Also the Portland Oregon permits drive throughs, and I think the city of Fort Lupton is actually Gonna permit drive through, so that those may be some other agencies that would have

[26:01] similar rules that might be on point. My recollection with with Portland is that the concern is so you're gonna id the person who's buying the cannabis, obviously, and and make sure that they're you know someone who's permitted to to buy cannabis. But then, if there's a minor in the car. what do you do about that? And I think in in Portland they will actually, per permit that if the minor is the child, or or sort of if the if the adult is the guardian of the child. But it's not supposed to be an unrelated child. But then that can get complicated as far as how you actually determine or or verify that so that might be a complication, you know, with or a concern with, with drive throughs. A potential benefit of drive throughs, I think, would be helping disabled people or or people with accessibility problems. And I did. Wanna ask if there been any testimony or any any you know comments on behalf of anyone who was saying, well, you know, I I have a disability, or I have accessibility issues. And this would help me. Because if if we believe there was a significant number of people, or that it could be a big help

[27:23] to people who fall in that category. That might, you know, in my mind that would go on the pro side if it's not really a need that's been articulated, then then it may not be a a big deal, because I know we do have accessibility requirements for the existing stores. Thank you. Comment red Kate. Yeah, I was just gonna ask you know, what? What were the curbside allowances in Boulder during the pandemic, do we? Does anybody here that knows

[28:03] knows those Kristen? Maybe full smile. I would have to go back and look again. That's been quite a while. And we had in the city of Boulder so many different emergency rules during the pandemic for both liquor and marijuana. I can do some research. Pull those forward and send them to the membership of the Board, if if that would be acceptable. I don't. Yeah, I don't know if if everybody you know, if the Board agrees that that would be helpful. I mean, I don't know that. I mean, if the Board wants to to pursue this further. I think that from, I think previously we had talked about going back to some of these covid allowances at some point, and on the boards like history. Right? We had talked about going back through some of those things and determining whether or not we wanted to allow any of those things, or recommend any of those things to the to city council. I think that we stated that we didn't.

[29:02] You know I I in terms of an opinion on on on drive throughs, I mean, I think you know, based on what the city provided it sounds like. There's only like one zone. That would be that overlaps between cannabis and drive through. Allow like permissibility. Obviously not very much of an option in terms of that. And and you know so I think that for me it doesn't feel like a a lot like well worth the effort. I do think that, you know. I think in the future, if if there is some more conversations about expansion, or about different things. I I I still think I'd be more interested. And I think the board could pursue deliveries once we have more data on how that's doing in other municipalities. But I think deliveries make more sense in boulder than than drive throughs based on my experience with boulder. But that's just my outside perspective. Just a quick background here that this is for Kristen. And obviously.

[30:00] if there's more specific guidance that the city had that we should include that. But that there's a executive order from Jared Polis stated. I think it's March twentyieth, 2020. so executive order d. 2020 1 one ordering the temporary suspension of certain regulatory statues do the presence over 19. So I think that might be the binding. So there was that provision. However, the city of Boulder did promulgate their own emergency rules as to what we would allow in our community because we can be more restrictive. We just can't be less restrictive than the State. Sure. So if directed by the board, I can pull that information and put that in the next month's packet. because there were several iterations of that as the pandemic progressed, it's not just one. And I move to do a knot of 5, or whatever our quorum fraction is to have Kristen do that. Moment.

[31:00] I guess I'd like to feel what the general consensus is amongst the voting members right now. Me, if if it's a if we're not leaning that direction. Then I don't wanna have Kristen. I find it interesting that the nobody from which which one is it? There's no. Native roots. Sorry fresh bakes. So I was gonna say, native roots, too. But it's fresh bake Colorado cause we do have someone from native roots on. But They did public comment last last month. No. I mean so, Tom, to your question, like I have been like persuaded by Rob and another folks that and like, and even like the staff analysis here that the sort of the conditions for drive throughs are extremely strenuous here. I don't know that we, as a city, wanna be necessarily investing and building out more subsidies for car culture is just my own personal policy preference, but I think that for things like accessibility, if there's curbside delivery like I'd be open like those as like policy options to explore.

[32:11] But I don't know that drive throughs. it's the the top of my policy priorities right now. Right. I I think I feel the same way as you, Brian Robin, or Michael any or Adam. I'll just quickly say that what I said last month that you know we've got businesses who really tried hard to get drive throughs past and boulder, and the answers the No for a variety of reasons. But the main thing is that we're not a car centric, or we're trying to be less of a car centric community. And so, for those reasons, I would say, I wouldn't want Staff to put in a ton of resources on this one. I would actually be willing to look more at a curbside situation if that's warranted and needed. But I don't love drive throughs.

[33:08] Did you wanna add to your comments and talk about delivery, or or just curbside? I mean, it's not. I don't love delivery for lots of reasons, but I think that's a conversation for a different day. It is Adam. Thanks. So I I don't know what the you know what the process would be if if there would be. I I assume, probably a public hearing to get the any potential drive through approved where the the applicant would have to argue that it, you know, meets the needs of the community and the and and that it's compatible with the neighborhood so on and so forth, and and I understand it might be a pretty high bar in Boulder to actually be able to meet that showing for the reasons that that some folks have articulated. So you know, on on the one hand, I think the the neighborhood and the context would be

[34:04] different. And if the applicant wanted to try to make that pitch, that it's appropriate and would benefit the community. you know. Typically, I'd say what the heck let's let's let them try and make their pitch and then have that be decided on a on a case by case basis. I mean. On the other hand, I guess if if it's just something that Council is not interested in, or if if the bar is set so high that for a drive through that it's very unlikely that that would ever be approved. Then, you know, then maybe we just said, maybe we just save everyone's time. But I guess my inclination is. you know, let the business owner make a pitch about their individual circumstances and then decide that on a on a case by case basis. So I'd I would be pro drive through in that regard just in terms of. Let the business owner make a pitch and and then decide that. Thank you.

[35:02] Michael or Zach. You wanna weigh in your weigh in on this. yeah, I I think going in favor of the comprehensive plan, and not supporting more vehicle miles traveled is important thing to take into consideration here. yeah. And looking at the zoning of it, would would have to be important. So I agree with most of what's been said. Yeah, Tom. I at this point I I would not support any type of drive through facility. To to Adam's point. If if somebody wants to make the case that they have accessibility issues. you know. Maybe there could be an exception that would be carved out for curbside. But right now discuss having a discussion about drive through

[36:03] given where we are in the city. I just I couldn't support that. So I'm kind of hearing a consensus that it might not be worth asking the staff to do any more leg work on this. He's not Brian. Yeah, my recommendation would just be I would be willing to suggest tabling this particular request, but I would be open to a compromise where we revisit and try to provide options for curbside delivery, for for rationals under accessibility. So my suggestion would be that if we could direct staff to come back with an analysis around making the covid exceptions permanent. And what would be some options under that kind of logic.

[37:05] Rewa, or and Kate had your hand up, but you took it down. Yeah, I was just talking gotta talk about curbside as well. So that's Brian got it. You are. You're mute. you so. Don't need it. There I am! There I am. I just want to clarify curbside versus delivery, because this board did visit delivery in 2,021. I can grab that memo and the proposed ordinance and get it to Kristen for your next packet, so you can see what you know came of that discussion way back when it was on delivery, and the transporters and the whole, you know, because if delivery were to become a thing, we'd have to have a transporter license. I mean, there's a lot involved, so I can provide Kristen.

[38:00] that agend that memo that was written to you in 2021 along with that draft ordinance, if you'd like to see that. And again, that's on delivery that was shot down. 8. Yeah, I think I think that this, from what I'm hearing from the board. And I I think that delivery has been discussed. I think that in the future we might wanna pick it up as a board based on future conversations and data that that's shown. At least, that's how I remember the conversation going in 2021. I do think that. you know. What I'm hearing is that the Board wants to just just focus on what curbside delivery. So not really delivery. But it's called curbside delivery sometimes so curbside and what was done during Covid, and and maybe even if this, if if this, the city has any feedback in terms of how that went, and if there are any concerns, or you know, like, yeah. I think that would be. That's what I'm hearing most people suggest, leaning towards.

[39:02] Robin. Thank you. Thank you, Kate, for articulating that. That's how I'm hearing it as well. I do want to give Mr. Jazz now, who made the original request. The policy, suggestion, form, and fresh baked his company pretty clear some sort of a clear direction on this particular thing I guess we could say we're tabling it. But we could also say clearly that we've decided not to pursue a recommendation to the city Council in this matter at this time. And then separately. I think, Brian, maybe just a little less attached to that ideas. We would like to look at Herbside, and what that might mean in a future meeting. So if it's appropriate, I could make that motion, or if not, I can wait too. I don't think. Robins motion would be willing to second it. But I don't know if Staff want greater clarity and anything Robins articulated.

[40:05] If I can get a. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Kristen. I was just gonna ask if there's a motion made. It needs to be a clear motion, so I can capture it. Please. Okay, thank you, Kristen. I move that we table. Sorry. I move that we notify fresh baked. And Mr. Jazz, now that we are not going to pursue a code change, to accommodate. drive through service at fresh baked. At this time. Doing them. 8. Can I get a second? Please. I think, Brian hinted at second. Yeah. I'll second Rob's motion. Okay. Discussion. Kate. I was just gonna say you said specifically, at fresh baked I didn't know if if that was if you wanted to say, you know, in the city of Boulder at this time, or something like that. To that effect.

[41:10] I think that I'm kind of nervous with the motion. But yes, definitely. What seems it should be broader. It should be broader. Yeah. So I think with that friendly amendment, just strike that like last part about bad, fresh baked. Certainly so. The board will notify fresh. Bake that. They're not using the code change to accommodate the drive through fresh baked at this time change to the board, move to the board notifies fresh bake that they are not pursuing a code change to accommodate, drive throughs in the city of Boulder at this time. Do we need to. Do we need to provide anything to them, or or they can listen to the minute or the discussion. I think you can direct staff to provide a notice, just an email notice to them to update them on the development. If you'd like.

[42:05] Okay. Any other discussion. And then just following up Brad and I apologize from stepping on your toes here that if we could have Staff come back with any research around curbside. covid or otherwise. Could we possibly have that as a separate? We still need to get a vote on the motion on the floor. I'm sorry. Yup, thank you. Okay, any further discussion on, does everybody understand what they're voting for? I see. Yeses. Okay, roll call vote. I can do that member, Christy. I support the motion. Sure Kunzpen. Support Member Foster. Support. Vice chair, Keegan. Support.

[43:01] Member, noble. Support. Motion passes. But me now. No. if I'm not mistaken, Paul's or agenda. Item 5. Is there anything else we need to do on that, Andy? Close, close the loop on that, for now. Kristen, I think. Did you wanna address what additional info would be needed of staff or. They could either do it here, or they could do it under members. Their their agenda, item 9. Okay. Want to lose that opportunity for vice chair. Keegan's comments. That'd be the more appropriate place, and. Alright. I'll bring it up in members from. Perfect.

[44:01] Thank you. Okay, anything else to close the loop on that issue? We're good. Andy's thinking hard. I can see. I'm sorry. Are are we moved on to the next agenda item is that. Anything else we need to do. Since we're it's kind of a new process. Or is there anything else we need to do to close the loop on that issue. On a agenda. Item 4 or. Yeah, 4. Yeah, I I think we're good. I think the motion passes. And so Staff have the direction we need. And if they wanna bring up the issue sometime next year, or at some subsequent date. They can try to do that again. But that's I think, that's resolved, for now. Okay? So I'm trying to find the page for agenda. Item 5, is that.

[45:02] 77. That's right in front of everybody. I don't see the page numbers. Okay. How would you like to proceed on this stabbed. We can. We can just remind the board of where this is at. So and I'm I'm obviously coming from the direction of not having been at the last meeting, but The Board decided it wanted to pursue at least preparing the information. Item memorandum for the 2 policy suggestion forms. the first being the Vo video surveillance retention record number of days, reducing the days from 40 to 30 and the second being the removal of the requirement for a private consultation room. For medical marijuana facilities which I think got expanded to

[46:01] consideration of removal of caregiver services. And so. staff have, you'll see an agenda. Item 5. There's draft language prepared. And what we had agreed under this process is that at this meeting. and it doesn't necessarily need to get approved at this meeting, but that at least by this next meeting. The memorandum and the ordinance revisions would be provided that cloud would have a chance to discuss and revise or direct revisions. And if it's ready, you could formally approve it to be added to the next memorandum to council. And then kind of last point is as these items get approved. The idea would be that if our only touch points with Council are once a year, that we would have all of these kind of this comprehensive aggregation of

[47:03] items that had been reviewed and approved and recommended by cloud that would go in front of council so they could sort of have W. One chance to direct their attention to all of it, and and contemplate it and make a decision on it. So that's just kind of the overview of the process. I'm not sure if cloud members feel like they've had a chance to review the memorandum. But that's that's where we're at. So. And in terms of process. Will we also like, for instance, if we decide to go ahead with any one of these things? Have another public comment. presumably like the next meeting. Nope, I think we'll have already provided Co public comment at the initial at the second meeting, so they don't need to go before public comment again. obviously, that wouldn't prevent anybody from just offering public comment at the beginning of the meeting, especially if they're watching, and they see something they don't like. They could still offer public comment at the beginning of the meeting, just like any other

[48:07] comment period. But you've had your your public hearing on the item so. Okay. Alright. Kate. Yeah, it's first of all, I just wanted to thank staff. This is obviously the first one that that you all have have done in this manner, and it's I think, really helpful. The process, I mean is is great cause it is a process and so just wanted to thank the the team and the staff for for that. I think it's pretty straightforward from my read of it. I think everybody. You know, we had the conversation about video surveillance and pretty straightforward, whether it's 40 or 30 and then the removal of the consultation room actually seems pretty straightforward as well. I think the caregiver services was the one piece that was a little bit more messy. Just in terms of you know wellness center and and what it actually means. And then, if it doesn't mean if we if we take get rid of those caregiver services, then suddenly it might become something like a convenience store, which is obviously not I do think that there

[49:07] is still a significant need to unravel this idea of providing caregiver services or any kind of advice. To consumers and patients. So I think that I think there's still a need to kind of figure that out. But that would be, you know, further on, city council or staff, anyway. So just wanted to to kind of get my synopsis of of what was presented and what we talked about last time. Yeah. And I, I can just chime in from at least legal's perspective, which is the removal of the caregiver services component is is quite a bit more complexity. And it wasn't something that we were anticipating. I think the consultation room renewal, removal just from a Ordinance slash Boulder Revised Code revision sequence is a lot cleaner. It's the removal of certain.

[50:01] you know. Just a handful of distinct statements within the boulder revised Code. I think there's potentially broader implications with the sub Wellness Center regulation removal. That which is that number 3 of the memo that presented some complexity that you know may may be worth taking another look at. I don't I don't. Wanna Rewa just came off mute. Thank goodness, Rewa, What are your thoughts? If if you don't mind. No, the last component is is really quite complicated. So in order for staff to dive into that and tear it apart, it's gonna take a lot of time we will have to involve with our planning attorneys. We will have to include the planning board. we will have to get advice from those individuals. And it's not just simply removing it from this this section of the code. It's throughout the code. So there's other sections in in other chapters that we would have to touch as well. So I just

[51:16] if if councils, if councils on board and wants to move forward. Of course we will do that. But the last section of this this IP memo was drafted just so that you could understand the complexities that are involved. And this is just very yeah. We lightly touched on it. But you know, it's a lot more complex than I think. You know. one would expect. Ryan. Yeah, I was just also noting that again. Thank you, Staff, for all our work in this memo and just noting again that section 3 seemed to be the most complicated, 3 changes being proposed. My thought was that like, well, should we hear from these medical wellness centers? But looking at just, and I think staff are including the current city of boulder licenses. Starting on page 91, I believe there are 5 current medical wellness centers license in the city of Boulder, and all of them are also doing business as recreational dispensaries. So

[52:15] we should absolutely get the letter of the law right on this as a policy matter, but I think the substantive impact would be small in terms of there's no one in the short thing I'm saying is, there's no medical wellness center here. That is not also a recreational dispensary, so that substantive impact might be low. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do this right and and get that free tied down nicely. I'm looking at that table, Brian, and it's on page 90, right? Not 91. Are you? Are you comparing the 90 versus 91. I was just comparing the medical wellness centers that start on page 90

[53:03] to the recreational dispensaries, and anyone. Okay. well, that like, obviously, we do not need to approval. At the same time we can break these down. which perhaps we should do. So I guess this is a question for council. Is there in this memo what's determined? It's like separability could be like we do the easy one with the like surveillance to move that along, or is it worth? I recognize track. You have the Andy's earlier argument trying to package these together and make it easier for councils. Attention. Yeah, severability. but that's I mean that that's not really at issue here. You just if you all want to just either remove 3 for now, or table 3, or however you want to articulate it, I mean, I I think that wouldn't stop you from finalizing one and 2, if that's

[54:02] what you all want to do. And then, I think, A. As we contemplated this originally, it would be sort of a an iterative process, where whatever is finalized and approved, and added. at the time of submission to council, that's what would go and so, if that's you know, missing a a piece of this. That could be the case. But I don't know, Rewa, if we have a a better idea at this point of when this would go to council. But this would be the type of thing where maybe. if you wanted to explore 3 further further flesh that out you know, at least, for now that could be temporarily removed and then potentially wrapped up before it went to council. So. Well, my understanding is that we were. Gonna get this to Council asap you know. I'm not sure if it's been scheduled yet. Kristen T. Do you know it's been put novice on up? It's it's an IP packet. It's it's easily added to to Councils agenda. Just so the board knows it goes under the information items on their agenda. It's not up for discussion at accounts

[55:09] meeting. It's just there for council to ponder, and and if they do so, choose to move forward on any one of these items, and if you noticed in the IP memo, each each one was, if Council is interested in moving forward with this item. You know you can do Xyz. And you know the next section of council is interested in moving forward. You could do. Xyz. So it it. It's not all or nothing with Council Council, you know. A council member can bring it up to bring it up a cap, you know. or send an email out on hotline regarding it and want. And then Cap will address it, and a cap will put it on agenda, which means that's when staff at drafts the ordinance and gets it on a calendar for a future meeting. So all of these items can stay on the the IP altogether. Council can peel them apart separately, and get direction, each one independently of the other. So it just depends on whether Cloud wants to include that third item in the IP packet, which I think is gonna be scheduled shortly after. You guys approve this

[56:18] after the board approves, it. And to chime in. As to your question, Riwa, to my knowledge it has not been added to Novus, because we're waiting for cloud direction. Okay, Robin, you had your hand up at 1 point time. Grab. you're mute. Hmm! Sorry about that. I think that the opportunity here is for the Board for our Board to make decisions. So we're giving advice to counsel from this point. I'll tell you what I'm comfortable with. I'm comfortable with the

[57:00] The changes going from 40 days to 30 days to align with the code, because for the benefit of the 2 new folks here we heard from Pam Gagnon, who was on Officer Ganyon, who was on earlier, saying that she didn't think that was gonna have a material impact on their ability to do a good job, so that I'm comfortable with, I'm comfortable with the taking out the rooms requirement, because we heard that that's not going to have create problems. And right now those rooms are not being used at all, and they're just not helpful. This other part. I'm I just don't know enough to comment properly about how that's being used, and so I don't wanna cause confusion. My concern is that we are giving consumers the best information that they can get. and that they're never confused by the setup. So

[58:02] this is where my limitation is. A non marijuana consumer comes into play. So I really can't comment on that third piece but on the first 2 I'm comfortable moving forward. I do think that the Board should, however, give advice on the third one to counsel. Okay. Adam. Thank you. So I I may not be totally understanding the the rationale for the requirement of having the separate room, or the or the wellness services. And and I guess the question I'd have is. is it something that was passed in in 2010 before adult use? Retail cannabis existed? And is it now kind of anachronistic? Given all the changes in the past 14 years, or does it still serve a particular purpose? If it's something that doesn't really serve a purpose in light of how the laws changed and evolved

[59:05] in the past 14 years that I would say recommend getting rid of it, and and counsel could either? Well, you know they could have been the the code as they see fit if they see fit. But you know, if there's an issue about whether it's defined as a a personal service, I mean, it seems like they could also amend the definition of personal service and say, and that includes cannabis, or they could amend the other provisions that the that the memo has identified. But I I guess from a practical standpoint. I'm I'm not really seeing the the quite the purpose of having a room where someone can go to receive medical advice. If if going to the dispensary isn't really the proper place to to receive medical advice. and then I don't see the requirement. that the that the medical dispensary would need to offer. you know, yoga, or or a massage therapy, or some other type of services.

[60:04] If that's not considered important, or or a key part of receiving medical cannabis, and I'm I'm not sure it is because, you know, really no other jurisdictions have that that requirement. So if it's not anachronistic and acronistic, and it is important. you know, I'd love to hear that that that explanation of why that is, if it is just kind of something that made sense in 2010, but but circumstances have changed that, in my opinion, the recommendation should be to remove that requirement. Thank you. Michael any alright! Adding 2 cents. No, I don't have any further comment at this time, Tom. Thanks. Yeah. I'm I'm inclined to agree with Robin. Actually on issues one and 2, that

[61:02] There's I. I think we've heard enough evidence or testimony to suggest. There's no reason not to change the 40 day to 30 day, and to keep it in line with the Med. I think the a separate. I mean, it's it's designed like a pharmacy to have that consulting room. But it I mean, it's old fashioned. It's not unnecessary. It's unused. Why, bother, hey? If you if you all want to talk about just the first 2 first and and make a decision there, and we can do that. I my my comment was going to be about the third the third topic. So I don't know if you wanna if we wanna like as a board move forward and just vote on the first queue, since it seems like there is some consensus, and then continue talking about the third, or I can say my piece about the third. How about we try to get more

[62:00] Andy or Kristen or Riva? Do you want us to have a separate vote on each sub item? I I think you can, if if there's consensus with the first 2, and that's what it sounds like there is. Then maybe you can just wrap both of those up with the roll call vote, and then Kate can speak to to her thoughts on the third, and that might involve some nuance that you all want to get into. So, in terms of next steps. Good anybody want to make a motion? I'm not. And with that guidance. So this point of clarification. It's just a motion to send items one and 2 and the other material background to be included in Council's information packets. I believe so. Yes. Alright. Then Brian moves to have the information memorandum be included for items, one to 2, and other analysis and background be included in councils.

[63:06] packets at the earliest opportunity. Okay, second on that. I think you're intending to second Robert. Fo foster, with second, or Robin might have been speaking He was, but she was mute. No, Adam, you go, that's great. Go. Okay, thank you. Yeah. So I would, second. Alright any further discussion. Alright! Let's do a roll call. Vote on moving items one and 2 forward to the console information packet. That's the nearest next opportunity. Certainly. Member Keegan or Vice chair. Keegan. Sport. Member Foster. I support. Member, noble. Support. Shirkinsman.

[64:01] Support. Member Christy. Approve. Passes 5 to 0. Okay, Kate, you wanna kick it off for item 3. Yeah. I mean, we've already, you know, talked about it a little bit. So I don't know that I'm saying anything brand new I think I've said it. Before. I think you know th. The the entanglement that that the Wellness Center slash personal service use has has brought is has brought like multiple layers. You know the map, the Maron Advisory panel back in 2,017, also kind of bumped up against this as well, I think, at some point, and and I know this isn't going to be an easy thing. I do think at some point the the city, I I think, could revisit what like marijuana centers and store break dispensaries should be qualified as I think it's going to be an evolution. I think it's going to continue to change. We talk about, you know, like, not right now, but delivery or consumption or those kinds of things. And and and as more data comes you know, I do think that that'll change. So I do think

[65:09] potentially carving out a a and I don't even know what this looks like. So I apologize in advance, but like creating a use for cannabis. That is specific to cannabis makes the most sense to me, because then you can pick and choose what you liked about personal service and what you didn't. It would keep the zoning the way that it currently is. It would untangle some of the the personal service kind of entanglement with the whole caregiver services and other other services. So that's just kind of my 2 cents, and and it has been for years. I know it's a huge undertaking, and it's really not ours, but I would always root for kind of carving out a space for that makes sense for cannabis, because it is different. Especially in the city of Boulder. Right. This is far from doing any kind of actual legal due diligence, but just reading the municipal code for section 6, 1417 locations and medical marijuana businesses that was identified in memo. Here

[66:09] they listed dates and times of these memos excuse the ordinances when they were passed, and so I can't link to all of them. But that the last time that looks like anything was actually touching the section about these wellness. Or excuse me, the Wellness Center regulations was 2,014 before. So it probably is coming in under a logic of either the 2,010 legalization. But probably not the amendment 64. Oh, I can tell you it was upon it was it was drafted in 2010. That language was original. You know the part of a caregiver services, you know, in line with Yoga all all of those that that's original language. And the way it was in Boulder did approach it differently, I believe. And again, this is all something. We believe we weren't around when it occurred. You know, and we only have the written record to look back on. So again it was. It was. It was based off of

[67:17] caregiver services, you know, because it cause at the beginning. Oh, only only you know, a patient or a caregiver could actually have a medical marijuana license right? That was the original language. And then that was subsequently changed 6 months later. They're like, okay. Now, we've learned we we've been doing this for 6 months. Now, you know, the you know, the entire States been doing this for 6 months. Now, you know, let's curtail this a little bit. and we can open that license up to other people, you know. Not just a caregiver and a patient could could have that license. So there were changes made almost immediately. But this was that was not one of them. This language has never been been touched.

[68:04] We've always always held tight to it. Thanks for that background. Riva. I'm Stacey. We're we're here, but you might have some more insight. But I mean, do we have we had businesses that actually combine medical marijuana and physical therapy massage, acupuncture, armoured therapy, yoga, audiology or or homeopathy. I I'm not aware of any but. I I can't think of any off the top of my head. There may have been prior to my starting with the city of Boulder in 2,016. But I can't off the top of my head. Think of any that we have would have, currently, or since I started. Exactly. Kristen. Yeah, I mean, I think that this gets back to the conversation we were having where we framed this under the logic of like hospitality lounges as being like consumption spaces. But I think that

[69:03] there's no regulatory framework like medical consumption at a license facility right? Just asking correct me on that, but that, like you would still, consumption was still envisioned, is happening in a private home versus in a commercial space. And so I think that again, this is something the case I was trying to make around hospitality and social consumption. But I think it these issues that we're encountering now around like medical care, giving probably would fall under like the the same sort of logic. So you wanna have a license consumption facility for some of these things. The idea! You would buy your cannabis one place and also go there, for Yoga seems a little bit silly to me. But again a lot's changed 14 years. Right. I'm not sure how to

[70:02] proceed. Cause I mean. I'm almost. It seems like a non-issue. was this requested in the we don't have the policy suggestion, form for that, do we. I I can't speak to. That's logic for including it. But I just think that the the requirements for them to have these kinds of rooms was also connected to the definitions of this medical licenses being connect, like granted in wellness centers with. So we want to talk about these wellness rooms I think we have to like. Also look at these regulations as well as the centers generally, but Rewa or Andy can correct me. Native routes.

[71:01] policy. Sorry a policy suggestion form lost it there for a minute policy suggestion form. Pointed out these particular code sections, and one of them has to do with this caregiver services, so striking that from the code. And is that in this month's package. It was specific and separate from the room as well. So each one of these really are separate ideas, separate issues. I just wanna see how they. It's in the March packet. It's on page 31 of the March packet. I I think there is a practical effect, though, because if there's a space limitation on the Medical Center, and there's a requirement to to have this dedicated wellness room that that few folks ever use. You know again, if if there's not a current need for a wellness room. then, by removing that requirement, it would free up space that the business could use in in other ways, whether that's for an employee, bake, break room or storage or expand the premises. You know, whatever they could do within the

[72:13] within the code they'd have more more options. So I think there is a potential practical effect in that regard. You? Said Paige. Thank you. Adam. Okay, is it? Page 31. It's. 28 is the one from April, and then there's one on page 31 from November. But It is actually 28, the one that I should have pointed you to. but it just suggests it talks about both and to to I mean Adam's point, I mean, obviously the practical nature of of the room versus kind of this, you know. Th, the main reason we had talked about it last month. About this part is just, you know, confusing

[73:00] bud tenders and people in the stores, as well as patience of of what's going to be offered in these in these businesses? What what is the practical? You know, change at this point? I don't. I don't know that there is, except for clarification. So I I you know I don't know that. It is worth the effort, although I think, when is it gonna be worth the effort to do it? So yeah, I think it's it's whether or not. Again, it's just a recommendation that we have to to move forward. City Council would make the ultimate decision on potentially how to do it, and maybe that is something that we can. You know, craft in a nuanced way. But I mean, obviously I I have no vote. So whatever you all want to do. I I think Kate made a good point, though in that you know, back in 2,010 everything felt kind of touch and go, and tentative as far as the status of of medical marijuana. Ca, Colorado was really kind of an early

[74:06] adopter and not not many States. We're regulating in that way. And so I think back then it made a lot of sense to look at analogous uses right? Because it was like, well, what's this like? You know? What? What's this similar to? And and now, you know, cannabis really kind of is its own thing, right? I mean, it's it's just. you know. I I don't know that the analogies are are quite as important because we've had it for a long time. And now it's just like, well, well, yeah, it's cannabis, you know. It's it's its own thing. It's well established. And you know. So in that regard, if if Council wanted to either looking at at, you know, specific land use requirements for cannabis. or if they just wanted to say we'll define it as a as a personal service, you know, or whatever they wanted to define it, as just because they feel like that's the appropriate category to to slot it into. You know, I I think that'd be a decision by council. That that they could do either one. But you know I I would tend to as we're talking it through. I tend to support

[75:08] either way, eliminating the requirement for having the the separate wellness room just because it it doesn't seem like like it's needed these days. Well, just as a point of clarification to I I think we've already I mean y'all as a board already recommended that the consultation room be removed. That's item 2. So I think we're just now talking about the kind of the caregiver services part in the personal service kind of category or use category. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that's a good point. And. This particular section of the code we're discussing. Section 3 here. There's nothing. There's no floor that the State requires. Here. We're just kind of like operating in the free as a municipality. To sort of write these. or consider striking this

[76:02] guy. Yeah, I don't. I don't think there'd be a floor in terms of something that would conflict with this. It's it's an additional requirement above and beyond the state Med requirements, so. Hey! So I'm sorry. I just I just have a question is, I mean, we keep saying, remove the requirement. I mean, my understanding is that it's not as simple as removing a sentence in the code. It is untangling the service part of the Personal service idea, because that personal service means Xyz and if we take out the Xyz. then ha! You know, does it not meet? I guess it then becomes an exception is I guess it? Could you carve out an exception for medical marijuana dispensaries to not meet that one component of personal service, and then keep it as the use that it is, and also take out that

[77:01] confusing language about caregiver services. Yeah, I'd like Kate's clarification here that we just are not removing caregiving services as a whole. Just that's that removing licenses have to provide services. In addition to cannabis is the substantive matter. Here. Is that right, Kate? Sort of yeah, I think I just wanting to understand. I mean, because removing that part of the code is, it's and Rewa, you know. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're the one who kind of understands. This is a little bit better, and obviously it's more complex, and we probably don't know 100. But you're saying it's tied into multiple other areas of the code. And so by just removing that one sentence like, What is it? H. 3 doesn't mean that it removes the requirement of it because it is defined as personal use. Is that correct? Right? I mean there, there's a lot of investigation this necessarily, because if you remove that requirement of the medical marijuana centers to not distribute just medical marijuana. Where does that put a medical marijuana facility? Where? Where do we categorize this facility? Does that completely change it? And if it does, what does that do to the current ones.

[78:23] you know, are we? Yeah, there's a lot of, there's a lot of questions that we have not investigated as staff. We we have not. You know this. This is a bit more complicated, and, like, I said earlier, would involve our planning people and their expertise to understand exactly what it would do that, you know, we might come to a conclusion that okay, it's not gonna do a whole heck of a lot. I think we would be okay. We don't know that right now. You know, we're looking at this. And it it possibly be, could be, you know, the other extreme. So

[79:03] we've just never investigated this before. Would it be helpful to Staff for us to ask you to look at the ramifications. We don't want. I I you know, that's gonna take a lot of staff time. I mean a lot. It's not just me and Andy or me and Roberto. It's several other attorneys and paralegals in my office, and it's planning staff, the director of planning Carl Charles. We've got, you know many other staff members that would have to become involved. So. And and we put in all of this staff time and councils not interested in it. I I just, you know, before we we commit to hours and hours and hours worth of time and meetings and getting the planning board involved if needed. I I I I would be interested to see if Council is interested in it.

[80:03] And how could we determine that what would be the easiest way. This. IP memo right here, saying, Hey, council, are you interested in this? If you're interested in this, let us know. Staff will do more research. Okay? Right? Yeah, I mean, I'm torn now, because I think we was providing a lot of clarity here that we should just get direction from council whether or not they want to explore this, and then we can come back and like have an in depth discussion, and maybe have folks like Stacy, folks from the community provide input on like how and whether we should adopt. This is a great form for those conversations. but I'm inclined to. Yeah, just include number 3 here, as Staff is already written, and then send that along to council as well. So we can get some direction from them. We can convene those conversations, deliberate on them, and then make recommendation. There.

[81:04] I'm looking to 3 of you. We haven't said much on oil. Adam. Has Robin Michael shock anything? Add on. Yeah, I I guess I do have my medical card. So I have gone into both recreational medical dispensaries. And there, there really isn't anything that they're providing other than It's just yeah. It's like pretty much the exact same. So I don't see any necessity to have this and in regards to the having a private consultation room like if you go and get your medical card through someone who's who's licensed to a practitioner to give that to you. That's really where you're gonna get the medical attention. It's not like you're gonna go into the dispensary and then ask someone who's a budte tender for medical advice. So I I agree, that's not really necessity, either.

[82:02] So I think you guys have a pretty good handle on this. It doesn't seem to be affecting too much. Robin. Thank you, Tom. I guess I would just add that anything that is we can do to clarify the role of the people who are selling these products and what they, their ability is in the interaction would be helpful. So I know with cannabis, hypermicis syndrome. For instance, you guys know, I have a lot of experience with that. I do know of some people who have tried to reach out to medical marijuana centers to get advice, and they haven't gotten the right advice, and I know that the folks that petitioned us originally. Said that they were concerned, that there's confusion created at least in the consultation rooms. So I'm glad we're moving forward on that particular piece of it on this other piece. It just seems like a lot of detail and logistics on the side of the city to figure out how to categorize these businesses if we don't

[83:14] continue this requirement. So I'd like a little more time to think about it myself, to try to understand if this would remove some confusion, create more clarity for the consumer, and or if it would it? Potentially. If there's some downsides, it seems like again, it's a little bit of an outdated model. So I would, you know. Look to you guys for more guidance on this. I'm happy to put it in front of the council to say, Do you guys wanna pursue this and don't certainly don't want to waste staff time in the interim. If this is not going to go anywhere. Ree, what do you feel like? There's enough there to

[84:00] city council to deliberate and give direction. Enough info. You mean enough information included in this IP packet for this particular subject? well, it's it's enough to open their eyes, and if someone's interested. You know, this is we. We have what we consider a new council. You know, there's personalities we're just not sure of yet right or haven't heard them voice certain things. It might. It might, you know, interest one of them, and they can push this along, and you know Council would be willing to hear it, and then, of course, give direction to staff to move forward and find out. Is this as complicated, or is it not complicated? What you know? I that's a great question they might ask for if they might ask for more information, which, of course, would be, hey, staff, go find some more information, and we we want to be more informed, you know, and that would be that direction that we're looking for. I can't say if it's enough or not enough. I I you know we did the best we could to introduce the subject to them without bogging everything down.

[85:19] Yeah, you can't predict what city coloss is gonna do or not. Do I understand. Adam. So so quick. Question and and maybe it's not the this simple, but this will help me under. Understand? So if if the use is falling under the personal services category currently. And I did see in the memo that one example of of a personal service is a pharmacy. and you know, if we're looking for somewhat analogous uses, that that does seem somewhat analogous. So if it's if it's in effect a personal service. Now, maybe the change would be to say, if if Council wants to keep that same standard for for look at the land use issues.

[86:06] it's still a personal service. You don't have to provide any other services. Dispensing medical cannabis is a personal service. and then stop. Then would that be a simpler change that wouldn't require as much analysis, or there are other aspects to it that I'm you know, glossing over by by framing it that way. But you're pretty. Sorry, Ruth. I think you're muted. No, I was. Gonna say, Andy, did you want to to respond or. You can tell that she's pointing at Andy on the screen when she points. Oh, what's up? The next box over. Yeah. Yeah, you know, I I think I mean I I can't

[87:00] speak to who all I mean. I think this does touch on planning board issues. but I I do wonder if it wouldn't be worth going back with especially since Roberto is not here going back and pondering. If there's a change, we can make that you know, kind of like you're saying, Adam, I mean. if we can insert that sort of clarification easily. And what the waterfall effect is I I I think Ria's point was that there's a lot of people that need to have some sort of involvement at this, and I don't know what, when that time is appropriate. but yeah. what are your thoughts, Riva? I, you know. I guess I just

[88:01] yeah. More investigation is needed. It really is even from, you know my perspective. And I've read until my eyes bled regarding this and it it. It's gonna involve a larger population to really get to the answer. I mean, it seems like that would be a simple solution, right? But in reality is it that I can't answer right now? You know I I really can't. A greater mind is needed in order to to flesh that out, you know. And and it's it's it's really qualify as a personal services use. And it be allowed by right in the location where they're now located. That has a lot to do with it. Where are our medical facilities located right now? And even if that definition was changed. Would they still qualify for the location in which they are now located? So that I mean, that's something I can't answer. I would need planning planning councils assistance with that, and you know our our planning staff as well. So

[89:14] it if you'd like to keep it in the memo. We can see if it, you know, Peaks any council interest, and if it does, we can move forward or you can take it out. And you know. if there's still interest in it, maybe we can bring it back at a later date. That's up to the board. Of course. Right. Yeah, I think, just trying to tie this up. Then I think that my recommendation and I would like to make a motion. But I'll just float. It first would be to include section 3 here, get that feedback from council whether or not we're gonna staff time on this and then or what other questions or clarifications they want, what other research they want us to do? But I think this is the kind of the bottleneck we're at is like we. We just need to kind of

[90:00] what know whether. No, there's even an appetite for this. So we should ask council alongside these other 3 so seen heads nod so I would move that item 3. And this information packet be added and amended or appended, appended. I move that the section 3 in this proposed information packet be appended to the previous motion, and be included for councils to be sent to Council. Great second on that. Justin, you're muted. Sorry about that. That kind of wandered a bit. Can I get a a clarified motion? Please. I apologize. I move that section 3 of the information item, memo be appended to the previous 2 and sent to Council.

[91:01] As as it is now. As it is. In our packet. The the complete 3, just. A clarifying question. Please. The first 2 elements of the policy suggestions that we are recommending moving that council move forward and making a change. So this third piece would be sent under a different sort of request, will it? Or is it just a part of these 3 things? Because I think we're asking 2 separate things. I think we're asking them to move forward with the language changes on one and 2 and then on 3. We're asking, are they interested in pursuing it further is that am I understanding that right. I think we clarify that we're we're recommending moving forward on items one and 2, and the number 3 is for your informational. Got it. Does that sound like a fe friendly, fair, fe fair, friendly amendment, or whatever.

[92:04] So just to restate that you would want this. We'll send a second memo to counsel. Focused on only an item. 3 is your intent, Robin. I'm asking if it's if it makes sense to do it that way. So that Council knows we're asking for action, and we're giving them advice to move forward on one and 2 on 3. We're asking, do they want to pursue it? Because more research is needed? I think that I think, Kate, what do you think. Well, I was just I mean, I was just gonna talk and speak to what? How the memo is written. Right? It says we received these policy, suggestion forms, and comments of the following and comments on the following topics, these suggested changes are discussed in more, you know depth below and came to consensus to bring these proposed changes to city council for consideration. So one, it's saying, here are these things. Here's how we would change it.

[93:02] 2 same thing. 3. The way that it's written just says, Hey, here's this context. It doesn't necessarily say that a change should be made. There's some concerns here. If Council is interested in removing the caregiver services consistent with the Wellness Center direction to city staff is needed. So we would have to agree that that is our intent. And if we agree that that is our intent to be, here is the context. We think it should be discussed and looked at. Then the memo written as is to me makes sense. We could always add more clarification if the Board thinks so, but I I think again it's not saying, change it. It's saying, Hey, like there's some confusion here. But it's gonna take a lot of work to fix it. So do you want us to do it or not, because is kind of my is that is that sound about right, Rea, in terms of how it's written. Yes, yes, yeah. One and 2 are definitely. You know the scene

[94:01] straight across the board. If Council is interested. Staff's gonna move forward and present an ordinance. Number 3. Here's this information. This is this is what they're interested in doing. These are the problems that we we see right now more investigation is needed, and if councils interested, please provide direction to staff to further investigate it, and then we can come back with more information for council if they're interested in hearing about it. Okay, I mean, I'm comfortable then, with the with the just sending it as one memo, I guess so. The way Brian phrased your motion makes sense, then. Shocking for a second. Yup, we're still shopping for a second I as the chair. try not to do motions or seconds, so otherwise I would second it. Brian. Sorry.

[95:03] Adam raised his hand. I believe that was a second. Either that or he wants our attention. No, yeah, yes, sir, I'd I would like to second it. Okay. Alright any further discussion. seeing no but he's raising their hand. Want to do a roll call. Certainly. Vice chair. Keegan. Support. Member Foster. Support. Member, noble. Support. Chair kunstman. Support. Member Christy. Support, the motion. Motion passes 5 to 0. Okay, we have no power. Agenda. Item 6. We have no policy suggestion forms for April. That's not an April fool's job.

[96:01] I am absolutely positive it is not an April fools joke. Okay. Alright matters from the city attorney. I afternoon chair. Okay? And let's move on to matters from regulatory licensing office. Certainly in the packet. You will see the final draft copy of the Cloud Feedback to Council memo that was sent on March that we talked about on March fourth it has been sent to council, and they will have that in their packet for retreat. And, as previously requested in the march. Hearing you also have a document with a link to the city of Boulder Sales tax revenue report. There is a notation on that page which will be included in all future. Board packets on how to access that, and why there is the delayed reporting just because taxes are remitted in arrears.

[97:03] So that's the information that was requested from vice chair. Keegan also is the current list of cannabis business licenses within the city of Boulder. These are for currently issued only. and you will receive those per request of and consensus of the board in all future packets going forward. Does anybody have any questions about the revenue report or the cannabis business license list? Hold on. I'm still switching over from March back to April. Anybody. So the key document that Kristen just

[98:00] mentioned is on page 93. Any questions. comments about that? Ms. Questioned. Go ahead! The on a page. 2 of the revenue report says that the recreational marijuana excise tax declines 65% due to a large refund of an excise tax. We're only paid to boulder by cultivation. Facility in prior periods. Seems like a big number. Are we just looking at a small denominator? Is there anything worth discussing about? Excite excise tax refunds, and that merits any discussion. I have included, added, who has been listening to the meeting today? Our deputy finance director, Joel Wagner.

[99:03] Mr. Wagner, do you have any response. Excuse me. Hi! Good evening board Joel Wagner, deputy finance director apologies. I'm not on video. I'm I'm kind of between a couple of meetings here. if I think I heard the the question correctly, it was about the the refund of the excise tax. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah, just from this December report. Yeah, so unfortunately, we can't disclose a lot of information. What I can share is that there was a large refund because a a business was erroneously accruing and and paying excise tax on product that was not actually cultivated in boulder So the practice is to reflect that when the refund is made and I will also just share that. We have seen a decline in in excise tax revenue as well. So there's kind of a compounding effect there.

[100:04] Does that help and answer the question. No, I appreciate. Yeah, that feedback. And thanks for that detail, Joel. Are there any other questions for items from the regulatory office. Hold on 1 s. I'm still trying to. You can't just click on it. To get back and forth, at least doesn't work on my computer. You have to download it and then click on it. Yes. I had had done that, but not I was hoping right now. I could just click on it, but no. And while you're looking I'll just make a a simple suggestion, especially since we have new 2 new members the best way to navigate the packet is to utilize the link that we provide you download and save that to your computer. You can then use the bookmark function to navigate between agenda items and quickly find pages.

[101:05] Thank you. Okay, no. I have no more questions. Okay. Anyone else. Okay. One final item from the regulatory licensing office is the reminder that for the May cloud packet and policy materials are due. Monday, April 20. Second. Movies. Do you want to? I mean, obviously, we have 2 new members. but we still have a vacancy. Right? Correct. They did open midyear recruiting. And if I remember correctly, one moment. I can tell you exactly the date that that midyear recruitment closes. We have been actively pushing that

[102:06] fake Recruitment is open through April nineteenth. Okay. And are we ready to go on to agenda? Item 8. I have nothing further. Brian, you wanna bring up do you wanna go back to. I guess. Yeah, we just. I don't know if this would be a formal motion, but like a nod of us to start, if we could direct staff to conduct some research and provide a memo about the curbside policies that we're developing Covid. Whether or not we want to. Consider that as a recommendation to council going forward

[103:00] and staff help me if I could sharpen that some way right. I don't think so. I think so. You're just looking to to see kind of compare what happened during Covid. what the requirements were on the standards and to see if those could be or just to better understand what those were to see. If you want to recommend replicating those today, right? That's kind of the gist of it. Yeah, like, I would just want to be able to do some due diligence on how we did curbside in the past. And if we? This board wanted to consider Curbside going forward to be able to look at those kinds of materials and evidence. Okay. Would you like that for the June meeting. Sure! Brewa. Would that allow you enough time if it were for the June meeting? I know that with this IP memo that are currently stands that there would be a lot of work that might still be attributed to that. Would June be workable for you, or would.

[104:08] Tried to maybe go to July. June. June is is fine. Yeah, I can work with Roberto. pull up the history and we can analyze it. So it should work. Thank you for asking. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that accommodation board. We need any further discussion on that. We need to see if everybody wants it. Yeah, not just Brian. I know that was that was a vague reach out to the whole board. They seem pretty agreeable. Is there a way we could get something reflected.

[105:00] Like a motion. You mean. No, not I don't need a motion. I just I get I can't capture silence in minutes. For anyone who is not in favor of that direction. I'm happy to take a look at it, and I think that's what you're asking. Brian is. Give us the information so we can take a look at it, and that seems perfectly reasonable. Correct. I see some nod nodding hits there that's almost acceptable. No objections, then no. The census of the board is to have that pulled forward for the June meeting. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Was there anything else that we left

[106:01] back somewhere in the agenda? Or do you have? Does. do you, Brian, or any other members of the Board have any other issues I want to bring up today. Okay. I was just curious about next week or next month's meeting and agenda topics, you know. Sometimes. I don't know if that's next, or that was part of the regulatory licensing office stuff. But I wanted to make sure that we talked about it. Sometimes we put it there. Sometimes it gets pushed to where you guys just discuss. So we just left that as to where you guys discuss? Would you guys like that back as an agenda item under regulatory licensing matters. Probably. Keep us honest. Do you have a list from past packets? List is always in the packet. Hmm. It's a page if I get my pages right. 10

[107:01] suggestions for future cloud meetings. Yes. Social equity. Educational programs. legislative legislative rule making updates speakers. I'm not aware of. anything to be considered by the legislature. I could be wrong, but after the session closes in June might be worth having, like an update from staff. If there is any legislation that passed through that's cannabis related that might impact boulder. Brian. I I just would comment on that that. I'm not aware of any big piece of legislation that's happened during the current term, or that might happen over the next 5 weeks or so during the session. But the Cu School of Public Health that has done some research on concentrates and implications

[108:12] did give a report to the I believe it was the House Health and Human Services Committee, and maybe the Senate Finance Committee. I wanna say, with policy recommendations coming out of their research, and I'd be happy to share that through the next packet. The other thing that that group is working on is a public health campaign, and I think it would be great to get a presentation from that group to see how we can help locally in boulder, and so I'd be glad to submit some of those things to Kristen for the next packet, and if we could have a 10 or 15 min conversation in the next meeting about maybe next steps, we could take on some of this stuff. I think that would be a positive step for us. So just to clarify Robin. We you wanna have a discussion as a board with those packet materials, but not necessarily with the authors or other representatives of that Review Board in May.

[109:07] Yeah, I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense to invite them when they have their public health campaign launching to tell us what it is that the messages are that they're giving. If the this board wants to give input to that group, we we could potentially do that through some channel, but I think they're fairly far along in their process. So I I you know I I would love to have them come, but I'm not sure next month is the right month for that to happen, because I don't think they're ready yet. Alright. Well, I support yet you submitting that. And then that's having a discussion about that interim report or temporary. Yeah. At our next meeting. Okay, thank you. I'll do that. Morning. If you don't mind, I need one clarification. member noble. That

[110:03] report. Is that a public report? Or do you have to go through Paywall in order to get it. Thank you for that question, Kristen. It is a public report. It's available on the website of the Public Health Work Group. And I'll give you both a link and a Pdf. Okay, a link would be, is is usable. A Pdf will not. Okay, you got it. No problem. Thank you. I'm just trying to find it. Is it easily findable to the average person. Ish, it's a a little bit tricky. I could share a link with you after the meeting, Tom, but it's the Cannabis Researchie research and policy project, and then you have to go down a little through some of their links to get to this report that was given to the House Health and Human Services

[111:05] Group. It's under March 20, seventh. It's a project update on the homepage. Alright. I saw 2 hands up Brian. It's a one thing. I was just walking through the University Memorial Center, and like there, there's a group out there tabling to cannabis, so I had sort of informally invited the representatives from Cannabis to attend a future meeting of our group again. Not necessarily in for the spring. I will obviously coordinate with staff. If this student group ever actually reaches out to me. I gave them my card but I would be interested in hearing from young people who are either working in the canvas space or have strong feelings about canvas, use and have their perspectives be represented in that little comment, or some kind of a panel here for our board no timeline on that, but just was an idea that I floated to them.

[112:03] Did they have a web page. The camera covered their jobs fair. They had a jobs fair cannabis jobs fair for students. But I'm sure they have a webpage somewhere in the Ceu. I do have an Instagram page. I see that. That might be. As far as some groups get. Yeah. Kate. I was just gonna say, I think that you know, if if we do decide to have the group that that Robin, you know mentioned to come on to the board. I would just encourage people to when they're going through the the pot. The research, and the document that is shared to like, write questions. I think we could, as a board, do a better job of preparing, like coming with questions. To prepare the the speakers. I think we could just as a speaker before. Personally, I think it, it'd be nice to kind of provide some some advanced questions, and direction. To which we'd be kind of interested in so just just as you're going through whatever Robin sends and this

[113:03] this policy approach and and presentation kind of stuff that just think about what questions that we want to ask, and then maybe we can send them those questions before they show up. What were you thinking, Brian? Not not. It's not like, what were you thinking? There's what what were you thinking in terms of? They'll just be invited to be participants. That's. No, I mean, I'm like. recognize the work that Robin has done in this kind of space, but I think that would be great to hear from young people like on all sides of this issue about how it is. The canvas is affecting their lives. What are policy considerations that they might want to have. And so whether that is. see you students, high school students, medical patients, like all the above but if we could maybe have, like a young people's panel. On some of these issues it might be great to have some of their perspectives on these things.

[114:06] Also, we might want to think some questions that we might want to ask them. It's questions. Yes. I I love it. Maybe maybe just tell them the the questions beforehand. But I think getting young younger folks who are in interested in public policy to, you know, start participating and start thinking through these these issues. And to give us feedback. That I think could be very useful and insightful seems like a great idea to me. Trying to be careful what I next say. But. I can see young people gathering together to support one side of a topic, but I'm wondering if there's another group that would support another side of the issue.

[115:05] And I'm looking to you, Robin, to see if you know of any. You know, this is really tricky, because we don't want anyone younger than 21 using these products, and certainly having people come to speak, I would. I would. Wanna do this in a very careful way with somebody like Evani Dilger, who runs a group for kids who are trying not to use any substances. Could maybe give an alternate view versus some young person. Pardon me, who wants to maybe liberalize things. It's it's a tricky thing. I think this is why we mostly rely on things like the healthy kids survey to get kids input. So I guess I would wanna take some care about it. If the group that Brian's suggesting is a group of 21 and up type Cu students, I think that would be really interesting to hear what it is they're advocating for what things look like on their campus, what they're seeing around them, who's

[116:10] enjoying the the substances with no problems, and what problems are they seeing? I think that could be fantastic. And I really really support that. I would be careful about having people under the age of 21. Come and speak to us, cause I think, that can get Dicey. Yeah, I shared second Robin's concerns. Brian, can you share? Could you share the westward article. I will text or email you that daily camera article for the canvas. Yeah. I mean I I found it. I just didn't know if the the group wanted it. Instead of the camera, not westward. It's westward. Good. At least the one I'm looking at right now. I just. I'll I'll I'll send that to Kristen, including the bay packet. Then both.

[117:01] This for this can of us. The cannabis. Yeah. Is and I apologize. I don't read westward. Is it? Behind a paywall of any kind where you have to enter an email address or anything like that. Okay, then, yeah. A link would be great. Okay. any other can. Can we look at? Is there anybody else on this list? Going back to page 10? I believe it was anything else that we want to move forward to a meeting that's coming up sooner than later. Why do we have Jonathan Singer on here again? Those were just suggestions to have people come back. If it's no longer relevant, let me know, and I can take it out. I mean, he's a nice guy and very personable, but I'm not sure why.

[118:01] and I like him as a person. But why is he on our list? It was a suggestion. At 1 point I'd have to go back through and listen to meetings to figure out why you guys kept them on the list. I might have even suggested. I don't. But if there's not, if there's no topic associated like cinnamon very well, we we'd heard from her not that long ago, but it would be kind of interesting to hear what she's working on in terms of this breathalyzer, but as to its practicality and timing hard to say. Yes, if you have changes that you would like made to this upon further reflection, just send me individualized emails. And I can compile that for a future packet. I think, keeping Tristan on there makes sense like periodically. We should probably hear from Tristan Watkins. Tristan might have had a change in role, so that might be out of date. Now, too.

[119:01] Maybe we should put the person's title not their name. Robin. Thanks, Tom. I. My recollection was that list was a brainstorm that we done, and it. It's kind of been a holdover in the packet cause these things kind of come up. But one suggestion I would like to make is, we have 2 new members, 2 new people with different ideas and perspectives, and if you all want to propose some things for conversation in the agenda, I would love to hear what you have to say, and things we maybe should be looking at. And one thing that might be helpful is that section of what we submitted to the Council this last month around what we're hoping to look at over the next year. That's in the packet. Along that line Kristen, Andy Rewa. whoever

[120:02] When might we have a future retreat like February, when it was like a year off, or. Yeah, our our retreats are traditionally held. In the early spring. However, I don't believe there's anything that would prohibit. And Andy or Riva. Correct me if I'm wrong, for having a mid year retreat if needed. With the current recruitment ending April nineteenth. I'm not quite sure when there would be a potential to have that. I mean, I would assume that it would be in the next, probably month or 2 after recruitment ends. Were the potential for that other seat to be filled. So if we want to look at like a a potential fall early fall. Yeah. And law as long as it's properly noticed, and the public has an opportunity to attend. I don't see anything that would prevent you from holding another retreat in person, or whatever you want to do.

[121:03] Well, I'll I'll spill the beans. Adam and I had coffee today, and I think it was very, very worthwhile and productive to have a human interaction which we could do in a retreat setting, and especially if we cultivated or fostered that opportunity to get to know each other a little bit better. Jock knows us a little at least couple a few of us a little bit, but I mean. just like they have stories that brought them to this board. We all have stories, too. Hmm. I will have more information about vacancy filling that vacancy as it comes forward. And I can keep you guys. I will keep you guys apprised of of that pace and then if you would like, we can. If you would like to wait and include that potential new member. Or

[122:01] you know, if the preference is to have one sooner, we can see about having that sooner. it would just be the ability to have the timing for that. As to would you want to replace an existing cloud meeting Slot day with that? Or would you want to create a different day, or what you would like to have. You know, if there's any plans in any near future like in the next 6 to 12 months to resume in person meetings, or. No, we've not received any direction. At least I have not. City attorney's office may have more different information than I do. However. although I do believe at last, when everybody was making their decisions, they did make their decisions at that time. Andy Aru, do you have any additional information on that. I I don't. Riva says no

[123:02] shakes her head. I mean, so I personally, I always find it helpful the time before a meeting and the time after a meeting. I mean to get to know people a little bit. and so I guess, Adam, I appreciate you. The fact you reached out to me, and we got together today, and I guess I would encourage anybody and everybody as long as it's one on one only to members. See? I'm I remember I got it. Kristen. You know as much as you can find time for. Yeah. And and we really, you know, we weren't talking about specific policy proposals or anything that we were in the packet for today. But I'd I'd love to have coffee with everyone on on the board, really, just to get to know everyone a little bit and and hear more about their their background. But while obviously. you know, following all the the guidelines, as Tom and I did when we when we met today. But yeah, I I think, meeting in person personally, I I find very valuable.

[124:12] We. We even delve, Brian. You'll be glad to know that we delved into a natural medicine for a moment, too. and a discussion. and and whether this board has a role or not. and. Council will let us know. Yeah. Has that been proposed to council to like? Would that be like broadening our board for that like following like prop 122, or something like that. Just in the March fourth kind of report annual report. I guess we do to counsel. We had sort of included that on page 93

[125:00] she had the scope of club expanded national medicine, and if so, she receives direction from council about whether and how to proceed. One big issue is that the State did not, as opposed to what was recommended for municipalities for cannabis. Yep, that's not the same. It's not the same model for natural medicine. Yeah, it. Adam, you've you've been. You've been writing about this, do you? Wanna just give a few liner. You know. Sure. So it. It is correct. I've I've been writing a a summary article for a publication called the Colorado lawyer that the that the Bar Association puts out just a summary of Sb. 2, 90, and and proposition 122 which are the 2 pieces of of legislation underpinning the the Natural Medicine Health Act. But it is accurate that there's not a separate local license required for for natural medicine. It's all done through the State. The municipalities can enact time and place regulations. So basically zoning regulations or

[126:20] you know, regulations that would be analogous to other tie, like a general business license, or, you know, a. A various types of of business licensing. But it it. The way that I read sv. 2, and I'd be an outright ban will not be permitted, and in fact, it even says that if a local regulation sort of thwarts the the purpose of the act. Then. There's a route that that applicants can go through to appeal it. So it is different in in that regard from cannabis licensing at the local level. But there is also a a degree of local control built into the the act.

[127:05] But John and and You know there are some people that are quite capable and trained to guide people in the natural medicine process. There are also a lot of people hanging up shingles that have very little training or very little preparation. And because it's the Wild West here in Colorado. For sure I've definitely interacted with both sides of that. Yeah, a anecdotally. I've I've heard of everything from you know, medical doctors who, who. I would personally, you know, be very think would be very trustworthy being involved in in these services to people who don't really seem to have much training of any kind, who I'd be deeply skeptical of. And and then there's a lot of folks in the in the middle. So it's definitely a new and and interesting sphere.

[128:12] I invited Adam to. There. There's a group that meets out of the healing hub the first Wednesday of every month, which is 2 days, for now, by the way, and they have 30 to 40 practitioners of various credentialing or not, or lack thereof, and and a good, no good portion of them are now launching into. I'm psychedelics. And it's just interesting to sit there and listen to the room you anybody can go. It's on Facebook. it's called healing hub. Wellness. Wednesday. I've been learning a lot. So anyways.

[129:03] anybody else. we're, gonna I think we're gonna end early unless somebody really wants to stay for another hour and 3 quarters. or our quarter, or whatever Brian does. Okay, keep talking, Brian. You can. Just call this normal time right? I mean, be early. Yeah, okay. sounds good. How about a motion to adjourn? Then. Ryan motions to adjourn. Alright! Who wants to second that. Second. Alright as Adam and anyone oppose or abstaining? Or do we have to have a a roll call? Vote for them? Thank you. Okay, well, thanks everyone, and thanks. Thank you, Staff. for all the work you're doing. Thank you. You set up the Newport numbers. Aye. Thanks, bye, bye. Bye.