January 6, 2025 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Want to go ahead. Okay, start the recording. And then I wanna do instructions for virtual meeting and rules of decor. Certainly. Would you like to call the meeting to order. Oh, yes, of course. Let's let this start the meeting. The 1st meeting of 2025 for the city of Boulder's Cannabis, Licensing and Advisory Board. Today is January 6, th 2025. The time is 3 0. 4 PMI will now begin with the instructions for meetings at virtual I will be sharing my screen. Is there a reason to close the door to the room. We can. However, we are having to watch for public engagement. Oh, okay. City has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found at the link

[1:21] 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 excuse me, impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name that they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:10] The Q. And a function should only be used for technical questions to staff, and should not be used for public comment. All right. Go ahead. You want to do roll, call. Certainly. Member Foster, present Member Green. Person. Vice chair, Keegan. Present. Remember Craig, and apologies. If I get it wrong. It's been a couple minutes since the last time. Remember, Crazer. Present. Chair kunzman. Wait. We wanna make sure they got that right. Does that? Does that sound right? Del. It's close enough. Okay, pricer. It's Chryser.

[3:00] Chryser. Thank you. Got that? Go ahead! I did. Okay? And yes, I'm present. Member, noble present, and I do not see ex official member to call. I was going to. I was gonna try to text him. But I don't have his phone number. So I would have said. Ask if you want to join us. Does anybody want to send a message leaving an email message just to check in with him? Adam, do you have his contact info. I will, I might. I'll give it a try. Thank you. Why not? Let's see if you have it first? st I I do. I'll send him a text much appreciated. Thank you.

[4:00] Okay, while he's doing that. Let's take a look at the meeting minutes from October 7.th Does anyone have any concerns or issues or corrections? While you're doing that I do have to make a Kristen seek. May I ask you to kind of keep track of what's going on. I'm looking at the board web page for that issue. Yeah, thanks. Hi, this is Kristen Changaris, licensing manager. If the Board could just bear with us for a couple of minutes, please. We're just checking to make sure there's not a technical issue with the posting of the link on our website. So just give us 1 min. Please. Okay, can we do social things during that period of time? Is that allowed. They would need to be recorded.

[5:00] That's okay. Fine. Don't. Don't reveal anything overly sensitive, though. I don't have the ability to take the notes. How was everybody's holiday? And did anybody yeah, anybody do anything interesting? Go anywhere? Go through the roll call, Adam. I think you were first.st We we didn't go anywhere, but we indulged in lots of good food. Oh, and Stacy, you are next on the on the roll call, I think. I did take a trip because I felt like that had to happen after 3 surgeries and 2 months leading up to it. So I spent a week in Mexico, which was wonderful. Oh, boy, cool. And Brian anything exciting? Nope, just hunkered down at home, had family come through and just snuggles with the 3 month old.

[6:00] Oh, boy, you're surviving! Huh! Dell! How about you? Yeah, just stayed local. Just made some good food, you know. Tested some new recipes for different types of pies. And yeah, just what you normally do during the holidays, and just be with family. So it was really nice. Robin. Yeah, I had 18 for Thanksgiving in my little house, and it was big fun. Congratulations, Brian. I didn't get to see you at the last meeting. That's great news. And, Stacey, I don't know what you did. If it was cosmetic, you look fantastic. No. I wish. No, it it wasn't that lucky, but. I'm glad you're doing well. Thank you. Yeah. Foot surgery. And then hand surgeries. So not not that fun. That doesn't sound fun. Well, some of you already know that I went to Cuba and got and got to bed around after 3 am this morning, cause it was a

[7:05] never, never go to Cuba through Houston. It's the worst. Houston is a like they don't know how to run that airport. But but Cuba is interesting. Kristen C. No kristen T. Can we move the camera, or either move the whole room over a little bit to the to the right, I think, or move. Unfortunately, we do not really have that availability. It is a camera. It does move a little bit per speaker. You just are you needing to see someone that's not on. You you could so like even if you moved it like 3 degree or 5 degree points on a circle. I'm I'm not. Well, it's not on. It's it's on a Logi. Oh, that's it! That'll do it, I think right. You got your folks at folks at home

[8:03] when when she got it to the maximum rotation that seemed to work any any news? Adam. No, no word from Jacques. So you know I I would say, perhaps we should go ahead and just get started, and hopefully he'll join us when he when he sees the text, if he's able to. Okay, Kristen, see? What's the news? We are good to go. Thank you. Okay, so no problems. We are all set. So I think we were voting on the minutes. Is that correct? Kristen T. The link, the link is available, so those that might have wanted to attend. The link is available. If you follow the link in the agenda that's posted online. Right? Which is what's in front of me. So okay, so the the minutes from October 7.th

[9:01] Once again, any comments, questions, corrections. hearing none. How about a motion? Move to approve. Have to add them in a second. 9 seconds with Stacey. Would you like a oh. What about Stacey? I think we tied so whoever wants to go is fine. I I'm I'll take Stacy because Brian has, you know, has had so many motions and seconds in his Collab career that it's time for Stacey to kind of step it up a little bit. And do we need a hand vote. or can we just do abstentions? And and Kristen 1. 1 of the questions, do we need a yay, or nay, and vote, or. Because this is a hybrid. It's easier for us if you do. A if we do a voice vote possible

[10:06] just that way. I'm capturing everything, since we don't have this by name. Certainly. Member Foster. Yea, Member Green. Yeah, yeah. Member Keegan. Yes. Member Kaiser. Yay! Member kunzman. Yes. Member noble. I'm going to abstain because I didn't attend the meeting. Just to clarify because it might come up at some future vote. Roberto, when someone abstains, it's it's a it ends up being a yes, vote anyways, right? Is that correct? Hard question. After the New Year. Tools of border. Right? But we have a folder, you bet.

[11:00] Do we? Pricing commission. Should we record it as an abstention? I don't know. I would so for minutes. If I may, we record it as an abstention. And the reason? If so, if it's just a regular abstention. We don't, but if it's an abstention because they were not at the meeting in question. We just noted as such. Okay, okay, duly noted. So now we're ready for general public comments for the board, do we? I'm assuming that was one of the reasons you were checking to see is, do we have any potential public comments. There's some. When I open that QA. Thing. There's somebody who wrote at 3 0. 6, asking to clarify how they sign up for public comment. I don't know if anyone else has seen that or responded to it. So I have and I'll go ahead and address that like we would normally in a virtual room. Again the the

[12:00] Agenda item is agenda. Item number 2. General public comments to the board. Public comments will be limited to 3 min per speaker. I will be presenting a Google timer. If you are interested in speaking. we ask that you please raise your hand if you're in the virtual. and we will proceed in that order. I am not seeing anyone. Do we have a raise hand? We have Mark with. I comply. Stacy, did you see a name, or anything, or what you saw you? I don't know. I can address this. We did have a question clarifying on how indicating

[13:02] I'll let Kristen Changaris change. Answer this, then. I mean, I can see 4. There's 4 people did you said something about? I comply, mark. Yeah, we have Mark slow with, I comply. Who would like to make general public comment. And then, we have a gentleman that put typed in chat. Indicated asking how to indicate he would like to do a public comment, did not see an area to sign up on the website just as a reminder for Cloud. We do not do sign ups on a website just like city council. We have. You raise your hand. He does now raise his hand, therefore we will go ahead and proceed. Our 1st individual is raised. His hand was Mark Slough with, I comply, Mark, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen with the timer. One moment. One second Kristen, and I'm assuming Joel's presence is not

[14:00] to give comment. But there is a Sarah, and so. But they don't have a hand raised. I know. So, Sarah, if you, if does, she have a way that it's pretty obvious for an attendee to raise their hand? I'm just. Yes, sir, there is the raise hand. Icon. Okay, it's easy. Yes. Okay. Alright, then let's go ahead. If anybody has any questions. That is a technical question that can be put in the chat. Alright, Mark, I'm going to go ahead and allow you to speak. I'll go ahead and get this started. One moment. I think part of the the confusion might have been that the overall process for the agenda item that's coming up today regarding pre-roll at cultivation. 1 1 moment. I've gotta get the timer started. Please.

[15:02] No worries. I'm just wanting to make sure that's not collapsed here. Maybe that's where the confusion is coming in for folks. Is that you've got. You know, the actual scheduled public comment periods that are supposed to come with the items that you guys are discussing versus the very beginning of the meeting, public comment period. And so maybe that's what's causing a little bit of confusion without some transparency. That process. So I'm going to speak to the agenda item that is on today. During this initial public comment period, specifically in support of changing the interpretation that Boulder seems to be having that's in disalignment with what the State has interpreted for cultivation privileges already clarified in 2022 as they're. Mr. Slough. Hold on! Hold on! I would ask you to allow us to please start the timer. Oh, I thought you had. I'm sorry. No, it. It started automatically when you started speaking, and you were doing a clarification for speaking. Mark and. Good. This sounds like it should go under public comment for policy suggestions, correct.

[16:05] Then I think that's where the confusion was, which is why I brought up as a technical issue, so I can certainly save my comments until that time. If we're creating 2 separate public comment times. So I will go ahead and reread the agenda. Item, this is general public comments to the Board. This is for general public comments, not for the public comment section for any item that is currently on the agenda. Thank you so much for the clarity. I will reserve my comments. Then. Thank you. Thank you. It's. It looks like Ricardo also, Mister Velez also. Over to his hand. Perfect! Thank you. Okay. Continue moving on to agenda. Item number 3, matters from the Cannabis Enforcement officer. Hello, everybody! Past few months have been a little bit busy. We've had 3 dui arrests.

[17:08] I conducted 2 underage compliance checks, and then I helped the State when they conducted. It broke. Own compliance check, and everybody passed. So that was good news. Can I ask a question. You sure can. This is Robin Pam, hi! On the on the Dui arrests. Can you give us any context for what those situations were. They were all minor traffic violations, and it ended up being driving while under the influence of marijuana. In all 3 of them. And were there? Was there a blood test given at the hospital, or how was that detected. We have some standardized sobriety tests that we put them through, and some indicators of drug use

[18:06] that the officers look for. and then you either do you do a blood test for for drugs and for marijuana, and then the results come back can be a couple weeks later from the the state lab. Okay, thanks. The only reason I'm asking, just trying to understand if roadside has changed at all recently around the Ui. Okay, thank you for that. You're welcome. Well, I guess, to follow up on that question for the the anyone who had a blood test done. They don't do it on the road right. They have to be taken to a facility. Yeah, how it works is the ambulance crew that the city has a contract with will either come to the station and do it there, or if, say, somebody had to go to the hospital, they'll do it there, or if they were actually taken to the jail, they would meet the officer out there to do the blood draw.

[19:10] And that's testing for marijuana. Other other. Panel of drugs! 7, or 9, or how many? I can't remember exactly it it. I think it's like 7 to a range of 7 to 10 drugs and alcohol, so. But that's what next question was, and alcohol right? No. Alright And that, and that over. What period of time was that again? That was over 2 months. Okay? And do you have any statistics easily available to you over that same period of time? How many alcohol. Part of the quite a few alcohol. What are we talking. Unfortunately. 3, 3 compared to. Like 3 to one.

[20:01] Oh, only 1 0, 3, only 3 to one. Okay, not 10 to 100 to one. No, the Dui Russ. It's so. Call dependent. If the officers are on in progress calls, then. you know, there's none of them available to be watching for traffic violations and for for Dui detection. Perhaps you've seen the news that keeps hitting the news that but Cu Boulder is developing a a breathalyzer test which? Who knows when that's going to be. Let's say, let's just say, in a positive frame of mind, 6 months, and more probably realistically, 5 years. How do you think that might help the situation? I think it's gonna be just like the portable breath tests that we have for alcohol, that they are just merely a tool to help the officer in their investigation. It will not be admissible in court.

[21:02] You think it'll be the same sort of setup that, and I don't know. I've never been arrested for drinking and driving so, but from what I've heard, you have a choice of taking the alcohol breath, test or not, and if you're not, then you have to go down and. You're for suspected alcohol. You can take a breath or a blood test, but you can also refuse. And so. But the blood test. You have to be taken somewhere. You can't do that roadside right. No, you don't do it on the street. It's just unsafe and unsanitary, so. But the breath test is done on. No, you've taken we have Intox machine at the station here, and there's 1 at the jail, and it's it's set up. It has its own qualifications and circumstances on where it is and what's in there. It all has to meet state

[22:00] credentials for use. So the roadside sobriety testing for alcohol is pretty similar to to the roadside for test, for marijuana, or any any other drug right. Yeah, the their standardized tests. You just get some other clues for for drug influence. And so then you have to do a couple things. In addition to the standard tests that we use for alcohol detection. If let's say, for instance, they do create a marijuana breathalyzer test. Do you think they'll follow the same rules? But it won't be roadside or won't be. Well, you use them in addition to the roadsides. It's just an additional tool. Yeah, I really don't think that any da's office or the State will allow that to

[23:01] to be used in court, though in trial. Hmm, okay. I know you weren't expecting these questions, but. Oh, it's okay. Cause cause it's gonna hit sometime in the future. Who knows when. Yeah. We're we're gonna be discussing stuff like this, although maybe we won't. I don't know. Maybe just be up to that. Go ahead! Okay. Any other questions or. Did you have 2 lands raised. Oh, sorry! Oh, I can't wait there, way up there, Stacy. I was just kind of asking a follow up to some of the questions you're asking, because I don't know if there's been any updates in technology or testing. But my understanding was that people would basic if their regular users test positive on a lab test like we're doing right now that there's really no way lab test wise roadside to like test somebody and say, like they've used cannabis recent, is that still true? Or is that changed.

[24:09] Well, everybody metabolizes drugs and alcohol at different rates, and so those blood tests are supposed to capture recent use. And so then it's all up to the officer to show that how that recent use impacted their ability to safely drive that vehicle. And so just so, I know when I look at these reports when it says like, you like this report says, 3 DU id, so that implies people were pulled over, and the ticket, or whatever we call it, was written specifically for cannabis, not necessarily alcohol. And or how does that like. No, it was strictly for Duid drugs, and and with marijuana the officers and all 3 arrests got the odor of marijuana coming from the person or.

[25:00] Using it right? And so then that's so. When we see that it means this, this is the number of tickets specifically for in this case, marijuana. Yes. Okay, okay, that's helpful. Sorry. I'm just wanting to stay up to date. Thank you. Nope. Welcome! I had a question, what is the threshold for failing one of these tests? Is it 50 nanograms per milliliter. To be quite honest, I'm I'm having a senior moment, and so I don't know. I'll research and get that exact number back to you. Yeah, I was just curious. And you know, I don't know if that is available. Like, how far over that threshold were the these people and states. My best. Yeah. I'd have to look at each one and see what the results were for them. Yeah, that's not as important. I was just curious. If it's 50 nanograms or not. And then I guess, Stacy, my question is, if a person is a regular user of cannabis. I think it. You know

[26:04] the cannabis will, or the Thc. Sorry will stay in their system for a long period of time. So how can you delineate? You know what is built up in their in their, in their bloodstream versus what maybe they possibly consumed that night? And how does that affect. That that would be a defense that that their lawyer would have to put on and get. You know, medical experts that. you know, can argue that point. Thank you. Since you've worked in laboratory testing, do you have an opinion as to what would be the or it should be the cutoff, or do you? Do you know enough to. Yeah, that that type of testing. We, you know, we didn't do. Yeah. So that's that's sort of my realm of knowledge. Dr. Google, I'll I'll consult Dr. Google for that question. Then. Well, it sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, that the officers are doing some sort of roadside assessment beyond these labs and saying, there's some, you know, probable, or I don't know. I'm gonna stay away from legal terms, but a good enough reason to assume there's been recent enough cannabis use more than last night, or whatever.

[27:18] Correct, the roadsides show that there is some current impairment. Like smoke going out the window. That kind of thing. Yeah, I've seen. The physical performance of of them doing the roadsides, and then whatever indicia of marijuana use they get. You know, the odor. Things like that. So. Thank you. That makes sense. So, Pam, and in. You might not know the answer to this question. But in your estimation take those 3 duis or any other, you know, if the year's worth of duis were presumed cannabis use, how many result in? They're just misdemeanors, though right? How many result in convictions or charges.

[28:05] you know, going through, and you know, or versus people fighting it and saying, Well, you know the evidence is unclear and. You know that that's hard to give a hard number, because the the da's office they have different parameters they use. So it depends. You know, house. What was the level of drugs in their system? Was this their first, st you know, Dui arrest. because usually you know, the lower level Dui or Duid drug arrests. They tend to give them. you know, a chance to correct the behavior. Now, if they've had multiple arrests. Well, then, the severity, you know, goes up so. So, Del, you probably read Cinnamon, Bidwell and others her researchers.

[29:02] They're doing a lot of testing of many different types of cannabis users. Yeah. try to figure out. You know, the chronicity and how that plays in. Was it 1st timer, except, I think everybody in their study is a cannabis user. So as best I know, they don't have 1st timers. Which would be interesting, I guess, but I don't know. I think they've done that kind of research, Tom. And I mean, I don't know if it's like gold standard quality, but from what I understand it's pretty clear that people who just use it, like, you know, tonight for the 1st time are very, very, very much different on road testing than people who use it all the time. So like that, I think we've seen. I think the question is, the whole gray area between those 2 where most people in Colorado probably fall, and the lack of testing in that area.

[30:02] Yeah, everything is going to evolve, I mean, with the extended, you know, use and more research, you know. Think things will change. Yeah, I mean, this is going to be interesting. 5 to 10 years from now. How this is evolving, because I've been giving thought to this. I remember reading a case study somewhere around 4 or 5 years ago of a gentleman who ended up in his 6th time in jail and was gonna get sent off to prison for a alcohol. Dui, and all I remember is that it could have been all some of those could have been prevented by having a vehicle that you had to blow a breathalyzer to start the car. And you know, if if we just set up his car that way. And and I wonder could you do that for somebody who is a repetitive cannabis driver? So that if it I mean because if they, if they, you know, had anything other than 0.

[31:01] Then maybe they couldn't start the car. But that'd be hard, because Dell points out. You know, somebody's a chronic user. Then they might just have a little bit in their system from having used it a month ago or 3 weeks ago, or but it's still gonna get interesting as time goes on, I think. But anyways any other questions. and assuming none, go back to the agenda. Thanks, Pam, although she's frozen. Can you guys hear me. Yeah. Yes. Oh, good. Okay. She froze. all right. Now we're at public comments for policy suggestion. Perfect agenda. Item number 4. Public comments for policy suggestions, policy, suggestion, form from I comply. Llc. Regarding proposed changes to the Boulder Revised code sections 6, 14, 2, and 6, 16, 2. If you are here to speak as to the public comment, section for this, please raise your hand by using the raise hand feature in the chat.

[32:11] and I will. People are doing that, giving them opportunity to raise their hand. I will make another note that please make sure if you do need to utilize the chat. That is only for technical issues only, and no comments. Thank you. All right, chair, Princeton. It looks like we have 2 speakers. 1st would be Mark Slaugh with. I comply. We move him over. You have permission to speak. Thank you. Appreciate your efforts on this. So far, I know it's been a bit of a technical issue just to try to get ironed out, and I'll make my comments as succinct as possible. I did go ahead and send a public comment sheet over with this, more in detail as well. but essentially, we're in support of the changes you all need to make regarding the misinterpretation of cultivation privileges, and urge you to recommend an update to your current regulatory stance seems like this is an antiquated and misinterpretation of cultivation, privileges that have already been workshopped through the Med. And clarified in 2022,

[33:13] which, refusing to, I think, interpret correctly leaves your existing cultivations at a massive, competitive disadvantage. We're seeing a lot of folks using their trim material and utilizing pre-rolls as an increasing area of demand by consumers because they don't have to roll their own products at home, which makes sense because those pre-rolls are increasing in demand. This is a logical way to process just byproduct material from harvests into pieces of paper. You're not really creating any sort of safety risk. There's no extractions involved, or anything that would constitute mip license privileges, which is where it seems to be that you're interpreting. Pre-rolls need to lie in direct conflict with how the State interprets that. because there's not any danger to warrant this interpretation, this misinterpretation is actually costing jobs, revenues and handing it to other counties and municipalities around you, where these pre-rolls can be produced by cultivations in a normal manner, as part of day-to-day business.

[34:11] It's the only city that I'm aware of across the entire State of Colorado, interpreting pre-rolls as a manufacturing process, when I would argue that it already exists under your current definitions for really repackaging of small amounts of trim into a piece of paper. delaying this instead of reinterpreting, it is both inefficient and costly. You all only meet once every quarter so every time this has to go back to the drawing board on an interpretation, you're costing folks the opportunity to really compete in this marketplace and to otherwise be able to produce their byproducts into pre-rolls. Again, this interpretation needs to be changed internally, I think, as an injunctive sort of decision, and then seek. The ordinance changes that you just cited in definitions of what constitutes a cultivation, privilege, and definitions of what constitute in your world manufacturing later on for city council to contend with.

[35:08] as this process should take another, just according to your your process itself. Another 3 months, just to come back to the table, let alone go to city council. It seems that after 2 years of just waiting on it, you're already making folks wait another 6, 9, maybe even a full year before those 2 little definitions get updated to the code itself. And I think that we haven't seen any major updates to the Boulder code. Since 2016. Boulder has always been the more stringent interpreter of all regulations across the State, more so than any other city. and it is costing your businesses the opportunity to compete at a normal playing field and play by the rules that everyone else has. So I would also recommend, as part of your process here, not just to look at these these myopic sort of changes, but also to maybe look at your old interpretations overall. If we haven't updated anything in almost a decade now, maybe time to start looking at how to align your regulations from the antiquated position that they sit in. Now, to really what has been going on annually with the rulemaking process, and what the expansive rules have become at 500 and something pages at the State level versus where they were in 2016, I think just a few 100 pages, probably half the number of rules we have now.

[36:24] in doing so, you can help align, create more efficient, transparent, and competitive regulatory environment for cannabis businesses operating in the Boulder City area. And I think this is an important thing for you to do. And and certainly in alignment with the mission of sea lab. So immediate, ask would be just change the interpretation. Let folks start to produce pre-rolls and then figure out your detailed changes later on, as you are costing businesses, revenues, and jobs. In the meantime, by sticking to this very old and clearly antiquated definition. Thank you.

[37:00] Next we have Ricardo. We in the past? We've always allowed questions for the speaker. Is that something we can do? Or are we changing. Would you like me to bring Mister Claude back in. Was, does anyone have? Does anyone have questions for Mister Slow? I guess I'd like to ask one if nobody else does. Mark, can you hear me. Quick question, to. Oh, Stacy! Go ahead! I just wanted to know, because on the main form, policy, suggestion, form under how would this affect the industry? The author wrote. cultivations were safely producing pre-rolls and infused pre-rolls made with physically separated marijuana concentrate. But then, in the document. follow up document from I comply. I don't see the second part addressed, I just see the pre-rolls. So is that, like all inclusive, or are they separate things? I guess I wanted to clarify that.

[38:04] Yeah, that's a great question, Stacy, to be clear, this is kind of one of those, again, antiquated areas where boulder only interpreted physically separated. Marijuana concentrates as water-based bubble hash back in 2016. But the reality is, you can also have Keith. If you just beat the plant right, the trichromes come off, and that's Keith, and you can infuse that Keith into a pre-roll. So the State regulations, since 2022 have allowed for infused pre-roll manufacturing as well. Which, again, if you want to get into, whether that's a repackaging or manufacturing, it's kind of the crux of this bad interpretation. In the 1st place, I think just pre-rolls in general, with trim and flowers really easy to come at that and say, All right, guys, we just stop interpreting it that way. and the reality is right. That right now, according to your same definition, that's antiquated. These cultivations also can't beat off the trichromes right from a plant material and have keef. That would be not a water-based marijuana concentrate and therefore constitute manufacture. And now you're throwing that over to a mip again.

[39:03] So it's just a really old antiquated interpretation that I didn't want to. You know, already make it more complicated than it really isn't. If that makes sense by necessarily collapsing. Those things. I think the injunctive release immediately is just to say, look, pre-rolls are fine. We'll figure out this infused stuff later on. But you know, obviously infused with physically separated mineral concentrate is clearly in the regulation as well. It just may require. You know from your again your perspective and interpretation more changes to the code because of that water-based, concentrate concern from 2,016 that's still antiquated. And maybe that requires a whole new submission form. And now we're waiting another 6 to 9 months. Right? So here we are just still going. Hey, guys, we've got some old rules. They're not in alignment with what cultivators can currently do everywhere else but Boulder. I hope that clarifies. Thank you. Yeah, that that helps. I appreciate it. No problem. Nope, Mark, I I hear your frustrations, and I'm sympathetic with that point of view.

[40:10] how long you've been in the boulder area and working on this. Yeah. So I have been involved in the cannabis industry since 2,008, 2,009 before there was an industry doing advocacy work before there was one on behalf of patients. Out of Southern Colorado ran the campaign for Amendment 64 for all of Southern Colorado as well opened up operations. Manitou Springs worked in the Colorado Springs campaign. and then also worked at the capital, running 2 different industry associations for a number of years, and I founded the oldest Compliance company back in 2011. So I've been involved since there were rules and regulations, and the 1st Med director a long, long time ago. Since the beginning I've had clients in Boulder. We've served hundreds of clients across, not just Colorado, but the rest of the United States and internationally, and are considered some of the more foremost experts on regulations compliance. And specifically, how do we relate those to operations and make these businesses work in a, in a transparent and functional manner.

[41:08] Given what you that that's a oh, excellent summary of your experience. Oh. given! Given what you just said, I'm assuming that you would know, or you'd be aware of the map. But you probably were not a member of the map. When you say the mip, the. Map, marijuana, advisory panel, which is the city. It was the predecessor to this cannabis license. I've sat on over 12 does 1213 rulemaking groups at the Med, including the ones around taxation safety compliance enforcement and then helped, you know, pass a bunch of bills in the legislature again. This sort of industry rep with our own lobbyist, and Pr. You know, firm working underneath us. So I've been around sort of the space Truman at. Meg also wanted me just to echo that they also don't think this is a public safety risk and to

[42:00] allow for this interpreter change. But no, I was not part of specifically map, but I have been part of advisory groups. I was also the chief consultant for the island of Puerto Rico, where we wrote the 1st free market marijuana model in Spanish, and implemented their system in in 6 months. I guess I'm wondering is, can you conjecture as to why I think the reason why we are different than the rest of the state has something to do with map. And what was the map thinking? I mean? What? What was the reasoning? Why we were different, and Dell has his hand up so I'll let Dell go first.st Yeah, that's. If you want to. I don't know for sure, but I would think that maybe the the boulder regulations haven't been updated to be in line with when the the State updated their definition of physical separation. because there was a number of years ago where they they updated to include looking at the Med regulations right now, their terminology, physical separation based retail and medical marijuana concentrate. So physical separation is by grinding, sifting.

[43:08] or by, or a similar process that may use water, ice. or dry ice. And so in any of those you're not changing the the characteristics of the cannabis of the trichomes. You're not applying any type of solvent or heat or pressure to change it. It's the same thing. It's just how you're separating it from the biomass. Can you tell what year that was? Possibly hmm, market, probably. And evident. Yeah. Marketplace. But yeah, they update the regulations every year. But it was a number of years ago where they updated the terminology of physical separation. But yeah. And and, Tom, I could get you a more definitive answer. I wanna say it was 2019, 2020 somewhere in there for physical and then specifically for the ability for cultivations to repackage into pre roles was done in 2022.

[44:00] We do regulatory updates on all of our training programs for comprehensive compliance training, responsible cultivator training, manufacturer training, responsible vendor training on an annual basis. Every time the rules change and we hold a rules update seminar every year and follow the red line updates through the Med every year. So I could tell you this has been antiquated. And to come back to your 1st question. It was sort of just always known in the industry that the old advisory situation was just more restrictive. Boulder always had a more restrictive interpretation of the regulations, because the regulations say that they can so to a certain degree, every city has the option to be more restrictive on the rules, right? Obviously, hopefully, hopefully justifying why? To some degree, because you don't have necessarily a scientific advisory Board or some of these other committees that inform the State rules. But to to answer your question. I think it was more of a cultural thing that was just kind of known throughout the rest of Colorado and just has not been updated since. Well, in this case, 2016.

[45:00] Okay? And Stacy has a question. Thank you. Yeah, I I guess if this is all what it sounds in my mind, it feels like silly not to fix it. So my question really would be like, well, like, what's the process to do that? If others on the board feel this is a matter we should take on. What are the next steps like, how would we deal with this. Members. Of the board. This is the public comment, portion right. Okay. I'm sorry. Not the portion where you are delivering it on any specific issue. Yeah, no, this is only time. Just wondering what the process will like would be, because we don't meet like, Mark said very regularly or as regularly so. I'm just curious to understand, like, what would we if this was something we want to take up? How would we do that? But that's more of a question for Roberto and our staff. Not mark. Well, and I think this is the second step in that process. But it is a lengthier one, Stacy, to your point, and I think that if it's just an interpretation issue, maybe you guys can just talk about not interpreting.

[46:09] So there's effect. Which is what we're comment is about. Alright, Mark, I'm gonna. This is simply public comment. So going back and forth and on, the process is not appropriate at this time. Yeah, I'm gonna move on to Mr. Valence. Thank you. Mark. One moment. Hello! Mr. Villas. Can you hear? Yes. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, I'm just waiting for the timer. For this one. We're not really doing a ton. Time, or work with. Oh, okay. You didn't specify a time. Oh, I I will be very quick, and it's this is related to it's it's about the same thing. I work with mark cause we use him as one of our consultants for compliance. So you know, I'm just kind of following up. I'm the one of the one of the operators in boulder that is most affected by

[47:27] by this situation right now. Good afternoon. My name is Ricardo Villas, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the recommendations outlined in the cultivation rules subcommittee memorandum. Today I want to emphasize the critical importance of aligning State and local cannabis regulations. The current misalignment between Colorado State Law and the Boulder Revised Code not only places Boulder's Cannabis business at a competitive disadvantage, but also fosters a gray area of compliance that puts operators at unnecessary risk.

[48:04] The inconsistency leads to confusion, misinformation, and the exploitation of businesses that are striving to operate responsibly in an already challenging market. Boulder's cannabis. Businesses are uniquely burdened by regulations that diverge from State standards. The inability of local cultivation, license holders to fully exercise the privileges allowed under State law, such as producing pre-rolls and different separation based products, undermines their ability to compete with businesses in other Colorado municipalities. As some of the other owners that I communicate with in other counties. The general notion about Boulder is, no one in the cannabis industry wants to open any more cultivations or shops, or anything in boulder

[49:03] just because of the expense and the lack of consistency between the State regulations. The Moreover, the lack of alignment between state and local regulations opens the door for inadvert noncompliance, further exposing businesses to penalties and damaging their reputation. So I don't know if you guys have checked out the most recent freakonomics study about the cannabis industry and the nation. As a whole. however, the regulations are becoming so dense and ridiculous that there are operators out there, even considering going illegal again, because they profit more out of it. If Boulder wishes to maintain a strong and ethical cannabis industry. It is imperative to close this gap and bring local regulations into harmony with State law.

[50:00] The issue is also compounded by broader economic challenges facing the cannabis industry which has been unfairly relied upon to fund public education, a responsibility that should be met through equitable and sustainable budgeting education is a universal right, and it is the duty of Colorado and its municipalities to provide for all learners, especially those with diverse needs and learning styles. Yet the system has repeatedly failed to do so, leaving behind specific learners and ultimately contributing to the very workforce that powers the cannabis industry. Today it is time for Boulder's leaders to recognize that exploiting this industry as a financial crutch is neither ethical nor sustainable. additionally concerns about youth. Harm related to cannabis cannot be ignored, but it is critical to address the real cause, which is the lack of education. The harm to our youth stems not from the products themselves or from a systemic failure to provide that proper education to both young people and their parents. Effective prevention comes from informed and engaged communities, not from placing further restrictions on an already overregulated industry.

[51:08] I urge this Council to look at the misalignment and try to change the rules so that we can move forward in an easier way and actually survive. The upcoming challenges that the cannabis industry faces. I urge you guys to prioritize aligning these regulations and doing so will provide much needed clarity for businesses, foster competitive parity and prevent unnecessary risks associated with compliance gray areas. Let's work together to create a regulatory framework that is fair, consistent, and supportive of boulders, cannabis businesses while upholding our community's values. I want to add a couple of things to what I wrote. I don't know if you guys know this. But most of the workers and cannabis cultivations are students that the public education system has left behind.

[52:08] And I think that's really important. Now operators come in, and they think that, hey, the State should align, and we do a lot to actually look through all the details between all the regulations, between the city of Boulder or the county of Boulder or the State and that misalignment, for example, for me, represented a pre-roll machine I bought last year for $86,000 that is literally sitting empty in my warehouse because I can't use it because of this, because I'm not willing to risk closing my business down and getting Nick by you guys or by the Regulators in Denver. From the State saying that. Oh, you're noncompliant with the city. But the State says, Yeah, but the city says, No, So

[53:02] this also led me to try to get in bed with somebody who's still building a mip in boulder, who, we found out, just doesn't have the right design. So we can't do that. It's just too expensive. So this leads a cannabis business like mine down this path of trying to figure out a way around everything rather than actually like having multiple sources of revenue, and not just something based on this lowering price that doesn't even match inflation or the cost of production. And it's misalignments into regulations like this that are contributing to that competitive disadvantage that cultivations have. I appreciate everybody's time on this, and I hope that we can all work together to come up with a resolution to the issue that actually, fairly and equitably addresses the issue to all cannabis businesses in boulder future or existing.

[54:03] Thank you so much. Thank you any questions for Mr. Velez. Okay, anybody. I see there's other participants, but nobody else has raised their hand. Correct. That's correct. I will make final call for public comment. policy, suggestion, form provided by, I think, by anyone else for public comment. Chair Kunzman. I see no further public comment. Okay, public comment is closed. Going back up to our our process? Or is this, would this be called the second Collab meeting on this topic?

[55:01] Yes. Okay, so it's time for deliberation. Brian and Adam, do you wanna talk about. Yeah, thank you, chairman. I'm gonna defer to Adam. Since he did 98% of the work drafting this memo that appeared as an appendix you should have received in a I don't have the message right in front of me. But we drafted this memo summarizing a position to allow retail based cultivation. License holders produce separation based concentrates, basically making the case to align city rules with state rules rather than filibuster more, Adam, do you want to like? Provide a little bit more color here than what I have done so far. Yeah, I'd be happy to provide a summary of the the memo. And then, you know, Brian, if you don't mind, please let me know if you if you think I miss anything, or or if there's nuance, that should be explained further. So I'm I'm not gonna read the whole memo. You know, it's in the packet, and I I think folks have probably read it. But

[56:19] Brian and I were were appointed to a subcommittee to look at this issue. That that was kind of sparked by the suggestion form that Mr. Slough had provided. I I should be clear that in the memo. And and you know, certainly my belief is, we're not arguing that there has been a misinterpretation of of the code in the memo the the local code can be more restrictive than the state Med rules. I think that's well settled. So the local authorities do have the the ability to to do that. And the fact that Boulder has chosen to be more restrictive.

[57:02] isn't necessarily doesn't mean the boulder is doing something wrong. What we're arguing in the in the memo, though, is that it's time to look at now, whether those restrictions still make makes sense in light of changes in the industry since these restrictions were were put in place. So just background wise. What we're looking at is balancing economic development and congruence with State law and staying competitive with similarly situated jurisdictions while guarding against adverse impacts on public health and safety. And so that's kind of what the the Boulder code has instructed the clab to do. So. The way that I'm reading that is, we should align with State law unless there's a convincing reason not to based on public health and and safety concerns, or or some other unique. you know, issue here in Boulder. So, as the memo talks about back in 2010 Colorado was the 1st State to comprehensively regulate and license medical marijuana businesses, and then, when Amendment 64 was passed in 2012. In 2014 we became the 1st state to comprehensively regulate retail marijuana businesses

[58:24] back at that time, because Colorado was literally the 1st state to be doing this there were many jurisdictions that wanted to take a more careful or conservative approach, because it was a brand new thing, and some of the risks and benefits may not have been fully understood at that time. But if you look at where we're at now, almost half of all states have retail cannabis about 2 thirds of states have medical cannabis, and so the landscape across the country has changed a lot, and there's just a lot more known about the industry than there was when some of these provisions were were enacted. And so that's why we thought that it did seem like an opportune time to look at some of these

[59:09] these ways where the local code was not complying with with state law and say, Okay, does this still make sense? You know as we sit here 15 or or 11 years later? Or is it something that could be streamlined to make it more? You know, more similar to State law. Also back when when we were the very 1st state to be doing all this stuff, the profit margins were better and quite frankly, it was easier for industry to you know, shoulder a higher financial burden to meet whatever the requirements happened to be, because the profit margins were really good. That's really no longer the the case, you know. Again, there's a lot more states that have retail and medical cannabis. There are all these intoxicating hemp products that are being sold over the Internet, and

[60:05] for for various reasons, people going back to work after the pandemic. But regardless of the reason, the number of license cultivators in boulder has decreased about 33% recently from from 2020 to 2024, and then the the profit margins, and and certainly the tax revenue are all down. So it seemed like a good time to look at. Some some streamline streamlining and potential updating of regulations. so then we talk about what the med rule permits. And and we'll get to the Pre roles. There's basically 2 parts of the recommendations right? One is the types of concentrates that cultivation facilities should be able to make. And then the other is this this question of pre rules? So, starting with the concentrates, the Med rules do not allow a cultivation facility to use heat

[61:03] or pressure, or any kind of a solvent, and typically that stems from safety concerns and and fire code concerns particular particularly with using solvents. So that's why they need that production license, and that has a separate set of inspection requirements and operational requirements. Now, what the State does let the cultivation facilities do is to produce this water hash or or bubble hash. Sometimes it's called, but the water-based separation that boulder does does permit, and Boulder allows you to do that, so you can make that you can use that water based separation in Boulder. But at the State you can also make what's called Keith. And that's where they were talking about just using basically a big screen and shifting through the plant material. And again, there aren't any chemicals involved, but that allows the the trichomes or crystals to to be filtered out and make this product called Keith.

[62:06] The cultivation facilities can make that at the State level. They cannot currently make that in in Boulder. So one recommendation that we had is well, just let the folks in boulder make all the all the concentrates. Physical separation based concentrates that cultivation facilities at the state level. Can the other issue, then? And it is kind of separate, really, is this issue of pre-rolls, and at the state level the cultivation facilities can make joints, you know. They called it. They call it pre-rolled marijuana. Everyone else calls it joints, but they can make it at the cultivation facility, and they can also take the physical separation based concentrates that they're allowed to make at the cultivation facility and put that into an infused pre-roll. But again, only with that key for, or water hash not with any other type of of concentrate. So

[63:06] Where then, we have a question for staff, and we're not. We're not saying that the interpretation has been incorrect, or that it's that it's been wrong. You know, council drafts the code staff interprets it. That staff's job. So so we're not saying staff interpreted it wrong. But we are asking whether the interpretation could be revised because I think it's potentially open to 2 different interpretations. If you look at Appendix A, this really gets into the local code definition of cultivate versus produce. Okay? So when we're looking at, cultivate cultivation or cultivate it allows growing which is intuitive, but then it also under Romanette 2 allows preparing, packaging, repackaging. So the question there is just whether those phrases

[64:05] preparing packaging, repackaging would include or could be read to include making the pre-rolls. Now I understand that now that is not the interpretation, but we wanted to at least ask whether that current language could allow those activities, because. you know, at least personally, I think it's open to 2 interpretations, although although staff gets deference on the interpretation that it believes is the truest to the code and the intent of council. The second definition is produce or production. And This is where I think some of the the confusion maybe comes in because the question would be whether you know, the the packaging and repackaging activities are the same, labeling, so on and so forth, or whether making pre rules would fall under only the definition of produce or production, but not under the definition of of cultivation or cultivate. So you know, I think we wanted to ask that that question, and then, the final point would be if

[65:21] if staff informs us that the the code does not permit pre roles, that that's just not. you know, kind of a interpretation that can be found within the code or or that, or that Staff believes is appropriate under the code. Then I think we would go ahead and recommend asking council to revise the code to permit making those pre-rolls. And then, while you're at it, you know, once you're revising something, then we would go ahead and and recommend that the clap recommend to council just aligning the cultivation privileges under the local code, with the privileges under the State rules.

[66:03] Brian, Brian, what did I? What did I miss. No, I think if folks are able to follow all of Adam's excellent work summary parsing all that out. I think the discussion we'd like to have is one. This question to staff about whether and how that interpretation could be changed or is this something that we want to elevate to council or staff would be more comfortable elevating the Council to clarify that and proceeding down that route. So I guess one line of conversation is one with staff. Is this open to a reinterpretation? And then 2. How do we want to approach? Going to counsel with this? I see a hand from Stacey. Go ahead, Tracy. Sorry I'm. Kind of trying to find out the same thing earlier at the wrong time. I'm trying to understand our role here is Collab with this, because, like when I read the memo Adam put to Adam and Brian put together, it makes a lot of sense to me. But I want to understand our role here? Is it just simply recommending to city council that this happens, or like, you know, where do we come in? Is what I'm trying to better understand.

[67:24] And and I can certainly address that. And and I can actually pick up from from where Member Foster left off and that is, when I met with the licensing manager. As to kind of doing a deeper dive into whether this does permit, as written our our ordinances? the answer is still no based on the definitions, and because they do differ from the state. And so, if it is

[68:00] clabs, opinion and staff does not have an opinion as to whether they should be changed or not. That is kind of your role to say, Hey, city council, your ordinance should change, we have looked into it so the next step would be. If you all vote to make that suggestion to City Council, then you would prepare would help you by providing you the the shell, for that is what's referred to as an IP memo. Which is, it's the information packet memo. asking city council if they would like to change the ordinance, and you can certainly provide the reasons why you believe it should be and if they agree. Then we help you prepare the ordinance change, either because you write it that way, or simply to comply with how the State rules are written. We've done that in in other situations where the State has changed, and we have asked city council to simply adopt what what the State is doing.

[69:13] so that would be the next step for all of you to have that discussion. If the majority agrees that that's where it should go. Then we can help provide you the necessary documents to to send the City Council. Robin. Thanks, chair before we move down. Sort of the procedural route. Are we still having this conversation about the merits of the proposal? Because I do have a few ideas I'd like to share with. Of course it's not ready for prime time. Quite good. But are you ready for me. Yeah. Okay. So I am. First.st Wanna apologize that I missed the last meeting. So I I'm getting my bearings on the proposal.

[70:02] I as many of you know, I work at the State Legislature, and through my work there I met a research scientist at the University of Colorado boulder. Her name is Tess Adam. and she has launched a group in the Aerobiology and Disinfection Laboratory to look at occupational hazards for cannabis workers. and she and her colleagues have just published a pretty interesting paper, but what they've noticed is that as indoor cannabis production has grown, we've seen more reports of respiratory disease among cannabis workers, including occupational asthma, morbidity, and mortality. And when I reached out to her to ask her about this particular proposal well, she has a lot of cause for concern.

[71:04] and she'd love to talk with us about this. She is unfortunately very sick today and has no voice. so she can't present today, but her concerns are around the grinding and the sifting that create a lot of aerosol. And again, she's trying to correlate some rises that they're seeing in occupational problems for cannabis workers with more indoor cannabis production. I have a Powerpoint which I printed because I thought we were all gonna be in person. That I can get to you. This is a very recent presentation she made on exactly the things that we're talking about expanding to with respect to the state. Having having taken these steps. Dr. Adam feels that they this, that the State is not necessarily where it needs to be. With respect to worker safety, she's in disagreement with where they stand. And again, you can take a look at her research

[72:13] and think about it for yourself. But essentially she has identified some research gaps that make it very difficult for researchers like her to know what's happening for people in the occupational safety space, the main. the main research gaps that she's identified is that we don't know specifically what the risk factors are associated with occupational asthma. We have not developed prevention and intervention methods to protect workers that are across the board and accepted. And she says we need more diagnostic tests for cannabis workplace sensitivities.

[73:01] She is working with Osha right now on a project in Colorado, where they're coming in to look at individual facilities and make recommendations. But again, her major concerns and her concerns with this particular proposal are about cannabis worker safety, the correlation she's seen in a rise in respiratory disease and the need for better, more specific regulations, and I'll just give a couple for instances. One of the things she asked Senator for was help getting research on workers, Comp claims for cannabis workers. In other words, can we look and see in Colorado what respiratory claims have been made for workers. What we found out after a really long process is that the Colorado department of labor does not keep those statistics. When a person fills out a claim for a harm done in the workplace, the department does not ask for a lot of details, and they don't aggregate that data by industry or by incident.

[74:15] Pinnacle assurance, which pays claims might be able to do that, and Dr. Adam is working with them now, but it's anything but straightforward, the point being that we don't have a good picture on what's happening for cannabis workers who are in indoor spaces and inhaling particulate matter. And then, a second example of not having the data that she needs. It's kind of news. Sorry it escapes me right now. But suffice it to say she's concerned that there are real problems happening right now. She's writing about it. She has published a paper about it. Her team is working actively at the University of Colorado Boulder right here in this community.

[75:14] and while I deeply apologize for missing last month's meeting, I'm not doing hard to try to have her here now, because to the 1st gentleman's comments I recognize that this process can be painfully long in so many ways. But what, I would ask the Board is to give Dr. Adam a chance to speak with you, either at the next meeting, or take a little bit of time and consider the work that she and her team are doing on this really important issue before changing this regulation. Because right now we have a we have a regulation that is not causing these problems. And if we change it, we could create that situation. And while I appreciate the proponents. Insistence that these are safe.

[76:11] What Dr. Adam and her group are saying is, we don't know that they're safe. We don't have standards across the board, and we don't have data on what's happening for workers. They're committed to finding answers to those questions. But in the meantime they would like to lessen, not increase the exposure of cannabis workers to these kinds of inhaled things that are causing a respiratory disease. Thank you. And I don't know, Kristen, if I can email this to you for sharing. Or if there's some I know that can be tricky. So you can go ahead and email that to me. We will then make it available as an exhibit. Do you do have an electronic copy? I do. Yes, I do. So we'll need to have that distributed to the board at the same time that way, and it'll be made available as an exhibit to this meeting. Okay, fair enough. I'll get that to you right away. There's also a Youtube link where Dr.

[77:12] Gives it's, it's not a lecture. It's more like a podcast interview. But it's a Youtube link is that something we can share. So you can go ahead and provide it to us, and just like we do for the articles, and we can make that available, and then we'll make all of this available at the next meeting. Okay, thank you. Stacy, you have your hand up. Thanks, Robin. I appreciate that you always bring. You know the counterpoints because it is really important. It sounds like this. Research is incredibly important and maybe even overdue my follow up would be more that, you know. Of course I haven't seen it myself to actually examine the studies, but my sense is that her work is more comprehensive and not

[78:07] specific to what we're actually looking at on this memo from Adam and Brian. So maybe that would be included under the umbrella. But again, this is like making an assumption, because I've not seen the research, but I would suspect it's more comprehensive of risks in cannabis industry workers exposed to these types of products, but not necessarily exactly what we're talking about. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she does have specific research to that. But then I would be curious to see if there's fewer claims in boulder from workers who haven't been exposed, because maybe if pre-rolls is really the risk factor. Then we would expect if Boulder hasn't been allowing it, we'd see less here. So again, more of a science kind of I'm curious to see the research mindset. But as it pertains to the question in front of us, I'm hesitant to say, yeah, let's wait to hear. You know all the details of the research. Because

[79:09] my sense is, it's not gonna really change this small part of it. I mean, maybe Boulder, if I understand the format, can go and say, Okay, if we're allowing this, here's how we want it to look. You have to wear this type of protective equipment. If you know that kind of stuff comes up. We can make those suggestions. I guess I'm just not feeling like without seeing the research, of course convinced, based on what we just heard from. You know this memo that it looks like was well researched enough to at least from my personal view. Say no, I wouldn't make the recommendation to council. To change this like. At this point, I still would say, this should be changed. It should be aligned with State code, and of course, if this research does show specific things pertaining to this, it would be, you know, prudent for the city or for us to recommend the city ads. You know protections.

[80:06] proper personal, protective gear, etc. But I guess I'm just struggling to make the full link between what you're talking about, which sounds incredibly important, just independently to what we're really looking at here. So that's my comment. Thank you. And if I can just follow up real quick, because I appreciate that, Stacy, that's a really good point. I did provide Dr. Adam with the documents and the memo, and she emailed back for what this is worth. Her comment was, there's definitely cause to be concerned when processing flour products. processing flowers linked to occupational asthma, and even the work of fatality recently in Massachusetts, grinding and sifting, will generate a ton of aerosol that can be harmful if exposed through the respiratory route. especially as many of these buildings do not have proper air, circulation, filtration, or exchange with outside air. And that's really to your point, Stacy, at the last part of what you said. What are the standards that are needed to protect workers? And what might that cost?

[81:18] A a business, maybe to put into place, but, more importantly, the city to inspect and enforce. And what would the codes be around those things? So those are some of the questions she's grappling with. My guess, though, is, if this research ends up, you know, proving a lot of what we're talking about, that those types of regulations will be put in place regardless of pre-rolls like this will be more comprehensive. It won't be just dried flower material. It's going to be a lot of manufacturing risk factors that we need to protect. You know we need protection from. And then what you're saying would be true, no matter what, whether or not we vote to, you know, recommend to council that they fix this pre-roll thing.

[82:05] Sorry to not make it sound very fancy. that's it. Thank you. Chair concerned. Member Foster has his hand raised. Yeah, sorry I couldn't see it, because. Thank you. Yeah. So I I think you know there is a concern with environmental exposure to dust, and that falls under the Osha rules. Osha has made it abundantly clear that cannabis companies have to comply with with all the ocean rules it. It doesn't, you know, care about the fact that that cannabis or that marijuana is still federally illegal. They can and will come and inspect your facility and and make sure that you're complying with all the applicable respiratory requirements. Now, as as Robin pointed out. we're part of an Osha emphasis area. And there's a local emphasis program that's going on right now out of Osha's Lakewood office, and my understanding is that they intend to inspect all of the cultivation facilities and manufacturing facilities throughout the state. I don't know how long it's going to take them to do that, but

[83:20] they're making a big push to look at safety in general for cultivation and manufacturing facilities. But that's something that Osha is doing already right now it's something that's in place. And again, the Osha respiratory requirements are something that all of these businesses, whether it's cultivation or manufacturing already have to comply with. So it's it's really not a question, though, of will. Pre will pre roles be made in boulder will joints be rolled in boulder? Will will marijuana be, you know, ground up and and

[84:00] processed in this way in boulder, because it already is right. It's already allowed under the production facility license. And so that's going on here in Boulder every day. It's just that it's going on under the the production facility license. So you know, it's it's really not a question of will this happen in in boulder or not? It already is. It's just whether the cultivation licenses in boulder should have the same privileges as cultivation licenses in other parts of of the State. But, you know it sounds like Dr. Iden has already been in touch with Osha is actively sharing her concerns with Osha, and and you know it's it's good that they're having that dialogue. That, said I don't think that should stop the board from from moving forward with the recommendation at this time, because again, it's it's already all these activities are are going on in boulder under the current code. It's really just whether the cultivation licenses are are going to be aligned with the the privileges under the State licenses.

[85:12] Can I ask a follow up? Do you have a sense, Adam, for how many additional workers would be under? How many additional workers are in that sort of space with this license type that you're focused on? so the the short answer is, I don't know. I I think what would be relatively easy to look at would be the number of production facility licenses that that we currently have in boulder and the number of cultivation licenses. That won't tell us how many individuals are are kind of working at each facility or what they're doing. But I mean, we could at least look at the the license numbers as far as how many cultivation facilities will decide to prepare pre roles, you know. Again, we don't know for sure, because it's going to be a business decision.

[86:05] But you know we have. I I mean, we know at least one will, and I would imagine that other cultivation facilities would want to prepare those those products just because pre roles are a pretty popular category of product. The demand is there, and you know, so if we allow them to do it I mean frankly, I wouldn't be making the recommendation if I didn't think that some of them would would be taking advantage of it. But, you know. we could get a ballpark idea of some of those numbers, but I think it'd be hard to know for 10 workers or a thousand workers, or I'd I'd say, Yeah, I mean, it's it's definitely it's I doubt it's I really doubt it's a thousand, but it's definitely more than 10. You know. I ballpark, I think you're looking at. you know, dozens of of individuals, you know, a hundred or or low hundreds, probably. But but that's truly just just, you know, ballpark or speculation. Okay, okay, that's fair. I mean the way that I look at it is which. Yes, other people are doing this, and yes, some license types are already doing this in Boulder, but it would be an expansion and a new sort of

[87:22] exposure risk for a new group of people, whether it's dozens or who knows what the number might be for for that? For that reason. That's significant to me. But I appreciate the the big picture. Yeah. And and you know I would not argue with it. I argue with that point I think there would be more people in Boulder engaging in these activities. I would add, though, that everyone is supposed to be complying with with Osha and Osha is going around to make sure that everyone's complying with their with their rules. One more quick follow up, not to be argumentative at all. But one of the things Dr. Adam has said is that the Osha infrastructure, although they are here to do some spot

[88:07] help has not been. They have not been able to enforce and inspect at the level of of robustness that her group feels is appropriate for what it's worth. And while we have a quick little for purposes of our record. At the beginning of of this meeting, Kristen Keye read into the record that the chat function is only to let Staff know of any technical issues those that have been in the meeting have violated that rule. So Miss Teague once again informed everyone on the meeting. but they are to stop doing that, and that the chat function is only to notify staff of technical issues.

[89:01] Those in the audience have once again violated that rule by including inappropriate comments. And so Staff has disengaged the chat function. Thank you. Please continue sorry. Now you got my curiosity because I didn't see whatever it was. What? What were the where were the comments coming from, and where. Let's take. Keep one on one. Have a sidetrack here. Chair, so let's just stay focused on the memo. Here, please. Okay, alright. So you know the the speakers have painted it that this is kind of an oversight that you know med updates their stuff every year and Boulder just hasn't I know? And it's time to bring ours.

[90:07] I'm probably gonna having been awake most of the night. And also I'm not there today because I'm have a respiratory thing so I'm not maybe thinking clearly. But so our rules are falling behind med rules. That was one of my take home messages from the speakers. and perhaps we oh, yeah, I I I think we should be looking at our rules as opposed to Med rules, including this one. But I guess I'm wondering. Adam and or Brian in your paragraph last paragraph of page 3. We are not aware of any specific health or safety concerns. If there were a public, if there were a health or safety concern that came to light, either now or in the future.

[91:05] Change your thinking. Well, I'll just speak for myself, I mean so dust. Of course it exists in a lot of different kind of facilities, but I do think these activities generate dust right? There's plant matter that that's being ground, and and that will generate dust. But you know, I I don't think that it. It doesn't change my analysis. It! Not to repeat myself, but for the the reasons that I just said that the Osha regulations already exist. Everyone has to comply with them. If you don't, it's a big deal if someone believes the Osha regulations are are inadequate, as as perhaps Dr. Item does I? I think that individual needs to go talk to Osha about it. Because the folks in the industry need to comply with the Osha regulations. And if they're not doing that, then they, you know, face regulatory risk and and bad consequences. Again, though.

[92:14] these activities are happening statewide. They're already happening in boulder to me. The fact that this dust is generated by these activities doesn't change my my recommendation of aligning the cultivation licenses with state law. And again speaking for myself that I am grateful for Robin bringing store attention. I would definitely want to hear from Dr. Item to for her to share our research if that can be scheduled but for the narrow purposes of this memo. And so, just considering the alignment of city rules with state rules to just promote the competitiveness of the industry and ensure that the city is getting tax revenue commensurate with the risks that we bear. That

[93:02] I would recommend that we engage a process of going through red lines and updating the the the ordinances and passing that off to council. I'm also mindful that if we wanted to go through a process of engaging council revising the ordinances, that there are many other things that might kind of fall under that kind of revision process. So I would also welcome input from the public and other board members about other kinds of priorities that The the open comment speakers alluded to. But just to put a fine point on it that like, if we engage with council is difficult just because they're very busy. And that legislative process could potentially take months we're only meeting on a quarterly basis. So the quicker that we can get to proposing red line changes and approving those and passing those off to council alongside any other changes we want to pursue, I would welcome that and so I would certainly welcome

[94:03] proposing regulations separate from this effort about aligning the the pre-roll narrowly tailored memo that we proposed here. But if Member Noble wanted to propose ordinances along the lines of having different kinds of standards for air quality for workers. I would welcome that kind of discussion separate from what we're considering here with this memo. I'm gonna remind everyone that we can send things forward to city council and not necessarily be unanimous. You know, in our discussion and things. We've moved forward on hospitality suites which I think, if we, if I remember, we there were 18 different motion or different votes. We weren't unanimous on everything, and you know they they took that information, and

[95:04] they ultimately decide to wait on things. But so it could work such that we move something forward, and it's not necessarily unanimous. And in that 3 month period of time more evidence could be looked at, including inviting this doctor, items that her. I don't have her spelling here. To come. Speak to us. Oh, and and you know, as Brian just suggested, we could have further motions along this line. I think one of the problems that you know Stacy kind of touched on this one of the issues is that Osha

[96:00] Osha data gathering is not gonna include where somebody works so there isn't gonna be any in the near future. Any good research looking at consequences of people working in cannabis businesses, differentiating it from other as best I understand. What would you guess, Stacey? I mean from Osha directly. Probably not. But it sounds like there's these independent research activities ongoing which are really important. And you know likewise to what Brian said. Thank Robin for bringing that here, and I agree. It would be wonderful to have. I also don't know the pronunciation of Dr. Adam, come and speak to us. I would be really interested in that. I just, as I've said, feel like there. It's kind of merging things that maybe don't need to be merged at the moment. Right? Like I, I feel like this question in front of us could be considered today in a semi independent way of

[97:11] also waiting to hear more about this research. Wise. Trying to pull up. I don't know where it went. Our process. It's on here somewhere. Page 18 of your packet, or I can put it up on the screen if you would like. I know the packets gotten buried. Yep, so I've got it here in front of me now. So reading the point 3 in second cloud meeting Cloud deliberates and decides whether to add the proposed changes to its next information packet to console or not, add

[98:03] So how would you like to proceed as a committee or as a board. Excuse me. and and I would be remiss if I didn't thank both Adam and or it sounds like 98% Adam and 2%. Brian, according to Brian. Thanks. Brian did a lot more than that, I did more drafting than Brian, but he he contributed a lot more than that. I would just direct the Board to our conclusion that we recommend the Brc. Be revised, allow local cultivation licenses to exercise full range of privileges forward by State cultivation, licenses and so whether that is and and following our attorneys recommendation, if that is a degree of interpretive flexibility that staff is not allowed to exercise. Then the route that's left before us and correct me, if I'm wrong, is then to sort of bring this before council or sort of start this process of introducing information packet start introducing red lines and things like that, and and have that ready to go potentially for the April meeting.

[99:16] Staff. Can the information packet preparation be done outside of a meeting? Or approved by the board? Or would that have to be deliberated and public commented at the April meeting before that goes into an information packet. So. If a motion is made and seconded, and with a majority vote that this policy suggestion form be added. This, with this proposed change added to its next information. Packet memorandum to Council step 5. Is that licensing that's us provides you. The cloud members a shell or example. IP memorandum

[100:02] clab then prepares draft language to include in the IP memorandum to council. Clab prepares proposed ordinance language to the implemented changes. then, at the 3rd meeting, which, as we meet quarterly will be April cloud discusses the proposed IP memo and ordinance language. discusses and revises it. Cloud discusses and revises as needed, and then formally approves the language to be added to the IP memo to Council. following that with an IP memorandum, submission, or the IP memorandum, along with proposed ordinance language are added to the Council agenda by licensing and city attorney's office for the next available meeting. So if by motion and second and a majority vote. This moves on, we would be providing you with a shell or a sample. IP memo for your continued work. Alright. So before a motion might be made.

[101:01] does the city staff feel there's enough information in the packet if if someone made a recommendation along that line is, is it? Is it? Is it clear enough. But so let me let me reiterate what I hear you're saying. Do you believe that we, as staff, have enough information via the policy suggestion, form to provide you a shell or example. IP memo. Not just the policy, suggestion, form, but the the thing put together by more importantly, I think the thing put together by Adam and Brian. and and assuming that a motion would be similar to their conclusion. I I apologize. I don't understand. That's why I'm having a hard time as well. Well, so I'm not making a motion. But someone might

[102:03] recommend that, you know. Vrc. Be revised to allow local marijuana cultivation licenses to exercise the full range of privileges afforded by state cultivation, licenses, as written in the the the memorandum. Okay. Is there enough information in there? That's what I'm asking. Is there enough information in there that you can. Where the disconnect is. Here I apologize. I see where the disconnect here is, so what we do is we provide you a template for the IP memo. The collab prepares the draft language to put in the memo and Cloud prepares the proposed ordinance language to implement or change, so that would be like redlining. Okay. Am I correct in my interpretation? Yes, thank you. Kristen chair. So this is obviously little different from the. This was the the change, for Cloud was that if we were gonna move something forward we would do the IP memo to to prep it. One thing that I don't remember about that new processes. We'll take a vote today if a motion comes forward just as you described. Yes.

[103:15] prior to that memo being submitted to council, would there be another conversation or consideration. Certainly. So. Step 5 like, I said. We provide you guys with the template, you as the Board now granted. Do you have to maintain your you're separate, but apart, right together, but apart. For meetings. You prepare the language to be included. You prepare the proposed ordinance language, or in this case a red line at the 3rd cloud meeting, which would be the meeting in April. You bring that forward. You provide it to us as a timely fashion, so we can make sure it's in the packet. Then you discuss it. You make any revisions as necessary, and then you approve the language to be added to the IP memo to council.

[104:04] Once that is completed, then the IP memo submission along with proposed ordinance language, are added to Council agenda by licensing and city Attorney office for the Council's next available. Okay? And one more follow up question. When we worked together on the social consumption document. We had a document that was available to the public as a Google Doc that all members could contribute to. It was available to the board, not members of the public. I thought there was a point where it was available on a read only basis to the public which made it which allowed us to, you know, kind of check. The box of this is so. It was made available to you all while you were working on it. To my knowledge it was not made available to the general public. Okay, that's not how I remember it. But okay.

[105:03] You're right. One suggestion that I that I have to comply with the rules is discuss right now us, if the motion passes, discuss what you would like to see in it. And since there's already a subcommittee, and you already have all the research, you can move some of that just into the shell that we provide you, and then at the next meeting everybody can can go through it. Make any suggestions that you might want. That might be the cleanest way. If the subcommittee is is on board. Yeah, I I probably would. You know I'd be ready to to go ahead and make that motion which would just be to move forward to. You know this next phase of drafting the IP memo, and you know, I guess specifically what we would be moving forward would be the recommendation that the boulder revive or yeah, the Vrc be revised.

[106:08] Before. That's that's sounding like emotion. So hold on one second, Adam. if you don't mind, or take the chair. Prerogative. Because I think the person in the Ver. The hybrid room that has the most institutional memory might be Rebo. I don't know. Riva hasn't said anything yet. but because I kind of remember what Robin said in terms of information being available to the public along the whole along the line of the process. I mean was this, was this memo available to the public? Do you know. It's an appendix on the website. I believe. It is okay. Alright. So so what's available. Yeah. Well, I don't wanna get lost in the weeds of whether or not a good. I know, I know. To the public, but.

[107:00] No, I know, but going forward, because so, if you can't tell, I'm just trying to hold off, make having the motion being made, because then we'll just move forward from there. What's the? Why do you want to hold off chair. Oh, I'm just one. I'm I'm trying to figure out the mechanics of how this will all play out. I believe that someone's gonna make a motion. The committee will start drafting the IP memorandum and ordinance language, and then that will be included in the reading pack for April and be discussed. The April meeting. But but I I guess I'd suggest, you know, kind of step wise before we got really into the the IP memo and and the, you know, kind of more granular details of of that. I think maybe it would make sense to, you know, have a motion. If there's debate on that we can debate it and then vote on it. And then at that point, you know, we'd have some instruction to move forward with the memo, and and could really dive into the the process of of preparing it.

[108:11] Okay? Then, as you said, Brian, let's not go into the weeds anymore. does anybody else have any further discussion? Or does someone like, does someone want to make a motion. I I would like to go ahead and move that the collab move forward to the next step of the process, namely, drafting the IP memo which will explore the recommendation that the Drc. Be revised to allow local marijuana cultivation licensees to exercise the full range of privileges afforded by State cultivation, licenses, and and just to be clear, that would encompass both retail and medical cultivation within that that kind of general proposition. But it would be alignment with the privileges under the the State licenses.

[109:13] Staff. Does that motion sound clear enough you want in the past? We would have people put the things in writing, and then we would look at it and then, but I don't know if we need to do that. If you could please. Make sure that the text of that is very clear, because I have to capture the motion in its entirety. Okay? So I would move that we proceed to the Ipmmo drafting phase with the IP memo to explore the recommendation that the code be revised to allow local marijuana cultivation license holders to exercise the full range of privileges afforded

[110:02] by state cultivation licenses. We'll stop. I'll pull it off the audio. Thank you. It's it's really just the the sentence in the memo that starts with in conclusion. And just that that would be what the Vip memo would would focus on and advancing that recommendation to the next step to council, I may reach out to you by email, and have you clarify your motion? Sure. Okay, that clearing up to everybody else in the hybrid room alright. Is there a second on that. I will second Brian seconds. Okay? And It's been a while since we've had. but I mean, if nothing else, every 3 months, but even longer is this time, for is this where it'd be time for discussion? Roberto?

[111:06] I mean we are. We got people. Of discussion, but. It would be. That's why I thought just wanted to make sure. Is there any further discussion? Alright, then? I guess we'll do a vote. Then Kristen. Member, Foster, Hi Member Green. Hi. Member Keegan. Yes. Member, crazer. Yes. Member, kunsman. So this is why I was asking earlier on the the outcome of abstention vote. Because honestly, this memo came out on 23rd I was busy with holidays, and then I went to Cuba, and I didn't get to see it till around sometime this morning, and I don't feel like, I've gotten a chance to explore

[112:08] the issues. And I was quickly googling the whole process to try to understand it better. And I don't feel like. I've fully understood it. So if I abstain, that would be a positive that would be a yes vote. If if you abstain, it is just based on those voting. So it's as if you missed today's meeting. Okay. So we would. We would be looking for a majority of those voting. I'm gonna vote. No, because I just don't feel prepared to vote. Yes. Member noble respectfully. No motion passes 4 to 2. Okay, do you need any further guidance on that issue?

[113:06] I don't believe so at this time. Okay, so we're ready to go on to. Are there any additional policy suggestion forms received. Yes, agenda. Item number 5. Policy suggestion form from Robin Noble on incentivizing low thc concentration products. This is step one or sorry. We have done. Step one is the intake. Here at step 2. The 1st cloud meeting policy suggestion form is in your packet. It starts. Excuse me. On page 24. This.

[114:02] I'm trying to find it because my cloud packet is stuck on page 17. Okay, Robin, do you wanna. Sure. Discuss. Sure. Okay, did anybody have a chance to read this policy suggestion for page 24? Thanks, Brian. Anybody else. Because, thank you, Adam, because it's. The speed, reading Count. No, it's both. This idea is both very basic and probably extremely convoluted in some ways. But what I was noodling on was thinking about the last couple of meetings where we are at a a bit of a crossroads on certain things around the industry and trying to balance this mission that we've been given to protect business interests and protect public health.

[115:10] And what I was wondering was, is there some novel way to well, let me back up a little bit while we've been going round and round and round on lots and lots of safety ideas and business ideas. One thing I think over the course of my time on this board that has evolved is research on concentrates and the potential harm. We're seeing a lot more media, a lot more research on impacts of concentrates specifically on developing brains. So at the same time, we've got a an industry that really really changed, especially since the 2021 legislation that

[116:06] closed the medical medical card loophole for 18 year olds to a large degree and stopped multi dispensary purchasing. And I know industry folks don't necessarily feel that that's the biggest reason business has gone down. But it is one of the reasons. So how is it that we, as a community, do both parts of our mission, we, as a board, do both parts of our mission. So this idea says that if we could come up with a rule or a a regulation that said, if your business sells 75% of its products at a low concentration of Thc. in other words, less strong products, products that are a lot more mild in their intoxicating effect.

[117:03] If we and and a lot more mild on developing brains. if if you were to sell 75% of your products at that lower potency. you would have a tax break on your overall sales. And another reason for this idea is that one of the things anecdotally well, we are hearing at the Capitol, and there was a Denver post story on this that I put inside. This suggestion form is about consumers seeking weaker weed. that there is a problem. And I talked to Truman about about this a little bit a couple of months ago. There are some issues with consumers being very turned off of the product because it's too strong. And so a 1st user uses it. And then they're not interested anymore. And as all of you know, I don't want to encourage more use. But I would like to encourage lower use.

[118:07] And I'm just wondering if you guys noodled on this, what you thought of a novel idea like this? Is there a way to not penalize, but to incentivize businesses with a meaningful tax break on total sales if they sold lower concentration products open to any and all feedback. This could be the dumbest idea ever. But I just wondered what you all thought. But be nice. Right. No, remember the noble I I like the intention and the sort of the approach to the implementation. What you're trying to do here. My question is. why the choice to focus on all sales, presumably with like a mip with a single business versus just having some sort of differential sales tax

[119:04] on the products themselves. So like, why focus on the business? 75% threshold of sales versus? Just let's triple the sales tax on high concentrates and have it on low, concentrated products, like, what would be your Yeah, I mean. I think that's a little bit punitive in a way. Or sets up. Obviously, both of these ideas set up a 2 tier system. But the orientation of this idea maybe not only incentivizes lower sales lower, concentrate sales but maybe it creates some partnership with community around that as well. Maybe it creates a more, a warmer feeling versus just this has come down on us. It's kind of like when you buy gasoline and you get a discount for paying cash. They don't call it an extra charge for using your credit card. You you get a discount. So there's it's it's kind of an orientation

[120:08] that's a little more positive in nature. That's that, was the thinking. There. Thank you. Stacey. Oh, oh, I don't know which. Didn't see Stacey send it. Oh. Either one of you. Go ahead. I I'm not in a hurry. It's fine. Oh, okay, so the I I do have one very positive comment, which is like, I like, I like the idea of sort of incentivizing businesses to to be good. You know that it's not always some kind of a a punitive thing, you know. We need an extra tax, or we need. You know. So so something that you know, feels more like an incentive, I, I think, is a is a great idea. And I and I like that idea. And I like that concept.

[121:04] I think I I have some somewhat big thoughts on the topic, and and it's I'll I'll try to keep it comparatively short. So I do think that there is some demand for lower potency products, but I think that the market is going to provide that just because it's hyper competitive. And and all these businesses are chasing customers, and they're all chasing market share. So I think that that if the consumers really want to put money into these products, I think the businesses are going to be incentivized to to fill that gap just because they're really looking for a for a competitive edge. And you know, I think some lower potency products. I can. I can see why they might be popular, especially edibles and different edible formulations. If we're talking about smoked cannabis, I I do think there's a trade off there which is just that. And and it's kind of like like with liquor. Right? You know, there's there's a wide variety of percentages of alcohol, you know everything from 3 2 beer up to to, you know, cast strength whiskey that's that's sold, and it meets different people's preferences. But

[122:21] If if someone has a certain kind of level of high that they're trying to achieve. And all they have access to is the lower potency product. They're gonna have to smoke more to get to that level, and there could be a trade off there with taking in more smoke and and more particulate matter, you know, which generally isn't good. You know, versus some of the perceived benefits of a of a lower potency product. To me, having a a wide variety of products. The way that we do for alcohol is is good, and and it's kind of consistent with amendment 64. To regulate alcohol or pardon me, regulate marijuana like alcohol.

[123:00] I do want to go back briefly to the discussion that we had with Dr. Sammett, because they did a really comprehensive evidence review that was inconclusive as far as whether concentrates were particularly harmful or higher potency products were somehow different. You know, Dr. Samet acknowledged, that we're talking about the same molecule Delta 9 Thc. And and, as far as I know, there isn't strong evidence that this same molecule, you know it would just be. It would be more of it in a higher potency product. If you're if you're taking, you know, one hit but again, a lot of people just consume, however, amount whatever amount they need to get to a certain a certain level. So I I like the idea of the incentive. I really do. I do think that having. you know. And I I know this is not the proposal, but overtaxing the products, can or or restricting them unduly can lead to bad consequences, because if they're popular products that can really invigorate the illicit market. And at least with the license products. You know, they're tested. And they're and they're age gated so

[124:20] in. In my opinion, it's it's good that you're you're being creative, and and, you know, kind of thinking outside the box and thinking of different ways to incentivize good behavior. I I do have some. you know, questions or concerns for the reasons that I just articulated. But I like the creativity going into the the proposal. Okay, I mean in in the the thank you so much for that, Adam. That's super valuable to me. And and I understand there's nuance and lots of details that would have to be worked through to make something like this work. But. I'm I'm glad you brought up doctor, Dr. Sammit, because I did want to mention his group, is just published a website.

[125:05] and it's called the T. On Thc. TEA. On Thc. and it's their new public health campaign for young people. And I have to tell you guys, I am incredibly pleased with what they just did. It's maybe the hardest hitting, clearest, least condescending messaging I've ever seen to kids around Thc, and it's very, very clear on the potential for harm with respect to concentrate on developing brains. And so that's worth checking out for, sure. And it is, I think, as business owners in this space worth sharing with your adult customers, so you can make sure that they are getting that information to their kids as well. And I hope you will do that. But that's an I went off on a tangent, but it's again it's t at Thc the T. On Thc. TEA. On Thc.

[126:06] Dr. Green. What did you think of the proposal? Yeah, thank you for putting that together. I think it's really cool. I really encourage something like that. I would be fully supportive. I'm not a very creative person to come up with like innuendos on how to do it, but I think it's a great idea. I would agree, at least in my experience that there is kind of a deficit, seemingly in the market for people who aren't shopping for like the super strong, high, and kind of using it, maybe for a semi medical, not necessarily enough to be approved in Colorado kind of condition, but they need like a lower potency product, and it can be harder for them to find. At least that's the feedback I've heard. I also think that having more of those products just simply available just allows people to have more choice when they shop.

[127:02] And I can understand how right now, just because a lot of the demand is in that, you know, stronger product category, that it steers the businesses away at the moment from keeping more of the lower potency products. And so I think some idea along the lines of what you're suggesting. Robin would be great. I mean to provide some sort of incentive that these businesses would be able to offer not necessarily have to, but that they could. That would translate into, you know, money in their pocket, you know the downstream end. So you know, therefore, an incentive, but also just offering a better product selection in general to consumers. I know, you know, we've talked a lot, and I'm sure everyone's aware that there are a lot of issues with. It's not just youth, I mean, that's its whole conversation in itself, but high potency products. In general. We have a lot of unanswered questions. And so it's not so much saying, let's take those away as like, let's diversify the options available for people. So I think this is a cool idea, and thank you for submitting that.

[128:13] Yeah, you bet. And and you know, Dr. Green, that was something that Truman said as well, really similar to what you said. We have a high, high demand for the more concentrated products. So that got me thinking, how do you help a business pivot and offer more choice without telling them. They have to, or slapping a big tax on the higher concentrate products. Can we reward a greater diversification of products? So thank you for interpreting it that way. That's exactly what my intention was. That's cool, I mean separately, I, you know, again separate tangent from your dog. Brian's idea was about, you know. Maybe we should be taxing the high concentrates higher, if, indeed, there is enough science to show they're a higher risk. It's like kind of the same idea as cigarettes, like. All right. Well, if you're going to buy it, you're gonna have to pay a lot for it. So

[129:09] I that's a whole separate thing. I think what you've put forward. Here is, you know, very creative and cool, and I would support something along these lines. So I have a question for Brian. because you kind of hinted that you would wonder about a different way or different approach. Mike first, st or primary substantive concern is just that the what Robin's proposed in the details that, like the sale, like calculating the sales at a mip or business level might be like unnecessarily complex versus just having just like waiting this, the proposing something where the sales tax is different by product concentration. So like

[130:01] my feedback would be, do a product focus versus business focus just to make it simpler from like an enforcement compliance perspective. While recognizing that excellent and positive intent between like what you put here, I just think that from a a compliance and implementation perspective like a product center versus a business centered kind of approach would potentially make better sense. Well, that that. As I think about more, I would have like other kinds of things, but I'd be happy to share this with Robin just I mean, I'm not an economist. I don't know what the kinds of the equilibrium effects of how do you accept those rates to ensure that we're not adversely impacting our sales tax revenue or sort of harming businesses ability to compete or ensuring that there's a large enough market that would benefit from or be enough demand for these kinds of products. But all things we need to think about as well.

[131:03] I think that's a reasonable point. And for the staff in the room that also sit on the alcohol board are there differentials based on concentration or categorization in alcohol, taxing. So that we're very, very fortunate to have our interim finance director. Joel Wagner, in the room. I'm gonna see if he can jump on if you would so desire. Yeah, better. But as far as I can tell, yeah, hold on. Let me get him in here one moment. Hello, Joel! Hi! Good evening! Can you all hear me? Cool. Yeah. Thanks for joining us.

[132:00] Well, well, thanks for thanks for having me. So to answer the question the city of Boulder does not have any differential taxes for for differently taxed alcohol products, and and I am a little bit out of my depth. But I think that the way that excise taxes work on alcohol. There are differential excise taxes at either the State level or the Federal level on malt beverages versus distilled beverages. I would have to get a little bit more information for you, I'd have to, you know. Get those facts and and get those back to you. It is important to note that generally excise taxes are taxes on businesses. So those hit people at the at the shelf versus what the city of Boulder typically has is is sales taxes, and those those hit people kind of at the checkout.

[133:09] So I'll look for some nods to see if that makes sense, or if anybody wants me to to to expand on that. So to my summary of what you just said is that ultimately it's passed down the consumer. But there may be a 2 tiered gradient in the world of alcohol. Correct. Correct? Yeah. The city of boulders. Taxes are are collected by businesses at checkout and then are remitted. So what's at with the going rate for a 6 pack of beer right now is. Let's let's call it $12. Any excise taxes that that are charge to either distributors or the businesses that's baked into the $12 price and then sales tax. City of boulders. Rate is 9 and change that's collected from the consumer

[134:10] on top of the $12, you know, sticker price of the of the 12 pack, and then remitted to the city the State and the county and then similarly, you know an ex. If it there's a differential excise tax on a on a bottle of of liquor that's at the sticker price. But our sales tax rate remains the same. and I'll stop there because I see Member Green has her hand up. You see. It. It's more of a general thought. But, like Robin's original idea would be if I'm understanding it correctly, saving the businesses money at that level like that's incentive. But if I'm hearing this, maybe there's also a way, or could instead be that the consumer is saving

[135:02] right like if they're buying a low potency product and the high potency ones have a higher tax rate. So I'm just thinking that I mean, I'm definitely not an expert from the business side of this. But if presented to a consumer isn't specifically shopping for a high potency product, they probably, or might be inclined to get the lower potency if it saves them money. So you might be like hitting a group of constituents that is right now using high potency products, and they don't want or need to, but then find that the low potency products become unsatisfactory later, which, from my working experience, happens a lot right like people will start off on these concentrates and then smoking a joint does nothing for them, so that I'm wondering if you know, doing this in a creative way that could both incentivize consumer and business could help. I know this isn't exactly a follow up to Mr. Wagner's comments, but that's kind of what I was thinking. As you were saying that there's these different levels that hits people or hits the business.

[136:12] Right. One question. This is maybe a question to Staff, and I recognize this might require research. But just would this be subject to tabor scrutiny, so that if we wanted to propose a rule that changed the tax levels on cannabis products in any kind of model or way, would that require a ballot initiative under table, or is, or is there another mechanism by which city can change sales tax on products outside of Tabor. So true taxes are subject to tabor, which means it has to go through a ballot measure. These

[137:00] are different, and those do not have to but if it's if it's a change to an already existing tax, then yes, Tabor does immediately kind of put the the stops to it. Okay, that's just helpful for knowing the scope of what would be involved or what. But your alley-oop about fees. This may be helpful for Robin to think about here as well. Robin. Thanks. And, Del, I wanna definitely hear from you, too. So just to close the loop on this particular point. if the say you had a a business that had a hundred $1,000 in revenue, and could identify that $75,000 of that revenue came from selling products that were at lower than a 15% concentration and 25,000 were above. Could you then give a rebate to that company of a certain amount of money because they hit that threshold, or would that sort of make you have to do something with tabor rebates are a little bit different. And that would be something that I'd have to do some research on. Okay.

[138:13] okay. But so just to go back to your point. There already are taxes, so can you add a fee to a tax? I mean? Can you add a fee to a product that already has a tax. Yes, so the difference between the fee and the tax without pulling up the the law in front of me. But the the general difference between a fee and a tax is that a fee goes to offset something specific. So if a governmental entity is trying to to raise revenue for a very specific purpose, and not the general funding of that governmental entity. Then it's a fee and is not subject to again taper.

[139:07] Okay. So as Robin's thinking things through. she could potentially change it to have a fee on higher percentage concentrates. Well, you know. I've heard that idea many, many times from people at the State level, from lobbyists for different groups. I'm not sure I love that idea because it's, you know, creates this 2 tiered thing, and I don't know. I people tell you you can't or you shouldn't. It just maybe makes it more attractive. It just it to me. It's off kilter. We have this industry here. They are in our community. How can we incentivize them to sell products that are probably safer.

[140:02] How can we make that mix because the mix is changed really in what the research shows, about what day, especially daily users are using. And how do we just reorient or start moving? People in a different direction can be powerful over time. Oh, well, no, you know we're often. We're often compared to the alcohol industry. I mean. But. Of course. I mean there are I I'm not sure it sounds like it's actually a tax differential right? Not a fee for the higher concentration. Alcohol. Right, Roberto. It's a tax differential, not. The Excise fee that he mentioned. That's between malt liquor and distilled. Oh, it's a fee, it's a fee. Okay. Fee. It's a fee. Cool. Okay. Well, alright. Well, more food for thought or drink for thought, whatever.

[141:05] So, Joel, Joel here. Sorry and I I'm happy to do the the additional research and come back to you my understanding. My belief is that the differential is is an excise tax. I'm not sure where it happens in the chain, but just to clarify the city of boulder does not have any differential for us. It's the same sales tax rate on anything that that really that a liquor store sells, whether it's alcohol or or limes, or mixers, or or, you know, wine glasses for us. It's all the same sales tax but if if the the board would like, we can certainly get some clarification for you to the extent that my attorney allows me to do so. What about if Robin just works independent or communicates independently with you? Is that okay?

[142:08] Sure we can follow that up. Okay, are we ready to move on to matters from city attorney. Well, just as one more history person. Yeah. I wondered if they'll might have something to say. Oh, yeah, yeah, you you did. Sorry. I forgot. Thanks, Robin. Yeah. Appreciate the work you went into putting, you know, to coming up with this concept. I think less taxes are great. So if that will encourage people, you know, businesses to stock more, you know. you know, low Tc products so they can get a break on our taxes. Sounds sounds awesome. you know. Maybe it should be in in line with how we tax alcohol. Because that was the intent of amendment 64, to regulate cannabis like alcohol. So yeah, my concern is, you know.

[143:00] I mean, the industry wants high Thc products. So yeah, companies can stock their stores with with beverages, and and you know, microdose gummies. But if people are wanting to buy something that's stronger, they're going to go elsewhere. And you know all flower products. Yeah, there, there's nothing. There's very rare products on the shelf that are around 15%. Thc, you know, coming from my background in cannabis testing. Everything is average 25 to, you know, 28% Thc for flower products. So that's a that's a great idea. Yes, it sounds good. I think we should. You know. research it more. Okay. Robin. I appreciate everybody's feedback. I don't think I'm ready to make a motion in this particular meeting, but I would love to follow up with you, Adam, or follow up with you, Dale. Individually, which I think is okay to do one on one, and maybe home hone. A few ideas to make sure it's beneficial to industry. And

[144:20] maybe we can carve something out that could be interesting and exciting and bolder novel and innovative. So I'm willing to put in some work. And how about get back to you at the next meeting for clarification? If I know you're not making a motion. Are you withdrawing for this time? Oh, huh! And then resubmitting upon further, it can just be held in abeyance as well. That might be helpful, because what I don't want to. Trigger is a public comment in the next. Go around. I don't feel that it's ready for something like that.

[145:05] I like Roberto's term. That's always a cool word. They're gonna hold in abeyance. Yeah. You all. Matters, it matters from city attorney. Speaking of Roberto. Thank you. No matters from your attorney. And regulatory licensing office. Certainly I'd like to go and allow Kristen Shangaris some some time to speak. Thanks, Kristen, this is Kristen Changira's licensing manager. I just wanted to let everyone know. That this will be my last meeting with Collab. I'm leaving my position with the city at the end of the month. and I would like to introduce you to our new licensing manager. Her name is Elisa Darrow, and she is here in person at the Brenton Brenton Building, so I'd like to invite Lisa to Elisa to introduce herself.

[146:09] So my name is Elisa Darrow. I have worked in government since about 2,007. I started with the city of Longmont and happened to actually be a previous city of boulder employee. Which is why I wanted to come back so badly, because I know how great it is in between. There I work for some small towns, Bertha and Wellington, and contract at the State of Colorado as well. So if you have any questions, or, if you need anything, please feel free to reach out to me and my role. I'm really excited to get to support you. Alright. And oh, go ahead! Adam, did you wanna look like you're gonna say something. It. It's probably what you were. Gonna say. I just wanted to to wish Kristen the best in her in her future endeavors, and thank her for all the hard work she put in for the city.

[147:02] Exactly, but I guess I'll let you all go first, st and listing that in listening Kristen's accolades. I mean, I would just say, Kristen, you were solid as a rock. You were responsive, you answered questions. You did a great job, and I'm very appreciative of your service to this group and to city generally. I I'm sure you're going on to exciting things. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that it was great working with you all, and I'll be following along to see where this board goes. You're you're doing great work, and everyone's been wonderful to to work with. So thank you all. Others. Brian Dell, you're new to the game, so I don't know. No, just thank you, Kristen, just echoing other people's comments. You've been super responsive, professional, just a pleasure to work with, and I wish you all the best with whatever comes next week. I'll echo that. Thank you for all your hard work. You're always really on your game, and it's very impressive, and I'm sure you'll be an asset to wherever you land. So good luck with what is coming next for you, and thanks for all your work here.

[148:15] Thank you all. I really appreciate it. And obviously I would echo what everybody else says, and you've been stabilizing influence, and we've been through a lot you and some of us, and most of us really. But it'd be interesting when when you write your memoir someday. How about you? Write about the club? But we'll see. Thank you. Tom. And is it a Lisa or Lisa? Cause I didn't catch that. Oh, Lisa! That's what I thought. Okay, which is spelled. A LISA. Okay, not E, okay. all right, thank you. And welcome, Elisa. Do you want to give? Well, you already give. Give a little bit of a bio. So

[149:03] thank you for that. Other matters from the regulatory license office. Absolutely in your packet. You will notice the flyer for board recruitment. You also did receive this in an email. just as A to point that out where we are at in our window. So december 16th to January 31, st there will be a open house, January 14, th from 4 30 to 6 30 at the Penfield Tate Municipal Building, down the corner of Broadway and Arapaho. If you know of anybody that wants to swing by and and speak to us and and get some information, or just refer them over to us or the licensing. I'm sorry. Recruitment process. Please feel free to let people know. What was the date on that. The open house is January 14, th from 4, 30 to 6 30. The flyer is in your packet. Page 20.

[150:04] I saw it, but I didn't see a date, is it? Is it? Oh, okay. The top half opens up early, and then and you have to wait for the bottom half to finish opening. Okay? Alright. Got it? Alright. Open seats currently on the cannabis board are for can you remind me? Certainly one second. So we have Get back in here I apologize. There is the Kate Thompson vacant. So there's an ex officio member position, correct? And then we do have. And I think it's an at large. Right. But and then I've got to remember who's coming off.

[151:00] I'm not sure anybody's coming off right at this time, but did have a sheet. So we have a community at large. Member. An ex officio ex officio. Non voting member. Dr. Green, it looks like you are with us through March of 2025. I think that's true. Yes. Yes, that's my what my records are showing. And then it's actually going to be 2 ex officio members. Mr. Decallo filled in for a vacancy, so his term was only one year. so it will be 2 ex officio and one community at large, and then Dr. Green is also community at large. Okay, thank you. Alright. Do you want to go over the revenue reports, or what else is on your list? So, as always per request by the board you see in there you have the copy of the link for the revenue sheet. If you've downloaded the packet.

[152:07] Excuse me and also the list of current cannabis businesses. I will note that the next club hybrid meeting is April 7, th 2025 packet materials will be due no later than Monday, March 24.th Alright and anything else before we go on. So. We have the future to think about. We always hold our retreat after recruitment. So we should have someone in march. We kind of had to delay for retreat last year, due to the fact that we had some, some staggering and and some non appointments. Until we could get a more robust and full roster of board members. So just thinking about future retreat, after recruitment, so just be on the lookout for that.

[153:08] That will be an in person meeting, and it will be here in the Brenton Building when it does occur. So I just kind of wanted to throw that out to you on your radar. Maybe April ish, may ish! What do you talk? What are you thinking. More than likely I would like to try and get it done sooner rather than later, just to the other, due to other time constraints. I'm not sure quite what other staff members have thoughts on that point, but it is always my preference to try and get it done sooner rather than later, after a Board appointments have concluded. Okay. Alright! But more to come on that. Just watch your emails. More information forthcoming, that's all I had, sir. Okay, members from the chair.

[154:03] vice chair and members of the board. I know we have the article from Brian. Do you want comment about that? Or. You all got a little bit of a flavor of this already in the memo, but just shared this article in the Colorado sun that was just summarizing the kind of end of year reports about sales tax revenue falling. And so I'm just bringing that to the attention of the board that as sales fall in the industry, so does sales, taxes, and all the things that we do with our sales. Taxes are being hit by that as well. So just keeping that in mind. Thank you. For what it's worth, I've heard, although I haven't seen, and it's not in our office, but there may be legislation this year around intoxicating hemp and trying to get that better regulated. So I'll keep this board up to date if I am aware of anything.

[155:00] Okay, thank you. Is there anything else from anybody? Otherwise I'll give you, however much time we decide. That is at least almost an hour or hour and a half, or whatever whatever we would have called that. So I I do want to do just one thing that was under this. You had asked us to move the future meeting agenda items scheduling to under your matters. I have on record cannabis for potential April. I did receive an email from Member Keegan with that. So would you like to try and move them forward as a speaker for April. If Brian, is that what you're? Is that what you communicated that they'd be. Yes, yes, there's a student group at C Boulder. They'd expressed an interest. I reached out to them to invite them, and they expressed a tentative interest in speaking to our board.

[156:06] yes, if we're comfortable, I would like to have Staff move forward with inviting them to the April meeting. I'm game. Anybody opposed to that idea. And, Robin, do you have a sense as as to whether Dr. I don't have it in front of me. Yeah. Yeah would be, you know. Would she be willing to come? I do think she would be willing to come. Yeah. How does the Board feel about that list? Mention any objections? Or or I? I see everybody is okay with it. It'd be an interesting contrast.

[157:01] They're both coming. It would, might even be interesting. Far beyond the scope is Dr. Green pointed out earlier, far beyond the scope of our. The particular question we looked at today. Just the work she's doing generally is kind of exciting and interesting. So. If the Board's interested, I'd I'd love to have her come, speak. When would you, as a board, entertain, having her keeping in mind? April will have the next step with the IP Memo discussion, and in live editing. Yep. That's a good point. And if we want the if we want the students, we better get them in April, because it'd be tough to get them in July. So. Yeah. Okay. All set kristen t. If you would. Would you like me to try and connect your speaker with me for a potential October date? I'll send you the details. Thank you. October date. Yeah, all right with the board.

[158:07] Well, just because April would be, or or perhaps July. But April, I'm sorry in there I went. I skipped straight over summer. That's not like me. Yeah. So maybe for July. Thank you. But it kind of fits in with the the topic, doesn't it? Are you worried about too much? I mean. we can go till 6, 30, or more, whatever. We can do whatever you want. I just need to know when to to make invitation. I thought it tag team. Well, I mean, the cannon bus is like a separate issue. And and you're right, Adam. School year is a better time for that, and we've been inviting them for a while. So let's go with that.

[159:00] But it might gel with the other agenda item, too. That would be my preference. But to have in April, that would be my preference to have it in April. But I respect that the there's other members that are concerned that could be problematic to the thing you're pursuing. So they don't know. Adam, I appreciate that. I just. I'd love to have her for the context of this. But again. and I. Is there anybody. With her while you're working on the thing. But. Is there anyone opposed to doing all 3 things in the next meeting. You are held to a 6 30. Stop time. So self imposed. I think we can do it. I'll give you extra time today. and we still may get done. Well before 6 30.

[160:01] How's that sound. Okay, I saw one. I see one response. So I actually have to go to another meeting myself. So anyone wanna ask for adjournment. Okay. Jerry. Any second on that. Any I think we can. Can we just say, anyone, post? Okay, let's adjourn and thank you. Everyone. And Happy New Year terrific. Good evening. I'll be there next time.