July 7, 2025 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] We are recording. Chair. Princeton. So. And, Andy, wasn't it, that we've we had 3 out of our 4 current members that. So we need 4 4 members to make a quorum. Oh! So you can still proceed with the meeting. You just won't be able to take any action without having a quorum present. Okay, alright, so we cannot vote on the minutes, or whatever I don't. we'll hold off on anything that requires a vote. Yeah, anything that that requires formal approval. The Board will need to have all 4 members present for that of the current members. Okay, so do you want to start with instructions for virtual meeting and rules of Declarum Kristen. Yes, thank you. Chair Constant. Good afternoon.

[1:01] Public participation at the Cannabis. Licensing and Advisory Board meeting. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found at the web link on your screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participate shall be, make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[2:00] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently only audio testimony is permitted. Online. Okay, do. I do roll, call. Certainly. Chair Kuntzman. Present. Foster. Here. Member, noble. Here. Mr. Keegan, who's currently not showing.

[3:01] And we do have ex official member decallo, correct. Yep. As noted previously ex-official member. Decal's term has ended, but he is elected to stay on to provide additional comments as necessary. We will be moving past the approval of the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board meeting. Minutes from January 6, th 2025, and past the special meeting minutes from May 5, th 2025, in hopes of getting a forum. Later agenda. Item number 2. General public comments for the board, general public comments, or for comments for items that are not found on the agenda for today. If you wish to speak for general public comment as to things that are not on the agenda today, we ask that you please use the raise your hand feature which can be found at the bottom of your screen. If you wish to speak for general public comment. You'll be limited to 3 min where I will share the 3 min Google timer on screen. If you wish to make public comment, please raise your hand. Now.

[4:16] if you're using your telephone to call in, please let me know verbally. Last call. If you are here to make general public comment to the board. Please use the raise your hand. Feature. chairman. I am not seeing any public comment for the Board at this time. Okay, in that case. Moving on to agenda. Item number 3. Matters from the Cannabis Enforcement officer. Hello! Sorry! Can you hear me? I'm on my phone. We can't.

[5:00] So for the previous 3 months we had 3 dui d slash marijuana arrests. and we had 2 citations given to juveniles that were smoking marijuana in public. and we've completed 2 and a half rounds of compliance checks with everybody passing. If you're talking to me, I can't hear anything. I'm sorry I'm mute, Adam. Sorry. Go ahead. Hey? Thank you. I was just wondering if you had any data from the fish concert yet if that if that seemed to go smoothly, or, if it's a little too early to say in terms of.

[6:01] you know, processing everything that that the different agencies were dealing with in connection with the concert. Yeah, we're still doing a tally on everything from the agencies. What we ran into wasn't any issues with marijuana, but with selling the helium. Oh, we're the nitrous, that gas stuff. Yeah, yeah, which. Quite a few of those arrests. Good for you. I think I I don't like that stuff, but that's that's neither here nor there. But good good job. With with that I I don't think that's good stuff. Yeah. And Robin. Thanks, thanks, Officer, for being here on the 3 Dui arrests. Can you give us an update because it's been so long since we talked about that. And I just wonder if roadside things have changed, or how you're. Is it still a blood draw after you take people in, or what's the process? Look like. Yeah, if it's suspected, Duid, they they try to see if a dre

[7:05] expert is on, and they give a particular set of of testing, and then it is a blood draw, because we have to do the the talk screen to see the level. Okay. And when you say there were 3, does that mean there's 3 people are gonna get charges, or just 3. 3 arrests were made. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Pam. I was wondering if can you? Can you hear me. Okay, I know you're not prepared to do this. But maybe at the next meeting could you give like a annual summary of of the data, including like ages, or you know, any relative, any relevant details that you think might be helpful. Yeah, I'll check with our data analysts and see if

[8:03] they can actually give me the level. Also that was found. Oh, okay. Okay, no, that should be able to help you guys. When do you think Hormone. When was that started? How long ago was that started. Doing, in what. Blood levels, blood levels. Oh, that's always been the case. If you suspect driving under drugs. Yeah. Oh, but not blood levels of Thc. Or blood levels of alcohol. There's a panel of drugs that you test for, and Thc is included in that. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think, chair the distinction and correct me if I'm wrong, Officer Gignac. But is that at the roadside you can do a breathalyzer for alcohol and make an arrest based on that. Is that, right or wrong. So we don't have any breathalyzers that we can take out onto the street. We have portable breath tests that we can take if it's suspected alcohol, but those are not admissible in court. So you you really have to do your entire investigation

[9:15] to get the necessary evidence you need with marijuana. Usually they go on the odor, they detect the odor. It's my other indicators, and then they go. The Duid route. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. You're welcome, and then is the blood test quantitative for all items, or qualitative for some, quantitative for others. You check. There's a checklist of what drugs you want tested for. Oh! So out on the street. If the officer detects the odor of marijuana and some other indicators, they'll definitely check the marijuana box if they suspect other illegal drugs. Then they'll also check those.

[10:02] But but you sounded like you could give us the actual levels. Not just a yes or a no. Yeah, if our data analysts are recording that information, otherwise, it's gonna take me some digging, going and finding the reports and looking for the lab work. If it's come in, it can take a while for the lab results to come in, though, for Duids. Okay, thank you. Other questions. Okay? Then, I think we're ready to go on to item agenda. Item number 4. Thanks. Man. Chair. Kunzman, I would note that vice chair Keegan has joined as a 3, 29 Pm. If we did want to circle back. Okay? Yeah. In fact. I'm going to plug in here because I'm my thing is saying, my battery is very low.

[11:03] Okay, I can. Brian. Everything. Okay. Yeah, we were just trying to rule out. Roseola is not measles, but our pediatrician sent us get tested for measles, and we get to spend 3 h in the er so. Wow! Oh, boy! For you. And just an update that I am now here on the Cape. I'm not driving anymore. Okay. Oh, we can still do what we had planned so that you can be the act, the chair today, or it doesn't matter to me. but I do need to get my charging cord. Go get your charging cord. I'm guessing we didn't approve the minutes or any of that. Those items yet. Kristen. No vice chair, Keegan. I can call those items now, if you would like. Alright. Let's go ahead and call those. Well, Tom gets us court, and then we can approve those. Now we have a quorum and thanks for your patience.

[12:02] Certainly we do have a quorum, so we will move back. Approval of cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board meeting. Minutes from January 6, th 2025. Are there any comments, or do I have a motion to approve? The January 6 min. Motion to approve. Your emotion from Tom, alright, motion from Tom, second from Adam. Do we need to do a formal roll call, or can we just irony it. You can do a verbal, a, or nay. Everyone in favor of approving the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board. Minutes from January 6, 2025. Bye. I. All right.

[13:00] And he is any abstentions. Think that passed with 4 in attendance. Passes unanimously. The next is approval of Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board. Special meeting minutes from May 5, th 2025. There any comments on this? These minutes? Do have a motion to approve the minutes for May 5, 2025, special meeting. So moved. I have a second. A second. A motion from Adam, Member Foster, and a second from Member Noble, all in favor. I. I. All opposed, all abstaining. That motion passes 4 0. Be bored.

[14:02] And just to catch you up. Vice chair, Keegan, we did take. We did run general public comment from the board. There were none. And then you came in at the tail end matters of the Cannabis Enforcement officer. So I will continue on with our agenda. That will be agenda. Item number 4. Continued policy suggestions, policy, suggestion, form from I comply. Llc. Regarding proposed changes to the Boulder Revised Code section 6, 14, 2, and 16, 2. With the cloud recommendations for local cannabis cultivation, as submitted by the Subcommittee, dated 3, 24, of 2025. Bye. Alright. So just to catch everyone up, this item here is. We're in the continued policy suggestion form. So I believe Adam, did you wanna just update us where we are with the memo on this.

[15:06] Sure I sure could so. And and this was kind of a a while ago, because we didn't have the the standard April meeting. So following the January meeting and and vote at the January meeting on the the recommendation of the committee, which was Brian Keegan and I. The club decided to move forward to the next stage of the recommendation process, which is drafting the IP memo that is found in the packet. At. Oh, golly! I was just looking at it. That's page 23 of your packet member Foster. Thanks so much right. The memo at page 23 of the packet and I think

[16:10] you know that memo is is pretty good and complete it. substantively has a lot of overlap with the initial memo that the committee prepared to the board. But it is a little bit of a different format in terms of this this memo that would move forward to to council in essence. The recommendation is to align cultivation, facility, privileges, locally with privileges that are permitted at the at the state level, and essentially what that would do would be to allow the cultivation facilities to make the full range of physical separation based marijuana concentrates. And so everyone will recall that these are marijuana concentrates that don't involve an extraction method. So there's not Ethanol or Co 2 or

[17:18] and other medium used to extract the the cannabis. It's it's only under physical separation, either. a water-based separation which the facilities are currently able to to do, or what's called making keef, which is basically taking the cannabis buds and using a kind of a big screen to filter out the what they call the trichomes, the parts of the plant that produce thc, so currently only the MIPS marijuana infused production facilities or locally licensed production facilities can make the keef, and part of the recommendation is to allow the the local facilities to make Keefe, as well as the water-based extracts that would be consistent with what's allowed by State law.

[18:19] The second recommendation is to allow the local facilities to make pre-rolled marijuana, which which people would probably most folks would probably call joints, but but are called pre-rolls sometimes within the industry. But it's basically letting the cultivation facilities roll up pre-rolled joints. So those were the 2, you know, real privileges that local cultivators don't have that are allowed by State law, and the recommendation was to expand to allow those those privileges. Now I did have, I guess, an area where we might need some

[19:05] some guidance from the city attorney's office which would just be where the specific code amendment would take place. and I think it could just take place, really under the definition of cultivation, because that lays out all the activities that a cultivation facility could engage in. And you know, I believe that if it was specified that cultivation includes making physical separation based concentrates, including the water-based separation, and that it includes making pre-rolled marijuana. Now, I think the State definition of pre-rolled marijuana from the marijuana Enforcement division rules is where I would suggest that we look just to keep it consistent would then need to be added, probably to. So that you have a

[20:02] a specific definition in there, although I think we have a different, you know, section with the code of the code that in effect, says everyone always has to obey state law. And you know, if if there's not a specific local. you know. Provision, then basically state law will kind of fill in the the gaps. So you know, I don't think that widespread revisions would really be required, and, in my view, probably just looking at the definition of cultivation, would do it. But again, I, you know, would defer to the the city attorney's office on that point. Thank you. Thanks, Adam Andy. Did you want to jump in here, respond or get the relevant code for up here. Yeah, I you know I'm just sitting in for your real counsel, Roberto. So I think just in terms of process. I think you could probably, if, if the Board was so inclined to approve this, to move forward just within the motion, authorize us to work with probably Adam and you, Brian to.

[21:13] you know. Think about how that Brc language should be built in within the ordinance change itself. That goes to council. So and I'd like to ask my colleague Riwa for any thoughts she might have. If she's has any additional thoughts. Yeah. Please go ahead, are you? Will. I think it's a no, I'd say I think it's a good idea, you know. Since Roberto was was here at the beginning of this conversation for him to weigh in, and I don't think it's gonna harm to have this move forward. Okay, so just keeping the board and the audience, we are currently on Step 4 of the policy suggestion form process. So we've just presented our analysis to the Board, and so we want to deliberate whether we want to add this change to the next information packet memorandum to Council

[22:07] and so, I guess, is there any discussion that we want to have before taking a motion to have Adam, myself and staff work together, to come up with the relevant statutory language. Andy, go ahead. Are. Are you on step 4, or are you? Is is that right? Just to make sure for? And I have not been here at meetings, but the cause it looks like you've already drafted the IP memorandum, and so is there intent to have a 3rd cloud meeting that actually approves it to move forward, or or that's just for my edification. Yeah. I think we might be at step 6, but Okay. Because we did. We did go by the IP. So I think we're looking specifically at that IP memo, and whether that should be, you know, approved as is or amended

[23:01] prior to sending to council, and it seems like one area where we would like more detail would just be. You know, in terms of changing the definition of of cultivation, and making sure that the. City attorney's office is is comfortable with the proposed language, you know, so that it's kind of ready for prime time before it's something that's submitted to to Council. Alright. I see that Robin has her hand up. I'll get to Robin in a second. I should saw Ray would put her camera. I'm just gonna jump over to you real quick. No, I was just gonna I was just I just popped open in case there was additional questions. So thank you. So I agree that I probably was, miss. I misstated that we're on Step 4. I think that we probably are closer to step 6. I was just confused because we don't have proposed ordinance language. but I but again we would. and Andy can correct me here, but we want to then have a motion from the board. If it's approved to, then work, instruct, staff to work with

[24:00] myself and Adam to kind of come up with the relevant language is that, am I wrong in that process? Well, now, like, I'm seeing, yeah. Step 5. We don't have Brc language. So I think we should probably come back to this with Brc language. I'm sorry, Adam. For that. I'm not sure where where that was at, but it's probably prudent to to prepare the Brc language and allow have that become part of the public pack packet. Take comment within this meeting, and then authorize it to move forward. If that's what you're so inclined to do so. I I'm I'm sorry about that. All I'm catching up on what our policy was and everything. It's been a long time since I've read this, so. So what you have, the meeting is just so I'm clear. On the steps forward is you're needing basically a completed ordinance. Right Yeah. Draft ordinance. Okay, Robin. I see your hand. I recognize you.

[25:03] Thank you. I'm a little bit confused, because I know when we had a conversation about moving this forward to this memo format, we did take a vote at that point, and I know that Tom and I didn't support moving forward. So I think we're at that next step, and I want to understand what the inputs are. There seems to be some presumption around how we move it forward. And is there another opportunity for a vote? Because I have some very serious concerns about the memo is written. I appreciate the hard work very much, but I hope that there's still an opportunity to give, input. And I want to make sure that, Tom you're on, or you, because your camera's off, and I'm not sure if you're on. I see Tom's iphone as a participant. Tom, are you there?

[26:05] And. Hi, sorry I'm on a different device. Yes, I'm here. Okay, so I won't launch into my comments unless this is the right time unless there were doing that. Or can you talk again? I want to understand the process because I don't know if we're at step 5 or step 7, or but you know, and where does the board weigh in. So I'll return back to like again we presented our analysis to the board. We haven't taken public comment, but I guess at this stage we can deliberate whether or not to add the proposed change to the next IP packet or not to add the proposed change. And at that if there is a successful motion to add the proposed change, then we would work with Staff to come up with the language. Adam is that. Go ahead, Timothy. Sorry. Can I? Can I jump in? Yeah, I I just think because your process includes the you know, the policy suggestion. Form process

[27:07] has as 5 the preparation of ordinance language. And that's that step 5 before we get to step 6. I really think you all should just let the city attorney's office take a whack at that ordinance language before you move to that step 6, and and approve this formally. So. I'm sorry about that again. I missed that in that 1st part, but I think that IP that step 5 contemplates the ordinance language, and I I just hate to be presumptuous, based upon the memo that's been presented in our discussion as to what that ordinance language might be, because there might be discussion that the board or the public wants to have about the actual ordinance language. So Sorry. Sorry to derail that process. All right. So let's assume we're back at step. 4 cloud presents its analysis to the board. We didn't provide notice for it to be able to take public comment on this, but I think the Board can still deliberate about whether or not we want to move forward this change so just give Adam go ahead.

[28:10] Sorry. Sorry. So we had step 4 right? There was a 4, 2 vote. We have completed. Step 4 step 4 is done. We're we're now at. I'm pretty sure. Let me just reread this. But we're now at step 5, because see step 4, second Collab meeting right? That was the initial memo that the committee had prepared. that we reviewed and and discussed in great detail, and then there was a vote whether to move forward to the IP memo phase. That was a 4, 2 vote in favor of moving forward to the IP memo phase. So the the issue, I guess. as far as whether we're ready to move forward to step 6 is the lack of proposed ordinance language. So I would suggest that we're at step 5. It sounds like the the city attorney's office, would like to weigh in on proposed ordinance language, and you know I I do think

[29:11] it probably would make sense for the same committee of of Brian and I that drafted the step 4 memo to work with the city attorney's office on that language, and then, you know, I see what Andy was saying, that that you know, I thought we were at Step 6. But maybe we're not until we actually have that proposed ordinance language. So I guess now I I would tend to agree that we're at step 5. Alright, Robin. So, in other words, if we're if Adam is right, we would have another chance to discuss the. If we have the staff write out ordinance language we would discuss and revise as needed, then formally approve. And I'm assuming or disapprove the language to be added to the IP memorandum to Council in step 6.

[30:10] Yeah, yep, you'll you'll go back and take a vote on the formal language of the memorandum and the ordinance language. So. And that'll include discussion and the opportunity for additional public comment on that. So. And a vote on whether or not it goes forward to council. Yeah, okay. And how substantially different is this memo. I mean, it seems quite a bit different from the one that was voted on in the last meeting. I didn't compare it word for word, Adam, I see you're smiling, but. Well, I, yeah. I'm not trying to catch anyone onto technicality. I don't think it's to understand the process. Yeah. I really don't think it's substantively different. I would say that the format, the Ipmmo format is a little different. So there are sections specifically for social impacts and economic impacts. And that was different. But I mean, if you did, a

[31:14] track changes comparison of the 2 documents, I think you would find that between 2 thirds to 75% of the language is is literally the same, and then there is some different language that was added for some of those sections that the IP memo requires. Okay, I appreciate that, but I reckon it depends on your perspective. If some of the things communicated in those 2 particular sections are the same, or if they change the tonality and the messaging to council, and I guess it doesn't matter, because what you're going to come back with Andy if I'm understanding this right is ordinance language. But I'm assuming that a memo would go together with this, and while the memo does a great job of talking about benefits to the business community. There are some other possible downsides that aren't, and you know we can only do a committee of 2, so I don't know how we would cover off on

[32:14] the other part of our mission, which is health and safety, and some people on the board also feel that local control allows us to regulate marijuana according to Boulder's values. and that these 2 changes are not in alignment. It's not just aligning with the State code. I know that that's a big benefit to business. But there's a reason that the original statute was written to give local communities local control, and that's not expressed in this memo, either. So to put this forward from Collab as a whole, with a lot of things that some of us really don't agree with.

[33:00] I'm I'm really uncomfortable with that. and I also think it's the wrong direction for us in general. Thanks for those comments, Robin, did you want to say more? Did you want to propose something about working? Let me just a spitball idea like, did you and Adam want to work together on like a revision to this? Or I recognize that that might push out our timeline here. So I just want to. I guess my substantive question to to Robin. Is there changes that could be made to this document that would get you to a yes or or are you? It's your position that, like these changes just should proceed, and there's no matter. Revisions that would change that. That would be. That would be my preference. But if it's moving forward I would like the opportunity to similar to the social consumption document to provide the cons, and I think that clab is somewhat unique as a board. We're not the Sundance Board, or we're not

[34:04] you know, talking about whether or not we can afford new tennis courts. We're a board that has a lot of disagreement, strong disagreement. We come from industry, and we come from lived experience, some lived experience that has different things that we care about around this issue. So it's difficult to go forward to council with a memo like this that sounds so unified. Clab wants XY, or Z. And this is a very similar situation to what we got into a social consumption. I could go into all the details. But I'm not trying to lobby Adam. for instance, or you, Brian. I appreciate your work on this. We see it differently, and there are other things that I care about that are not in this memo, so I can't be a part of clab in submitting this with a good conscience that doesn't feel right to me. I appreciate your consideration of where I'm coming from, but you know, if it's just a matter of it's a vote, and we got the votes, and too bad I guess that's the way it is, but

[35:13] I'd like to work on it a little differently and provide a full picture of of what my concerns are, and I don't want to speak for Tom. So, Tom, I'll stop talking. Go ahead. thank you, Robin. Tom, go ahead. I'm muted. Okay, sorry about that. My 1st is, 1st item is a question, and I think the question is for Andy and or Rewa and or Kristen is there actually even a vote today, or is there a next step as as prescribed in the process? What what is the next step is prescribed in the process.

[36:01] The the process contemplates. So what I gather. And again, I'm going off of memory and what our policy says, which is that I think the Board realized that there would be significant work that would need to go into preparing an information packet and so we split up that voting process. So there was the 1st meeting to present it and review the consideration. the second meeting to decide whether to pursue an information packet. and then the 3rd meeting should be the final meeting in which things are actually approved. And that should be met with all of the IP memorandum language and all of the ordinance language, so that we can have a discussion about what's actually being put forth before council. Right? So that would. I think that's what would be ideal is to have everything formalized and ready to vote on it, to approve it for sending to council.

[37:04] There is. you know. I I'm not sure how the Board has done this in the past, but I think you could have that with revisions occurring as part of the meeting, but you probably want to have a lot of that revised before you come into the meeting just for efficiency purposes. So I think that's what is contemplated by the policy and Number 6. And why? Kind of what Adam was saying earlier that we're probably still in Step 5 and need to get the Brc language. So I don't think this is ready for a vote yet. So it just is. Everybody, Riwa, and everyone the staff you agree with Andy's assessment of that right. And Adam, are you in agreement with Andy's summary of that. Yeah, I I think that's right. I mean, I think,

[38:04] you know, as I'm looking at this process the clab should also be approving specific or recommending specific ordinance language. And you know. So I think 2 things happen right that we we have a draft memo, so that part's been been done, and then members of the club, I think, can suggest revisions to that. That memo, and ultimately, you know, I think the club for the IP memo would would then vote on accepting or rejecting specific revisions, and then similar with the with the proposed code language. Right? We'd bring that to the club. There'd be an opportunity for suggestion suggestions about specific revisions then. And then, you know, I believe there is a vote to advance that particular memo and that particular language to the

[39:05] to the the council. You know I don't think it has to be unanimous right. I don't think anyone gets a veto. But I you know I would agree that there should be a substantive discussion of particular suggested language for revision to the code. So a couple of things. 1st of all, I haven't I? I'm sure the vote I I trust that you are remembering correctly is 4 to 2. A couple of things have changed since the last time we may have voted on this and But 1st of all, I I would say that. some some new. Well, I'm I'm all for the principle of trying to keep city of boulder codes consistent with state codes.

[40:01] That's a great thing in principle 2 things that have changed since we last vote is we've lost some members of the Board. and so. as Robin alluded to the the vote right now might be 2, 2. Which means why did I have to ask Andy what that means in terms of the what goes whether something goes forward to city council or not. If it's 2 2 do you wanna comment on that? Well, let me let me look it up real quick. I don't think you're in a position to vote right now, but I let me look. Right. I'm just thinking ahead, though, to the next meeting. And I'm if I'm. If it. They're all from memory. I think you need 3 of the 4 members. But let me look it up to confirm here. While you're while you're looking that up. I mean, when we talked about what Robin called social consumption. But I'm still calling hospitality suites.

[41:00] We put forward I wish I could remember. I wish I had it in front of me. 18 items or 18 suggestions that we put forward to the city council on a variety of different topics related to hospitality suites, and it was, I think, it was clear to city council that we were divided on some issues and we we gave them our votes, and and let them then decide what they wanted to do. And at at this point. In time they had tabled it. But any luck, andy yet. So it's an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present. So I don't think you'd have an affirmative vote of the majority if if we're at a split board with 2, 2 out of 4.

[42:00] Right. I think it's gotta be 51% or more with the quorum. Yeah. Well, another thing that has besides the con, the what's the word? I'm looking for the con. I'm blocking on the word, the constellation of our of our board, or the you know the. The construction of our Board. Well, the number of members that we have right now, and you know. there's something else that has come to light in the past 2 months. Actually, that thc or cannabis has been. There's been some medical studies that have shown that Thc. Is not as innocent or in laissez faire, or there's more risks associated with it than were previously believed, you know, just in general, people used to feel like, well, it's safer than alcohol, but maybe it's not actually, I mean, there's the recent studies that I wish we had been able to submit it so we could

[43:08] put it in the packet for today. But there's a study from May of 2025 from the Journal of American College of Cardiologies. That shows a 6 times higher risk of heart attack in those under the age of 50 cannabis users and the cannabis users were the average age of 26. So it wasn't a it wasn't an older population. And Stroke risk was 4 times as high as it was in the general population. And so all the doctors I know are talking about this in terms of it's not a benign drug, and is, you know, even, relatively speaking, less benign than previously thought and so I'm hesitant to

[44:02] move anything forward without good deliberation. I guess. Adam! Go ahead! So maybe maybe just starting with the the really kind of specific questions. So who are the who are the voting members of the board right now like, were there were there resignations since we met back in? Okay, so are are who who are the voting members of of the board, I guess, just to PIN that down. Sure. Currently the voting members are chair kinsman, Vice Chair, Keegan, Member Foster and Member Noble. I'll take this opportunity to remind our attendees that the chat should only be used for technical issues, and there is no comment at this time.

[45:08] Thank you, Kristen Adam, did you only have that single point on the current voting members? Or do you know that point. Well, I I guess the other one might be it it it could be met, you know. I guess it could be relevant to code language, you know, or or the updated memo memo Maybe I guess Jerry Cone Smith, I wasn't following. Maybe the the chain of of argument there as far as so, if there's a new study indicating that, you know, cannabis might have worse cardiac effects than than previous studies had indicated. I guess for me. I wasn't immediately linking that up with what we're doing in the memo, and whether local cultivation privileges should be aligned with with the State privileges.

[46:08] You know. Maybe I wasn't seeing the link between those those 2 things. Well, I guess you know, in the city of Boulder, you know. I was thinking about this all day, or actually for the past few days, and I'm like, how much of this is personal responsibility. How much is this responsibility of the municipality of Boulder? I mean by moving anything forward. I wouldn't say that we're encouraging things, but we're not discouraging them either. I guess I'm just suggesting that everything we do might need to have a new spotlight or a new way of looking at things. Hold on.

[47:02] Thanks, Tom. I'm gonna go to Robin now. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. I think what I'm hearing, and this is what things that I've been thinking about for the last month. A few things have happened in my work at the Capitol. This particular study of 4.6 million people that was published late May actually docking. There's been. I feel like there's going to be a tipping point, and it to me. This looks so much like cigarettes and tobacco, and less like alcohol, and in just to give you an example. And I know we're not debating this memo right now. But to, I think, try to give voice to something that I'm trying to communicate, and something I think I'm hearing from Chair Kunzman, is that if we amp up production of pre-rolls a smoked product, I just wonder if you said to the city of Boulder right now, let's start making more cigarettes.

[48:08] If that would align with our values. And I say I would say, no, it doesn't. This community really values science and data and health and wellness. And to change a status quo when we don't need to. Other than for the benefit of industry. To increase production of a product very similar to cigarettes is what we're starting to hear in terms of some health impacts. To me just. It doesn't make any sense. It's the wrong direction. And I would say something very similar about concentrates. You know, the industry. the concentrates are causing really serious harm and problems. And you may not have that perspective and user regular users who enjoy these products with no problems may not have that perspective, but more and more and more studies and data and anecdotes.

[49:18] We were on the phone. This was a legislative call last week with a psychiatrist who was talking about a different bill. And at the end of the call she said. Senate to the Senator, listen. You've got to get what's happening in our offices as psychiatrists and psychologists is shocking. Users of concentrates are really having psychological problems. And so I would just encourage everyone on the board to start having those conversations, because there again, I think there's going to be a tipping point, kind of like tobacco, and the expansion that you all are proposing here.

[50:06] I just don't think it makes sense. I think the status quo, you know. I voted with this board to say No to outlawing all concentrates in the city of Boulder. I knew that that was unrealistic. It doesn't make sense at this point, but to expand the ability to make more concentrates again through a different method and make pre-rolls is something that I have very serious concerns about. For all of those reasons. Alright. Thank you, Member Noble. I'm gonna try to tie this discussion up here. So again, if we are at Step 5, there is no vote to happens here at Step 5. I think that vote and those discussions that we're having now would happen at the 3rd Cloud meeting. I'll also just note as a point that we received this policy suggestion form

[51:02] September 11, th 2024, and our next cloud meeting would likely be in September 2025. all part of a learning process. But again, your turnaround on a policy form can be frustrating for some stakeholders. so my recommendation, and I would welcome feedback. Whether or not this needs to be a formal motion would just simply be that the because we are an incomplete step 5 that we don't have the proposed ordinance language. I would ask that the city attorney's office provide that language and then move to the 3rd cloud meeting in our next meeting in September. If that's correct, Kristen. No. The next meeting will be October 6.th Over. Thank you. Okay, Robin. Thank you, Brian. I agree with all those next steps that make sense based on the steps that are laid out. What, I would ask is, could we together? And I haven't asked Tom if he'd be willing to do this, but write a memo that for consideration that could accompany this memo sort of like a dissent, if you will. Wondered if you all might consider that.

[52:21] Are you open to working on a dissent? Memo? I always wanted to be part of the Supreme Court. So I'll take that as a yeah. My role, my role in life. Yes, yes. And then, Adam, is there any other language or changes you would want to make before an October meeting. I I would just wanna maybe be able to speak with the the city attorney's office. About the proposed language prior to that, so that we can save some time. But you know, certainly, if if Robin and Tom want to write a a different memo.

[53:02] you know more power to them. But you know I do think I'd I'd be happy to meet with you know, either Andy or or Roberto from the city attorney's office and just talk a little bit about those those specific revisions so that we can keep the the ball rolling between now and the the next meeting. over a year to to have you know. an up or down vote on on whether this is gonna go to council on a policy suggestion just does seem like an awful long time to me. So if there's things that we can do to make that move forward more quickly, I'd I'd be happy to help out with that. And you know, I think this specific thing is maybe sitting down with with the attorney's office. In the meantime. Is there any objection for the attorney's office to meeting with Andy? Okay, Robin, I'll give you the last word here. Thank you. I just want to clarify that if we work on a dissent memo, if it all of this could be submitted at one time. That would be my request. So when the

[54:13] information item, memorandum, the language, and then a dissent memo would be one package going to council. That's my understanding. Okay. Is that your understanding, Andy and Rewa. Yeah, I would. I mean, I'm I am concerned about the length of all of this. And part of this Board's function is to consolidate public input and consideration and provide expertise. So let, I think I'd like to think about that some more and talk to Roberto about that. I? Yeah. Alright. So I think just closing out this agenda. Item.

[55:01] Just establishing that Robin and Tom will work on a dissent memo that could be included modulo or sort of contingent, on no objection from the city attorney's office. and then Adam will meet with Andy to look at specific legislative language, and then at that October meeting we will be on step 6 to discuss the proposed IP memorandum, ordinance, language, discuss and revise as needed, and to formally approve or not approve to forward this to Council. Anyone have a different understanding. Alright, thanks everyone. So I think we can move on from this agenda. Item. Oops! Where'd my outline go? Kristen, all right. Sorry, Andy, go ahead. Excuse me, and just just so, everybody's aware, because there was chats and people were using it as an opportunity for public comment that's been turned off at this time. So.

[56:03] Okay, thank you. Kristen, can you take us to agenda? Item 5. Please. Certainly agenda. Item 5, 5. Policy suggestion forms received. 1, st one being policy, suggestion, form, native roots, consumables, boulder, advice, code 6, dash, 1413, a 40, and 6, 1613, a 44. This is circling back around October 7, th 2024. So just remind me, this is what's here we go again. What step are we on? Okay, so this is agenda. Item 5. One. Right. So this is page 31 of your packet.

[57:04] This has to do with the distribution of consumable product other than bottled water. That is not cannabis or cannabis, infused product. Alright. So this is You could buy a coke at a dispensary if I'm understanding this right or. Right somehow. This got lost in the shuffle somewhere, and so we had to put it back in. Okay? So again, this is the med of strickenness. Prohibition, are there other board members want to make a so just where we are in our process? Yeah, so. So this is an intake. In our 1st cloud meeting. Intake's been completed. We're in Step 2. This is our 1st cloud meeting, right. Correct. So we did receive it. It was in a meeting, but it got tabled, and it is circling its way back correct.

[58:01] Alright, so does Cloud want to consider these changes further, and we can include this topic for public hearing at the next rich scheduled cloud meeting. So do does the Board want to discuss this or move forward on this item and move towards 2 folks want to get together with a memo. This is something you want to move forward with is like our current decision point here. So on this 1st policy suggestion form on page 31 from native roots. Distribute consumable product other than bottled water. That is not cannabis or cannabis fees product. Eliminating that prohibition. I will tentatively call it, buy a coke at the dispensary. A quick question. So it it just reading. That is it. Just food or drink, like, I know when you go into a convenience store right now, there's certain products. You can buy that.

[59:03] You know all kinds of stuff. But this is just food and drink. Is that right? Adam! Go ahead! Yes, so it's it's really just shelf, stable food and drink. So you you can't have, you know, like you can't be making sandwiches or anything like that. It's it's literally limited to prepackaged, you know, Gatorade Chips cokes things of that nature. And this was a state law that that was passed back in 2024. So prior to that, the dispensaries or the the stores could only sell literally could only sell cannabis products and this would let you know someone buy a coke and a bag of fritos along with their their standard cannabis products that they buy. Thank you. Adam. Tom.

[60:03] Again. I'm not opposed to the general idea of this, but I'm thinking of like, take, for instance, that's a medical marijuana store which we have just medical marijuana stores versus medical and recreational. That's correct. Okay, that's what I thought. So when I go into a clinic. one of the 1,000 things I look at to see whether the clinic should be accredited again for the next 3 years is, do they provide food products to the patients? And is somebody checking expiration dates on food products. I'm I'm guessing. That's probably not part of the state law. but maybe it should be So I'm not terribly worried about prepackaged food products and beverages.

[61:00] But I guess I would say, who's gonna check the expiration dates? And is that written in here? Or is that included? Or. I'm I'm not a lawyer, but I would presume that that would fall under other regulatory license, like outside of the scope of cannabis licensing. If you're selling foods that presumably follow public health and safety things. We're allowing by this. what is it called this policy suggestion form? We're giving license to the cannabis stores to sell stuff. But I don't think that would be a loophole that they could sell, expired. Doritos. So go ahead, Adam. I beg your pardon, I I just forgot to to lower my hand. I I do think that's regulated, you know, obviously, by by other parts of the the State. I you know, I think there's infrastructure in place already to to deal with, checking the expiration, dates and and things of that nature.

[62:16] Got our hand up. Thank you. Go ahead, Rob. Thank you. My dry cleaner had, like a setup of those little tapey things that you could use to take off lint and a couple other like laundry type items, and the city made her take those down because she's not licensed for like a retail kind of situation, is there any comparative reference there, Andy, you may or may not know. And then the other question I have is, is there has anybody asked other businesses that sell products like that. If you know, opening that up in boulder to another industry is something they could support or not. And would we have time to ask that question.

[63:04] I can jump in, sure, if you'd like, Yeah. Please. Thank you, Andy. Yeah, I I'm not aware of anything. I'm sure there's separate business licensing requirements. And then it gets into issues of To your point, Robin, what other licenses do they need to hold, or how else? you know I I'm not totally aware, but I think that would be part of the process that we need to investigate. If this advances. And it wouldn't, it might not. It might just need to be investigated in terms of the actual ordinance language that gets applied further down the road. To understand. you know, whether we need to add any additional caveats such as you know, this inclusion shall not exempt them from retaining, you know, adhering to such requirements, or day attaining such license. Right? So those are my initial thoughts on that.

[64:02] Thank you, Andy. So again, just mindful that we're at Step 2 here. Does the cloud want to consider these changes? And should this be included on the next club for a public hearing, and if so, who would want to come together as a committee of 2 that begin to outline a summary on this topic. Many takers in our enormous board of 4. I I mean I could be on that committee. I I would hope this would be a very short memo. You're muted, Brian. Thank you. Could our exit not Ex. Pco. But our at large members, like Jack or Lisa. be on a committee. Is not in that large. He's just an ex official. I didn't mean to say just. I apologize. He's an ex officio member whose term is expired, who just.

[65:01] Thank you. Okay, so it's really, truly just the 4 of us. Yeah, need more people on this board. Alright. So I have a taker from Adam. Is there any opposition of moving forward with this suggestion? We just save ourselves some time. Do we have 3 votes or. I'm a no vote. I don't want to change the status quo on this until, unless I understand some of the implications more so at this stage I'm a no. Okay. I am a yes, moving forward on this policy suggestion form. I vote? Yes, to move forward. I'm not sure. Okay, Tom, what can we do to get you to a yes or no?

[66:00] Well, I mean it was interesting. I'm I'm making bad analogies, I'll admit, but like, when the grocery stores wanted to start selling wine and beer. Liquor stores are not very happy about that, and I mean, I don't think it's probably a good analogy. But stores that sell food and beverage. Would they have any concerns that I mean? Are they gonna have to follow the same rules that stores other stores that sell food. Adam, you still have your hand up. Did you want your hand up now? I did. I did. I mean I was just gonna say, well, that that's why, though, here at the club, and and perhaps most importantly, at the Council. that's why we have public comment, right? So you know, I think that if if folks from the public want to weigh in yes or no, they would have ample opportunity to do that, either either here or at the Council meeting. Speaking of which, those that are out there, the 5 or 6 people

[67:02] you could be sitting on this board rather than making anonymous comments. By the way. Alright, thanks, Tom. Apply to be on the board. We're all volunteers. Tom, are you interested in moving forward with this policy suggestion form? Sorry to put you in the hot seat. If Adam I, Adam, and I, if Adam and I try to work on something that we can negotiate on, hold on. You'd be you'd be on the committee with me, Tom? Oh, sorry! I think you got muted again. Oh, hey, hey, Tom, it looks like you're muted again talking to somebody else. I don't.

[68:19] Sorry I was supposed to be grilling tonight making food. That's not. Never mind. I'm not gonna make a silly comment about that. But what was the question to where were we? Question was just, would you be open one? Are you open to moving forward this policy suggestion form? If not, then we can close this discussion out, and then, if you are, would you be willing to be on a committee with Adam to come up with a memo outline. So just technicality, Andy, if I abstain, is that a yes vote or a no vote? Let me double check on that sorry.

[69:02] Because I guess the question is, can I abstain and work with Andy and Adam? Excuse me, got 2 a too many a's right now. Well, city attorney's office is checking that I would like to. I'll just point out that for timing purposes, for something like this. Pardon me. The next Cloud meeting is October 6, th which means any materials would be due prior to Monday, September 18.th If that gives you a timeline for work. Okay, that's fine. I only ask because people people notice how we vote. and they tell us some sometimes. So. Sorry. I gotta find our rules here real quick.

[70:07] While he's looking that up. Can we do what the next thing is of another policy suggestion for him? Right? Right, so. Yes, we have 2 more after this. Yeah. we do matters from city attorney, but he's busy. So so by default under the Brc. If a member or a commission is present in a meeting and refuses to vote, the members vote shall be recorded in the affirmative, so I think an abstention is a refusal to vote. So I. It did. They don't allow an abstention. Yeah, what? Yeah. What if you had a conflict of interest and you would abstain.

[71:03] Yeah, let me let me double check this sorry. Well, that's why I always thought you're just confirming what I thought is true, which is abstain, abstinence, whatever a vote of abstaining is a yes vote. Robin. Is it possible for you to vote? No, Tom, and then still dig into the idea with Adam, and bring it back with more context and information, but not, you know, sort of start the process of. Well, well. Formal, Response. I I think if there's a no vote, it just doesn't move forward, though. Right? I I believe if there's no vote, it's it's done. Yeah. So I mean, we can do a formal roll call here. But I think as it stands, if Tom voted no, this policy suggestion dies unless it gets resubmitted. So.

[72:00] And if Andy says it's a abstain vote, is a regarded as a positive vote, then I'd be willing to work with Adam on this. Sorry. Hold on. Yeah, I'm just seeing restrictions on refusing. refusing to vote or abstaining from voting on minimum minutes in which you weren't in attendance at. But then our cloud procedural rule state 4 members of the Collab shall constitute a quorum, and the collab shall act only on an affirmative vote of at least 4 members. So the majority, we need majority membership voting with the quorum so I

[73:03] I think, unless you're willing to vote in the affirmative to advance it. I don't think it can proceed. If this is something you wanna table for now you can table this, and you can retake this up at the next meeting, when you're more ready to proceed. After you've thought this through some more. If you'd like. Can we table it and still have? Adam and I work on it. I I would assume, if you tabled it because you needed to go evaluate it further. You could do that, I mean, I would also keep in mind. That just with the step that we're on. that you would probably have that opportunity, anyway, because you're gonna have discussion. That would occur at the second Cloud meeting in the public hearing. So I'm not sure what what you think needs to occur on this front, Tom, you know. but I think you can table it, or you can vote to approve it and move forward.

[74:06] You know, or you can vote. No. And it it's resolved here. So. I would just my suggestion would be for Tom. If this is something you still wanted to explore, you should vote. Yes, you should explore it, and then, if we have more information, you can always vote. No, to continue to proceed with it in the future. Once we have more information. I just worry that tabling. It will complicate our already fraught policy suggestion forum process. So. Alright. Well, I mean, we're just talking about food and beverage. so it doesn't even rise to the level of the concern that I mentioned before. So why don't we move forward? And I will again work with Adam. Okay? So on this 1st policy suggestion form we're now on step 3 with a committee of 2 of Tom and Adam.

[75:07] We'll prepare a written summary and a brief analysis, and they will present that at the October 7th meeting and get the appropriate materials to staff by September deadline. Prior to Monday, September 18.th Please. Thank you, Kristen. September 18.th Please submit to staff your memo. Alright! I just need to capture who was in favor and who was not. Please, vice chair. Keegan. In favor. Yes. Adam's a yes, Tom's a yes, robin's a no. That's correct. Thank you. I just wanted that on the record. Thank you. Okay. Alright. So that ends. So we're closing out. Step 2 of the policy suggestion form on our 1st policy suggestion. Any other discussion on this before we move on to the next policy suggestion, form.

[76:06] Kristen. Please take us to the next policy suggestion, form. Thank you. The policy suggestion form from native roots regarding the Boulder Police Department. Transfer emails. Section M of 6, boulder Revised Code 6, 14, 8, and section M of Boulder revised Code 6, 16, 8. This is again one from 1724. It started the process, but then dropped off. So we are circling back to it. This one begins on page 34 of your packet. Okay, so we've completed step one. We're now in step 2. This is the 1st Collab meeting discussing this policy suggestion form the. So the action item before us. Do we want to consider these changes in this policy suggestion form further, is there discussion before Want to move forward or not move forward with this policy suggestion for him

[77:01] open to the board to discuss. Moving forward or not moving forward, Robin. Thank you. Chair. I think I would have loved to have heard from Pam on this. She's not here, but I'd be willing to support going forward. If I and I could potentially work with her to understand and bring back a brief summary of what this change would mean. Thank you, Robin. Adam. I I think it'd be worthwhile to hear back from from Pam. On that I I agree with that. The the state mandates use of of metric which is a a tracking software, ME. Trc. and every every physical kind of transportation of cannabis, from a licensed facility to another licensed facility has to be logged and tracked in in this state level database already, and that has to be done before the the transfer occurs. There used to be a whole bunch of physical paperwork that you had to take with you, and I think they

[78:13] eliminated that requirement because no one was ever using these papers, and it was just generating more papers and and more waste. So you know, as I understand it, the the goal here is well, if they're sending an additional email that no one ever reads. And then getting an auto reply back that again. They just have to print more paper, kill more trees create more waste, and put another piece of paper that no one's ever going to read along with. You know the the products that they're bringing with them. You know, the question is sort of like, what's the point? So I do think that Officer Juniak, could probably tell us better than anyone else. Is this something that the police department actually uses? Does it have value to them or or not? Is it just one more, you know, email account that they're required to maintain. So. You know I certainly agree that that hearing back from Pam would be useful in that regard.

[79:14] I agree with all this, I think, would be good to get some, have some due diligence with Officer Gignac, like, ascertain whether or not, or how these emails are being used. Or if this is not something that is helpful for other compliance or enforcement sides of the equation. So I'd also support moving forward this policy suggestion form. I believe that's 3, Tom, do you want to say anything on this. This just seems like it's silly like. It doesn't seem like even merits further discussion. I don't. I agree with Adam on this one that, I mean.

[80:01] why not? Let's just move this forward. Okay, do we have a committee of 2 who wants to move this forward? I heard Robin mentioned an interest in connecting with this. Do we have a second? I'll work with Robin on this as well. So Robin and Brian will work together on the second policy suggestion form about the removing a requirement to submit an email to Bpd for transfers originating in Boulder. and we will take up the next step of this policy suggestion form process at the October meeting, and Robin and Brian will get the appropriate memo language to staff. By the September 18th deadline. Prior to the 18.th Yes, thank you. I need an affirmative for everybody, for the record. Please. I support that. Bye. Hi. Bye. Thank you.

[81:02] Continuing on our 3rd policy suggestion form today is from grumpy rhino lounge cannabis. Hospitality under the boulder Revised Code 6, 1613, a 2, 1 and 13, a 32. This came in 5, 2820, 25, and they are in as attendees today. That can be found in page 38 of your packet today with supplemental after the policy suggestion, form. Got it. Thank you. 1st to the board before we open this to other members of the community. Any comments on this is there appetite to proceed with this concerns? Do we want it? So again, on this 3rd policy suggestion form, we are again at Step 2. We received this from staff and now we want to consider whether or not to proceed further in the process. With this. And again, this is

[82:16] licensing hospitality businesses. Go ahead! Robin! You know. I don't know how much we want to go over history of the conversation that took place over 2 and a half years, and then council subsequent putting this thing off. I'm still a strong no. for all of the reasons. I was a no back when we went through it. We have a great document that talks through all of those things, and I would say, circumstances have actually intensified in many ways in this community that make it not the right place for social consumption. So for all of those reasons, I'm a no, I do appreciate the efforts that these community members put in. But I'm a no, thank you.

[83:15] But thank you, Robin, go ahead, Kristen. Yes, thank you. Just for boards. Awareness. This policy suggestion, form, submittal business was provided with the links to all of our board meetings, as well as the packet that went to council from Cloud with all motions, and the council meeting link, so they are. They were provided with all of that information. Thank you for doing that. You're welcome. Staff correct me? Would it be appropriate to invite community members like representatives from grumpy rhino to speak at this time? Or is that.

[84:03] They? They had the opportunity during open comment. No, sir, open comment is for items that are not on the board are not on the board agenda. Oh, but is there a public comment designated for these action items? Then. You have done that in the past with present. Yes, sir. the city attorney's office would like to provide additional comments, or would like to refute my previous comment. Please do so. Well, if if I I would stay stick with whatever the board has done with the in the past. At this stage of these I mean, keep in mind that there is a public hearing that would be scheduled for it, so they'll have the opportunity to do that there but if if we've customarily allowed people to do public comment at this stage, let's do that here. So, my! Just as a straw poll, I'd be interested again in revisiting this issue. Recognizing that a previous council did not take this up when it was put before them.

[85:11] But I would be in favor of moving forward with this policy suggestion form as a straw poll. Can we get to 3. If people are maybes, would it be helpful to hear from these representatives to get to a yes or no? In essence. It's already in front of the city council. The city Council can decide to deliberate on this, on on their own, that. I guess. Yeah, it would just be poking the bear. I guess we could just send something to city Council in our prerogative as a board every meeting if we wanted to. You're right, Tom, that this was sent to the Council, I would say a previous council. But we can keep sending it to them, I guess, would be my argument.

[86:03] But that we again, we would need a majority to move forward and follow this process to do that. Yeah, I mean, I guess I feel they are. It's already in front of the console. and they have decided not to deliberate or go further on the topic at this point in time. Go ahead, Adam! I I would still be inclined to move forward. you know, I think, my son, my thinking is similar to to what you? Articulated, Brian. So it it may be. You know, kind of again with with Tom as the swing vote at this point. You don't know how Brian's gonna vote.

[87:00] Oh. I would vote to move forward with this policy suggestion form, if only to prod council, to take an affirmative position on this versus the kind of pocket table they've done. So I would want to preserve our boards discretion to engage council on these kinds of issues. Given that we, as member Noble emphasize. We spent 2 and a half years on it, so I would like them to take a formal position on it. so I would be in support of pushing this forward hospitality, whether through this policy, suggestion or another. But if there are not a majority of the board at this moment to move forward with this process, then this policy pro stops here. And my recommendation to the applicants community members here would be to appeal to council directly. So don't our minutes. So some cursory summary of our minutes go to console.

[88:08] They? We were. We have a new agenda management software now that we're trying out. So I don't know what that looks like right now. So the reality that this this discussion, even albeit brief compared to the 2 and a half years, will go in front of console. So we do not do verbatim minutes. No, but won't they? Even the fact that it was discussed? Won't that be available to City Council. So it won't. It won't be in the detail that you think it will be, sir. We only do action minutes. It'll have the title of what it was policy, suggestion, form, just like it is listed in your agenda, and it will say there was discussion at, you know, or discussed motion of the policy suggestion form.

[89:06] died for lack of movement from the board. That's all. It will say. Just looking at the agenda. Yeah, when there's yeah. So that's that's how it's presented. Again. If we don't have 3 votes to move forward. This policy suggestion form, then I think that the policy suggestion form dies at this stage, again recognizing that this has been brought before council before that the applicants here should then appeal directly to council, since this board is already made. Well, that's what I would. That's what I wonder. It's I mean I'm I'm I'm in recognition of the fact that at least one of the folks from grumpy rhinos in the virtual room. So Andy or Kristen R. Rewa.

[90:02] can they just go straight to console. I'm not aware of anything that would prevent them from trying to go where they could give public comment to council or trying other avenues to get on Council's agenda, so. And and I would suggest, before they do that, that they read all of the suggestions made by our club in the past, and be ready for. Alright. So I guess to the my prerogative chair, and just recognizing that we've got a member from here in the audience that I'll give 3 min to Brooke Anderson to make a case here, since they've been patient and also we've given this privilege to other members of the community in the past. So, Kristen, could you please give Ms. Anderson 3 min. Ms. Anderson, I will promote you to panelists, and then I will start the 3 min Google timer. Once you see that timer going, you may begin speaking. Okay.

[91:14] and you can unmute yourself, please. That won't start the timer too soon. Okay. Let's see. One moment. Let me start, timer. One moment, please. All the way up. I'll share my screen. There are lots of buttons today. Well, let me go back. It's just stopped itself 1 min. Go ahead. Hi, guys, I am so so grateful. To be here. I I don't know. I'm sorry that my audio is not, or my yeah, my video is not showing up. But I want to tell you guys a little bit about myself. I have epilepsy and cannabis has been hugely life changing for me. I came into it just a few years ago. I had never had substances prior to that.

[92:19] And I was so. So I'm so sorry I'm so nervous because this means so much to me, and I guess I am a mom. I'm an adoptive mom. I have worked with city council on city council. In my local communities I have opened crepe and coffee shops across Utah, and I went on to sell them. I was very much a safe place for the whole community. I made a huge change. I won business a small business of the year award many times in Utah. Then I went and brought my business. My husband and I went to New York to come and chase our dreams. and we came and brought our furniture here, and we've done exceptionally well and made a name for ourselves in the world of art. And it's been a huge, huge life lesson. And today I'm actually on the drive on my drive back West. I'm moving my family back West in hopes of starting this business. My husband is teaching at University of Nebraska in architectural design, and my hope is that I will get the opportunity to work with Boulder

[93:29] born and raised in Colorado, and my adult life has spent time outside, but I'm ready to come back to my roots and I care so much about Colorado. I have so much family there. I care so much about my community. I care so much that this is a healthy place. I agree, Robin, that concentrates. I think they're bad, like in some ways like they can be harmful. I agree that some of these things totally can be harmful. They're harmful for me. The only thing that has worked for me medicinally has been flour, and I grow it myself here, and I have come into cannabis. Legally. I have never been. I've never done anything illegal. I was born and raised very religious, and then, you know, left that a couple years ago. I've kind of just been on, you know. I'm a very passionate person. I was.

[94:18] you know, graduated in social work, and my heart is really in that world. I care so much about my community. I want them to be healthy, and we're not coming in. Our investors are just people who I've I've won over that. We've done design for that are wonderful human beings. We're not a big business. This is small business. I'm doing it with my sister-in-law, who is such a wonderful woman, and I'm and she is in Colorado right now, and it's just. And my friend, who's an attorney. And yeah, that's my whole heart for you guys. Alright. Thank you. Ms. Anderson. Oh! Alright

[95:02] Or in light of that testimony. Do you have any of your positions changed, or do we want to proceed with this policy suggestion, form. May I, Brian? Go ahead. Robin. Remember. No. Thank you. I wanted to thank Ms. Anderson for her heartfelt description of what she's interested in doing, and I really appreciate that. And I also want to underscore that your use is your use, and I'm glad it's working for you. I really am, and I have no judgment around that whatsoever. And I appreciate your input I don't think we're going to agree on going forward. And I'm not going to support the policy suggestion form. And I know that's disappointing, but I do appreciate what you what you described there. So thank you very much.

[96:01] Other members, or should I call a vote to Yays and nays for this policy gesture? Go ahead. Well, like Robin. I also appreciate everything you did and said, Miss Anderson, as we, I don't know if you caught the moments just before this that we discussed that you can go straight to city, console. You don't need another vote from Clab to. They've it's already it has been put in front of them. I'm trying to find the date exactly. It's somewhere around 2023, I believe. June June 2023, maybe May 2023. And you know they have a list of 18 recommendations that we deliberated on for 2 and a half years. And so I'm hoping you looked or read all those before you do go city council, because

[97:01] I mean they're gonna expect that somebody has. If they're gonna try to encourage hospitality suites? and you know, I I also will vote no today. But that doesn't mean your process stops there. It's it's up to you. If you want to take the process further. City council already has these recommendations. I mean, our blessing does not change that. so that I wish you luck, and I'm sorry I can't support your this policy suggestion form at this time. Okay? And I guess, just for the record member Foster, what would be your position on this. My position would be yes, or to move forward with the with the proposal. Then my position would also be a yes, so we have a yes, from Keegan, yes, from Foster, a no from

[98:04] Kunzman, and I know from Noble on this 3rd policy suggestion form so this policy suggestion form will not be considered, and there will not be a committee of 2 formed for the October meeting here. So any further action you need or clarification, Steph. Thank you. Alright, Kristen, take us the next item, please. Certainly agenda. Item number 6 matters from the city attorney. And I have nothing. Thanks. Thank you. And continuing on agenda. Item number 7 matters from the regulatory licensing office. The standard items are in your packet. The revenue sheet as well as the list of currently licensed marijuana businesses. I'd like to provide a board recruitment update. As we all know, the board recruitment was extended. I've sent out 3 rounds of

[99:12] recruitment notifications to different, very emails that we have email addresses. Most recent one I sent out was Monday, June 30.th You all were included on that with a notation. Please feel free to forward to anyone that you may know. The deadline for applications is July 18.th Interviews will be set July 23, rd 21.st I'm sorry, and 23, rd with Council appointments anticipated to be held on August 21.st It is our desire that we hold the retreat soon after we have appointments. Kristen. Could you just clarify the I know that under statue the composition of the board is limited to specific seats. Could you

[100:03] got that handy. Could you remind us what those see. Opposition. And so. Certainly. So we have and I can actually pull it up and share it on my screen. If we'll give me hot. Second. I just kept my screen share. 3rd paragraph on page 49, says, has 3 board openings for a city at large. One board position as a marijuana business owner, representative. one for health and education, as well as 2 ex officio non-voting members. That is correct. Alright. So we are looking to recruit 3 voting members and 2 non CEO members. So please share this information in your networks. And again on page 49. The packet is a handout like a link to the application and the dates, and that information. That is correct. Thank you.

[101:04] Other matters from licensing. Nope, that's it, which is again. The next club, is October 6, th as part of our quarterly. It is a hybrid. We do have the great building here down at the 1 1, 3, 6 Alpine, the Brenton Building, and pack. The materials are due prior to Monday, September 18.th Thank you. Kristen. Absolutely licensing manager. Darryl, do you have anything under matters from the regulatory licensing office? I do not have anything. Thank you. Okay. Agenda. Item number 8 matters from the chair and members of the Board. I just wanted to share with the board. My application to for a Sabbatical. I was approved by the sea regions, so I will be in Boston, Massachusetts.

[102:00] for the upcoming year. I will still be holding my residency and voter registration and car registration here in Colorado. So it's my intent to still remain on this board, but I will be remote for the 2025, 2026, academic year. But I look forward to remaining engaged and participating in all of our meetings and our business as a board here. I'll just be doing that remotely. Congratulations, Brian. That sounds really interesting. You're gonna. Thank you. Studying in Boston. Yeah, hopefully, working on a book project at the Harvard Population Center. Outstanding congrats. Congratulations, and and good luck with the health issue of the day, too. I think everyone who should be napping is napping so. Any other matters from chair members of the Board just one. I wanted to apologize for the Board because I was trying to coordinate the Cu researcher who I've mentioned before, who looks at air quality inside cannabis operations, and she really wants to come and speak with us. But we just kept crossing, and I wondered if we might be able to put in 15 to 30 min

[103:19] for her 15 min for her to talk about the work she's doing, and 15 min for the Board to ask questions in an upcoming. If the October one works, I'm happy to try to coordinate that Kristen with you and her, but I want to make sure that's something the Board thinks we'll have time for in that particular meeting, because it's adding up. I support that staff. Is there anything in the way of like licensing, or the special quasi judicial kind of that we should expect coming down the pike. You never know what's gonna hit.

[104:00] 3 months away. We never know. But we can definitely work that in somewhere. We're gonna have 2 public hearings. It looks like but we can definitely make time for that. So, Robin, just reach out to me and and we'll kind of do a conversation. Just reach out to me with a couple of times you're available for like a quick 30 min teams meeting. We probably won't even need the full 30. I just wanna make sure that I'm grasping everything. And and we get it in there. Would that be workable for you? Completely. Yeah, thank you. Other matters from the board. All right. I will entertain a motion to close our meeting. I'll move to close our meeting. The second. I have a motion from Robin, and a second from Tom, all in favor.

[105:00] Aye, aye. Aye, alright! This meeting is closed. I apologize again for missing the 1st few minutes here. Thank you, Staff. Only heard 2 eyes. I can't do a raised hand. Please don't hear it. Do listen, thank you. I. I. Right. Thank you. At 5 0. 6 Pm. Alright. Thank you, Staff. Thank you. Board members, thanks. Percent popping in. Bye-bye. Then bye.