Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation Pre Rolls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder cannabis board votes to draft ordinance change to align cultivation privileges with state rules
Summary
After public comment from growers and consultants, the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board voted to prepare an information-packet memo asking City Council to revise Boulder Revised Code to allow local cultivators the same pre-roll and physical-separation concentrate privileges allowed by the state.
The City of Boulder Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board on Jan. 6 voted to ask staff to draft an information-packet memorandum to City Council recommending that the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) be revised so local cultivation licensees can exercise the same cultivation privileges allowed under Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division rules.
The vote followed public comments from industry consultants and operators who said Boulder’s local interpretation prevents cultivators from preparing pre-rolls and some physical-separation concentrates permitted by the state. Mark Slough of IComply told the board, “We’re in support of the changes you will, need to make regarding the misinterpretation of cultivation privileges,” and argued that the city’s current stance “is costing jobs, revenues, and handing it to other counties and municipalities.” Ricardo Velez, a local cultivation operator, said the mismatch has left machinery he purchased unused and makes Boulder “an unappealing place” for new cannabis investment.
Board members and staff framed the issue as whether local code should remain more restrictive than the state or be updated to reflect technical and market changes since the local rules were drafted. Adam (CLAB member and subcommittee co-chair), who co-authored a memo recommending alignment, said the subcommittee was not claiming staff had interpreted the code incorrectly but asked the board to consider whether the restrictions still made sense given changes in the industry: “What we’re arguing … is that it’s time to look at now whether those restrictions still make sense in light of changes in the industry since these restrictions were put in place.”
Licensing Manager Kristen Changaras explained the next steps if the board approves moving forward: staff will provide a template “shell” IP (information packet) memorandum and the board will prepare draft ordinance language and redlines. If the board approves final text at its next packet meeting, the IP memo and proposed ordinance language would be placed on a City Council agenda for consideration.
The motion to proceed to the drafting phase passed on a voice vote (recorded as 4–2). The board directed staff to provide the IP memo template and advised the subcommittee to prepare proposed ordinance language and redlines for consideration at the board’s next packet meeting in April.
Board members and public commenters also discussed worker-safety concerns raised by researchers. Board member Robin Noble asked that the board invite University of Colorado researcher Dr. Tess Adom to present findings on potential respiratory risks from grinding and sifting plant material; staff agreed to make Dr. Adom’s materials available as a meeting exhibit and considered scheduling a presentation at a future meeting. Licensing staff and members noted that OSHA requirements already apply to indoor processing operations and emphasized that if changes are made to local code, the board could also propose workplace-protection measures as part of any ordinance drafting.
The board instructed staff to assemble the IP memo template and to place the drafting work on the board’s April agenda so members can review and vote on proposed ordinance language before any formal submittal to council.
