Boulder advisory board seeks city attorney draft to align local cultivation rules with state law

The Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board on July 2 debated a subcommittee recommendation to amend Boulder Revised Code definitions so local cultivation facilities could make physical‑separation marijuana concentrates, including kief, and roll pre‑rolled marijuana, aligning local privileges with state law.

Board members said the change would permit cultivation facilities to perform physical separation methods already authorized at the state level and to produce pre‑rolled products (commonly called “pre‑rolls” or joints under industry usage). Member Adam Foster, who co‑authored the memorandum presented to the board, described the two main proposed changes as allowing water‑based physical separations and production of kief and permitting cultivation sites to manufacture pre‑rolled marijuana.

The board’s discussion focused on legal drafting and process rather than an immediate vote. City attorney staff advised that proposed Boulder Revised Code language should be prepared before the board takes a final advance vote to send an information packet to City Council. Andy (city attorney’s office) recommended that the city attorney draft ordinance language and work with the subcommittee (Brian Keegan and Adam Foster) on precise BRC wording. Member Robin Noble and another member expressed substantive health and community concerns about expanding local production of smoked products and concentrates and requested space in the record for dissenting analysis.

Rather than forwarding the memorandum to council as drafted, the board agreed on next steps: city attorney staff will draft the proposed BRC amendments; Adam Foster and Vice Chair Brian Keegan will consult with city attorneys on ordinance language; Members Robin Noble and Tom agreed to draft a dissent memo to accompany any IP (information packet) memorandum; and the board will place the finalized materials on the agenda for the October 6 CLAB meeting for step‑6 consideration. Board staff also confirmed administrative deadlines for packet materials (materials due to staff by Sept. 18 for the October meeting).

Board members repeatedly clarified that this meeting did not produce a formal vote to send an ordinance to council and that the group is at an intermediate stage of the policy suggestion form process (the city attorney’s office and staff characterized the board as at step 5, needing proposed BRC language before a step 6 vote). Adam Foster said the IP memo (in the packet) substantially matches prior committee language and that the required change likely can be contained in cultivation definitions but deferred to counsel for exact placement.

The item generated substantive disagreement: Noble and Tom said recent health research and community values counsel caution about expanding production of smoked products and concentrates; Foster and Keegan emphasized alignment with state law and industry impacts. Members asked for the city attorney’s guidance on where to place definitions and whether the state Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) rules should be referenced for consistency.

No formal ordinance or code change was adopted; the board recorded direction to staff and the city attorney’s office to prepare draft BRC language and scheduled further deliberation in October.