Welcome
Project Xhale · Partner Kickoff
Partner access only.
Sign-in failed — you may not have access to this site.
Loading… Your inputs autosave on this device.
Partner Kickoff Meeting · Working Document

Let's Build Xhale Together

This is a starting template, not a finished plan. Everything here is a decision we make as a team. Some items are penciled in where I have a strong view; others are wide open for your input. We'll step through each one together, agree on it or change it, and assign who owns what.

How This Meeting Works

Agenda

The goal today: get on the same page about what we're building, walk through the decisions in front of us, and leave with clear ownership of next steps. Nobody's locked into anything yet.

  1. Introductions — who's who, what each of us brings
  2. The vision — what Xhale is and why this path
  3. The license path — why multi-license over microbusiness
  4. Walk the decisions — agree, adjust, or flag each one
  5. Roles — who owns what, based on skills and interest
  6. Capital — how we fund this without messing up the license
  7. Next steps — assign owners, set the follow-up
Ground rule for the decisions: When something's marked "Recommended," it means I've thought it through and lean a certain way — but say so if you see it differently. When it's marked "Open," I genuinely want the group to decide. Either way, the point is we agree on it together.
01 — The Vision

What We're Building

Xhale is a vertically integrated cannabis company: we grow it, and we sell it through our own stores. Cultivation anchored in the Richmond/Varina area; retail in two markets — Richmond and the Williamsburg/Toano corridor.

What sets us apart isn't a gimmick — it's transparency and quality. The state requires seed-to-sale tracking for compliance. We do it for the customer: harvest date, cure time, lineage, grow conditions — right on the product. Let the bud fend for itself on full information. The aim is to be good enough at this that the rest of the market has to step up.

The cultivation direction (a founder passion, not the company's identity):

What drives this is the craft itself — growing well, creating, and following the work where it leads. Right now that interest is plugged into the spirit of the late-90s/2000s era: diesel-forward, effect-honest genetics, functional and cerebral, reviving classic lineages (the kind of work BOG Seeds was doing) over THC-percentage theater or candy names. A Jet Fuel phenotype is a current favorite reference.

But this is a starting point and a personal passion — not Xhale's fixed identity. We grow some of everything; the program evolves with the market, the team, and what customers respond to. (My first regular-seed grow is Medicine Man — already outside the diesel lane.) Wide open to where the team takes it.
02 — The License Path

Why Multi-License, Not Microbusiness

Virginia offers a few ways in. The two real options for us were the microbusiness license (cheaper, simpler, smaller) and the multi-license path (cultivation + retail + room to grow). Here's the honest comparison so we all understand why I lean hard toward multi-license:

FactorMicrobusinessMulti-License (our path)
Canopy cap5,000 SF indoor maxTier II 10,000 SF → up to 35,000 SF
Sell wholesale to othersProhibitedAllowed
Hold other license typesNeverUp to 5 licenses
Growth ceilingPermanent — no conversion everNo permanent ceiling
Multiple retail locations2 within 20 milesGeographically distinct markets
Upfront costLowerHigher (license + facility)
ComplexityLowerHigher
The dealbreaker: Microbusiness permanently bans wholesale and never converts to anything else. If we ever want to supply other stores, hold both a grow and retail, or scale — micro locks us out forever. The whole vision of being infrastructure other operators rely on is impossible under micro. That's why this one is recommended, strongly — but it's still a group call.
03 — Decisions to Make Together

The Decision Walk

Here's where we step through each open item. For each: the options, where I lean (if anywhere), and a blank for what we actually decide and who owns the follow-up.

Decision 01
License path: micro vs. multi
Recommended

Covered above. Do we all agree on the multi-license path (cultivation + retail, room to scale)?

LEAN →Multi-license: cultivation + 2 retail, no permanent ceiling
altMicrobusiness: simpler/cheaper but permanent ceiling
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 02
Business & retail name
Open

"Xhale" is the working name for the business and the storefronts — black and green, understated, "the place to come to relax." Does the team like it, or do we want to brainstorm alternatives? (I've also toyed with an eventual parent/holding name, "Xhale Group," if we ever spin off other ventures — but that's a later-only idea.)

LEAN →Keep "Xhale" as business + retail brand
altOpen the floor for other name ideas
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 03
Ownership split
Open

Three of us. The simplest, fairest starting point is equal thirds. Important constraint: for the impact license, qualifying owners (me + Cedric) must hold at least 51% combined. Equal thirds puts us at 67% — clears it easily. We can adjust based on capital contribution or role, but equal feels right to me as a default.

LEAN →Equal thirds (33/33/33) — fair, clears the 51% impact threshold
altWeighted by capital contribution or role
Heads up — the 5-year lock: Impact licenses require qualifying owners to hold majority for 5 years from issuance (no transfer of >49% control). So whatever we pick, me + Cedric stay above 51% for that period. There's a narrow estate-plan exception — transfer to a family member or family trust is allowed — but otherwise it's locked. Worth understanding before we sign anything.
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 04
Impact qualification — how we qualify
Recommended

Impact status is judged at the entity level: at least 51% of ownership and control must be held by qualifying people, and between them they must satisfy two things — a residency test (Prong 1) and at least one of six personal criteria (Prong 2). Me + Cedric at 51%+ covers it:

PRONG 1Marvin — residency. Primary: East Highland Park / 23222 (~2004–2013), a documented disproportionately-policed area, under the 1999–2025 "reach-back" test. The backup test (economically-disadvantaged community, 3 of last 5 years) is weak for me — stable address since 2019 — so Prong 1 rides on the policed-tract list.
PRONG 2Cedric — two ways in, either one is enough: (5) veteran, or (4) Pell — he attended an HBCU (≥2 years at a school that's ≥30% Pell-eligible, which most HBCUs are). Belt and suspenders.
Open legal question (for counsel): whether Prong 1 and Prong 2 can be split across owners — the entity reading, our working assumption — or whether each qualifying owner must carry both. Everything rides on this; confirm it cold. Also: HBCU is no longer a standalone qualifier in the current bill — it only counts via the Pell criterion above.
Contingency (hopefully moot): if my East Highland Park tract isn't on the policed list and no other address of mine qualifies, the group has no Prong 1 — we'd need a 4th qualifying partner who brings a Prong 1 address, which would push me + Ryan into the minority. East Highland Park clearing the list is the plan.
Action: Cedric pulls DD-214 + HBCU transcript; Marvin gathers East Highland Park residency proof; confirm the tract when the state publishes its lists; counsel verifies the entity reading holds.
Owner of impact-doc gathering: _______________________________
Decision 05
Who forms the LLC
Open

Someone needs to own the entity formation — filing with the Virginia SCC (~$100) and getting the operating agreement done with the lawyer. It's mostly coordination, not specialized skill. Who wants it, or who has bandwidth?

Owner:
Target date:
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 06
Pick the lawyer
Open

We need cannabis-specific legal counsel for formation, the application, and the operating agreement (especially the 51% impact-ownership and 5-year-lock provisions). Nobody is pre-selected — no name is locked in. The task is to build a short shortlist, interview a few, and pick on fit. We owe no one anything in advance.

LEAN →Build a shortlist, interview 2–3, compare on cannabis-licensing track record + fees
altSomeone brings a referral from inside the industry (Ryan's contacts)
altPark it until formation actually needs counsel
Shortlist to research (starting points, not endorsements): real VA firms that publicly do adult-use cannabis licensing work — Virginia Cannabis Lawyers, Vicente LLP, Holon Law Partners, Leaf Legal P.C. How this list was built: a plain web search for Virginia cannabis business/licensing attorneys, plus the FindLaw and Justia cannabis-law directories for VA/Richmond. None are vetted and none are owed anything — check fit, fees, and actual licensing experience, and add your own finds.
Owner of lawyer search:
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 07
Cultivation tier target
Recommended

How big do we grow? I'm actually leaning Tier III to start — I like the middle of the range, and since we ramp canopy from any starting point, the tier we apply for is a ceiling to grow into, not something we have to fill on day one. Tier II is the more conservative floor if the group wants to start smaller. Either way we phase the buildout rather than maxing out immediately.

TierCanopyStance
Tier I5,000 SFToo small (= micro)
Tier II10,000 SFConservative floor
Tier III15,000 SFLean — start here
Tier IV–V25–35,000 SFFuture only
What "canopy" means: flowering footprint only — Tier II ≈ 10,000 SF, Tier III ≈ 15,000 SF, Tier V caps at 35,000 SF (mid-tier sizes finalize in regulation). Veg, clones/propagation, drying, curing, trimming, processing, and storage do not count toward canopy — but they still need real square footage, so the total building runs well above the canopy number.
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 08
Facility: lease vs. own
Open

Big one, and it affects capital a lot. Leasing industrial space means we sink $1.5M–$2.5M of buildout (HVAC, electrical, plumbing) into a building we'll never own — stranded if the landlord forces us out. Owning land to build is more upfront complexity but builds equity.

Honest read from me: my gut wants to own the land — that's the path I'd personally love, and I think it's structurally better past a 3–4 year horizon. But I want to pressure-test that against the practical case (leasing is faster, less capital up front, easier to rally the team around) and make sure I'm choosing for the business, not just because I want to own land. So I'm flagging this as genuinely open — heart says own, head wants to check the math.

GUT →Own land / build — equity, no stranded buildout (my personal lean)
HEAD →Lease industrial — faster, less capital up front, easier team buy-in
We decided / parked for later: _______________________________
Decision 09
Retail footprint
Direction set · timing open

The direction I feel strongly about: we should have more than one location, in distinct markets (Richmond + Williamsburg/Toano) — broader presence, and if one market lags the other carries us. We're already spread Richmond → Williamsburg → Tidewater, which helps distribution. The timing is wide open and that's not a contradiction: if the team would rather nail one store first and add the second later, that makes total sense — no question. "Recommended" here means the multi-location direction, not a mandate to open two on day one.

Separate lever — its own decision, don't fold it in here: wholesaling to other retailers is another way to reach multiple markets without opening more of our own stores. That's a distinct channel we should absolutely use, tracked as its own thing — not part of the retail-footprint call.
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 10
Which licenses we pursue
Recommended

We can hold up to 5 licenses (transporters don't count). Realistically we only need two to run the vertical model — but a couple of others are worth a look, especially for the genetics play.

LicenseTake
Cultivation (one tier) + RetailCore — grow it, sell it
Nursery (seeds / clones / immature plants)Optional — cultivation already grows our own starts; this license is only to sell clones/seeds to others (the Da Martian play, if we want it)
ProcessingOnly if we sell beyond flower (pre-rolls, concentrates, edibles, vape) — can add later
TestingSkip — can't be held with any other license
MicrobusinessSkip — mutually exclusive; the permanent ceiling we ruled out
TransporterSkip — our cultivation license already moves our own product between our own sites
Delivery isn't a separate license for us: delivering our own product to customers runs under the retail license. The standalone "Delivery Operator" license is a third-party delivery service — not something we'd apply for.
We decided: _______________________________
Decision 11
Application budget — how many, and how we fund it
Open

Applications run about $5k each (and permit fees can reach tens of thousands on approval). Everyone's expected to put in ~$5k. So there's a real fork:

opt aAll-in: each of us puts up $5k and we apply for three licenses (the original plan — cultivation + retail + a third).
opt bLean: go after just the two we need (cultivation + retail) and keep the saved ~$5k/each for startup costs.
Either way, impact is a bonus chip, not a gate: any of us can always apply to the general pool with our own $5k. Qualification is the upside, not the entry ticket.
Footnote on the $5k (per the enacted budget): the actual application fee and annual license fee are not set in statute — both go to CCA Board rulemaking and are nonrefundable. The $5k figure is our planning placeholder from prior multi-source reporting, not a confirmed number. For impact applicants specifically, the Board is mandated to set a fee waiver (% TBD) plus a waiver of proof-of-funds and proof-of-premises at application — so our real out-of-pocket could be lower, and we don't need property locked down to apply.
We decided: _______________________________
04 — Roles & Ownership

Who Owns What

This is a fuller map of the functions the business actually needs — not just what came to mind first — so we look like a complete operation from the outside, and so internally every function has one clear owner even when others pitch in. Everything here is penciled in, not hard-set. Tell me where I've got it right, where you'd rather contribute, and what I'm missing — claim, swap, or add anything.

AreaPenciled-inWhy / Open?
Cultivation & GeneticsMarvinGrow experience, genetics direction. Ryan also grows — input welcome.
Retail OperationsRyanPrior cannabis retail experience, Williamsburg market. POS, store management, customer experience.
Wholesale / B2B SalesOpen (Marvin + Ryan)The separate channel from Decision 09. Anyone with supplier/sales strength — needs a real owner as it scales.
Facilities & Property MgmtCedricSite & buildout oversight, maintenance, contractor/vendor coordination. Military background = manages buildings, systems, and obligations well. Marvin assists on build/tech spec.
Security & SurveillanceCedricPhysical security, access control, surveillance — VA's rules here are strict. Military fit. Marvin on systems/tech spec.
Compliance / MetrcCedricOrderly, on top of obligations. Marvin assists on technical/API side.
Technology / Platform / ITMarvinIT background, building the ops platform.
Procurement / InventoryOpenSeeds, nutrients, packaging, purchasing, stock control. Pencil with cultivation/retail until it needs its own owner.
People / HiringOpenKicks in as we staff growers and budtenders. Whoever's strongest with people.
Marketing / BrandOpenNot claimed. Marvin may grow into it — he tends to be good at championing what he's genuinely into — but isn't signing up for it. Hire, or whoever has the knack.
Finance / BookkeepingOutsourceCannabis-specialist accountant. A partner owns the relationship.
LegalExternal counselSee Decision 06.
Insurance / BankingOutsourceCannabis-friendly providers. A partner owns each relationship.
Honest note from me: Yes, a lot defaults to me — it's how I work, and for some of these I'm the obvious or only candidate right now. I don't question that. But none of it is hard-set, and I'm not trying to claim every role. The point is for us to look complete and credible from the outside and for each thing to have a real owner when it comes down to it — even if the rest of us help. Cedric, the facilities/security/compliance cluster naturally hangs together (the "keep it orderly, secure, and locked-in" domain) — pick what you want to anchor. Ryan, same on retail + wholesale. Tell me what you want to own, and what I left off.
05 — Capital

How We Fund This

This needs real money — facility buildout alone runs into the millions. Here's how the funding stacks up, and an important rule about outside money and the impact license.

SourceWhat it is
The license itselfThe single biggest asset. Once we hold a license, cannabis-specific lenders (Chicago Atlantic, AFC Gamma, others) will lend against it. The license is what makes us fundable.
Partner contributionsOur own startup money — application fees, formation, early costs. Modest relative to the big buildout.
Equity Loan FundVirginia's Cannabis Equity Business Loan Fund — a permanent, non-reverting state fund offering grants + low/zero-interest loans + technical assistance, restricted to impact licensees. The enacted budget capitalizes it (directs 75% of first-year license-fee revenue + 30% of marijuana tax revenue into it), so it's funded, not just on paper. Likely administered through a CDFI partner. This is a concrete reason the impact path is worth the 5-year lock.
Outside investorsSee the rule below — there's a clean way and a dangerous way.
The investor rule (important for all of us): If someone wants to put money in, we are not selling ownership in the licensed business — that would blow up our 51% impact requirement. The clean menu: (1) a loan we pay back with interest, (2) a revenue share up to a cap, or (3) they contribute an asset (like a building) into a separate, non-licensed company and own a piece of that. What we never do: take "money with a wink" and no paper. Always state up front: "We're not selling any stake in the licensed business." The paperwork has to match the words.
Open question for the group: Are we comfortable taking on outside investment at all, and under which of these structures?
06 — Next Steps & Timeline

What Happens After Today

Per the enacted state budget (passed June 29, 2026; cannabis provisions = SB 542/543 folded in), the CCA may begin accepting applications Feb 1, 2027, may begin issuing licenses May 1, 2027, and retail sales legally begin July 1, 2027. We're not in a rush — but there's real prep before then. Here's the runway:

Right after this meeting
Lock the basics
Agree on path, name, split. Assign owners for: forming the LLC, picking counsel, gathering impact docs.
Through 2026
Foundation
Form the LLC. Engage counsel. Cedric's DD-214 + HBCU transcript. Marvin's residency docs. Reserve application fees (~$5k each). Watch for the final enacted budget/bill text.
Late 2026 – early 2027
Board rules + tract lists
CCA publishes regulations and the disproportionately-policed / economically-disadvantaged tract determinations — confirms which Prong 1 path lands.
Feb 1, 2027
Applications open
CCA may begin accepting general applications. Seed-to-sale tracking + outdoor-grow rules must also be finalized by now.
May 1 – July 1, 2027
Licenses issued
Issuance can start May 1. By July 1 the CCA must issue at least 55 additional licenses weighted toward impact licensees — that impact-weighted pool is our effective first real shot. If selected, secure property/facility and line up capital.
July 1, 2027
Retail opens
Virginia market goes live. Xhale stores can sell.
Today's only required outcome: Are we doing this together? If yes — assign the three first owners (LLC formation, lawyer, impact docs) and set a follow-up date. Everything else can evolve.
The fine print behind the decisions

Key Facts

The short version of the rules, so every decision above stands on its own.

TopicThe fact
Impact — how you qualify51%+ owned/controlled by people who together meet Prong 1 (lived 1999–2025 in a disproportionately-policed area, or 3 of last 5 yrs in an economically-disadvantaged one) and one of six (veteran, Pell, marijuana misdemeanor, relative of one, 5 yrs at a disadvantaged-community school, or USDA distressed farmer). Misdemeanor is optional. Open counsel question: whether the two prongs can be split across different owners.
Impact — the stringsThe CCA must issue ≥55 impact-weighted licenses by July 1, 2027 — that pool is our first real shot. The qualifying 51% must hold for 5 years (no transfer of >49% control), with a narrow estate-plan exception (family member / family trust).
Impact — the perksMandated fee waiver (% TBD), waiver of proof-of-funds AND proof-of-premises at application, and access to the capitalized Equity Loan Fund (impact-only). The Board may also raise canopy caps specifically to encourage impact participation.
License capUp to 5 licenses per entity (transporter excluded), max 1 Tier V. Microbusiness and Testing can't be combined with any other license.
CanopyFlowering footprint only — Tier II ≈ 10k SF, Tier III ≈ 15k SF, Tier V 35k SF. Veg, clones, drying, processing, storage don't count, but still need their own space. The Board may increase these caps for impact licensees.
Early-access tracksBefore May 2027 there are limited early tracks (≤100 microbusiness, pharma-processor conversion, and a 20-license hemp track). A pre-Jan-1-2021 hemp grower/processor registration unlocks two of them — if any partner ever held one, flag it; it's now financially valuable.
DeliveryDelivering our own product runs under retail. The "Delivery Operator" license is a separate third-party service — not us.
NurseryCultivation already grows our own clones/seeds/starts. A Nursery license is only to sell starts/genetics to other licensees.
TransportOur cultivation license already moves our own product between our own sites — no transporter license needed.
DatesApplications may open Feb 1, 2027 · licenses may issue from May 1, 2027 · retail sales begin July 1, 2027. (Sept 1, 2026 is only a hemp good-standing reference date, not an application date.)
Cannabis law, not legal advice — counsel confirms the specifics, especially the impact-prong question and the final tier sizes.