 We are getting to our final recommendations and taking votes on final recommendations on license fees for the board. No, no, you can start recording. I will do so. Just one sec. I just got into them. I just got into the meeting myself. Okay. Sorry, Dan, I just, I just thought that there was no recording. I'll wait until the recording so that we can capture the all. This meeting is being recorded and or transcribed. All right. We got the recording. So I guess the first, first order of business is let's vote on approval of the meeting minutes from last week. All those are then going around. Just all those in favor. Say aye. Aye. But I think one of us, one of us like a motion on the motion. I was trying to, I was trying to speed up the process, but sure. Yeah. Do you have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. So moved. Chris, you second that? Yeah, second. Have any seconds. All right. Do we have all those in favor? Sounds good. Minutes have been approved. All right. And I see that Stephanie has joined the meeting so we can get into the substance here. I guess the most important note since our last call is that we were given some updated budget information from the, from the board, which increases the, the budget that we were trying to operate to meet for proposal. A that's I think coming on some of the work and some committees, it just looks like there's going to be additional hiring needs that the board is anticipating at this point. So the kind of moral of the story for our purposes are that a lot of the fees had to get, especially in that proposal a where we have to meet the fees. All, all got a boost in order to hit the new fee. So in the previous iterations, we were aiming for between like 1.4 million and 1.8 million. It looks like the board's operating costs will be kind of in those middle years around 2.5 million. So a significant increase. And so we need to aim a little above that for a couple of reasons. One, to pay back the deficit, which I guess it's just, it's one reason, but to pay back that deficit that's going to be created. But that was estimated at 1.8 million as of FY 24, but kind of with this increased hiring, I imagine that that will be a larger deficit because the fiscal note that they were operating off of didn't have the increased staffing included into it. So the fees that you saw sent around a few minutes ago for proposal a includes that increased fee for proposal B. They'll probably look pretty familiar because they're pretty close to basically what we were talking about last time. That's the fees that we tried to balance raising revenue. We'll also try to create a more accessible market. So we'll jump into that in a second, but just wanted to give that caveat of why these are going to look a little different than they did last call. But the other thing I guess to note is that what we tried to do was continue to keep those ratios of costs that we talked about on the last call. So that's kind of the concept of fees and the rate of fees compared to each license type is the same that you saw. But just the underlying number has been boosted a little bit to meet the additional costs that are now being estimated. So going on just and then the two reminders that we've talked about throughout this, but that these proposed fees and these recommendations don't include any reduced fees for social equity that those are being discussed in a different subcommittee. And we anticipate that when all the subcommittees kind of make their proposals that the final recommendations will include those reduced fees that will kind of be attached over the top of these fees. And then the second one is just as a reminder, we have two fee proposals here. The first one being relatively large fees, which is to meet that statutory mandate of covering all of the costs. And the second one being the kind of lower fees that balance revenue production and access to the market. So instead of sharing the spreadsheet, we just put it all into a PowerPoint. So I guess the easiest thing is probably for me to run through these quickly and you can see where they are. And then have have some discussion on it before we get into the boats, rather than just stopping because I want to make sure that we get the full picture on the table before we start any discussion. So here's, as we've talked about before, we would have a kind of intent to apply the or kind of called in the past provisional license fee. This is that piece where somebody could submit some information to the board, a limited amount of information based on like who they are, what they're planning to do for $500 that kind of serves two purposes. One, it gives the board a sense of what the interest in licenses are early on in the process so that they can make adjustments accordingly. And two, it also kind of make sure that people are serious about starting down the licensing process before they before they kind of just start entering it and giving filing papers. The second part of that is the application fee. If you if you apply, if you submit an intent to apply your application fee would be reduced by that amount. So if you, you know, you're a small cultivator and you intend to cultivate you submit your information on that $500 attempt to apply when you get your location set up and you're ready to fully apply your, you'd pay an additional $500 for the application fee. If you if you didn't do the intent to apply on your application fee would be a thousand. Yes, about. Yeah, just one thing, not for this subcommittee, but for the board to think about for the future. We'll need to or the board will need to think about what is too different between an intent to apply and apply, you know, details change sometimes for business between that earlier part and the later part. And they'll need to figure out some sort of criteria to delineate, but this is a totally different application versus yeah, that's a minor tweak. So it's just so I'm going to put on the radar. Yeah, thank you. That's a good point. And well, I think as we further define this in other subcommittees and going forward regulations, we'll definitely have to make make note of that and figure out, you know, I think these are pretty. It's mostly like who you are, like what your, what your plan is, things like that. And a lot of the like location specific and stuff. So you will have to have some, some nexus between the two. So that is, you don't say you're, you know, person or company a and then be an entirely different thing for for your for your license. But that is something we will work out when we get further into this process. The next one is kind of the big one here. These are the cultivation tiers and license fees. So what you'll see reflected here is a lot of what we talked about on Monday. For the kind of ratio. So what we did for proposal a was adjusted the tiers in the to basically just the outdoor tiers in the indoor tiers so they mostly match, although to stay under an acre instead of going up to the 50,000 we kept it at at 43,560 square feet. The other thing that we did here was create a couple of different like internal ratios here. The first one being that we basically stayed consistent in price for square feet in each, each category until we got except for the the acre outdoor is slightly below because I think that will probably have some additional protection controls just so that you're not packing an acre full of, you know, there might be ways to design that so that you, you can use an acre of land that's kind of set aside for this. But, you know, there's other restrictions so that it's not just a, you know, an acre jammed with cannabis plan. The second ratio that you'll see is that we adjusted the ratio between outdoor and indoor cultivation so that in proposal a the fees are basically four times per for indoor. We adjusted those down a little bit in proposal B so they're they're twice not mostly that was to bring I guess just to start over in proposal a these are as you can see pretty high fees that would make Vermont an outlier and a lot of respects for the size and distribution for a market with unlimited licenses. We think that these fees are probably a bit too high for for a a sustainable market but this is kind of where they probably need to be to get to to get to the to the revenue that we're we're trying to reach for proposal B. We tried to bring bring those back in line with some of our kind of comparable states. These would be especially on the larger indoor these are comparable to where you'd be in in states that Vermont could be competing with. We tried to keep the outdoor and the lower tier licenses much more affordable to try to create more access. And then I guess the one thing you probably will notice is adding the proposal be we break we break the ratio when you get to those optional tears. We lowered them down a little bit because again these are tears that the board will probably implement if they're having trouble getting enough demand out of the other tiers. So we didn't want to have what we thought would make those come. They're still more expensive but comparably cheaper per square foot because if that's the case the board's going to be looking the board will want applicants for those licenses because they're going to be trying to increase the amount of supply in the overall market. So I'll pause because I think that's the bond has a question. Thanks Dan. These numbers are still numbers of flour and Kennedy correct. I think these are numbers and Andrew pop in but I think these are flowering canopy for for outdoor and indoor is the full cultivation size. Right. But Andrew I don't know if you're available to pop on. I think that was where we where we were. Well if you don't pop on it occurred to me we were trying to do an acre instead of 2000 that would be simpler. But in retrospect if outdoor is flowering canopy then the measurement of an acre is arbitrary because it's not going to be one rectangular acre that is their flowering canopy. So the board's going to have to figure out that you guys rose flowering this area is walking rose. This is whatever and they're going to have to add up that square footage to figure out what it is. So we've saved them no hassle by making it what now looks to be an odd number of forty three five sixty rather than around number of fifty. Yeah I can hear you now Andrew. Okay sorry there's something weird going on with my headphones. So this square footage applies in my thoughts to total cultivation area that would be vegetative clone mothers as well as flowering canopy. Flowering canopy depending on how you grow is a little different for outdoor. There's honestly far fewer out reverse is listed on this but it's usually about 50 percent flowering canopy versus your total square feet of cultivation area which would also include kind of the space between rows and things like that. Okay that makes sense. Yeah it is going to be a question you know how do we can how do we consider what is effectively an outdoor grow in which a grower is doing their mother plants or their clones or maybe there's a small vegetable small immature plants indoors. It probably just end up combining that. Now as far as the forty three thousand five you know be just under an acre. This is you know it's basically just in response to some some requests from the board to have a tier that's lower. I think that it's it's probably unlikely that you'll have a single outdoor grow in Vermont be that large given the size of the market and just how much inventory would end up coming online at once with a outdoor grow over forty thousand square feet. So however they want to do it right. You know I don't think any of us are really hard and fast on that. And you know if we get a forty thousand if we did a thirty thousand all that obviously would be under an acre but just something to consider. Any other questions here before we flip through the rest we can kind of have a general conversation after we get through all the rest of the recommendations before we before we vote but anything else here before I flip to the retail. And also just as I know these are probably the biggest changes from Monday's call. Everything else to look pretty similar. I do want to point out as well. Thank you Dan. Again this is Andrew. These these free proposals in free proposal B in many ways on the per square foot metric match those in Maine. So Maine for their outdoor grows had seventy five cents a square foot for their annual fee for outdoor and dollar and a half per square foot for indoor. And so that matches that. Obviously the tiers are a little bit different. But that by and large is similar to you know our neighbors to the I guess not quite never. But I'm quite nervous. Yeah. And here is what we're proposing retail. So you'll see that after our discussion last week or I guess I think last week was Monday. It's been a long week. Their discussion Monday. There is talk. We end a need for additional revenue. We boosted the proposal a retail storefront fee up a bit. And then kind of proposal B left it where I believe it was in proposal A last time. And then I think I think these the clones went up a little bit as well. Again in proposal A but not not for kind of proposal B. So and then since the limited and former licenses aren't things that we are recommending here because they still are contingent on other regulations. Those fees stayed the same. I think those are probably reasonable fees if the board is able to kind of figure out how to how to make that work which I think will be topic of discussion in future in different subcommittees or in future conversation. So that's retail. Again manufacturing tiers both ticked up a bit. Again to cover those those increased costs. But are still pretty similar in like the ratio of between tier one and tier two and then rest of the licenses are here and I guess the most important thing is what we did for the integrated license was after some comments last time we just explicitly tied the fee of the integrated license to basically the constituent parts of that so that the proposal fees are the combined price of a a 25,000 square foot grow facility a storefront retailer and a tier one manufacturer. So that's the whole sale in that just because a lot of the other cultivators will also be able to wholesale shouldn't think that was kind of an extra cost. But so that's that's how we aligned those. And I think the rest of those are as we've talked about except we're going to make it explicit that the testing laboratories fees will be kind of integrated with those hemp fees as we've talked about so that we're testing facilities because we want to make sure that we we need testing facilities to avoid bottlenecks so we don't want to try to fund this process on their backs we want to encourage them as much as possible. Stephanie I see you have a question. Yeah, I had a question that was brought up at the last meeting that wholesaling wholesaler license a lot was allowed to process as well and so I'm curious. And also Dan you mentioned that you know like you set up these tiers and you want to make sure everybody doesn't have the same ability and every or not here's excuse me in all the different licenses you don't want to have the same ability. So I have a question about and I haven't read the definition recently so how does I mean I understand what a wholesaler does. Like that's obvious but with respect to the definition and act 164 is it it seems broader than just selling and transporting so I'm wondering if we can add anything. Yeah, yeah I did and we did actually and I didn't break it up we did make an adjustment to that and that was our oversight. So it seems like they are able to like white label and do some packaging, which is why we also, if we flip back and forth we actually made the at one point I think the tier two manufacturer and the wholesaler work equally priced. And we adjusted that slightly, because we were thinking that a lot of that white labeling would be done through a tier two manufacturing license, but it'll now be. We didn't want to make the tier two manufacturing license and a wholesaler and license the same if if there's kind of more power in the more authority and the tier two so like you can make it infused products in this tier two so we raise this cost we raise both costs again as we raise all the costs but We tried to also just slightly adjusted to make it to try to value the license types more appropriately. I don't know if it's probably still a little close. Maybe that's your to tier two manufacturing license could go up a little bit. You know, but we were trying to think we've had some public comments about wanting to try to have like a low priced license for people to make infused products. So we wanted to try to keep that pretty pretty low fee license, but we tried to adjust it but it's like, let us know if there you think there should be some more more adjustments in here. Well, and I'm not concerned about the fee. I'm actually more concerned about the definition of wholesaler and whether there's a recommendation potentially and I know it would be a change to the law that we that there that that gets a little more box in changed. But I mean, I just laid that out. Yeah, I didn't anticipate Further defining any of the statutory definitions. But again, that might be something and this is a little You know, a lot of this will have to depend on how the rest of the A lot of this probably depend on like the compliance, some committee and some of these other subcommittees that are working on. You know, transportation rules and security rules and basically like how the mechanics of a lot of this stuff is going to work I think to try to fill out the kind of outer bounds of what each of these licenses are able to do. But we can, if you want, we can try to make a recommendation with a note that I mean is your it's You three are the subcommittee members. So if you like want to figure if you want to propose a different definition or a different way to kind of approach the wholesale license. I think we're open to it. Absolutely. I guess for now I don't know that we, we actually have any, I don't know. And we're not all weighing in. So I'm drawing attention to what exists. Yeah, I'll finish this little presentation and then we'll kind of open it up for just a discussion because I think we're mostly done. All right, that was the. Oh, so then last bit employee registration fee would be $100 collected by annually that is proposed that to make sure it factored into the overall cost. Again, if there's, if there's strong thoughts on that at all, we can, we can adjust accordingly. And then the last thing is that local. I shouldn't use the reprocessing that's like the local fee for processing the paperwork, not processing cannabis, which we've talked about on, I think it was two calls ago where I think everyone agreed that $100 maximum for the kind of paper shuffling portion of the local approval. So that, that hasn't changed. So that's it for our new proposals. Here's the dynamics when we run through the different fee proposals. Again, dynamic to we think is the most likely one. And our new target is somewhere north of probably like 2.8 2.9 million just to cover cost and payback the, the coming deficit. So we aimed slightly high on proposal a, because we kind of think that with some of these higher fees. We might not get the same number of licenses that we anticipated in, in dynamic to originally. And then in proposal B, you'll see that we're, we're not that far behind what was our kind of original target because those figures are actually pretty close to where we were on proposal a on Monday. So we're, we're a little bit and in that case, the board would be looking to have their kind of operation budget supplemented by some of the tax revenue that would be coming in. So that is our updated presentation on fees. Why don't we take a few minutes here to see if the subcommittee has any thoughts or concerns with kind of these new revisions. Because I know they, they, they changed quite a bit since, since you saw them on Monday. But it's all positive probably hurting up for me already. Any thoughts from Chris is a bonus Stephanie. Yeah, Chris here to continue Stephanie's questions, which I think we're spot on. I'm trying to wrap my head around this wholesale license as well. You know, just to, because I know that some of the other licenses will, will have that ability. So it's, it's the wholesale distribution basically white labeling. And what else. Yeah, give me one second. I'll pull up the exact exact definition. They are able to purchase process transport and sell cannabis or cannabis products. I think the, I think the issue is that process does not appear to be defined yet in the statute. So this is kind of one of those spots where we are slightly over our skis. We don't have, we don't have a set of definitions for the regulations yet. But I think it's up to the board. We can probably like one of the recommendations here is, or one of the things that we could possibly do. And we can discuss that is that if the subcommittee would like to, we could recommend the board define process in regards to the wholesale license in a certain manner. And make clear definition between what's, what can be done under a wholesale license and what can be done under a like a tier two manufacturing license. I'd be careful there Dan, just if you're using the same words mean different things in different licenses that can become confusing and we always don't regulation to be clear. Yeah, I mean, what I would not to get nerdy if we're, if we are, what we would probably do is define process just meaning process throughout the regulations. But then the other provide a different definition for other processing activities, I guess, I'm probably talking myself into a circle here, but there's like ways that you can define things clearly based on. We probably just have to use different, different definitions. We saw this and there was a tough definition and I think it was in like a in Mississippi's original medical ballot question that defined process confusingly and we're trying to get around it by using a bunch of other definitions. Yeah, I was just, I was looking at the definition of manufacturer and it doesn't use the word process. And while I don't know where else process specifically or manufacturer is used specifically in at 164. There it does appear to be a distinction, at least that process is not included in the definition of manufacturer. It's just manufacturing. So, you know, just to think about, you know, maybe we needed more clearly defined manufacturer. It's another opportunity as well, but any other, any other thoughts? I guess there's the two part question here. The first part being, would the subcommittee want, want to take that on as further defining those two, trying to further define those two words. I would probably want to check to see if another another subcommittee is already working on definitions. I'm not actually sure. And if, I don't know if Tom or Gina happens to know if, if any, some committee has gotten into that part of the nitty gritty yet. I wouldn't want to be stepping on other, other toes. If not, we can, we can try to come up with a come up with definitions that I think would work and maybe let me stop. First, if anyone else knows if another subcommittee is already working on this jump in and let us know. Not that I know. Sounds good. So then I think it could be up to us. What, what, I guess it's probably hard to define it. I don't think I'm skilled enough to verbally come up with a definition that would work for both of these and talk about them here, but we can talk about what we want to cover and then maybe circle back with with some definition. Is that something that the board, the subcommittee would be interested in doing is trying to further define kind of those words so we can distinguish between tier two cultivator and what they can do and a wholesaler and what they can do. Hey Dan, this is Steve on I would almost punt on this and kick it up to the board, give them an opportunity to at least informally check in with some legislators as to what their original legislative intent was when they drafted it. I'm imagining based on this that what process it really means is something akin to packaging, right that a wholesaler can buy in bulk from a farmer and the wholesaler can be who's responsible to, you know, subdivide it. Maybe something as innocuous as that and maybe we don't even want to allow that but I would want to give the board the chance to check in with the legislators and learn a little bit more of what they had intended when they drafted it. That is it is explored at some point in time, either by the board or by another committee. And that we were aware, we're doing the fees that there's a little bit of ambiguity here as to what the wholesaler does. Do we want to thank you and it will certainly be explored when the board starts putting pen to paper on on trying to make these these regulations all fit with each other. We as a as the market structure, some committee who is kind of charged with getting these fees out be recommendations for the board as soon as possible. Do we want to have a quick discussion about whether or not we think we do want to tie these proposed wholesale fees to allowing wholesalers to repackage. Or do you want to, like, when we vote on this proposal, I'll make a proposal for us to consider that we work follow the working assumption that what a wholesaler does is they buy from folks and distribute the stores and they are really what we think was a traditional distributor. And that is up to the board to give them any more power they think that matters what this fee is. So, you know, let the board decide how they're going to find processing, whether it includes, you know, subdividing or not or whatever. But we're thinking that the main function they're doing is their distributors. And if there's more than that, that's up to the board's discussion. That's my proposal. I think that works. I guess we should take a little does that work for the other members of the committee. Yeah, yes, I agree. Chris wall. Yes. Thank you. Perfect. All right. Like, like crisis averted by, by giving the board more more decisions, they certainly don't have enough yet to make the any other thoughts on on these revenue projections are on the license fees before we kind of move on. And I think the next step will basically be voting for the I guess for the everyone's education for where we're going. I moved the public comment period up because I thought it didn't make sense to have public comment after the subcommittee voted. So I figured with pause for public comment only kind of finish this discussion and then come back and have the subcommittee members vote on what we should recommend to the board. So anything else for discussion before we throw it open for a moment of public comment hearing none. And I guess does that work for does that work for the board? James or is there other is going out of order wrong? It felt like we should probably have public comment before the subcommittee took a vote just in case somebody from the public makes a impassioned argument that sways sways vote. No, it makes sense to me if any members of the public come in in the intervening times for the for the remainder, you know, if the normal public comments, I'll let you know, but I'm fine with holding public comment now. Okay. Is there anyone there who is interested in making a public comment? Please. How are you doing everyone? This is Evo Gaston. This is just kind of on the wholesaler. The wholesaler license in my mind. It makes the most sense to really have the wholesalers act as a distributor and not necessarily packaging it. I feel like giving them that power to package. Could just potentially open up a can of worms for the way that they perceive that that the wording in that law maybe. I think packaging and manufacturing should be with a manufacturer and then a wholesaler could then take that product and distribute it out to the retail locations just seems to make the most sense to me. And yeah, that was really it. Thank you. Anyone else in the room public comment? All right, I think I think that's it Dan. But again, if anyone comes in for that kind of 150 timeframe, I'll let you know. Yeah, yeah, definitely. All right, so I think we are ready to move on to to kind of our official votes here. Unless anyone else in the subcommittee has anything else they want to raise before we before we get to it. Hearing none, I guess our first, I tried to break this down into a handful of. Easier yes or no questions, but the first question I guess is that I put to the subcommittee is is everybody still in. In agreement, I guess that this subcommittee will make a set of two different recommendations to the board. One, which would cover costs as are required in the statute. And then one that was that proposal be that is more balanced approach that would both try to raise significant revenue, but would also create lower barriers to entry for for certain certain businesses looking to enter the market with the caveat that. If that is the case, the some of the tax, the board will have to recommend to the legislature that some of the tax revenue is used to cover operating costs. So, I guess, let's take a take a vote on whether that is still the format that we'd like to go for. So, I guess I'll just, I'll just ask by the first one I see Stephanie. Yes, Chris. Yes. Great. And then now we'll go on to like the main questions is the first one is rather than going through each of these individually I think we should vote on them as a as a package. So the first one. The next vote is on proposal a. Vote recommending the license types and fees and proposal a in order to cover if the if the board needs to recommend fees that would cover the cost of the operations of their activities that those license types are kind of as defined or I guess not defined, but as we're assuming, according to kind of our conversations so that the wholesaler is kind of the distributor model. The retail in retail storefront includes both fees and a lot includes the ability to sell fees and clones things along those lines. So, I guess the same question again. Are you an approval or yay or nay on the proposal and proposal a. I'll stay in the same order Stephanie. Yes. Chris. Yes. Yvonne. Yes. Great. Same question for proposal B. Stephanie. Yes. Chris. Yes. Yvonne. Yes. Great. That's those are our main our main questions but there was two other things that we've talked about that I don't think are incorporated into that previous vote and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to be on the record for it. I guess the first one being that do you vote to recommend that the board explore retail limited licenses and retail farmer licenses if concerns over safety and market impact can be addressed. Stephanie. Yes. Yes. Yvonne. Yes. And then the last one was on a proposal I think Chris made a couple of calls ago but that the board as much as possible prioritize getting those retail fees and clone licenses earlier in the process so that outdoor cultivators and home cultivators have access to legal sources as soon as possible. And a lot Chris lead off since I think this was his proposal. Yes please. Okay. Stephanie. Yes. And Siobhan. Yes. I'm just FYI about to switch from my computer to my phone. I'm calling right now. Okay. We will give you a sec but that's that's that's kind of the all we had for here. Let me let you back in. I am. Thank you. Great. So we might actually have wrapped up a little early. That was kind of all of our our questions I think we have the proposals I guess for next steps. We will send these up to the board. Although they have been digitally watching diligently watching us throughout this process so they are very aware of the proposals and your recommendations but we'll send those up to the board as recommendations of this subcommittee. Again there's other subcommittee working on fees and most notably the social equity fees so I think there will probably be some sort of reduced fee for certain qualifying applicants that will kind of be attached over the top of these. But and then I think the next step is that we are putting together a or the board is putting together recommendations to the legislature for fees. So I think that that is actually all I have I don't know if any of the other board members or subcommittee members have any questions or comments that they want to bring up. I think I think the plan though is to actually end this subcommittee and have the subcommittee members join some of the other subcommittees that are in progress working on some of these other topics. And then I think there's I think we might be seeing you again in a little bit what we have some other conversations about some future licenses and things that will probably get started a little later in October or November but anything else from any subcommittee member that they want to bring up now. Nope. Is there anything from the board that you'd like to bring up or have us address in the last few minutes or did I get the plan going forward off or is there any corrections that are needed there. No I mean I is the chair of the board just thank you. You know Dan and VS and NACB for your work and of course Chris and Stephanie and so on for volunteering your time. I think you added a lot of great input and direction to this process and we'd like as Dan mentioned we'd like to kind of continue our relationship with you. We move you around to some of the various other subcommittees where I think your expertise could be utilized and I'll be in touch with you about that and scheduling those. And you know I would just say that you know on this market structure we have to present this to the legislature and it might need some tweaking down the road. And so if you guys could potentially have an ad hoc meeting here and there down the road might be necessary. So but thank you for the work on this it's been a real treat to watch you guys do your thing. Thank you. Yeah and we are certainly aware that things can quite need adjustments and when the legislature starts weighing in there could be additional questions. And I know on the on the VFS side at least we are happy to to pop back with ad hoc meetings whenever we're never needed and hope everyone else would be happy to join us. I'd like to thank everyone that's been involved to drinking out of a fire rose has never been so enjoyable for me. Thank you as well. Stephanie. I've learned a lot. Well I had to thank everyone too. Thank you all. Yeah. No this has been this has been good and thank you again. It couldn't have been easy to have you know we threw a lot of information and a lot of stuff at you very quickly and I think we've worked through this in a in a pretty about as quickly and you know as orderly as possible given the circumstances. So I want to thank everyone for being engaged and active. So with nothing else to say I think I will drive a motion to adjourn the market structure subcommittee motion to adjourn. Excuse me Chris. Will somebody second it. Second second second second. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. All those against. And we are officially adjourned and I gave everyone gave everyone 12 minutes back. So enjoy your Thursday and I will be. This meeting is no.