 Great, we'll get started then. My name's James Pepper. I'm the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Today is March 28th, 2022, and I call this meeting to order. Just a few quick updates before we get started today. Update on our free qualification. As of this morning, we had 395 people that have submitted applications for pre-qualification. They're at all license types. There's a good distribution, including testing facilities, all three tiers of product manufacturers, and a good number of those, I would say probably about half are cultivators. So that's great, really, really exciting. We're gonna begin the process of issuing approvals next Monday. So at our board meeting, the board will be reviewing applications or recommendations from our staff around approvals, and issuing approvals, and we'll be posting just the basic metadata on the pre-qualification applications on our website so that people can get a sense of how much of each license type has been pre-qualified. Just a reminder, though, that pre-qualification is voluntary. It is not required, and it's really kind of up to each individual perspective licensee as to whether or not that process makes sense for them. And again, if there's any questions about pre-qualification, please first try and look at our guidance on it. It's pretty comprehensive. We've been updating it as questions come through. So that's ccb.vermont.gov. slash pre-qualify. And then if you can't find your answer there, you can always email the board at ccb.info at vermont.gov at ccb.info at vermont.gov. And then we also do Nelly Ken field questions and try and get back to people on the phone. It's 802-828-1010, and then option zero is for the adult use program. Update on our licensing window for operating licenses, which opens this Friday, April 1st. This initial licensing window is for small cultivators, testing facilities, and integrated licenses. We need to begin to issue these on May 1st, which we will do. And we've been kind of beta testing online portal. It's a different portal than our pre-qualification. All indication is that it's ready to go on April 1st. And so if you're looking to seek a license and you're a small cultivator, testing facility or integrated license, that opportunity will open on April 1st, this Friday. And I know the law says that we have the authority to close this window. I would say at this point, the board has no intention of closing it. If we do, if that changes, we do have a provision that requires us to give 30 days notice. So we will of course comply with that, but I don't think we have any intention of closing this window for small cultivators, testing facilities or integrated licenses. A few notes on this. The fingerprinting authority is still pending at the FBI. Which means that we submitted our authorization about a year ago, almost a year ago, to the day, I think 11 months and some change. Still have not received that. So our fingerprinting requirement is gonna look a little bit different for this initial licensing window. It'll be very obvious in the application process how we're gonna handle criminal history checks, but it is probably not gonna be fingerprint based. So just when you're applying, just wait, kind of follow the application process and be prompted, you'll be prompted for kind of the criminal history records, probably a little bit differently than you might have been expecting, but it'll be easy enough to follow. And then with respect to payment as well, it's sounding to me like our online payment might also be decoupled from the application process specifically. We, of course, will be accepting things like money orders and checks. We would prefer people not paying cash. They're kind of application fees, but I think we will have an online payment system up and running soon. It's not clear whether we're gonna have that on April 1st, though. So just stay tuned on the payment piece and we will have options available for everyone seeking a license. Other than that, we do know that the next licensing window that opens is on June 1st for all other cultivator licenses. The board hasn't made a final decision, but it's looking like we're gonna open tiers one through five of the indoor, outdoor, and mixed tier cultivation licenses. So not open that largest license tier for indoor and outdoor. So those tiers you can see both in our fee bill and in our rules. So just keep an eye on that final decision from the board about which cultivation tiers we intend to open, but it's sounding like we're gonna do one through five. Other than that, just need to approve the minutes from our last meeting on March 21st. Julie and Kyle, have you had a chance to review those? Yep. Yep. All right, well, I take a motion to approve the minutes from 321. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, so today we're gonna do some more guidance, some guidance documents. I have just some very basic slides on both kind of our insurance requirements. And then I just wanted to do a quick note on kind of economic empowerment as well. So only four slides today on this. Good for everyone. Okay, so our insurance requirements are in rule 2.2.2. And I will pull them up here. So I think we all remember that originally we had thought about setting a specific minimum amount of insurance and general liability insurance specifically. In this rule, we had kind of that a cannabis establishment shall obtain at a minimum general liability insurance of no less than a million dollars per occurrence or $2 million in the aggregate. We heard a little bit or quite a bit of, I should say public comment that, given the status of cannabis federally and the kind of status of insurance around the nation that that might be difficult for some people. So we did change the insurance requirement to what is in Subway, just that a cannabis establishment shall maintain commercially reasonable levels of insurance, which really kind of shifts the onus to the licensee to kind of determine what's right for their business. And also recognizing that there still might be a hardship in obtaining insurance that we have an alternative, which is laid out in Subway, which is essentially a self insurance. You set aside some of money based on your license type and that money can cover these issues that arise that typically insurance would cover. So we've been getting quite a few questions about what is commercially reasonable mean. And I recognize that it's not clear from this what is commercially reasonable, but really this is one of those areas where it's tough for the board to provide specific guidance. There are just too many permutations as to the various cannabis businesses and who your customers are and where you're located. For us to kind of just say a baseline amount of insurance, I can say that for the most part, all small businesses usually maintain a million dollars per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. That's a very basic policy for almost all small businesses. But we really did in this section in this role push that decision to the individual licensees. I've done some research on cannabis insurance and I've talked to a few, a handful of businesses, both in state and nationally that ensure cannabis businesses. And I guess I'll just some basic points that I'll make based on that is, yes, all insurance, everyone I spoke to in the insurance industry said that for any small business, including home-based sole proprietors, a million dollars per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate is the amount of insurance that they recommend. That is a very basic plan. There are a number of options in this field. Don't feel like there are no insurers out there because there are. They're mostly surplus line insurers, meaning that their coverage is limited and there's a lot of exclusions and it's more expensive. And a lot of that is mostly due to the fact of the federal status of cannabis. These insurance companies don't wanna put their businesses at risk by ensuring companies where there's federal illegality and also there's a lack of historical data that usually informs people's risk calculus. But there are options out there. The board really does feel that general liability insurance is an important aspect of doing business and it's common in every industry. There's a number of other state regulators that require not just insurance, but specific amounts of insurance for cannabis businesses. And really does help protect the business owner, but also everyone that's setting foot on to that operation. We have tried to recognize the hardship that people might face in this area. We've offered the flexibility of not setting specific baseline amounts of insurance. We have the kind of escrow alternative, but I just wanna mention one other point here, which is that we do have a general waiver provision in our rules and I'll pull it up here. So in rule 2.16, the board maintains the authority to waive any of these regulations. So long as such a waiver, one is necessary to achieve the purpose of Vermont law and two does not create danger to the public health safety or welfare. So essentially, I think we all are familiar that we are required to prioritize small cultivators. And I think we can all recognize that someone who is a small cultivator might be in a position to not afford a high premiums that a cannabis policy might carry with it and that their risk is relatively low. If you are growing at your home or in an existing farm and you don't have other employees and you're kind of not a fire safety or something else to any of your neighbors that you might not need $10,000 or a full insurance policy to cover potential risk. So I think that there is a possibility that the board might want to use the rule 2.16 waiver provision on a case by cases, case by case basis with respect to insurance for specific types of businesses. I don't think that this should be the rule, this should be the exception, but I do feel like if we're giving guidance to people and our guidance is really determine your risk as your business, talk to insurance companies, tell us or try to get insurance, but if you absolutely cannot and you can't set aside the escrow amount, then I think the board might use this and here are the kind of basic questions that I think the board would use to guide our decision as to whether or not to grant one of these waivers and essentially just why are the insurance requirements unachievable? I think I would want to see it a bare minimum that you've tried to comply with 2.2.2, but for some reason, the premium is much and the escrow account would make your business unprofitable. Second, what type of business do you have? Is this tier two product manufacturer or is it a tier one small cultivator? How big is your business? How many employees do you have? Who are your customers? Are people coming on to your property regularly? That's really what general liability insurance is made to protect against is at a bare minimum, cannabis board regulators are gonna come on to your property or inspectors, folks from the agency of agriculture, if there's an accident, that's what this insurance is designed to protect against. Where's your business located? Again, if you're co-located with other businesses or there could be some real risk there to your neighbors. But if you're kind of out, relatively isolated then maybe your risk is lower. Are you a sole proprietor or are you the only person in your company? Is the risk really to you only or is it to someone else? So I don't know, Julie and Kyle, I don't know how you feel about all this, but I thought this kind of, just to help answer some of the questions you've been getting about insurance, whether this is a viable path forward. Can you go back to your list of questions? Yeah. In the first one, why are the requirements unachievable? Do we anticipate that people would really tell, demonstrate that they have tried to get insurance? For me, I would want to see that. I just wanna make sure people understand the risk, that if they don't get insurance, that they're taking on a personal risk. Right. Yeah, agreed. Sorry, Pepper. No, I was just gonna say that we could add that in, but go ahead, Kyle. No, agreed. I mean, a lot of what we are designing is to help folks protect themselves from the worst case scenario. And so I totally agree. I think this needs to be the exception, not the rule. So when we look through these considerations, I think it would be, I would wanna see some type of correspondence that you've put your best foot forward and tried to meet the requirements of 2.2.2 before we fall back on making waivers without seeing that an applicant has really done everything in their power to meet those requirements. Yeah. So why don't I add that, like maybe as a subheading or just, who have you spoken to about insurance, which just maybe help kind of define what unachievable actually means. Is there anything else that we should add to this list that you think, anything that you all wanna consider when thinking about a waiver that might be helpful for the public to know? No, I think these are good. I think you pretty much covered it. And some of my conversations, I know folks will need potentially to come up with a lump sum in year one, at least for insurance, right? And that's present in other types of insurance that everybody needs, whether it's through your mortgage or your business or what have you. So again, to me that wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor. It can be a factor, but I think for me, I'd wanna see how much effort did you put in to this requirement before we grant a waiver? Yeah. And this is just for general liability. This is not for workers' comm or any other type of insurance that someone might be required to get when they open a business in Vermont, right? That's right. Yeah, and I'm hesitant to name specific insurance companies cause I don't wanna feel like we're pushing people in one direction or endorsing one company over another. But I will say that the current medical dispensaries in the state have insurance and they have insurance through Vermont chartered insurance brokers. So there are options in the state and there's options nationally as well. Are there captives? There are no captives in this industry, at least not that I know of. But the self-insurance is just shy of a captive, yeah. All right, well, I think we can kind of use this as our guidance document on the insurance. And we can see how it goes and whether we need to kind of adjust as applications start coming in. So, I think I also wanted to just talk a little bit about economic empowerment because I know that our fee bill was signed on Friday and it did grant people the, or it did grant the board to waive fees for social equity applicants. And social equity applicant, it did not say anything about fee waivers for what we're calling economic empowerment applicants. So I thought it might be good to just kind of talk about this a little bit. So, in general, just to take a step back, the board was given a direct kind of directive to develop criteria for social equity applicants and waive fees for those applicants. And we're given pretty strict parameters as to what the legislature intended as a social equity applicant. The law section 11 of Act 62 says that it's individuals from communities that have historically been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition or individuals that have been directly and personally impacted by cannabis prohibition. So, I think the board and our social equity subcommittee went back and forth about which communities, I think that the second half of that is relatively easy. People who have been directly or personally impacted by cannabis prohibition. What we came up with that is if you have an incarcerated for a cannabis-related offense or a family member that's been incarcerated for a cannabis-related offense, then you have been directly personally impacted. It's really the first part that becomes challenging. And I know we've talked about disproportionate impact zones that other states have used to define kind of communities that have been impacted. The analysis didn't work so well in Vermont. I think both over-inclusive and under-inclusive in that it included a lot of people that probably, I mean, essentially all of Chittenden County is a disproportionate impact zone whereas nothing in Essex County is. So how is that kind of equitable or fair to anyone? So, we decided to really kind of look at historically the kind of data that's been collected. And I think there is very compelling data on the disproportionate impact both through kind of selective policing and disproportionate incarceration rates. There's very kind of compelling data to support that black Americans and Latino Americans have suffered as a result of cannabis prohibition. And there's kind of the data to back it up. And that's not to say that there haven't been similar impacts with other demographic groups or communities. We certainly see a lot of discrimination against people because of the color of their skin, their ancestry, their sexual identity, their socioeconomic status. But when it comes to kind of this question about which communities have been historically disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, we have to have a rock solid kind of data set to point to to show to defend our decision there. And so when it comes to kind of some of the other demographic categories that we considered, I just don't feel like the program would have survived if we had been inclusive of all the people that have been either underrepresented in society or discriminated against for this specific program. So that being said, I think that our decision on fee waivers is now enshrined in law and we can we can waive fees for black or Latino owned businesses or anyone who can show that same sort of disproportionate impact of being part of a community that has been selectively policed or has been targeted for increased incarceration. But when it comes to kind of women owned businesses, other minority owned businesses, LGBTQIA businesses, owned businesses, I think we needed to kind of come up with a separate set of privileges. And so I just wanted to review quickly what we did as far as expediting and prioritizing non-social equity but economic empowerment applicants because they will under our guidance be given priority. The priority will be not to the level of social equity but it will be our second tier of priority. So I thought it'd be helpful for us now that H701 is now launched just to review this quickly. This is the same document. It hasn't changed from the last time but essentially the order of review for applications, we will start with priority, then when you will move to expedited and then finally general applications. And so the priority, this is again our social equity applicants. Expedited are for minority owned businesses which is essentially all the groups that we removed in our final rule from social equity. This is first generation Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ plus, people with disabilities, women owned businesses, veteran of people kind of a lower socioeconomic status. And they will receive expedited priority in our review process. And then just one other piece, our positive impact criteria also acknowledges that kind of economic empowerment is an important aspect to the entire industry. Obviously a lot of the kind of economic empowerment communities or demographic groups are underrepresented not just in society, but also severely underrepresented in the cannabis businesses. And so I think part C really speaks to trying to improve opportunities for economic empowerment businesses throughout the industry. So all of the kind of part C criteria, I think all of it applies to not just social equity owned businesses, but also women owned businesses, minority owned businesses. So I think it's important just to remember as well that there are some other advantages to applying as an economic empowerment applicant. And I think, Bryn, if you could maybe correct me if I'm wrong, we also have a plan for doing some technical assistance for economic empowerment applicants as well. Yes, that is in the works. So if you submit your application and you are identified as an applicant that would fit into the criteria for economic empowerment, then we will be connecting those folks with technical assistance. That's a program that's still in the works, we're putting it together, but it will be available some point soon. So any questions, Julie or Kyle about that? I just thought it'd be nice just on the kind of eve of opening our initial licensing window to kind of review some of this. Can you go back up to the expedited? I just wanna look at it for a second. The only thing I find confusing is that here we refer to expedited applications, but in 903 it talks about priority. So just if anyone, it might be confusing in general for people because the 903 makes it look like, well, it talks about priority, I guess. And it includes other things. So I just don't want people to be confused when they're reading through this. We can tweak some of this language if you want. I mean, we could call this economic empowerment application. Or we can help, but just to make sure that it reads differently to people. Yeah. Otherwise I think. Yeah, Julie's point. I just wanna say generally speaking, I think in the flurry of information and requirements that we have, this DEI or expedited program might not be getting the attention that it might deserve. And I'm thankful that you brought it up today, Pepper, because I just want folks to remember that this is something that we intend to do. Yeah. Yeah, I just, I think it's important, just like you said, to remind folks that if you are a woman on business, veteran on business, that there is a benefit to identifying that in your application process. Great. All right. Let me see. What else is on our agenda for today? I think we're a little ahead of schedules or anything, any other issues that we need to discuss? I think there's something that you should do, which is to take a vote on the decision to open up applications up to tier five cultivators. So we need that 30-day requirement. We have to announce 30 days prior to the opening, which will be May one. So you technically haven't till Friday, but since we're here, you've talked about it, you've made it, would you like to take a vote on it? Is there a motion? I move to open one through five. For cultivators. Indoor, outdoor, and mix. Yes, isn't that the goal? Yes. I figured if there was a motion and a second, then we could have a discussion about it. Yes. So yes, for all, for yes. Okay. Now, do we want to have a discussion about that decision? I know we talked about it kind of informally at the beginning of the meeting. Do we have sort of data that supports that from our pre-application? We do. I just got an email about this. So yes. So from our pre-qualification, I guess I don't have the mixed tier in front of me. I do have it split between indoor and outdoor. And so the vast majority of the cultivators are tier one and tier two. Our tier one and tier two. With respect to kind of tier five, we have three total, tier five pre-qualification applicants. So there's not a lot. Tier four, there's three total. So the vast majority of tier one and tier two are the pre-qualification applications. So I think that kind of decision to kind of start small and go slow will be upheld if we go tier one through five. Okay. Yeah, I agree. I think the pre-qual data looks pretty great with respect to the smaller tiers and our ability to really do what we intended to do when we started this process. I think we've always kind of held the tier six in our pocket, hoping that we might not need to start with it, depending on how a couple of things go. And I think we're at that point where we can make that decision, but also recognizing that tiers three through five, they're gonna help provide our program with some stability. So there is good reason to go with those licenses right now. Great. Well, I guess we should vote then. And just to clarify, it's for all, for indoor, outdoor, and mixed tier. All right, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Great. All right, good decision, I think. Anything else, Bryn? That we didn't do? All right. Then why don't we shift to public comment then? We're a little ahead of schedule, but that's all right. If we, you have a public comment and you joined via the video link, please raise your virtual hand. And when we get through those comments, we'll shift to folks on the phone. Okay. First up, we have Glenn. Yeah, hi. Can you guys hear me okay? Yeah. Okay, so this is going Anderson, Collin. I do have a question pertaining to the process. Sorry, I'm a little out of breath. I just ran into a place where you can hear me. So the system that you mentioned, the portal, we are working with a number of licensees to essentially create a fluid system so that they could put their data in and then we can push that into hopefully an API that you guys have for the portal. And I was wondering if that's a possibility, if that's up yet, and if that will be something in the future that we can integrate with for not just licensing, but also for continuous compliance management. And ideally we do, I was talking with Mike over at Agency of Agriculture and we're talking about doing similar things for the hemp program with them. But I would like to also integrate with the tax department. And I think ultimately that's where we're gonna see a lot of failures and compliance. So I really respect the work you guys are doing with respect to making sure small tier, tier one, two, three are all just getting into this mix. Because that's critical. I think the healthy economy is gonna be based on how many producers and professionals are out there delivering quality goods. So in respect to you guys for doing that, I do hope we can connect on the application front so that we can get an API that will effectively be one of these things where we can make that fluid so that they don't have to require huge attorneys fees to be in compliance all the time. And it's not a defensive game, but rather just a steady business function of a system that's pushing that data forward to you, but also to the tax department, reconciling with banks as well. So that's one piece. The other piece is in this licensing process for the hearings going forward. I haven't heard anything yet with respect to if people should have opposition to licenses that are before you. And particularly in my case, our system's called the cannabis collective and we've been doing this for quite some time now coding it and there's other people out there trying to branch act us. So for us, it's really frustrating because you get to the part where two weeks ago there's a federal ruling on copyright law and we don't have those protections. So I'm literally forced with a decision of do I take these attorneys representing this other client to the professional responsibility board because there's no other checks and balances for us to protect this brand identity, which is a significant concern of we brought it before the USPTO, US Patent and Trademark Office and they would look like it. They would look at it and say, well, if it looks like a duck acts like a duck, it's a duck. And the crossover is pretty significant. So without getting into that case here, there are matters that aren't necessarily trivial as far as some neighborhood PTO group opposing a retail license that's maybe 1500 feet instead of 500 feet from a school. So I think having that definition so that we can all know what to expect and how to participate in the process, not just defensively, but essentially on the offense to make sure that the fences are up around our properties for our brands. I'll give you a case and then I'll finish really quick. My group, the Dihydra Group, we've done judicial evaluations for the state or we had previously for a decade and a half. All sorts of pro bono work from the Montefender General's Office for an employee feedback system that we built for them. Those things ultimately, I think, were parts of what I did as the Dihydra Group, but that brand was under attack back in 2014, but we had it secured with the US Patent and Trademark Office because it had nothing to do with cannabis. And so we had those federal protections. So in the lack of federal protections, for brands, I just hope that you guys can maybe establish some sort of process, some sort of checks and balances so that we can work these things out before they become major issues. So I appreciate, thank you. Thanks, Glenn. Next we have Benjamin. Hello, everybody. Thanks again for all the good work you're doing. I would like to second what Glenn just said about branding and trademark protection, something that I'm kind of, and I'm sure a lot of people are starting to move into. And I also, I'd like to see some guidance and maybe some action on that front. Other comments that sounds like we're already working towards it, potentially getting these, starting to accept applications on May 1st, if I understood that. And I'd just like to advocate for that and say, let's get these going as soon as we can so we can, we don't have to wait until June 1st to start seeds and be planting almost in July for outdoors. Well, thank you. Thanks, Benjamin. Anyone else who joined by the link? Jared. Yes, hi. I would just like to suggest that you offer expedited consideration to applicants trying to open a business in an opportunity zone. Is that something you would consider? We will consider it. Yeah. Thanks. Anyone, anyone else? Thomas. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Perfect, thank you. This is Thomas Popkey from Opiea Farm Genetics and the Herb Collection. How are you guys today? Fine, thanks. So I have no questions at all. I just want to, on behalf of pretty much everybody in this industry, we've had so many meetings just getting together and how we're doing all of this and we all agree you guys are just such amazing people and we can't thank you enough for everything you're doing. It's a lot for all of us to just go through and be like, okay, how do I turn my simple idea into a real legitimate thing? And for you folks to work so hard, we just can't thank you enough. Thanks, Thomas. And so that's it. Just have a great week and we look forward to opening up licensing on Friday. Tree Frog Farms is next. Hi guys, I just wanted to say thanks for all the great work you've been doing. Just a clarification on what you guys did just vote and approved. So as far as I understand it, April 1st, licensing opens for all three tier one cultivators that's mixed indoor and outdoor. What you guys just did was bump up the approval for two through fives up to accepting on May 1st instead of being licensed then as the small cultivators are. And my second comment and concern is what do we have for guidance in terms of your seed to sale and tracking? Because I know I'm a small tier one mixed light cultivator that's what I'm going for. But I really don't know can I purchase seeds at this point that I won't be able to start until May 1st, come May 1st. If I get my licensing, will I be able to take clones off of personal plants that I've already started? I know that obviously this first year we're getting a late start, but I'd really like to see some focus in terms of that. So as a cultivator, I can start going one route or the other way or at least have some good idea of what I'm going to be doing come May 1st. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Matt. Hey, good morning. One, I want to say thanks for all your efforts. As always, I appreciate the time and the effort in taking public comment from us. My concern is not a lot of the substance of what was spoken about today, but I am concerned about the legislative actions that are holding up the medical bill. And I cannot stress this enough that we have three multi-state operators in our vicinity of this state, two of which that are within the country, one that operates outside of this country. And I cannot believe that our legislature, and I don't know if there's anything that can be done at this point. They are not taking up the medical bill, and we know beyond belief, through pictures and verification throughout the years, that those folks have never cared about our patients. And I'm really hoping there might be an avenue that we can expedite and do something to make sure that those people, and I'm sure most of them believe that what they are getting is clean and tested. It's not. They test themselves, and they spray pesticides, and that is in Senate testimony. So I am second-tired of the legislature, which has screwed this entire industry in the first place, not doing anything to protect our patients. And I don't know if there's anything at this point that you folks could suggest or we can do as a community to make sure that our patients are taken care of, because I hate seeing them have to submit to high prices and poor quality. And again, I appreciate all your time and effort in all of this. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Michael. Hi. I just wanted to thank everyone for all of your work, and especially the social equity portion. It means a lot to me, and I'm very glad that it's within the process. So thank you so much, and have a nice day. Thanks, Michael. Anyone else who joined via the link, please raise your virtual hand. I'll also open it up to folks that joined via the phone, and you can hit star six to unmute yourself if you'd like to make a public comment. I'll close the public comment window. I did want to just clarify, just because we did take a vote that was not on our agenda, so I feel like we should just be very clear about what we voted on. So April 1st this Friday, the licensing window opens for all tier one cultivators that's outdoor, indoor, and mixed here. It also opens for testing facilities and integrated licenses, but all tier one cultivators can apply on April 1st. And we will begin issuing licenses, operating licenses, for those tier one cultivators on May 1st. What the board just voted on was to open the remaining tiers of cultivators, tiers two through five, so not tier six, but two through five, open that licensing window on May 1st to begin issuing licenses for tiers two through five on June 1st. And the tier one cultivation window will remain open. We have no intention of closing it, so you don't have to do it on April 1st, but just there's a question about that the board had kind of posed whether we need to open tier six immediately, and the decision we made was no, we're not gonna open it immediately. We're gonna see how much cultivation, kind of rough canopy we can achieve or the market can achieve using only tiers one through five. And so we need to kind of give the industry 30 days notice before we open a window. So if we decide we need to open tier six, we will vote on that and let the, through the course of our open meetings, let everyone know if we intend to open tier six. But the decision we made just now is to only open tiers two through five on May 1st. Anything else? I should say that we are having our just typical public comment meeting tomorrow evening. We don't answer questions. This is really an opportunity for members of the public to give the board advice, to kind of give us your thoughts, your comments, to help shape our thinking about kind of the future of the market or the current market. And if you have questions for the board, feel free to give us a call, feel free to kind of check our website for information or email the board. We do try to kind of collect people's questions and answer them through our FAQ documents, through our guidance. So you can always ask us questions, but just to be clear, when you ask the board questions and we give you an answer, we are in a very kind of ethical gray zone because we can't answer specific questions about your specific business in any sort of binding way in these meetings. So please, you know, just recognize the limitations that the board is operating under at these public comment sessions. And, but we are having one tomorrow evening, the link to join that meeting is up on our website or will be and I don't have anything else. Julie Kyle? No. Just very quickly, you know, we got a couple of really nice messages. Thank yous in the public comment session. And I wanna just acknowledge and pass along that thanks to our staff. We've got a very lean staff that does an incredible amount of work. They've been racing around the clock to try and get the licensing portal ready for Friday. And so I just wanna make sure everybody listening, you know, extends that thank you to everybody who's really working hard to try and meet our timelines. So that's it. Absolutely. Yeah, thank you for that, Kyle. I should have. And, you know, even getting our rules done, you know, I think we literally set a record for the fastest turnaround in rulemaking in Vermont's history, certainly for kind of the scope and breadth of the rules. And so just a huge thank you to all of our staff for making this possible. Yeah, we know that there's a lot of questions out there. Nellie's on the front lines of that. So be patient. We'll get back to everybody if you have a question. So. All right. Well, that's the end of our agenda. So I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you all. And we'll see you again tomorrow. See you.