We'll start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. So, we have one thing on the
agenda and that's to discuss you just took my page. Discuss changes in chapter 2150. County code county's code of code code of ordinances regard regulating cannabis. So, are we going to discuss this and then do I've got public comment. Are we going to discuss this
and then do public comment or how should we proceed? Um, Mr. Chair, I'd recommend like a typical meeting, you do the public comment first and receive that information and then move on to the agenda item. Okay. All right. So, I've got two people signed up so far for
public comment. Started starting out with Mitch Daniels. Mitch. Good afternoon, chairman and chair uh board of commissioners. My name is Mitch Daniels, co-owner of Highly Floral, a state approved cannabis micro business. Thank you for welcoming public comment
as you shape our cannabis retail ordinances. I respectfully ask you to consider prioritizing micro businesses like Highly Floral, which will hire local staff and reinvest profits to support Rochester's economy. Micro business licenses being uncapped and vertically integrated are a popular choice among businesses that craft
premium flower like highly floral. An early micro business lottery set for late June ensures cultivation time for stores to open for retail purchases in the first quarter of 2026. With the Office of Canvas Management's June 5th lottery excluding retail licenses, which
are drawn at a later undetermined date, I invite you to explore an early micro business lottery for five of the 14 slots, giving local businesses a fair a fair start before later retail applicants. A general lottery could follow with safeguards like alternate runners up and a 2026. Wait a second.
Let's get the echo and try again. And a 2026 density review to ensure balance. Please consider ordinances that empower micro businesses to grow and contribute under your leadership. Thank you. Thank
you. All right. And I have Marin Schroeder. Good afternoon, chairman, board of commissioners. My name is Marin Schroeder. I live out in Stewartville. I am a co-owner of Bold North Holdings. Uh you'll hear from our CEO. I just wanted to introduce myself since I'm local and
make myself available for questions um on or off the record. I've been working in the advocacy and public affairs space around cannabis and drug policy for the last 11 years. Um and did a significant amount of the policy development on
chapter 342 except for the stuff everybody hates. Don't blame me for that. Um, and I am also not in charge of OC. I'm answering questions because they don't answer mine either. Um, but just wanted to make sure that you guys introduce I wanted to make sure I could introduce myself. Um, make myself
available. I'm really pleased with the county taking this seriously after the last public hearing, holding this meeting to discuss and the workshop on Saturday. I'm really optimistic that we can come to a resolution that works for our local businesses. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else who'd like to offer public comment? Okay. So, let's open the discussion. So, how are we going to run this? Ser believe there is how do you have the PowerPoint? All right. Perfect. I'm
hoping that can kind of lead our discussion if that works for everyone. Alrighty. So, uh, just going to kick off with just a little bit of a recap of some some of the information we heard from the public hearing and some of the
changes that we made. And then towards the end, there's a couple, I think, key decision points that I think we were um kind of working towards a solution on uh during the public hearing that we kind of need direction on to craft up
ordinance language. Ideally, um we we have a meeting, our internal group tomorrow to kind of finalize language for the Tuesday board meeting based off of um the direction that you provide today. And my hope and intention is also to bring this to several businesses and
in a focus group forum um to review the ordinance language and really work work through some of concerns or anything like that on on Saturday as well. So there will be a virtual session um that I'll I'll join hopefully a good good number of businesses u to to walk
through this. So that's kind of the general game plan. um ask questions al along the way, but I don't know if it's going to advance for me. You want to advance for me? All right. So, some public hearing
initiated changes. So, um there was talk about the lottery process itself. So, we just wanted to include that uh kind of may choose to have county staff language in there. So, it gives us the option of utilizing a third party um if we so choose, but it also gives us the option
of exploring the utilization of county staff to conduct the lottery um in terms of uh maintain maintaining kind of uh resources in mind and um as we talked about, we have qualified staff that could conduct the lottery and we would kind of work through that process. Um we
also added medic medical cannabis combination businesses to the registration types. that was uh uh a miss on our part that we needed to include um and was brought up during the conversation in the hearing and was also brought up uh through some conversation
after as well. So, can we stop there? So, yeah, these are essentially established businesses right now, right? Medical cannabis combinations. Um I don't think all of them there's six applicants currently at the at the state level that
are also going for this medical cannabis uh combination. So their licenses would count on our aotment if assuming we stick with they would count as one of our registration types. Yeah. So it would be a fourth category then there' be a fourth category. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Chair, can I just So they would count
against the 14. They would count this combination would count against the 14. Oh, okay. And Mr. Chair, what if there's a medical cannabis operator already within Homestead County that or maybe there's more than
one? I don't even know. But does that are they are they grandfathered in? I maybe I can try and there's a distinction between a medical cannabis business and a medical cannabis combination business. Right. We have, I believe, two existing medical cannabis
businesses here in the county that have been, you know, previously licensed by the state. They're, you know, operate under existing rules. They have to have this registry where patients enroll. You know, it's very restrictive as to how you get to purchase their products.
From what we understand, medical cannabis combination businesses will be a combination of what medical cannabis businesses are doing now, but like a a new cannabis retailer, they'll be free to sell to the general public in a way that medical cannabis businesses in the
past have not been. Does that help? Existing ones would count to our cap. So, the two then don't count against the 14. If they stay medical cannabis only and not medical cannabis combination, they don't count against the cap. That
was my question. Thank you. All right. Um, we also added um a added language allowing for up to 30 days for staff to review registration applications. So again, um knowing that
if we finish this process sooner, um we're not going to delay things anymore. So just uh we'll we'll get through them as fast as we can, but just allotting us that 30 days is kind of a cushion. Um added language to indicate license types
um would receive a remaining registration if one existed. So this is um this was kind of to that question around if we're using percentages to applications received at the local level, what would happen if um if there
was a rounding number and we had one remaining u registration to still give out. So that slot would be awarded then to the type um of retail business that received the most applications. So if we receive the most micro business applications
that extra registration would go go to that type. Okay. Um we also added language um just um stating that essentially if state statute changes that like our um our ordinance would adopt those changes just
um automatically essentially. So that was missing and we generally have that in um our other ordinances. So, we pulled that exact language from one of our other ordinances and inputed that into this one. Um, we added language that cannabis retail businesses may hold
one registration for a retail establishment in a city and three registrations for a county. So, this was a point point of discussion. So, retailers again have the ability to have three uh businesses within a county. Um, so just honoring that and calling that
out. So, how's that how's that work? Yeah, I think that's part of the discuss discussion where uh when we're talking about the exact lottery process, how how would that look? So, if they are trying to have three businesses within a county and they have three locations
identified, um I think we would likely need to offer like again a ball for each of those scenarios to give them an option for each three different applications. Okay. Um so some decision points and we'll get into some of the specifics but u one of
them is the controlling beneficial owner versus owner. So if I'm not did you all receive the ordinance uh language? So there's there's essentially two options there. One was more of our original language that we had and one of them um switched the controlling beneficial
owner um to just owner and we pulled a definition from owner from uh statute 342. of the cannabis statute. Um, which kind of encompasses essentially anyone that has a financial gain with the business to make sure any potential ownerships wouldn't fall through the
crack during application review. Um, so we didn't really settle on where we wanted to where we wanted to go on that during the public hearing, but we wanted to provide just two language options for for for you all to consider. Um, one
again is that 25 is it 25% ownership? I'm trying to remember. I'm sorry. Uh and then the other one is really just focusing on owner as kind of our our owner caveat instead of per a percentage. So and then we define owner as anyone that has like a financial
stake. And so if there are 10 10 people sharing in this business, all 10 would be Yeah. They would go through those standards. Yep. And then controlling beneficial owner would be if there are 10 people but only those owning more than 25%. Correct.
Wait, say that again. Controlling beneficial owner would mean the only people that would jump through the hoops are those that the other language, right? You're Yeah, there are more than 25%. Right. So, if they're LLC, if they're owners and it's an LLC and there's 100 owners, we get paperwork on
100 people in the language that's only owner on owner but not a controlling beneficial owner. We'd only get paperwork on those that have more than 25% or more%. But that's the percentage that we've got to agree on. Yeah, we got to agree on it. Yeah. So, that's one of the decision points. And so, should we
be discussing these right now? We can. Yeah, we can go one at a time. Yep. That sounds we can Mr. Chair, can we bring up the language? Might be a good idea. There we go. You want me to read? I have it on the
PowerPoint as well if it's easier to Okay. You want to you want to minimize that and use the PowerPoint? Yeah, we had it on the PowerPoint. There we go. The individual directly or indirectly access. All right. So
if if one p if you had a business that was owned by two people in option one and one has 75% and one had 25% both of them would have to go through the hoops. Correct. That's controlling beneficial. Yeah. You know you don't really have control
because you you only have 25% ownership compared to somebody else having 75. If they're 8020 it would be only the 80% person, right? We pulled this language from ex an existing uh existing ordinances from a
few different areas um in in Colorado. So that that's that's kind of what we went with. I mean the percentage again is up for debate as well, right? Uh so I think that's the purpose of a fair thing to bring up. I mean yeah,
Mr. Mr. Chair, can I ask you if if if we had a restaurant that was owned by an LLC uh and they had a health violation, we would we would find the organization the LLC and we'd have the name and address to be able to do that. Yeah. Uh
do we have to know who the owners are for purposes of this this law? I think uh at least law enforcement has wants to make sure that there aren't any partial owners basically that
have convictions that would be prohibiting them from receiving a registration. So that's one of the concerns. even if it's someone that just owns 20% of the business. It's hard to know because we haven't seen any of these documents yet. But in
theory, you could have somebody that has a a small partial ownership but still gets um you know what I'm saying? Uh a right to control that might not necessarily reflect a 5% ownership. Mr. Chair, I thought they were screened
by the cannabis management offices. Yeah, they will they will be. So, so our law enforcement it's it's a want to thing. Is that right? Right. They had advocated at the last meeting that they wanted to have a second review and the
draft language doesn't provide for that at this point. Just simply relies on the Office of Cannabis Management background checks. If your question to Commissioner Senum if I may for like our other license types and things like that we generally just collect a a primary owner. So there
is just like a one slot for owner and it's usually I would guess like your majority your majority owner. Yeah. So for our other, you know, 1100 or so licenses, I don't know why we couldn't handle like we handle a restaurant, not a health
violation and uh a restaurant doesn't have to get approval from us to open. There's no limit to the amount of restaurants. Well, they have to have a license, don't they? Yeah. It's not from the county, though. What? Not from the county. Just from us. Yeah. We license restaurants. you know, a
license. Did you you have the right to turn down their license before they start? Um, if they have prior um like enforcement or other issues, we can or our ordinance 3100 does grant us that
ability. So, I just raised the question about what value all this underlying information. Let's let's simplify. Is is anybody in favor of option two where everybody has to go through the No. No. Anybody? All right. So, let's
argue about that. Let's discuss option. May I just make a point and that is I mean state law for LLC's requires that officers of the corporation are named and you're required to state the
percentage of ownership for each officer. So, why not use that? I mean we could use that but what what so let's say it's stated that what which ones do we eat we do this background check on I would say the principal
owner with a majority stake in the business and a controlling interest okay what if there isn't what if there's five people that own 20% of the business it still has to be identified who the principal is it has to be identified the
role so uh you You know, even if you have 20%, one is going to be a president, one is going to be a vice president, one's going to be a treasur, one's going to be a secretary, whatever the whoever the president and is supposedly in operational control. Call
the president the primary and just just do this for that person. And that's consistent with state. I'm not I'm not arguing. I'm just clarifying. Yeah. That's if they're Well, that's if they're an LLC. Well, the other clarification is is that the state has
already screened these people. I don't see why we want to we have to mess that up, do more. That's a fair question, you know. Um, so the state is saying they've done their
due diligence. What's in the law to prevent? So, let's say that uh Dave and I are going to open up shop and I'm primary and then we open up six months from now. I sell my interest to Dave and he was a minority owner. Does he have to go through at that point background
check? As far as social equity or not, if you have social equity, you have to Okay. But let's say that after five years and the office has to approve all
office has to prove. Yes. So then they would in theory do a background check. Oops. Yes. Okay. I was gonna like I know we're like totally out of form here. That's why I've been keeping my mouth shut, but um you should come to the microphone probably. Yeah, you might as
well microphone. We're calling you up. I said I'm here to be a resource. This is my this is my expertise. So um for the purposes of the state there is a capitalization table where you have to list every single owner, manager,
director, officer of the business regardless of if they have an equity interest. That all has to be disclosed. It is all on file. It all has to be updated on a regular basis. Every owner of actually I think everyone on that cap table has to complete a background check like intense
background check. I forwarded mine, I think, to you and also to Sheriff Torgerson because I've lived in Minnesota my whole life. I've been in Stroville most of my life, couple counties up in the cities for a couple years and I got pinged in Montana. So, we had to pay for a Montana background
check because somehow my identity popped up there. So, they're very thorough. They're third party. Um, they're sent by the third party to the office so that we can't manipulate them as applicants in between. Um, and I think what I've heard some of the other counties doing is with
their application, rather than creating a new disclosure, they ask them to submit their most recent capitalization table that was submitted to the state as just to not duplicate paperwork and that would that would save us a lot of work if we trusted the state's background
check. I can tell you as an applicant and an advocate that they are doing a good job of keeping the businesses in line. They're just not doing a good job of answering anybody's questions. Excuse me. Well, that's a fair Bob. Bob is of opinion that we don't need to do
this, right? Sure. That was my point, too. Did the filter away. I know that the sheriff felt as though, you know, some things could fall through the cracks, but we have no evidence of that. We You don't
know until you know. Um and it seems to me that um we might be creating procedures that uh aren't necessary aren't necessary. Yeah, I would agree. All right. So, is there anybody with an appetite to have
this? So, it seems to me like we may want to consider this. So, essentially you're suggesting what Miss Schroeder suggested should be our standard. Yeah. the state's processes. It's called a capitalization table just
to be clear. Okay. Adopt the state. Yep. That seems to be unanimous consensus on that. All right. Okay. I'll move on to the the next one. So, just is number number of lotteryies held held by the
county. So, this is kind of we've we've talked about this a couple times and just wanted to come back to it. So again, we have two options to propose and um would like you to consider. One was our original um one lottery kind of towards it would likely be towards the
end of summer after the state of Minnesota conducted both of their lotteryies. Um because again they are doing one on June 5th, but they're also doing one towards the end of summer. Um, this would utilize that percentage of applications that we receive locally as
how we determine how many registrations for each retail type. The the second option here is holding two lotteryies. One lottery would be held earlier in summer for those license types not capped. So, micro businesses and medical
cannabis uh combination businesses. um we would set the registration numbers based off of uh the percentages of applications that are being received at the state. So I can just give you a quick recap of what that would look like. Uh so at the state level right now
when we're talking about again these four categories um 62% of the applications are micro businesses. So that would equate to I'm I'm for this purpose seven registrations. Um then 24% of them are retailers. So that would
come out to four of our registrations. And then two of them are messo or sorry 14% are mezzo businesses which would come out to two registrations. And then we would also want one for medical cannabis combinations as we still may get applications for that. But then we
would also have again language if there is none of that type it would shift over to a different registration to the micro which would be the number one. Yeah. We we could set that right now based on based on those numbers up at the state. Uh we could yeah we could set the how
many per registration businesses are ready to go from what I understood we could do that lottery first and if we did separate lotteryies. Yes we could do that lottery first. Yep. Um and then so those are kind of the two options and this is kind of some of the again the base language of it. But
all right so thoughts on this? Well, my thought is is that uh I don't see any reason to hold it up any longer. I would go with option two of getting the micro businesses lottery first. As long as you know how many numbers there
are going to be, you could do that and then the others would follow. Seems logical. Yeah, go ahead. Well, the I don't necessarily disagree, but
um would it put the MEO businesses and retailers at a disadvantage um by coming in to the market later? And also um if the micro businesses are able to
choose their locations, it would necessarily um prohibit some of these other businesses to choose um maybe a preferred location. They're all going to need locations to get entered the lottery though no matter
what though, right? So I mean if we had one lottery let's say in July the micro businesses may or may not already have those places already locked up. I don't know. Do they need to have a location to get through the state lottery? Oh to get to our lottery though, right? Yes. Right. And they've
already put out my my understanding is they may have already put out money to to secure that place and they they could have three or four months rent. Some may have. I mean, you're you're possibly possibly. So,
yeah, I know. But there difference between sound financial advice and what people do sometimes. I don't um I I support two. Fine. I support to lotteryies, too, especially
after hearing that 62% of the applications are micro businesses and they're ready to go. That's just that's a lot of registrations that are ready right now and let them start down the process. Brian, Dave,
Mr. I'm I'm I'm it sounds if I understand this right uh we're having two lotteryies or at least we're talking about two when first one's got seven and the second one has seven and and and then my question though is what about on the second question if the first card
out of the jar is a retailer and that retailer gets three locations they get they get three lottery balls one two or Yeah, John. So, it'd be by chance if they did, but um are we
sure that's right that we could limit somebody that's got a that's paid for a retail license in this in St. Paul to not get three when they come to? Yeah. Yeah. Because again, like even for uh because for instance like a retailer,
there might be a jurisdiction that has capped at one for instance, a county with a low population. So, they wouldn't be guaranteed. You're right. re-registration. Yes. Well, I'm fine with the the double. So, it seems to be general consensus.
Bob's fine with going along. So, option two. All righty. We're back one more time here. Um, so I think we actually covered option two kind of that kind of covers that as well. So, this is kind of the breakdown that I talked about uh of how
we would lay it out. And again, medical combination and micro would be in that first lottery that will shoot for early summer. Um, and we'll start kind of moving on that once language is uh finalized in the ordinance. And we'll start we would pull seven micro licenses and we would pull one medical if there
is one. Correct. If there isn't one, then we then we could immediately pull that eighth micro business because they're in the largest category. Yeah, that's what I understand. Yes, seems to make sense. Right. So, Tuesday, will we decide who who does the polling of the
licenses or as as in like uh who will conduct the lottery? Um I think we might we can try we can try to figure it out by Tuesday. I don't think we need language necessarily in the ordinance itself. It leaves it gives us the options to explore essentially.
Uh and then that'll give us we also need some time to discuss like exact dates and stuff. If this is all approved on Tuesday, when would we have our that initial lottery? Yeah, I think we need to do a little discussion like especially if we're using internal staff for the lottery just to to to pick a
realistic date, but I think it would still be after uh the June 5th lottery of the state. So, um coming up pretty fast. So, we'll we'll try to get things in motion. We already have like our application and everything developed in the background. So, we've been working
in tandem with implementation and ordinance language. So, let's go over that though. So, we this Tuesday we approved this We can't really have our lottery until we have a We have to open an application period. Correct. It's not be a 30-day. So, we would open it up for 30-day
probably. We have to do 30 days. We don't have to do 30 days. That's just what we uh You could you could shorten that period if you want, but we left it at 30. Staff is really busy. We don't know how, you know, involved these applications are going to be, so we just wanted to make sure we gave ourselves enough time. Is this a custom
application that we're making or Yeah, I mean, our application is um is custom to Homemstead County, but again, we can shorten the application window for folks to get applications in, but um I would like to us to have that
flexibility of the 30 days to review. Yeah, we reviewing though, if we're not doing a background check, uh we we need to route the application just through a few departments leave kind of similar to an al alcohol license. It gets routed
through multiple departments and we just want to make sure there's time for that. So is one thing do we have to review or maybe it's already done at the state is the locations that are on the application meet the uh city ordinances. Yeah. So they'll be working through the Asella platform. It's an electronic
platform. Um so OCM will be uh working with the local zoning authorities for each jurisdiction when a um when a license is up up for review. So essentially uh the office of cannabis management will push it down to the local zoning authority and they'll do
their formal review and they have 30 days to do that review. Okay. Remind me what happens if we have five applicants that want to go to Screwville. Uh we don't have any caps in terms of location. So
theoretically that that that could occur. Okay. And we could have 14 applicants 14 applicants in one district of the city of Rochester, one neighborhood. Uh if if the zoning if it meets the zoning requirements again theoretically that's a possibility.
Yeah. Okay. What about township? Town townships are Yep. It again if if that in that likelihood I mean uh they they can have more than they can have more than one in them as well. So, okay.
I would say it would be less likely though just simply given less commercially zoned land in the townships relative to the city that you're going to have a concentration there. Okay. All right. That was a choice we made though in the past. We could have
done differently. We We could have. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Right. All right. Any questions? we have more to go over or is this it? I I think that's it. And we'll we'll we'll obviously have language for you to
review um by Friday to to take a look and get in the board packet as well. And if anything comes up in the meantime, uh please let us know. And again, I'll try to review with as many businesses as well during during the weekend forum um to just discuss any concerns that they
might have and I'll try to elevate those as well to you all. So, we're we're good to go on Tuesday. Greg, just tell me a little bit more about your Saturday Yeah. event and I assume you're going to go through the ordinances, right? And
what we've talked about today, correct? And are you anticipating, you know, elation, wonderful agreement, or are you anticipating that, you know, this is, you know, everybody's opposed? So, well,
what I can say is I've had the pleasure of communicating with a lot of business owners and it's been productive and in informative and I think it's helped guide a lot of our work. But, um, so I do anticipate support, but I also anticipate there might be some concerns
that, you know, uh, we might not have considered, and I would like like to hear those voices and give an opportunity for us to pivot if we need to in those concerns you would bring back. Absolutely. board meeting on Tuesday. All right.
Thank you. So, one one last question and that is um as it relates to equity applicants, um there are still some equity applicants out there who are not happy with the process. Um how is that being factored in? Yeah.
So I mean that's one thing that we did talk about a little bit in in the past is did we want to give a social equity applicant essentially like two balls over instead of one for instance to just uh to consider that uh at that time we
did decide not to go that route. So that's kind of how we proceeded. A lot of uh social equity applicants are micro businesses to my understanding. So, I do think the two lottery system does help that a little bit, but um again, we're
open to the consideration if if you did want to weigh social equity into the selection process. So, if we want to do that, then literally we have to come up with word wording for that by Tuesday. Uh and I think from my perspective, I
don't I don't think it's a county role. I think this this the state if they want to do that, that's up to them. But I know that there have been others who disagree. There's some people out there who aren't happy right now. Do we
do we know how many of those applicants would fall into the category of social equity or we didn't keep track of it? Um I think the state has some metrics on it. I don't know that off the top of my head, but again that's at the state level. It's hard to know how many we
have at the local level. Do do you guys know 11 were social equity for Wow. That was right after sociality. Do we know how many applicants there are that aren't social equity?
No. Basically, basically the social equity is competing with other social equity. Well, that's I mean if it's 11 of 12 then we can say that. It's 11 of 1100 then. Yep. Okay.
Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Chair, I just want to remind you one other loose end you'll have to tackle at some point is the lottery fee. We don't necessarily have to set it today, but just wanted to remind you that that's one thing you got to set at some point. So lottery fee, is there a license fee? Is that license fee
paid at the state? Well, we were envisioning, you know, at least initially that we're going to do this using an outside firm and there would be a cost if we use internal staff, those costs should be less. They're probably not zero, but I just wanted to make you aware of that. So, especially if we're conducting two
now rather than one and we're using an outside firm, that may have an impact on, you know, the total cost for this. So, and you can bring those recommendations for a fee back on Tuesday. If you want them by Tuesday, we can we can do we're going to set a fee. We would have to know what the cost is
to have an outside firm if we decided to do that. Sure. Ideally, it would be Tuesday, but if we don't have it by then, it's probably not the end of the world. You probably said it at your June 3rd meeting, for example. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wouldn't we have to
open up a Well, we haven't had an adopted ordinance really, so we wouldn't have to. Or are we going to adopt an ordinance on Tuesday? That's the That's the plan. You've had the you've had the public hearing at the last regular county board meeting. So, you're not
required to have another public hearing because you've had it already. So, okay. Well, Mr. Chair, my my my point was if we're going to add a fee later and and if that fee isn't ordinance, then we have to have a public hearing again, which isn't the end of the world. I
think they were going to set it by resolution, if I'm not mistaken, like they do with the rest of the public health department resolutions. Okay. So, we were going to implement it through our normal like fee schedule and we do that by resolution. Okay. Any more?
Mr. Chair, are you gonna have a lottery party? Find an excuse party. Sounds good. Okay. All right. Well, then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor say I. I. We'rejourned. Thank you. Thank you,
commissioners. Should be like the NFL. I got to give it some rest, right? But it's been long. Should have a big party. That would be funny. Huh? Kind of coming back. The lottery will be who hosts, right? We have enough in a budget to like
afford t-shirts like the lottery winner t-shirt. You should be their first customer. You survived the lottery. Maybe I never even saw it. It's like, you know, if you're uh if you're selected in
the, you know, one of the drafts where you come up and you get your