 You're good to go. Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. And thank you to the MGC team before we get started. We'll take a roll call because this is a virtual meeting. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Morning. I'm here. Right. We'll get started. I'm calling today on June 9th. Public meeting of the Jamie commission, number three, 82. Before we get started, I just, um, I want to take a minute to just. I thank the team often and we think the team often for all the work that has done, but I would like to just take a minute to say, um, to my fellow commissioners how grateful I am for all that you have been doing over the course of this past year. We have two monthly new commissioners who have picked up big loads as we continue to work a little bit short-handed, but more importantly, as we continue to work together always in a public meeting where we don't get to meet privately. And I just want to say thank you for everything that you do. It's a very busy agency. We have robust agenda, we have long long days, and I just thank each of you, Commissioner Grime, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner for all that you do. So thank you. And then I just wanted to also make a little note because occasionally something happens behind the scenes that we may not get more of it. And just yesterday, five of our team members went to the New England Center and home for veterans right up the street and helped on dinner service. And I want to acknowledge those M.G.C. teammates, Christa Boscheman, Longbaugh, David McKay, Marie Claire Flores, Pujol, and Lily Wallace. Thank you for your teamwork together. I know as much as you did for them, it probably was even more beneficial to each of you. You've helped on their dinner service. We thank you for your public service every day and for that special service last night. And of course we thank our veterans every day. So thank you. Okay, we'll get started then. Secretary, help please for the minutes if everybody's had a chance to review them. Just making sure I have my. I know you're celebrating some tech issues this morning so yeah, but I think I'm all set though. So Madam Chair I would move that the Commission approved the minutes from December 16 2022 that are included in the commissioners packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non material matters. Okay. Thank you. Any questions, edits that you have commissioners. Okay. 2022 not 2021 Commissioner Hill. That is accurate. Can you tell I stayed up for the Celtics last night. Did I say backwards I think I said that backwards is 2021 right. Commissioner Hill said 2022 December 16 2021. And just as they're written and well worth it Commissioner Hill before I was with you last night it was getting late so that they got the job done. All right we have motion on the table in a second with a clarification on the oral Commissioner Brian. I Commissioner Hill. I Commissioner Skinner. Same please. Oh that's right. And, and I vote yes so three. Yeses and one abstention. Thank you so much. Okay, we're going to now continue with the Ministry of Update. Good morning again, second Director Wells. Good morning. Yes, I'm going to turn it right over to Assistant Director Van for the on site casino update. You start out with the mgms update. They're going to be starting with their free music Fridays out in their Plaza. That starts now until September 2. On June 13 table games will be starting to offer 24 seven games. They'll have 12 games open between 3am and 10, so they'll have 24 seven games offerings after them on core started actually last night, where they are hosting NBA championship games and their new sports bar. They don't have it actually planned at this point but it's assumed that they'll be offering additional watch parties will be extended through the rest of the NBA playoffs. With the Red Sox playing at home all next week and Brookline hosting the US Open on course expecting to have a significant presence on their high action play. PPC doesn't have any additional events occurring coming up. You have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Any questions for Bruce. Nope. Thank you Bruce. Great. As always. So you all sat. Maybe she didn't hear me. Okay, then director well so we also get also. Thank you. Okay, excellent. Then we're moving on to director Van Island and I want to thank Mark for representing the gaming commission so nicely at the North American Gaming Association. Gaming regulator association meeting in Portland, Maine. He did a wonderfully professional job representing the gaming commission but most importantly, sharing all his expertise on this principle gaming. Well done Mark. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair. And good morning to to you and to commissioners. Before I get started, I want to just acknowledge Marie Claire Flores. This is her last official public meeting with the gaming commission as a full time employee. So it's actually hard for me to say to let her go she's been such an important and wonderful part of the responsible research and responsible gaming division. She joined us back in May of 2021. And with a job description, she filled a new job, a new position. So she launched with with a job description and really figured it out how to fill that job description and she did such an amazing and wonderful job of that of filling that and doing so much more. And when I say so much more. I mean, on the research side of it. She, she was a perfect fit for the job could recognize how we needed to continue to grow our research agenda and translate and mobilize those findings. But on a personal side of it. She also brought a lot to our group, but I think also everybody here would agree that she's she's brought so much more to the gaming commission. Just in her style her approach her wonderful personality. Very clear you're leaving the commission in this full time capacity in a couple weeks. But no, you have done such an amazing job and you're leaving, leaving for Canada but leaving a lot of really amazing friends and in the US and Massachusetts. Mark, thank you for those words movie Claire. The commissioners are going to miss you I know because one, you were so well placed near us physically for me, and I want every commissioner and anyone to speak. You just brought such items to us, and your professionalism and your work meant so much. I'm just going to, you know, we haven't had a chance to work in person, frequently enough, but the pain of your leaving isn't going to be diminished because of that you make such an impact. I see your close friends are right here and I know they probably want us that your close friends upstairs but you created the entire agency with your grace. I guess mark is it fair to explain a Marie Claire will explain that she's not simply leaving us. Her family and she had a great opportunity and they need to pursue that. So, I had a lunch we might have that happen when you have two great people and one couple opportunities arise. And with that that means that she goes back to Canada but I personally going to miss you so very, very much commissioners. I think the only Matt Marie Claire in person I think once or twice, despite her being right outside we never seem to get in here in the same days but I agree with you, everything you've said Mark and chair, in terms of the positivity and what she brought. I can't say I'm surprised I remember when she first appeared I thought oh this is great maybe she's just in Canada and you know this is a long term thing when I realized she was down here for other reasons. I don't think something like this would happen. Time has flown I can't believe that it's happened already but it sounds like a great opportunity I wish you luck I know you're sort of heading home, more in this direction Marie Claire and thank you for what you've done while you've been here. Well, Marie Claire Marie Claire was one of the very first people I met when I first came about eight months ago. Your smile is something we're all going to miss, no matter how dreary it was outside or whatever the issue was that we were dealing with we could always go to Marie Claire and see her smile and would brighten up our day. And more importantly we learned from each other, our cultures here in Canada and in America, and I hope she is reminded to bring her her taste of peanut butter and fluff sandwiches up to Canada with you and you will share that with all your friends, family and new neighbors. When you get up there but I'm going to miss you daily because you're right outside my office and we have been able to see each other very frequently and she's a good buddy now not just a coworker but a good buddy, we're going to miss you. Commissioner Hill if I may just take on to that of understanding the culture and traditions. I think I can say with confidence now that when I asked Marie Claire if she caught the Celtics games that she knows that I'm talking about basketball at this point, and that was not necessarily the truth. Last year. Do not be afraid to support the Celtics when they play the Raptors Marie Claire. Yeah, so Marie Claire, I'm going to miss you or your kind spirit. Marie Claire and I bonded over our shared experience onboarding remotely here at MGC and so it's not goodbye because I know you're still going to be hanging on to us for a little bit or we're going to be hanging on to you, rather. But you do owe me a coffee date before you leave JP. So, looking forward to that. And along and Lily and for so I know that you're probably on right now for a reason. Lily. I couldn't find my mute button. Yeah, I just wanted to say we wish you the best moving along I'm so sad that you're leaving. You have so few buddies up on the 13th floor. So you'll definitely be missed. Yeah Marie Claire you know I do you know my, my appreciation and my, my gratitude. Since I started you've taken me under your wing and taught me a lot about gambling because this is all new to me. I've been in the field of addiction but not gambling so I think you know it's very nice to have someone who has knowledge, along with mark to take me under and teach me and sort of support me through my, my started NPC. I never say goodbye because I know it feels so small. I look forward to you know, in the future when we go conferences and you're not that far away to drive up or drive down you know hang out again and explore the eateries that we always talk about. As long as you know my teammate and my colleague. You've been a great friend and always there to, you know, go out and eat and explore you know different restaurants in Boston. I'm going to miss that. And I look forward to, you know, exploring Canada and other places when we meet again. I'm just getting choked up over here so I am going to miss you very much I think you have been fabulous. Mark and I were just talking the other day about how long we dreamed of having someone fill this position so you are just a great team player but also a bright shiny object in this office that everyone can help to so we are going to miss you up here. It gets lonely on the 13th floor so but so happy that you're able to kind of go back home as someone who's a transplant here to Boston I know what that could mean and have a really great opportunity so thank you for getting yourself here during the pandemic and supporting us as much as you did while we're here. And before Mark goes on we'll be clear. Good morning everyone. Thank you so much for your very kind words. I still find it very difficult to believe that I'll be moving back to Canada next month. So I just wanted to say it's truly been a pleasure working with you. Working with the commission has been very gratifying. I admired the research that came out of the commission, even before I knew I was going to work here. And I think that I've been so fortunate to be involved in supporting the research projects to support responsible gaming and mitigate handling related harms in Massachusetts and beyond is very special. The chair and commissioners, you have all been so kind to me and a great resource where whenever we have any questions or to brainstorm ideas. So thank you. It's been really wonderful to be part of the MTC team and to work with such wonderful colleagues and friends. Especially with Mark and Long, we've been a small but a great team. And yeah, it's also special really working with Mark. In the beginning, he's been very caring and sincere mentor. It's great to see how dedicated he is to his work and working with him has really been a privilege. So overall, I'm just really thankful for all the support and opportunities. So really thank you for everything. I'm going to miss you all very much. And yes, I'm definitely bringing a flood back with me. And I look forward to also a coffee day with your commissioner Skinner, and I hope you'll come visit sometime is really not that far like long say it's not it's just a short drive. So I hope to see you all very soon. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Director van de Linden, we're going to be speaking about advertising. I am and Marie Claire and long. Marie Claire, especially this is this is an important document that you have put your stamp on as you in and made a mark here at the Gaming Commission as we as we introduce this. So moving on, we are going to introduce a second draft of responsible gaming considerations for gambling advertising. Your response research and responsible gaming division is providing for your review and feedback a second draft of the white paper. Responsible gaming considerations for gambling advertising. A draft of this paper was first presented to the Commission during the open public meeting on March 14 of this year. Following that meeting we posted it to the MGC website for public comment. We received written comment from Chris Soriano Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer with kind of national gaming from Ben hires executive director of Boston Chinatown neighborhood center. Keith white executive director of the National Council on problem gambling. Dr. Rachel Volberg principal investigator with our sigma project and Marvin Warner the executive director of the Massachusetts Council on gaming and health. So moving to that, our team met with via hd meeting with the following individuals and it was General Counsel Grossman and I met with Jackie crumb senior vice president general counselor on Corbaston harbor north ground south vice president general manager of the nine rich park casino and Garrett farms director of responsible gaming for him GM resource. We met with them as a group. A little more than a month ago. In addition to that. We had individual meetings with Mary Beth Thomas the executive director of the Tennessee sports wagering advisory council and Kate the bond vice president strategic communication and responsible responsibility for the American gaming association. So based on on that feedback as well as additional extra work on our team. We present to you the revised white paper dated June 9 2022. To go over the entire document again that I thought it would be worthwhile to highlight some of the changes and why we made me some of those changes that if that's okay with you chair. Okay, fantastic. We made several sort of stylistic and some grammatical changes to the document through throughout one important note is that we we make clarification that we use we're using the terms gaming and gambling interchangeably. Normally when I talk about gaming I talk about responsible gaming. And we are the Massachusetts gaming commission so it's a common term that we use but we've all and I typically talked about gambling when it crosses over to at risk and probably gambling, because we've consulted with so many jurisdictions and individuals who use these terms interchangeably. And I don't see that that's reflected in this document and we make no distinction between between those two terms. And now I will turn it over to long to talk about changes that were made section three regarding review regulations from other US jurisdictions and elsewhere. Okay, Mark. Hi Commissioner hi chair. So one of the additions we made to the white paper as Mark, Mark mentioned within the table states jurisdiction specific gaming advertising regulations. We included a we lived in Ontario, a new jurisdiction that recently legalized sports wagering and included sports regulation or advertising regulations. In addition to the regulations around target audience and content regulations that were in the first draft, two regulations that were added into the table were around pivoting on advertising marketing materials and communications show not target high risk age or self excluded persons, not including underage individuals and not knowingly communicated or sent to high risk players. And the other change was gambling inducements, bonuses and marketing, which includes advertisement, advertising and promotions be truthful and not mislead players or misrepresent products. So those were the two major changes that we added into the table. And we will go into details when we get down to our recommendations, but I will turn back to mark, who will now discuss some of the updates in that section around considerations for additional strategies and measures regarding gambling. Thank you all. So yes, we're, there were not many changes made to the research section so we decided we will, there may have been a few grammatical changes to it, but we will skip over the research section and then dive into section four which is considerations for additional strategies and measures regarding gambling advertising. You'll note that in the very first section. I added some language about recommending that select measures be promulgated into regulation and measures which are difficult to monitor a measure may be better suited for inclusion of the MGC responsible framework as it provides an overall orientation to responsible for licenses. I think it was just in general through conversations and feedback that we had with with individuals over the last couple months. It, it is, it is true that there were there are certain considerations in here that would be incredibly difficult to monitor and may not be suited for regulation but at the same time. There, there are important considerations as, as we and licensees consider gambling advertising practices. And so the responsible gaming framework for the past several years and especially as our licensees began to build their responsible gaming plan the responsible gaming framework within a foundation, which we and they have relied on and so where the where it does not necessarily make sense for a promulgation of regulation we may you may we may wish to consider inclusion into the responsible gaming framework. Under section one strength of that section for strengthening MGC regulations by adding requirements. You'll see that we struck require a portion of the licensees total marketing and advertising budget be exclusively dedicated to RG messaging. And it's not that I don't believe that we didn't believe that this was was necessarily a bad idea but we do feel that where there are other alternatives for responsible gaming messaging to be included. And that's actually pretty robust methods across many different types of media where this this can be accomplished and so we felt comfortable striking this from from the considerations. I'm going to turn it back to long to talk about prohibitions on false and misleading advertising. So one of the to strengthen the MGC's regulations around false misleading or encourage risky gambling behavior. We drew on the regulations from the alcohol and gaming commission of Ontario, as mentioned, you know previously about some of the changes or the inclusion additions that we added to the table. The three regulations that we got from the alcohol and gaming commission of Ontario includes suggests that gambling can solve personal or professional problems imply that changes of winning increased the longer one plays or the more one spends. And finally suggests that skills can influence outcomes for games with skills, not a factor. So, you know, we really, really liked these regulations that Ontario used to sort of prevent misleading or encouraging risky gambling behaviors. And so we adapted and we think recommended those three regulations. I'm actually now going to turn to Marie Claire who will discuss the updates made to strengthen protections to underage populations. Thank you long. So we also provided additional guidance to strengthen protections to avoid advertising to other aid population. And that included that advertising should not contain images or likeness, symbols, role models, and or celebrity entertainer endorsers who whose primary appeal is to liners themes or language designated to appeal specifically to those under the age of 21. And also added that that gambling would suggest that gaming is a rite of passage. So those were the two added guidance is for for that section and I'll pass it over to Mark to talk about bonuses and credits. So again, drawing upon regulations that were adopted in Ontario as a relatively new jurisdiction. We added a new section talking about advertising and marking materials that communicate gambling inducements bonuses and credits so we state specifically that gambling should not be described as free unless the inducement bonus or credit is in fact free if the player has has to risk their own money or if there is a condition attached to their own money. The offer must much must clearly disclose those terms and may not be described as free. And further that it should not be described as a risk free activity. If the player needs to incur any loss or their own money to use or withdraw winnings from the risk free that so basically any connection back to any type of money. It cannot be described as free. So with that I will turn that back over to to long. Thank you mark. So one of the the biggest addition that we add or we updated was really around the MGC fair deal tip line with the feedback from stakeholders and community. And especially from Ben Harris of the Boston Chinatown neighborhood center. The feedback was the materials should be in languages that are to the various different community. So we included it that various languages about the licensee advertising and marketing practices, which potentially violates the MGC available. So that community stakeholders are able to understand the advertising regulations and or how to file complaint if there's a violation. So that's one of the addition that we added. On top of that we also want to extend the advertising review advisory committee or what we call a rack should play a more proactive role and be readily available and accessible to the licensees to provide guidance or a source of information. Now I will turn it to Marie Claire who will talk discuss the changes made around the research. Thank you long. So lastly for the fifth consideration regarding conducting research to inform regulations trainings and programming programs. We provided additional guidance for the commission to add to the research agenda studies which investigate the impact of gaming advertising on the Massachusetts population with specific attention to groups at higher risk of experiencing gaming related harms. And such study should seek to obtain a larger sample size than that captured in the community driven research reference in the document. And actually we included a study in our fiscal year 23 research agenda on this and this advertising study will be led by the stigma team. And with that, we'll open it up for any discussion questions or for comments. All I would say is a great work. I love the additions that were put in from the, you know, the last meeting we had on this issue. And I'm looking at the partners that you reached out to to help with this paper, who gave you great information but I don't have anything negative to say except a great job. And the changes really, I think, enhance what we were trying to do with this white paper. So good job and thank you. Thank you Commissioner. Yeah, just I reiterate what Commissioner Hill just said and particularly the conference that we were just at that was talking about sports betting and fantasy sports and online betting and to know what the reach may be if and when that comes to the Commonwealth It's incredibly timely that we start thinking about this and other ways that people are going to be on mobile apps that it's going to be continuing to protect what the statute and what we intended to protect, particularly those under the age of 21 and vulnerable groups. So I think it's great. I agree. The changes all make sense to me and I think it was really, really well done. So thank you to everybody. I also agree that the white paper is really well done. One question I had is what changes were made in response to the public comments received if any if you could just highlight those separate and apart from the ones that you might have made internally or with follow up from the folks who worked on the white paper with you. That's a fantastic question. Commissioner Skinner. And we I can I would be glad to go through and kind of delineate what the changes were and and what inspired or what made us move in that direction. I don't know if I'm prepared for every single change within the document to talk about who we can design or attribute the change to. No, that's that's fine mark. I don't mean to put you on the spot at all just what I'm getting at is, you know, we did receive public comment as you know, I just really interested in, you know, the extent to which we considered those comments and incorporated them into the white paper. Okay. Thank you. But fantastic job. Yes, I echo all my fellow commissioners comments. Very clear and mark. Excellent work. And as Commissioner Brian noted, very timely as we come up on a conference that did focus a good deal on advertising. This is a fluid conversation. I understand the white paper that you'll continue to include that you'll continue to expand on some research opportunities for more evidence in terms of the recommendations that you're making. It's my understanding today mark that we won't be voting on the paper, but you will be moving it from draft into a permanent status is that your goal today mark. Yes, Sharon, I think after discussion with you and executive director wells. I think that you're right, there is there is some fluidity to this document. This is the best of what we know at this point in time but as Marie Claire pointed out we're going to continue to research this and a year from now once we have findings from that study we may wish to make revisions to it. I don't believe that it should stop the commission from considering what what is actionable at this point in time. As we we say kind of throughout the document, these are considerations for for the commission and for other stakeholders. So, we're going to want to go through the document and think what what practices should be implemented now. And what might want to explore with maybe fellow jurisdictions and see what a little bit more time how we can even maybe tweak it, but all of the. So, I think that's pretty much how you looked at all the jurisdictions carefully, and how you considered what would be best for the Commonwealth that. And I also like the idea of using both our regulatory model, and also the framework, revisiting the framework mark I think is probably just a really good starting point for us perhaps so you know something for you to think forward but this was, I think you acted on this advertising paper in a timely fashion when along with Commissioner Hill I raised the need to explore advertising with more depth. We have a great working document to start with now. And we thank all three of you very much for it. It's exciting work. Yeah, you know, that's a good point we think actually you and Commissioner Hill as well for pushing us in this direction. The process of launching any of the white paper of this magnitude is challenging, but your, your support and nudging us along the way has been really has been helpful. And that's critically important and, and as I said, as we mentioned really timely right now so this doesn't get shelved me will continue to, to look at and see how we can, what we should be working on now and moving forward. So, keep on top of us long and mark on that and Marie Claire, I know you'll be doing that with ours. So, thank you. Any questions on this important document really helpful to have that table in the language. All right, but there's no further questions and I think we'll move on to item number five. That's our legal division. Good morning you're going to update the public on our suitability review decisions and review process please. Good morning everybody and thank you madam chair. As will recall the Commission conducted five adjudicatory proceedings on May 24 relative to the suitability of four individuals and one entity qualified. Specifically the Commission considered the suitability of Joseph Levin Barry Diller, Kenya Evans and a company called IAC as qualifiers to blue tarp redevelopment, which is of course the region be category one gaming licensee. And it also considered Gregory Brower as he's a qualifier to win mass LLC which is the region a category one game. The Commission's matters was considered individually at separate hearings, and the Commission similarly deliberated over each matter separately. Written decisions commemorating the Commission's decisions were issued to the parties in each matter and a copy of those decisions is included in the commissioners packet for today's meeting. Chapter following the adjudicatory proceeding regulations contained in 205 CMR 101, as well as chapter 30 a the Commission ultimately granted a positive determination of suitability to each of the five petitioners. And of course, each case was slightly different. And at this point I just thought I would pause briefly to see whether we wanted to get into any detail of each of the individual cases, or just that broad overview is would be helpful. Commissioners. I have more problems abroad. I'm sorry, I was wondering, and the cluster of Mr. Diller and I see we're slightly different. I didn't know if you wanted to just highlight the distinction there versus the others three. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Mr. Diller and I see were granted positive determinations of suitability, though there was a condition attached to each of those grants, and that came about due to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the SEC and the Department of Justice that the IB was made aware of and that was discussed as part of these hearings relative to potential insider trading activities that Mr. Diller. Not that he was involved with but that he that were came about based on a trade that Mr. Diller made relative to options on a particular company. The matter is under investigation at the moment, and just to ensure that the Commission is well informed as to the process and the proceedings and those particular matters the Commission attached similar conditions to both Mr. Diller and to IAC and both of them were related to a Commission regulation which is in 205 CMR 115.014 F, which generally requires notification to the IB of any material legal proceedings made commenced or known to be contemplated by a governmental agency against the gaming licensee or qualify. And so the condition that was attached to Mr. Diller and IAC's grants of suitability was essentially that they report any material information related to progression of either the SEC or the DOJ investigation to the IB for 28 hours of receipt of any such information. That will allow the Commission to remain apprised and the IEB to remain apprised as to those proceedings and allow the Commission to take any action it may need to take if any in the future depending upon how those matters are developed. So those were the conditions that were attached to those two cases and otherwise those two, the entity and the individual were granted positive determinations. So that's I think with that is, you know, a broad overview of the five decisions again they are in the packet for public review if anybody is interested in looking at them specifically. If I could, if I could add the Commission would emphasize that suitability is an ongoing process. IEB in those two cases indicated that they would affirmatively continue to monitor those two investigations. The disclosure remains an ongoing obligation for all individuals and entities that are deemed suitable and we rely on that of course extensively. The condition is really helpful in this instance particularly around the timeliness with the articulated 48 hours. Anything further, Commissioner Skinner or Commissioner Hill? I see a negative. So if there are no further questions, Director Wells, are you all set on those decisions? Yes, thank you. Okay, and Director Lillios and Councillor Hall, are you all set with those decisions? I am chair. Thank you. Yes, chair. Thank you. And to Councillor Hall, thank you to your, your work and the work of your teams, the financial investigators, the members of the GEU for and all members of the IEB for their vigilance in these matters. So thank you very much. All right. Those decisions are in the public packet, correct? Crystal, yes. Okay, excellent. All right, then with no other questions, we'll move right on to Community Affairs Division Chief Delaney. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So today we've got another batch of Community Mitigation Fund applications for your review. And we've got in a couple of different categories, we've got the public, some public safety applications as well as some specific impact applications. So we'll deal with the public safety applications first. First one is the town of Foxboro. They are requesting $188,110 for some police training and for two unmarked specialty vehicles. The review team is recommending partial funding of this grant in the amount of $71,400 for the proposed training. We are not recommending the funding of the two specialty vehicles. So the impacts that were identified here that they are trying to address are increased traffic safety issues and an increase in criminal activities at area hotels are identified as the impacts of the casino. And in some previous applications, Foxboro has made those same arguments and the review team does agree that there is some nexus to the casino relating to these items. Last year we introduced this notion of proportionality, what portion of an issue is associated with the casino and what portion of it would exist otherwise. And we realize that one particularly through Foxboro has significant traffic and it has a significant number of hotels and other things. And does Plain Ridge Park contribute to that? It does but in a fairly small level. But with respect to the training, so in our guidelines in 2022 we identified some specific training costs as being eligible for funding. And the whole idea behind this is that folks in the police departments in the host and surrounding communities. There's a reasonable assumption that they would come in contact with patrons or employees of the casino during their regular duties for instance during routine traffic stops and things of that nature. So the thought was that providing training for those police officers will be appropriate. And we certainly agree in this case that it will be appropriate for Foxboro so we are recommending that portion of the grant. With respect to the vehicles, the first vehicle they're asking for is a canine vehicle. They do have a canine unit right now that the vehicle is aging and is in need of replacement. But the, you know, the issue that we have here with this is that that we have not been able to identify a casino related impact that this specific item would particularly address. In our guidelines state, it says that funds may not be used for mitigation of impacts that are projected or predicted, but that are not occurring or have not occurred by January 31 2022. So we weren't really able to identify a connection between the canine unit and the casino. The canine unit has never had to respond to the casino for any particular reason. And it was sort of just kind of speculative that it might be needed by playing rigid some point in the future so again we can't fund things that are for, you know, impacts that haven't occurred yet. The second requested vehicles and unmarked traffic enforcement and crash investigation vehicle. And again, we do realize that there are some minor traffic related impacts on Foxboro. We did an evaluation based on their latest traffic study, which would indicate that about 187 vehicles on an average day would use. The amount of I 495 going up into Foxboro, which is less than 1% of the traffic on the road so by any accounts that impact is is quite small. Now, we in 2020. We did give the city of the town a grant to purchase a pickup truck. So that they could move around their traffic safety equipment more efficiently. And we also last year gave them a an undercover vehicle that would help in some of the crime that was identified associated with the hotels on route one. And essentially, it was the review teams. The recommendation that that we've really already addressed this impact in previous applications. And as such, we shouldn't fund that additional vehicle. And with that, I'll open that one up to any comments. Commissioners. Any questions for comments? I thought just add, Joe, I am pleased to see box for accessing these funds for training. The topics are all really relevant. That was a priority for the commission that you've noted. Includes the critical incident training traffic trash investigation human trafficking and exploitation drug investigations the escalation and police and diversity. All really important topics. At a certain point in time, if I'd be very interested to hear where police units are accessing these funds for training if we could learn about the numbers for participating in the outcomes of the training. I think that we felt very committed to public safety funding, including for equipment, but that we like to see the training as a as an offset in the component. So I'm very pleased to see box vote is really asking for such diverse needs. Thank you. Okay. So yeah, you know, we definitely we do keep track of who gets trained and so on. And what they're doing when they submit their quarterly reports to us and so on they keep us up to date on those things. The first one is long metal a town of long metal. They're looking for $85,900 to install some cameras at the intersection of root five and forest Glen Road, as well as some funds for also for police training. And we are recommending awarding the full amount of this grant to long metal. So, regarding the cameras, the, the intersection of root five and forest Glen Road, it's right where root five crosses up into Springfield and it's the busiest intersection in long metal. The original environmental impact reports were indicating that about 3% of the traffic from the casino would use this route to access the casino. It operates at a poor level of service and it's has seen increases in traffic and accidents since the opening of the casino. The town is looking to install cameras, and that would allow their police fire and public works department to monitor the intersection, more appropriately, and a couple of the things that would really help them on is on traffic signal timing and event management. And that prevents down at MGM Springfield and those let out or even not just at MGM Springfield alone, but maybe with the Mass Mutual Center, when those events let out, you know, traffic kind of backs up with that intersection they could be able to control that a little bit better. So we definitely the review team definitely agreed that this approach should help the community and addressing safety and traffic related issues in the area and we are recommending that portion of the grant. So the community is also asking for funds for implicit bias and de-escalation training. And similar to the Foxborough request, you know, our guidelines specifically called out these types of training. Again, as the police in these communities are likely to come into contact with patrons and employees of the casino and their regular duties. We also do recommend that portion of the grant so we are recommending the entire amount of $85,900. Any questions or comments on that one. I'll set. Okay. So the next one is the southeastern mass regional 911 district. This group that are known as SEM rec is their acronym for that they're requesting $80,000 to purchase a cache of portable radios to aid in emergency communications during should an incident occur at Plain Ridge Park casino. We are not recommending this application for funding. And, you know, we looked at a whole host of different things but really the one item that this comes down to is that the application is really speculative in nature. And again, just quoting out of our guidelines. I would say that the funds may not be used for the mitigation of impacts that are projected or predicted, but that are not occurring. So in this case the application talks about using terms like, excuse me, if an incident of any scale which are occur or if the incident were man made. There was no evidence that demonstrated that there's ever been an incident at PPC that would require some rack to to respond to the project site. So, again, while I an incident of some sort, I suppose could occur at Plain Ridge Park there hasn't been one that's been that has required this. So again, we were not really allowed to fund things that are of a speculative nature. It has to be a something that has already occurred, an impact that's already occurred so for those reasons we're not recommending this application. We also did talk with some folks at EOPS on any of these radios. We have to make sure that the statewide interoperability coordinated takes a look at these and he did share our concern regarding the relation to a casino impact. So again, we are not recommending this for any questions or comments on that. So the last public safety one that we're dealing with today is West Springfield police fire and EMS staffing West Springfield requesting $200,000 for this. And this requires a little bit of a history lesson to talk about how we got here with this. So in 2020, the Commission gave West Springfield $200,000 to help offset public safety costs that are associated with impacts from the casino. Now at that time, West Springfield had not completed their first year look back study, I should say, MGM hadn't completed the first year look back study of impacts. The Commission gave out that grant saying hey this is a one time grant, and you can't come back again unless you can show in the look back study that there was a defined impact of the casino. So in 2021 that look back study had been completed and the look back study did identify increased calls for service in West Springfield that were attributable to MGM. And really what that study showed is that even with the money that West Springfield gets from their surrounding community agreement which is $375,000 per year, that there was a deficit in funds due to impacts from from the casino. Now, a year ago when we went through this effort MGM, you know, did not support the application in 2021. They didn't believe that there was a flawed rationale that was used in and stated that if they did not believe that MGM's operation was resulting in net negative impacts. Now with that said, there was no evidence sort of or data submitted to the contrary, and the look back what study was finalized and it was finalized indicating that there was an impact from MGM on the public service. And then there were other agencies in West Springfield. So in 2021 a $200,000 grant was also awarded for that impact. Now, this year's application since MGM is required to do a one year look back and then a five year look back so the five year look back won't happen until sometime. So that open five years in August of 2023. So presumably, at some point after that five year operation, they will do the five year look back study. So essentially the only doc, the only data that we have to go from today is in that one year look back study. So essentially, we are dealing with the same application we had last year, plus the same data that we had last year. So that leads the review team to come up with the same conclusion we had last year which is to recommend the funding of this application. And with that I'll open this one up for any questions. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the next ones are specific impact requests. The first one is the Hamden County District Attorney's Office. This is again something that we have been funding for the last several years and it is specifically spelled out in $23,000 that district attorneys are eligible for funds from the Community Mitigation Fund. So Hamden County is requesting $75,000 to be used for personnel costs to offset the increase in cases that they have had to undertake due to the casino. Originally, we gave them $100,000 which seemed to actually be a little bit too much. There were some surpluses at the beginning. 75,000 seems to be about the right number. And again, you know, the district attorney's office in their application showed us how many cases they had tried during the previous year that were casino related and, you know, and obviously that is an impact on the DA's office and therefore we are recommending this funding. And any questions on that? Okay, I must be doing a great job. You know, I was just going to say, please note that lack of questions doesn't mean anything except excellent work and I'm going to take in your presentation and also from behind the scenes because I know you're Millie and Mary are right there next to you. So, the three of you have done a great job covering us. Thank you. Okay, so the next one is the City of Springfield. So this is, the City of Springfield is looking for $300,000 to advance a site feasibility study and design for a new mixed use parking garage to help the Springfield parking authority recover revenues that were lost due to the construction of the MGM parking garage. We are recommending this in the full amount for the City of Springfield. And just by way of background, when the parking garage, the MGM parking garage in Springfield opened, it is a free parking garage and one of the stipulations in there, is environmental permitting and and agreements with the city and so on, is that that parking garage is open to anyone who wants to use it it's not just for patrons of the casino. So, when the casino open there are quite a lot of people from the neighborhood who park there who work either in maybe in the courthouse across the street or other office buildings in the downtown area. So, from 2018 to 2019. So casino was open in 2018. The Springfield parking authorities gross revenues fell by nearly $600,000. And of course this not only affects just the revenue but also affects their bonding capacity to do repairs and other things to their existing parking garages. And so we did give them a grant a couple years ago to look at ways that they could try to recover some of these lost revenues. And in that study that they did they identified a couple of locations that were promising for for building some new facilities. What this study would do is advance one of those to the point where they could go out to bid on, you know they would need a partner on this to, to build this, this project, and we need to develop and partner to get it to get it through. This would do some preliminary design it has to look at also some of the underlying legal issues associated with properties and whatnot. And this location that they're looking at is across the street from from MGM across Main Street and behind those buildings that are directly across the street. And now that the city has purchased a couple of those buildings across the street and is looking to renovate those and bring in developers to renovate those buildings. And this parking facility would serve primarily those buildings and a few others, but also would be mixed use so that they might be retail or restaurants or other uses on the first floor of that that they can lease out. And also, you know, help regain some of those lost revenues. So, we think this is a great idea to try to do that and the review team was very supportive of that project. Any questions on that one. I have a question. The $300,000 is that the most amount that they'll need for that site feasibility or are they using other funds. You know, well, no, that's the that's the full cost of what. So what they need to do is get this into a condition where they can go out to a developer and go out to bid on these things. They need more design work and so on that would need to be done. You know, after this, this is going to be sort of preliminary design, and I say some legal aspects they have to iron out, and they would put together the request for proposals and do all of these things so there could theoretically be additional That's what I wondered. It didn't seem like enough for the whole design. So this is just really, you did say the word to advance the site feasibility. So I just wondered in design. So, okay, that's helpful. Yeah, so I mean, they'll take this, you know, right now, what they have is sort of a box on a plan saying this would be a great spot for something and this takes that to that next level. Thank you. Okay, so any other questions on that one. No, I love that project. So this is another spring field project this is with their fire department. They are requesting $41,300 for the purchase of new extrication tools which most people know as the jaws of life for the fire apparatus that primarily responds to the MGM casino area. The city of Springfield and their fire department they have what's known as a tactical unit which is, I guess it's kind of a small fire engine that they use it's, it's, it's more easily maneuverable. And that's the piece of equipment that primarily responds to MGM, you know because basically they've got some you know it's downtown tight roads and so on. It gives them a little better maneuverability with that with that vehicle. And that vehicle does not currently have the jaws of life on it that the city does own for jaws of life extrication tools, but they are quite old. They average about 15 years old which is really kind of exceeds the recommendations for the National Fire Protection Association. But the thing that I guess sold us on this was that the number of times that they've had to use these types of tools since MGM has been opened and even on you know MGM property and in its direct vicinity. And they indicated that they had to respond to 40 different incidences down there over the last several years so that was kind of telling and the fact that the piece of equipment that responds down there most frequently is not equipped with the jaws of life. So it has to be a pretty modest cost to upgrade that that piece of equipment to provide better service and not have to bring a more remote piece of equipment down to the, to the casino site. So we are certainly recommending this one. This is for Joe on this. From my perspective, Joe, you can't get that money to them fast enough. Right. So, there's an amazing statistic to hear. Okay, and the last one that we have under consideration today is the Springfield Police Department. It's kind of a two part request. The first part is a technology upgrade. And the second part is for some equipment for their Metro office substation. So, we are recommending that the IT, the technology upgrade be funded in the amount of $16,000, but we are not recommending that the equipment purchases for the Metro office substation be funded. So let's take these in the in the two pieces. Let's talk about the IT upgrades first. So last year, Springfield requested $8,000 for some IT upgrades. And these are associated with the gaming enforcement unit. When the gaming enforcement unit offices were designed, you know, as part of MGM Springfield. It took care of all of the state police's communications. But of course there are Springfield police that are also located there. And their ability to communicate with their headquarters and with the Metro office substation is less than desirable. They have their own laptops that have air cards and they have real connectivity issues. So last year they asked for $8,000 to make some upgrades into the connections to these things which the commission voted to award. However, once they dug into this thing, like many of these things, they realized that it was going to be much more expensive than that to fix this problem. So the estimated total costs now for that project, which has of course been much more fully investigated and designed is $24,000. So there's 8,000 that was approved for last year. So they're asking for the additional 16,000 this year. So we are recommending, you know, having an efficient communication is absolutely necessary for those police officers. So we are recommending that additional 16,000 to upgrade the IT systems. Now the remainder of the application is asking for an alarm system, some window tinting and an item for equipment maintenance down at the Metro office substation. By way of background, the city of Springfield built out this Metro office substation, which is located over on Dwight Street about a little more than a block, block and a half from the casino. And that was to have a place for their Metro unit to work out of. So we'll be in closer proximity to the casino. Now, the issues here, they're saying is that the Metro office, the substation is not man 24 seven, and they really need to have an alarm system on there to secure the facility better. And also, in the location that it was built in the afternoons, I guess the, there's a full bank of windows that causes the facility to heat up quite badly and the air conditioning can't quite take care of that. They wanted to do some tinting on the windows. And also they were asking for some additional money for maintenance costs associated with some of the equipment that they store down at that Metro unit. Really what it came down to on this was that the review team couldn't identify a casino related in impact that would have caused any of these things. So certainly, you know, the city should have their building operating in the fashion that it needs to, but we need to tie this back to something that the casino caused and we could find no casino related impact that created the need for these things. For instance, on the, the, you know, the tinting of the window that seems to be a design flaw in the building and not something that was caused by anything that MGM Springfield did. So again, we couldn't find any real connection to the casino so we can't, the review team felt we couldn't recommend awarding that portion of the funds. So in this case we are recommending just the 16,000 for the it but not funding for the other items. Any questions on that one. I'll set commissioners, I'll set. Thank you. Okay. So that concludes the presentations for today. So you're looking for about the correct. Yes. In our next meeting you'll have another nine or 10. Nine should do it. Okay. Okay. And at the end of the next nine if you could just do a budget summary for us that would be great to. Yes. Yeah, but it'll be an important update and summary for everyone. Commissioners. Please looking for some action from us. You have your. Yes, I am okay to start with a motion. Thank you. Thank you. I would move these grants that are before us. So I would move that the commission approved the applications from the following applicants for funding from the community mitigation fund. For the purposes described in the submitted applications and materials included in the commissioners packet and for the reasons described therein and discussed here today. We have two grants. $54,731,200 totaling $85,900. The city of West Springfield $200,000. The hand in district attorney's office $75,000. The city of Springfield $300,000. The city of Springfield fire department $41,300. The city of Springfield police department $16,000. And further that the commission, commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating this award, or these awards in accordance with 205 CMR 153.0 four. Second. Any questions or edits on that. Okay. So Brian, excuse me. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Well, yes. For Sarah, thank you very much. And we don't need any further action. Correct. Um, we have team denials. Yeah, we do need the one on the Southeast mass region. Denials to that's what I thought. We'll get that. So do we have that? I would go ahead. Madam chair, I would move the commission deny the application for funding for the community mitigation fund. For the two unmarked police vehicles submitted by the town of Foxborough for the reasons described in the memorandum in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Yes. Okay, and moving on, Madam Chair, to the Southeastern Mass Regional 9-1-1 District, I move the Commission to deny the application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund to purchase program and maintain a cash of portable radios that was submitted by the Southeastern Mass Regional 9-1-1 District for the reasons described in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Okay. That was Commissioner Skinner's second. All right. Any further discussion on that one? All right. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And I vote yes as well for zero. One last one on Springfield. Is that right, Chair? Um. I missed something. I think we only, it's incorporated in only the partial approval. Is that. Yeah. I'm not sure. Like I'm on the fox road. I'm not sure we really needed to do. The denial on the vehicles. I think it was really just. Because it's a partial. I mean. Approval. Yeah. Okay. Councilor Grossman, are we all set then? I believe so. Yes. Okay. I think our discussion is, is clear. All right. And with that said, I think our work is done for you. Correct. Yes. That is it for me today. Okay. And Mary and Lily. Thank you. All right. Now. I'm commissioners. We find ourselves in the unusual predicament. Where I have a schedule. Which is a very comfortable place to be for the. For change. It is. We had scheduled to have a lunch now, but it is just 1125. If our budget team is. Finance division and budget team are ready. Could we. And there, would you be ready if we went ahead now? Okay. Chris, would you like a short break before we do that? Or would you like to proceed with. Item number seven on the agenda. Christian, Brian. I'm fine. Fine. Richard. Fine. Let's, let's keep going forward. Mr. Skinner, are you all set? I'm also okay with moving on. Okay. Then let's go forward on item number seven, please. Thank you. And good afternoon. Thank you for being ready. We really appreciate it. Not a problem. I had to change my presentation to say good morning, rather than good afternoon. So good morning, Madam chair and commissioners. I'm joined today by Agnes John Doug in the well. And we are here to propose an initial fiscal year, 23 budget of 44.39 million. And we have fifty one thousand with budgeted funds. 60 budgeted funds. 104 fts in full contract employees. The table on page two of the memorandum shows that the gaming control fund is budgeted at 35.7 million. In funds. 89.94 FT ease. The racing and oversight fund is budget at 3.1 million and funds two FTEs, and the Public Health Trust Fund is budgeted at 5.26 million funding three FTEs. As a reminder, the Gaming Control Fund is composed of both MGC regulatory cost and statutory required costs. Of the $35.7 million Gaming Control Fund budget, $6.36 million pays for the cost of the Attorney General's Office, the ABCC, and the Commonwealth's Indirect Cost Assessments. The MGC's annual budget building process begins in February and concludes once the commission approves a budget usually in June. The MGC Office of Finance met with each division and bureau head within the MGC and developed spending and revenue projections. We then reviewed the request with the Executive Director and the Treasurer of the Commission, and the third review was conducted by representatives of the current gaming licensees, Khan, Encore, and MGM in a virtual meeting on May 19, 2022. The meeting with the licensees has historically been very productive, and this year was no different. We came up with over 220,000 and spending reductions based on their review. One area of reductions was the travel of the commission. We had initially proposed exceeding pre-pandemic levels of travel. The licensees asked that we review that to see if we could take advantage of virtual conferences and meetings, virtual conferences, and virtual meetings as much as possible. Upon review, we decided to cut over 120,000 and travel recommendations. This leads to a disclosure I need to make to the commission, which I did briefly address in two by twos. During the public meeting where we discussed the commissioner's budget, we had developed a travel plan that exceeded both the current year and the FY20 budget for the commissioners. The commissioners travel budget contained in this budget document much more closely aligned with what the rest of the staff is doing, which is, and John did a huge exercise on this, we took current year spending and FY20 spending, and if current year spending was below FY20 spending, we took the difference between that and added it in, except for in-state travel, where we took that difference and boosted it up by 33%. If current year travel exceeded FY20 travel, we level funded it at current year travel. We treated the commissioners budget the same way because the plan we came up with in the public meeting exceeded both the FY20 and the current year's travel budget for the commission design level. Following along with the memorandum, we will go into review by appropriation of spending anticipated for the Gaming Control Fund, the Community Mitigation Fund, the Racing Oversight and Development Fund, and the Public Health Trust Fund. I will give high-level reviews because all the details are in the memorandum and tables attached. The MGC's currently approved FY22 budget for the Gaming Control Fund is $33.08 million. The MGC is recommending an FY23 budget of $35.7 million, which is an 8% increase over the currently approved FY22 budget, but only a 4% increase over what was approved in FY20. The MGC's regulatory costs funded by the Gaming Control Fund increased by 7.9% and the statutory required cost increased by 8.04%. So it's a very similar increase, both on the statutory side and on the regulatory side. The MGC regulatory portion of the Gaming Control Fund supports 10 divisions. Most of the increases came as anticipated decrease in turnover savings, both in FTEs as well as in the GEU. We experienced very high levels of turnover this year. We're not anticipating seeing that next year. We've also included a 3% cost of living adjustment for FY23, and the table on page 4 of the memorandum summarizes each division's major changes. And as you'll see, the major changes all come around payroll and fringe costs, with the exception of a few that come under the IT side, where we have a new agreement for the maintenance of the licensing database, the LMS. Are there any questions on the Gaming Control Fund? I can answer them now. I do want to point out that in FY20, the payroll was projected to be 8.2 million for the agency, and this year we're still at 7.9, so we're still below. It's just you've seen other costs creep up in those areas. Okay, I'll move on to racing development oversight trust fund. This appropriation pays for the straight time and seasonal pay of the racing division as well as lab testing and other statutory required payments. In addition, this item funds the payroll of positions that work on racing matters as well as support that division. Most large increases here have to do with less turnover savings and backfilling of support positions. So you'll see the racing items haven't really increased that much, but you'll see the support positions because we're going back to hopefully full staffing levels and we don't see the turnovers in those items are driving this number up. And on top of that, we've budgeted a 4% increase for the seasonal salaries there, and that's just to account for the raises that happened this year. The next appropriation is the Community Mitigation Fund, and yes. I'm sorry. On the racing piece, I'm not sure I understand. It's not a big figure, but I don't understand the indirect cost analysis. We could go over that with us, I guess. Yes, so the indirect cost is 10% of all of the A, C, H. Yeah, it's the exact same. It is the same. But it's just separated out from. Because it's funded under that appropriation separately. And we have a small amount of that under the Community Mitigation Fund. I don't break it out. And then under the Public Health Trust Fund, because that's not our appropriation, I don't break it out. I roll it up. I see. I wondered if it was different. Okay, thank you very much. No, it's the same assessment for all of our accounts. It's the 10% of the A, C, H, J, and UU excluding the U07 object code. But we can put that at the end. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for not. No, I thought you had said something else in the two by two, and I didn't get a chance to follow up, but I just wanted to understand it today. So thank you. Not a problem. Under the Community Mitigation Fund, 205 CMR 135.05 allows the Commission to spend funds for the administration and oversight of the Community Mitigation Program. The regulation requires the Commission to annually approve a budget not to exceed 10% of the available funds. This year, we're proposing a budget of 310,000 and two FTs, which is well below the 10% of available money. The major difference between this year and last year was we developed a database of over 100,000 last year. This year, we're only requiring maintenance and some small tweaks to that database. So this appropriation is actually going down compared to last year. And finally, we'll move on to the Research and Responsible Gaming Office, which is a statutorily required component of the MGC and is funded through a collaborative process with DPH and EOHHS. The Research and Responsible Gaming Office will continue to be funded from the Public Health Trust from the FY23. That began in FY20. Funding for this program is decreasing this year by 18.9% from FY22. But the reason for that is because we did a major refresh of the baseline study in FY22. That study is completed this year, so we don't need to do another refresh of it. And that's where you'll see the major decrease in this item. It goes down by 48%. But other programs are held somewhat harmless if you look at the payroll item and if you look at the game sense program. So it's, you know, it looks like a large decrease, but it's, I think Mark and his team have done a good job to preserve the program. There are some exposures that continue into the FY23 budget. They're consistent with what's happened in the last few years, the litigation budget. We fund at the minimum, which our licensees are aware of. And if that exceeds the 400,000 that we have in there, we just bill for the additional costs in the future. Massachusetts State Police overtime has not increased from FY21, which was a period where we saw the casinos operating reduced capacities. But, you know, we did bump it up a tiny bit for a 3% CBA, but the base amount is still, you know, number of hours you get is still the same amount. Now we think that we can manage this because we have a full budget built in for staffing. And if there's turnover there, we just put it over to the overtime like we've done this year and we did in FY21. But that is a potential exposure, which we've seen in the come up in the past. So that's the presentation on the funding side. If we want to ask any questions now we can, or I can move on to the assessment. I'll move on to the assessment. Chapter 23K, Section 56A through C define how the MBC will fund its annual costs related to gaming and non-racing activities. Section A and B require the commission to assess fees for slot machines, licensing and investigatory matters. Section 56 directs the commission to determine the difference between the projected budget and the projected fees and assess that difference on licensees in proportion to each licensee share of total gaming positions. The table on the bottom of page six of the memorandum demonstrates that the commission is anticipating an assessment of $30.5 million to fund the gaming control fund budget of $35.7 million. In addition to the assessment for the gaming control fund, Section 56E requires the commission to assess at least $5 million on the licensees in the same manner as above to be deposited into the public health trust fund. The numbers on that chart are truly estimates. Doug works hard with the licensees to figure out what they think it'll be, but on July 1 those numbers may be a little different. We come back at the first quarterly budget update and we'll adjust those numbers to give the actual numbers on that date of gaming positions. And just as a reminder, gaming positions is a seat where you can sit in place of that. It's not the people that are working. It's an actual place where you can sit in place of that. In conclusion, we're proposing an FY23 gaming control fund budget of $35.7 million, a research and responsible gaming budget of $5.27 million, a community mitigation fund and administration budget of $310,000, and an FY23 raising oversight and development fund budget of $3.1 million. We will incorporate any comments and changes you have today, and then we would like to post this budget for public comment and come back at a future meeting to get a vote. I would just like to say that the team here has spent a lot of time and effort and I'll defer many questions over them that you have building this budget as well as the whole MGC has. This is like I said at the beginning, this is a process that starts with the division heads. Division heads have already met with their teams. So this really is a budget built from the bottom up and incorporates all the needs that the agency has. And Karen can talk to it at well too, at length too, because she sat through every single meeting we've had. Let me thank Commissioner Skinner for voting. Absolutely. Thank you to Nikisha for her first budget cycle on the treasurer's side. She got to sit in on each of the meetings as well as sitting through the licensee meeting and hearing their concerns. And I think we've addressed the majority of them. I mean there was one other item that John worked hard to potentially make as an issue. So the city of Springfield was asking for two police cars. Licensees said could we move that as a request to the Community Mitigation Fund? We did talk to the city. And while the cruises sit directly at the casino and they are very old and have a lot of miles, they have agreed to put off the request for a year to see if it would be eligible under the Community Mitigation Fund put in an application for it. And if it's not, they'll come back here to put in that operating request next year. So that's part of the 220,000 in savings that came up through those discussions. Commissioner, do you have specific questions or comments? I don't have any questions, Chair, but I never want to miss an opportunity to thank Derek and his team. You are the ones who deserve the thanks, not me, from the revenue projection process to the meetings that you had with all the division pets, the process Derek you just described, meeting with the licensees. Always impressed with your diligence and your attention to detail. And most importantly, your patience. So thank you for putting together what I think is a really good budget with very minimal increases. So much appreciated. Any other comments? I have a substantive, if you want to chime in in terms of thank you. Derek, I think I've mentioned it to you that it's probably a good time now for us to affirmatively or coactively maybe advocate somewhat on behalf of our licensees with respect to the Commonwealth's indirect costs. That is in your summary, under gaming 2.42 million and then with that other 200,000, the racing is the word we receive no additional support from the state with respect to racing. You know, it grows closer to 2.43 million, right? I'm wondering it's where I'd love to talk Derek and Todd and Tom maybe work together to develop a memo about the indirect costs and implications for casinos and our understanding of the law. And then if we could discuss next steps what to do with a memorandum. I do believe that it would be helpful to meet with ANF on this matter at this time frame to see if we could possibly reduce that amount. So Derek, that's just I'd mentioned it but I would love to see some affirmative movement on that. I think you probably back that. I'll let you chime in now. Yes, I 100% back that and I can, I look forward to working with the team on developing a plan and a proposal that you can bring up to ANF that balances the needs of the Commonwealth with the burden on our licensees. Great and I think we can be somewhat strategic in the timing. So Karen, if we could just put that on your your list of to-do's that would be great. Absolutely. Thank you. Anything else? Commissioner O'Brien or Commissioner Hill? No. Excellent job. Let's just talk about process now. Chief Lennon, you now will put this out for public comment. Is that correct? Yes. So we will ask Tom and his team to submit this for public comment and then come back at the next commission meeting with any comments that we've had or any changes that we may have missed as we continue combing through this document. We always find one change here or there, one mistake but not substantive. It's just memo or grammar, things along those lines. So today's for our contemplation and our vote will be at the next public meeting. Yes. Okay, the next public meeting. Okay, excellent. So we'll get, we'll forward to the any input that the public will give. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, well done. Thank you to the entire team. I do see here Agnes. Thank you, John, Noel and Doug. Thank you so very much. We appreciate all the work that you've done. Thank you, Derek. Yes. And Chair, just one further comment. We were talking about Marie Claire leaving and Fluff. I know that she's going to bring a couple pounds of Dunkin' Donuts coffee back with her too because she's really been moved by the quality of it here. Thank you, Derek. I certainly will. I certainly will. All right. Uh-oh, Mark's coming into partaking this. I could go on and on but I'll pass. Or maybe even open a franchise, right? There you go, Marie Claire. Opportunity for you. Yes. All right. Thank you to the finance division. And so we again are quite ahead of schedule. It's 11.45ish, approaching 11.50. We have a commissioner update and then we anticipate going into executive session. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed? Do you wish to take a lunch break, a short break? And then I will check in with Karen and team. I'd like to take like a short lunch break now and then we can go into executive session and be done with it. And we have one more item, the commissioner update to do that after our lunch. No, we can do that now and then move into executive. I mean, before we go into executive session, I think we should do that so that we're not, we can feel free to take whatever time we need in there. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Hill, does that sound good to you? Commissioner Skinner? Okay. And Karen, is your team all set for a little bit of an earlier version? I think so. Yes. I don't think the executive session will be all that long. So I think that'll work. Okay, excellent. All right then, we're going to move on to item number eight, commissioner update. It's really a legislative update followed by commissioner Hill with his background. And then with the good support of, in this instance, Dr. Lightman, Councillor Gressman and of course, Mr. Bushman. Crystal, are you leading today's discussion? Well, I can kick it off for sure. So this is a, you know, a extension of just showing support for the most recent bill to extend the live horse racing and simulcasting law, which is HB4817. And that was just put out on May 31st. So this is just ensuring that it's known that we're really in support of that, but also that it should be expedited because the expiration date is approaching and that's July 31st, 2022. So the bill proposes to extend it a full year through 2020. I don't know if there's anything Alex Todd or Commissioner Hill would like to add, but pretty simple. And I don't see Dr. Lightman. Correct. Oh, there she is. She's connecting. I was going to say I thought I saw her orange one. We might be a little early for her. Yes. Yeah, we're a little early. Dr. Lightman, I'm sorry about that. Commissioner Hill, do you want to add your comments on it? I think this is a yearly ritual with the legislature, but I think being on record that we'd like to see them expedite this so that our licensee isn't put in any jeopardy is a right thing to do. And Dr. Lightman, I'm sorry we came in a little bit early, but that probably hopefully we didn't disrupt your work too much. You always add in the jobs at stake here. Yes. There's quite a few different jobs that depend on, it's obviously with live racing, there's quite a few different kinds of jobs, all the trainers and grooms and owners and drivers, and of course the staff at Plain Ridge that works for PPC on the track and everything, and then as well as our own. But then also with the simulcasting, there's quite a bit at, you know, all the different tracks that are also affected if this does expire. Right. Okay. And as Commissioner Hill said, we have issued a similar letter in the past, and we thank the legislature for its vigilance. Yes, and it's very nice to see that it's already started moving along. That's encouraging, and we just would hope that it would continue to move in time so that we don't have a disruption in the live product or the simulcasting and account wagering. Excellent. Any questions on this? And the letter is prepared in the draft one at the end of our packet. Crystal, we've learned through our process on the suitability of decisions, the preference for signatures. So if you look at those decisions, you can, and this is just a draft anyway, but you can copy those signature lines and just change the, I think my fellow commissioners use a middle initial, so we'll just update the signature lines. Thank you. Absolutely. Anything further on this? Just a big thank you. And this will go out. We'll make a few key touch revisions, and I think it should go out next week. Okay. Excellent. Thank you so much. All right. So then for all set, we'll move on to item number nine, and this is where the commission is anticipating going into its second session, and I, as by law, must read the language into our record. We anticipate that we'll meet in executive session in accordance with GL, Chapter 30A, Section 21A6, to consider the lease of real property, specifically the commission's office space at 101 Federal Street in Boston. As discussion and open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the committee, commission, excuse me. We do not plan to reconvene in this public session at the conclusion of the executive session, so I wanted to note that. In order to move forward on an executive session, we do need a vote, and I'll need a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive session for the reasons just stated on the record. Thank you. I can. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. And there's no further discussion. Commissioner O'Reilly. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And I vote yes for zero. So we will, to my understanding that we're going to try new technology that Crystal will shift us into a new room, and this public room will close. I want to thank all the members of the MDC who were here supporting our public meeting, and those members of the public who joined us. We appreciate all the work of our team and the interest of the public. So thank you. And why don't we shift to see if the technology works into the executive session and then we'll break for lunch. Okay. Give me one second to open the room, but you'll see it moment here. Let's cross our fingers. Otherwise, we can just boss down the hall. I was going to say maybe.