 Good morning. This is a convening of the master's gaming commission. We are holding this meeting virtually, so we will do our own call. Good morning, commissioner. Brian. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioner. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, commissioner scanner. Good morning. And good morning. Commissioner me. Good morning. All right, we'll get started. Today is September 21. We're starting off. Nice and early 9am public meeting number 480. Want to thank all of those who contributed to the round table on Tuesday. When an hour longer, but it was rigorous discussion and lots of stakeholders involved and a lot of teamwork needed. So thank you everyone on that. I'm going to turn right to the administrative update. Good morning. Interim executive director. Grossman and general counsel Grossman. And top. Yes, thank you. And good morning, madam chair. Good morning commissioners. Good morning to our team and all who are joining us here today. I do have one. I'd like to raise with you as part of this administrative update. And it pertains to the scope of my authority as the interim executive director. I'd like to request guidance from you as a body as to the bounds of my role in one specific area. I would say I'm tremendously respectful of the interim nature of this position. And just want to ensure that I'm effectuating it in a way that is consistent with the commission's intention from when I was appointed. And to be clear, it's a general matter. There's no ambiguity and I've been able to successfully perform my duties. There is one specific area though, where clarification would be helpful for me. And that is in the context of certain personnel matters. It's my general understanding that the commission did not want the interim executive director, of course, to be making any decisions that should be reserved for the permanent executive director when that person is appointed. As I said, I was my understanding, supposed to keep the ship afloat, if you will. And this has not been a difficult directive to navigate, except in the context of things like reclassifying certain employees positions into different pay grades based on performance or, for example, creating a new position. In other words, it doesn't presently exist in order to develop a career ladder within a division and to move an existing employee in such a role and other related personnel involved. To be clear, I've not done any of those things and specifically have not authorized the creation of any new positions or adjusted classification bans in which any employees presently reside. But given the nature of this interim position, in order to ensure that we're able to retain our talent, maintain a positive culture in the organization and ensure that I'm able to promptly address all personnel matters substantively. I did want to bring this issue to your attention to ensure that I have a clear understanding of the commission's intention in this area, just to ensure that I can make whatever decisions need to be made. I fully recognize that it will be difficult to craft specific boundaries with precision to address all matters, but I also want to ensure that I am not unwittingly limiting my own authority, if that's not what the commission intended. So I'm not necessarily asking for a definitive answer today, but I did want to raise the issue and request that you provide as much guidance as possible in the near term. And the only other thing I would add at this juncture is that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I work very closely with Dave Muldrew relative to all personnel matters and intend to continue doing so, whether this includes these specific issues or not. But that's the issue that I wanted to just raise with you this morning. I'm happy to add a little more color or texture if that would be helpful. But with that background and backdrop, Madam Chair and commissioners, I thought I would just pause and ask if you're able to offer any guidance along those lines. Commissioner's thoughts on Todd's question. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, so Todd and I had some conversations about this and from my perspective, if it's a question of a division director coming in, and it's adjusting from an existing position to another existing position, you know, and it's a conversation that Todd and his role as interim thinks is appropriate. I don't have a problem with that at all. Consultation with Dave Muldrew what I didn't think was part of the authority of the interim would be regrading people or creating new grades or creating new positions that to me is something that should probably come back before this body if we're talking about adding positions regrading I mean I know that whole process was pretty involved in the first one that was probably something that's going to have to be revisited but that's that's where the line was for me. Madam Chair. Yes, commissioner. That's how I understood our conversation to be with the interim director as well. Okay. Commissioner Maynard. I was going to say it's eerie because I had a conversation with Todd yesterday where Commissioner O'Brien was in the room. I, she was not though for the record. I think that, you know, day to day managers saying that they have, you know, a person that needs to be reclassified that should should be able to be taken care of easily Todd. I think any new creations of divisions or people. I think it should go back to the body until there's a permanent director. Commissioner Skinner, he went away in right now. Yeah, so I'm not too far away from my fellow commissioners on this. I'm happy to hear that there is some room to have those discussions that go beyond, you know, what we had understood when we talked about as interim in terms of moving one employee from one position to another. I'm glad that there seems to be an appetite for those kinds of discussions that go beyond that to come back before this commission to consider it's hard to hold this discussion in public without context. I think that I do want to be able to empower the interim executive director to make necessary decisions, you know, under particular circumstances that, you know, may arise. I think we have good talent, we have a good team, and sometimes there are requests to have some movement in order to, I guess entice individuals to stay on board here. So that's where they are looking for advancement outside of the agency. So that's all it's just I'm happy to hear that I think that what I think I hear is that my fellow commissioners are in agreement that those kinds of discussions are appropriate to be had but that they would need to be brought back before this body for consideration. So, if I were taught I'd probably be looking for a little bit more certainty around this and I agree with Commissioner Skinner it's hard to have these discussions without proper context in the public. What we do know is that an extensive effort was made to create a fair framework. And I think we're all invested in making sure that framework stays intact to create an equitable employment setting here for all employees. With that said, there may be unique circumstances that come up, and I don't have them in my head. That would require a little bit more nuance. So I guess commissioners, if we want it to come those discussions to come back to us and I know. You referenced that there is a hiring policy and I know that we, we worked on that in terms of what level for the permanent executive director can hire at versus revisiting or coming to the commission for input. What, what process do we have. And now you have to put your general counsels cap on. Is there a way that we could with certain lower level staff perhaps have a discussion around what you might propose so that you could be heard in. Is there any. Yeah. You mean have a discussion at a public meeting. Well, no, and is there an executive session that would allow us because we're not talking about high level positions. I think you're talking about when I say high level. They're great. We have major policy making type positions. That's right. However, you've graded it every, of course, every position is so valued here, but in terms of that high number or low number, whatever it is. Could we have a discussion around specifics that, you know, I am concerned about privacy matters for employees, right. Commissioner Brian, you understand you're shaking your head as well. Yeah, I think if it's certainly if it pertains to a particular individual. I'd have to, I'm just trying to remember the exact language of the second session rule. It might be one that's in our right now in front of us at the end. Well, I think we'd have to look into that a little bit. There's, I'm not, there's no clear way off the top of my head that we could go into executive session to talk about, you know, moving employees into different positions and whatnot. And I think you're right. Madam chair would be I just do I do want to make sure I'm clear as to what the commission just said about all of that. I get the gist, but I'm not sure I'm clear on the exact directive as to whether I would be able to create a new position or you prefer I not do that. I, I think I heard different things so you don't want me to create new positions or move people into them. No. Okay. Todd, I think for clarification, I think the line is, if these are pre existing sort of, you know, positions, and it's a question of moving people around on the chessboard and directors and agreement and your agreement and Dave Mulder is an agreement on those. That to me is not something I need to hear about. It's, we're creating a new job, or we're taking an existing one and we want to put it in a different grade or we want to create it for me. And that to me is all stuff that ideally waits for permanent ED and if it can't would come back in front of us. Chair, would it be possible for me to be heard reason. Sure. I just want to say thank you to Todd, good morning. I just want to say thank you to Todd and to the commissioners for for this discussion. I think that if possible, I would like to request an executive session to discuss this. I think it's really important for Todd and I as interim, you know, executive director and director to be able to make decisions with respect to our staff, particularly if we're not creating management position. And if we're not going outside of the grade. I do think it's really important for us over this period of interim status that we have the ability to work closely with Dave Mulder on these particular matters, particularly for positions that are not management level. So I just wanted to put that out there and I'm happy to give more detail at some point, but I just wanted to be heard on it. I appreciate it. So Heather thank you and I appreciate you're asking for an executive session but I think we're challenged. Sometimes we just don't have an option for an executive session but I think Todd's looking and it's something we can explore. I'm hearing a consensus Todd that right now, advancing on any existing structure is fine, as long as it's consistent with the hiring policy not as you know, the management, or whatever grade the highest grade is consistent with that hiring policy, but that the commissioners don't want to have input on creating or new position or expanding a division or creating a new division. I know that we are, we're really busy and I appreciate that you need. You're looking for some degree of flexibility here so I'm appreciating that and I think we've got to figure out some way to make sure we do it in the proper to the proper channel pressure skinner. Had, I don't, if we're talking about non major policy making positions here. It occurred to me that had had we had in a permanent executive director with the commission be involved in these discussions. Again, where they're not major policy making decisions and I guess I'm kind of trying to understand what we are gaining as an agency in deferring these kinds of decisions to the future permanent ED, where we have a potentially unique situation that is before the interim ED and apparently the interim IB director so I just opening that question up for discussion I'm trying to reconcile within myself what is it that we are not willing to entrust the interim ED with in terms of making those kinds of again unique circumstances type of decisions relative to reshuffling. Sorry, Commissioner Brian you're leaning in. Thanks. Yeah, I mean I think where I was drawing the line Commissioner Skinner is consistent with even if you had a permanent ED, because if you're going to talk about re grading there was a whole group that was involved in that and I was the you know help with that. And then they, then that was an incredibly involved process with consultants etc. And then the restructuring and correct my wrong madam chair you would remember this more than me but we have an obligation we submit the org chart every year also so when you talk about creating new FTEs and putting them down etc we actually have to submit that every year so that's to me above and beyond the day to day keeping the train go. Okay, so that the answer to the question if they were in a permanent ED with the what would be with this matter come before the Commission for decision is yet. And all likelihood the only thing I can think of is that subgroup that did the grading and put people in the grades. That was a committee, and then they sort of came to us after and sort of reported on that there was a commissioner who was on that. I would assume it wouldn't be me the next time around it would be someone else but while it's not something that necessarily voted on by the Commission there was Commission involvement in the form of a commissioner, and there was a whole process and a crew not just sort of the ED a director and HR director making that call. And did that involve multiple employees or an entire. Okay. All right. I see this is somewhat different where if we're talking about an individual case by you know, you know, one off type of a thing. I see that as a little bit different and I don't know that I would want to be involved as a commissioner in that type of determination. I understand and respect that historically when when it comes to just the subject of reclassification commission that commission has been part of the discussion. I don't know that that needs to continue though. Again, under, you know, unique circumstances where we're talking about a one off here or there. To be, I want to make sure we do reflect upon history and I know. Interim Executive Director Grossman respects is the framework that was was worked on and adopted was to avoid one off because of the inequities that can arise in a workplace with that structure. So it is a really fair question and I have to I applaud Todd for coming to us and recognizing that he doesn't want to overstep. And the reason, you know, we did I know Commissioner Hill, we called the conversation that we had when we hired the interim with that said we can't predict everything right commissioners. So I think the struggle is if we could cut if we want these if Todd comes up with a proposal that he needs to weigh in with us we've got to figure out a proper form right commissioner Maynard. No, I was going to say the reason I cracked that joke at the beginning is hearing all my fellow commissioners is I thought that we had settled a lot of this earlier on and so it was good to me to hear other commissioners. Heard it very similarly that said I'm hearing that there's an issue that's coming up now. And, and maybe we need to bright line it, you know, and I'm hearing what Heather saying, you know, in five and above for example is that you know I'm looking for some proposal from from Todd and Heather I guess, you know, give us some grades give us some numbers of what you're thinking would have to come or not come. So then we could at least, you know, bright line this but I did think like Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Brian that we. We had settled on this a little bit. Sorry, go ahead ahead. No, I was going to say that's all very helpful I totally I understand. I do. We can try to put a more specific proposal together if that's the inclination of the commission to carve out some piece of this to allow the interim to make certain decisions but otherwise, I think you've been very clear as to your intention so this has been helpful. You know, though I it seems clear that there are certain things I just shouldn't do and I won't do. And if that's what the the edict is then that's what it will be. But I do think I and commissioners correct me if I'm wrong, I'm hearing that they're not saying necessarily no because everybody has an interest in making sure our matters are an admission are accomplished right, but that we they somehow come back to the commission for some kind of a green light. So that may that probably is likely to have to come in the public meeting but if there is an appropriate executive session we should explore that to so that we can maybe have more candid discussions around employees but again, it's unlikely so we'll have to figure out that discussion right here in public. Karen do you agree with that. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that completely and I also want to say that Commissioner Maynard, I'm not an outlier here. I do, I do recall, you know, we, us all being on the same page in terms of the authority that we vested in our interim ED so I, I'm not on an island by myself there but, you know, as the chair was just saying I do think that there's a need to make some exceptions, you know, under the right circumstances, and just going along with, you know, some proposals that you offered up, I'd even be okay with designating one of us, one of the five of us to to review those matters to report back, or, you know, or two of us to report back to the Commission just so that, you know, we don't, we don't take any undue time trying to get something scheduled, you know, among all of the things that we have to review over the coming months. I'll take that suggestion under advisement commissioners, let me give that some thought let's find out what what we have for options in this public forum. Okay. All right. We thought we might need to go to a second and that's okay, right. Thank you appreciate the time on this that helped clarify my understanding and we will move ahead we'll we'll put some more thought into this and perhaps come back before you in the near future. The only thing I would add is just to make sure that Dave Mildrew was involved in any discussions as well, I think he's critical to this. Yeah, and I think Todd you've indicated that you are working very closely with Dave and team right. Of course, I, I don't make any personal decisions without talking to Dave Mildrew so that is, that's a certainty. Again, regardless of how this particular discussion went or turns out, I will still do that. Okay, any further questions for Todd. All right, then we'll move along to item number three on our agenda. We are anticipating two executive sessions. They're right up front because of some participants schedule so commissioners you understand that in order for us to go into executive session. To read the proper clause into the record, I do know that we would move first on item number four, first, and then go to item number three saw read them in those orders so should the commission so vote we anticipate that it will meet with the executive session in accordance with GL chapter 30 a section 21 a for to discuss the use and deployment of security personnel or devices. Our strategies with respect there too at MGM Springfield, specifically with regard to firearms the public session of the commission meeting will reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. We can vote move on each, or we could go ahead, I could read both into the record. Read both into record. Okay, please. Certainly Commissioner Hill, thank you. The Commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws chapter 30 a section 21 a seven and general laws chapter four section 726. Section and certain records for which the public disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity and GL chapter 30 a section 21 a for to consider information related to cybersecurity the disclosure of which is likely to be related to cybersecurity or cybersecurity and to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect there too in relation to an MGM cybersecurity issue. The public session of the commission meeting again will reconvene at the conclusion of these two executive sessions should we so vote. Do I have a motion. Madam chair I move that the Commission go into executive session on the two matters and for the relevant reasons stated by the chair on the record. Thank you. Any questions. Any questions for Councilor Grossman. Okay, commissioner Brian. Hi, Mr Hill. Hi, Mr Skinner. Hi, Mr Maynard. Hi, and I vote yes, five zeros so we are not turning to grace today she is working but under the weather. And so knows. And Dave, you're going to do we go into we have a, oh, we're going to go through them. Answer my question there it is. So I've been. So I've been given a list of participants who should be included for the executive session so you've all been sent an invite to join it'll be on this current meeting so you'll just be able to pop in there. So we should be good. Thanks, Dave. By the administration says it will bring temporary legal steps. Please remain on mute that would be great. Shortening the wait time from 90 days to less than 30. Dave I think we're probably all set if you want to take down the screen will start seeing how we're populating the meeting. It looks like we've all returned. We're going to get started momentarily we just will need to do our roll call. Okay, we'll get started with our roll call. Good morning again, Commissioner Brian we're holding this meeting virtually so. Good morning. Commissioner Hill good morning again. Good morning. Commissioner Skinner good morning again. Good morning. And commissioner made a good morning again. Good morning. Okay, we're going to turn to item number five on our agenda for public meeting number 480. And Dr. lightbound and I know you have a guest or two. Good morning. Thank you. The first item is the use of delegation of authority on September 11. The night before there were heavy rains in the Plainville area and so they were working on getting the track back in condition to race. First, the track asked to delay post time. Half an hour so we did that and we're able to get the first race off. Got the second race actually out on the track and we got another huge rainstorm so brought the horses off the track for safety reasons obviously and. Thought about trying to get the track back again and with the forecast of just more rain all afternoon and the condition of the track, it was decided to cancel racing for that day. And then so that. Plain Ridge originally had asked for 108 days of racing and a reminder that they need 100 and 100 days for the 128 C simulcasting requirement. So this brings them down to 107 days. They're not planning on rescheduling that day. But they still have plenty of days, you know, seven days to work with. So, where it will alter their original number of days, probably beginning of November. If it works for the commission, I'll come back with any days that they have canceled and get the commission to officially vote to approve that change in their schedule. Thank you. Questions for Dr. lightbound on that. No, thank you for. For being careful. It's actually amazing that there haven't been more cancellations. Dr. lightbound in light of our weather this summer. So. Exactly worked out well. Yeah. Okay. We'll move them right into your next item. Please. Okay. The next item is the request for recognition of the standard bread owners of Massachusetts. As a representative organization of standard bread breeders in Massachusetts. Today I'm joined by Nancy long a body, the secretary and treasurer of F so M. Just a reminder, this comes from the agriculture statute 128. Section 2 J. And again, in there it. It refers to the representative organization. Of standard bread breeders and owners approved by it still says state racing commission, but obviously now it's the gaming commission. So we will need a vote on this. It's very timely. Next Monday and Tuesday we start the first legs of that series. Last year, we gave about $2.5 million out in purses. And just briefly, because I'll let miss let long a body go into more detail, but. Usually there's about close to 20. Horses that are eligible in each division. For a little bit under 80. And this year it looks like. Some of the divisions have 25 horses that would be eligible. And so it's it's closer to 93. And there is a diverse group of owners as well, which is great news. Now, if there's no questions from the commission, I'll turn it over to Nancy long a body. Can we reserve questions start to live down. Sure. Okay. Thanks. Time is long, but already good morning. Thank you for joining us today. Good morning commissioners. Thank you. Thank you for hearing our request again. As Dr. light bomb said, we gave away 2.5 million last year we're projecting. 3 million for this year, which is obviously a considerable amount, which, which is, you know, is great. We'll be having our legs for 75,000 and our finals, which will take place in October 24. For 150,000 per division. We have 389 horses actually registered in the entire program. This will be including the brood mayors. The yearlings in the two and three year olds. We have 164 eligible for this year's two and three year old races. That doesn't mean that they'll all be in but from early estimates, I think I think we're going to have a considerable amount of entries, which is great. So we're we're we're really happy about that pleased about that. We still have our public publicist Tim Borjarski, who is who was great he tracks all the eligible horses and all of the horses that do quite well in other states. Just recently, there was a Philly named Dame, and she's a three year old Philly and she's owned actually by a gentleman, his name is Stephen Richard and he's from lemonster mass, and she just won a $225,000 final at Yonkers Raceway, and she'll be coming here on Monday to participate and also just to mention Tim is is does great work and he's being inducted into the harness racing Hall of Fame as a columnist. So he does really, really good work and has has a really big passion for the business so it's great. That's just some of the highlights and the program is you know has been growing every year which that's another, you know, great thing. And last year commissioners Skinner asked a question that what made the SOM board members board of directors uniquely qualified to administer the program. So I thought I'd just give you just a quick short bio of our directors, all of them are owners and breeders. Our president is Chip Campbell. Chip has been on the board for 12 years and he owns a 300 acre farm in Belcher town mass, and which produces dozens of standard breads every year. Our vice president is Paul Vaca, and he's been on our board for 16 years, and Paul has been a trainer and been involved, his whole life for over 50 years. Our next director is Dr. Clifford Markham, and he's been with us for three years. He's an equine veterinarian specializing in reproduction. Then I have director George Duchamp who's been with us for six years. He's a nationally known trainer and he's from Norfolk, probably best known for his Hamiltonian winner back in 2013. And George is also a director on the United States Trotting Association. The next one director is Paul Fontaine, he's been with us for five years. He was a very prominent owner in New England and served on the US United States Trotting Association for many years and also was the chairman of the board of the USTA. I'm sorry, excuse me. We also have director Chris Antonacci, who's been with us for five years. He's also a USTA director, and he's on the board of the Standard Bread Transition Alliance, which does really great things for the horses and for our business. And that'll be myself. I've had horses my whole entire life been involved in it for years and I've been on this board, serving Secretary Treasurer for 16 years. Our organization has successfully been administrating the program since 1992, and we request to be recognized again this year. I'd be happy to answer any questions. If anyone has any and just thank you for your time again. Any questions for Ms. Lungabardi, as well as Dr. Leipzig? No questions, Chair, but just want to say to Ms. Lungabardi. Thank you very much. What a difference a year makes. Thank you so much about the importance of your organization over this past time as a commissioner. So, but I appreciate the reminder. Oh, thank you very much. Well, I had a year to think about it. So I probably had time to, and I just thought it was important just just for you to recognize the board and just to know just a little, as I said, just a little, you know, brief background so that you just to get you to know that. But I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Commissioner's other questions. Dr. Leipzig, I'll set you are recommending this today. Yes, and I am looking for a vote. So commissioners, do we have a motion? Thank you, Dr. Leipzig. Madam Chair. Yes. I think I heard that in accordance with GL chapter 128 section 2 J, the commission approved the request of the standard bread owners of Massachusetts, Inc. to be recognized as a group of representatives stand standard bread breeders to administer the Massachusetts standard bread breeding program at the sire steaks race for 2023 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. I think I heard that from commissioner Maynard. So second. And so commissioner Brian. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, five zero. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation today and taking time to meet you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Leip. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. And I think Alex, are you all set for the day then? I am. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Welcome. Bye. Okay. Moving on then to item number six, we've got some sports wagering asks today. And of course we've got Bruce and Crystal and Andrew. Yes, madam chair, we have four items for you today. We have a waiver request. House rules change. A new event petition. And also a request to void some wagers and. Our team will start off with crystal and end up with Andrew. So you proceed crystal. I interrupt briefly. Sure. Of course it's, it's your exact purpose. Just briefly. First up, I mentioned the GPAC meeting yesterday and, and crystal and, and Andrew did an excellent job with of course the support of director ban. I also got a chance to acknowledge that crystal has received a nice recognition that I'd like to share. And she has been selected by the emerging leaders of gaming and global gaming business to be a member of the emerging leaders of gaming 40 under 40 class of 2024. Congratulations to you, Crystal. That's just the acknowledgement that folks are watching you and the contributions you are making here in Massachusetts. Thank you. Okay. So with all that, now you got to get right down to business. Thank you for that. That's very kind. We're really proud of you, Crystal. You know, we've watched you grow. Bruce knows. He's seen it all and we are very excited that you're, you received this acknowledgement today. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I will share everything when it officially goes into the GGB magazine. But for today's business, I do have a waiver request from draft Kings regarding 205 CMR to 56051, which is the marketing regulation related to the branding process and in advertising to you. So including that 21 plus messaging alongside logos and advertisements. And they do just want to draw your attention. I'm not sure if everyone saw it. That's been a busy morning, but I did send a brief revision of the memo this morning, just because the regulation that I had originally included was slightly inaccurate to the regulation as it currently stands. So that is in your email and we will revise the packet for the public. But this particular request. Just for a little back them history here. So we had provided a universal waiver of this requirement for 90 days. And that the branding waiver expires September 28th. So operators have been reviewing their assets just to see if there are any necessary changes. And draft Kings has come forward with this waiver. So the waiver in full is in your packet. But in brief, they're just they've identified three particular logos that they're looking for a waiver of including that 21 plus language for various reasons, which are stated in the waiver itself. I can go over those if you prefer chair or I'm sure you guys have read them, whatever you prefer me to go forward. I think it's important for you to just stay briefly, the three commissioners for the record, I think, right? Thanks. We'll have some context to discuss and thanks, Crystal. Absolutely. So the first one stands in Fenway Park and this and there are images also in the packet. I'm not sure of the page. I'm sorry. I don't have that up. I could look quick. Unless you do you guys have that in front of you. Do you need me to look that for you? Page 11 is the photos or is the first photo? Perfect. Thank you, Grace. So that shows you exactly what the ad currently looks like. So this, the Fenway Park one is right on top of the green monster. They are requesting the waiver because this was in place well prior to sports wagering even become legal. And their agreement is still in existence. It's just the Draft King's brand itself. And the crystal, could I just, I think I heard you refer to this as an ad. And I think this is just a logo. But I, Commissioner Maynard's going like this, but I would say it's a, it's a logo. Yeah. So that's it. It's simply the logo. Madam chair, I will again say a logo can be an advertisement. So for in terms of this, I'll just call it the branding. So the particular branding in this case is, is the logo itself on a green backdrop. And it only, all it says is Draft King. So you can see that there. And like I said, this existed before even sports wagering was legal and it is currently a scope that they have that is under an existing agreement. So they'd have to revise all of that and then replace this ad. So that's the first one. Do you want me to pause in between? Just so I want to just be on the record why it's important to distinguish logo versus the ad because you just noted, because if it were an ad under a regulation, they would have to have more language. If I'm right, they would have to be. They would have to include the responsible gaming, the game sense, all of, all of those other provisions. Okay. Thank you. So this would have to be revised in totality. Should I stop there? Do you want me to go through all three? I do want that point, that last line that Crystal just said is not accurate. So that commentary in terms of, you know, more would have to be added if we deem it that, I think is a little off the cup, the topic right now. So I just had to say that for the record and we can circle back when we start talking about it. But just as a factual matter, I think she's properly recited sort of what that signage is in the stadium. Yes. So it's all okay. This is up to you guys entirely as we say in our recommendation. So the second one you'll see it follows on that next page. It is the green around the court itself on the, at TD garden. It's embedded into the hardwood of the floor. And so this was again planned and approved prior to the legalization of sports wagering. And it, most of these as DraftKings is coming forward says there, it doesn't say DraftKings sports book. It just says DraftKings. And so they're looking for some clarification there as well, because it holds the marketplace, the horse racing sports book fantasy as you know. So this has been in play for several years. And they're looking for a waiver of replacing that as that is especially cost prohibitive several thousands of dollars to redo that floor or probably more than that. I think they say several hundred thousand is how they, they quote that. I don't personally know the exact price. So that's that second one. The third one you'll see it's the, you see the Gillette stadium. They do provide the actual logo, but if you look down to the right corner above the people, you'll see a little glowing DraftKings and it's a sports zone logo. It is actually part of the, I want to, I want to get this right here. I believe it's part of the area itself. It's like a barn. Yes, it's a bar and a grill. So if they're, they're concerned about putting 21 plus on that because then it looks like the bar and grill would be 21 plus. And that's the concern with that one in the request for the waiver there. So all three of these, I imagine you probably want to take piece by piece, but we wanted to present them together on the public meeting today so that they can make revisions. If revisions are deemed necessary before, not sure we'll get them done before the date of the 28th, but then we could look toward to what the update would be. Commissioner's questions for Chris. Why don't we do one at a time? Maybe. Cause that might be helpful, right? So before we do that, Madam Chair, is the request for more time to do this? Or is it questioning whether they need to be changed at all? The request would be a waiver so that they don't need to be changed. Okay. And is there a conversation or do you know of information if the decision is, yes, you do. What the timing is. Oh, then I would need to, they would need to investigate each piece, the timeframe on how that would look. Because it's obviously with the companies themselves, like taking up the floor, that's got to be done in between, you know, the events and the sports that are happening there. I think the others similar. So they'll have to actually work with each entity to see what the timing on that would be and come back with individual waivers for those pieces. So should we look at on page, I think it's page 10 of our, of our packet is draft Kings rationale for their proposed request. So let's look at the draft Kings first request with respect to then. So Madam Chair, I would love to hear from legal in terms of the question of interpretation of the statute in terms of whether, and we can do them seriatim, but starting with this one, the interpretation of the statute is in their opinion. The red, right? Okay. Thanks. Before we get legal to speak to that. It would seem to me that the reg is clear, at least in terms of what the intent was, whether, whether this is an ad, this is a, the intent in displaying this logo is to promote sports wagering. It is a, it's a, it's a logo that is displayed on signage or a fixed structure at a sports venue where it is likely to be viewed by persons under 21 years of age. So it seems to me that the question is not, you know, whether this is a logo, that's intended to advertise sports wagering or something else. The fact of the matter is it's, it's a logo and it appears in a sports venue where it can be viewed by persons 21 under 21 years of age. So that to me is, is the controlling language of this regulation. So I appreciate the question for sure, because it seems clear to me, but legal might shed some additional light on that. And Commissioner Skinner, I only made the correction because I think this particular one did apply to logo. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure Kate will shed light on that. So. So I think Commissioner Skinner is correct that what we're looking at here is 256.05 subsection one. And there they talk about, I'll just read it so that we all have it at mind, but it says that advertising marketing branding, here we're talking about branding, which can also be a subset of advertising, but we're talking about a brand or a logo right now. And other promotional materials, published air display disseminated or distributed buyer on behalf of any sports wagering operator shall state that patrons must be 21 years of age or older to participate, provided that branding again here, well the logo consisting only of a display of an operator's logo or trademark related to sports wagering shall not be required to comply with that reg unless it is or is intended to be displayed on signage or a fixed structure at a sports venue, where it is likely to be viewed by a person's younger than 21 years old. So that's a lot, but I think that the operative issue here is whether the draft King's logo is a logo or a trademark related to sports wagering. And I'll just tell you from the stop, the start and I'll explain in a minute that it's the opinion of the legal department that the general draft King's logo, which is what we're talking about here, is related to sports wagering and therefore the 21 plus language should be used. And the way that we think about these logos, as we know draft King's and many of the operators have multiple logos, but we think about it as an umbrella. So at the top of the umbrella is the general logo, right? They can use that for any number of things. Then underneath that, there are a variety of logos. There's a specific sports book logo. There's a probably a DFS logo. Maybe there's a charitable logo for other more specific purposes. But at the end of the day, that general draft King's logo covers and incorporates all of its subunits, all of everything that it's doing underneath that. And for those reasons, we do believe that it's related to sports wagering. We would also say that when we received this question from draft King's, we did take a look at their sports wagering specific advertising. And with great frequency, they do use the general logo in their sports wagering advertising. So based on all that information, which is both general and specific to draft King's, we do believe that these logos should have the 21 plus language as a as a gating matter. And then you can discuss other requests for the waivers. Happy to answer any questions. Questions can have a question, a comment. I do recall that there was significant discussion on this point. You know, precisely, you know, because we were struggling or a couple of us were struggling, trying to distinguish the corporate logo from, you know, any other logos or, you know, specific verticals. And, you know, I think that the commission got to a compromise and add in adding, excuse me, certain language relative to the sports venues. And so I think for me, this is very clear. And I have to say too, I was at Fenway very recently and I saw this ad. I snapped a photo of it and brought it back to the team and said, you know, Hey, shouldn't there be language here? 21 plus. 21 plus and was reminded rightfully that the regulation didn't take effect or the waiver was in effect through September 28. So pleased to learn that. But in my mind, this is exactly what we were intending to do in requiring that added language on the signage. Yeah, I agree with commissioner Skinner. I guess my expectation for the waiver request for these was going to be timing and implementation. Not so much a question of whether it was applicable. So. That's where I come from. It's consistent with what legal side is commission. Consistent with what commissioner Skinner just said. Madam chair. Yes. I haven't got a process question. And I would like to take these up separately. If the commission agreed with me on that. And the process question is this. Can we put a date certain. On a motion. For this request. Or does it have to be a straight yes or no. Do you want to. I'm not sure when you say date certain commissioner, what do you mean? So I'm going to recommend to the board for Fenway. That we allow. This to move forward until October 2nd, because that is when the Red Sox season ends. And I believe after the second for the next season that they can. Ensure that the under 21 is put on their logo. For this point, there's only two weeks left in the season. I don't see why we wouldn't grant the waiver. Can we do that? Yeah, I think what I think. I think it's tell me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of this, but I believe that you could move to. Extend the waiver for Draft King specifically. And for this particular ad. Logo specifically until October 2nd. And then, you know, basically that means that they need to get the logo there for, for October 3rd. Or for the next season. So commissioner Hill, are you thinking. Are you thinking that they need to have it done by October 3rd? Are you thinking they need to have it done by the beginning of the next season. To be realistic for the next season. The reason I put October 3rd is. This is an ends October 2nd. And to my knowledge. There aren't any other big events taking place at Fenway. Although now that we're talking that out. I don't know if they're doing that football season. They may have other events. And hockey. They've done that in the past as well. So. I'm trying to do a compromise here. To get us through. To get us through. To get us through the baseball season. But I. Do believe that under our regulations that this does need to happen at some point. Right. I hear you commissioner. Helen. What I was wondering is. You know, when I would want the information about timing. Right. So that's it's sort of like, you're supposed to have it there. And I agree with you in terms of two weeks. But I think that's, you know, that's not, that's not a realistic request, but we don't have the information in front of us now. For how much longer. I mean, if this was literally going to go dark. Till the spring. October 3rd would make sense because then no one would be seeing it. They could figure it out, come back, see what if any other time they needed, et cetera. So. Certainly open to the idea of going into October because of. And we don't know. Right. How much longer they need. How many events might be there otherwise. I guess I was just wondering what you were talking about. The dates that you were talking about. I think we need more information from them. Agreed. But I hear what you're saying. And I agree with the sentiment in terms of practicality. Well, I guess crystal. There's a request from. At least. Do we have a consensus? Are there three? Who. Agrees. It's asked to get a, to ask for a date as opposed to. Moving on their requests as stated. They're asking for a waiver all together and I'm hearing that for the for the first one, you would like some more information. So would we need to pursue other operators who have. So, there's all the data and then they may be done. Okay. We've reached out, I have not received any definitive waivers yet. I. I'm not sure whether we will, we've had questions along the way, and then we've answered some of those with legal, but I can't answer that for certain. I am wondering though. Publications from implementation timing cost crystal. What is generally somewhere for clarity, an example would be there was one that's here's the logo, but it's behind it's it's in a club zone area where you have to. To be 21 and so, you know, that was a relatively easy response. Others were, you know, are we a lot more? What is the latitude that they have? Like, can we put in a request? If it's going to be based on cost or season or. You know, so I think they're just in terms of what they were looking at and how. Difficult it would be for them to make the change and the time allotted. So, like I said, nothing definitive to come and we may not see others. I'm just not certain at this time. I might just suggest if if what if the consensus is generally to give a waiver, but we need more information because they will go out of compliance on the 28th. I would suggest a waiver through October 2nd when we have another meeting, ask them to get in additional information about dates. They, you know, they're requested waiver date by that meeting and then it can be addressed at that meeting and if further waiver is needed that can happen. That's just a tech a procedural suggestion. Thank you, Caitlin. That's exactly what I was about to interject with just just to make sure we were covered for whatever time period. We need to be covered for. Okay, let's take these one at a time commissioners. If there's more discussion, commissioner meaner, sorry. I'm sorry, I just, and it's related to commissioner Hills point, which is. Crystal, you mentioned they have agreements in place. I, you know, if they wanted to express those agreements, I'm open to hearing them. Right. Like if this is the time of the season when everyone goes and paints their logos. Right. I'm open to hearing that. I just don't see it here. And so, you know, I'm, I'm a lot of latitude here. I just, I'm trying to figure it out, but. Commissioner Skinner's point and I'm in total agreement with her analysis. You know, I don't want to re litigate this whole thing, this whole wreck and how it applies, but I am willing to talk about implementation. And madam chair. Yes. And if I can just add, again, we're talking about Fenway Park. It doesn't look like a. It doesn't look like it was painted on anything. It looks like something that could be replaced very easily. I don't even know what you would call that material that is used, but it looks like it's waving in the wind a little bit. So I assume that it can be taken down quite easily and replaced quite easily unlike a painted. The emblem on the, on the green monster or something like that. So I think it can be easily done, but we do need more information and. Thankful to the commission that we have come to kind of a consensus on that. But I think it's easier than what we're going to talk about in the next. I guess that if I find draft kings and I'm listening, I think they are hearing that. Councilor monahan has given a legal interpretation. As to the nature of the logo. I don't recall that being as specific. It was helpful today, Caitlin. But well, because that is their argument that they're making in that first request is that. This is a different vertical. It's there, you know, beyond what's wagering and that legal has made it. It's advising that you don't see that subset. So I guess we have to accept that if we're going to move, but if we're going to. If we're going to move to extend the waiver, perhaps. It's gives draft kings the opportunity to get more information on all aspects. Well, respectfully, Madam chair, I feel like there were four that agreed with legal's interpretation of the. I wanted to make sure that I heard the commission right and I didn't say I disagreed. Yep. No, I know you had not expressed an opinion one way or the other, but the four of us that did I think agreed with legal so it was a question of. Implementation. So to mission range point. I'm not interested in re litigating the fact of the reg. It's more the practical implications of complying with it. I wanted to just address their, their argument precisely and Caitlin has done that. And so I just wanted to confirm. But that's, it's not the rag. It's just that interpretation around that. I needed that, that guidance. So I appreciate it. Thank you. I also just want to add. Madam chair, just for the record that. Another, you know, betting company was able to put the bet 20. The 21 to wager on their emblem at Fenway Park. And there didn't seem to be an issue. But that's what I wanted. I asked that question. Commissioner Hill, if anybody could tell me. So thank you. Okay. Okay. So. Are you comfortable in the parking lot? You like to move commissioner Hill on, on Fenway Park. Are you comfortable? I thought we were going to maybe put it off until the second, so we could get more information. I think we need to move on the waiver though, because the waiver runs out of the 28. So we need to give them a waiver, just extend the waiver. It's not helpful, Commissioner Hill. I don't want to put you on the spot. I can do the motion if you want just October 2nd. Go ahead, Commissioner Obray. No problem. I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, that the commission issued to draft Kings a waiver from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 256.051 with respect to the specified logo advertisement at Fenway Park through October 2nd, 2023, as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23 in. And I would second that, Madam Chair. Any further edits or questions? Commissioner Maynard, are you up? All right, I'll set. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you. OK, so now we're turning to the second one, Crystal. That's, again, page 10 of our packet that gives the requesting parties rationale for their request. Thank you, Crystal, for a good job on this packet. TD Garden. Commissioner Hill, did you want to leave? So on this one, I know it's going to be expensive, but I don't feel comfortable giving a waiver for this one. The season doesn't start for a little bit, and I would hope that they'd be able to work something out with the Boston Gardens to be able to adhere to the regulation. At this point, not willing to vote for a waiver for this one. Commissioner, comments? I have a question for Crystal. Was there any context around how they do the floor, how they don't do the floor, what the agreement is? There wasn't, and that's a good question. Again, I think this would be whatever further questions you have, we could go get the answers. I do know other, even though that's not the season, the garden is used regularly because my partner works there. So there are shows and there are other things going on, but we could find out again what that timeline would look like and exactly what the process is. Paul, I agree with you, Crystal, that a lot of events are taking place. That particular parquet floor is not usually in place. It's usually on the cement when there's concerts and other events taking place. So I'm not sure that that particular logo is being seen off season from the Celtics, but it's information that I think we can get quite easily, just to be clear. Exactly, I'm not saying the floor is in use. I'm just saying to put, I don't know what that process looks like to get something in place while there are events happening. Again, it would just be an information request, I think, so we could do that. I think that's really helpful because this, unlike perhaps the signage at Fenway Park, this could impact TD Garden in a way that we may not be understanding fully and I would like to hear how they would go about doing this and it's not tracking more. So it has a little bit of a broader effect, I think, to just impose this without some understanding of the impact to put the venue itself. So would it behoove us to allow a waiver through October 2nd again so we can get more information? But I'd like that. I was going to suggest that for consistency's sake too. Although I would point out my disappointment that the waiver was solely based on it doesn't apply. I was kind of hoping we were going to see some of this and have more access to this information today. So, well, they did say at the very end, Commissioner O'Brien about costs, you're right. But nothing specific to each venue. I mean, there was almost this presumptive close that they were not going to have to do it. So to all the reasons that have been raised by yourself and Commissioner Hill and even Crystal, we need more information on this. And so I think for consistency's sake, we do extend it to the 10-2. I would agree with that, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to do your magic again? Sure. Others couldn't, but. Yep, let me just thank Carrie once again for her scale. And she just say, Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard, are you all right? Cause I'm sort of calling the question. Okay, good. Thank you. As to the request relating to TD Garden, I moved that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, the commission issued to DraftKings a waiver from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 256.051 with respect to the logo identified and included in the commissioner's packet at TD Garden and further discussed here today until October 2nd, 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general law chapter 23 in. Second. Any further edits or questions? Hey, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed it. Hi. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you. And thank you, Christopher, for following up on that. Now we have Gillette. Madam Chair. Yes. So this one I'm a little confused at because I'm seeing two different things in our packet. And let me just get to it so I can. So if you look at the picture at Gillette Stadium, I see DraftKings by itself, which is similar to what we've just talked about at Fenway and at the Boston Gardens. What I see underneath that picture is DraftKings sports zone. And I see that as two very different logos. So I think I need some clarification from someone why I'm seeing DraftKings logo as I would at Fenway, but underneath it and in explanation, I'm seeing the DraftKings sports zone. Because in my opinion, it's two very different things. I had the same question. So I looked into this a little bit. It is called the DraftKings fan, or at least online. It's called the DraftKings fantasy sports zone. I can share like the picture that Gillette has. Let me just see if I can do this. So this is what you can see from Gillette's actual webpage on what that is. And I think that's why you're seeing DraftKings. I imagine this is one side of it and there's another side of it that has that lit up logo that you're seeing. But you can see it's a grill bar with an indoor-outdoor and it has the DraftKings logo, but it's called the sports zone. I don't have current information on that. I can look that up, but I think what they're showing you there is what shows from that view, but the concern is presented that if they put up on this signage that it's DraftKings 21 plus sports zone, it's going to look like it's a 21 and up venue and families can go eat there. So I think that's the consideration, but certainly again, could bring back more images if what it looks like is the issue. But as you can see, no matter where the signage is, that's going to be the issue. So that's where they're coming through with this. So to me, that's the name of the bar. What I'm seeing though underneath, I'm sorry, I have to keep going back and forth. I only have one screen here today. So I think you're seeing the backside of it, the backside view of the DraftKings sports zone. Okay, where it says to let stadium and next to the opt-in platform. You have to decide that face is out, but you enter on the other side. Yeah. So it might be that two different signages we're dealing with there that need to be treated in ways. I think so. But again, like Commissioner Hill said, I want more specifics to make sure that's accurate. Yeah, we can get that. Well, and I would go one step further, if I may. On any place where there's a digital ad or digital logo, I'm less likely to be sympathetic to what it takes to change that, given the nature of the medium. So if it is actually two different things, I would be more sympathetic to the picture that Crystal showed, but really not sympathetic at all to the digital logo that can be uploaded, I imagine. Madam Chair. Yeah. Yep, it's through you to Caitlin. So this is where I get a little bit confused with our, even our own regulation. When you're looking at the name of a facility, does that fit under our regulation? Everything else I see, I agree with does. This is the name of their bar, right? Am I wrong? Yeah, well, I don't know personally, but let's assume it is for a moment. I think if the Straf King Sports Zone is the name of the bar, I think then that would fall into one of the, again, back to the umbrella, you're no longer at the main Draft King's logo, you're at a bar logo. And so therefore it's not a sportsbook logo, it's specifically a bar or a restaurant, and you wouldn't need the 21 plus for that. That's where I would be, but the sign, again, not clear if there's one or two, the sign appears to just be the standard Draft King's, and so that could be a different situation. So I guess the request that's before us is at the backside that I see when I'm in the stadium, or is it a sign that when I'm walking into their sports bar? And I guess any clarification from that, Crystal? I can just add, if this isn't all helpful, I happen to have been there the other day, the Draft King Sports Zone is in the stadium, like you walk in, it's in the concourse with all the other restaurants and food things, and as Crystal showed you, it has the Draft King's logo, and it says Draft King Sports Zone, and that's it. You can see it in the stadium, and that's why it got flagged here, because the regs about it being, it is. If we're drawing a distinction between the fact that it's part of a restaurant, that would be different, but it's in the stadium and it's the logo, and so that's why it was flagged. The other sign, and it is hard to tell, I agree, I can't, that would be helpful to understand that the picture right below Encore Boston Harbor is unclear what that is exactly, if that's just the Draft King's logo, or if that's part of the Sports Zone, I'm not sure. Just looking at the waiver request, it starts out with saying Draft King's corporate branding, Draft King's corporate branding is currently displayed on digital signage, just outside of the Draft King Sports Zone. So to me, it is probably two different things. Right, we can get photo clarification specifics to show the difference. Can I suggest we get clarification for the October 2nd meeting and better photos, and that way we clear up the issues. Yep, I agree. Thank you, Director Ban. Commissioner... Yes, Commissioner Skinner. So could I also get some clarification from our legal team, Caitlin? As I'm looking at this photo, and I'm seeing Encore Boston Harbor Terrace, it looks like, and I know we're dealing with sports wagering regulations that are not applicable to gaming, but, and I think I might have mentioned this during the discussion about this particular regulation, should we be, and maybe this is an illegal question, maybe it's the question for commissioners to consider, should we be thinking about whether we want to do something similar on the gaming side? Just, it just seems inconsistent, as I look at this photo here, that we're looking at the logo branding for gaming and sports wagering, and we're holding one side of the house to what seems like a different standard than we're holding the other. And again, I know that this regulation speaks only to sports wagering operators, but I think that's something we should consider as a commission. So I raise that issue at the last meeting and Commissioner O'Brien, you noted that 23N has more of a expectations around advertising and branding than 23K, because this marketing has been going on since, you know, casinos opened. So, you know, if we're going to go that route, again, this is logo, you know, and I understand that maybe I'm not, I haven't persuaded folks on the passive nature of logos versus advertising. We don't include for logos all the wording that we expect on advertising. So that for me, that's a very big question. But the 21 plus right now is before us and Commissioner Skinner, we can certainly explore that, but I do know we asked that question and Commissioner O'Brien, I think that was, it was a really helpful answer to me at the time. Yeah, I just, I do recall it came up last time. I just, and you know, I just want to be comfortable. I do understand that there's a legal rationale for having two different sets of rules, but I want to make sure that I'm comfortable with that. And so yes, if we could please at some point dig into that a little bit further. I appreciate it. If I may actually, I do think there's somewhat of a solve here or I just want to be clear, while we're in public talking about this, you know, Encore Boston Harbor, MGM 10, they're all cap one sports wagering licensees. So to the extent that their general logo is being used, they cover gaming, they cover sports wagering, just like we talked about, they should probably also have that 21 plus language there. So I do think, you know, they do have the gaming piece, but they would also be covered under this sports wagering related regulation. That's based on your analysis today of this umbrella. Correct. I, commissioners, I don't know what to say, but what Councillor Monaghan just said is a suggestion that these category ones are out of compliance right now with their signage. Like I wouldn't necessarily say that to my chair, just because we don't know how recent that picture is. They may be. Well, but also we did not speak about this in the last commission meeting, yeah. We did a little bit because it was a comment about some of these derived initially exclusively from sports wagering, fantasy sports, that sort of thing. And some of them derived from brick and mortar casinos. And so some of the branding is distinct. So WinBet versus Encore Boston Harbor is very different than, you know, DraftKings slash DraftKings sportsbook. And so for me, there is a difference there that's not simply, these are Cat 1, Cat 2, and these are sports wagering. So I would actually love to have that conversation about what, if any, authority that we have to go down the road in terms of the brick and mortar, but it's 23K, it's not 23N. I know we were looking at the advertising and the impact in the regulations before sports wagering got passed last August. I know Mark Van Der Linden had been looking into that and we were just kind of diving into that area. I agree with Commissioner Schenner, I would very much like to circle back to that, but I do think this brag doesn't reach out to those necessarily, those other Cat 1, Cat 2s right now. Commissioner Maynard. I'm remembering this conversation too, and that was my memory, Commissioner O'Brien, that WinBet, Bet and GM would be different than the brick and mortar properties. I am open to revisiting that conversation, Commissioner Schenner, but I'm comfortable right now in the difference, not only because of the law, but because of this. This is in a brick and mortar casino, and so I can understand the difference between why the legislature did what they did with the law and why I can even look at it slightly different. So I just need a little help because Caitlin did give an analysis and I thought you were saying that umbrella analysis, but I'm happy to explore this more carefully, but I just wanna make sure that for our category ones they're not like right now wondering what's up. Sure, and I think maybe that, I guess it depends, it is somewhat operator specific. If Encore only uses the Encore Boston Harbor Advertisement like logo for gaming, right? And it never uses it when it's advertising for sports wagering, it can make that argument that it is not actually covering sports wagering. That is distinct from what we were talking about today where DraftKings uses the general DraftKings logo for sports wagering advertising. So it may be that Encore is very clean about how it uses its logos. And in that case, I think then the general logo wouldn't be incorporated, you just need a little bit more facts to figure that out. It's when the general logo is used frequently for the sports wagering advertising is when they sort of get brought into this reg would be my understanding. So apologies for not being as clear as I should have been at the beginning. No, no, no, really helpful, that was very helpful. Commissioner Skinner, we can explore this further, but right now what Caitlin just said is the guidance that you're giving in terms of how an entity is subject to our reg on logo only. Yeah, this particular reg which I completely appreciate, but in that gaming is 21 plus, like sports wagering. I just think we should be exploring whether the Encore Boston Harbor, not win that, but that particular logo as a gaming facility should also include that 21 plus language. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. In terms of where I was going. Yeah, I agree with you. It's a 23K analysis too, right? But I agree, yeah. So we're gonna take director Bann's suggestion. Thank you, Bruce. Anything further before we move on this for another a little bit more time for clarity pictures? Commissioner Maynard, are you all set? Okay, somebody wanna move please. Thank you. Third time charm, ready? I move that the commission in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, the commission issued a draft Kings a waiver from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 256.051 with respect to the advertising logos at Gillette Stadium as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today until October 2nd, 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general on chapter 23 in. Second. Thank you, commissioners. Any further discussion? Thank you, Caitlyn. I'm really, really helpful analysis for me. I needed that clarification. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, five zero. Thank you, everybody. And thank you, Crystal. Excellent work. Madam chair. Yes. May I request a 10 minute break, please? That sounds good. And we'll return to item 6B when we return after our 10 minute break. So we'll about 1135. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe if we could take down the screen speaker please. My apologies, commissioners. Okay. So we're returning to messages gaming commission public meeting number 480 and started at nine this morning. Get started again with our roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Excellent. Thank you, commissioner Hill. I'm here. Thank you, commissioner Skinner. Yeah. And commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Okay. Excellent. So now we just completed 6A. Thank you to Crystal. And we're going to turn to 6B. And I believe that might be you, manager interim manager, Stefan. That's right. Good morning, madam chair commissioners. I have three items for your review today. The first item is a request from our sports wager and operator fanatics for several house rule changes. For this house rule change request, I've included two items in your packet beginning on page 13. The first is a memo from our sports wagering division outlining the requested changes from fanatics. And the second is a summary of the changes supplied by fanatics, providing a little more detail, yet still in summary format. However, not including your commissioners packet, you should also have the complete red line document highlighting all requested changes. And commissioners, I know this has been asked previously as to why the substantial changes like this all at once. So after receiving this change request, I did immediately reach out to fanatics and they provided a rather clear and concise answer. Many of these requested changes provide better clarification to their customers for their general vetting rules and sports specific markets. As a newer operator in the sports wagering realm, fanatics is seeking to expand their current offerings to include additional yet approved market types and sports, such as the rugby league and Formula One races markets that they do not currently offer. Some examples of the sport specific updates include additions to their football, motor sports and table tennis rules to capture new market types they would like to offer. So for example, in their football house rules, they would like to offer additional markets for the next or current drive, such as a physical attempt, touchdown punt or other. Another example could be for baseball, they would like to offer when the first run will be scored and a change they requested to their golf rules, they would like to settle two ball vetting where a tie is not offered to settle the bet for the dead heat rules rather than void and refund the wager. Lastly, if you're flipping through the full red line change document, you may notice cricket as a large overhaul marked up section. Fanatics has yet to begin offering wagers on cricket, but they have requested several changes to ensure that they have the correct rule set when they do begin offering wagers on that sport. So to summarize, this is primarily due diligence on Fanatics part to ensure they have better clarification all around for their customers with regards to their house rules. And after a comprehensive review of all the requested changes submitted by Fanatics, the sports wagering division confirms all requirements having met under 205, the CMR 240702 and has no reservations on moving forward with approving all of these changes. Questions for Andrew. Sure, Andrew, I'm sorry, when did you send the full red line? Yeah, I'm not finding it either. Oh, I apologize. It was advised that it's not included in the packet and it was to be sent to the commissioners separately. Yeah. Sorry, I can speak to that. In the past, the full red line versions have been sent separately, which was provided a little while ago and that the memo has just the overviews. So can you just direct me, Grace, to where, because I'm just trying to search and pull it up and I'm not being successful. So maybe if you can send it to the top of my box. Yeah, I'll circulate it, just so everyone has it. Yeah. Well, I'm Commissioner Bryan. Last night when I was reviewing, I always looked for the full house rules. So I'm glad that wasn't just me. I believe this red line change document was approximately 40 pages worth of changes. Yeah, you should. Yes, and red line changes. Right, right. So again, it wasn't by just a note. I think it's okay to include it in our packet. The issue is only volume. I don't think that's a problem for us. Certainly can't be an issue around privacy issues, right? So it would just help us. No, these are public house rules, so right, no privacy issues. It was a recommendation from the, from Sterl from the original sports way during when we received all these documents. I'm sorry, I'm just pulling it up, but I will send it. No problem. No, sorry. Is it just. To make sure I wasn't missing anything. I think, I think at one point we had a 1,000, over 1,000 page packet and I think. I think that was when we were doing all the house rules. Yeah, I think so. I think Trudy managed it, you know, but it was over a thousand. So, but I appreciate you being concerned about the volume for us. Andrew, do you know what date it was sent on? I don't have to talk about it. Okay. Possibly on the 14th of last week. Yeah, I think I've got it. I have it. Of course, I just opened the attachment and not the email. That's not very helpful. All right. I found it. I'm just sending it up now. Thanks. Okay. Should be coming through any second. Like waiting for water to boil. We're all just staring at it. I found it, but it came up as the attachment only. So I couldn't forward the email to you. I wonder if we should. It's in my scent. I know it hasn't. Oh, there, there. I think it just went there. Andrew, I have a question on the cash out. The added language. Yes, it's on the first page of the red line. Right at the bottom. Cash out and then it's got the regular text and then it has the added bullet for a variety of reasons paragraph. Do you have that? Yes. It says for a variety of reasons and then friends, including but not limited to technical issues, human error, or suspicions of fraud or other improprieties or other issues outside our control week. Fanatic sportsbook cannot guarantee the availability at all times of this functionality. Can you just educate me a little bit more on that human error reference? Like I know we had this whole discussion about when they could do something on their own. Right. So that discussion we had a couple of weeks ago with the human error technical errors, that was to do with voiding of wagers. This has to do with cashing out your wager early. If there's a parlay and there's a certain lag and you just want to cash out your bets early, you may have a reduced price. So it may not be offered due to technical issues. I'm not sure what the human error side of that may be, but if there's a technical issue and the cash out functionality just does not happen to be working at the time. That's what they're saying where it may not be available. So I guess the human error is the phrase that catches me the rest of it I get. I'm a little confused on the human error, like what exactly would go wrong. That is in terms of if somebody gonna complain, they didn't do anything wrong. We can get a little more clarity on what they mean by that. Certainly. And I guess another question, is that same freeze in other people's, is this new where other people are not allowing you to cash out early? I haven't seen this language in other households yet, but it's a good thing I'll search through the other house rules and find this language as well. If it's in there for the human errors, for the cash out possibility or unavailability. Yeah, because my memory of the conversations we had earlier about that phrase is it's just a little too squishy for lack of a better word. Andrew, your memo, the background is very helpful as we scan through these. So not to put you on the spot, Andrew, but is there any other language in here that you saw for the first time with them as opposed to you've seen it before with the other licensees? As far as the fanatics, house rules, no. Again, Commissioner O'Brien, I've been with the division for a little over a month. I'm familiarizing myself with all the house rules and their change request. It appears to me that all these sports specific updates are just clarification and then additional markets that they're looking to offer. Everything has been approved by the commission. They're just looking to offer these additional types. But I will certainly follow up with this human error and hopefully maybe put the end of this commission meeting that we can come back to. So Bruce, not to put you on the spot, but nothing jumps out at you, right? It's new other than that. One can talk. Not that I saw. Okay, thanks. Commissioner has other questions for Andrew. I'm hearing none. Are you and you're still scanning? No. Okay. Commissioner Maynard, yeah, okay. With respect to Commissioner O'Brien's point, Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to hold on this or have Andrew follow up? And we can come back to a vote on this if he's able to get some clarification. This is a new routine for you, Andrew. Yeah, I was able to, I'm just reaching out to fanatics right now. So if they happen to reply with a more clear answer on the human error aspect, we can move on to the other topics and hopefully come back to this in a minute. Yes. Okay, excellent. Okay. Then we'll move to the third event, a petition for a new event. Andrew? Yep, so moving on to the second one, beginning on page 21 of your packet, have you for your review a new event proposal submitted by one of our operators, DraftKings. DraftKings has submitted a petition for a new event requesting the sport highlight be added as a new section of our event catalog, specifically the World Highly League and only matches that are part of the battle court competitions. And I'll define all of that momentarily. I understand this sport highlight has been brought forward to the commission a few times in the past, most recently during the May 8th commission meeting where after some discussion, it was not brought forward to a vote. Today, I would like to present the changes since that last petition and provide some updates, clarity and some useful information. I'll start by giving a brief overview of the current state of highlight for those who are unaware of the league and the sport overall. In 2018, Magic City Highly rebranded to World Highly League shortly thereafter in 2021, World Highly League partnered with US Integrity to ensure continued compliance to monitor its matches for integrity issues. And this could be anything from irregular vetting patterns to suspected cheating or any other scandalous incidents. Since that partnership in 2021, over 1,000 highlight matches have been played with zero integrity alerts from US Integrity or from the state of Florida, the state where all the World Highly League matches are played and where all players are licensed. Furthermore, over 4,000 matches have been played since that 2018 rebranding with zero integrity issues reported to the league or to the state of Florida. Now, to get into the specifics World Highly League offers a specific format of matches called battlecourt. This specific type of match offers head-to-head matches with a team concept. And this is certainly a different kind of play than the paramutual highlight activity that had traditionally been operated. Battlecourt is played between two singles players or two doubles pairings, think tennis for example. And battlecourt matches are composed of sets played to six points. The first player or team to win two sets is declared the winner of the match. The player or team winning the point retains the serve within the set while the player or team losing the prior set is designated to serve first and the next set. The outcome of all battlecourt matches are provided by the referees to the league officials and all battlecourt results are posted to their official website. And I believe they may live stream the battlecourt matches on their website to an ESPN channel, perhaps ESPN3 and other outlets. For specifics on wagering options, the proposed wagering on highlight is not based on the paramutual format, but rather with a limited scope of available wagers, such as pre-match individual sets and individual points. And this was all submitted by DraftKings as part of their proposed house rules for the sport as well as in the petition, which begins on page 23 of your packet. Currently, this form of highlight battlecourt competitions and its proposed limited wagering options is approved for wagering in the 10 jurisdictions of Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. DraftKings has submitted the official battlecourt league rules as part of this petition and the sports wagering division has reviewed the full rules set for the battlecourt league. These rules are also posted online to their official website and some of which I just covered regarding the point set and match structure. DraftKings has also submitted the petition form drafting proposed house rules based on that limited scope of wagering options and has answered every applicable question. DraftKings via world highlight league has also submitted supplemental information on how its players, league officials and referees are required to pass an FBI background check and drug test before being issued a state license from the state of Florida. Additionally, all players, referees and league officials as well as their immediate household members are prohibited from wagering on highlight in any fashion. Related to that, the highlight world league holds seasonal meetings twice a year before each new season begins with their players, officials and referees to train or retrain them on the importance of the wagering prohibition and overall league integrity policies. These trainings are conducted in-house by their chairperson and their director of communications. Lastly, within your memo, I have provided a link to the world highlight league website and just a reminder, DraftKings is only proposing matches which are part of the battle court competitions and the current battle court season, which I believe is in their third season starts or started this past month on September 8th and will conclude with the playoffs beginning on December 11th and a championship match scheduled for December 15th. In conclusion, the sports wagering division confirms all requirements have been met under 205, the CMR 24703 and it's found the operator DraftKings has answered all of the applicable questions on the petition form. The operator has informed the world highlight league they are making this request to the Massachusetts gaming commission and DraftKings has received approval by the world highlight league chairperson to submit wagering applications and all of jurisdictions in which it operates. And speaking of the chairperson, I believe we may also have world highlight league chairperson Scott Savin on the meeting if needed to answer any additional questions. Madam chair. Thank you, Mr. Savin is available. It's also a video if you Google, you'll find a good video of game at play. Commissure has questions for Andrew and if necessary, we'll bring in Mr. Savin. I had a couple of them, Madam chair. You mentioned that the format, it looks like there's different formats. Some of these are paramutual and some are not. And so they're asking obviously for the non-paramutual format to be part of the book. You gave the stats since they've engaged US integrity. How many matches did you say had been played since engaging US integrity? I've been told a little over a thousand matches since that partnership in 2021, correct? Okay, that's what I was asking you for. So they rebranded in 2018 and then they started this battle court format, what in 2020 or 2021? I'm sure when the battle court format started, I don't know if that started with the rebranding but since 2021, since that partnership with US integrity, over a thousand battle court matches have been played. I'm sure the exact start date of the battle court though. And then in terms of the ability to place bets on this, it's still draft kings or vet rivers, right? I believe so, yes. Okay. And then of a question about the application itself, draft kings said they did not reach out to a players association. Is there no players association currently active or is there one and they did not reach out? That's a very good question. I don't know if that's something that Mr. Savin you could answer for a players association. Absolutely, there's no players association. The players are all under contract to the league. So the league essentially functions as the players association. Okay. And we've been provided that contract and that's where I stated the prohibition to sports wagering and their integrity policies. Okay. Questions for Mr. Savin. We appreciate you being here. Madam chair. Yes. I have a curiosity question more than I have a substance question. Congrats to what's before us. Mr. Savin, can you just elaborate a little bit more about what the players go through and what your staff goes through in terms of making this league and its integrity, the best that it can be. I heard that at the beginning of each season, you bring your folks in and you do some type of training, I assume. Yes, sir, far more than that. All of our players are licensed by the state of Florida. So they all undergo an FBI background check and drug tests and they have to be licensed by the state before they're allowed to be contracted by the league. Then they go through training twice a year before each season begins, specifically on how to handle themselves on and off the court, integrity and the wagering prohibition. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I do have a comment in regards to what's in front of us, madam chair. I was one of the ones who was very reluctant to agree to allow this sport to be part of the catalog early on in our getting the industry up and running. However, after hearing Andrew and Scott today, I feel that the integrity issues that I had concerns with have been addressed and I would feel very comfortable allowing this sport to be added to the catalog or draftings. Any further follow-up? Michelle Bryan, Lainian? No, I was the same mind of Commissioner Hill. I still have a concern in that, you know, we talked about adding pickleball in and then there was a lot of public comment on the fact that the players felt like they weren't consulted. They had some concerns about it, the lower pay, et cetera. I don't know what the scale of pay is for these players. There is no players association. It's the one hesitancy I have is that I'd hate to move on something and then have another group of players come out and say that they had concerns about something having to do with that. But- The pay structures are in the contract that was provided to us. I don't know if that's confidential information on a contract or not. The pay structure was provided to us. Do we require with this contact with the players? I know we've now clarified that rules have to be submitted and they were here. Well, we asked for the contact with the players association, but that's why I clarified there is no- Right. Independent association to contact. So, right. Can I just get a little further clarification, Mr. Savin? Since 2018, am I right that there's been 4,000 matches without integrity issues, but the 1,000 is with respect to your full rebranding? What's the distinction? The only distinction is that we brought US integrity on board in 2021. Before that, we had the auspices of the state of Florida. They have a presence at all of our matches either in person or via live stream, but then we thought it made sense when we went to this new battle court format to also bring in US integrity. Yeah. So, Mr. Savin, that may answer Commissioner O'Brien's question of when the battle court matches began. Was that in 2021 with that partnership with US integrity? That's correct. Not sure it's in my lane, but that ball lips around at 150 miles an hour and they don't have any protective gear. So, it's kind of a crazy sport. But the matches and the scoring really resemble tennis now for me to be practical about it, right? It's similar. Yeah, it's a pattern, but after tennis, yes. That happened. Commissioners, other questions for Mr. Savin or Andrew? Andrew, you are saying that every, that the reg has been fully met and you are not highlighting any concerns. Correct. Correct. Well, after our division's done our research, after speaking with Mr. Savin, after speaking with DraftKings, we feel comfortable adding this. Well, I'm likely to join Commissioner Hill. I did watch the video last night and it's on this battle court. And so it's really narrowed and you narrowed it to the jurisdiction of Florida. So in many ways we're relying on our colleagues in Florida, in a sense. Commissioners, not ready to move today. More questions and more information needed. I'm comfortable moving forward right now, but if my fellow commissioners are not, then I would hold. We're just not hearing from them quite yet. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner O'Brien. Questions for Andrew or questions for Mr. Savin? No questions. Okay. Yeah, my only, like I said, my only concern is making sure that there's nothing, the players have concerns about in doing this. Just given the pickleball experience, that's my only hesitation. And I realized there's no formal, it's not a deficiency to contact a group. No such group exists. And I don't know if there's really a mechanism, given that they're under contract. I don't even know that there is a mechanism to ask them to speak to us. So, Commissioner Hill, do you want to move? You want to try it out? I do. I move that the commission amend the official catalog of events and wages to include highlight, as included in the commissioners' packet, and discussed here today. Backend. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Okay. Any further discussion? Any further questions? We have visited this topic a couple of times, but it seems as though it's quite a different proposal. Okay. Commissioner Bryant, are you thinking how you could address your issue down the road? Yeah, I mean, I was wondering if I could do a friendly amendment just offering up the opportunity for anybody to give comment on this. I'm an eye other than I do want an avenue for any player input. I'd be willing to have that added to the motion, of course. Any clear feedback to be submitted to our Sports Waijering Division, other than that, if that's a friendly amendment that's accepted and seconded, I would be an eye. And that would be, they could still go ahead and put it in there. Right. Because, right, we can always act, right? Right. Just more of a more proactive reach out for feedback as opposed to passive. Excellent. Thank you. And that friendly amendment was accepted, Commissioner Hill. It was accepted. And I believe we need Commissioner Skinner to second that. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Okay. So, Commissioner O'Brien and I. I. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. I. Commissioner Skinner. I. Commissioner Maynard. I. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you, Andrew. And thank you, Mr. Savin. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay. Thanks, Scott. Now on to 6-D. Certainly. I did receive an answer from Fanatics if we want to go back to their house rules. Sure. Sure. So Fanatics is okay with removing the reference to human error. After discussions with their team, they believe that any impacts to the cash out functionality will be system based only and are covered under technical issues. So, they're okay to remove that human error language completely out of those cash out issues. That helpful, Commissioner O'Brien. Yes, right? Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, with that amendment, that amendment reflected in this discussion, are we prepared to move on that? Commissioner Hill, you're nodding your head. I'll turn to you. I move that the commission approve the amendments to the house rule submitted by the category three sports wagering operator, FBG, Enterprise, OpCo, LLC doing business as Fanatics as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today in regards to further, in regards to removing the human error language that has been spoken about during today's discussion. Second. Thank you. Any further edits or questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, five, zero. And thank you to Fanatics for its responsiveness. And Andrew, thank you. All right. 60, Andrew. Okay. Last one beginning on page 28 of your packet. And this may be a first for the commission, but this is a request from Penn Sports Interactive PSI. They were requesting the commission authorized the voiding of wagers after becoming aware of wagers placed on markets on outcomes, which had already concluded. Pursuant to 205CMR 23835 section two, a sports wagering operator may request the commission authorized the cancellation or voiding of all wagers of a specific type kind or subject. Under section four, the commission shall issue a written order granting or denying the request to cancel or avoid the wager. In your packet, we had prepared a brief memo summarizing the incident. And the incident itself is fairly technical in nature. So we do also have our gaming technical compliance manager, Christian Taveras, with us to help answer any of those technical related questions. But as the incident goes on Sundays, September 17th at approximately 7pm Eastern time, PSI became aware of wagers that had been placed on NFL player prop markets on outcomes, which had already concluded in the New York Giants versus Arizona Cardinals football game. A total of 10 different market types with 14 different market names were left open for approximately 90 minutes after the outcome had concluded. A total of 257 wagers were placed on these impacted markets by a total of 59 customers for a grand total of $47,759.94. PSI did provide the division a full report, as well as a complete wager breakdown as part of this incident. And this is where it can get into some of the technical aspects, but PSI identified the primary cause of the issue to occur from a technical data breakdown with one of their OZ providers, Switch Analytics. To summarize this incident on the 17th, there was an issue with the NFL half SAC statistic, which could not be processed by PSI system, which was configured to receive only whole numbers at the time. And as stated by PSI, this issue occurred after a release or update to their sportsbook trading software. This update is you caused other player prop markets to remain open when they should have been closed. In addition to the primary cause, PSI also identified a secondary issue which delayed the identification of the incident. On the 17th at approximately 4.15 p.m. Eastern time, just before a round kickoff of the afternoon NFL games, PSI Sports Trading Platform experienced a significant increase in activity, which created latency in certain monitoring displays. Only once the latency issue was resolved was PSI able to confirm the wagering anomalies on the event. The sports wagering division was made aware of this incident at approximately 11.20 a.m. on Monday the 18th and was provided a full detailed report at approximately 11 a.m. on Wednesday the 20th. Further investigation found the NFL half SAC statistic issue did not have an effect on any other NFL game, only the Giants-Carnals game. To remediate the issue, an emergency release has been scheduled to be deployed this week, which will correct the Switch Analytics issue in order to successfully process all player prop market updates and values. Furthermore, PSI will introduce system performance enhancements to address the display monitoring latency. In conclusion, the sports wagering division has reviewed the entire incident reported by PSI and confirms all requirements having met pursuant to 205 CMR 23835 section 2 and is no reservations about moving forward and processing this request to avoid all affected wagers. Bruce, I don't know if you have anything else to add, but again, we do have Christian, I see he's popped up here. On the technical issues, which was mostly the cause of this, Christian would be the better person to respond to your technical questions. This came in yesterday. I have a question. Christian, how is it that the technical issue is only able to affect that one game? Could you explain that just a little bit more? I'm not going to pretend to understand the technical issue on an expert level, but how was it isolated to just that one game? From the explanation that we received from PSI, they explained that one prop bet had the fraction which was what caused their system to miss that prop bet and closing it out after the game was completed. I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Christian? Their system can only process whole numbers when it comes to that prop bet regarding the, I guess in this case, the SAC statistic, and that came in with a fraction number. The SAC was a half SAC instead of a whole number, so it didn't recognize it. That was the only prop bet that had that fraction number. Okay, and so presumably, that was the only game that had that fraction, and once they identified the issue, they ensured that they didn't include that in any other prop bets for other games. Is that, am I understanding they have to do an emergency change that's still pending? Yeah, so I'm still confused as to, I don't know that, and if you can't fully answer it, that's fine, maybe we should get PSI here at some point, but I'm still trying to understand how this was limited. I understand the fraction issue, but how was this limited if they have not corrected the issue to the extent that they haven't deployed that fix? How was this limited to just one game, and really the bigger question is, can we be assured that it's just this one game at this time? I don't think that involved other half SACs in other games, they were getting whole numbers for those kind of wagers. So this was the only game that had a half SAC recorded, the rest were coming in as full numbers, so it did close off the betting for them. Okay, so are we looking at basically a manual pick in the meantime, you know, pending the emergency deployment, so don't include those half SACs for any of the games going forward so that this doesn't happen again, and then permanently the deployment will fix the issue so that they can include those half SACs. That's what they've indicated. All right, that makes sense then. I had another question about communication to patrons, so real time, do we have any sense of what the, and folks who wagered on that game, what communication they received from PSI when they tried to collect on their winnings? Yeah, they've been told that they're temporarily on hold, that those wagers, those 250 wagers by those 59 customers, though all those wagers are temporarily on hold by PSI. And was that in writing or how was that communication made, do we know? Through their account, they're told that that's on hold. Okay, and the 257 wagers placed by 59 individuals and all of those wagers were placed after the game, so there's no question as to whether they were legitimate wagers placed, whether the result was known. These are 100% wagers that were placed after the game result was made. They were placed when you would have known what the outcome was. Okay. PSI kind of put it in almost casino terms where you're placing your chips on every lat table after you already know what the number is on the wheel. Yeah, no, I get it. I just wanted to be sure that the numbers here are unequivocally those that were placed after the game. We have gotten about three or four patron complaints filed that, you know, they're not being paid at this point on that, and that's it at this point. So, Director Bann, you're probably referring then to the fact that the operators do have to come to us. Yes. An affirmative voiding. Yes. And so, you know, we're lucky we're nimble, but of course it's a day or two weeks, right? It impacts the patrons. That's why I try to get it on the agenda as quickly as possible. Yeah. You were able to do that. No problem. Madam Chair. Yes. I have a technical question, I think, for questions. So when the bets were taking, I'm assuming that there is a time stamp somewhere that when the bet was taken and when the game ended. Okay. It's not necessarily the ending of the game, right? Director Bann, is it because it was the ending of the Can you repeat that, Madam Chair? I'm not the expert. I'm hoping I'm getting this right, Director Bann, but it's not all at the end of the game. Yeah. I'm sorry I won the game. I'm not certain when the game concluded, but the first wager that they're asking to avoid the time stamp on that wager is 6.02. So almost two hours after kickoff? Gotcha. So many of those market types would have already been concluded. Yeah. So you don't have any concerns about how the licensee responded. It was timely. They met the requirements of the regulation and informing us. Now you're before us because we have to affirmatively act on this. Correct. So I guess the question would be, Commissioner, do you have any concerns about this request? Commissioner Skinner, I'm sure you're getting at the issue around, is it going to happen again, right? And that's, I think... Yeah, and it sounds like, and you know, I'd want to know if the emergency deployment was made this week. I mean, it would say the week of the 18th without a date starting, but that might be good for the Sports Wagering Division to follow up on to confirm that it actually took place and corrected the issue. Yeah. I would, if it hasn't been fixed, I would suggest that we don't allow them to take any of those kind of wagers until it's corrected. Yes. I can confirm it has not been fixed yet. Yeah. It has not been fixed. We do have a game tonight. So that hasn't been fixed on their system. That doesn't mean that they don't have ways of manually removing those profits in the meantime. Yes. Right. And that's what I heard in your report, right? And then Drew and Christian, that there is a manual fix. Yes. Correct. So Director Bann, you're throwing out the idea that we just shut down this kind of a bet until it's fixed. Commissioner Skinner? From my perspective, I mean, it seems that PSI knows what the risks are in that manual monitoring of this matter. And so I think it's at their discretion whether they want to offer these kinds of bets. But I think if we have another request of this kind before us, I don't know that I'll be sympathetic to the request. So that's just the way I look at it at this time. I think it's more of PSI proceeding at their own risk at this point. I can't be confident that the manual process is going to do the trip for tonight and beyond until the deployment is issued. Commissioner, is there more questions? I would like to offer a little bit more backstory or context regarding because PSI didn't highlight that this was related to a release that they performed on the 15th. So the operators all do internal testing and they release the updates without going through a test lab. But they are required by the regulations to do a test lab certification annually. So this release was tested by their developers, not by a test lab that helps. So they could do future releases where it's not certified yet, but it will be certified based on the annual requirement. That is helpful, Christian. And commissioners, further questions or clarifications needed? No. I think this worked well in terms of timing pretty well. I do wonder if we need to revisit this issue in terms of timing and convening the commission to act on these. I know that we've retained a lot of that discretion and for good reasons, but I think it might be something we could think about. Maybe as Director Bannon in the Sports Widering Division learns and also maybe speaks with those jurisdictions. If many adopt our approach, then probably it's not cumbersome to cumbersome. I do have the patron's interest mind here. Okay. Commissioner Hill. I'm going to attempt to do this motion. So in accordance with 205CMR 238.352, I move that the commission authorize the cancellation of wagers that had been placed on NFL player prop markets on outcomes that had already concluded in the New York Giants versus Arizona Cardinals NFL game that took place on September 17, 2023, with Penn Sports Interactive. Todd, how'd I do? Any questions or edits on that, Councillor Grosman? Do you need to? Sounded good to me, Commissioner Hill. Can I have a second? Is that Commissioner Skinner? You're on mute, so I couldn't read your lips. But Commissioner Hill's made a motion. There must be some questions or concerns for none of you. I don't have any questions or concerns, but I want to give my fellow commissioners the opportunity to have anything addressed that they need to. Commissioners, I don't know if this is helpful, but we just received a word from PSI's compliance that the emergency release will be deployed before tonight's Thursday night. Excellent. In that case, I'm happy to second, not happy, but I will second the motion. Questions, edits. Okay, I'll call the question. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you. A few questions that we can tackle down the road. I know that legal's participating, so I appreciate keeping track of those issues. Director Band. Thank you all for the time today. Yeah, thank you, and thank you to Crystal and thank you to Andrew, both managers who are doing outstanding work, and thank you, Director Band. All right. We have one item that is sports wagering related, but it's really under legal, so I'll turn to General Counsel Grossman and Christian Taveras, please. Well, thank you. Again, we're going to go right over to our own qualified technical expert, Christian Taveras, to walk through this one. Christian, when you're ready. All right. Thank you, Todd. I would like to read from the memo if that's okay. So I'll start off with the executive summary. So under 205 CMR 243.01 X2, an independent technical expert must meet certain requirements to qualify as an independent technical expert. The technical expert shall have relevant education background or in other ways provide relevant qualifications in assessing event wagering systems. B, obtain and maintain certifications sufficient to demonstrate proficiency and expertise as a network penetration tester by recognized certification boards, either nationally or internationally. C, have at least five years experience performing technical security control audits on event wagering systems and the need any other qualifications as prescribed by the commission or its designate. We have a form or request form that elicits that information and applicant has submitted that form and the MGCIT department has reviewed that information. The document does have what we believe is sensitive information. So we would like not to share it publicly, but we have shared it with you. We have verified the information provided by looking up the certifications and their company website and also contacted their reference. And based on our assessment of all the requirements, we feel that it meets the requirements on the 205CMR 243.01 X2 and there are no reservations moving forward. At this time, I can take any questions. Commissioners. I should mention, sorry, the applicant is TBG securities and they're the ones that perform the technical security control audit for draft teams. Christian and Todd, do you have any concerns? Todd? No concerns. Christian, do you know if this vendor has been licensed yet with the commission? Yes, I confirmed the licensing department that they are licensed. Okay. Madam Chair, I move, sorry, in accordance with 205CMR 243.01 X, I move that the commission approve TBG securities as a qualified independent technical expert as discussed here today. I have a second. Second. Thanks, Commissioner Hill. Okay. Commissioner, is there any further questions or edits for Christian and Todd on this designation? Okay. Commissioner Brown. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes, five, zero. Excellent work. Thank you, Christian, and thank you, Todd. It is now 1236 commissioners. Is it time for us to take a lunch break or do we want to start with Joe Nell? Chief Blaney has appeared. He's in the house. He's in the house. Yes. What's the ETA for Joe's topic? We booked an hour for this, and I think it will probably take every minute of that. I would think lunch beforehand. Okay. Let's reconvene then at 10 after 1, everyone. That works for you? Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Good work, everyone. David, if we could take down the screen, please. Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. Here we go. Okay. We're holding this meeting of the Gaming Commission virtually, so we'll do a roll call. Good afternoon, Commissioner Brown. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Okay. We'll get started. It's a reconvening of public meeting number 480, and we started at nine, and we are continuing through. We are at item eight, and we have our continuing discussion on some policy issues around the community mitigation, but I think many of us have had the benefit of a two by two, Joe. Yes, I think everyone did. Yes. Great. So your memo is on page 32, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay. Everybody's had a chance to read it probably a couple of times. So we're looking forward to the discussion. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. So today we're continuing our discussions on the revamping of the community mitigation fund. As we left it last month when we talked, we were going to have a number of additional meetings, which we have done. We just had our two local community mitigation advisory committees as well as our subcommittee meetings. So they have seen these questions that we have in front of you. So the two items that we're going to talk about today are the policy questions, which is the first memo, and then the second memo in your packet is regarding the formula for distributing the funds to communities. So with that, I'll dive right in because there is a lot of ground to cover here. So as you know, we're proposing to change the program here for the communities into a block grant program. And then for the workforce development, it would still be a competitive program with one grant in the east, one in the west. And then a third piece of this would be some set-asides for state and county agencies, your more regional agencies that are eligible to participate in our program. So question number one for the commission is, do we still want to pursue this? We've heard nothing but good things so far from our communities. They're all very excited about this and think it's a good way to go. We've got a couple of, that actually is one set of written comments in as of today. So with that, so I guess I'll just as backing up, I think with each of these questions, I think on the agenda, it called for a vote. We don't really need a vote on these. We're just trying to get the sense of the commission. And once we do that, we'll guide us in how to develop our guidelines and which will ultimately be voted by the commission. So on this first question, I guess the question is, do you want us to still continue on down this road? Or should we stop and just do it as we have been doing it? I've been able to sit through some of the meetings that Joe and Lily and Mary have had. And it's been very, very positive moving forward in this direction. So I would urge the commission to continue down this road. Okay. Anybody disagree with that recommendation? I'm seeing no disagreement. Absolutely. All right. So moving on to the second question. This is one that has, of course, come up multiple times over the years, which is the funding of the Handen Sheriff's Office lease assistance. This is regarding the Western Mass Alcohol Recovery Center that was located in the footprint of where MGM Springfield wound up being. It had to be relocated. We have been helping them offset their increased cost due to this new location. They have a 10-year lease on this site, and we have been providing them funds for eight years at this point. And the question that we have is whether or not we want to continue to fund this or do we want to... There's a few options. We could just continue funding it when they come in. We could sunset this over a number of years. We could say it could be 400 and 300 and 200 and 100 or something like that. We could fund the last two years of the grant at the current level, or finally we could just say we think that we've done enough at this point and just sort of cut off funding going forward. I think the notion is in these discussions that we've had is that the commissioners always felt that at some point we've probably done our fair share in mitigating this impact. But the question has always been what is that and where does that end? And our local community mitigation advisory committees, when we talked about this, I would say the consensus of those folks was that fund this thing for two more years, it will go out to the end of the 10-year lease and then saying that that's it. So those were the suggestions from both the Region A and Region B advisory committees. And with that, we don't really have a recommendation on this, but I think it's one of those things that we do need to deal with for us to effectively develop our guidelines for next year. Joe? Yes? Does the Hampton County Sheriff's Office have to come and submit an application each year for these funds? Yes, they do. Okay. And so have we solicited a comment from them on this proposal? Okay. And my question then is should we? I mean, I'd like to see... Well, I mean, their comments are we want the money as long as you're going to give us the money. Okay. You know, that has been there. Initially, we funded them for five years, and at the end of five years, they said, how about five more years? So I don't think there would be much change in that opinion of the Sheriff's Office. No, the only thing I would add, though, is we shifted to an annual basis, and we did ask some questions about exactly when was that lease going to run out? Not the one they have now, but the one that they had to vacate the premises for. And I think we might want to reiterate that we would want them to supply as much documentation as possible. And also, I think we mentioned this the last time where they don't go to seek funds from any other source. They put their budget forward as if they're going to get these monies from us. And I was interested in them either explaining why that was or trying to get funds some other way, particularly if two years from now, we have a hard stop and say, you know, we're not doing it anymore. I know that's been messaged to them through the meetings, but that might be worth specifically having the team message them to say, you know, this not looking for money elsewhere and then coming to us and saying, well, but I need it for my budget. Addressing that and then addressing the fact that in two years it may be that we say, you know, it's been 10 years of impact and we don't see it anymore. Yeah, that's where I fall to when I heard about this for the first time last year, I think, Joe, you and your team acknowledge that we were getting further and further away as the years go on from, you know, related impact. And so at this point, I can't, I can't see continuing with the funding, but I also would like to have the Camden Sheriff's Department weaned off, right? So not to pull the plug completely, or who rubbed completely from under them, but to sunset these funds. And one of the options you have listed here is to fund the remainder of the lease term for this 10 year period. And so I think there's a reference to two years. That's what sounds reasonable to me. I agree with the Senate. Yeah, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you. I agree with the sediments of Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner on this issue. Okay. So, so am I hearing that sort of a consensus on the two years? Okay. So actually, if I could just clarify, I'm not saying they should get two years. That would be my side window. I think it's fine for them to come back this year and next year and ask. But again, I would want to see the effort made to see where the other funds are, et cetera. And, you know, part of that is forcing them to look at the future. As Commissioner Skinner said, I mean, I don't want to be seen as pulling the rug out from underneath them, but now would be the time that maybe they look for funding elsewhere. Maybe they don't need both years from us. So now would be the time to start asking those questions even more. So I think what we will do then is we will write the guidelines as them being an eligible entity to come in for funds. I think, do we want to cap it at the 400 that they've been getting? I mean, that's typically been what it has been. So I don't see why it would be different. Let's see overall costs. Their lease, well, I'm trying to remember what the overall cost is, but their lease cost was up by $600,000 over their original one. So we're not offsetting the entire amount of it. We've been offsetting the entire amount of it. Right. And then the second one was the same. You know, initially they asked for $2 million and we said, no, you know, you can have, we'll give you $2 million, but we'll give it to you $400,000 a year and you have to come in and apply for it every year. And then after that five-year period, we said, no, you're just an eligible entity like anyone else and you can come in and ask for the money. And now we're saying that this is going to be sort of one of those set-asides. We need to make sure we spell it out in the guidelines. And I think to your point, Commissioner O'Brien, we can be a little more specific in our guidelines of what information we need from these folks in order to approve any application. And we can work on that in the next few weeks while we're crafting guidelines. I guess I'd be clear that we fully support the Sheriff's Office, but I guess what would be really important is to understand if we don't do this for funding because it has been such a long time, what's the impact to them? What other efforts have they made to get other funding to Commissioner O'Brien's point? But they listen to this, I'm sure, or they go to the tape afterwards, but it has been an issue that gets raised every year, right? Right. I mean, it got raised initially and then after the first five-year period it was up, we've been discussing this each year as a policy question. And again, it just becomes a little bit more critical this year because the way it's being funded is a little bit different. Okay, well, I think we have what we need on that one to start moving ahead with our draft guidelines and obviously there'll be a deep review of those guidelines as well by the Commissioner. We can look at this a little bit more. Okay, so the next one is, the question is, does the Commission want to use previously unexpended funds to finance the workforce grants and the set-aside grants? So in this case, we do have some significant funds that remain in the CFS unexpended, in the CMF, unexpended. And most of those unexpended funds were generated out of the Region A facility. Now, what we were proposing here is, again, we were proposing to take these unexpended funds and pull them aside and kind of a separate bucket and use those to fund the workforce grants and these set-asides that we've been talking about, and we'll talk about them a little bit more later as well. And in doing that, we would be able to sort of spend down these funds over the next several years. The one thing with that, and then all of the new monies that are generated by the program would go, the money generated in Region A would stay in Region B, Region A, the money generated in Region B would stay in Region B. But initially, the Commission agreed that they would keep the Region A monies in Region A and the Region B monies in Region B. And in doing this, if we pull these monies aside and put them in kind of a bucket that could be spent in either Region, that does not really comply with that earlier agreement. Now, the way that we were looking at it as our team was saying, this is kind of a one-time effort to bring the expenditure of the program more in line with available revenues. And we're revamping this whole thing. And then going forward, we would be able to sort of reduce down these unexpended funds and bring the program into more balance. Now, when we brought this in front of our local community mitigation advisory committees, we got significant pushback on this, particularly from Region A. Now, as we said, most of those unexpended funds lie within Region A. And the communities were saying, hey, this was kind of our agreement. And we think that the monies would be better off staying within the Region, going to the communities within the Region, and so on. So, I mean, the Commission has always taken the advice of the advisory committees very seriously and I think should take it very seriously here as well. You know, our team's perspective is that this kind of solves the bigger issue that we have with the program kind of elegantly and takes care of it over a number of years. If the Commission were to not do that, we're not to take these monies and put them in sort of a separate pocket and fund it as we have been. There are still some unexpended funds from the Western Region and we think, and actually our revenues from the Western Region, from both regions actually are coming in a little bit higher than what we had estimated earlier. So, there may be some additional funds there. You know, the thought is that we could probably get through one more year of keeping the monies in the East and keeping the monies in the West and to be able to pay all of these set-asides. And one of the things that the Commission could consider is saying, all right, sort of a compromise, we'll absolutely use all of the unexpended funds in Region B first. We'll spend all of those down and then we'd only take any monies out of this larger bucket on an as-needed basis. We don't know exactly what's going to happen this. We're saying that we're going to put money out to every community, maybe not every community comes in for them and if they don't, they would be forfeiting that. So, I think the idea here would be is that we would try to keep all of the expenditures within the Region to the greatest extent possible and if we had to, for the first year, take some monies, we would do that and then kind of reevaluate next year and see where things kind of shook out in the first year to see if that makes sense. So, I think on this, we don't necessarily have to come to an agreement today on this exactly. I mean, we can come back with, you know, this kind of came up just a couple of days ago and we've been thinking about it, but we haven't really formulated sort of an alternative, if you will, to consider. So, if you would like, you know, we could come back with some options that might better address the concerns of the LCMAC or we could just sort of move ahead as proposed and kind of come out with the draft guidelines and see where that falls out. So, this one, as I think when you were briefed, I said this might be one of the more controversial items and sure enough, it has proven to be that. But with that, I will open it up for questions. Is there anything more about what you mean when you say program set-asides? So, what we're saying is that, you know, the program set-asides are, you know, are for the workforce grants, for the grants for the hand in sheriff, for the DA's offices, and then we're also talking later on, we'll be talking about one more set-aside for the regional planning agencies. So, these are those sort of county-wide, region-wide entities that are eligible for the Community Mitigation Fund, but they don't really sort of fit into that block grant model. So, right now in these set-asides, the western region pays, you know, right now, they've been doing $400,000 for the sheriff's office. They've been doing $500,000 in workforce and $75,000 for the DA's office. So, right now, the expenditures out west are about $975,000 a year. And we probably have that amount of money to cover, well, we do have that amount of money to cover next year. But we are also talking about expanding these a little bit by increasing workforce amounts and also doing a set-aside for the regional planning agencies, which would bring up the set-asides out west to about $1.5 million, but around $1.5 million. And in that case, we wouldn't have quite enough to cover that if everybody came in for all of the money that we're, you know, that we're proposing to put up. Okay, so any other thoughts on this? Is this something that you'd like, I mean, do we want to move ahead with what we proposed or do we want to, do you want more information regarding this or? Commissioner Hill. I did hear from those that were in attendance, Joe, as we all did. And yes, there was some apprehension, but I would like to see us move forward with what's been proposed by you folks. This is a work in progress. If and when guidelines come out that it's so overwhelmingly against it, we can come back and we can address it at that time. But I at this point would like to see us move forward with what has been proposed. I think it's a good idea. And if I was sitting in the chair in either, you know, A or B, I too would not want to see monies leave. That's their job. That's what they propose and that's advocate for. I get that. But sitting in this chair, I have to look at the entirety of the program. And I think I think what you are proposed is actually very appropriate. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Maynard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, Joe, I agree with what Commissioner Hill just said. And we've had a conversation. You, Lily, Mary, myself. I think having the discretion to do something and doing something is two different things. And so I would like the commission to have the discretion to be able to move the money around. But it's my intention, and I'll state it here publicly on the record, to keep the monies in the region. But we don't know what Rockstar project is going to come up or come out that we could potentially do a lot of good in. And I've also said this to you, Joe, my intention would be in any future years to make, you know, to make the other region whole. If we ever did have to go down that road again, my hope is that we don't. And it sounds like we may never. But that's kind of where I'm coming at it. I like that, Commissioner Maynard. I guess it is such a shift, right, Joe? It is a shift. And I guess the question is, you know, what's the motivating factor? I like the discretion, right? Yeah, I mean, obviously, what we're doing is a is a sea change for this program. There's no question about it. And, you know, our thought was that this helps solve some of the problems within the program over a longer period of time. I mean, you know, we could try to solve this problem each year, close the gap by doing a little bit of this or a little bit of that or, you know, sort of, you know, working around the edges. But this is, you know, from my perspective, this is a better way to do it. I fully understand the issues that the folks in the regions have. I absolutely do. But we are sort of up against, you know, some stuff that we really have to deal with. So am I hearing then the consensus to sort of go ahead with the program that we've done? I mean, we still are going to get more public input. We're going to have a public hearing. We're going to do a bunch of, you know, a bunch of things here. So we will certainly hear from people more about this. And look, if the commission even down the road decides that they want to pivot on this, we can do that. This is not the end. And the statute doesn't give us any guidance on that. No, the statute, this was not something, the statute does not recognize any differences between regions A, B, C category two. There's no, there's nothing in there that says that this needs to be done. This was just one of those things where we talked to our advisory committees and both of them are saying, no, we really want the money to stay within the regions and then we fully understand why. But again, these, they are advisory committees and we've always, you know, took their concerns very seriously. But, you know, sometimes the commission may have to take a position that is contrary to that. Okay, so I guess on that we will proceed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Joe. I'm not, I'm not prepared to fully support this proposal. So I just, I want to make, I want to understand what Joe's takeaway is from this discussion. I understand that the objective is to kind of chip away at the surplus over a number of years, but I'd want to have some historical information as to what the awards have been on these program set-asides and the workforce development grants because I think there's, you know, more than one way to achieve the objective. And I would like us to be a bit more creative about how we use these funds. I like the discretionary element. So I support that component, but I do, I would like to understand, you know, what that kind of a review would look like. So I'm open to hearing more on this particular item. Well, what I think we can do is, you know, we will, we will craft the draft guidelines based on this proposal, but in parallel to that, I think we can certainly look at what some of the other options are. And then, you know, if we decide that we want to do something a little bit different, we'll have some, some things to look at and some things to, you know. Joe, I just want to make sure I'm reading the room correctly. Commissioners, do we, do we want to make sure Joe is efficient? Do we feel that we go with the proposal as crafted now, or do you want to have some of that discretionary language written in? We just going to wait that out. My hope would be that we just continue down the road. And when we, when we have more discussions with our advisory committee and others, if we see something that is over glaring that we don't like, we can, I think Joe said, pivot and either stop it in its tracks or bear in a different direction. But as of today, I think we should move forward with what has been proposed with the language that has been proposed. And let's see what people think about it. I agree with Commissioner Skinner that there are going to be some, some arguments against this and we're going to get that information because the process affords us that ability. Okay. Commissioners, you're all set with proceeding that way. Okay. Okay. So item number four is does the commission want to have targeted minimum spending amounts in each category of grants? So we have the sort of four major buckets of transportation, public safety, community planning and gambling harm reduction. We were proposing to do something like what they do with the Community Preservation Act, which says, you know, do sort of minimum spending within a couple of different areas and have some discretionary. So what we were proposing is having a minimum spending target of 15% in each of the four main categories. And, you know, for the first, which would allow them to spend 40% of the money sort of in any one of the categories or split them up among the categories. Our initial thought was we should set this up as, you know, needing a waiver to go away from that. But as we thought about it, with the first year of this program, we're recommending that we just put these in as suggested targets with no real, you know, sort of waiver requirement and see what happens in the first year. I think we want to give communities as much flexibility as possible. But we also do want to see money spent in the various categories. So I think in the guidelines we're proposing, we'll put them on notice that we want them to spread the money around, give them some suggested targets, and then we'll see what happens at the end of year one. Look, if we find communities are saying, hey, we want to put all our money in this in for transportation construction or somebody else says we want to put it off of public safety and we're finding this really kind of stratified, you know, applications, we may next year want to go back and say, let's, let's make these more firm goals and, you know, maybe require waivers or things like that. But for this year, we're not proposing that. So with that, any, any comments or, or you guys, you folks okay with that? No objections, commissioners? I have comments, but I see Commissioner Skinner. She has a question. She was there first. Yep. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I, Joe, this kind of a structure, so is this kind of a targeted minimum typical of the block grant structure? And I have a similar question with regard to some of the other proposals you have here. Establishing minimum grant for municipalities by region. I'm just wondering to what extent these are best practices. Because what, while I am interested in seeing the program move to a block grant structure, I don't want the new rules and requirements to be more restrictive such that, you know, we're trading one problem if you will for another. And when I say one problem that I think you've acknowledged is, you know, the tie into the casino related impact, right? That is a problem that you've expressed over, over the past cycle. And I don't want to do a lot of work to eliminate that issue and concern, but then trade that for another issue, which is, you know, trying to get the communities to hit this minimum and, or stay with, you know, hit the minimum and, you know, stay within the maximum and just all sorts of new rules in place of the old ones that are just as difficult to, you know, to achieve, right? Does that make sense? Absolutely, absolutely. And I think, yes, you know, there are a number of other grants that do that. I think, you know, we talked about the Community Preservation Act. You know, in that case, you can use money for historic preservation, affordable housing, open space purchases, you know, they're very different types of things. And in that one, they do have sort of targeted minimums and, you know, you have, they have hard minimum spending in each category because they're so different. So that is very common, but here we're not saying that for year one, certainly we're just saying, this is what kind of like what we'd like to see, but you don't really have to do that in year one. We just want to, we just want you to put on notice that we don't want to see all your spending in sort of one category. So we're saying they're just suggested minimums for year one. And if later on we decide that we think we need to be firmer on that, we can always modify the guidelines and subsequent years, but we're really not talking about that today. Okay. I mean, if we're talking about chipping away at the surplus currently, again, the opposite end of that is further building. Right. That those funds, so that we'll have to be having a similar conversation five years down the line to address the surplus. Right. Right. Yeah. So right now, we're trying to give the communities as much flexibility as we can. Madam Chair. Yes. Yes, Commissioner Hill. So, so Joe, in theory, I like what you're proposing. I certainly would have to say that anything that we do in regards to these funds, we do have to have flexibility for our communities. Just for those who don't know, like you brought up the CPA, the Community Preservation Act, you know, a lot of the communities are able to fund the open space, historic preservation, easy, easy, outdoor rec, easy. But when you go and look at like the housing, the affordable housing piece, the money keeps getting high, increase, increase, increase, because there's no place to spend it. And I just worried seeing what's happened with the CPA and communities, that the same thing might be happening with what's being proposed. If we put hard target numbers on these particular funds, they're not going to be able to put monies into the pots of monies that you hope that they will do. So we, you say the first year, that's great. I'm thinking we're going to have to have that language in place for the program for years to come, because it's not going to be as easy as we all think it's going to be to spend in all the categories that we have funded in the past. That would be my worry. Yep, absolutely. And I think, Commissioner, in any case on all of these things, we would have a waiver process for that, as we have always done in the past. If someone wanted to exceed a threshold, a dollar threshold, or something like that, we realize that they may not, and the other thing we can always do is we can modify the targets as well. Part of it is what is the priority of the commission? On any given year, if the commission's priorities change, you can always change a target number for that particular category. So there's a lot of things I think that we can do. Would you envision a community coming in and saying, I want a waiver because I just can't do public safety, and they put zero money toward it? Would you envision that as being a possibility? It certainly could happen. Yeah. Yeah. And the other thing, the other part of this is, and you'll see when we talk about the formula, that some of these communities are getting rather small grants and trying to literally spread them across four categories, you wouldn't get a whole lot of bang for your buck if you had these four small buckets of money. So there definitely will be instances where it doesn't make sense. And again, for year one, we're saying they're suggested. And I think going forward, we'll evaluate and see how things go. And we'll figure that one out really next year and see where we think we should be going with that. And I think just to jump in, some of the feedback that we received from our local community mitigation on this piece was they thought it would actually be a really good way to kind of force collaboration within the town. So it's not just one person applying for all of the grant money that they would have to kind of come in and say, like, okay, this department usually comes in with this grant. So how can we all work together? So it's really supposed to just more inspire collaboration than put regulation on it. Well said. Okay, so I guess we will proceed down that road with that as a suggested minimum. So the next question is regarding the workforce grants. As each year, we always ask if the commission wants to continue with the workforce grants, right now they're at $500,000 per region. And again, given the unexpended funds that we have in the program, we were suggesting that these could be increased by some amount, we were suggesting going up to $750,000 per region. Our grantees have said that they could absorb that and could expand their programs to train more folks. And we do always know that the casinos themselves have had some difficulties filling positions and providing a pipeline of folks who meet the minimum standards for the casinos would be helpful to them as well. So thoughts on that, on increasing spending? I see Madam Chair has shut her camera off so if I can just butt in for a second. My answer to you would be, yes, we should increase this. If anything has worked well, and they all have worked well, but what has worked very well are the workforce development grants. And we've heard that over and over in all the discussions that we've had with all the players involved in this program. So I would like to see us not only keep the program, but yes, I think I would be more than willing to see an increase from $500 to you've suggested $750, which I think is appropriate. Yeah, I mentioned to Joe, this is not that they're not all helpful and successful, but this to me is one of the most impactful areas that we've had. And I absolutely am in support of expanding it. Agreed. That's an easy one, I think, Joe. You agree, right? Commissioner Skinner? All right, very good. The next item is does the Commission want to establish minimum grants for the municipalities by region? The idea behind the block grant is that all of the eligible communities would get some money and we felt as a group that it made sense to set some kind of floor on those grants and looking at how much money is available in the various regions, we were suggesting a $200,000 minimum in region A, a $75,000 minimum in region B, and $50,000 minimum for the category two municipalities. So again, we looked at sort of the relative impacts, we looked at how much money was available to the regions, and those are the numbers that we came down on as a minimum grant for those communities with the block grant. So is everyone okay with that? Commissioner? Starting point. I think Joe's looking for just our feedback, so thanks. Okay. The next one, does the Commission want to allow some of the funds to be used for administrative purposes? This was a request of several of our grantees, especially in some of the smaller communities that have difficulty managing these programs. So right now, we do allow 7.5% of a grant to be used for administrative costs in the workforce development grants, where we are recommending that that be extended out to the other grants at the same amount, 7.5%, and we're proposing a maximum of $50,000. So if you reverse engineer that, that would be anyone who has a grant up to $667,000 would be able to use the full 7.5%, and anything over that would be capped by that $50,000 maximum. Are we good on that provision, commissioners? Yes. Great. Thanks. So this next one was, does the Commission want to allow reallocations of funds after plans have been approved? This policy that we currently have was established a while ago, where we said if any money is being proposed to be sort of repurposed that is more than 10% of the total grant or $10,000, whichever is less, needs to come back to the commission. Now, some of these with the new program that the difference between 10,000 and 10% could be, it could be a huge range. So I think we kind of need to rethink that. I think and my suggestion would be, maybe we just put a number of say $25,000 on that, that anything over $25,000, we will come back to the commission. Anything under that, we would just notify the commission that that is happening and that would be a staff level determination. And we can start with that point in the guidelines. We could talk about it more if you'd like, but I just don't want to get down to the point where we're having to come back to the commission sort of all the time, taking up your time and our time and all that on these things that are fairly small matters. And what I sort of envision is a community comes in and says they want to hire a consultant to do a certain study and then they find out that that's going to cost them $15,000 more than they thought and they said, hey, can we shift money from this bucket over to that bucket, all within sort of existing scope, the scope that they told us, but just sort of moving monies around. So any thoughts on that? Michelle, Brian? So yeah, I remember the conversation. I was kind of the one who pushed to have the percentage or the 10K when this came up the first time. And part of it probably came from procurement background that I had. And I think some of the money and the dollar cutoffs came from that. I know they've updated some of those dollar amounts. So, and Joe and I talked about this when they were briefing me on this, which is conceptually 25K is fine, but I don't want to see some sort of smaller grant worlds and they're completely pivoting. And all of a sudden that 25K is 50% of their request or something. So that's my only hesitation in not putting some percentage attached to it as well. I'm all for upping the dollar amount, given inflation and wanting to not have to come back to us in some of the smaller things, but trying to figure out a way where that percentage, if it is going to fundamentally alter, the grant would come back before us. Yeah. So I see if we had somebody out west who was getting a minimum grant of 75,000, 25 would be a third of their grants, so that might be 25. I suppose we could leave the 10% in there and say whichever is less. So on those smaller grants, that would be the controlling factor than on the large ones, 25. Right. Or say like 25 unless that exceeds, yeah, 25% of your grant. I mean, we could up the percent, but maybe have it be 25 unless that constitutes greater than x% of the total grant. Right. Well, what I can do is why don't I try to work up some language in the guidelines, and then we can maybe, and I didn't really have anything suggested here, so maybe I could do that, and when we discuss the guidelines, we'll go over what changes we made and see if that makes sense. Right. Sounds good. Okay. Number nine here, this is a new request, and this came from some of our discussions with the local community mitigation advisory committees and our subcommittee. Does the commission want to create a set aside for regional planning agencies? Now, the thought here is that we've always tried to encourage communities to work together on a regional basis on these grants, and we've had some success with that, but not a tremendous amount. And the regional planning agencies kind of pitched to us that they would be able to work with those communities on a regional basis to look at casino-related impacts as highly affects with multiple communities. And we thought that that was pretty compelling. So we're recommending setting aside $250,000 for each of the three regional planning agencies, MAPC, PVPC, and SERPED, which are the ones in each of our casino's locations. And what they would need to do is, obviously they would need to come into us with a proposal, they would have to demonstrate the impact of the casino that they're addressing, and a detailed scope of work that shows us what exactly it is that they're doing to try to address that impact. No different than any other applicant has been for us. And obviously if they are not able to make that nexus, we wouldn't award the grants to those agencies at that time. But we did like the idea of this, and it seems sort of at a pilot kind of program to see what kinds of things we might get from those regional planning agencies. Pioneer Valley is doing a project right now from last year, looking at building up capacity for small minority women veteran businesses in the Pioneer Valley area. So that's a great project, and they do have a lot of ideas on things that they can do. So I think we are recommending doing this, at least on a pilot basis, and see how it goes for the first year. Thoughts on that? Does it make sense to consider this under the SERP plus category that you speak about in paragraph three? Exactly. I'm not suggesting that what you're proposing for the going forward doesn't make sense at all, but it would seem to me that there's certainly room to address this particular item in connection with the SERP plus that you're going to be writing up. Yeah. That's exactly right, Commissioner Skinner. This is where those funds would come from. So you're not proposing a forward-facing set aside for the regional planning agencies? Well, yeah. Any of the set asides, the source of funding is those unexpended funds from previous years. Got it. And again, if we spend those down, they'll probably get spent down over maybe somewhere between a three and a five-year period. And obviously, at that point, we would have to do some reconsideration once we've gotten the program sort of back in balance. But as with any of our programs, we can change them from year to year. If we find that this isn't successful, we can say, we gave it a shot, but it didn't really work out. And the next year, we don't have to fund it. But yes, this would come out of those unexpended funds. So just to take the opportunity while the five of us are here, one of the things that that reminded me of when Joe and I were talking, and then I would talk about this was the RTAs, which work hand-in-hand very often with the regional planning authorities. And there was a lot of work and effort going in down in Plainville, where they were talking about Adelbarrow, and they were talking about trying to figure out how to connect sort of these missing links and some of the lines for workers. And I was just looking for an update on that. I had asked if they could maybe see what the status was of any movement or what the status was on that. So just to let maybe some of you know that we're not here at the time that it was being talked about pretty extensively, that that was something that had been in the works kind of in this area, that I'd just be curious to get an update on when there's time. Yeah, yeah, I plan on following up with PPC on that and GATRA and whoever else. Okay, any other thoughts? Are we good then to go ahead and proceed with this? Yeah. Okay, great. Item 10, does the commission want to continue to place caps on the various categories? You know, right now we say that, you know, each category of grant has a, you know, public safety is 200,000, transportation planning is 250 and so on. You know, under this block grant approach, a community would get a set amount of money and we are suggesting that they spend it across the various categories. So the thought here is that, you know, the maximum amount of the grant sets a cap for the community. So our feeling is that we probably don't need those individual caps and again, that gives the community a bit more flexibility to say, hey, you know, maybe we need a little bit more money in this area than the cap allowed and otherwise it'd have to get waivers and other things and, you know, again, with the first year of this program and the interest of keeping it as flexible possible as possible, our thought is to eliminate those specific caps. Item 10, Commissioner Maynard. I support that and just for the group to hear. I did tell Joe and Lily that, you know, I would still like them to report within those categories so we could see how they were spending the money. Yep. But I'm perfectly fine with lifting those caps. I think we're going to get to it, Commissioner Delaney, Chief Delaney. But I also am thinking about policy questions attached to the categories. For instance, on public safety in the past, we've encouraged, and I mentioned this in our two by two and I've mentioned it over the last several years, the idea of training, right, not just purchasing equipment and also addressing those salt costs, which I remember Commissioner Cameron said often is that those are hard dollars to get. So is that, is that going to be like where you say things against or is that here, Joe? So, I mean, that is, you know, that has, those have been eligible costs for the last few years and would continue to be. But I think when we do develop the draft guidelines, you'll see, you know, in each category, we're going to say, here's here are the impacts that we recognize. Here are some of the things that you can do to address those impacts. So in the case of public safety, we'll be saying that, you know, one of the things that we realize is that, you know, that local police departments would likely come into contact with patrons and employees of the casino through their regular duties. And, and one way to address that would be, you know, training, you know, so that they, you know, for de-escalation training and implicit bias training and so on and so forth. So we will set out that the goal here is to, is to give communities think these are the kinds of things that are eligible for you to do. And we'll see that when we get to the, to the draft guidelines. Okay. I guess I'm just pressing for eligibility versus encouragement. Right. Because they may say, well, if it's not required or expected, we'll go with more equipment and, you know, not worry about training this year. So I guess I don't know if you're, if you're thinking of any kind of attached conditions. We can certainly do that. I mean, if the commission chooses to do that, we can say that if you're coming in in the public safety category, you got to do some training. You know, we, we absolutely can mandate it. You know, again, it takes a little bit away from the flexibility of the community. But not, don't want to take away the flexibility, but I just wanted to be consistent with some of the values we've attached in the past, but maybe the commissioners are less concerned about, we did, you know, encourage training particularly around implicit bias. And as Jill said, so I wonder if there's a way in the guidelines even to say that to the extent you're asking for equipment, whether they also address whether there's any pertinent trainings in connection with it, you know, de-escalation training. It was like, you know, and sort of encourage them to think along those lines when they're asking for the monies, but it's not really necessarily tying their hands, but forcing them to think about it. Sure. Yeah. And that's the other reason I thought the reporting was important, because we can take a look at it next year and say, oh, they told, you know, this is totally not what we were thinking here and make adjustments once we see how they actually spent the dollars. Yep. Yeah. So as always, you know, we will require quarterly reports from all of our grantees and, you know, when we have, you know, regular meetings with them and so on. So, you know, we definitely keep good tabs on what it is that they're doing. Okay. So we're good with that one of eliminating the caps on the categories. Okay. So item 11, we were asked by a couple of our communities to reconsider the percentage that the CMF will fund on transportation construction projects. So if you recall, right now in the last couple of years, we capped the CMF contribution at one-third of the total project cost. You know, and the idea behind that was that, you know, these projects, while they are addressing casino-related impact, the benefit for the community is typically much larger than, you know, the impact that they're mitigating. So we believe as a staff that the one-third is still a generous contribution of the Community Mitigation Fund and wouldn't propose to change that. But what some other folks had asked was on some of the smaller projects that they were proposing, and I think the example that we used was Blue Bikes. I think it was in Maldon. It was fairly short dollars, and they were saying they would have been having a hard time finding a matching funds for, you know, for a project like that and asked for a waiver. And I think in the end, we ultimately gave them the waiver to pay for the entire project rather than the one-third. So we put together in the memo just an idea of the Commission paying, Community Mitigation Funds paying 100% of a project up to the first $250,000 and then 30% of the project over $250,000. So what that essentially does is it creates a sliding scale and what it would be is at, you know, at $250,000, we'd pay 100%. But if you get up to the point of a $4.5 million project, we would be back down into paying roughly that one-third of the amount. And then in between, it's kind of a sliding scale. So if you had a $500,000 project, we're probably paying, you know, 60% or 70% of that project. You know, in a million-dollar project, it might be, you know, 50% of the project. And, you know, so it ends up being kind of a sliding scale where the smaller the project is, the higher percentage the Commission pays. And when we get up to that about $4.5 million project, we're back into that one-third, two-thirds kind of ratio. You know, and on this, you know, we're recommending doing it. We think it'll give the communities a little bit more flexibility on some of the smaller projects. We're going to have to be very careful how we've worked that in the guidelines to make sure we don't have people, you know, trying to kind of game the system a little bit. But, you know, we think it's a good idea. But on this one, we're not particularly married to it. You know, the one-third, two-thirds is a pretty simple concept. This one is a little bit more complicated. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. All right. So this is when the cynic in me comes out again. And I said this to Joe and again, procurement, where I just want to make sure nobody breaks the projects up, end a bunch of smaller $250,000 projects, and comes back and asks for a bunch. So Joe, I don't know what your thoughts were on that. I know I brought that up. Like, we just need to make sure that there's no... Yeah. Well, if we go ahead with this, we'll have to be very careful in crafting the guidelines. I think what we would probably want to do is have, if a community has multiple transportation construction projects, which, you know, most of the time that doesn't happen, usually somebody's coming in with one project because it's a big project. But if they had multiple projects, we'd probably have to have them to be additive rather than stand alone, you know, again. So we don't have someone come and say, well, I have 10, $250,000 projects. So, you know. And then I've got another one for next year, you know, like that sort of thing. Right, right. They really wanted me... I'm blanking on the phrase for in the procurement world, how they call that. We'll have to be very careful, so there aren't loopholes in there that the communities can use. So other thoughts, are we good? Are we good to go ahead with this? At least in the draft guidelines, you think? Yep. I'm not seeing any objections to. Okay, great. Great. Thank you. Now, this item, number 12, does the Commission want to allow a municipality to exceed the designated grant allocation if a particular need is identified? So in here, we... This is, I think, Commissioner Maynard kind of used this term as kind of like a safety valve or a leak valve for the program. If a community, you know, when you see... When we go through the formula, you know, you'll see what the community is designated to get. And there could be instances where a community might have a project that exceeds the allocation that they have. And what we wanted to do, at least in this first year, while we're piloting this whole thing, is give a community if they have a particular project that they've identified that would push them over the grant amount that we've identified, that we could issue a waiver to do that project. And again, any of those projects that happen would come out of those unexpended funds, you know, which would again would help us spend those down. You know, we don't know if we're going to get any of these. This is really just as a just in case, you know, that there's truly a need that's over and above what we're proposing to give a community. So thoughts on that? Mishers? Madam Chair? Yes. In theory, I like it. And the fact that, you know, it gives us some latitude to say yes or no when they come before us is something I always am fond of. So I would move... I would move forward with it. Feel comfortable with what's been proposed. Any concerns? Commissures? You know, I'm drafting the guideline this way. Okay. Let's move on, Joan. Okay. So the next one is, does the Commission want to allow operational costs and implementation costs to be eligible? We do already allow operational costs to be funded as long as the activity supplements rather than supplants existing funding. And these have typically been things like overtime for late night traffic patrols and things of that nature. We are certainly recommending continuing that, but also again with that caveat that they're not supplanting existing funding. You know, we had one application that came in last year that sort of asked us to pay for all the existing staff and their operation. And we're like, well, wait a minute, that is not the intent of this program, the intent of this program is to fund new things that would mitigate casino impacts. So, you know, we need to be very careful about that. And then in other categories, particularly the community planning category, some communities have wanted to use funds for implementing recommendations from previous planning projects. And the example that we have is, you know, with some communities have done, you know, marketing plans and tourism plans, and now want to do some implementation of those plans. And those involve things like, you know, doing ad buys on social media, or even on television, radio, other things like that, and printing, you know, brochures and all sorts of other, you know, implementation type things. And we, our guidelines have been silent on that in the past. So I think we have funded these, but we just, and we think we should be able to fund those. But we just want to be, you know, saying positively in our guidelines that those are eligible for funding. And again, flexibility for the community is this kind of key here. Madam Chair. Yes, Mr. Shaheen. So to be clear, Joe, the question isn't a new question. It's one that's already in existence. And you're asking us if we would be willing to clarify it better? Well, I think, you know, on the implement, on the operational costs, that's, we're just sort of continuing an existing guideline. But on the community planning category, it's really just providing clarification that they can use funds for implementation of a plan and not just for the development of the plan. I mentioned to Joe that I, I could see some confusion between implementation and administrative costs. That was my very next comment is operational to me is different than what's being talked about right now. Right. So we would need to clarify that because there's a different cap on administrative. Right. Understood, Joe? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Anything else on that on commissions? Okay, great. Thanks. So the next one is, does the commission want the guidelines to identify ineligible projects or items? Again, this is in the interest of providing the clearest guidance that we can to our communities. We last year particularly, we had quite a number of items come in that we essentially deemed were ineligible things that communities should have been providing on their own that really weren't related to the casino impacts and things like that. It's our proposal is that within each category, we will have a section that talks about ineligible items within those categories. Some may have none that we've identified, but others may have several. And, you know, we'll try to have it as sort of as broad as possible, you know, to cover, you know, those things that the commission doesn't really want to see. Well, that I should not want to see, but aren't really appropriate to be funded from the community mitigation fund. Commissioner O'Brien, I'm thinking of, I'm not sure if Commissioner Hill was here then, but a public safety request for certain equipment around riot shields and our colleague Commissioner Cameron gave some good insight on that. So there are some points where we've had some triggers, right, Commissioner O'Brien? Yeah. I mean, I think going back and using some of those examples where we've spoken as a body to say, you know, let's never say never. But I think if you pull some of those, even Joe, to say these are some of the things that the commission has said historically do not qualify. Right. Right. Right. And if there's a question, they could at least visit it, right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. And as with anything, we always say that, you know, anything is waivable by the commission. I mean, if a community can make a really compelling reason for providing a certain piece of equipment that in the past we've said is ineligible, they can certainly make that argument and ask for waiver. But, you know, if we say right up front, you know, that, you know, the purchase of weapons is not eligible, then hopefully we don't get people asking to purchase weapons, you know, that or whatever the case may be. But you will see what all of those items are when we get to the draft guidelines and then we can certainly dig down into those if we think there should be more or fewer or whatever it might be. Madam Chair. Yes. So through you to my fellow commissioner. So for the last two years I've sat down on the subcommittee that looked at these applications and I cannot tell you how many didn't qualify or were ineligible that still sent us applications. So if we can somehow put wording in these guidelines of what is and what should be, I am all for it because I can't tell you how many came before us that I don't want to say wasted our time because our time was not wasted, but it certainly could have been put to better use looking at other applications than ones that weren't eligible. So I'm all for this. Great. Really helpful. Okay. Okay. So and the last couple should be pretty quick. So what sorts of funds should be used for the municipality around the category two facility, which is at PPC and the past we divided the funding between regions A and region B for no real particular reason. You know, I think when the original funds came out, they came from equally from region A and region B and we just kind of carry that on. But in looking a little closer at it, you know, Plainville is actually in region A and, you know, considering the disparity in the funds generated between region A and region B and the relatively small expenditure for the category two, we felt it was probably more appropriate to be funded under the category from the category A funds rather than, excuse me, the region A funds. I'm getting my regions and categories and so on mixed up here, but that it made sense to do that for PPC. Okay. Any questions on that? Okay. And then the last one is, do we want to change the program from a calendar year to a fiscal year? You know, essentially all our communities work on a fiscal, the July 1st to June 30th fiscal year, the commission works on that. Just about everybody in the state works on that except for the community mitigation fund. So we're suggesting that you're going to get any pushback here. We're suggesting that we should do that. And the only effective change that you'll see is there may not technically be a 2024 grant. It would become a fiscal year 25 grant. Mary's got that one. Right. Yep. Yep. We're all on board. So we're all good with that. So that is all of the policy questions for today. So I think we've got our marching orders on these and we'll be working to craft the guide, the draft guidelines to come back to you in October. But I'd like to move on if there's no more questions on that to the formula for the block grant. Sure. I just want to do a time check. I do need to leave today. I am happy to have the meeting continue. There's a couple of executive sessions that are needed to be addressed. Probably the latest time I can leave is 3.30. So this is an important discussion. I just also know we have important discussions going on. But I'm happy to step away and have Commissioner Ryan share the meeting for the rest of the time. Okay. So I'd like Joe to continue. Okay. Okay. So in coming up with a formula for the block grant, our first cut at this, and this is a first cut at this, it's not absolute that this is going to be the final, final version of it. We were trying to come up with a formula that we could use within any region in the state. We were trying to come up with a formula that we felt was equitable to the municipalities while also keeping it, you know, simple enough to implement. And as a group, we sat down and we came up with four factors to consider. And the first one was that minimum grant amount that we already talked about 200,000 in Region A, 75 in Region B, and 50 for the category two. The second factor was whether or not communities were designated a host or surrounding community. We do have several communities in both Region A and Region B that we're not, that are eligible for community mitigation funds, but we're not designated as a host or surrounding community. And these people, most of them applied to be a surrounding community, but were denied that as a, in their application. But it was determined some years ago that those communities would be eligible for funding. So what we're suggesting is that the host and surrounding communities should, since there are sort of recognized impacts on those communities that they should receive additional money for being designated a host or surrounding community. And we're suggesting that for a host community, they should get 200% of that minimum grant. And for a designated surrounding communities, they should receive an additional 100% of that minimum grant. Now, the third piece of this is proximity to the casino. And the idea behind this is that the further you are away geographically from a casino, the smaller the impact you're going to be. Now, this is the largest piece of each one of the grants. It totals roughly 40% of the total grant amount. And we looked at, first there's not a whole lot of studies or real data that we have that we could sort of scientifically determine what the right amount is for this proximity category. But what we did is we looked at the maps of the areas. We kind of drew concentric circles around the casinos. We looked at physical features, rivers, highways, other things. And we tried to make an assessment of how similar various communities were to one another within proximity to the casino. And we used our best judgment to do that. And I think we came up with a pretty good solution on that, which is certainly something that is subject for discussion. And then the last one were traffic impacts. We do know that traffic is one of the larger impacts. And again, about 20% of the grant went towards this. And what we did is we actually took some of the original traffic studies that were done as part of the environmental impact report process and some of the ones done afterwards. And we looked at what is the distribution of the traffic from the casinos? And most of these reports had a map that said 10% of the traffic goes in this direction, 8% goes over here, 15% in this direction. And so we took those numbers and divided them up to the communities based on the numbers that were in the report. So that was really based on how much traffic is estimated to go into each community. So with that, we then applied those formulas to Region A, Region B, and Category 2. And you have the charts in the memo that show what the proposed distribution of funds would be to all of the communities. Now, we talked this over with our local community mitigation advisory committees and honestly, we didn't get too, too much feedback on the actual numbers. We asked for feedback on sort of the factors that we considered and then a feedback on what some of the numbers look like. And most of the folks at the LCMACs were saying, well, they wanted to go back to their communities and talk with them about it and so on. So we haven't heard a whole lot of feedback, particularly on that. As far as the categories go, I think folks were very appreciative of of the things that we went through to come up with this and seem to be an agreement that those were the real factors that do need to be considered. With that said, there's no perfect formula. People can argue many different ways on many different factors and there's probably no such thing as a perfect formula that will make everyone completely happy. But with that said, I think we did sort of the best that we could do with what we have and we did institute that notion of the safety valve there of a community did have needs that were over and above what was designated here that they would have the ability to come in for that and the commission to consider that on any given community. So I guess I'll just open it up for discussion. Thanks, Joe. And this is excellent work. Thank you to Mary and Lily. You know, whenever there's a formula, there's usually, and I said this to Joe, there's usually somebody who loses out. And I respect the factors. But however, the formula works. I asked Joe, which communities would be getting less than what they got before? And if I'm correct, Joe, you said it was Springfield and West Springfield. And I quite frank about that. If that's true, Joe, you know, I am when I think about casino impact, you know, you can't get much closer than MGM. I know that Springfield is wide, but between West Springfield and Springfield are big in proximity in, I'm sorry, they are not feeling well today. It's a big community. And I know the casino is on one side and West Springfield is on the other side. But I wish that that wasn't the impact for you. And I heard your caveat, your carve out that they could come back if they need more dollars. But it's about what is it like $400,000 less than what they got last year? Well, I mean, it depends, Madam Chair, I mean, on any given year, some years they've gotten more and some years have gotten less. It depends what they applied for. So in the last couple of years, you know, I don't remember what the total was last year, but again, the previous year, they applied for, you know, a million and a half dollars for Port Street. They applied for another almost million dollars for Dwight Street. So they had some very large individual projects. You know, in some years previous to that, there were a couple of years where, you know, they were significantly less than that amount. I mean, part of the issue of a competitive grant program is it depends how many projects you come in with. And when you're doing it as a block grant program, you're saying, this is a set amount of money, but you get that every year, you know, as long as the program exists. So there's, you know, there's definitely, you know, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, I think. Well, I like to compare my apples to apples. I appreciate that, but I do think there could be consideration for a different formula for A versus B because of just the nature of those two regions. I just throw that out. And I understand, Joe, this is your proposal, and I know your team, and if that is it, I just wanted to be, you know, express my concern. I am very, I want to make sure that those Springfield and West Springfield are able to really activate that downtown consistent with the development project that most of us rolled out a couple of weeks ago. And so wherever, but it's hard because if we use a different formula you're taking from someone else, and I get that. But as I said, there are, it's hard when there's a loser, right? Well, yeah, I just turned throughout my career. So, you know, it's just something when you assess something, you know, the impact to one versus another, it's just how I view things. And so I wonder if there's a way to tweak it Well, look, you know, we suggested that at the very beginning, we could have a different formula in the East and the West, you could weight any of these things differently. You know, there's there's a number of things that you can do. But, you know, our original idea was let's come up with this formula that we can we can apply statewide. You know, we don't want it to just to be looking completely arbitrary either. You know, and, and I think one could also argue that Springfield is the big winner in this. They get they get about a third of the money. You know, they certainly get well more than any other community, they get more than double than the next community. So they may not have gotten as much money as they got last year. But they're certainly getting more money than any other community on the list. So I mean, look, there's any number of ways that we could do this. And, you know, whatever way the commission would like us to do that, we'll certainly will. Commissioner Maynard. Madam Chair, I expressed a lot of what you just said to Joe and private and, you know, was reminded when I was thinking about it. If we do adjust the formula out West, there's also going to be smaller communities out there that are quote unquote losers. Yes. Right now don't apply because they don't have the infrastructure around their municipal government to do so. And that's why we did talk about this relief valve safety valve. Because I agree with you. I don't like it either, right, the outcome of the the schematics here, but the relief valve allows for us to put some more money into Springfield and West Springfield with the monies we have existing. And I think about what we just did a few months ago on the garage where we took it back up and we voted in and put additional monies out there. So my message to Springfield and West Springfield is to Joe's point, they're going to get a higher guaranteed portion, right, when you look at the percentage than they normally would on any given year. But we can kick in and make up the difference if there's a quote Rockstar project that's going on. And I agree with you, Madam Chair, there's a lot of great projects going on out there. I just think about the impact. That's what I'm thinking. Impact, it's easier to see Region A a lot of the communities, but I am not, I don't want to be involved as Sophie's choice here. But I just wanted to note that just for me was an unfortunate impact. Madam chair. Yeah. So may I suggest that, and I agree with everything you have said, and I agree with everything Commissioner Maynard had said, and I've shared that with Joe as well. But may I suggest that we move forward with what has been proposed, because once again, this is a process where we're going to have public input from folks in Springfield and West Springfield. And I believe in my heart that they will come back to us with some ideas of how this formula can be changed to benefit everybody. This is our first attempt at it. And I do want to congratulate the team on a job well done. I could not have put this formula together by myself. I'll tell you, you guys did Yeoman's work to come up with what's before us today. But I believe during the public process that we're going to see something different. And I think it will alleviate some of the concerns that we all have in regards to Springfield and West Springfield. So my hope would be we could move forward today with what's been proposed here from the public and make changes at a time certain in the future before we would vote to accept it. Does that make sense? My surest. I see one nod from Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Maynard, you're all set. Yes, only to say that I wish I were at the big E today. Commissioner Skinner, I agree. And I'm glad Commissioner Hill touched on the public comment because that's something I'm very much looking forward to. And just, you know, I said on the volunteer committees, Commissioner Skinner, and there's been a lot of good information that we've gotten from those discussions. And because of the discussion, a lot of what's before you today is because of it. And I'm sure as we move forward, we'll continue to get good suggestions and good dialogue that will continue. But it's been very informative. Unfortunately, we haven't all had access to that input. And I'm not really sure what some of the communities have said and not said. So I'm just wasting my concern on the impact of what I think two communities that are significantly impacted by the existence of a casino. And I agree with you 100%. Yeah. Okay. But so we'll go forward. I'm not hearing anybody pushing back, Joe. You knew, Joe, that I was going to bring this up. So it's not anything that I did. And again, Madam Chair, you know, whatever way we want to come down on this, that's fine. I mean, I don't, you know, we came up with a formula that works, but there can be other formulas. There's, you know, there's a number of different ways that you can do all this. And I think, you know, we'll hear what the public has to say. And, you know, we'll move from there. Yeah. Well, thank you. And again, yesterday, G-PAC of Public Mally did give an update on the announcement that came out of the city of Springfield a couple of weeks ago on their plans for development to continue the revitalization of the downtown and how important, you know, we're building on some significant media mitigation grants that have field really important activation efforts, including 31M, which is apparently going to open next month at like 60% occupied for market rate housing. That's really exciting, but they want to continue to activate the Main Street. We want to make sure that the casino's benefits are being felt and the community mitigation grant program is being used to further those efforts. So thank you. But it was really a special, it was a special day. So, Joan, I think yesterday, what was the amount? 8.5 million has gone. So it is in no way are we suggesting that we have not been generous to Springfield. That's for sure, right? And that was acknowledged yesterday. We certainly have been very generous to Springfield. Yeah, so yeah, that's not my message today. It's just formula going forward, you know. All right. Well, thank you very much for all of your input. Next steps. We'll be getting you draft guidelines sometime in early October. And, you know, we'll keep this train chugging forward. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. I just have one last question. I know the answer, but I want it to be publicly answered. We're still online to hit the dates that we need to hit to make this program a reality for this year. So far, so good. FY25, let me be clear. Right. So I think, you know, we're going to try to schedule the public, we're going to bring the draft guidelines to the commission and get input there. And we're going to try to schedule our public hearing for the week after. You know, as I said to our local community mitigation advisory committees, we usually would just put the guidelines out for public comment. And we, you know, we quite routinely get back zero comments on them. But in this case where we are completely revamping the program, we feel that it's far more important to hold a public hearing and get people's input and get all of those people who really work on these things in the room rather than, you know, the people who are writing the grants and administering the grants. And, you know, those are the folks that we really want to hear from because, you know, we're changing the whole thing. Excellent work, your whole group. And on terms of timeline, I think Mary's probably monitoring that very, very carefully with Lily. She's up on her calendar always. So thank you. Everyone, I'll set for Joe today. Okay. Thanks so much. Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Lily. Thanks, Mary. All right. So now we're turning to item number nine. And there's two items for executive session topics today. And as you know, you have to read the language into the record in the event that we decide to move on that. So with respect to item nine, the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with GL, Chapter 30A, Section 21A2, to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with Heather Hall for the position of interim director of the investigations and enforcement bureau. The public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session should we so choose to go into one. And then with respect to the second anticipated executive session, item number 10, we have some minutes to review. Commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session to review minutes from previous executive sessions as their discussion at an open meeting may frustrate the intended purpose for which the executive sessions were convened. So to GL, Chapter 30A, Section 21A6, May 18, 2022, GL, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, September 12, 2022, May 8, 2023, August 30, 2023, and GL, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, with respect to contract negotiations with Todd Greslin for the position of interim executive director, July 12, 2023, July 17, 2023, public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I would like to state something for the record. We are going to actually pull the August 30th and September 12, 2022 meeting minutes from that session. They need a little more work. Okay, so two and four on 10A, correct? Madam Chair, are we going to dispose of the commissioner update or any other business before we go into executive session, since we're not returning? Sure, Commissioner Brown, do you have an update? I don't. I just didn't know for just administrative purposes, we wanted to make sure before I did a motion. Oh, okay. Commissioner, thank you. In that case, I would move that the commission go into executive session on items nine and so much of what's remaining in item 10, as specified in the minutes, sorry, as specified in the agenda and for the reasons stated by the chair on the record. I'll set, commissioners, any questions for Councillor Grossman on this? All right. Hi. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. I'm sorry. Hi. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. Hi. There's a delay somehow. Hi, I understood Commissioner Hill's eye to be, you know, not voting in favor, but to start a statement. Oh, aye, aye, aye, aye. Sorry, Commissioner Hill. I'm so sorry. The reason my eye took a minute is because I did have something for the commissioner's update, but I think it's already been alleviated, so I don't need to bring it up, but I wanted to think in my mind, I said yes. So it's a yes, and I'm all set. Thank you. And my apologies, I thought maybe I had missed it like I did earlier. Thank you. So I have an eye from Commissioner Hill, a commissioner Skinner. I'm off on eye. Okay. And Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes. So we'll go into executive session and we'll get transported to the proper virtual room, I suspect. Grace and... No, you all have a calendar invitation for an executive session link, so feel free to join the link that's in your inbox and just message me if you don't have it for some reason. Okay. And a reminder, we will not be returning to the public session. For those who joined us, thank you very much for your interest. And thank you to the entire team.