 to see you. Yeah, we're ready to go though. I'll hit the button now. Okay, just a few minutes off. Okay, thanks so much. Good to go. Great. Good morning. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. It is right after Memorial Day. Such a beautiful Memorial Day weekend and a day where I know that our agency reflected upon the service of those who are current and past members of the military. We thank them for their service. We're going to get started now officially. This is a meeting being held on the virtual platform, so I have to take a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien is right now joining us by phone. We'll be joining us by video shortly. Commissioner O'Brien, good morning. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Right, we'll get started. Today is, as I said, May 30th, Tuesday morning, and it is public meeting number 456, turning first to Executive Director Wells for an administrative update. Good morning. Actually, this morning, I know we have meeting today and Thursday, so I don't have anything in particular this morning, so you can go ahead to the next agenda item. Okay. And I know Commissioner, Executive Director Wells, I know you're coming off. I'm not feeling great either, so I hope you have a good start to your day. Okay. So then we're going to turn to item, excuse me, item number three, and that's actually a commissioner update that I'll lead on. Today, commissioners, I am inviting all of us to support a letter recently sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland by a group of seven seasoned sports wagering regulators. They include Kirk Hendrick, Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, David Reba, New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, Henry Williams, Executive Director of Michigan Gaming Control Board, Marcus Fretcher of the Illinois Gaming Board, Dan Hartman of the Colorado Division of Gaming, Ronnie Johns, Louisiana Gaming Control Board, and Jay McDaniel of the Mississippi Gaming Commission. The letter dated April 28, 2023, a copy of which is part of today's public packet urges the Department of Justice to prioritize combating illegal offshore sports books and online casinos. The regulators write, the dangers caused by these unlawful operations are well-known, including a lack of investment in responsible gaming programs, loss of state tax revenue that funds important initiatives, no age verification requirements to protect minors, no controls to prevent money laundering, and absence of guarantees that customers will receive fair payouts and much more. A recent NCAA survey commissioned by NCAA President and our former Governor Charlie Baker found that sports wagering is per basic among 18 to 22-year-olds with 58% having engaged in at least one sports betting activity. Young people are wagering on sports betting sites, including a considerable number who turn to the services of illegal bookmakers. We have led a national discussion on prioritizing consumer protections, requiring state-of-the-art responsible gaming tools, and pressing both the limits on the First Amendment in our own sports wagering law when formulating our advertising regulation. We as a commission also have recognized along the way that as regulators, we must strike a balance in policymaking to ensure that our new regulated market here in Massachusetts advances the well-being of all residents here, while working to not just compete with the illegal market, but also put it out of business. So joining our colleagues from my perspective by sending a letter of support is an important next step in this effort. So commissioners, I'd like to borrow a term we used for a while, the later part of last year. Take your temperature as to your willingness to sign off on cover letters similar to the draft that's included in the packet today. And if there is a consensus, we'll pull out our editing pencils. Did you all have a chance to look at both the letters submitted by the regulators, as well as Richard Hill? I have no problem moving forward with something, Madam Chair. I think it's very appropriate, actually. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, I'm going to just check in with you. No, I agree. I think we should definitely send a letter as well. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner or Commissioner Maynard? I'm in support, Madam Chair. I just had a question. And do we know what the federal government's efforts are currently on this issue? No. Okay. Is there a way? Yeah. I mean, so the assumption is that there are no efforts underway. Is that I mean? I don't think there's assumptions. I think it's continuing, at least to say that we'd like if you read the letter. Yeah. Yeah, I read the draft. I also read the letter. The letter of support. Yeah. Yeah. I read everything, Madam Chair, just trying to understand whether there's any information currently out there as to what DOJ's efforts are right now. And I understand that we don't know that. That's fine. Thank you. I think that we might not know. I imagine there are efforts underway, but they might not be able to reveal them to us. Well, that's kind of what I was getting at. If there was anything, would we even be privy to it? That's right. I think that's right. So, but the good news is that this conversation would be underway and supported by the regulators. And we hope the industry understands the importance of a regulated market. That's the right gesture. Thank you for your support. And Commissioner Maynard, everybody just shifted when we were speaking. Thanks. I support it. I think that the goal should be zero. Zero bad actors in the regulated market, right? Yeah. And I do know that the survey also revealed the impact of advertising with respect to the students on campus. And I know it's one article did reference that Massachusetts took a lead on prohibiting advertising on college campuses. So we should feel good about that. And we should just continue to be vigilant in our efforts. The letter in that paragraph that I noted doesn't mention regulation of advertising. But I think that that's another important effort that's underway here in across the country with our fellow regulators. So should we take a look at Commissioner Skinner? I know you have some potential edits on if we were going to go forward on supporting the letter. Do you want to go first? I can. And my edits were pretty much just stylistic ones. Grace, if I could ask for your assistance, could you, does it make sense, Madam Chair, to pull up my proposed edit? If Grace has a handy. If you have a handy, Grace. Sure. Thank you. The merit just a handful. I believe this is your document. Could you connect it a bit bigger, please, Grace? Of course. Thanks. A little bit bigger. Thank you. So Mills Mills worked on this and I did a few edits and then did not share this any further with reviewing with any other commissioners. Commissioner Skinner passed this around last night. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. So Mills, I don't know if you want to chime in, but I'm happy to also give initial thought. Sure. Thank you for offering that, you know, always happy to take constructive edits to written materials that I prepare. So I think, Commissioner Skinner, this makes sense. I wonder here in this first one where you delete responsibilities and add industries, what would you think of saying these responsibilities include regulatory oversight of racetracks and simulcast centers, et cetera, et cetera? I think we run into the same issue because what we are saying in the first sentence is that MGC is the entity responsible for overseeing the legal gaming industry. And then it tells you about the responsibilities rather than the industry itself. So I think that still needs a little bit of tweaking if you want to keep, if you want to highlight the MGC's responsibilities. Yeah, I'm just thinking because a racetrack isn't necessarily an industry. So I'm trying to get to our regulatory oversight over these operations maybe. Yeah. And the same thing that you're saying, a racetrack is not a responsibility either. A land-based casino is not a responsibility. So that's the trouble that I had with this sentence. I think he was suggesting that, and maybe it's redundant, but these responsibilities include the oversight of, does that help? That helps. Yeah, that was my suggestion. Thanks, chair. Yeah. Or regulatory oversight. If we don't want to use the word regulatory again, then it doesn't seem to be redundant then. Yeah, just reading it again. That makes sense if you add oversight of. Okay. And then the rest, I have to take claim responsibility for the word hour on the second pair. Oh, we lost you, chair. Maybe your speakers. Yeah, nothing changed, but it does decide to do this every once in a while with me, who bear with it. Bear with me. We can hear you now. Yeah, it does this occasionally. Can you, is it, we'll have to figure out why it does this. So it was my idea to change it to hour. It's mainly tone, because it was from us. And so I was making a tone issue. And then with respect to the next one, the reason why I had I changed it to the singular was because I didn't want to be speaking for our colleague. You know, that next sentence as a regulator, or as, as, I can't remember. We are committed in a public thing. Yeah, thank you. As a regular, we are committed to that. That next section is Lily, could you, Lily, could you just think as a regulator, that sentence is all kind of our thought and not the other regulator's thoughts. Like I see it now. Yeah. And then I like any. Yeah, as I said, there's stylistic, I understand that you don't want to have our statement, our statement apply to the regulatory colleagues that we are supporting. So that makes sense there. Because we haven't embedded it with them. It was interesting. I think I mentioned this to you in the, in the, our last agenda study meeting, that I had the privilege of sitting on a panel with Executive Director Henry. And just by chance, I brought up the need to reach out to the Department of Justice. And I don't think he was privy to being able to share it with me that they were doing this of these more seasons, what's waiting regulators were doing it, because it hadn't quite gotten approved. So I don't want to do anything that suggests that we've, that we're, we haven't, that they've adopted our language. Okay. Other commissioners, you've had a chance to look at these edits. How do you feel about the letter in general? And then do you have any specific edits? Commissioner Hill. In general, I'm supportive of the letter. And with the edits, I'm fine with them. It's anything you want to add. Anything you want to add? No, nothing at all. I think it's a, it was very well written. And these little changes capture what we want to do and what the subject matter for the letter is. So I'm okay with it, with the changes. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, I'm, I'm not sure you're available to chime in. So I'll turn to commissioners Maynard first. Actually, if I could, Madam Chair, I'm driving. And so you guys were talking like sort of parts of sentences. So I'm, I, I like the letter in general. I don't, nothing jumped out at me in terms of edits that were problematic. But to be honest, I would need, maybe we take a vote on this later in the meeting. So when I actually get in, I can just take a look at the edits before I say. Mills, Mills can send to you in all of us the edited version. So we'll have, we'll hold our vote to a little bit later. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Maynard, do you have other thoughts? I just have one question and simple. Does sports books cover, you know, the addition of sports books and taking out sports waging operators? Does it cover the whole breadth of online sports books and brick and mortar sports books? If the answer is yes, I'm fine with that. Just keep it clean with sports books. Yeah, I just want to make sure that that's the interpretation that we mean both online and retail when we say the word sports books. It might be, it's my edit, so I can speak to it. I did consider both, or sports books to encompass both brick and mortar and online. And, and sports books, I think that's the language that the other letter uses, the one that we're supporting. So I just, just to be consistent, really. But these are not substantive edits for sure. So, you know, you can take them or leave them. I'm fine with that. That was it. Otherwise, I'm fine with the letter as it is. So, Commissioner Maynard, you weren't asking to end it with a period after sports books? Because I, that wasn't your edit. I thought that's what your edit was going to be. I like that we include both the casinos and online platforms because some don't have one or the other sound, sound regulators. I was just making sure the term encompass both. Yeah, I, I, I checked in on that too. Good to know. All right. So what we'll do then is just no further discussion on this. We'll go right ahead and move on to item number four and just hold the boat and Grace, I'll have you be my reminder so that I don't forget to turn back thanks so much. Thank you for sharing those edits, Grace. I appreciate that. Okay, now we're going to turn to Community Affairs Division. Chief Delaney. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. So welcome to round three of the Community Mitigation Fund. So today we will be looking at the transportation planning applications and the transportation construction applications. So with that, I guess I'll dive right in on the particulars of the applications. So starting with transportation planning, the first application is the city of Boston on Sullivan Square. What you'll see here is that the city of Boston has withdrawn this application and they have withdrawn three transportation related applications. They've gone through some significant staff turnover. Bill Conroy, who had been managing most of these grants, he moved on as well as Inez Foster, who was the grant manager. So they are a little bit behind the eight ball and they asked to have these withdrawn. And it was not only that they were having difficulty right now, but they were concerned that they, whether or not they would have sort of the manpower to manage these projects effectively. So Boston has been quite aggressive with the Community Mitigation Fund in submitting applications and getting grants, and I'm sure they will be again in the future. But for this year, they have asked to withdraw this particular application. Any questions on that before we move on? Nope, okay. So the next one up is the city of Cambridge. It is their grand junction path, a multi-use path that they want to try to extend. So the grand junction path runs sort of north to south through the city of Cambridge, and it runs roughly from where the Charles River is all the way up through Cambridge to a point that's a couple of blocks shy of Route 28, which is the McGrath and O'Brien Highway. At the same time, the MBTA, as part of its Green Line extension, created what's known as the Somerville Community Path, which is kind of an east-west route that connects Boston over through to Somerville. And essentially, between these two paths, there is a gap that goes through a couple of city blocks and then through a local park, and then through some private properties that are being redeveloped on Route 28. And this project is to study an extension of that path. And essentially, we really like this project. Creating these connections is always a good way to try to get some vehicles off the road. And getting across the very busy Route 28 will be a challenge, and this is a fairly challenging study that they're doing. But we think that ultimately, if they're able to extend that grand junction path to connect in with the community path, that will create some additional ways for people to get out of their cars, get off the road, and potentially get to the casino in that fashion. The one thing that was studied as part of the original Encore Boston Harbor was the intersection of Land Boulevard and Route 28. And if anyone has ever driven through Land Boulevard and Route 28, you know how difficult that intersection is. So the hope here is that if we can get some people out of cars, it could help improve operations of traffic at that intersection a little bit, and also giving these folks a safer route off of the road to access the casino and other amenities in the area. So we are definitely supportive of this one, and we're recommending full funding of the project in the amount of $249,900. Questions from the Commission on that one? Okay. So the next one up is City of Everett, Mystic River Harborwalk Extension. Essentially, this is proposing to extend the existing Harborwalk that's on the Encore site along the Mystic River and down to the Alfred Street Bridge. And this will work in conjunction with the earlier community planning grant that the Commission approved, looking at the reuse of the Charlestown pumping station in the Alfred Street underpass. Again, this will create some more off-road connections for bikes and pedestrians. And, you know, given how busy Broadway and Alfred Street is through Everett, any way that we can get folks off the road and onto these paths, we think is a good idea. So we are recommending full funding for this project in the amount of $248,000. Any questions on that one? That's it. Great. Thank you. So the next one up is the City of Malden. They are asking for $481,500 to advance the design of improvements to the Broadway corridor up to the 25% design level. This category has a cap of $250,000, so they are asking for a waiver from that cap. It is their expectation that this project, the construction of this project will be funded through the state's Transportation Improvement Program. Now just as by way of background, we've given the City of Malden three separate grants to look at this Broadway corridor. Going all the way back to 2018, we gave them a $50,000 grant that looked at hiring a consultant to assist in the completion of a Broadway corridor framework plan. We gave them a second $200,000 transportation planning grant to start the design process for this corridor. And then the third grant was $50,000 to look at zoning along the corridor as well. The review team does realize that there is a small impact from the casino on Broadway. About 2% of the traffic was estimated to use Broadway. And we went through some calculations here. And in doing those, during the peak hour, which is Friday afternoon from 5 to 6, the traffic from the casino would result in an addition of about 31 vehicles per hour during that peak hour, which is about one vehicle, about every two minutes. So we do agree that that does constitute an impact, but also that the impact is relatively modest. Now in the past, we have, in looking at projects, we have this notion of proportionality is how much community mitigation funds should be going towards a project in proportion to the impact of the casino. So in this case, we're looking at, we've already provided $300,000 worth of grants for work on this corridor. And we estimated that the total design fee for this project would be about $1.4 million to get it up to 100% design. The estimated cost of the whole project is about $12.2 million. So if you add those two together, it's about $13.6 million is the total cost of the project, but it's expected that that $12.2 million will come from federal and state sources. So if we were to provide that maximum category funding of $250,000, that would represent alone about 18% of design costs. Now if you factor in the $300,000 that we've already committed, that brings those numbers up to an equivalent of nearly 39% of the design cost. So the review team felt that providing that additional $250,000 would be a pretty generous contribution from the community mitigation fund considering that relative degree of impact. All of these tip projects require that the community fund the design of the project. So with an estimated design fee of $1.4 million, even with the community mitigation fund, Malden will need to put up a substantial local funds for this project if they want it to move forward. So in their waiver request, their rationale was that they don't have the resources to complete this planning project and funding requested can reasonably be described as seed money. And I think the review team does agree that providing seed money that will leverage much larger state and federal contributions is a good idea. But given the level of impact on the road, we felt that $250,000 would be an appropriate amount for a contribution from the commission. And therefore, we are recommending $250,000 towards this project. So we're not recommending granting of the waiver. And at this point, we think that after that $250,000, that's probably all that the commission should be granting to this particular project. Any questions on that one? Commissioners, okay. Okay. So the next one is another Malden project, which is the Spot Pond Greenway design. They're requesting $375,700 in funding to complete the final design of this Spot Pond Brook Greenway. And again, they have requested a waiver from the $250,000 category cap. And the review team likes this project. It proposes to extend the trail network from where the northern strand goes through Malden, through the downtown area to the north, to what's known as, I don't know the proper pronunciation of this, Hoyt-Moor-Lee Park or Hoyt-Moor-Lee Park. And all of these notions of these greenways and multi-use paths, having the ability to take some people off the road, this does a couple of things. One, it provides better access down to the Malden Center T station, where there are shuttle buses and so on that go to the casino. And it also provides direct access to the northern strand community trail, which does lead right down to the casino. So we definitely agreed that there is some impact from the casino on the roadway network and that this type of project is certainly warranted to help try to get folks off the road. Now, they requested a waiver from the $250,000 category cap. Again, with the pretty much the same rationale as the earlier project that the city lacks financial resources to complete the planning project and that funds should be looked at as seed money to leverage federal, state and federal construction. We had the review team had quite a number of questions associated with the cost of the design work. Project is expected to have a construction cost of about $4 million. And the project is already at the 25% design level. And looking at some of the general kind of rules of thumb that you use in estimating design fees, that $375,700 request seemed to be pretty high for the level of work that was remaining. And so we asked for additional documentation on that particular item. Similar to the city of Boston, the city of Malden has recently gone through some staff turnover and they were not able to provide us with the additional information we requested at the time that we prepared this memo. We did subsequently receive some information, but it didn't really address our initial questions. So I think the review team really likes this project, but we weren't really comfortable with that $375,000 number based on the questions that we had. We do think that if they kept to the category maximum, the $250,000, that that would definitely keep the project moving forward. And we feel comfortable that the remaining work certainly fits within that $250,000. We just weren't real comfortable with the $375,000. And I suppose if they were able to give us additional documentation or whatever that did that, or they could come in next year for the rest of it, if that were warranted. But at this point, we are recommending the partial funding of this project in the amount of $250,000. Any questions on that one? Okay. So the next one is in Melrose. It is Lebanon Street. The city is requesting $250,000 towards the design of multimodal improvements to the Lebanon Street corridor. So on this project, the original traffic studies that were done for Encore didn't evaluate traffic at any intersections in Melrose. Excuse me. The nearest locations that were identified in the traffic studies were Main Street at the Everton Maldon Line and Route 99 at the Everton Maldon Line. With each of those locations estimated to carry about 2% of the casino-related traffic. So again, a fairly minor impact on those roads. Now, it seems likely that some of the traffic from the casino would pass through Maldon into Melrose, but of course it would be at a reduced volume from the 2% entering Maldon. People would tend to filter off into some of the side streets and other things in that location. But in that case, it seems very unlikely that anyone would use Lebanon Street. It's a rather circuitous route to get to Lebanon Street from the casino. This seems like one of those things you would really have to know that it was there to try to access it. And the applicant did submit us some traffic data and accident data that showed increases in traffic and increases in accident from between 2018 and 2022. However, when we looked at that data, we realized that we had kind of an apples to oranges comparison here. In the 2018 traffic data, they were just counting traffic sort of on the main line of Lebanon Street where the 2022 data was at an intersection that included some traffic on the side street that wouldn't have been included in that original traffic data. When we subtracted out those movements, it showed just a very small increase in traffic in the AMP and actually a small reduction in traffic in the BMB. We just weren't really convinced that that demonstrated any kind of a casino related impact. And the application also showed an increase in crashes on Lebanon Street from 2015 to 2019 and then looking at the 2021 and 2022 period. But again, it was looking at a little bit of apples to oranges. The first information just included three intersections while the newer information included the entire traffic corridor and trying to just look at those three intersections and subtracting out some of that other data. We did show that there was an increase in accidents from 5.4 per year to about 6.5 per year. And certainly while it's an increase, it's not as significant as what they had originally reported. And there's really nothing that indicates that that one increase in accident per year is in any way associated with casino related traffic. So this is a project that again, they are filing to get funds through the Transportation Improvement Program. And it's a good project in and of itself, but the team just could not find any real connection to the casino and therefore we can't recommend funding for this project. Any questions on that one? No, okay. So the next one is Agawam, Suffield Street and Silver Street. Initially the town was requesting money for a redesign of that intersection and they have since withdrawn that application. Again, we had some significant concerns, not concerns, we had some significant questions with respect to this application and the connection to the casino. And so in our request for supplemental information we did ask them to provide us with some additional information. And at that point they got back to us and said that they didn't have some of that information and also that they just really didn't have the manpower right now to pull that stuff together so that they asked to withdraw that application. Joe, can I just pause for a second? Yep. You've gone through Region A and now you're just starting to reach and be of these particular applications. Commissioners are noticeably silent. And the reason why is because we have had extensive two by two briefings. Of course that means I had the benefit of any questions raised by my fellow commissioner that I was in a two by two. I haven't had the benefit of any questions raised by the other commissioners because we can't talk to them. Commissioners, I'm assuming that if you're not raising any questions here, if they were worried they have a lot of discussion in your two by two that you would share them with us because that only makes our discussion better and it would allow my case commissioner may or not have to hear if other questions were raised in your groups. I'm assuming they weren't and that's why everyone is silent. But if in fact there was any big discussion about something I thought that if we all decided to share that the benefit of two by two is just to get kind of a free thing but not to resolve them. So Chief Elena, I'm perfect only so that everybody knows things are going smoothly. And because of the very, very beneficial briefings you give us and you and your team give us. So thank you. And of course commissioners, I know you've been involved in the decision making. Go right ahead, Commissioner Hill. Just very brief and Joe has covered this in his remarks on all the applications. But one of the issues that I have been talking to Joe about throughout the process and through two by two is the connection to the casinos with a lot of these applications. But I think that's a discussion that we're going to have in the future on how we want to move forward with funding of the community mitigation grants. So I won't start that today. But I continue to ask every application how is this connected to the casino and getting a lot of information from the cities and towns to connect this to the casino has been very difficult in my eyes. And it's something I think that the commission needs to really, really look at moving forward for the next year or two. So if you want to hear what we talk about, that's what I have been talking about, is trying to connect these funds to the casino in a way that was intended by the legislation that was passed. And I'll leave it at that because I know this is going to be an ongoing discussion in the near future within the next month or two. Right. And I raised that same issue. I know that Chief Delaney explained that there's some options being discussed in your privy to them because of your work with the committee. I also brought up the idea that, and Joe, you can remind folks of the exact language in the statute, but that we also can revisit the language if need be and submit to the legislature any ideas that if we wanted to, not necessarily may not result in a change, but it might highlight the challenge. But Joe, the language itself or Lily or Mary, the precise language that Commissioner Hill is referencing, do you have that? Yeah. I mean, it essentially says that these projects must be used to offset the costs associated with the construction and operation of the casinos and that it has to be awarded based on demonstrated need. So sort of the demonstrated need is kind of the hook that says you need to demonstrate what is the need? Why do you need this? And that means demonstrating what the impact is. So, you know, and then the costs associated with it are, well, you know, in the case of construction, you can say, well, if there's an impact to an intersection that's been demonstrated, the cost is fixing the intersection. So, you know, those kind of come from that, you know, demonstration of the need. Well, you've been very good about working through how where the committee, and when I say committee, it's really the evaluators of the applications where they worked out that impact. And so thank you. When you reference that in your remarks, that's clear to us how the process that you go through. Yeah. I mean, the two hardest things that our applicants have to do is demonstrate the connection to the casino and demonstrate how the work that they're proposing to do mitigates that impact. And, you know, if our applicants are able to do those two things, in 99.9% of the cases, they get the grant funds. Commissioners, I just thought we'd pause just so that there's anything else on our mind before we move too deeply into Region B, either on process or on Region A, we just check in here. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, anything else that? And Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know if you're able to hear us checking in. No, I can hear. I'm good. Okay, excellent. All right. Thanks, Joe. Okay. So continuing on, the next one is the town of Hamden sidewalk design. They're requesting $203,100 for the design of sidewalks along Main Street from North Road to Summers Road. So we did give the town of Hamden a 2016 reserve grant and the amount of $100,000 to help improve sidewalks and crosswalks in downtown Hamden. You know, again, the original traffic studies that were done for MGM didn't evaluate traffic impacts in Hamden, but it did determine that about 5.5% of the casino-related traffic would travel from Springfield into East Long Meadow, and Hamden lies to the east of East Long Meadow. So it's certainly reasonable to assume that some traffic would travel from East Long Meadow into Hamden, but there is no real quantification of these traffic numbers. We certainly would expect that a percentage of casino-related traffic coming into Hamden would be significantly reduced from that entering East Long Meadow as there are several different ways traffic could go in East Long Meadow. But the review team does agree that there is some traffic-related impact to Hamden, but it would be, you know, a quite modest impact. Now the town has an earmark in the state transportation bond bill for $1.3 million for the construction of sidewalks in Ham. So we did ask them about the status of these funds, and the town stated that the bond has not been funded by the Commonwealth, and our representatives in the general court are unable to determine when or if the state will fund the bond. So as I think all of you know, many projects that are earmarked in bond bills never end up being constructed. So the review team is concerned with dedicating design funds to a project that may not come to fruition. You know, and the Commission always has always liked to see the mitigation funds used to leverage other state or federal funding sources, and this project certainly has the potential to do that. You know, so if the Commission decides to award these funds, we are recommending that the receipt of these funds be conditioned upon receiving the transportation bond bill funding. So we are recommending the full amount, but also with that proviso that the funds have been made available to the town from the transportation bond bill. And as I understand, and Brad, correct me if I'm wrong on this, they should be hearing by the end of June or so on the status of this bond bill? That's accurate. And what the bond spending will be by the administration, by the administration, it's you. So we should know relatively soon. So I think if the Commission approves this, and this project doesn't move forward, then this would just roll back into the Community Mitigation Fund. And if the bond bill does move forward, then they would be able to access these funds for the design work. Any questions on that one? No? Okay. So the next one is Holio, and this is on Main Street. The city of Holio is proposing a complete street redesign for Main Street, from Jackson Street to Mosier Street. And what they want is $82,300 to start that process. And similar to these other projects that we've been talking about, they are proposing that this project will be funded under the Transportation Improvement Program, but this would allow them to do some of that early, the preliminary design to get them to the point where they can file with the state to see if the project is eligible for tip funding. We certainly agree that there is an impact on Main Street. So Main Street lies right at the terminus of I-391. And the trip analysis done as part of the MGM project estimated that about 3% of the casino-related traffic would enter downtown Holyoke at the end of 391. So we do agree that this constitutes an impact on Main Street. Other pertinent points, there's a high crash rate on Main Street. There's the six different bus routes that run between Springfield and Holio. So all of these complete streets improvements would help the bus traffic that would help reduce accidents, cyclists, pedestrians, all of that. And again, we have always looked at these funds as that notion of seed money that we talked about before. This is a relatively small amount of money that would hopefully leverage the estimated cost of the overall project is about $10 million for construction just a little bit under that. So we think that that $82,300 is well spent to potentially leverage close to $10 million in construction funding. Any questions on that? Okay, the next application is another Holyoke application. They are asking for funds to do wayfinding. Initially, they were asking for $250,000 under the transportation planning category. We have funded wayfinding projects in the past, but these have typically been done in the community planning category. And this was really identified as part of their tourism plan and so on to make getting around Holio easier for people who are coming in for tourists who are coming into the town. So we talked with the community and said, you know, this is really a community planning grant. And they agreed and they reduced their ask from $250,000 to $200,000 to bring it in line to the maximum project value of the community planning. So again, you know, this is a good project. We've done these in several locations. We did one in Revere, I think in Saugus and maybe one other community. You know, they're looking just as it really came out of their tourism plan, looking to improve wayfinding to help advertise Holyoke as an attractive destination and a gateway to the MGM Casino. They in fact did tell us that they would be putting up some wayfinding signs that would also be directing people towards MGM Springfield, you know, on where the accesses to the highway are. So we thought it was a nice selling things in both directions. So again, we were fully behind this and we recommend partial funding of the grant in the amount of $200,000. Any questions on that one? Okay. So it's being treated when you said partial funding, but it's getting full funding under community planning? Yeah, that would be the maximum allowed under community planning is $200,000. Or did it get shifted to community planning or is it a... Yeah, when we do the... Yes, we have done that. When we do the final write up, we'll shift. We've shifted around a few different things. So we'll true it all up at the end to get everything into the right spot. Because this is a good example to share if we end up approving for future trainings and stuff. Okay. Thanks. Get in the right category. Thank you. Okay. So the next one is Springfield. This is the Union and Maple Street intersection. The city is requesting $250,000 for the design of traffic control improvements at the intersection of Union and Maple Streets. This project is quite close to the casino. It's only about 0.2 miles away from the casino. And in fact, Union Street runs on one side of the casino. The parking garage has a secondary exit that goes out onto Union Street. And this intersection ranks quite high in the top 100 high crash intersections in the Pioneer Valley. And the city was able to submit documentation to us on the number of accidents that happened in the four years prior to the casino opening, excuse me, in the four years after. And this showed an increase in accidents from about 12.2 per year to about 16.8 per year after development. So that's a fairly significant increase in the amount of accidents. They also did submit some traffic data from the most recent traffic study that did show that the traffic exiting the MGM site onto Union Street does have the tendency to use that Union Street further to the east. So we agree that they definitely demonstrated a casino-related impact. And because of that, so this design should bring it up to current standards and help improve safety at that location as well as traffic flow through it. So we are recommending full funding of that project in the amount of $250,000. Questions on that one? Okay, so the last transportation planning project that we have is the town of West Springfield Elm Street. They were requesting $250,000 for the design of complete street improvements to the Elm Street corridor. So in the past, we've given West Springfield several grants, one for actually a portion of Elm Street. But so Route 20 runs across the North End Bridge through West Springfield, a little bit of a couple of turns to it, but it's primarily for access to points west. And when you cross over from Springfield into West Springfield, the main north-south route is Route 5. And so West Springfield has identified Elm Street as an alternative route between Route 20 and Route 5. And, you know, we looked at some of the original traffic study data and it didn't show that there was really much traffic using Route 5 going to and from the casino. You know, during the Friday afternoon peak hour, it showed about six vehicles per hour heading southbound on Route 5 and about four vehicles per hour going northbound from the North End Bridge. The thing that was identified was that MassDOT recently did what they call a road dios on Route 5, on a section of Route 5. And I don't know if you've seen this, MassDOT is doing this in a lot of places where they realize that some of these roads have too many lanes and traffic is moving too quickly and they actually take actions to reduce the number of lanes and to try to slow traffic down. And they did that on Route 5. And West Springfield is reporting after that road diet. It's caused an increase in traffic on Elm Street, which I don't think is completely unexpected if you're causing traffic to be slowed down on one route, people would tend to go to the other route. But what we're finding is with just the very minimal amount of casino-related traffic using Route 5, we can't see the casino itself as being a cause of this. Certainly, the road diet that MassDOT did is impacting that, but we just don't see that as a casino-related impact. So we are not recommending funding for this. Again, just simply because we can't really make that tie to a casino-related impact for this particular project. Any questions on that one? Okay, so we will move on now to the Transportation Construction Rants. Okay, so the first two applications that you'll see from Region A were from the City of Boston. Again, they have withdrawn those for the reasons that we talked about earlier. So the first one that I'll talk about is City of Everett. It is what they're calling the Wellington connector, and they are asking for $350,000 for construction of a Wellington connector path that will connect the Northern Strand bike path that suites a circle over to the Woods Memorial Bridge. There is a gap in that bikeway network. There's been a lot of work done in that area to connect all of these bikeways together, but this is a gap that exists there. It runs east to west, but this would certainly provide a route for people who are on, say, the Maldon River Greenway or some of the other bike paths further west would be able to go on this bike path and connect to the Northern Strand, which takes you right down of a casino. You know, again, it's only about three-tenths of a mile from the casino, so it's quite close. And again, it's kind of difficult to say exactly how many vehicles a path like this would take off the road, but we have been consistent over the years in recommending these types of projects because they do have the tendency to take cars off the road, and that provides some traffic relief and also provides safe routes for people to be able to get to the casino on bikes. And I think we've seen, even since Encore was under construction, the number of people using the bike lanes in the area has increased significantly, so we do like this project. The city has actually revised its cost estimate on the project, and they reduced their request from 350,000 to 336,700, so we are recommending the awarding of that grant in the amount of $336,700. Questions on that one? No. Okay, so the next one is also Everett, and this is the Northern Strand trail extension, and I think all of the commissioners had the opportunity to walk this with the city and with me to look at one of our projects. So back in 2020, we gave the city a transportation construction grant for the construction of this Northern Strand extension in the amount of $375,000, which was only 9% of the total construction costs, but at that time they were really just looking for some money to close a small gap in their funding, which we were happy to give them that grant. Now during the construction, when they were coming under Route 16, they ran into some issues with the soil conditions and the condition of the bridge that needs some repairs needed to be made and some retaining walls needed to be constructed, which caused a fairly significant change order to the project. So they redesigned that section and are ready to go out and finish that work. Initially, they had asked for $255,131. They recently asked us to increase that to $335,260 based on some final estimates that came in. So there is funding available for this project. If you add up this project plus the other one, our total contribution would be about $525,000 which is both less than the one-third of the total costs that we have in our guidelines and it also does not exceed the $1.5 million cap on the funds. So we are requesting recommending this project be funded, but we are also just recommending doing it as an amendment to their original 2020 construction grant since the same project, it makes sense to keep it just from an administrative standpoint, keep it all as one project rather than managing it as two. So we are recommending awarding this, but it would be as an amendment to 2020 and again just for ease of administration purposes. Questions on that one? Nope. Okay, so the next one is Maldon. They are requesting $225,900 for the purchase and installation of four blue bike stations and the city is requesting full funding for this project which requires a waiver from the 33% maximum funding that's identified in the guidelines. So the impact that's identified here is increased traffic associated with the casino has resulted in an overall reduction in the level of service on Maldon roadways and being an urban area that they don't have a whole lot of ability to expand the capacity of the roadway, so they want to explore alternative modes of transportation to reduce traffic. And similar to multi-use paths, it's a little difficult to determine how many vehicles project would take off the road, but we've been consistent in trying to encourage these alternative modes of transportation for folks who might be going to the casino. So Maldon has requested 100% funding for this project, which does require a waiver. So in that transportation construction category, the CMF will pay for no more than one third of the total project cost. And the reason for that cap is that most of these projects, while they are designed to address a casino-related impact, the benefit to the community is probably much larger than that impact that it is addressing, which is why we say that the communities have to have significant matching funds for projects like this. So again, we looked at this notion of proportionality, what is sort of the fair share that the commission should pay. And we looked at Maldon overall. And right now they have three blue-bite stations with one more planned for 2023. So if we were to count these existing stations as kind of a local match, the review team felt that we could fund two additional stations out of the community mitigation fund. And that would essentially result in that one-third, two-third split, which is our target for community mitigation funds. So based on that evaluation, we felt that funding two stations would be more in line with the intent of the CMF guidelines. So we are recommending partial funding for this project in the amount of $113,000. Questions on that one? Okay, so the next one is another Maldon project. This is the River Works Path. And they are requesting $542,400 for the construction of the Maldon River Works Path. Again, they are requesting a waiver of the one-third funding cap for construction projects and is requesting that the CMF fund about 50% of the project. So this project is part of the overall Maldon River Greenway, which essentially proposes paths on both sides of the Maldon River, which would connect properties in Maldon to Medford and Everett to the South and to the Northern Strand Community Trail and to all of the various other trail networks to the South. So, you know, and completion of that Greenway will provide protected bicycle and pedestrian networks, which should also help remove vehicles from the road and provide some alternative modes of transportation to and from on-court. Initially, when we saw this project, we were a little concerned. It seemed like we were building kind of an island of paths that didn't have anything around it. But we did ask the city for some additional information about this Maldon River Greenway and what's its status and where does this fit within the overall fabric of that path. And when they got back to us, they submitted a map that showed where it all fit in. And about 61% of this Maldon River Greenway is complete with about additional 12% that's actively under design and construction. And this project would close in, close out one of those gaps that's in the network. And so when we looked at that, you know, so Maldon requested 50% of the funding on this project. And again, we try to look at all of these things as saying, well, what's the, what's the benefit to the community and what's the benefit to mitigating a casino related impact. And one of the things that we, one of the things that we realized in doing this was that there's been some significant private investment of funds on properties directly adjacent to this property. The property to the north built their piece of this path and the properties to the south. The city's working with them right now to get them to build extensions of the path on their property. So we felt that if we considered those private investments on these other properties, that that would certainly bring down sort of what the percentage is that the city is paying. So we looked at that and we thought, we said that, well, this is consider, this would be considerably lower than one third of the cost if we added in some of these other private and public investments, frankly. It's also well below our maximum contribution of 1.5 million. So we are recommending granting a waiver on this project and funding it in the full amount of $542,400. Questions on that? Okay, so our last one for today is Springfield, Dwight Street. The city is requesting $966,700 for the reconstruction of Dwight Street from Worthington Street to State Street. So of course Dwight Street is a major arterial that travels southbound from I-291 into downtown Springfield. It's recognized as a major route to the casino. People particularly coming from I-90 westbound will utilize 291 and getting off at Dwight Street is a lot easier than heading further on down on 291 and having to do those merges on 291 and cut across three lanes of traffic to exit to the casino. So there is a fairly significant amount of casino traffic that uses Dwight Street. And a couple of years ago, we did give them a grant to repave a certain portion of Dwight Street, which they did, and those also included complete streets, improvements, bike lanes and things of that nature. This next section, the roadway, is in significantly worse condition than that first piece was. So while that first piece was mostly a repaving job, this is a full reconstruction, which again will include complete streets elements to take into account vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, public transit. And this will bring it in line with all the complete streets improvements that were made as part of the MGM project. So again, they've demonstrated the casino impact. They're asking for one third of the total project cost, which is what our guidelines state, and it's below the one and a half million maximum. So this was the only project that we got in that we had no questions on at all. Their application did exactly what we asked it to do. So we are recommending full funding of this project in the amount of $966,700. So that is the last one for today. Any questions on that one? Questions or comments, commissioners? Excuse me. So I just want to commend the applicants. These are a lot of exciting projects and building on initiatives that have been underway for a while now with respect to the bypass. I think the Maldin application is an exciting one. And I'm very pleased that Springfield came through with its application on a twice straight project. So I just want to thank the applicants first and then also to all of you because you're managing a process that is drawing such great applications. And I know that this year you've got a record number, Joe. So in Joe hopes it doubles next year. So we are very pleased that community mitigation grants are being used and we're able to to hear them. And then I guess at this juncture, you'd be looking for a motion, correct, Joe? Yes, a motion or motions, I guess. And can I just check in with Nellie and Mary? Nellie, Mary, anything that you want to add? No, I think Joe did a great job running through everything. Excellent, Mary. I read your lips. Yeah. No, Joe did a great job and the team itself has done a good job in evaluating these. Yeah, quite an effort. So, all right. And too, maybe this is a good, I know you're going to do this later when you acknowledge all the members of the team. So we'll pause until you're complete. That's in a couple of weeks, right, Joe? Yep, the 15th is our next scheduled period. All right. So commissioners, I think that we've got some guidance from legal on emotion and that goes through each one. Do I have a motion? Commissioner? Yes, Madam Chair. I would move that the Commission approve applications from the following applicants for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for the purpose, says described in the submitted applications and materials included in the commissioner's packet and for the reasons described therein and discussed here today. And further that the commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205 CMR 153.04. The City of Cambridge, $249,900 funding for the planning and design of an off-road multi-use path connection between the Grand Junction Bath in Cambridge and the Community Path Extension in Somerville and to the City of Everett, $248,000 for the funding of the design of an extension of the Mystic River Harbor Walk from Encore, Boston Harbor to the Alfred Street Bridge Route 99 to the town of Hamden, $203,100. And this would be for the funding for the design of a sidewalk on Main Street and further move that a condition be put upon this award that the town of Hamden demonstrate to the commission that funds have been made available to the town from the Transportation Bond Bill. To the City of Holyoke, $82,300 for the funding to perform initial engineering design work in support of retaining construction funding under the tip for Main Street from Jackson Street to Marshall Street. To the City of Springfield, $250,000 for the funding for the design of traffic control improvements for the Union Street and Maple Street intersection. To the City of Everett, $336,700 for the funding for the construction of a new trail action known as the Wellington connector, which would connect the newly completed Northern Strand bike path at Sweetster Circle to the Woods Memorial Bridge over the Mystic River. And to the City of Springfield, $966,700 for the funding for the reconstruction of Dwight Street from Washington to State Street. Is there a second? I have a friendly amendment to that last one regarding City of Springfield to Worthington Street. I think you said Washington Street, Commissioner Hill. Of course, if that's what I said and that's the friendly amendment, I of course would accept that. And then I will second. Thank you. Any questions or concerns or edits? All right. Michelle Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. Now we have some individual motions that have some special conditions. Do I have a motion for the City of Everett's Northern Strand Trail Extension? Commissioner Skinner. I move that the Commission amend the 2020 Transportation Construction Grant awarded to the City of Everett and approve additional funding for costs associated with the Northern Strand Trail Extension in the amount of $335,260 for the reasons described in the memorandum included in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Any questions or edits? Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Yes. Five, zero. Another motion this time on Maldon. I can take that one. With respect to the City of Maldon's application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for Construction of a Portion of the Maldon River Works Park Project and the Maldon River Greenway, I move that the Commission waive the 33% Commission contribution cap on Community Mitigation Fund awards for Transportation Construction Grants as included in the 2023 Community Mitigation Fund guidelines and that the Commission approve the City of Maldon's application in the amount of $542,400 for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Thank you. Any edits or questions? Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Now we have the City of Maldon. These are partial approvals, commissioners. Commissioner Skinner. With respect to the City of Maldon's application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund to advance the design of improvements to the Broadway corridor, I move that the Commission waive the $250,000 cap on Community Mitigation Fund awards for Transportation Planning Grants as included in the 2023 Community Mitigation Fund guidelines and that the Commission approve in part the City of Maldon's application in the amount of $250,000 for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Any questions or edits? Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Five, zero. With another City of Maldon. With respect to the City of Maldon's application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for the final design of the spot-pawned Brooke Greenway, I move that the Commission waive the $250,000 cap on Community Mitigation Fund awards for Transportation Planning Grants as included in the 2023 Community Mitigation Fund guidelines and that the Commission approve in part the City of Maldon's application in the amount of $250,000 for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Again. Any questions or edits? I'm sorry. I just jumped ahead a bit. Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. City of Holyoke. Another partial approval. I move that the Commission approve in part the City of Holyoke's application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for the development of a wayfinding program in multiple languages in the amount of $200,000 for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that the Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Thank you. Any questions or edits? Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Now we have another Malden. Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve in part the City of Malden's application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for additional blue bike stations and bikes in the amount of $113,000 for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further, that the Commission staff be authorized to execute a grant instrument commemorating these awards in accordance with 205-CMR-153.04. Second. Any questions or edits? Concerns? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Now we have a few motions that explain the few denials that we have. I have a motion. Commissioner Bryan, no one wants to do the denials. Commissioner Maynard's got it. Go right ahead. I move that the Commission deny the application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for funding for the design of multi-modal transit improvements to the Lebanon Street corridor submitted by the City of Melrose for the reasons described in the memorandum in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Any questions or edits? I have one question. Chief Delaney, Melrose is not going to receive any funding from this grant. Could they apply for anything else this season? Yes, they apply for a public safety grant. Okay, so we'll look forward to seeing that again. And for those who are denied, I know that you give all kinds of feedback and we hope that they'll be applying for next season. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. All right. And the same for City of West Springfield. I know that they've applied in the past on this area. Do they have any other funding now? Well, they have a couple of projects that are underway that are under construction. They've got a public safety application. Good. Yeah. Yeah. I remember the ones that are in this general area. Okay. Thank you. So the final motion, Commissioner, is first any mitigation? Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, I move that the commission deny the application for funding from the Community Mitigation Fund for funding for Complete Streets Engineering redesign of the Elm Street corridor submitted by the City of West Springfield for the reasons described in the memorandum and the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Any questions or edits? Okay. Do I get a second? I'm sorry. Second. My apologies. Any questions or edits? All right. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Right there. Is there anything else for you today, Chief Delaney and Lily Amir? No. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. That's all we have for today. And I look forward to meeting back in a couple of weeks with our public safety applications. Okay. Commissioners, thank you so much. Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Lily. And I know that denial is hard, but I really respect the good consideration and the work of our committee members, the evaluators. And I know too, Commissioner Hill will look and carefully at that language. So now we're going on to item number six. Chris, just would you like a brief break before we do that? Can I say I would like a brief break? If that's okay. I need just maybe five to 10 minutes. Is that worth you? I would take 10 minutes. 10 minutes. Thank you. We'll close coming back at 12. 10. Thanks so much. Dave, you can take that down. Let's see if anybody's... Also. Hi, Commissioner O'Brien. Let's see if we can get started. There we go. This is a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting. We started at 10.30 this morning. We're holding this virtually. So I'll do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Oh, good afternoon, Amy. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Mayer. Good afternoon. So we've been able to go to our communities up there. Good work. Before we continue on to the sports weight training, does it make sense to just revisit item number? Dave, at this point, do you want to wait to be before we conclude today? So I got a PDF of a letter. It looks like Gray sent a PDF out. Is that the one we're looking at? Yes. Okay. So the only question that I had is in the second paragraph, the second sentence says, as a regulator in the singular, and that says we are committed. But we seem to see we in the plural and then sign as containers. I can explain that. I think I'm trying to say that we as a body are the regulator and not in use the word we to convey that it's all of us. And being careful not to assign that sentence to our regulatory colleagues because they haven't. So do we say something more to the effect of, you know, we, you know, we at the mass gaming commission or we at the MGC, I feel like the answer is a little awkward. What if we do this, we comma at the MGC or we at the MGC are committed to the right. Okay. Yeah. That's not good. Because everyone's stumbling over that. So that makes good sense. But other than that, it seems fine. Does it seem good? Great. I do that with my with my family, Commissioner Brian, I never know it's fine. Okay, good. So no other changes then. And as you can see, it's a draft now with our signatures have been placed. So if we're ready to move with that edit, Grace, do you want it just to be repeated? I'm also, I'm happy to share my screen if people want to take one final look. But I didn't just make that change. Why don't you just share real quick, please. Thanks. Because I'm looking at something and I want to show everybody's looking at the same thing. Okay. We at the MGC are committed. Does that sound good? Which one, Brian? Yeah, Mr. Skinner. Would you choose stumbling for fair reasons? Are you all set? I'm all set. It's good. Okay. So do I have a motion to adopt this and then we'll make sure that it gets sent with the other regulators letter attached. I move that the commission approve for signature and distribution. The letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland has included in the commissioner's packet and discussed and edited here today. Second. Thank you. Any further other questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Mr. Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Great work, commissioners. And thank you to Mills for drafting the letter. We appreciate it. And thank you to our fellow regulators who got this all rolling. Appreciate it. All right. Then moving on to item number five. I just want to point out that we are going to move that item to Thursday's meeting. I understand it. Caitlyn, is that correct? Yes, we very much appreciate that. Okay. And we'll look at that waiver on that regulatory timeframe of nine days. That means we're moving on to item six. Yes. Madam Chair, commissioners, on May 23rd, the commission approved a number of operator requests for temporary waivers from certain provisions of 205 CMR 255 play management, including a temporary waiver to fanatics from 205-2503-2 through August 31, 2023. On May 25, fanatics submitted two additional requests for temporary waivers pursuant to 205 CMR 202.3 and 205 CMR 102.034. They are as follows. Fanatics has requested a temporary waiver from 205 CMR 255.031 and 255.044 through August 31, 2023 to design an appropriate solution and to successfully test in advance of its release to the production of the environment. We have any questions about those two requests? Commissioners, if you have the document in front of you, it's a reminder of what that particular resolution is. These were similar requests that the other licensees requested. After reviewing those requests, fanatics realized that they needed to do that as well. Right. And this is in all different time frames, correct? Correct. But fanatics, being the newest to the game, realized that it was going to take them a little longer to put that into their software. Any questions for Director Ban? Okay, you're looking for a vote on that, Director Ban? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023, the commission issued a waiver to FBG Enterprises, OPCO LLC, DBA Fanatics from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 255.031 and 205 CMR 255.044 through August 31, 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of General Law Chapter 23N. Back empty. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Okay. Any questions on that? I have one. Okay, Commissioner Skinner. Are we granting, so 255.031, 255.044, are we also, they're also asking for a waiver of 255.032 unless that's the waiver we approved last week for fanatics. Sorry, I'm just looking at the letter, the fanatics letter. One, two, third paragraph down the middle of the paragraph. As such, fanatics is seeking relief from implementation of 255.031, 255.032, and 255.044. Okay. Commissioner Skinner's legal helps prepare motions for us. And so it just, I'm not sure if we've already granted that. No, I don't think so for fanatics. So yeah, I believe that the waiver that was already requested or granted was 255.032 and that the waivers they're seeking today are on 255.031 and 255.044. So we did address fanatics before. Yes, they received one waiver to August 31 for a different issue and then this two separate issues that would come in line with some of the other operators. And this is the same letter that was attached, maybe? Okay. Yeah, this letter is different. But I guess their amendment is just a brand new waiver request. That includes what we already approved last week. That's your correct location. Okay. That's the clarification I was looking for. Caitlin and Bruce, thank you. Great. All right. With that clarification on the motion, it's been seconded by Misha Hill. Do I have any further questions or edits? Misha Brighton. Hi. Misha Hill. Hi. Misha Skinner. Hi. Misha Maynard. Hi. And I thought, yeah, 5-0. Excellent. All right. Now, we're going to move on to the approval of the House Rule Request. So do I turn now to Sports Waging Operations Manager Carpenter, Director Ban? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Sterl. Good afternoon, Chair and good afternoon, commissioners. Today we have several House Rule changes. We are going to start with fanatics. Fanatics submitted House Rule changes and outline of their updates are primarily the same game parlay for clarity. And their baseball rules and soccer is clarity and language changes for better understanding. And then they do an overall general cleanup. The total changes are as follows on page 16. Same game parlay. So in that they clean up the language they've changed from plus to stack. And then it goes on for Clary for an example. One of the same game parlays has a selection that is void due to a player not taking part of a bet. The remainder of the same game parlay and the entirety parlay will be settled according to the general sports book parlay rules. So there they're just stating making sure that the player understands that the parlay will still remain but that section is void but not the whole whole law wager. It goes on as well as if there's a selection within the same game parlay is void under our new general or sports book specific rules. The remaining selections will be used to determine the outcome of the wager and the odds will be changed to reflect that new price. So that's saying when the legs, multiple legs creates higher odds and then once those odds lose one leg the odds are adjusted for the total outcome of the price of the ticket. So baseball rules have been changed and what they're doing is they're being more specific when it becomes to a non-playoff versus a playoff game because playoff games most likely will not be canceled in its entirety they will just be postponed where a regular season game could be postponed and not continued. So that was clarified. Then they go to page 77 with soccer rules. Again, they're just clarifying for everyone to understand what happens to a match whether it's postponed in the time frame in which it becomes voided. I will stop with fanatics rules if there are any specific questions for me. Sterl, I think your concluding statement's an important one. You want to say it? Sure, the division confirms that all requirements have been met under 205 CMR 247.02 and that the sports weight during division has no reservations about moving forward and approving these changes. Thank you. Any questions about this request? I have a question, Madam Chair. Yes. On the same game, Parley changes that second bullet. I think in the middle of that paragraph it says, for example, if one of the same game Parley has a selection that is void due to a player not taking any part in the bet, the remainder of the same game Parley and the entire Parley will be settled according to the general sports book Parley rules. What is meant by the entire Parley? Is that distinguished from second game Parley? Are they referring to the stack? Yeah. So the same game Parley selection that is the void due to not taking place, so that dropped. So the example would be if, let's say, there was five selections, they're stating that the fourth selection was voided and so four still remain out of the total of five and of those four, those entirely will be deciding the odds that factor out onto the payout. Yes, and I'm wondering if to make that clear, if the answer to this is yes, if they're referring to the same game Parley stack that's referenced earlier in the paragraph, when they say the entire Parley, it might be helpful, it might be a helpful clarifier to also add the word stack there, or use the same language. Of the top where they've changed from same game Parley, they added stack, you want stack to be placed inside. If they're referring to this, just to be consistent, if they're talking about the same series. And then page 77 for soccer, this isn't a change that they've proposed, but the last bullet, which says all football matches. I'm assuming they meant all soccer matches, in other countries, they refer to soccer as football. They use both interchangeably inside of this. I mean, if you want them to just refer to it as soccer, I can reach out to them. But yeah, they use in their house rules, they refer to soccer as football and soccer, yes. Okay, yeah. I wasn't sure in this instance if that was the case, so I wanted to flag it, fine as is. Thank you. Okay. So, if I am clear, I am reaching out to fanatics to change same game parlay in section page 16 to just clarify to make sure that they are still referring to same game parlay stack. And if so, they can make that change if we vote to approve these rules with that caveat. I'm sorry, I don't know the process. Well, we would have to have a motion. The motion would have to reflect that suggestion. I'm going to pause because I'm not the expert here. So, Commissioner Skinner, I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to include the word stack. That's right. And yeah, I'm not either, but I ask the question because I think there is a distinction in that sentence between same game parlay and the entire parlay. And I'm not clear on what that distinction is. It reads a little funny. It does say sometimes referred to as same game parlay stack. So, yeah, I'm reading the further down in that paragraph. Right. And so, maybe it's more frequently referred to as same game parlay, and then occasionally same game parlay stacks. They might be that parenthetical might be being powerful, but I don't want to speak to them because I'm not the expert. Commissioners, so I'm cautioning in terms of our motion, perhaps we could move and flag that issue. And should it need that clarification, we're good with it, as opposed to requiring them to change that. Because I think that's your intent, right? Commissioner Skinner, it's like to flag it, but not require it if it's not quite accurate, right? Yeah. Well, let's do this. I mean, if you're okay with the way that sentence reads, the sentence that starts, for example, then I'm okay with it. I'm not going to question it if you're okay with it. So, my understanding is, and how I've read their House rules prior, is exactly how Chair Judd Stein said. It is referred to as the same game parlay, but just so that they were clear for their customer, they wanted to make sure that they knew that it was also sometimes referred to as a same game parlay stack. So, it's just like a heads up for them, but that the following section, it writes same game parlay because that is its common and most used term. And so, in the sentence again, that starts with, for example, when the phrase and the entire parlay, that should not read same game parlay stack, or is that another way to read it? It's just as it's stated in the entire parlay. That was my understanding and how I read it, is it's written the way that it is written. Okay, good. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think, Madam Chair? Yeah. So, I think we would move forward with what has been proposed today, and Sterl, just reach out to Fanatics and make sure it's right. And if it's not, you can come back with a House rule change again. That's right. We'll do it. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Do you have a motion, Commissioner Hill? I move that the Commission approve the amendments to the House rule submitted by Category 3, Sports Wadring Operator, FBG, Enterprises, OPCO, LLC, Doing Businesses, Fanatics, as included in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any further questions? Is that it? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five, Sterl. All right. Thank you. We move on to page 36 in the packet. This is an update to MGM and MGM Springfield's House rules. During this, pardon me, during this review, the changes are to the phrase, one game parlay throughout the entire document is changed to same game parlay. And then as requested by the Sports Wadring Division, funding through a form of credit was added to their language in their House rules. So I will take them in two parts. In that bet MGM, the platform provider on page five of their House rules, provides the funding in their general sports book funding rules, all the methods in which they will accept. And then at the end, they have placed in language in no event may a Massachusetts account be funded through a form of credit. In MGM Springfield's House rules, it's a little different due to them not being a platform provider. But in page four, they just made sure that they would clarify under their wagers and sports book rules, general sports book rules, under section three, wagers must be funded through cash or voucher either directly at a counter or by inserting cash or a voucher at a sports wager in kiosk. In no event may a Massachusetts account be funded through a form of credit. So this concluding statement is that the division confirms that all requirements have been met under 205 CMR 247.02 and that the sports wagering division has no reservations about moving forward on approving these changes. Commissioner's questions for Sturro? Commissioner Hill? No questions? So just to be clear on the changing one game currently, same game currently throughout, that's just do it out the House rules and that's fine with you. Okay, thanks. All the way through. Thank you. And I appreciate that they brought back each of the changes on the credit. It's good clarity to offer. We have discussed that of course in the past. All right, do I have a motion? Commissioner Hill? I move, excuse me, I move that the commission approve the amendments to the House rules submitted by the category three sports wagering operator, BED-MGM, as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thanks. Any questions or edits? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? I'm sorry I looked up, but a bird just... Nevermind what the bird just did. Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. And should I just pause because right before that happened, Commissioner Hill, I was just thinking how lucky we are to be doing the work we do with the folks that we work with. And you just added that to me because I was feeling that exact bird right there. So thank you. Just a little pause of gratitude. I don't think it saw the screen. I think it can be the reflection, right? Or something they think... They think where you're sitting is the woods. I have my sliding door open and the screen is up and I just wanted to come in for a visit, but he didn't make it. You okay? Do you want to go check? Oh, he just flew off. He's fine. But that's what I was looking up. I was hoping it was okay. It's okay. Okay, because we would want you to go and take care of the bird. All right. Sarah, with that said, in my gratitude, we're going to go to MGM Springfield. Oh, that's both. No. Now we go to the MGM Springfield. Okay. That was just the MGM Commissioner Hill. So there's not another bird, did you? Bearing. I didn't want to hog up all the motions, but with that said, I move that the Commission approve the amendments to the House rule submitted by category one sports wagering operator MGM Springfield as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Thanks, Commissioner Bryan. Any questions on that? Commissioner Bryan? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. And thank you to both. Thank you to MGM and MGM Springfield for being responsive to that request. All right. What do we got next? Page 38. So this is an update to the House rules for three of our licensees. So during a commission meeting held on April 25th, 2023, it was discussed that commissioners like language that was added in the area of funding and account in all operators house rules. The language was reiterated that the use of credit was not allowed in the Commonwealth. The recommendation was to make sure that the patron funding their account was aware that the use of credit was prohibited. An email was sent on May 1st, 2023 by the sportsway during division asking five operators to add this language to their house rules. Two of the operators have submitted their change along with other changes to their house rules. These changes were reflected in their separate approval memo presented or that will be presented to the commission. The remaining three operators changes are listed below. So the changes to DraftKings happens on page 15 and section 9 under the method of funding a wager. DraftKings states that sports wagering may be funded through multiple options including without limitation, customer deposits and site promotional credits. Deposits can be made through a debit card, online banking, PayPal, PayPlus cards, bank wire transfers, cash at retail and approved gift cards and may include any other method approved by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. In no event will you fund your account via a form of credit well physically located in Massachusetts. Continuing on pen entertainment. Could we just pause on that? Sure, I'm sorry. Are there any questions? Because I'm guessing that I wish I know that they have these shared accounts so if I'm in Michigan I can use, I shouldn't say in Michigan I think Michigan does allow for credit. Assuming Michigan allows for credit assuming state A allows for credit and I'm there I can fund using credit and then come play in Massachusetts. And that seems questionable to me that language while physically located in Massachusetts. I don't think that the intent of that language was to allow someone who lives in Massachusetts to cross over the border to Rhode Island or New Hampshire fund their account and then come back to Massachusetts. From my understanding you can't do that and if you were able to do that they had to have their own Massachusetts platform that would stop them from doing that and all the licensees agreed to that. But their language is not the language we offered and there's a reason why. Commissioner Bryan, you're nodding your head. No, I'm in agreement with what you and Commissioner Skinner are saying. We have that shared account issue. Director Band is complicated. I'm not sure if they resolved it because what it really they have that share is a shared wallet, right? A university. So I'm in Nevada I'm having I'm not sure I'm picking these states and I shouldn't I should be careful. I'm in state A and I'm now you know gonna fund because I can that legally they're using credit you know based funding. Now that's in that shared wallet. If they come to Massachusetts this language right now would allow them to use those funds. Still, I know that they say sports racing may be funded through multiple may be funded through multiple options and all of those theoretically are all proper because they're cash based. But this would allow them to use those funds that were based originally on credit if it's a shared wallet which I know presents a challenge for them. A shared wallet, right? We've had this issue is there a way that that's been addressed? Bruce, do you think that they because what they really need is unfortunately for Massachusetts they need to have that wallet have a little special channel that goes directly to Massachusetts that's free and clear of any credit-based funding. I know that Karen had addressed a lot of this with them beforehand and it doesn't of course she's that Karen had to Karen decided to leave today's meeting and I gave her permission to just go down and not worry about listening. I don't know if she's listening but she really wasn't feeling well as you know Caitlyn. Let's say I worked with Karen a little bit on this before the launch and my memory of what happened was we learned that there may there may have been an issue with Universal Wall it's that exact type of issue you fund your wallet in state A that allows using credit and then if it's a universal wallet you potentially come into Massachusetts and use those sort of credit-based funds. So we raised that flag we basically said that the operators could not launch in Massachusetts pursuant to statute without having that wall in place that prohibits the use of credit in Massachusetts even if it was legally added to the account in another state and we were told by all the operators that they had the proper procedures in place prior to launch. So that that is what happened prior to launch. So this language though doesn't really work right Caitlyn? You know I'm looking at it right now as we're looking at it together can you just direct me to the page and make sure I'm looking at the right page? It's 39. In no event will you fund your account via form of credit while physically loaded located in that. Oh yeah sorry I was looking at the wrong page and I was having trouble finding the issue I agree that that that is not great language. I've got Lucy. It's just having a little trouble unmuting let's see if I can help her. I don't know if I can. Anybody want to help her? Can we help her? I mean star six isn't working Caitlyn. Yeah it's interesting because both Penn and Caesars have the language that makes it very clear. I don't know what you're trying to be creative. I sent them the language to use and the other operators used the language that I sent them. But DraftKings put this and while reading it yes. I gave her permission not to work. I'm sorry I couldn't unmute it. I was hold on let me just hang this up. Just turn off your phone yeah. Sorry I'm sorry I just couldn't unmute. So I'm trying to pull up my spreadsheet because I had a whole spreadsheet on this on this whole issue and what was the page number we're looking at? 39 of 40 and the language if they fixed the issue the language doesn't really work in any case. I think they should just be using the language that we provided that everybody else is using. I'm not really sure why they wanted to be creative. It begs the question doesn't it? Yeah that was the whole purpose of us giving them the language. Yeah. Well I think that when they that's what made me think they haven't probably solved the wallet issue and Karen if that's the case and we have wagers in Massachusetts using the shared wallet. Yeah that can't happen. So hold on I'm just looking for the I'm just looking for the spreadsheet right here and I'm not seeing the page numbers. Sterl where is it? 39 of 40. So it's the next to the last page of the packet today. Okay thank you. So I'll wait down. I'm so sorry Karen. Oh it's okay I just. After this. I just can't stop coughing so hold on. This is like you give permission but not really so sorry. No no it's I would totally fine. If you could just give me a minute I'm just going to look for the spreadsheet if I can find it. That's okay we could vote. Karen's looking at that. Let's move on to the other two and everybody can take a pause on Vapkings because that raises a little different issue. Why don't we go to PSI or. Yep. Thank you. So pen entertainment provides on page two section nine. All lists all the acceptable ways to fund their account and then and they've created a section 10. In that section that in no event. May a Massachusetts account be funded through a form of credit. And then finally Caesar's on page 10 section 18 under customer deposits. They they list all the ways in which a customer's account can be funded. And then added at the very end in no event may a Massachusetts account be a funded through a form of credit. Commissioner Brian and Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Mayer and Commissioner Hill. Do you feel that the language we offered that language that works right? Yes. Assuming other issues of other issues of the universal wallet right because it's a Massachusetts account. You can't have any funds to crack. Agreed. If I could I when we gave the concluding statement. I and I'm assuming as well as director Ben are in agreement with you that they should not have added well physically located in Massachusetts just as if anything confusing if not creates a little bit of a question. Well I am and I'll be curious to hear why they are that language because I I suspect it was an accident. So I have a suggestion. You do. Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Hill. We can put draft kings in the parking lot as you like to say for today's meeting and we can make a motion for the other two and they can come back to us because this should be a very short sweet and to the point agenda item at the next meeting just to once they clarify for us. All right. And if in fact there's any complexity I would like director Wells to come right back and director Van to come right back to us and explain it. I found one email Kathy if you could just yeah I'm just trying to pull up this information it's from back in January so I'm just trying to I feel it seems like what Commissioner Hill said makes the most sense though just so that we move on with the business at hand and then you guys have time to look that up and then you know if we need to come back on Thursday and add it. I do I do have I pulled up the letter from because we we inquired of all the potential licensees before they launched on this whole way during credit and what draft kings responded is they they do use and have their own proprietary universal wallet they won't they don't use a vendor and when asked if they have a system in place to ensure that funds for a credit card deposited in another state legally into a patron's account cannot be used to wage during Massachusetts their response was we place credit card funds into a specific financial account that can be disabled based on the geolocation of the user while the user is located in a state that prohibits the use of credit card funds deposited elsewhere these funds will be locked preventing access to them so that's how they respond in back when it just consists of you know Caitlyn had flagged that as well but inconsistent with the language right so let's reach out to them and see why they have the language that they have but or maybe we suggest that the language that was proposed is what is acceptable to the commission but not what they committed maybe they need to resubmit the good news that sounds like they their practice is right but the reason this language is misleading or could suggest something different with the universal wallet all right thank you for that director Welleson and please you're excuse me so bad thank you so much for sure hill I like your idea let's just pause on draftings and let's move on the other two if people are ready thank you pressure skinner anything new I am I move that the commission approved the amendments to the house rules submitted by the category three sports wagering operator American wagering in DBA Caesar sports book as included in the commissioners packet and discuss here today second any further discussion okay Krisha Brian hi Krisha hill hi pressure skinner hi Krisha Maynard hi I vote yes so five zero and then we'll move on to the PSI please Krisha hill I move that the commission approved the amendments to the house rules submitted by category three sports wagering operator pen sports interactive doing business as barstool sports as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today second thank you and any questions or edits okay commissioner Brian hi commissioner hill hi mr. Skinner hi mr. Maynard hi I vote yes five zero okay sterl so if I may ask I'm reaching out to draft kings about this language and after director wells executive director wells just said that it makes sense to me why they wrote it this way so I believe there's there's no trickiness involved here what they're stating here is that in no event will you fund your account via a form of credit while in massachusetts they've already they've submitted that they will not allow credit funds to be used in massachusetts so they're just stating this is probably going on all their house rules that they allow people to fund in locations where credit cards are accepted they put it in this bucket where only where credit is allowed is it could be used so anytime even if they did deposit credit in their account it would not be able to be used in massachusetts it's just my way I'm reading it in the right way Karen just stated that I think that's why they wrote it that way I understand and so they really want to explain that then they still probably need to say the original language and then offer some further explanation but I appreciate that very much and I appreciate director wells with giving that clarifying language and Kayla thank you so commissioners I think we're all set then we'll just have that get rolled over either Thursday or another day when we have a good busy agenda grace is looking out going okay we'll find some time thank you sterile and thank you Bruce excellent work and in a helpful process thank you Richard thank you commissioners we did amend our agenda to address one issue regarding a sports wagering related suitability investigation matter it would require us to move into executive session I think that our timing will work if we decide to vote affirmatively that we go into this and we would not plan to reconvene at the conclusion of any executive session executive session as you know I must read the the statutory language into the record the commission is anticipated to meet in executive session accordance with GL chapter 30a section 21a7 and GL chapter 4 section 726f to discuss investigatory materials related to the issuance of a sports wagering license necessarily compiled out of the public view by the IEB the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest the public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene as I said at the conclusion of any executive session which is do I have a motion to some to move into executive session Michelle Bryan Madam chair I move that the commission go into executive session on the matters and for the reasons just stated by the chair second thank you any questions or edits I take Michelle Bryan I Michelle Hill bye commissioner Skinner commissioner Maynard and I vote yes so this means that our public portion of the meeting is concluded unless there's any other business commissioners okay I want to thank all the team today community mitigation folks uh mills for helping us on our letter that's going to go out to the DOJ for the good work of the sports division and I hope that everyone who's ailing a little bit today feels better and now will be transported magically to um or no will we go to another link yep for this executive session everybody should have a separate calendar invites on their calendar so I can hang up here and join the executive section invitation and please reach out to me if you have any issues or if you need to join but don't have that in bite okay thanks