 Everyone will get started today. We're calling to order up. I need to do the roll call commissioner Cameron. Good morning everyone. I am here. Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Commissioner Hill. Good morning and present. And we're all set to be in with the four of us. Thank you. And we'll get started with public meeting number 357 calling to order at just after 10 a.m. And somebody is really ringing the doorbell. But we want to get right to the minutes. Commissioner O'Brien, you shifted on. Good morning. April 8th. Yes, Madam Chair, I move that the commissioner approve the meeting minutes from April 8th, 2021 subject to any necessary changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Thank you. Any questions or discussions or edits? Everyone had a chance to look at. I just wanted to, I did note Director Wells that Commissioner Zuniga brought up the good idea of the wonderful presentations that we're receiving from the team to be put into a SharePoint. I think many of those do end up in our commissioner's SharePoint, but something maybe for Crystal to help us with. You know, we get such wonderful PowerPoints and sometimes they're harder for us to retrieve through our email. And they wouldn't be, they would be PDFs, correct? Commissioner O'Brien, so they would be static. And we, so it was a good reminder on the minutes that we just should follow up with that. So for instance, that was, if you remember Monica's finance PowerPoints. So that would be one of those wonderful treasures to keep in a SharePoint. Just to clarify, you're talking about the ones that we have done in the public meetings or the ones we did for onboarding Commissioner Hill? Well, no, those would, I think have been shared with the commissioners, but I'm thinking more when we get these wonderful presentations. I think that's what we were speaking about on this April 3rd meeting. Monica's wonderful PowerPoint. I'm thinking of Todd, Kaitlin's on the travel litigation matter, just all those treasures so that when we want to go, want to refer to them, they're really readily available. Okay. And there might be a little bit separate from our other commission PowerPoint where it's all of our agenda and all of this, just kind of clutter-free. Does that sound, that's doable, right? Yeah. Okay. Anyway, it was a good reminder for the minutes. Thanks. With that said, excellent edits, no discussion, then we'll take a vote. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Oh, I probably should have had you abstain, yeah. Abstain. Fine, we'll note the abstention. My apologies, I set you up inappropriately there. And then I say aye. So we have our three with one abstention and that's sufficient, correct? Okay. Yes. Anything else, Commissioner O'Brien? No, that was it. Okay, then we'll move on to your update. Executive Director Wales, please. Yeah, for item three A, I'm going to turn it over to Loretta and Bruce. Do you have an update on the onsite casino operations and what's been going on there? Hi, thanks. Good morning again, Chair and commissioners. Since our last update two weeks ago, things have continued to go well. The properties are continuing. They're enhanced cleaning protocols at MGM. MGM continues to implement and enforce the city-wide mask mandate for indoor public places. There have been no significant issues with that. Compliance has been okay on the MGM side as well as on the patron side. MGM has wrapped up its outdoor free music, the Friday night series that it did over the summer. That was a successful offering for them and they will be bringing it into one of their ballrooms starting the middle of this month on the 15th. And MGM is hosting their first pieces of conference style business in their convention area at the end of this month. MGM, like the other two licenses as well, hiring has continued to be a theme and MGM held another large hiring event a week ago today. I've been informed that they were able to make job offers to 60 people that is a successful event. And of course we on the licensing and IEB side are seeing a steady group of hires amongst all three coming through the licensing and then the background reviews. Plain Ridge has also been actively recruiting and hiring at this point. They are still hiring for fluties overall. They report that they're getting the staff that they need the culinary side does, the food and beverage side does remain their bigger challenge. They have several initiatives in place to resolve the issue including increasing their starting wages. They don't have an opening date for fluties yet but they are working towards that. And at Encore operations are continuing. They did host the Department of Public Health on two days in two informational workshops for their employees on September 27th and September 28th. They chose times that would hit the most employees depending on shifts. I think the times were five a.m. to nine a.m. and then three p.m. to eight p.m. The event was staged near the employee cafeteria and DPH was available to ask questions about the vaccine. The overall goal was to increase vaccine amongst the employee population there. So really those are the significant matters that I have for you this morning. I'm happy to try to answer any questions. I know that Bruce is on the call and that he has some items for you as well. I just heard Director Lillio set this time. Just a comment. Good news that they're able to hire the staff they need. I know your last report said that was really a challenge. So that's really good news to 60 jobs at MGM and Plain Ridge on the verge of reopening fluties. So it's a good report. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, commissioners and chair. My report is Encore is in the process of changing all the carpets in the high limit area. They're removing the two smaller food trucks down by the escalator. PPC is kind of remains the same since the last report two weeks ago. And the big announcement is MGM will be opening up their poker room on October 29. So that's been a subject since probably last March with this. So that will be good to see. Any questions or anything? Questions? How many tables, Bruce, do you know? I don't know initially. Not gonna be the same amount that they initially had but my guess would be probably around 10 tables initially. They have hired a poker manager and are slowly bringing on staff. So I know they have one table on the floor right now but they're slowly bringing them back in. To commissioner Cameron's point before, it'd be really interesting to note how many additional staff come on with poker. That's good news. I'll bring that information back with me for the next meeting. Excellent. Commissioner's questions for Bruce. All set. Okay, thank you. Thanks. You're welcome. Karen. Thank you. Next item three B is the internal reopening plan update. So the November 1st date where we are reopening our Boston offices for staff, not to the public but for staff that is coming up in just over three weeks. So we met yesterday with the entire working group. I am meeting with managers this afternoon to review and the form to distribute to the staff for hybrid work requests. I have sent that to the managers just now and we'll meet this afternoon to make sure everyone's on the same page about communicating that to staff and make sure everyone understands what the process is and the policy that the commission approved. We have reviewed by department at the working groups or the equipment situation. I think we're in pretty good shape there. Managers will coordinate for their own teams about what equipment they need and what's going to work in this hybrid mode. The team is working on a plan for coordinating with staff members about returning some of their equipment to the office that they've been using at home that they may need in their offices. So we're gonna work out a plan and a schedule. I think when it can't show up at nine o'clock right at the front door with on their equipment, we're gonna have to have something very efficient. So I think the first week back there's gonna be sort of a transition period where we're scheduling returns and getting used to it. I mentioned at the last meeting that we'll be doing some training beforehand about using the L and being able to do hybrid meetings internally in the office. If someone's remote and they're saying three people in the office and one person's remote, how do you do that? Do you make that comfortable for the people that are in the office and still have the remote person participate? I'm expecting to try to schedule a town hall for the week of the 18th. That's basically Boston-based for the return of the office just to communicate with the entire team. The entire staff will be invited to that. If folks that are not located in Boston want to opt out, that's fine. It's up to them if they want to attend. And then the other update is our vaccine verification process has been extremely successful. That worked out very well. There are an extremely small number of requests for exemptions. The forms for those requests were sent out. HR and legal work with outside counsel on that and we'll be getting that information back. And then once that information is back we can determine some kind of resolution in those requests. So I'll keep the conditions updated. But we're actually in very good shape. We had a very successful program there. Any questions? Questions, commission. All set. Excellent report. Okay. We're good shape. Thank you. And thank you to staff for all the help on this. This is a great project. And thank you to Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Cameron for your work on the working group. Appreciate it. Spend a lot of work for you and for the whole team. So thank you. I can't believe November 1st is coming up. Before I was having a hard time imagining November 1st would ever arrive. So here we are. And we're moving on, right? Karen, I'll set to item number four. Good morning. Good morning, Director Vanderlinden. Hi, Mark. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Jett Stein. Good morning, commissioners. I'm joined today by Dr. Rachel Wolberg, as you know from UMass and our Sigma project as well as our research manager. So as you know, the MGC gaming research agenda has now been underway for eight plus years. We've amassed a number of reports and really valuable information that is intended to inform our work as well as others' work. It covers the areas of social research, economic research, public safety, program evaluation and community in several community-driven research projects. So in order to maximize this research and the findings that we have, a couple of years ago, we finished a, actually about 18 months ago, we finished a strategic plan for the research agenda. A key piece of this strategic plan was to develop the capacity to more widely share the research findings. And what that means is, how do we take this really valuable research that we have and translate it into ways that make sense to people? Late terms in some cases, in some cases it perhaps has more depth to it. But the key point is, what do we do in order to tailor our research so that it gets to the right people and it strikes the right tone? And today is really, I think our first staff at taking what we feel, what we know is an invaluable piece of research that has been created by Dr. Volberg and her team and translating that into recommendations that that will mean something. Now, please understand, this is really our first real intentional effort doing this where it's coming from the gaming commission. And so we will continue to revise this over time, but I do feel that it is going back and really striking what the intention of the expanded gaming act was and the purpose of the research agenda. And it certainly fulfills a key piece of the research strategic plan, which by the way was adopted by the Public Health Press Fund Executive Committee as well as it was presented to the commission. Now magic, magic was as you know, it's the Massachusetts gambling impact cohort. This was a study that took place over about a six year period following the same group of individuals to better understand their gambling behavior. And with that information, it's really intended to really understand the ideology. What is, how did gambling, problem gambling develop? How did the at-risk gambling develop? I'm going to ask Rachel Volberg to dive a little bit further into the studies, objectives and goals. And then after that, I will turn to that for Marie Claire and I will do a short presentation on a two page document that we created as well as cover the findings and recommendations. So with that, Dr. Volberg, do you want to pick this up? Good morning, everyone. Mark, I sent you a text a few minutes ago to let you know that I'm having connectivity problems with my computer. Okay. So I'm hoping that you and Marie Claire have a copy of my slides ready to share with the commissioners while I read from my notes pages. I have that ready, Rachel. I can share my screen. Thank you so much, Marie Claire. Can everyone, is it working? Okay, that looks like my first slide. Thank you very much. Not a really strong start to my day, but I will persevere. So I'm going to just share a few very high level overview details about the magic study and then turn you back over to Mark and Marie Claire. So next slide, please. In addition to authorizing casinos in Massachusetts, the Expanded Gaming Act is unique in the United States in requiring the Game and Commission to establish a robust research agenda as laid out in section 71 of the statute. The research agenda has three important components, including research to understand the social and economic effects of casinos in Massachusetts, a baseline study of problem gambling and existing prevention and treatment programs, and independent studies on a variety of topics, including the etiology or natural course of the disorder. As you've heard in 2013, the Gaming Commission selected our research team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to carry out the first two elements of the research agenda. In October, 2013, the Gaming Commission with the unanimous support of the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee recommended to the legislature that a longitudinal cohort study be added to the MGC's research agenda. And in April, 2014, the Gaming Commission again selected our research team to conduct an ideological study of gambling and problem gambling in Massachusetts. I do want to mention that although the study was approved in April of 2014, it did not actually begin until December of that year because of the casino referendum that was on the ballot in November. Next slide, please. I want to highlight some key aspects of the longitudinal cohort study in Massachusetts from an international perspective. This study is the first large-scale gambling cohort study ever conducted in the United States. The introduction of casinos during the course of the study means that it provided an opportunity to better understand the relationship between gambling availability and problem gambling. Now, between us, Rob Williams and I were closely involved in all of the five prior large-scale gambling cohort studies carried out internationally in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. We were able to apply lessons learned in these other studies in conducting the study in Massachusetts. Magic builds on these prior studies and it ultimately included all variables found to be significantly related to problem gambling in all prior longitudinal and cross-sectional research. Next slide. This slide presents the overall goals of the Magic study. And I just want to digress a little bit here. It's important to understand that cross-sectional prevalence studies, you know, pre-posed or at various intervals, do not really tell you anything about the dynamics underlying a prevalence rate of problem gambling, for example. A stable prevalence rate over two periods of time can either represent continuity of those problems in the same individuals or a rate of remission equivalent to the rate of new cases. And these two scenarios have very different implications for the mix of services needed to minimize and mitigate gambling problems. My final slide, the next one, yep. This slide presents some information about the five waves of the study. So after we learned that there was going to be a cohort study started in 2015, we selected a sample of 4,860 individuals from the baseline general population survey that we conducted in 2013. We heavily over-selected for at-risk characteristics since we knew from experience that this would allow us to observe many more changes in problem gambling status than were observed in other gambling cohort studies that had been done internationally. Because we had not expected to do a cohort study in Massachusetts, so soon after the baseline survey, the first two assessments were relatively short, but the latter three assessments were quite comprehensive. And as you can see, we were able to retain a very substantial proportion of the original 3,139 members of the cohort over the entire six year period of the study. And now I will turn it over to Mark and Marie Claire. Thank you. Oh, the next presentation. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Thank you, Dr. Wohlberg, for the overview on Niger. Now I'll be talking a little bit about some of the key findings from the study, and then Mark will be talking about the recommendations that were being made to try. So one of the things that this study did was kind of fry people into four different categories, depending on their gambling behavior. So there were the non-gambler, creation of gambler, at-risk, and problem gambler. And the goal was to determine the stability and movement of people between these behavior groups. And so what the study found was that the most stable group was the recreational gamblers. The recreational gambler is someone who would gamble for entertainment, recreationally. And so the large majority of the recreational gamblers stayed recreational gamblers. The second most stable group was the non-gambler group. The third most stable group was the non-gambler group, which is someone who has a gambler with a lot of money. And so the majority of non-gamblers in one way stayed non-gamblers in the next way. The most that did transition, the majority transitioned to recreational gambling. And even less stable group was the group of problem gamblers. So a problem gambler is someone, for this study, someone who is experiencing impaired control of their gambling behavior and is experiencing some gambling harms, some harms related to gambling. And the majority of problem gamblers transitioned to at-risk or recreational gambling in the next wave. And a noteworthy finding is that in the last wave, over 75% of problem gamblers were relapsed from gamblers. Now, the least stable group was the group of at-risk gamblers. So at-risk gambler would be someone who would be spending more than they intend or spend more time gambling that they intended. And the minority of these groups stayed in this category in the next wave. Most of them transitioned to recreational gambling, almost half of them. And a significant percentage of at-risk gamblers became from gamblers during the next study. This was around one in five. So what these findings are telling us is that there is an instability of gambling behavior. And this provides an opportunity to influence people at different points of the gambling journey through targeted prevention treatment and policies. Another objective of the study was to look at the predictors of from gambling and recovery. And so for from gambling, so a lot of reasons sports betting were found to be two types of gambling that are predictors for from gambling. In terms of demographic, it was found that being male and having a lower household income was also a predictor. There are more demographics that are predicted for from gambling, but they're outside the scope of this study. So here we're just focusing on the magic findings. In terms of comorbidities, it was found that having a higher number of significant property or financial life events in the last 12 months, having problems with alcohol or drugs and having lower levels of happiness were also predictors from gambling. And in terms of, in terms of a behavioral, having ranking, rating higher importance of gambling as a recreational activity, as well as higher impulsivity, higher score on psychopathy, antisociality and having higher false beliefs about gambling were also predictors of from gambling. In terms of recovery, no prior lifetime problems with gambling was a predictor for recovery. Having less severe problem gambling, so that means lower problem gambling scores, lower gambling expenditure. And this is really where prevention can be tied in and how important it is to have early interventions to really, prior for people to be moving down the gambling continuum. And so a program like Game Sense is really key for this example. In terms of comorbidities, it was found that having fewer comorbidities, so less impulsivity, absence of behavioral addiction, no illegal activity, no mental disorders and significant life events of any kind were also predictors for recovery, as well as fewer false beliefs about gambling. And so all of these predictors and knowing the indicators that predict problem gambling and recovery can really help support the development of effective prevention, treatment and policies to support player health. And now I'll pass it on to Mark to talk a little bit about the recommendations based on these findings. Great, Marie Claire, would you mind just driving that slide back for me please? Great, thank you. So I'm gonna, based upon these findings that Marie Claire just reviewed with you, there are several recommendations or considerations that we derive from that. I'm gonna break it down by prevention, treatment and policy. Recognizing that there is actually, it's not nice, neat categories, there is actually overlap between these three areas. But first, starting with prevention. So a lot of the considerations were developed from the findings and the predictors of problem gambling. So the first is educational efforts, supporting player health with a particular focus on demographics, location and content. We can be much more specific when we think about the development of these types of educational materials, knowing who we're talking to, where they should be located or where they should be directed towards and what the content is. And so the, speaking specifically of the content, the educational effort should focus on countering false beliefs about gambling, the risk factors associated with problem gambling, lower risk gambling guidelines. So another effort that we currently have underway or we're just starting is the lower risk gambling guidelines. And those focus on providing direction to players on gambling expenditure, number of forms, gambling and frequency of gambling. We should also offer play management systems to monitor in real time gambling. And as you know, this is something like play my way, but it may also include such things as setting a time limit or setting a win limit. And so I think that while we're on the right track with play my way, there are findings from this study that should cause us to pause and think about what other directions we can go with that. And then also we kind of related back to the top, delivering information that supports informed decision-making by gambler type. Who are we talking to? Let's be as specific as we can when we're thinking about who our audience is. And so it's different for a recreational gambler than it is for a problem gambler. The tone of the message is different and the type of the type of information that it would be shared is different. Next slide, please. So in terms of treatment, let's see, improving pathways to encourage people to access treatment. So for an example of that is a warm handoff and a warm handoff would be something like a collar to the helpline would be transferred directly to a treatment provider. The another would be because of the etiological connection, effective treatment and substance abuse. So because of the etiological connection to substance abuse and mental health, we would also want to make sure that we integrate information about problem gambling into those specific settings. So for example, that would mean that substance abuse or mental health clinicians are also cross-trained to really understand the nature and course of problem gambling. Providing screening for problem gamblers when, oh, I'm sorry, I just covered that. Supporting culturally appropriate services and that includes appropriate languages. So for example, and this is related to the magic study but it is also related to some of the other types of community-driven research we have assuring that where treatment services are located, the types of treatment linguistically appropriate that those services are readily available. And improving pathways to encourage people to access treatment. This means that we open the doors wide as possible in order to create pathways for people to access treatment. I think in terms of game sense, that would mean that we make sure that game sense advisors have the latest information on what treatment is available within the communities, what culturally appropriate treatment is available. And so that opens that pathway towards treatment a little wider. These are some of the examples that we should be considering when we think about how do we provide and make sure that treatment is readily accessible. Next slide, please. And finally on policy. Limiting gambling advertising and the availability, especially in low socioeconomic neighborhoods. I recognize that this is maybe difficult to achieve or to wrap our arms around in terms of policy. But if we know that individuals in lower socioeconomic groups or there are specific groups that are at greater risk, we should take a look at what factors may exist within the community that we can have an influence over. We should promote player pre-commitment for player reward card holders. Again, this goes back to something like play my way, although as we move down that road, thinking more broadly. Requiring casino employee training on problem and responsible gaming. This is pretty widely available in Massachusetts at this point. And I think the findings from this study really reinforce that for us. Promoting the availability of voluntary self-exclusion. We have almost a thousand people on the voluntary self-exclusion list at this time. And that is without, I think, the full extent of how we can promote that program. Both promote it widely to the general population but also specifically within other treatment settings where something like a voluntary self-exclusion program may be a nice part of treatment plan for somebody who is accessing mental health or substance abuse treatment. Next is cooling off period. So our voluntary self-exclusion program offers something as short as a one year period and as long as lifetime. But I think that the findings for this, recognizing that people move quickly between these different gambling types should cause us to think about whether or not a cooling off period is shorter than a duration of six months may be something that would be worthwhile for us to pursue. The next two are related. Improving access to ATM exclusions and restricting access to ATM in venues. We have a requirement in Massachusetts that ATM machines are not on the gaming floor. In fact, it states that they can't be located any closer than 15 feet to the gaming floor. Recognizing that we have, I think the findings would suggest that perhaps we wanna offer greater flexibility in the types of controls that players can implement for themselves, including something like an ATM exclusion. This is available. It's not regulated by the gaming commission, but I think that we can do a better job of promoting the availability of something like an ATM exclusion, which is a program offered by the ATM companies that have ATMs at the properties. Promoting the availability of credit suspension. This is also an offering at each of the casinos that I think that we can do a better job of promoting. And again, with the intention that it provides a greater range of options. Automated alerts or other interventions for when players gambling behavior escalates. So there is a growing technology and I think a better technology that allows for this type of intervention to be delivered to players. It's most widely available in online settings, though I think that we could possibly see this moving over into brick and mortar casinos. Regardless, I think that it's the type of technology that we should continue to explore in order to support players. Rewarding responsible gambling on player rewards cards. I think that this is something I don't have a specific example of how we can do this, but I think that we have a good relationship with our licensees. And perhaps it's something that we could consider exploring with them how we could implement specific measures that would satisfy this. And then finally, serving alcoholic beverages responsibly. There are rules and regulations that are in place that would encourage us and I would like to just reinforce that those are really important. To be in place at Massachusetts casinos. Next slide. So questions. Thanks, Mark. I think the policy slide is an important one to perhaps keep up, although I'm inclined to always take down the PowerPoint. So I leave it to folks. I think if you have it in your own, if you have access to that slide, commissioners, I would take it down. Do most people have access to that? Yeah, okay, good. I'm seeing everybody's nodding their head, great. Questions for Mark and when we clear first up, thank you to Dr. Volver. The work has been no short of remarkable. Commissioner Hill, you remember the impetus for this and I'm sure you're gonna note that, but thank you and we will circle throughout our questioning. We wanna remember that Dr. Volberg is available for our questions as well. So questions, Commissioner Cameron. Yes, yes, first of all, and this may be for a lesson learned from those other jurisdictions around the world, but those retention rates are really remarkable and that seen a lot of studies and I don't see retention rates that high. So whatever you're doing to keep those folks engaged, it really adds value here, I think. That many people staying engaged in the study. The question I had though was more to do with the chart we showed on the four categories. You know, the at-risk, the problem, the recreational and the non-gambler. Although we talk about instability with that chart, most of that instability was positive, correct? I mean, the only negative really was that group who moved from at-risk to problem. So that's certainly a concern, but the stability around moving from maybe even a non-gambler to a recreational, I don't look at that as a negative, and those who moved from at-risk down to a recreational, really good news, right? And those who moved from problem gaming down to at-risk is pretty good news too. So I just think those are good results here and it probably is all the work we do, whether it be playing my way and all of the other work that's being done out there, I think probably contributes to that, but am I missing something or is that good news, that chart for the most part? Rachel, do you wanna take it for a stab at them? Sure, yeah. It definitely is good news to see that people, for the most part, transition to a less severe category. I will say that transitioning from being a non-gambler to a recreational gambler is actually very easy because all it takes is purchasing a lottery ticket, for example, or going to a casino one time in the past year. The group that I think, or the piece that we were most interested in in terms of the problem gamblers and the at-risk gamblers that we saw moving back and forth is that one of the main predictors of developing a gambling problem or becoming a problem gambler in any given wave was having been a problem gambler in a previous wave. And so what we seem to have in Massachusetts is a fairly substantial group, if you will, of people who are vulnerable because they've had a gambling problem in the past. And so I think in Massachusetts, in contrast to some of the other international jurisdictions, what we have is sort of a larger proportion of people who are not first-time or early-onset problem gamblers, we have more of a population of people who've had difficulties in the past and then develop difficulties again. And that requires a somewhat different mix of messaging, of prevention and treatment to sort of be able to address both of those kinds of problem onset. And if I think that there's a prevention lesson in there and I think that there's a treatment lesson in there and really understanding that fact, it should inform what our strategies are, for example, and in game sense, recognizing that a person who is a problem gambler can move down that continuum and then perhaps you can back up again. And same with treatment, by the way, to understand that movement. Great, thank you. And just a real follow-up to that. Did the team, was the team surprised by any of this? And maybe that was the one thing that was not anticipated, was this moving down the continuum and maybe, or those who were at risk in the past before casinos were even here? But was there anything surprising about this to the team? That's a good question. Yeah, I mean, to me, I was a little surprised. Of course, I would recognize that there would be instability within the groups, but I think the extent of that instability was surprising to me. And honestly, it gave me some hope that we have this tremendous window of opportunity to work with players, to deliver the right information at the right time, where there's multiple windows of opportunity, I guess I should say. So, so yeah, I was surprised by that. Okay, thank you, everyone. Great report. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Hill, there you go. First of all, the study very informative and very impressive. And if anything I've learned over the last few weeks of becoming a commissioner is that this is really a priority of the commission and the person under the commission who are dealing with gambling addictions. One thing I'd like to touch upon that I saw in the public health recommendations and something that I feel very strongly about and hoping maybe you can touch upon it a little bit more is the connection between the mental health and those with gambling addictions. And as we move forward with the report, because I think the report gives us a very good framework and a roadmap to the commission and to the staff to help people with problem gambling. But I know the mental health is a very big piece of this and it's an expensive piece to this in regards to trying to help these individuals either as a state or individually. But can you just touch upon a little bit of that of mental health piece and how we would move forward in helping those individuals? Sure. Commissioner Hill, as you know, I mean, the mental health system is complex and it's really can be really confusing. I think understanding that mental health clinicians largely have a specific kind of range of practice and specialties. They may be, some are more general than others, some may be incredibly focused. Recognizing that there is quality training, clinical training to talk about gambling disorders, which is a DSM, a clinical diagnosis, a gambling disorder. Recognizing that there are quality trainings out there and perhaps increasing the number of those trainings, increasing incentives for mental health clinicians to access that type of training. I think that it would make a lot of sense to kind of help mental health clinicians generally in the mental health system more broadly, increase their capacity to understand and treat this. Recognizing that it's the comorbidity between a gambling disorder and other mental health disorders is incredibly high. In some cases over, I'd say over 90% comorbidity between if you have a gambling disorder or some other mental health disorder is also at play. I didn't know if the doctor wanted to add something to that. Go right ahead, yes. Yeah, so the one thing that I wanted to add is that in mental health settings, there is an effort generally to identify all of the presenting problems that someone comes in with. But if you're not screening for a gambling problem and you don't pick up on the fact that the person before you who's presenting with depression or with an alcohol problem also has a gambling problem, that issue will not be addressed in the treatment plan and can very significantly affect the ability of that person to recover from the presenting problem as well as a gambling problem. And so there's a tremendous opportunity, I think when we think about adding screening for gambling problems into a mental health clinical setting, there's an opportunity to actually have much more effective treatment because you're addressing that additional problem that the person might not be willing to discuss. That's a fantastic point, Rachel. That really does tie well with what I had said too, that there needs to be broader availability of screening, but once you do the screening and somebody that comes back positive or comes back indicating that there's the presence of gambling problem, having the capacity to work with that individual and know kind of the scope of what you're working with. Yeah. I know it was a loaded question and something we could talk about for hours on end, which I don't intend on doing, but I would also add that I share with Commissioner Cameron that the results I think at the beginning of the presentation were very impressive. And I'd like to think it's because of all the very hard work and the programs like game sense that have been put into place. You know, as we were meeting yesterday, I found out that like one of the top in the nation, once again, in regards to helping those with gaming or gambling addictions, and I just want to applaud it and thank the staff and all the organizations that are working together to make this happen because I know this was something that was so important to so many people at the beginning of the gaming industry. So I'll just leave it with that and say thank you and a great job and a great report. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I don't think it was such a loaded question. Certainly Mark has raised the intersection of our work with respect to mental health and substance abuse disorders in the past. I think, you know, you're prompting something along the line, possibility of additional research to support perhaps work with Department of Public Health or with a medical facility and a pilot program. Mark and Marie Claire and Dr. Wilbert are really imaginative. There's some opportunities there that we could think about. Of course, the priorities need to be established by Mark and team, right? But there are some opportunities there and it's so important and right now there's such good awareness of the need for mental health resources. So time might be perfect, right? If I started my career understanding gambling disorders as a clinical supervisor at a substance abuse treatment in Agents, not in Massachusetts, trying to figure out how to include or integrate the capacity for those clinicians to provide problem gambling treatment. Over the years, I've recognized it's not one or the other. It needs to be both and it needs to be integrated and a cute understanding of the nature of the issue and how it interplays with the individual only provides better treatment regardless of what the focus of the treatment is. You wanna meet the individuals needs and sometimes it extends far beyond what the original presenting problem is. Dr. Wilbert, are you leaning in? No, I was leaning in to agree with Mark that it really is an issue of people are complex entities and they turn up for treatment for something but it's almost inevitable that a whole host of other issues are going to come up and it is really vital to the success of that person's treatment to be able to see that whole person. Well said. So can I just ask a question of the prevention options that you sort of were in the slide? When you talk about locations, you reference school-based programs which intrigued me because obviously we can't they can't go into casinos until they're 21 or older here. They can go to some other jurisdictions nearby at 18. Are you, is the concept to go into colleges and junior colleges or are you talking about going into secondary locations to basically let people know about gambling and gambling addictions and risks and stuff starting in say high school? Are you, I mean, what's the parameters of that? Yeah, well, I think college and secondary high school prevention, I don't believe game sense would be the appropriate entity especially in a high school setting but I think that there are a number of curriculums and programs that focus on that specific demographic with evidence-based prevention programs that should be considered. You know, as a side note, we also have provided funding to in Springfield for their youth health survey that's administered to eighth, 11th, eighth, 10th and 12th graders to have an understanding of gambling behavior and possibly problem gambling within that age group. I don't have the findings directly in front of me but I think that we wanna understand what is the nature of the problem in those settings as well and I think that the prevention programs are exactly that. How do we provide prevention there? So once they turn 21 and head to the casino, they're either choosing, if they're choosing to gamble as recreationally and not moving down to gambling. I'd be curious to see what the results of that study are actually if you can get it to me at some point. Yeah, absolutely. I'm excited to dive more into that data as well. Great, thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, did you have any other questions right now? No, that was it, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Hill, do you have other questions? Okay, so I just had it first off, great report. Mark, I, in the past, I don't know if it was in a public meeting here and perhaps it was with another presentation with Dr. Volberg that was more global. There was, there were some stakeholders who were, who suggested that they were surprised that the magic research ended after the six-year period that there was a thought that it might have extended longer. I think it's probably, in my right about that first, and if so, could you just explain how the, because Commissioner Cameron did point out that the retention rate of the cohort was remarkable, but can you just explain, you know, how it came to be six years just so that we have that recorded? Sure, it's largely, the contract ran the extent of the course that it could run without re-occurring that contract. That, the end of that also happened to coincide with the launching of the follow-up general population survey, which is another very large project that is currently out in the field right now. So it's huge in scope and huge in budget. So in terms of saying, let's just re-cure that in order to continue that cohort wasn't feasible at the time. I think that there's also an argument that cohorts at a certain time also perhaps run their course and that you want to refresh a cohort. So I don't think the commission should take it completely off the table of that. We would follow a similar sort of course with the follow-up general population participants as we did with the baseline general population participants and that we comprised the cohort from the general population survey participants, making sure that it was enriched with persons who were at risk or problems. We could perhaps do the same following the completion of the follow-up general population survey. So I agree the timing wasn't great. It just wasn't great, but for a variety of different reasons, that study needed to terminate when it did. Great. Thank you. So we can stay tuned as you continue to work out your research agenda and present to G-PAC and us that perhaps that would come back in a different form. Yeah, I agree. I was very interested in the G-PAC's advice and certainly, and of course, all of our commissioners. Yeah, oh yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. And then I also applaud that you have focused on educational efforts and also was gonna ask about the school-based program because that caught my eye as well. I have one sort of question about another alternative. And then I just thought maybe we should talk to commissioners about what to do with Mark's policy list in terms of guidance down the road. So if you could be thinking about next steps with respect to those ideas, but one question I had that I didn't see, I might have missed, are there programs available or something that could be in the education realm for we have a lot of interventions to help the gambler while they're gambling? I'm wondering about financial, I'm not sure what the words should be, financial education, financial interventions for those problem gamblers who are in dire straits. That somehow they have access to go and help with credit, reestablish their credit as well as using all the interventions on their problem gambling. But I wondered if there was an opportunity there to work with financial institutions or something along the line. Yeah, I would love to, I think that this is a great question that as we talk to our partners that like the PH or others about financial literacy, gambling as we know is driven by money. And most of the time, the time somebody is in need of help, their financial situation is devastating. And so the idea of integrating financial literacy or financial support, especially linking it with a clinical intervention makes perfect sense. And I think, and there are examples, I wish I could say more about Massachusetts specifically, but certainly this is a fairly common practice. And Mark, I know we touched on that a little bit reaching out to the regulators of the banking institutions and Massachusetts, but also the treasure does have a financial literacy program. So there are some ways that maybe we could integrate our work and across other departments and other offices. So yeah, so I guess we could pile on so many ideas. And so I understand that at a certain point you have to prioritize and that's kind of my sort of the nexus to the policy page. Commissioners, there's a lot of great ideas. At the top of the list, I see limit gambling advertising. In my tenure, we really haven't visited advertising. Commissioner Cameron, Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know if you can provide some historic knowledge on that issue, but it certainly comes up and it comes up in our research, right? So I don't know if we should be thinking about that. That was at the top of the list and there's so many that I don't know how we can give some guidance to Mark and Tim. Ideas? Commissioner Cameron or Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner Hill? Commissioner Hill. Well, as the new person, I need to digest these policy recommendations. A couple of them, you know, the advertising, I know it again was a big issue that I think we need to take a look at maybe, but I'd like to see a little bit more information on each policy that we've been given before I could make any, you know, any educated decisions on or comments on. Great. Commissioner Cameron? Yeah, the one area of advertising we did get involved with was up at MGM because they wanted an interactive advertising very close to the main thoroughfare there. And, you know, so we did get involved with that and they, without us having to vote or anything else, they dropped their plans to do that. But what we haven't had, and I'm wondering how we could gather this information is reports to the commission of inflammatory advertising, something that really is harmful, whether it be to young people or those, you know, in the kinds of neighborhoods. I mean, I know there's some on buses, but I just, we haven't, I don't know if there's a way to collect that information so it could come to us and we would have information to act on, but I just, we haven't had that come to us. Mark, any, do you gather some of that information? We haven't gathered that information. We've heard it. It hasn't been reported to you. I don't mean, I didn't mean you actively, okay. So. You know, we've integrated guidance within the responsible gaming framework on casino advertising. And by and large, the casino industry follows guidance that was set out by the American Gaming Association. It's not as if there isn't anything that it's a void out there, but I think that there is really, there's interesting information from the study that should say, okay, we have some general information that's out there. And by the way, our guidance in the responsible gaming framework largely follows the American Gaming Association. So we have some general guidance there. Can the time that we consider something that would be more specific in either guidance or concrete direction? This may be an issue when it comes to sports betting because that's the advertising that's really prevalent out there is the sports betting advertising that is happening now, right? You're in the comment. Even though it's not legal. I think that there's definitely some lessons to be learned from other jurisdiction in sports way during advertising. And I've heard of, you know, ban, whistle to whistle ban on sports advertising as an example of something that's being done. But as we head down that path, it's something that I think should be really closely considered. To that point, it might be, I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner, go ahead. I said, it's funny that you should bring up the advertising last night when we were watching the baseball game, Drapkins was on every single inning down in the right hand corner. And they pushed it and pushed it and pushed it every single inning that we watched that game last night. I think, and then it might be helpful, Mark and Karen, if maybe you, we put on the agenda, some, to educate us about the guidance that is provided and any regulatory provisions that we do have on this and think forward on advertising. I know that I believe it was, Mark, perhaps the Asian report did signal that they felt that that community might get more, might be inundated with more advertising than other communities. So I'd be interested in any data to Gail's point that's in those reports. And I know we're gonna hear the Asian cares report shortly too. So it might be just good timing, right? Yes. Yeah, I think that it's always, it's great when you have several different reports to, or studies to draw upon. Okay, thanks. To Commissioner Hill's point, all the other points that are below, I think we all look and sort of understand with that policy recommendation may come from, but we would need more information and I agree with him. I guess perhaps maybe we wanna take your lead, Mark, on how to prioritize those and what could be done and how you would, if you would recommend a media implementation, what your timetable would be on those. Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know if you wanna weigh in on that policy list or ideas on how we might approach it. Well, what I was gonna basically suggest is in that line asking Mark and Marie Claire, if you even prioritize the top five in terms of people who are easiest to implement and came up with sort of the real world recommendations that would flow from these sort of general policy bullets, that would be a more fruitful conversation, I think in terms of what, if anything, we're gonna do in terms of changing regulations or policies. Well, we can absolutely do that. Interestingly, we had a gaming research advisory committee meeting a couple of weeks ago and doing that type of prioritization came up. It's really hard to prioritize, so we may draw up on each of you to help us with that work as well. It's hard to prioritize when you see a list of important policy recommendations. It's hard to prioritize, but I think looking at what level of effort and greatest impact can certainly help us guide the direction. That's a great way of thinking about it. I'd like to just also note that the last bullet, it does say serve alcoholic beverages responsibly. In my tenure, I do feel that the commission does monitor and regulate the distribution of alcoholic beverages very, very carefully. So if someone were to see that bullet with out contacts, it might suggest that we see a lot of irresponsible delivery of alcoholic beverages. Commissioners, I don't wanna speak for you, but my tenure suggests that we see and we've corrected when there have been any kind of over. So now I see that Bruce is available, Bruce Bann, but he and his team monitor that, of course, very carefully. Commissioner O'Brien, do you wanna weigh in on that? I had the same thought just that maybe if it had said continue to serve responsibly, probably reflects more accurately. I do feel like this commission before I got here and since I've been here, takes that very, very seriously and has done a really good job even through the pandemic, trying to figure out how to give them what they wanted for their business model, but do it in a responsible way. Certainly, we can take a look at that. And when I was saying it, when I was presenting it, I was, I do recognize that there is a training program that's in place. There are standards in place. We have regulations in this area. And perhaps it was reinforcing that those are really important measures to have in place. So we can take a look at that wording too. Commissioner Cameron, did you wanna weigh in on that? Yeah, I'm not aware of any other commission that in a month, in a quarterly report, these casino operators have to tell us how many miners were able to enter the floor, how many of them were able to access alcohol or illegal gambling. So they are very well aware how important it is to this commission, those issues. So I'm just not aware of anywhere else where they are asked and they have to account for those numbers and give us what they did to remediate. So I do think we've taken it very seriously. You know, we have another report that's in the works right now, it's in the pipeline by Christopher Bruce, taking a look at connections between casinos and drunk and driving incidents. And so certainly we hope that everything we're saying here is reinforced by that. We'll have some additional data points to take a look at too. Commissioner Hill, you'll get familiar with, you've already seen some quarterly reports, I know in catching up, but what we really do monitor is the miners being served. So we also are our gaming agents under Bruce's leadership, really monitor and as does the GEU over serving. So that's just a really important part of the forensics. So I think we've, you know, I've made my point, I'm really, and have been impressed by the past commission's work and the ongoing work on that, but I also am impressed by the licensees response and cooperation around ourselves. Any other questions on this? Such a good report. Thank you. I'll say, Brad. And just, I just want to thank Marie Claire since coming on board. We've had a couple of different projects that we've worked on that I think really helped distill and make sense of some really complex research projects. You know what, the translation is there. So thank you. I really appreciate it. And Dr. Volberg very much appreciated your setting the stage. It was really clear for me and I'm sure for my fellow commissioners it was just very nicely done. So thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. If we have no further questions, we'll move on into item number five. I'll set then. So this is Derek. There you are. Good morning. So I recognize that with the departure of Commissioner Zunaghan and as I mentioned before, we will know he's departed. We are going to bring him back for proper acknowledgement and betting, well, at least virtually. He had been appointed as the commissioner who would serve as treasurer for the commission. And so I checked in with Derek as to what the impact of that was. The impact of that absence meant for him. So Derek, do you want to just set up this requirement, please? Absolutely, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Section 3F of Chapter 23K requires the commission to annually elect one of its members to serve as a secretary and one of its members to serve as a treasurer. Section 3F goes on in detail to outline the requirements of the secretary, but the requirements for the treasurer don't come up until Section 3J, I mean 3I. And the main piece of that is it says no funds shall be transferred by the commission without the approval of the commission and the signatures of the chief financial and accounting officer and the treasurer. So for every payment we make, the treasurer has to approve it. So it's somewhat of a weekly role. It could be daily if the treasurer wanted to do the same role as I have. But under the form of treasurer, what we did is we set up a weekly meeting where we would review every single invoice that's going to be paid that week. It happens Tuesdays at noon, it gets moved around. Usually takes half if people can't make it so we can be flexible. And it usually takes about half an hour. We run down every single invoice. The division directors already have to approve it. We go through when it came in, who it's for, the dollar amount. And then if there are any questions, we answer them then. By Friday, we submit all those into Mars and then the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System, our accounting system. And then the following week we send the report to the treasurer to show everything that was paid and that treasurer signs off on that final report. Now, I've gone over, we can do it so that after every single work full, like with me, I have to sign off on every single invoice and the treasurer would sign off on it. Our former treasurer did not want to do that, wanted to just attend the meetings and then get the final report to verify that what happened at the meeting is what actually hit the accounting system. So that's our current process. Like we said, we can be flexible for whoever takes over this role. But the main thing is, Enrique was really into the budgeting process, took the role a lot deeper than the requirements of the statute, but the basic requirements of the statute are the sign off of the payments, every single payment that gets done. So as you can see, there is by statute a built in additional internal control or redundancy that's really important for Derek's protection as well. That might have been something the commission would have instituted by regulation but the statute, the legislature thought about it in advance. So we need this role to be filled. We also know that we have a, they'll be at some point a new commissioner appointed by the treasurer. It's my understanding the statute doesn't require the treasurer's appointee to do that work. My suggestion is that we fill this role, not as interim because it is the appointment but that we could revisit it once we have a fifth commissioner. And I'd like to recommend that Gail take this on and she is, I understand willing because one, she has such historic knowledge. She knows about what the budget's been for an awful long time. And of course, with her past experience has significant administrative and finance budgeting experience as a former lieutenant colonel. So that would be my recommendation. And unless commissioner Hill or commissioner O'Brien think otherwise, we simply have to vote her into that. But I want to invite discussion. Commissioner- Great choice. Great choice. Okay. So to do, and commissioner Cameron, it's a great choice but it's also an additional big responsibility. So thank you if, you know, we want to do this right but on the record, you've agreed that this won't work for your schedule, correct? It will and I'm happy to serve. I have been impressed from day one with the way we have put together our budgeting as well as the redundancies that were put in place. So I'll be happy to serve in that capacity. Great. So I will need a motion to make it official. Madam chair, I move the commission, appoint commissioner Gail Cameron as treasure of the commission in accordance with master in the laws chapter 23 K section three F. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Cameron. I'll abstain from the vote and just rely on my colleagues to move forward with this. I had to start with you. And I knew that would be your answer. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes. Three yeses Vivian and one abstention. Thank you. And Derek, thank you for creating a system that we can really rely on. So all around thanks. Thank you. We look forward to working with you commissioner Cameron. Thank you. I as well. Thank you. All right. Now on our agenda setting, the time estimates that Crystal provided for us, she suggested maybe we have a break now. Does that make sense to have? Yes. Okay. I'm seeing thumbs up for how about it's 11 22 is like 11 30, that's over 32 10 minute break. Sound good? Okay. And then we'll be back for Joe's report. Thank you everyone. And I am not going to leave the meeting. That's the thing I've been worried about, but Austin, we're all set. Okay. Thank you so much. See you in 10 minutes. I think we're all set. Austin, if you want to take down the screen. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien is still number. Just waiting for a few more. There you are. Thank you. We'll just do a roll call. Commissioner Cameron. I'm here. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. Present. We're all set to reconvene today's meeting. And now we're turning to Chief Delaney, please. Do I see, there you are, Joe. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So we have a few items up for you today. The first one are some reappointments for the local community mitigation advisory committee. So there are several positions on these committees that are appointed by the commission. And those need to be appointed annually. And so it's that time of the year to do that. In your packets, you have a memo that gives you all of the bios of the various folks, but I'll just run through them very quickly. These are all people who have served on these committees for a number of years. And have all agreed to serve for an additional year. So, you know, having these folks on has been great. And we hope that they can certainly continue to be on the commission, on the committees. So for the region, a local community mitigation advisory committee, we have Vincent Panzini. He's the chamber of commerce representative. We also have David Bancroft, who is the regional economic development organization representative. He works mass development. And we have Myra Negron-Rivera, who is a human service provider. Within region B, we have Allison Ebner, who is the chamber of commerce representative. And Ellen Potashnik, a human service provider. And those folks we are recommending for reappointment for another year. Joe, do you have any vacancies that you're still seeking or does this fill all of your committees? No, on the local community mitigation advisory committees in region A, we need a human service provider position that's not filled. And in region B, there's an opening for the regional economic development organization and for a human service provider. So we've been working with those folks trying to identify some people to fill those positions. It might make sense for you to circulate to the commissioners those vacancies too, because they may have some ideas for you as well. Does that make sense? Sure, absolutely. We'll take input from anybody we can get it from. That's what I thought, Joe. Thanks. And Mary's got a big smile on her face too. So just a reminder of what the vacancies are for and that it's the two different regions. So in terms of the region A and region B, we need to take action. And I'm sorry, I'm not sure if the vote has divided the region's commissioners, but you do need formal action on this. Is there any discussion on region A? Any questions for Chief Delaney? Commissioner Cameron? And no questions on the region. No questions, all of them are very well-qualified. Yeah, I think we can also say we very much appreciate their public service. Really important input. So, and then any questions with respect to those nominated for region B? Okay. Then do I have a motion? Commissioner Hill? I would move that the commission reappoints in Pansini, David Bancroft and Myra Negron-Rivera to the region A local community mitigation advisory committee and that it reappoints Allison Ebner and Ellen Petashnik to the region B advisory committee all for a term of one year. Second. Thank you. No discussion, questions? Great. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. I vote yes. Thank you for zero. Next, Joe? Okay, the next item that we have up is the community mitigation advisory subcommittee. We have been working with the governor's office to try to identify a number of appointments for that subcommittee, but the one critical one that we need right at the moment is a commission representative. Bruce Sevens had been in that role and then followed by Enrique. So we now have that vacancy there. And why I say it's critical is that right now, the membership that we have in the subcommittee is one short of a quorum. And this position gives us exactly a quorum so we can actually hold the meetings. Great. I would recommend that Commissioner Hill take over that position. As we've already said, we're inviting him to work with Chief Delaney. It's a great way for him to become very well acquainted across all our divisions because Joe and Mary convene such a cross-departmental working group. And of course, Commissioner Hill brings such extensive knowledge in the municipal side of his municipal background and of course, his extensive legislative background. So I would love to see him fill that role. Commissioners, what do you think? I think it's an excellent recommendation and I'm happy to make a motion if Commissioner Ryan agrees. I absolutely do. So I move that the commission appoint Commissioner Hill to the subcommittee on community mitigation as the commission's representative in accordance with chapter 23 case section 68B. Second. Great. Commissioner, no further discussion? Chief Delaney, that will solve at least a immediate quorum issue. Thank you. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Abstain. And I felt yes. Three. Yeses and one abstention. Thank you, Commissioner Hill for taking that on. And I know that you're going to really enjoy the work as well. So thank you. Welcome aboard, Michelle. Thank you. Okay. Great. So the third item that we have up for you, we're very excited about this item. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has approached us to repurpose some earlier granted community mitigation fund monies in order for them to complete the design of the Mystic River Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge. So before, and that if the request is for an amount of $650,000, which will allow them to complete the design of a bridge across the Mystic River. So before I dive into the nuts and bolts of it, I want you to do a couple of things. I'm just going to share with you one second here, I'm going to share that. So Joe, we saw the map, but are you looking for the diagram? Is that, are you seeing the map up there? Okay. Yes. Just a little lay of the land here. So on the peninsula here is where Encore Boston Harbor is and Mystic River, Alfred Street leading into Sullivan Square, I-93 going up North. And you'll see here is the Assembly Square T Station. What the proposal is, and you do have a copy of this in your packet, the notion here is to bring a bridge from this point across the Mystic River. This is the railroad bridge on the Newbury Port Line. Bridge would come over here, pass under this and into what's known as Draw Seven Park, which is a state park that's in Somerville. And then in doing so, that would connect a number of different, all these green lines you see here are all the various bike paths and other things. There are multiple pedestrian bicycle trails here that would connect together. And in addition, this would create a direct connection over here where people would be able to get to the Assembly T Station. So it's clearly a project that will connect, will create a lot of connectivity between the casino and other uses and allow folks to get to the casino without having to get in vehicles, which is one of the things we're very interested in. So what I wanted to also do here is just set the stage a little bit. This project has quite a lot of history and I think it makes sense to spend probably 10 minutes going through that history on how we got to where we are today. So back when the Encore project was going through MEPA review, one of the requirements of their section 61 findings was to provide $250,000 to DCR to do a study on the feasibility essentially of a pedestrian, a bicycle bridge across the Mystic River. Now, once things got rolling with the design and construction of Encore, we met with DCR and with Encore and discussed this project. And DCR agreed that it probably made sense for Encore to actually do the study themselves rather than turning money over to DCR where it would have to go through public bidding rules and all of that, that it would be able to happen in a much more timely fashion if Encore did that work themselves. So they did that and a group of stakeholders was identified of which the Game and Commission was one of those stakeholders and we met a number of times looking at alternatives and so on. Now, at the same time that that was going on, DCR was doing some design work on Draw 7 Park and excuse me, they have plans to reconstruct Draw 7 Park into a multi-use kind of athletic field and other uses there. So obviously DCR was a critical stakeholder as well. So once that study was complete, Encore at that point decided that they really wanted to move ahead with this bridge. They thought the notion of this was great and that it all made sense to do that. Now, what had happened was, we talked about two pieces here. One is the bridge across the river and then the second piece of it was a connection from Draw 7 Park into the assembly T station. Now, between Draw 7 Park and the assembly T station, there's several sets of railroad tracks as the orange line, as the behavioral line and essentially a bridge would need to be built over those tracks down into Draw 7 Park in order to get direct access into the T station. So Encore at that time said, hey, we'll build the bridge if somebody else builds the connection into the T station which seemed to be a good idea of kind of a public-private partnership. Encore would be footing probably three quarters of the bill and about a quarter of the bill might go towards this connector into the assembly station. So now, again, at that time, Somerville and Everett realized that it was really in their interest to pursue this connection into the T station and they applied to the Community Mitigation Fund for a grant to start that design. And in the interim, we also gave them a second grant to complete that design. There's actually is one typo in your memo. We said that the total amount of that, those grants was $850,000. It was actually $825,000. So now as Encore proceeded with the design and the permitting of the pedestrian bridge and the bicycle bridge, the estimated cost started rising and Encore at that point reevaluated the construction of the bridge. They looked at other alternatives and so on. And at that time, they were looking also at doing an aerial tram across the river, kind of like a ski lift type of thing. And in looking at that, they realized that that would be much more cost effective to move ahead with a project like that rather than just, than doing the pedestrian bridge. So they decided to not do the pedestrian bridge at which point we had nothing that would connect. So this work that Everett and Somerville was doing on the bridge connecting to the T station would no longer be viable because there'd be no actual connection to the casino without a bridge. So at that point we told Everett and Somerville to stop working on that. In fact, they had not awarded any contracts or anything. So none of the money had been spent. So once the pandemic hit, everything was kind of off the table. Nobody was really proposing to do anything. But since that time, over the last year or so, we've been in conversations with DCR and MassDOT about the state taking over the building of this bridge. And so we've had a couple of conversations and their request to us was that, hey, if we could repurpose some of these funds that are sitting idle right now to finish the design of the bridge, we could get this moving ahead and get this project going. And just as one aside, when the study was going on this bridge, there was a large public meeting that was held over at the partners healthcare building over in Assembly Square. And there had to have been, I'd say there had to have been at least 200 people at that meeting. And there was not a single negative word to be said about this bridge. I mean, everybody loved it. Everybody thought it was just the greatest idea connecting the orange line to bike paths to the casino, to everything. It was really just a home run. So when DCR approached us, we said we would certainly work towards that. Now also in your packets, you will see we just got these the other day. We had asked Everett and Somerville just to send us letters of support for this application. This technically is a joint application between Everett Somerville and DCR, but it was really only signed by DCR. So we just wanted to make sure that the other communities were fully on board with this and they certainly are. It is their money that we're repurposing for this. So we certainly needed to get their concurrence and we have that. So what we're doing here, really in any evaluation of applications, firstly, we have to look at what is the connection to the casino? Or first, is there a connection to the casino? And then secondly, we have to determine what is this project designed? What impact is it designed to mitigate? And then also we tend to look at knowing that there's probably benefits associated with this project over and above the mitigation of a casino impact. We look at sort of the proportionality. What proportion is our money providing to the overall money that's going into the project? So with respect to a connection to the casino, I think just looking at the proximity of the casino and where the bridge is gonna land, I think a reasonable person would say that there is definitely a connection to the casino of this bridge and that certainly patrons and employees of the casino would use this bridge to get to work or to get to the casino. So I think there's no question that there is a connection to the casino. And then the second item is really what is this proposal mitigating? Well, again, one of the key considerations on this project was the traffic on Encore. It was a traffic that that project would generate and the many, many measures that Encore had to take to try to get people out of their cars and into another mode of travel. So this connection would certainly help mitigate Encore related traffic impacts. It's part of a much larger, it's really a cornerstone of a regional effort connecting several pieces of local trail networks together. I mean, this will connect the Northern Strait Community Trail, which will make a connection all the way from Somerville to Lynn. The MBTA is recently constructed and white path on their property that goes from Draw Seven Park South to Alfred Street. And then DCR's improvements to Draw Seven Park will improve bicycle or pedestrian connections there. And there's also several other projects that are in the works that will connect this whole network of trails together. And then the kind of the proportionality piece of it. This project would provide $650,000 towards the design. Encore has already spent about $2 million towards the design of this project. And they turned those plans over in whole to DCR and said, hey, we're not gonna proceed with them. Here you go. So Encore already spent a significant amount of money on that. This request would wind up being roughly a quarter of that total design cost. But if you look at the overall cost of the project at about right now estimated about $35 million, this $650,000 really will leverage up to $35 million in federal and state construction funding. If you look at it in those terms, this investment is less than 2% of the construction cost. So we certainly feel that this contribution of funds towards this project is certainly proportional with respect to what the overall benefit will be and what the benefit will be to the casino itself. Now, the one caveat on all of this was that we originally looked at the pedestrian bridge and the connection to the orange line as really a single project. Now with this right now, we would only be getting the bridge and not the connection to the direct connection into the orange line. This still is a bit of a more circuitous route where people could get to the orange line, but we were really looking for that direct connection. Now, with that said, given the change circumstances, given what's happened with the pandemic and so on, we don't wanna let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. And I think we're really looking at this now kind of as a phased project that the first phase is getting a bridge built. Without a bridge, we can never have a connection to the orange line in the first place. So our feeling is let's get this money out there to get the bridge built. And then, nothing precludes Everett or Somerville or Mastott or any other entity or DCR themselves or any other eligible entity from coming back to resurrect that connector into the orange line. So while we would love to see the entire project go all at once, we realized that it's all very expensive and that it may not be within DCR's purview to be doing that at this point in time. So we feel comfortable that repurposing these funds is appropriate and is certainly within the spirit of the original Community Mitigation Fund applications. And so for those reasons, we are recommending that the commission approved DCR's request for these funds as outlined in the application. And of course, we will need to enter into an ISA and do grant documents and so on with DCR should the commission approve the project. And with that, I will open it up to comments or questions. Questions, commissioners. Patricia Cameron. Louisa, nice for you to provide that history. It all came back to me, Joe, about how difficult it is to get projects like this done. I don't have a question. I just, I totally agree with you that this is a great project and certainly worth funding this study by this commission. Commissioner Hill? Commissioner Hill, I think you were first. Okay, Commissioner Ryan. Okay, thank you. No, I reiterate what Commissioner Cameron said. I remember this. I'm still really curious about that, you know, sky transportation that Encore has. I love to see the designs on that one. But I do, I mean, I think that if this gets pedestrian bike traffic connecting over, I do think it's a win-win for everybody. And particularly given the fact that this is already pretty far along on the design stage, it absolutely seems appropriate for us to repurpose the money. And actually, Kathy, before we go on, I just wanted to mention that Kirtner is here on with us from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. He had been spearheading the putting together of this application and so on. I just wanted to recognize, you know, that he was here. We emailed yesterday, I said it wasn't necessary, but you know, it was great that if he could be here and if there are any particular questions that he might need to answer, that he'd be available to do that. So thanks, Kurt, for being here. Fisher Hill, any questions or comments? Well, the only comment I sat with Joe yesterday and he gave me an overview of this and I was just shocked at how far this bike system could be if we connect this bridge all the way to Linn if it's done correctly. So it's quite a project and something I certainly would be supportive of. I agree wholeheartedly. It's very exciting. And also really compliments a lot of our community mitigation dollars that have ever been awarded to help on that bike system. I wanna just acknowledge the two letters that we did receive. Joe, you mentioned them and thank Mayor Maria for his letter and then the Mayor's Office of Strategic Planning and Communities out of Somerville for their letter, very helpful. If there are any questions for Kurt, commissioners, this is a time I am jealous of wherever he is standing right now, because his backdrop is our real leaves and mine are not. Okay, so the only thing I might add and I don't know about its appropriateness or anything, Joe, but as the project continues and design work perhaps starts to be implemented to the extent that we as a commission, and this would be something I turn to Todd and his colleagues in legal to the extent that we could write a letter of support for any federal funding and the commissioners agreed with that, it would just be something that might be nice for us to explore as an option. Because I do understand this will have to sort of require such extensive federal funding. And I think we all understand that this is really a good time for that potential. So it's a great project to connect people. There's just a need for it in the fact that it can be done in a climate responsible fashion is really exciting. So, Joe, you do need, are there any other questions? Great report, very thorough. Thank you, Mary, too. You need a vote. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the Department of Conservation and Recreations request for a grant of $650,000 to complete the design of the pedestrian bicycle bridge over the Mystic River as described in the materials included in the commissioners packet and as discussed here today. Further move the commission staff be authorized to execute all necessary grant instruments commemorating the award in accordance with 205 CMR 153.04. Second. Thank you. Any further questions or edits on the motion? So the amount is 650,000. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes, 4-0. Very exciting. We wish you and all your colleagues well, Curt. Appreciate that. My thanks to the commission and staff for the consideration and the affirmative vote here and we will get started on finishing the design and work toward, I do appreciate the reference to applications we've already put in an application for a raise grant from the federal government for bridge construction. And we look forward to finishing the design and eventually building a bridge across the misting. So thank you. Thank you. Great. All right, well, that concludes my report. Okay. And we're moving on to item number seven. We go to department, Todd and Carrie. Good morning, good afternoon. We just shifted. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. So we have three draft regulations for your review today, 205CMR, 134.01, 134.02, and 134.03 relate to licensing requirements for key gaming employees, gaming employees, and gaming service employees, respectively. You may recall that last year you voted to amend these regulations to allow the licensees to bring in staff from sister properties during emergency situations, which is defined in another section of the regulations and included the COVID-19 pandemic to assist with training, strategy, and operation, depending on the type of position that the person held without requiring that they be licensed or registered by the commission. Those staff members would provide their assistance at the Massachusetts properties for a limited time period with the possibility of one extension upon approval from the commission. So that was the regulation that you promulgated last year. Since enacting those changes, the IEB has learned that the shared service model that the licensees use would really benefit from broadening this exemption to allow staff from sister properties to assist at the Massachusetts properties for a limited time period for these training and similar purposes, not only during an emergency situation, but at any time upon approval by the IEB. And Director Lilios is here and can answer any questions that you might have about how this exemption has been used to date and the reason for the proposed change at this point. So the drafts in your packet amend each of these sections of the regulation to remove the language that's specifically related to an emergency situation and to allow for this option to be used upon submission of certain outlined information which stayed the same and upon approval of the IEB. It would still be for a limited time period of 60 days with the possibility of an extension for up to six months upon approval from the commission. So this is the first time you're seeing this change that we'd be looking for a vote to begin the promulgation process on these regulations and Director Lilios and I are happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you. This is Karen Ryan. So the question that I have, I remember when we did this during the pandemic and there was a reason to do it and reactivate it. I guess the one concern I have, the pessimist in me reads this and what I don't wanna see is them bringing in particularly higher level people for recurring periods of up to six months where now you're not having a local person maybe getting a job because they're just having people come in for six months, stands here and there. So I am not comfortable with this as is in terms of finding a way maybe in paragraph five or adding a paragraph six that puts in the fact that this is really a situational exemption and this is not something to be used to cycle people in and out for periods of up to six months. I just don't wanna see jobs that couldn't should be filled by local people basically being missed as a stopgap to bring in sister property people from outside the jurisdiction. And Eileen, if I can jump in, I think language like that would be perfectly welcome by the licensees. This is a provision that is not used often it's not requested often, but what I've seen makes me think that the requests that we have gotten are quite reasonable. There are things like a new HR system a new HR IT system is being utilized and it's been implemented in Nevada and wants to be ruled out here in Massachusetts. Makes sense that they should be able to send an experienced person for a time. So I don't expect that language like what you're suggesting would be problematic for the licensees at all. I think it's what IEB has understood from our last time we came before you with this reg. I know we did have the discussion about this is not to undermine employment opportunities in Massachusetts. So we can come up with that kind of language perfectly open to that. Commissioner Cameron. I agree with Commissioner O'Brien, but the piece of this that also gives me some comfort is IEB can deny if they see some kind of a pattern and it's being misused rather than used very legitimately. They do not have to grant this. So I do think that's a safeguard in itself with the ability to deny something if it's not used appropriately. I don't like language in there so that we don't have IEB in the position of, you know. No, I agree with your language. Having to make that call, I think it's maybe better safeguards and better for IEB to not be the subject of bleeding or cajoling to say, oh, but just one more time to make it very clear that, you know, even if it's something in, you know, and you cannot apply for the same either position or person more than one time period and a 12 month period or something like that. I mean, I don't know what kind of language you guys can come up with, but that's where my head is in terms of another criterion for this. We can certainly add language like that and bring it back to you for review. I do just want to point out that the, just to make sure it's clear that the IEB approval is just for a 60 day period for key gaming and gaming. And then for the six month extension, it would come to the commission. The gaming service employees as written right now, the six month extension is through licensing and the IEB given that those aren't a sort of lower line staff, but we could change that as well if you want that to come before the commission also. I don't, I think if the language I'm thinking of is in those regs as we amend them, I don't necessarily think that the gradation of the job would need to change and come before us. Okay. Those are my thoughts anyway. Commissioner O'Brien, could you just offer your language one more time so I could hear it? Roughly say either as an extension of five or as another sub six to say in a no event shall, let me see, how do we phrase it in the beginning? You're looking at number five with the commission upon recommendation. Okay, yeah, thanks. I may say in a no event shall an exemption under this section be granted to an individual or for a job or for a position. I don't know how you guys refer to them in licensing position or job or what the term is you use more than one maximum six month period in a 12 month consecutive time period. Something to that effect. And the initial guidance. Right. Future guidance. It reflects the policy. I understand more clearly now, Eileen, thank you. Commissioner Hill, do you want to just chime in? No, you're all set. We have had discussions about, as Loretta mentions that it's really important that there's not in any way defeat the goal of creating jobs for the Commonwealth. So I share the same concern. In many ways, I wonder if those jobs should actually be created that they're talking about and be in the Commonwealth now instead of saying, well, we'll just bring somebody in for six months and cycle them out. I mean, honestly, I feel that way. And we do want those middle-managered jobs. The idea when I believe, and we've got somebody with some legislative history in mind here. It was that this is an economic engine that creates entry-level jobs, really important entry-level jobs, but also launches careers. And I just wanted, I want a safeguard against that. Loretta, can you remind me if, is this a proactive suggestion on your part or has a licensee come forward? I can't remember that on this. A licensee did recently come forward and we were able to grant the extension. And I think it was for, I think it was for a new HR computer system. And typically, these do not extend for a six-month period. You know, typically it's a few visits for some training purposes, but, you know, definitely understand the concern. So we were able to fit it in because we still do have the emergency provision, but we were trying to be forward thinking knowing that fingers crossed hopefully soon we're out of a COVID situation, but yet we may still be getting some of these requests. So we can certainly work with Carrie and Todd on that type of language. Another option for the language if you wanted to be broader and more policy would be to put a policy statement in there is, you know, so long as consistent with the employment policy objectives of 23K, but that's a much broader approach and you may feel more comfortable with the more restrictive guidance. I actually like both. I mean, I like the idea that we're saying to the licensees, you know, this is absolutely something that's available if you need it, but remember the commitments you made and then putting a very bright line in terms of what the max usage of it is. We could do both. I bet they'd be willing also in their quarterly reports to report on if they've used this. It may not be frequently used and it'll just be, you know, if they have somebody coming in, you know, if it's somebody for five days, maybe not, but somebody who's approaching that 60 day. I think 60 days is pretty generous time to allow for this too. So I don't know. I'm really comfortable with the combination as Commissioner O'Brien says and I think we've all noted the policy concern. What do you think, Commissioner Hill, you're good. What do you think? Do you think the combination two, Commissioner Cameron? Why not, right? I do, just so that they recognize what it is we're trying to get to, we're not trying to in any way not allow you to do training or whatever it may be, but we do want you to recognize the bigger policy, you know, objective here. Yeah, yeah, a big training job is a great job to have in Massachusetts. So anyway, so do we need, then we need a motion to reflect this discussion, correct? Todd and Carrie? Well, you're gonna read it and come back for us? Or do we not need it today? I think we don't need it today. Todd, correct me if I'm wrong, but we can take it and add this language in and then bring it back and then we would have a vote on the agenda for that meeting. Okay, perfect. Anything further? What do you think, Karen? Yes, I remember this from before. I think that works out fine. I think we're just being sort of practical, but still recommending, you know, keep the commission's policy objectives in mind. Nevada, you're all set then? Do you think that? Yep, yep, great. Okay, excellent. No further discussion on that. Then we are moving on to item number eight. Does anyone have an update? I didn't skip anything, right? Okay, no updates? Okay, no other business in today's time, 12.16, that's kind of an exciting moment, right? Team, for all of those who contributed today, thank you so much. I do want to just share and Commissioner Hill forgive me. And then you may want to add in because I am actually trying to, I am speaking on your behalf, but you have, I know that you've had conversations with the team yourself, but you've also shared with me how impressed you have been with the preparation and the culture of excellence that this team brings to all the matters that we have to work on. It starts with the top with Karen's leadership, but the team, every division is led with that same purpose in mind. And I also know that the welcome that you've received has been super warm, and you have been positioned well to be able to have a meaningful participation today and also of course make significant contributions from your seat. So thank you. So thank you to the team all the time that you've spent onboarding and also just your continuing work, whether you've had to meet with Commissioner Hill or not, your work is reflecting that excellence. So thank you, Commissioner Hill. Oh, it's second to none. The information that I've received and the professionalism that I've seen in this agency, it's really remarkable. And I can't say enough great things about the workers that I've been dealing with or importantly the agency itself. The commissioners, you've been so good and so informative and your experience is phenomenal. And I thank you for always being there when I reach out to you. But the staff is second to not really. So with that, Commissioner Hill, would you like to make a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. I heard a second from Commissioner Bryan. Any discussion other than again, a big thanks? Commissioner Bryan? I mean, Commissioner Cameron, I'm looking at you, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes for zero. Thank you, everyone. Have a great day. It's quite beautiful. Hopefully you can get some outside time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye, everybody. Bye.