 Excellent. Thanks. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and we're holding this meeting virtually. So take a call. Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon. Commissioner Skinner is away. So we'll proceed today is January 27. It's a Friday. Happy Friday, everybody. And it is public meeting number 430. And we're going to get started right away with them. Executive director Wells to your administrative update. Hi, Karen. Hi, good morning, Barf. Good afternoon. So I don't have anything specific for the administrative update, but I'm just going to move forward into the sports wagering implementation to just give an update where we are in the scheduling with respect to the agenda today. The commission has already approved the house rules. So that matter is set. As I mentioned yesterday, the plan for the certificate of operations is that we would do that on Monday. I have spoken with GLI spoke to them last night. They expect to be ready to go. But the plan is putting together a memo from the commission to make sure that you are aware that each of the seven elements in 251 has been complied with. So you'd be comfortable giving the operation certificate. He's expecting to send that out to you later today. So we're all, we're working on that. So we seem to be all set as far as the schedule for the launch on Tuesday. There is a matter that came to my attention yesterday. I don't know if that's something we didn't anticipate at the time of the posting. So madam chair, I'm not sure if you want to go to that matter now or wait till the end of the agenda for item six for that. That has to do with the advertising regulations. That were updated on Monday. Let's proceed with that Karen. Thanks. Okay. So I have sent all the commissioners the. Request from the licensees at the three casino properties. So the category one sports wagering operators. And I do have representation of the leaf from each one of them here on the call today. So they have submitted something because generally my understanding the sort of the larger issue is that the commission updated regulations for advertising on Monday. And it had the, I believe unintended consequence of impacting media buys or promotional activities. They had already engaged in as a result of the prior version of the regulation. So we have discussed the matter internally. I do have Mark Vander Linden on here. My understanding the general crux of the issue is the size of the font of some of the responsible gaming language. And this, how much space that would take up. So the internal recommendation for the commission is that at this time, we grant the waiver request for all three properties for at least two weeks to give them a grace period to get in compliance with the new regulations. If, if that is something the commission is inclined to do, they can continue with some of the operations they have already already put into place. And if there needs to be a further extension, they can come back in front of the commission before the two weeks is up. I do have director Vander Linden on here. If Mark, you want to make any comments at this point in your comfort level with doing that with respect to the responsible gaming messaging. Yeah. Thank you, Karen. And good afternoon, everybody. I think that the request for the waiver is, is absolutely reasonable. The, I think the intention of what the regulation is, is right. But it, it's understandable that the licensees proceeded with efforts based on a previous version. Questions. Sure, Brian. So the only question I have is how far off are they. In terms of the sizing of the RG message. I don't know if any one of the licensees can jump on. I was sent the messaging, at least from on core yesterday. I think Jackie's on Jackie. Are you able to jump on? I am. Good morning. Oh, good afternoon. The font size that we're using is what we've typically used in all other advertising for gaming operations. It is smaller than what's required under the new provision. And we have to actually go back and look at that and see what. We haven't had a chance to analyze the new regulation to see exactly. What that would require. We know it's going to be larger, but it's. Whether we have a title or whether we have a majority of the description and a different font or different size. We got to go back and see all of those things. May I ask a question? Jackie, it just done on me. I'm sorry. So. I provided each of you acceptable language for the problem gambling helpline. It was developed and given to me by the Department of Public Health. And I guess, would it make a difference? If the language about the problem gambling helpline, while it's still there, it wouldn't include the tagline that would go along. So it free up some space. Absolutely. Anything we can do to shorten it would be great. Just for example, the way it's currently structured is, it would essentially preclude us from you doing anything on billboards because we wouldn't be able to physically put all of the full information on billboards. But we can deal with that part later. If we can't do billboards, we can't do billboards. It's, but anything we can do to shorten the language and make it still visible. That would be very useful for us. I had a conversation yesterday with. Department of Public Health about this and can they, they agreed. That if it needs to be shorter. So for example, without the tagline, but still offering the helpline, we can't do billboards. We can't do billboards. We can't do billboards. But they would be okay with that. That would be very much appreciated. So director Vandal and I had a good conversation around that. Commissioner O'Brien thinking. You know. It's critical to have the phone number available. And I know that director Vandal and it's interested in having. Perhaps game sense promoted in some way. And with the new font adaptation and less characters, I think it's going to be a little bit different. I think it's going to be a little bit different. For the real estate, but it becomes larger. More. You know, readable. And yet it, it's about the same amount of real estate. It's just that right now. You go by the billboard at several lines. So. The one thing I would, I would, I would. Recommend adoption of today's. Proposal from. Director Wells and director Vandal. I think it's a little bit different. But I also, I also think we. We did adopt that, that recommendation. And the other day we did have discussion and I. I immediately said, I had worried about some unforeseen consequences, but really didn't know how to address it at that moment. And your issue. It actually. Made. The problem clear. So I'm wondering if. That makes sense too. For rector Vandal and others to sit down with. The operators and say, what exactly are the practical. Considerations for our reg. Cause I think we adopted, I think it might have come for sure. If you remember Ohio, that might have been there. York, I think we're the. In terms of the sizing and it was Pennsylvania and you. And that was the app that the reg language we chose. I don't remember. Anyway. To the extent that we could improve upon it, you know, we have some flexibility to revisit. And I don't. I think that doesn't mean we will change it, but I think it's to take this period of time to just. Get some practical. Insights on. What the font means. And. I think that we all agree. That we're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to get the messaging to be effective. Right. And if it's this way. Then you're paying for something that's. Not useful. And not helpful. I didn't mean to. Jump in. Actually I did. Sorry. I'm happy to, to jump in. Yeah, I wanted to be practical. I don't want anything to step in the way of. You know, Hearing what. Director Vanderlinden has to say, I'm also open to hearing, you know, if there's a timeframe in which we could stagger. Information and maybe perhaps. I'm looking at you, Jackie, and North. You can't see that I'm looking at you, but. You know, perhaps something that. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm just going to roll out in a time period that makes sense. Because we did just vote. You know, these breaks in. So. I'm fine with the proposal. And we would welcome the opportunity to sit down. We're still analyzing it internally. And I think what we can do is. Configure some different marketing materials. In accordance with the requirements and work with direct services. And I think that's what some of the issues are. Whether it takes up. The whole page, whether, whether it's visible. And I think we can, we can work through that. Sorry. I just want to check in with. Mr. Hill. Are you all set right now? Did you want to weigh in? I'm all set with what has been proposed. And I think sitting down with the licensees would be appropriate. I'm not sure. I just want to see if North had anything. I mean, I know they function in Pennsylvania already. So I didn't know if he had anything to add to the conversation. So the issue is. You're correct. Commissioner O'Brien. The language did. Seem much like a mirror image of Pennsylvania. The issues in Pennsylvania, the required disclosure is shorter. And so there's some elements here where. Realistically, our request for a waiver was based on just not wanting to run afoul. Of the regulation and not being certain that we were in compliance. We're certainly not trying to hide a responsible gaming as a message or not make it prominent. You know, we want to be in compliance, but we'd like some time to work with director Vanderland and figure out, you know, just to make sure that we got all our eyes and cross all our teas. Also, some of these things just have a long lead time for production. And so, you know, we didn't want a scenario where the commission thought. Or maybe didn't think through, Hey, this collateral was ordered. You know, three, four weeks ago before we were even aware that this was out there. So we were kind of operating under the standards that we had used before. So that, that's really was the reason for the ask. You know, again, we're still going to have responsible gaming issues out there. We're not going to obscure them. You know, we're, we are certainly not trying to do anything drastically differently than what you've seen from the Senate. We just want some time to clarify and then make sure that we have everything in place as the commission expects. Thank you. And I see that. Also. Kim is. Attending. I don't know if MGM wants to weigh in in any way. Hi. How are you? Good afternoon, chair. I'm fine. Thanks very much. There's always a pleasure. I really have nothing further to add into one of the questions. You've already said, you know, we're mindful of making sure that we comply. We're highly, you know, aware of responsibility. All the wording is there. Just the fact that the font size has changed is what's, what's the issue for us right now. We are working expeditiously to replace all of our signs with, you know, with the new font. But if in the future, we're going to be able to do that, we're going to be able to do that. And we're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to replace all of our signs with new font. But if indeed it is the position of the commission, then in fact, we might have a discussion about changing the wording to make, you know, the funds, the same, but maybe making it legible. We would welcome that as well. So that I think that's a great suggestion by the. And we were doors. Taking an approach. Yeah. Okay. So any. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Executive director. Yeah, I was just going to ask Todd, Todd, is this something the commission would need to vote on or. What is, what's the under two 51. What is the requirement? Yeah, there's actually a specific procedure you have to engage in in order to grant a waiver of variants from a regulation. First, you, of course, you'd want to identify the regulation that needs. You need a variance from. The regulation, which allows you to grant variances to the sports wagering related regulations. And it ties it back to the procedure. And one oh two point oh three four, and there are four findings you have to make in order to grant a waiver or variance. And I can go through them if that would be helpful, but there is a process. So. I'm also wondering, Todd, it may be helpful for the commission to sort of help out with this motion given that this all came about at the last minute. Right. And I think I can say, I can say safely that this was a matter that we're putting on that was unanticipated. Yes. And so we're safely including it in today's agenda. It's the timeliness is critical. And I, and I think we're being responsible by addressing it today. So, Todd, if you could walk us through as Karen was saying. Sure. It may be helpful if I just show you the, the rule instead of just read it to you. If that's okay. This is. Two of five CMR one oh two point oh three, and this is paragraph four that talks about waivers and variances. And I would just represent to you that you made this applicable to sportsway during yesterday. And so the part about chapter 23 K. It will change to 23 and under the new. The new version of the commission. And I don't know if you can see that. I know that you're talking about the commission, but it says that the commission may, and it's discretion waiver grant of variance from any provision or requirement of two or five CMR. Not specifically required by law. And that's an important part. And I just kind of mentioned that that you can't grant a variance from anything that's statutorily required. You can only grant a variance from things that are in the regulations. And so this, I don't believe the, the issue you're talking about today is discussed in the statute and as long as the commission finds that, and then there's the following four things that granting the waiver of variance is consistent with the purposes of, in this case would be chapter 23 N. Granting the waiver of variance will not interfere with the ability of the commission or the bureau to fulfill its duties. Granting the waiver of variance will not adversely affect the public interest. And not granting the waiver of variance would cause a substantial hardship to the person requesting. Granting the waiver of variance. So you have to make those four findings. In order to allow these requests. Okay. Can you go back to the, the rag that we adopted yesterday, please. That includes that one of that reference is one or two. Yeah. Let me see. Okay. So this is, I'll show you just the red line version. Thanks. So this was part of the, I'll just show you the amendments to 202, which also include the definition section. Yeah. That was way at the end. Way at the end. So one is not really relevant to this. It's really here paragraph two. Where the commission waves or grants of variance from any provision or requirement contained into a five CMR 2.0. That's specifically required by law. The waiver of variance should be conditioned upon a finding that the requirements specified in two or five similar 1.0, 2.04, which we just read. And the finding that granting the waiver of variance is consistent with the purposes of chapter. So essentially what you're doing is just replacing the first factor in one or two. With 23 N instead of 23 K. And now we'll need the advertising. That one I don't have handy. I'd have to go. That's the one where they start to fonts. And we added that particular language. I feel that we. It got brought up this earlier this week so that we added an additional requirement. That's where I said, oh, I wonder if it's going to make it complicated. Where we added to the, not only the phone number, but also RG language, but we had added the font just to maybe a week before, maybe commissioners. It was our third time in front of us. See if I can find it. Thank you. I meant to pull it up on myself. I didn't get a chance. If you give me a second, I can probably pull that up. But I know I have the reg open. If anyone can pinpoint the exact section, that would be helpful. It would be the one with a, that's, that has a whole bunch of numbers in it. It's about font size, if you scroll. Oh, okay. Let me see if I can find the font. And then I think we added the words with the phone numbers mentioned them. I think we amended it to include in responsible of gaming messaging or something like that, right, Mark? I think it's on page five, Todd. Thanks. Okay. Yeah. Well, here I'll show you the whole. Reg and we can try. Perfect. Section. Okay. Thank you so much. I think it's in here. For video. This is video or television. For websites and social media. Oh, six. Oh, six. I think it's 064. Is this it? We're signs to rep mail marketing posters, print advertisements, height and font must be greater than, and then there's descriptions about font size. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Jackie, is that what your, your team flag. For the. Yes. We were talking about yesterday. Yes. Everything under section four. Yeah. And I'm sure it's in the letters, but I'm sorry that we just don't have it. Right in front of us. So thank you. So, and then we added at the end. And then if you scroll down. We was a phone number mentioned. It is possible. I'm looking at an older version. So the phone number is statually required. Yeah. Be prominent. So this defines prominence. So the regs define what we mean by prominence, not the appearance of the number, which I think is mandated by statute. And I think elsewhere in the right. So it's not the fact of the number. They're putting the number in. It's the prominence. But I just know that the number was referenced. That's what I'm saying in terms of looking for the language. The 1 800 number. Would be another. Way to find it. I believe that 23 in really only references the help line. When you're entering a mobile application or website, but it is pretty standard practice. And I think it's, it's recommended by the American gaming association. I don't know if many circumstances are having done a lot of research where the help line is not included in. And advertising. And we did mandate it in the regs, I think. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. The shares point. Right. Yes. We did. I think. Right. Yeah. But then we added that with some responsible game language. Yes. But I think what we, the reason why you need to have a conversation is. Let's make it so that. It works. Sorry. I think they may be a typo in the regulation. So this is what we're looking at. So it's this is what we're looking at. So it says. It says information regarding the problem gaming helping. So I think that was maybe help line. Not helping. I think that's maybe why you can't find it. It may have been corrected in the version we have here. That's good. It says help line. It looks like the record, the encore request is for a waiver. for as Jackie just said, so. Could we see the most recent version? Did you find it or no? Is that what you guys are looking for? Todd, if you want me to pull up the version that was filed by emergency, I'm happy to do that. Yeah, please go for it. And I assume for PPC and MGM, Springfield, it's the same provision. You want relief from that requirement, so. That's true. Okay, this is the, can everyone see this? Yeah, we can see it. Caitlin, I'm just going to get to the right place. Two fifty six point oh six four is this. Okay, do you mind making it a tad bigger if you can? Absolutely. Thanks. Yeah, so signs, direct mail marketing. I remember Commissioner O'Brien that you reminded me is just strictly for the advertising for billboards. And then if you continue on. Yeah, Caitlin. Then I'm going to continue to the next page here. Yeah, digital billboards. Video and television. And then if you scroll down websites, social media. Scroll down to E here. Well, so maybe the phone number wasn't. That wasn't it's a different provision then. OK. So they're looking for relief from this provision in order to because they've already got them there. Media by out there. And it would be for the grace period that gets them through this media by. But we want to be nimble enough to buy some so they can get their next media by in place, right? With the right stuff. So Director Vanderlin, could I ask if you and Michelle O'Brien could work on that? They could be helpful. I mean, if you just work in. I think Commissioner Maynard. To your point, you want to be practical. Is there anything you want to add here? Nothing that hasn't been said. Excellent. So we need a motion now. I can cobble up a motion unless Eileen has it ready to go. So I've got the two. More than happy to defer. Well, and the number and the number of the ad read again. I've got that. OK, good. Excellent. I just want to make sure I get the. I just want to make sure that I get the. Aaron Corporation correct from yesterday. So I know that it's. The four factors under. 205 CMR 102.03. Is that reference good enough, Todd? Yeah. All right. So let's do it this way. Is it 20232 as well? Or yeah, yeah, it's it's good. Yeah, that's exactly right. If you were to read it, if you're going to go through each factor, it just substitute 23K for 23N, and that would cover what essentially 102. Sorry, 202 says. Got it. All right. And the only I'm sorry, Commissioner Maynard, the only other thing I'd add to the chair's point, I think you'll want to establish how long a period of time you were granting this variance for. Let's get some help there. Michelle, Brian, I thought the request for sort of two week period or did I miss here? I had a conversation with at least one operator. I can't remember who at this point, but that at least two weeks two weeks from today is the 10th. And we have a commission meeting scheduled for the ninth. So if there was a necessity for an extension, we could do that on the ninth. That was my thinking. OK, I guess I'm going to turn to Jackie and Gus and Nor. There's two weeks work for you. At this point, I think we were hoping to get beyond Super Bowl because that materials all been already designed, the contents really been designed. That was the only our only consideration. But, you know, once once that's over. And Jackie, when you say that that it's been designed, that means really you can't you can't pull it at this point. It's it's some of it can be pulled, but we wouldn't have time to redesign and resubmit. Yeah, OK, and so. Commissures, so when's our next meeting of some Monday the 13th, right, is the day after the Super Bowl? When's the next meeting after that? Hold on, I'm looking. I have the February 23rd. It's on schedule. Sure, we'll have some meetings in between then. Well, yeah, it's like middle of the week after the Super Bowl, and that way we could always come back just on that issue alone. If we had to. That's right. Yeah, currently we have an agenda setting meeting scheduled for Wednesday the 15th, but right now we don't have a public meeting schedule until the 23rd. Maybe the 15th, because then we can do that for a gender setting. Crystal, you like that idea? We'll put it on. We'll put it on for a gender setting on the first to think about setting it should should we need to make some adjustments. In the meantime, why don't we say through February 15th and with the idea that Mark and Eileen will work with the three operators and just be practical, consistent with our priorities that we've established. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Tell, do you want to weigh in on that at all in terms of guidance for that meeting? Now, I think what has been said is satisfactory moving forward. OK. All right, so, Commissioner Maynard, you're right. Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 102.03 in consideration of section four of 205 CMR 256.06 as received by a letter from Encore Boston, Jackson Harbor and also expressed here today by MGM and Plain Ridge Park Casino that we grant a variance in relation to that advertising rig because we found that the four factors were met. Factor one, granting the waiver or variance is consistent with the purposes of MGL chapter 23 in granting the waiver or variance will not interfere with the ability of this commission or the Bureau to fulfill its duties that granting the waiver or variance will not adversely affect the public interest and not granting the waiver or variance would cause a substantial hardship to the person, in this case, persons requesting the waiver or variance. Could I just offer a friendly? Absolutely. That we add in also consistent with the requirement 205 CMR 202.032. That's just a reference back to the 100s. I accept that amendment and would also add that this would be in effect until February 15, 2023. I second. Do we want to say through February 15, since the meeting would be the February 15? Yeah, through February. Thank you, thank you, through February 15th. Yes. OK, for that suggestion, everybody just second is on the record from Commissioner O'Brien, everyone's nodding their heads. Any further discussion? Council Grossman, are we all right? I think that was excellent. I would just add just to clarify one point. All three licenses submitted a request in writing. I thought I heard you say just one, but they all. OK, yep, as as accepted. From all three. So I'm pursuant to the submissions of all three and as recorded today, because I think there was a little bit of additional light today. OK, excellent. We're all good. All right, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi, Mr. Hill. Hi, Mr. Hillmater. Hi. And I vote yes for zero. Thank you and well done to the legal team to put us in the position to be able to be nimble today. So thank you. And thank you to Director Van der Linden. All set, Mark. Yeah. All right. So now we I think we're all set on that item. We will now turn to our agenda item. Councillor Grossman, thank you. And thank you to the properties. Jackie, Gus, Nora, thank you so much. Have a nice weekend. OK, thank you. OK, OK. And first, if I may, I just wanted to start by saying I do have a I've been telehealth medical appointment at two o'clock. I didn't anticipate this first issue coming up. So I didn't have a chance to reschedule that. It's my orthopedist, so it's hard to get on that calendar. I don't anticipate it would be very long and I don't have to go anywhere, so I just in case our conversation goes a little longer than 15 minutes, I may have to duck out with your indulgence. But that being said, let me jump right in, Madam Chair and commissioners, if I may, and just note that Section 24 of Chapter 23 and was added to the sports wagering law after the initial enactment of most of the sections. And just to calibrate what we're talking about here, Section 24 discusses the intercept by the operators of certain winnings from players relative to child support and tax obligations due to the Commonwealth. And this section of the law was added as part of what is referred to as an act relating to the economic growth and relief for the Commonwealth. And we discovered this inclusion this past week, which is why we're bringing it to you now. The new section, as I mentioned, essentially requires that each sports wagering operator, regardless of their category, review information provided by the Department of Revenue to determine whether the patron at issue has any outstanding child support payments or tax obligations. And this language is very similar to the language included in Chapter 23K, Section 51, that relates to casinos. And with that, if it would be helpful, I'd be happy to pull this language up so everyone can see it. And then otherwise, there are a couple of other points I thought might be helpful just to make. So it would be helpful to look at the statute. It's not very long. Yes, just so you can see it. OK. OK. So this is Chapter 23 and Section 24. As you can see, it was added by the act I just described. And it's nearly identical, although it's laid out slightly differently from the corresponding provision in the gaming statute. So of course, let's start here prior to an operator's disbursement of a cash prize that is subject to withholding under Section 30402 of the Internal Revenue Code, which shall also show you the operator shall review information made available by the IVD agency as said forth in Chapter 119A. And I will just represent to you that the IVD agency set forth in Chapter 119A is the Department of Revenue. That's what they're referred to under federal law in that they collect child support payments, but it's the same organization and by the Department of Revenue to determine if the winner of the cash or prize owes any pass to child support to the Commonwealth or to an individual to whom the IVD agency is providing services or tax liability to the Commonwealth. So that's essentially, again, the identical language included in Chapter 23. Okay. Section B goes through the order of operations, if you will, as to what happens if it's discovered that the patron does owe money. So the first part actually is a requirement that the operators file a report with the Department of Revenue periodically, and this is done under Chapter 23K if money is intercepted. So at least the three gaming operators are accustomed to doing that. Two, three, and four, again, talk about the order of operations. So basically the way it works is that if there's a hit, the first thing that comes out is any state or federal tax withholding. And I'll show you under the federal statute where this withholding occurs, there is, as far as I can tell, no corresponding state withholding. There was, there is on the gaming, the casino gaming side, but they didn't include anything on the sports catering side. So we don't believe there's any withholding. But so that's the first thing that comes out is any withholding that is required under a federal law. Then the first place from there that the money goes is to the Department of Revenue to take care of any outstanding child support obligations. And then after that, you go into paragraph three, then it goes to DOR for pass to tax liabilities. And then in four, it goes to the patron to the extent there's any remainder. So basically the way it works is if the patron owes money, the first thing that gets taken out is any withholding that's due. Second thing that comes out is outstanding child support obligations. Next is the outstanding tax liabilities. And then the rest goes to the patron. And that's what this statute says. And that's again, very similar to the way section by chapter 23 case section 51. Any questions about this statute? And I have a lot more to say about some of these things if that's helpful, but I just wanted to show you what the statute actually says. Okay. So in order to, and by the way, I'm happy to go into as much or as little detail as would be helpful here, we could probably spend quite some time going through the federal tax law. And I'd be happy to do that. But if we don't need to, please just say the word and we'll move on. But the first thing I think you want to take a look at from there is what section 3402 of the internal revenue code talks about. And this is important because it's the triggering event, so to speak, that requires the operators to run the overdue tax and child support check, meaning that when this occurs, they need to take some action. First to hold the funds under 3402 and then to perform the other checks. It's important to recall that on the casino side, there's a body of law that talks about slot machines too. And there's a distinction in the federal law between slot machine winnings and essentially other winnings in the casino. On the slot machine side, people are probably more familiar with the $1,200 threshold. And when a patron wins $1,200 or more on a slot machine, the machine freezes up and there is a required tax report. It's not a withholding at that point. It's just a report. And there's obviously an important distinction there. W2G is filed. And at that point, the casino runs the DOR intercept check. It's a little bit different when it comes to table games and sports wagering. And I'd be happy to, again, I don't wanna overcomplicate things, but I'd be happy to show you section 3402 just so you can see basically what it says. And this is the federal tax code. So this is section 3402. This is part C. So as you can see from here, this is way down in the section, but I will recommend to you that I believe this is the section at issue. This talks about gambling winnings. And there's a couple of things here that are important. It basically says, starting here with the general rule that every person who in this case would be the casino or the sports wagering operator, making a payment of winnings, which are subject to withholding. And that is a defined term that we'll look at in a second. Shall deduct and withhold from such a payment tax in an amount equal to the third lowest rate of tax under section 1C and such payment, which I wanna say is 5%, but I'm not 100% sure about that. So that is required. This is federal law again, not state law. So this is required here. The term winnings, which are subject to withholding is a defined term and it breaks it down into three categories, all of which are important to just be generally aware of. The first is the one that applies in the case of sports wagering. And it says accept as provided in B and C, which we'll take a quick look at as well, proceeds of more than $5,000 from a wagering transaction if the amount of such proceeds is at least 300 times as large as the amount of wager. So both of those things have to be true in order for it to be considered a winning, which is subject to withholding. So it's not just that someone won $5,001, it also has to be as a result of a wager that was essentially at least 300 to one. So for example, a standard blackjack would not meet this threshold. So if you happen to spend $10,000 on a blackjack hand, as we know, that pays out either two to one or three to two depending on the table you're playing at. So it doesn't approach the 300 to one threshold at all. So this doesn't apply in that type of situation. It does apply with certain more exotic wagers on table games and whatnot and some progressives and things like that, but most of the table games it doesn't apply to. But it may very well apply in the sportsway during context that someone were to hit a parlay or something along those lines, whereas we heard the odds are essentially aggregated. So this is an important piece here because this would be the trigger under the chapter 23 and section 24 that requires the operator to conduct the intercept review. Just real quickly, paragraph B applies to the lottery. So that doesn't really apply to anything we are involved with here. And then paragraph C does apply to things we are involved with. This applies to paramutual pools, HILI and other types of lottery. So this is on the racing side of the house. This is the section that controls under mass law, the threshold is I think it's $600, not $5,000 that was lowered by state law, but essentially it includes the same language that the wagering transaction in these paramutual pools if the amount of such proceeds at least 300 times as large as the amount of wagering. The only other thing I wanted to show you here is that this section here does not apply to winnings from slot machines. So that's why they're treated differently under the law. So winnings on slot machines just require tax reports. There's no withholding on that. And these types of winnings require a withholding. So it's different treatment under the law, just an important wrinkle to understand. So with all that being said, let me kind of cut to the present situation. And then of course happy to drill down further on any of these principles. So how does a licensee go about checking to see whether someone owes money? On the casino side, the parties have entered into MOUs with the Department of Revenue and the Gaming Commissioner is a signatory to those MOUs by which they each have access to a web-based database by which they run a query on an individual when the taxable triggering event occurs, they then go run the person's name through the DOR database to see whether the person owes any child support or outstanding tax. And my understanding is that the information that's returned to the casino is merely either no, the person doesn't owe anything or yes they do and here's the amount. It doesn't break it down by whether it's tax or child support or anything along those lines. And then the casino has to take the action before they pay it out, they withhold whatever amount they need to withhold, they send, they withhold any outstanding taxes or child support first, then the taxes, then they pay the rest to the patron. And it's the same process here under 24. But in order for the operators to access that information, they will have to execute an MOU with the Department of Revenue. I will tell you that we met yesterday with our colleagues at the Department of Revenue. There are certain amendments that need to be made to the existing MOUs. Each of the three category one sports wagering operators of course are the casino operators. So they have MOUs and those can just be amended. It appears to incorporate the sports wagering language and they should be clear to move forward. So we do need to make those amendments beforehand but it seems like something that can be done in relatively short order. Because- When you say ahead of, do you mean ahead of Tuesday's launch? Well, yeah, because they need to be able to run these checks if someone wins a bet. Right. So are we all lined up for that? We're doing everything we can to make that happen. And I mean, it will require of course the licensees to look at the proposed amendments and to ultimately sign off and all that. I know that we still have North and it looks like Jack and Gus have signed off. But you've already reached out to them, Todd. They are aware of this issue. It's moving quickly. So I haven't talked to them personally about amending the MOUs and whatnot, but that's the next step, I do believe. And what about on DORs and they're all set? So they are, they're the ones who are actually going through the MOUs and pinpointing the areas that need to be amended. And they're actively doing that and we're certainly hopeful that will be done shortly and that we can kind of get that together. Are they aware of our 10 a.m. launch on Tuesday? This is a good opportunity to thank them for their quick response. I emailed them pretty quickly after I realized this was a statutory requirement and they responded immediately and we scheduled the meeting yesterday and they are well aware of the timeliness issue when it comes to these category one retail operations. So we will certainly move as quickly as... I'm not surprised by their responsiveness. That's excellent. Thank you. I just wondered if I would have, I wouldn't have been surprised if they didn't know about the 10 a.m. launch. I didn't mention the 10 a.m. piece, I will say, but I did, they are fairly certain we mentioned that it was Tuesday. So, I'll circle back with them anyway to see kind of where we are, but I obviously wanted to let you know about that. The other piece of it is... I am, for all of us, I'm very appreciative of the collaborative nature of this effort. I don't mean to interrupt you Todd, go ahead. I'm sorry, please, by all means. We will need to execute the agreements. Historically, the executive director has done that, but I did want to raise that issue with you. We can do it in any number of ways, but that's an issue too. We should probably get copies of whatever is, commissioners, would you like to have that in your box? Sure. Of course, we'll get the documents to you. The question would just be who can execute it, but let's, we can kind of play that by year to some degree. I know you're meeting on Monday. I'm not sure if these will be done by then, but we will certainly make everything to do that. The second issue that's just being looked at is whether the kiosks themselves are configured to detect when that $5,000 300 to one threshold is met so that no payments are made without the tax event being registered and that the intercept review run. So that is something that wasn't done, is my understanding that we do need to do in real time. How does GLI feel about that? I have not personally- I didn't mean to, you anticipated the same. I was literally saying to myself, that was my exact question, is how does Bruce and GLI feel about the ability to get that done? I can let Bruce answer that if he's here, but oh, there he is. Hi, Bruce. I'm here. Yeah, I try our best to get it all done. That's all I can say. I think we can get it all done. Mr. Maynard? I guess, Bruce, what I would ask is to go back to Todd's original point, are they configured to do that or is that something that I'm sure you'll have a conversation? I'm waiting to get an answer right now, GLI, with that. I've asked the question and I'm waiting for them to get back to me. Thank you. Is there, if it could not be, but we want it to be, is there a retroactive? We have, to make a long story short, and we can go into more detail at some point, but when this first was implemented years ago, there was a tech problem with the PPC communication with the DOR database, and we ended up going back to look at which payments were not intercepted, and PPC was able to do that and everyone was made whole after the fact, but that is a very real issue that we need to think about. Hopefully this won't be a problem and we can just get it all together by Tuesday morning. That's what we're aiming for, but you are right. It could be something that would need to be done retroactively. Can I just say one more thing? Cause I do need to jump off in a minute or four. When it comes to category two should be fine because they're similar to the retail situation and so we'd have to negotiate MOUs with the two prospective category two licensees. Category three is a different creature and everyone has started thinking about it, but whether it's at all feasible to do, we're not exactly clear on at this point, technologically speaking, whether it can be integrated into these platforms or not. So we've kind of raised this issue with the Department of Revenue, so they can start thinking about that. We have not communicated yet with the category three perspective or presumptive licensees about this. It's obviously a different creature as I mentioned. Here we're dealing with manual payouts and whatnot, so it's easy for someone to go to the database and run a query. How that would work on the category three side is unclear at this point. So what are the next steps on that? Second, Director Welleson. So it's a matter of reaching out to the licensees also coordinating with GLI. I suspect this is, you know, we're not unique in this circumstance so that if these operators have launched in multiple jurisdictions, there must be assault, but we wanna make sure that all licensees are in compliance with state and federal law so we would ensure that that takes place. So we would communicate with DOR and the licensees and with the assist of GLI to get this rectified. If I may, all I would add to what Karen just said is that it's true that the tax part is not unique to us. It's federal law. The intercept part I believe is unique to us in Massachusetts. I don't know if any other jurisdictions do that, which is why it's unclear whether it's feasible. Spiral is adding currently there's a process to hold off jackpots if they are not able to confirm. So if somebody doesn't have proper ID right now at the licensees, they can hold all pass until they have a proper ID. If they could not come to an agreement on their MOU, they could possibly still issue these tickets but inform all patrons that they can't cash them out until the agreement is finalized. It just possibly an option for everyone. Yeah, I know I think that is, it's an option that's referred to as backup withholding. It happens if someone can't produce their identification or their social and all that. So the law says basically they just withhold, I think it's 24% of the winnings, which is essentially the equivalent of what you'd pay in taxes. So that only gets us part of the way there in that the kiosk needs to be able to identify when you have the taxable event. And if they don't do that, you won't even know which ones to flag. And so with my apologies, I need to jump off now, but if we wanna continue this conversation with me, I think I'll only be like 10 or so minutes, but I do need to run. Thank you. Take time. Thank you. So commissioners, what do you think? I think we can get it up to Monday morning and see if there's anything we need to deal with when we meet, what it knew. Yeah, also I got a message from North that PPC caps are configured to recognize taxable events. He does have to leave, but... Oh, good. Yeah. So that's excellent. I would expect they are, because even their house rules, when they're talking about how long things are lasting, et cetera, there was a reference to those odds in the threshold. So I'm cautiously optimistic. They're all programmed that way already. Bruce, is there any way we can get like real time from Jackie and while we're sort of waiting for Todd, is there any way to reach out and just say, so the taxable events, Caitlin capture on everything that we would need when they say, when North says taxable events, that would be... Have the child support. I'm apologize. I would need to confirm what their definition of taxable events is currently and cross-reference that with the issue here under 23 in. You're thinking alike. Always makes me nervous when I'm got the lawyer brain on, but that's what I was wondering too. It sounds good. And I'm presuming going to speaking about that too. You might be able to help. Who's coming in? Kevin Mowally, I saw it with Sunny on right there. Oh, there he is. Hi, Kevin. How are you? My spotter told me that maybe I should jump on the call. Great. So you know the issue. We're trying to figure out if the chaos are going to be able to deliver the information we need to be able to comply with child support and taxable announcing taxes. So make sure I understand the issue. You have to check against child support and other social programs that are identified in the statute over a certain amount of winnings, correct? And is that aligns with the W2G requirement? Is that what I'm understanding? I don't know if it aligns with the W2G requirement. What the requirement is is if there is a payout of over $5,000 and that it was at least 300 to one odds. So it's those two factors, both have to happen. Then the further steps need to happen in regard to child support. So any amount over 1,200, it should lock up anyway, because you have to W2G reporting just like you do with slot machines. Anything with 5,000 or above, I believe you have to file a SAR. Both of those amounts, they should be checking against the self-exclusion list. And so this is really not a machine issue. It's a manual process. It's one of the pieces of paperwork, essentially, that they need to do in association with that payout. Correct, Bruce? Yeah, that's what I would think. I just didn't know if your machine had some way of doing it. I'd spoken to Gabe earlier, but he had no chance to get back to me, so I was trying to figure out. Now, the machine, it'll be similar to a slot machine. The machine should signify that a attendant is needed and there's tax reporting paperwork that needs to be filled out. They should check against the self-exclusion list. If they're on the self-exclusion list, they should deny them. They should check against the excluded person's list. If they're on that, they should deny them. And then this would be the fourth thing that they have to do. They would check against the database. I don't know if you've had any issues with that on the slot side. I know that over the years, it varies considerably by state, but a lot of times the state system is only updated periodically and somebody could have gone in and made their child support payment the night before and they got paid and they go out and they get the jackpot denied, even though they're current, but the system isn't showing it. But that's another story. I think we have those problems. You are. So we've actually, I think for the last couple of years, collected over $3 million each year. Yeah. Yeah. I'm happy about it. We've done well on that point. I'll turn to Caitlin and then I'd like to turn back to Kevin and just talk about the online operators. Caitlin. I just want, thank you. We can absolutely clarify this offline. I just wanted to clarify you were talking about, Kevin, when you say the kiosk lock up over 1200, is that the payout kiosk, like you have a ticket, you've won, you now want to go cash it out at a kiosk, not at a counter. Will it lock up at the 1200? Yeah. You're trying to do the record. Yeah. Sorry, what? One at a time, please. So first off, Caitlin, do you mean cash out at a kiosk? Because you want to clarify that that's a kiosk? I'm maybe using the wrong words. For the cage. Yeah, that's a cage, right? Yeah. Kevin, if you want to explain how that works. Bruce, I wasn't at the field testing. Did you do some test transactions like this? I know you did the 5,000 and above. Yeah. You'd have to do paperwork for the IRS to fill out any taxable stuff at the kiosk that was at 12 over 1200. So the kiosk does it for you or you go to your extension of the cage? Yeah, you would probably have to do it at the cage for March. So the kiosk won't pay you out $1,200. It'll say you need to go to see an attendance. Yeah. Correct. OK. Looks like Sterl is saying maybe not. The kiosks are set to not issue any winning ticket, and it will say to go to the sportsway during cage on any amount over $3,000. What about the $1,200 mark? As long as it was a taxable event, we were told that it would force them to go to the cage. So if they are winning anything 300 to 1, they are immediately directed to the cage. That makes sense to me. But we need to get GLI clearance on that, Bruce, right? To make sure we've got commissioners visiting on Monday, right? Mr. Hill, I know you're visiting. You're doing your piece after the meeting, though, right? Are you going to try to do it before the meeting? No, after the meeting. OK. I see Joe is on. I don't know if Joe Boggeth has a comment. Yeah. So I have reached out to engineering to get absolute clarity. And hopefully within minutes, I hopefully within the next 20 minutes, I should have an answer. So Joe, I think I think we've got to clarify Joe. OK. To further clarify, to further complicate things, I think it sounds that we've got it clarified. And it sounds like we don't have a tech problem for retail, Karen. That's what I'm hearing. That's what we understand, yes. And so now we need to have the MOUs updated from DOR and then with the each facility. And it sounds like we it's a three-way MOU. So we sign off. And it may be that we have Karen execute it or the commissioners execute it. That's up for grabs. We're going to take a look at the MOU. But there was also a question about how does how does states, and Karen said, we are not the first jurisdiction to do this, how does it work with the online operators for tax and child support collections? I don't know, Kevin, if you know that at this point or we just need to insert. Well, my understanding is that some of the online app operators have this functionality because it's a requirement in a few of the other states. And some that may not operate in one of those states may need to develop it. We just kind of heard about the issue for the online yesterday. So we'll be asking the submitters if they have this and if they don't, how long it's going to take to develop it. Thanks. Okay, Karen. Yep. You want to update Todd? He's back. We're good. I think we're all set on retail. I think we just have to make some inquiries regarding cap freeze. Right, it makes sense. Yeah, and it, I mean, for the online operators, it should because this aligns with self-exclusion and tax reporting, the basic functionality should be there. So I'm not foreseeing a problem, but I haven't confirmed it, so I'm not going to confirm it with you. But I would be surprised if this is an issue. Okay. So it looks like really the work that's outstanding is to get the MLUs updated and the process for addressing it at the retail level. This really looks very much like what happens with respect to our regular slot machines. Yep, Kaylin, is that fair? Cause you're updating Todd now. Yeah, I think it sounds right. I'm just going to confirm offline. I'm sure it's true, but I'll just confirm that the machines are going to lock up within the right amount and make someone go to a cage and then the person at the cage would run the appropriate checks and then the MLUs would need to be updated. So those are the two steps for the cat ones. And then for the cat threes, it sounds like Kevin will check on functionality with the potential licensees. And then of course, MLUs will have to be drafted for them as well, entered into. Yeah. Okay. Are we good? Commissioners? Any questions? Mr. Hill? No questions and we're good. Mr. Maynard, any question? No. Excellent. Brian, how are you feeling? Okay. All right. So we'll get updates on Monday. At Monday's noon meeting. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have just a quick note that just came across my wire. Is that it is in Louisiana. They require both retail and mobile for a very similar situation. Yep. And it is on in Indiana and retail only. So. And we believe it might be in Colorado as well. It's coming in. Oh, that's really helpful. Right? Yeah. And I would be surprised if it's not in Pennsylvania, Joe. I guess. We'll dig and we'll come back with a definitive. With all those states, it sounds like most of our licensees, temporary licensees would be covered there. Okay. Excellent. Good news, Joe. Thank you. Everyone have a nice weekend. I wanna let folks go. They're all set. I need a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Michelle Bryan. Aye. Michelle Hill. Aye. Michelle Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. Laura Zierle. Thanks everybody. Have an excellent weekend. Great work. Go Chiefs. Yeah. Thank you.