 Okay. First, I just want to thank all my fellow commissioners. We've, first, I'm very, very grateful and appreciative of who you are. But over the past weeks, and especially these past immediate weeks, I want to thank you for your commitment and dedication. Thursday, last Thursday, we did conduct a meeting on the safety protocols for the casinos. That meeting we had anticipated being about two and a half hours because of the thorough work that you conduct, that you were willing to participate in. We went six hours. And at the conclusion of that meeting, I did. And, and I know it was a good month. It was a 20 minute break. So I want to first applaud you and thank you for that. Yesterday we had a very successful meeting of really around table discussion with all the stakeholders on horse racing and it gets very thorough, very thoughtful discussion and want to thank you. Out of last Thursday's meeting, I asked Aaron Wells, our interim executive director, if she would be work with the team to reduce all the issues that we had really formed a consensus around into the guidelines. I want to thank Loretta Lilios, Bruce Burke, Bruce Bann and Burke Kane for their efforts and of course the entire IEB team under Karen's leadership for reducing those guidelines to a document that we can really work off them today. What I asked was if they could work out those few issues that we were really struggling with and to find out really what's the prevailing guidance from Massachusetts for the Massachusetts to get a sense as to where the public health metrics are here in Massachusetts as well as to look across the country and focus probably on the most restrictive of the guidelines as we were quite well informed on what was really working on a norm across the country. So I want to thank Loretta for turning around the document so quickly. It gives us a great document today with the goal of hopefully being able to resolve those outstanding issues and formulate a guideline that we can move this process for reopening along. Does that make sense? Yes, Madam Chair, if I could just ask whoever is joining our meeting whose phone number and since 7758, could you please mute your phone please? Thank you. Yeah, anybody who can mute, I promise you my dog is still healthy, but he apparently has been whisked away, so otherwise if we could mute, I just can't do that ordinarily. So anybody who is not speaking other than the immediate commissioners, even if you would like to unmute, thanks, that really helps because it's important also for our video taping. Thank you. So commissioners, does that sound like a plan for today's discussion before we turn it over to Karen? Yes, it does. Okay, great. Thank you. There you are, Karen. I see you. Thank you so much. Karen, if you could get started as for an executive update, you have your whole team here today to help us get through this. Yes, and I would definitely like to echo the chair's comments about the outstanding work by Loretta Lilios and Bruce Banda, Bruce Kane and their entire team putting this information together, collecting information from other jurisdictions and putting to synthesizing everything from public health officials from government entities into these guidelines was an enormous amount of work and they've done a tremendous job. So I just want to commend them on that endeavor. So right now you have in your packet and that you've been able to review the document which lists the minimum statements for the initial phase three opening of gaming establishments. So the way it's structured for the discussion today, we have it written out in a document and then highlighted in gray are those issues that were not definitively decided by the commission at the last chair mentioned six hour meeting so you can see most of the information was there was a consensus at that at that meeting. So, as a preliminary matter, it would be helpful to me to understand if the commissioners agree with the document that the information that is not in the gray shaded area in your, you're comfortable and consistent that that's consistent with you, what we thought was the consensus from the last meeting. And then the next step would be to go over those four areas where there seem to be some request to for the staff to go back and get some more information and identify what would be consistent with the outstanding guidance that the governor's office has for either other industries or what they may do for casino so those four, those four areas were beverage service distance and gaming positions at slot machines distance at gaming positions at table games and occupancy levels. So, what I would suggest for the conversation today is to start to make sure that we're commission is comfortable with the rest of the document and then go through those one by one. The IEB has identified for the first three the beverage service and the social distancing for slots and table games, what appears to be consistent with the governor's guidance with other agencies and what we've identified would make sense in Massachusetts so there's proposed language there, and then for occupancy levels there's some options for you to look at. So, at this point Loretta, do you have any, any other thoughts or any other comments for the, for the commission before they get started looking at this. I think you outlined it well Karen and good morning to everyone if it would be helpful for me to do a three minute summary of those points that you have already reached in that we believe you've already reached an informal consensus on I could do that to help orient you and the public. But I am in agreement that the four matters that are outstanding for your continued consideration are as outlined by Karen on the beverage service the distancing on the spots the distancing on the table games and the overall occupancy limits for this initial stage of the phase three reopening. Can I make a suggestion Loretta, perhaps because this is our second time really reviewing this document and in much of the consensus, the items that we did reach a consensus on are repeated. Could we ask the commissioners if there are particular items that are outside before that Karen outlined that they still have the, that they're seeking clarification on that rather than go through all of them. Makes sense. Yeah. And I do want to, I do want to note that I know that we did not come to a full consensus on hand sanitizer being required at the beginning of that on entryway so perhaps that is one area we might want to just discuss that was outstanding Commissioner Zuniga, I don't know if you had picked up on that but I think right now it's, it's not a requirement as before in the document. So, with that said, is there any item outside of the floor that you, you want that you would like to have clarified. I have some that they're not really clarification so much as questions that, you know, maybe nobody is concerned about. I know we had talked a lot about making sure the pandemic safety officer was someone who actually was going to hold some level of responsibility for compliance. And when we get to page two. I don't know if we can see we talk about the compliance department being responsible for adherence to the plan. I don't know if we also want to add some reference to the pandemic safety officer, even if that person falls outside the compliance department. Commissioner, we do on page five in subsection and talk about the pandemic safety officer and that that person show working conjunction with the compliance department and provide the compliance department with the log of all material communications, which you are you also suggesting that we should link this to the page to language. I'm suggesting that based on my take away from the Thursday conversation but maybe I had an overly restrictive view on how we were going to define accountability. I don't think it's a bad idea to have that redundancy. Right. In other words that we want to make sure compliance and that particular officer are working closely and bring it have both places commissioner. Right and my concern is I'm not going to be surprised if the pandemic safety after someone outside compliance. So I didn't want there to be any internal conflict. Okay. We can add some language there. So that would be an added language to three a. No, it would be to one C, I believe. Yeah. Oh, got it. Okay. Yeah. And then on hand sanitizer just while we're still on page to provide hand sanitizing at points of Andrea I know Loretta you had raised that as one where we, we really didn't reach a clear consensus. How are we feeling today on that and then I'll go back to you commissioner Brian. Commissioner Zuniga on one be at one point on Thursday I don't want to. I remember clearly you're suggesting that maybe it should be a requirement that also made sense and then there was an ideal and maybe it should be optional. I can find the way this currently reads my point from last time was one in which we could focus if we're going to be more restrictive with rather we do it at the entrance. I understand but if there's going to be option both at the entrance and at the table, and people are going to be encouraged. I'm fine there's there's players there's there's a protection. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Brian did you have other particular points that you wanted to go over. Page five when we got to additional measures for the gaming agreement. Sub D, where we talk about just sort of guidance on where we think lines might form. We talk about some of the ways we would hope they would address that and anticipate. I don't know if we wanted to include anything that specifically reference the use of floor marking so people who may not have an inherent sense of space would know about where six feet is. Yes, we can, we can add that I think we did have that language on the floor markings around cage queuing. Right, we can add it here as well. And then to two other points one, just seeking confirmation that the verbiage on ballet service complies with the law. That's sub H. This language. I pulled at Jackie crumb directed me to this language and it is in the governors, Governors language. I'm not trying to recall exactly where but I did pull it from that language. Okay. The last question I had was notes that I just didn't address the last time we met on Thursday where one of the other jurisdictions and more of them said no coat check for the time being. It's not really relevant so much this time of year, but I didn't know if that was something we wanted to address also as we go through finishing this. And I haven't seen that referenced and others but perhaps it is because we're in New England. Perhaps either Jackie have you seen that in other jurisdictions and do you have a suggestion. It's actually in the lodging guidelines for Massachusetts. And so it's already prohibited. That would carry over to the casino by its nature do we need to restate. I think we should just restate. Right. We can do that. Great. Thank you. We can just pull it from the others. And someone is keeping a careful record of these amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm actually curious now. Is there a code check regularly. Jackie or Lance or. It's not in the casino. It's more connected to the hotel side of things. But obviously at this time of year, it's not relevant. Okay. Okay. Thanks commissioner. Brian, do you have any others? No, on that, on those areas that was it. So on, and then there for the other commissioners on the matters that were lifted as a matter that we reached consensus or anything else outstanding. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Cameron, you're all set. I am. I'm all set. The document is, is really. Concise and brings all of our thoughts together. So no, I, I. I'm fine. Thank you. Excellent. And commissioner Stevens, you're all set to then. I am. Thank you. Excellent. So I think. Yeah, I'll just make this comment now. I think I'm not exactly sure if it's referenced here, but I think there should be an acknowledgement that these may not end up being the final as we go and implement these reopenings. We are going to have to come back and revise or just, you know, tweak where necessary we think so. I think that there should be an acknowledgement or a policy statement that this is a work in progress. We're going to learn how crowds really behave when it comes to a casino in England, or things like that. Perhaps we should frame it that these these will be guidelines for the opening and then perhaps we should have a provision that says we will be revisiting on a certain cadence. And then perhaps if we want to establish that cadence for the guidelines overall and then maybe have particular cadence for items that we're going to address perhaps today. But perhaps we should include as a policy statement that it is subject to change, but this goal for today is to have a document that will be the document that will inform the opening subject, of course, to federal and other state guidelines that we're going to use to make this administration. The guidance are ruined. Yeah, I think that's a really good idea and I don't know that it needs to be a regular cadence though as much as if an issue comes up we as you use chairs you use the line nimble, and we can remain nimble. We heard that yesterday from pens director of racing that two days later they had to make a change at one of their facilities because it didn't work as they anticipated so I do think it's incumbent upon us to to really pay attention and if there are issues to get into a meeting quickly and make a change. Excellent. Maybe then rather than a regular cadence. We could consider, of course, being ready to act on any particular item, but perhaps we might want to ask for regular reporting on how, how the reopening is going. Yes, very good. And it will be great if there are no issues, but in the event that they there's there's a public health. There are some restrictions that allow us to to lift some restrictions we would be able to to hear those reports, then so as we get in Loretta and Karen as we get into the next part of the discussion if you could keep that in mind, what might make a practical sense for us to hear from the audience as once reopening occurs, kind of reporting cadence we want and of course remain nimble in terms of being able to adjust these guidelines when necessary if they become unworkable, or things shift in the favorable light from the public health perspective. Okay. All right, so you can guide us through the more difficult areas and then of course at the end we'll revisit the entire document in case somebody else. Sure, so the first item that you had discussed last week but was left for further discussion is on the on the beverage service in the gaming area. So the IB has provided some direction now. And in providing the direction we have balanced a number of factors. One is the fact that Governor Baker's administration did move the opening of bars from phase three to phase four for bars without food service. And described them as more akin to tonight clubs. Balancing that with the representation at least from at least some of the licensees and the understanding that beverage service is viewed as integral to the gaming experience and also balancing that the requirement that the commission has reached consensus on for the wearing of masks while on the gaming area by both employees and patrons and so with those factors in mind. The IB has set forth in the document the suggestion that beverage service be allowed in the gaming area and limited to guests who are engaged in gaming at a slot machine or a table game. And thereby guests would raise and lower their masks for drinking purposes only, but the guests would not be permitted to move about the gaming area with their beverages. So this recommendation is an effort to balance those multiple factors. And is a restrictive measure, but not as restrictive as prohibiting beverages in the gaming area. Could I ask Lerta the, my only thought on this one was the, the two to four service I think is restricted to people actively engaged in gaming is that correct. That's right. I think I would feel more comfortable sticking with that language. Yeah, you know, I can foresee someone maybe grabbing a drink and maybe sitting at a machine to drink without finishing without actually actively gaming so I just think we're cleaner all the way around for everyone's sake if we keep the same language. Okay. And one comment on on this item as we just think about it globally. I have since learned independently, I was able to, I think update maybe Karen on this that I've learned that for the restaurants the idea of being able to remove the mask altogether while you're dining as opposed to having to lower and raise the masses actually really driven by a health consideration. It is apparent that there's apparently more risk to lowering and raising the mask in order to drink, and that the experts would actually prefer that mass remain lowered while they're drinking so that they're not touching that their face patients aren't touching their mass and face repeatedly. So that while they are actively gaming and sitting at the table if they have a drink, keeping the mask lowered would actually be preferred by public health specialists if I'm understanding correctly the guidance I received. That's interesting. I guess I had not sort of thought of it that way. I wanted to point out something that perhaps last time was sort of alluded to and I think these applies to all beverages. I for one take longer to drink a cup of coffee than sadly here. The point about the experience is that you know you have anybody at a place of recreation and they're likely going to get different drinks, including alcoholic but I have a bit of a question relative to there are, or there have been in the past. The soft drinks, you know, that guests can go and help themselves to what is the plan for that and how would that work with the way these currently reads towards beverage service. So commissioners in a good so that I understand the question are you wondering will there be other than alcoholic beverages being served to those who are actively gaming. Well, that happens as a matter of course there's a lot of people who just prefer a cup of water which is fine. So then the next question is, is the bar available for soft drinks still going to be accessible or I think I understood that there will be no food or beverage available on the gaming floor for the licensees confirm that. Well, there's access for self self serving in general under the governor's current guidelines are prohibited. Yeah, you would be able to have a self serve area no self service anywhere could we just confirm that for commissioners in a good licensee. Sure. So we don't have any self serve locations right now but I that's correct we would not have any self serve. The only question I have is if people come in with a bottle of water. You know, and we do obviously have cocktail service who serve non alcoholic drinks as well. So, would that be prohibited to. That's the reason of me bringing this question it's like that we should get on the mindset that we're talking about any beverage. Is beverage service by its term of art limited to alcohol or any beverage. Any beverage would cover it. In the way the document is written there's no differentiation between alcoholic beverage or non alcoholic beverage. It's the idea of keeping the mask on everyone. It doesn't matter what you're drinking it's keeping the mass on when you're in indoors, and you're not seated. That's the distinction. Yeah, well, I guess I was I was thinking of the restriction to be allowed to move. It becomes with a beverage, imagine a cup of coffee or a for a bottle of water as Jackie just pointed out. It becomes a point of enforcement. We should just be cognizant of that. But people are going to say why why can I just bring my water, you know, to the other table I'm going over there. This gets back to, you know, the point of a good strong communications plan we are changing some of the habits and behaviors of of gaming patrons. I'm assuming all of our licensees are happy to refresh or provide you with a new beverage. If you're just getting up and moving to a different gaming position. But again, this kind of comes back to, you know, a strong communications plan so that patrons understand what the expectation is around something that might have been a traditional behavior before. Yeah, no, I think that's that's all fine. I cannot just envision, you know, the need for enforcement of some kind, gentle first, but, you know, we're dealing with public that is going to be, you know, in many ways used to other, you know, used to other things. And after this, you know, period, wanting to crave some of that normality. So, I just need to, I just want to point out that this is this this is going to be something that, you know, we're going to have to see how it goes. I agree with Commissioner Zuniga that I do see this is somewhat difficult. I'm thinking of slots players who sometimes feel like if they move to a different machine their luck will change or whatever they just prefer to play another machine at this time, and they're moving three seats down to enforce not taking your beverage with you three seats down, I think would be somewhat difficult. I do understand not loitering around the gaming floor not moving to a different portion altogether of say from slots over to table which is somewhat of a distance in lots of cases I do understand that, but I'm just wondering how we want this enforced if it's just moving a couple of slot machines I think the natural tendency is to take your beverage. Well, I think there's a couple things I think that's why I wanted actively gaming because they have to make that distinction between two to four for most of the alcohol anyway. And their experience with that. And I also do think to show Zuniga's point there is going to be an educational component to this because this is not the only bar option that you're going to be able to get this is not what this you know this is a very different experience right now in the reopening phase and so to Commissioner Zuniga's point it is going to be a learning experience and an education experience because saying oh I'm just going down three to get you know and then milling around. To me you've got to have the bright line. Again they do it for the most part between two and four in the morning so it's not like it's completely unfathomable. I would like to hear more about the two to four in the morning if I think folks are allowed to move seats to continue with a different slot machine let's say. So I don't know that it's such a right line there. I think let's let's just see if we can figure out what we're agreeing on. I think that we all when we say actively gaming. Commissioner Brian I'm using that as a reminder that you have to be seated. I think what we're really trying to figure out is in this context of the public health. pandemic. We know right now that the guidance coming out of our state given where we are right now public health metrics is that they are comfortable having patrons seated and eating and drinking. That social distancing is accomplished. So let's presume social distance we have we manage that issue aside. Right now we all agree that if you are going to have a drink in your hand can we agree that we acknowledge regardless of enforcement difficulties that we need to limit it to being seated, as opposed to milling around, notwithstanding the fact of being able to move seats without a game. Do we agree that ideally, without the challenges that they need to be seated versus being able to mill around with a drink. Absolutely. Yeah, and the licensees, you know do these as a matter of course not just from two to four they will offer you a drink if you they they first check on you they see that you're already engaged in gambling they say I'll come back and get your order and serve. So, commissioners that ends are you are you comfortable with that at this juncture for the where we are presuming, you know, phase three reopening for the casinos that drinking needs to be seated versus in any way standing and milling around in light of all the guidance that Loretta and and Karen have outlined and the teams outlined and that we also know from our own research. Yeah, and you know I think Commissioner Brian makes some good reference to you know how we instituted the two to four. The bigger point here is I'm getting up I'm moving a seat. It's not so much we're worried about where the drink is traveling we want to make sure that we're not carrying the mask as they might be moving seats. So if we reinforce drink while you're at your gaming position as opposed to just drinking anywhere else on the floor might strike a balance from what we're trying to achieve. Right so in terms of what we're probably. Let me ask again, I understand that there's a part of psychology involved in the gambling, and if the machine isn't cooperating Bruce will appreciate this and the other machine gets free and it looked like it was a good night for that machine. The instinct is a player may want to shift. I do know that my first I should clarify is that the goal to make sure in order to keep social distancing enforced that there won't be a lot of milling around behind the slots machine with with non gaming players is that the idea that we're envisioning Bruce's band and others. I think that's the goal but. Just a second I'm again we're just sure Bruce. Yeah, I think that that's the goal is have people not milling around with their mash pulled down I think is the main goal with that. And they won't have drinks unless they're seated. Now if they've shifted from one seat to another we've identified there is perhaps a little bit of a potential for that. If they're shifting around to the machine on the other end of the casino floor with their drinks. Are we comfortable saying they should probably leave their drink and somebody or discard their drink before they move on. Can I can I suggest some language to see if this hits everybody what we're talking about the last language and see. If it were written to say guests are not to be allowed to carry or drink beverages about the gaming area. It complements you must be actively gaming. Yeah, and reinforces. You're not supposed to be milling around with it or drinking it. I like that language I think it does kind of clarify what we're saying and I don't want to overthink this that's right. Right. I don't want to be the constantly looking for people moving. I do think the general principle is really important and and that does explain it and reinforce what we're talking about. As long as we all are in agreement that it makes sense not at this juncture and again. This is an active document and let's hope we can give relief sooner than later because that's going to mean things are improving from a public health perspective. But the idea is not walking around with your drink so I welcome that that amendment. We could also I would also ask. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Seth. I was going to ask I lean to repeat it but go ahead. Thanks. If you don't mind it's a question and a point I think I think we're generally aligned. I think the challenges with many of these is is enforcement and who's going to enforce the active gaming piece that Ryan raises I think is a great point. But the way we control that is through when we serve the drink. Once they've been served where they go with it is a real challenge enforcement challenge for us to monitor. The amount of staff that I think we would need to realistically enforce other than perhaps signage and telling people when they get it presents enormous challenges from an enforcement standpoint. So, I think we need really is challenging I think we could, we would be much more comfortable with a requirement that the beverages only serve to those actively gaming like the 2am to 4am piece. Because then we have control over it. And we could encourage through signage but it's a real real challenge to track individuals what they have in their hands and where they go and intercept. And, and I think we practically could be looking at some unintended implications that stem from that. Does everybody understand the distinction he's making. Yeah. Yeah, my concern again though is, you know, bars were moved to phase four and my fear is if we don't have this out here like it's being proposed. There are going to be people that are going to try to treat it like a bar experience and wander around so while I acknowledge the enforcement challenge I think if that's the rule and the messaging and the education. I can see what's going from there but I also question is we're not running a foul of what's allowed. Right at this. Burke were you were you going to add in just now. Mr. King. Okay. I think I think a set that, you know, we are, we are, we are very aware of the state paradigm here in Massachusetts right now. And as Commissioner Brian just said, we're really trying to offer guidance that works in sync with that with where we are at this moment. With respect to public health metrics and in terms of enforcement. We understand this is difficult. We will be, you know, we have, we will be monitoring and we will be asking for reports on the challenges and we can revisit. I think it's important for us to make sure that we don't let nervousness around enforcement somehow influence the restrictions that we, we should impose at this moment. Yeah, I think that's well said I think maybe with the headed that Commissioner Ryan suggested we accomplished this and we again monitor. I would point out that unlike bars and I understand that there's a lot of similarities, but there's an incentive of sorts to keep you in a place if you're gaming when you know it's only in that transition piece that I think becomes a challenge but I don't think it's in the scheme of things I don't think it's a huge, huge part of the time that people are going to risk. Could, could I ask for a couple more minutes to be considered if we could, instead of saying lower and raise their mass for drinking only say lower their mass for drinking only. And then I'm wondering how we deal with drinks that are left. Whose obligation is it to dispose of any of the bartenders like usually always they would be going back. That's what they do normally, or the wait staff. Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean that's what I mean. Folks on the floor are going to be cleaning the equipment are going to be probably also picking up empty glasses or half full glasses or whatever as part of their responsibility. If, and I think I'm in agreement with Commissioner Cameron I don't think we need to overthink this and you know there's any way many ways in which they could kind of deal with the public, so I'll bring your drink over there or something. So, so, so that's a good point rather than overthinking Loretta do you want to read back what you think see based on this conversation would be amended to read. The average services allowed in the gaming area and she'll be limited to guests who are actively engaged in gaming, although I will check the exact statutory language there. But I think it's guests who are actively engaged in gaming at a slot machine or table game and lower their mass for drinking purposes only guests are not to be allowed to carry or bring beverages with them. And moving about the gaming area. It was actually going to say to carry or drink. It was reiterating that they're not drinking as they kind of slide down slot machine. So guests, guests are not, I mean, are not to be allowed to carry or drink beverages. When moving about the game area. Okay. All right, we won't vote on that right now but can we move ahead to the second right now. I not heads nodding excellent, then good we'll move on to social distancing on slots. They all sort of interact so we might need to revisit things so this is good. Let's move ahead. Okay, so at your last meeting, you discussed the three options that appear on page seven of this packet for social distancing on slots and the group a option gave maximum flexibility to the licensees to implement measures to promote social distancing. The big takeaway from B was that every other slot machine would be disabled in group C. It was every two slot machines would be disabled so to disabled slot machines between operating slot machines. And lastly, the IEB took into consideration here the prevalence in Massachusetts and federally of the six foot distancing measure that you know through the CDC and here in the Commonwealth, while at the same time, requiring the desire and of the licensees to have some flexibility in reconfiguring their floors. So the suggestion from the IEB as appears in the document now is to either require a minimum of six foot distancing between operating machines. Or if there's not a six foot distance to install plexiglass dividers in a height of not less than six between operating machine. And at a minimum, every other slot machine would be disabled with the chairs removed from those disabled machines. Richard, do you want to start your thoughts? I did have one comment. I did receive some information from the licensees this morning that the six foot height on the plexiglass, there may be a supply issue with respect to that. So I don't know if any of the licensees want to comment, but it may be that they can't get the six feet but they could get a few inches shorter than that and maybe lift it off the floor to get the six foot height but not have the six feet go all the way to the bottom. So that just was a practical issue that came to my attention this morning. Is one of the licensees going to speak or do you want us to comment on that piece? Staff, Commissioner Cameron, thank you. Sure. Thank you. Yes, we, we are having some challenges, but we believe we could accomplish one. We measured it's actually one inch short of six feet off the ground from floor to top height, we would be at five feet 11 inches. But couldn't something be installed to cover most of like off the floor, maybe attached to, I don't know, some cabinet so that we don't need it all the way to the floor, we need it close to where somebody's head generally is. I was also going to make the point that I think a measure should be, you know, in reference to the height of the chair. If you are sitting in a lower chair or a higher chair that height of the plexiglass is that much more relevant. Yes, as we understand the requirement and we've been rolling out another properties, it's really the height, the standing height, and you're not looking at six feet pieces on top of the tables but trying to cover the average, you know, where the face and mouth are on the average person that range, and then as they would sit down have plenty of room and so I think if you think about it six feet from the floor. Yeah, about that it's a six foot measure from the floor so if they were requiring it for restaurants. It's six feet from the floor so it extends I think a table typically is around. I'm right. That would be a three feet but the idea is to achieve, you know, a six foot barrier starting from the ground up. Right, but my point is that I don't think we need the first foot from the ground up to be covered in plexiglass I know it needs to be attached to something. So if it's not attached to the floor and it's attached to a cabinet let's say does that, does that mean does the supply issue goes away that you can get by with a five foot plexiglass again that is not but that reaches all the way to six feet but not with the first foot. Yeah, I hear your question and I think that the issue at least that we're confronting at MGM was we already procured and designed these and they are significant pieces are less than six feet commissioner, but they're attached to the tables and the way they're attached. The total height combined is happens to be the least for the ones we've installed, five feet and 11 inches from the floor, because we were not working off of a six foot exact guideline when we procured it. So, and, and it's not something we can just raise up easily so I think substantively we're there but unfortunately we're in short from an exact six feet. Let's go ahead with the discussion on the six feet. It sounds like might be a unique problem to want to say something. Yeah, I think the problem that we were made aware of this morning was really more freestanding plexiglass stand stand that one of the properties looked at and their base made it you know less than than six feet. So there wasn't really an attachment to the machine with this plexiglass stand. It was the base to the plexiglass made it the whole height. Yeah, and if I could, while Seth is at 511 the best we can do with a tight turn is five feet six inches. So we've got two options given our timelines right now. It's five five or five six. And certainly to Commissioner Zuniga's comments, you know, we've been discussing what we could possibly engineer for additional six inches. We can certainly work on that but I can tell you as we sit right now, we are at five feet six inches. And is that that is just freestanding on the floor? Is that what you're talking about Lance? So it comes prefabricated. And so, I guess the best way to think of it is think of an old album that would slide into its sleeve. That's probably the best way to think of how this would be put together. Okay. And then what is the height? We'd have to think of a way to fashion an additional six inches underneath that which, you know, obviously brings some stability questions into play. So, to be clear, these are you, this is, this is a supply. Have you already procured this material or are these your suppliers? Have you done a nationwide search to see if you could get six foot? So I think it has to do with six feet. We could certainly find that it has to do with the combination of six feet and an incredibly quick timeline turnaround in which we would need to receive this plexiglass. Do any of our licensees have a photo or a drawing that we can see that would demonstrate what you're using and how it would be attached? Give you a minute if you have one. I'm, for what it's worth, I'm fine with the five feet, six inches in terms of height, the majority, as I envision it, and I think the picture will be very helpful. When I sit down, I'm usually, you know, less than my height. And if you assume that, you know, a good portion of the person's torso and head is going to be covered, even in addition, you know, with the five feet and six inches height, I think there's been enough of sufficient, if you will, mediation when we overlay the every other slot machine and the mask wear. Can you also remember there's a chair at every slot machine so the player would have to be seated? Yeah, that's part of my point that, you know, the six feet is perhaps my rate when it comes to height is that it's, you know, everybody is around that height, you know, standing up. In this case, you know, most of the patrons are going to be sitting down and that suffices it for me. Are we right to assume that it will be less at the top or less from the bottom coverage? In other words, I presume for the amount that's extending out, it starts from the floor and goes up. So the six inches is actually really making the inadequacy at the torso above as opposed to the torso below. Yeah, but people aren't necessarily always standing up when they're playing. Nice to see you first. I'm talking about actively gaming, you know, where's the risk. So, is it, there's, am I right that you're not starting with a stand that will take the six inches and bring it up further. That is correct. We would be short on the top, not on the bottom. Thank you. And just to, you know, add on pile on to this ours are 5 feet 10 and a half inches. So, can I have we heard from any of the restaurants that they've had the same problem with supplies. Has anybody heard that I haven't heard that. I think the difference with the restaurants is if you're separating a booth, which you can do is put the plexi on top of the booth or between the booth. I think the whole thing up. It's not like there's plexi from the floor. So they accommodate it by three feet Jackie. Yeah, on top of the booth. At least that's that's what we've done in our restaurant. And that was an approach plexi to the side of a machine itself. We, we haven't seen that yet. You know what I'd like to do, I'd like to make this a requirement and then to the extent that this is an equal substitution deal with a variance issue. What do we think about that. Yeah, best efforts to get six feet. I'm or you're a Kathy just because we're going on with the guidance and the rules as we have them. And they've made this six foot rule to me. You know, a de minimis, you know, is not as concerning to me. I'm not going to lie to you Lance, six inches seems a little more often I might be comfortable with but maybe we get some clarification from the advisory board on this to Kathy to your point. And so we make it this would be the condition and if need be this if it's a true substitution under our variance rules I don't know if Mr. Grossman's available I'd understand that the executive director could give a variance if it's not in some way a diminishment of our, you know, substantive or substantial diminishment of our restrictions so she could issue a variance to a licensee on that if it somehow can't be achieved. That's right to the extent it's in the internal controls that's certainly how it would work if this is a procedure outside of that and might be a little bit different so we would have to take a look at that. We could just make it part of these process. Exactly right you could just make it part of these rules. Fellow commissioners, what do you think about that idea just so that we can make sure that our licensees are exploring every option to achieve the, what is the preferred public health preference right now. And then we revisit see if it's a substantial substitution from a health perspective. We learn a little bit more. That's fine. I think one or one and a half inches is not already I can tell you that for me in my opinion is not a substantial deviation. Okay, six inches maybe but you know, not two, not one and a half. So commissioners, if the licensee raised it up so it was lifted off so for example at PPC if they lifted that off the floor six inches so the six inches was at the bottom, and then the rest of the plexiglass went to the six foot height. Are you comfortable with that. Absolutely. I don't think it's a six feet coverage that you need I think you need it to the height of regularly six feet which which is the height of. And particularly the vulnerable spot of torso office has emphasized right. I'm not I'm not transmitting anything from my feet I can tell you that. The difference is this is sort of provides potentially a leeway in connection with the minimum six feet. But then to then ask for a variance beyond that to your point unless it's de minimis when you start getting into six inches that I don't know if that makes a difference or not substantively. The conundrum PPC has it sounds like is the stability of the plexiglass if you try to raise it six inches. Yeah. This is the rule right now and then get guidance on. Where is this rule right now. It's consistent with all the guidance that is out there currently in Massachusetts commissioner. And so if we adopt that rule that will get us going. During this interim you know the next media hours we can learn more about all five six and as long as it's two feet and six inches above the torso. That's going to be enough particularly in light of the fact that there's not going to be a person right next to them that might be it might be able to achieve. You know, you might be able to learn that that's reasonable. That's sort of where I am but I understand I understand the other perspectives. So we're thinking of keeping it this way. And but then saying there is an ability to apply for variance if this doesn't seem achievable and then we evaluate each request. Yeah. I mean I think I'm hearing and this is this is a really tough one I'm hearing in light of the fact that the six feet is the, that's the norm right now and I'm hearing six inches seems to not be de minimis and that presents what I'm hearing from today's licensees that that's a challenge for PPC in particular. It's a couple of inches for encore and about an inch for mass for MGM spring field. So I, I want to be careful that we don't talk about any variants and in in this form, because any variants research would have to be done to determine whether it's a fair substitution. So what we could, you know what I'm hoping that we lean against doing is is is adopting a norm that's less than what's what we've learned is an acceptable for Massachusetts at this time. And chair. This is a little right if I can jump in the prevalence of the six foot distancing that appears throughout the federal in the state guidelines is again the lateral distancing between individuals as for the vertical six foot barrier for the plexiglass that appears for the indoor restaurant situation so we could also explore how that is being rolled out and as well I don't I have seen the provision for the indoor seating for the restaurants. But I am not aware of any issues for any variances that may be being requested or allowed in that area so we could take a chance to do a little more research there. Yeah, I think that's that's that's fine. I think at the same time, you know, I'd be curious or licensees and staff can can research. What are those options in restaurants being implemented if it's I mean it's easy to imagine the scenario that Jackie says you know putting something that's actually three feet in height on top of a booth or the back of a booth and it accomplishes the six feet. I wonder what other configurations, for example, you know tables in the middle of the floor. How does that get, you know, what's what's a technical solution how do they comply with the six feet requirement or at all. I think that additional research as Loretta is suggesting would be helpful. I just want to be clear that the additional research would be done in conjunction with a variance or as opposed to postponing today's decision. Sure, we could do that. Great. I see nodding heads. Okay, excellent. Okay, let's continue and we can revisit, of course, does that make sense. Let's just make sure is there anything then in a and B of number nine that my fellow commissioners want to discuss in further detail. So the question I had about be, because right now, I'm going forward on the idea that six feet is six feet, but we do have this circumstance in the restaurant industry where you can go shy of that with the plexiglass. But there's still space between tables I don't know what the industry would be in terms of pushing your chair back etc. I know that the average gap when you shut down the one machines four and a half feet. Does anybody tell me whether that gets any less than that or whether we would want to have something in there that says, you know, and or no less than X feet. Because unless I'm sort of guaranteed that four and a half space. I am not really comfortable so if anybody can just tell me about what the industry standards are in these machines to make sure when we say this we're not getting to two feet with plexiglass without intending to Jackie. To that point. I think that's the average distance if you if you shut off one in an average bank. I don't think it goes less than that. But my question was, which is, we have situations where we have more than six feet between a slot machine. Would, would we be expected under this would be required then to turn off alternating machines even though there's more than six feet. Conversely, if we have five foot nine inches could we put up the plexiglass rather than switching off every other machine. So if it's a minimum of four and a half feet with plexi. I think six feet six feet is six feet. Can we agree on that commissioners. Yeah, I think if you if you reconfigure the floor or have very big machines with enough space that you already accomplished a six feet. I don't think there's there's a need to disable a slot machine and then now you're away 12 feet, let's say, I think that the intention. And if it's short commissioners in the gap by three inches that that would require plexiglass then correct. Is that what you're suggesting. Right the way it currently reads is that you know, because in many instances, the six feet is very hard to accomplish, then you do the score by installing the plexiglass and you know, and removing the chairs. I think I'm going to point commissioners a Brian's point was that she wants to make sure that that with plexiglass that we have at least so that general four foot two inches separation with plexiglass if it becomes let's say two feet. Somehow do we require another disabling of a seat is that correct. Well, what I'm actually trying to get at is what is the minimum equivalent take out every other and is that what we feel comfortable with being the minimum with plexiglass. Right, but also putting a distance in, I think may also address Jackie's question which is, if our court has the ability to reconfigure. So they are you know, five and a half feet with plexiglass as written and you still have to have a disabled machine in between. So you would, you would. Yeah, so you would substitute maybe be to read that that you know, you know, in no case, there will be, you know, gaming between patrons and slot machines of anything less than say four feet. So we can actually put a measurement in there, which most of the licenses will know they satisfy by the every other and or in wins case because and maybe MGM as well they have the ability to reconfigure they know we are in a comfort zone of what we think complies with public health and then working their machines. Maybe we're conflating these. Can we take one at a time. Let's take Jackie's Jackie's question if you're able to achieve six feet or more between gaming positions on with respect to slots be is concerning for that is unnecessary. Right. Well, we just, we would say, unless six feet can be achieved. Right. That was going to be my just six feet is achieved. That's it. That would be that would be on be correct commission. Yes. Now, so that takes care of what is not really a problem right unless six feet is achieved and in the ready you may think about whether that can be more artfully crafted and then to I think Michelle, Brian, correct me if I misunderstanding your concern, but do we want to have some kind of a minimum between plexiglass, you know, right, or players. I mean, Jackie's point of being able to reconfigure and you're at, you know, five and a half feet. Do I need the plexi. Well, now I'm at three feet. Do I need the plexi. I mean, not necessarily have a configuration that's a line of shutting every other off. Right. So, I think then that would be up in a right that we would want to clarify that or a separate one. Yeah, maybe a C. You could say that there shall be a minimum of X feet right between machines that are separated by plexiglass. Right. And I think we probably should address it rather than even if we can be confident that there really is few there would be few circumstances where there would be less than about four feet. Let's put, let's put it in as a C. Yeah, like a minimum length and it's four and a half feet. The number that everyone who's more familiar with this is comfortable. I was going to suggest if we look at the footnote at the bottom references to four and a half feet. Right. But it is approximately it the reference the information I have is that it's approximately four and a half feet. How are smallest distances for a four feet four inches. You know what, let's be careful. Yeah. Not to create inadvertently a problem. So we've, we've heard an approximate of 4.5. Our goal is to, because we all know what it looks like to, you know, the slot machines typically. We have some corner kind of situations where perhaps it would be really there could be. It could be closer than let's say three feet. Do we want to say something along the line of 3.5 feet. comfortable with that. Okay. It sounds like the four and a half, you know, I was obviously hoping to get assurances that was a standard. But the reason I asked the question was my concern was this and how low are we willing to go is for this four feet four inches enough. You get less than that. Comfortable with what you want to think about, you want to be really reasonable in terms of if restaurants are opening, you know, what the space is. If you think about even, you know, the width of your kitchen table or your desk where you're sitting right now. What that distance is, I'm trying to imagine scenarios of other venues where there is activity allowed, you know, walkthroughs. Well, if you're in a booth with plexiglass, you are much closer together than, you know, for four feet, frankly, you're probably, you know, you're almost head to head with someone other than the plexiglass so comfortable ways you're exhaling opposite ways and you're there for a finite period of time and then you're leaving. Well, except that for slot machines are directing. What about what about airplanes I wonder. Don't let's not talk about airplanes. Please. I mean, it's like, please. My point is that there's any one of these measures can be taken, you know, to a point that is difficult to implement and that's what I would want to caution us against. So we try not to lie with what the intent of the public health restrictions are, but in a manner that makes it the most workable. I was hoping the answer was four and a half feet absolutely takes care of them. Apparently not because on court has some four feet four inches. How are we comfortable with four feet, I would be. I would be various to have any other licensees have anything that's less than that. I mean, who's trying to get a sense of distancing. Jack you say four to four feet two inches. No, it wasn't for four or four. So commissioner cameras suggested four feet, how many of us would be comfortable with if I could just take sort of a sense with, I think maybe I haven't heard from pressure sevens but I see commissioners Zuniga camera shaking the heads. I would be comfortable with four feet. I'm okay with. I'm okay with four feet. And if for some reason somebody has a deviation of three foot nine inches. Again, come talk to us but I think if you know what we really are. We want to be practical here we're trying to achieve the distance the typical distance between every other, you know, that's achieved with every other machine being disabled. Or unless you have the six feet. Exactly. Right. Yes, with that with our new, our new C. Commissioner sevens I think we're also I think that I think that I'm not hearing any of the familiar licensees I think we're good to say for feet. Yeah, that language because you could do, you could then take out the disabled slot machine if the minimum is four feet either by distance or by disabling. That's what I'm thinking you combine it to does that make sense, Loretta. Yeah, I think we would want to include something in there about chairs being moved from disabled machines. So we still have three items a B and C, but some jurisdictions are allowing chairs to remain from machines not in use so I think we'll end up with three items. Loretta, do you want to read through, if you're in a good spot to do that. Yeah, please. So read through C, the new, the new item A, A remains the same. It remains the same. B, I probably put the minimum distancing in there. There should be a minimum distance of four feet between slot machines that are separated by plexi glass. No. No, that's not right. No. We're not I think that I think that the goal is to have every other slot machine will be disabled correct. No, you can you can accomplish it by disabling it. Distance or disabling would then comply. At a minimum, every other slot machine shall be disabled. We shall be disabled because you can't achieve six feet. We know that. We're, my understanding is that we are replacing the requirement of disabling the minimum disabling of every other machine with the requirement of the four feet minimum. Correct. So, so we're, we're saying if you're going to separate from plexi glass because you cannot achieve six feet, you have to have a minimum of four feet between. But if you do disabled. Yeah, I was, for some reason, meeting incorrectly. At a minimum, it has to be at least four feet and with every other slot. You wouldn't say anything about every other slot machine. You would say disabled machines shall have their chairs removed. Right. Yes. And then we're not even going to reference a six feet. You can accomplish it however you want be sailing machines or putting. It's a minimum of four feet. Yeah, it looks like Seth, are you going to say something. Yeah, just a question that when you say the minimum of four feet, I think, you know, the devil's in the details where that's measured from but I presume we're talking about nose to nose for feet of the seated player. And that's the measurement. Yes. Thank you. Is that the standard measurement letter with that they're doing this. It's from the That's the nose to nose is this the measure in every, you know, in every metric that I've seen essentially middle of the seat to middle of the middle of this. Yes. Don't put the outside of the slot machine to the outside of this machine which turns into, you know, a lot more. Yeah. Nose to nose really feels quite personal. It's centered to center I suppose. Yeah, middle of the seat to middle of the seat, as opposed to the machine. Pardon me. Do we need to clarify that. No, it's, it's, you know, it's where the risk lies. It's the people. No, I'm just talking about clarity of the measurement so that everybody as long as we're all aware that's what we're doing. Does that was that what you were all assuming when we were talking about achieving six feet without plexiglass four feet with plexiglass. Right. You can say I don't sound good to our licensees center. Pardon me. I was saying, and I think it makes as measured from the center of the seat. Everyone's very clear that it's middle of the seat. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Brian and Commissioner Cameron. Thank you very much. I'm looking for the licensees. Does that does that raise a particular concern for you. It certainly is very consistent with the guidance here in Massachusetts. Okay, hearing none. I think we can move on to item 10. Okay. Easier and easier as we go along. She says positively, which I love. So you reviewed three options for social distancing for table games at your last meeting and these appear on pages eight and nine of the packet. It's consistent with our other conversations. The first group gave the highest level of flexibility to the licensees to operate the table games in a way that maintains increased distance and to monitor for no congregating and to allow the installation of plexiglass between dealer and players. B, had a focus on blackjack style tables required plexiglass between the dealer and required at a maximum four players per blackjack style dealer with no poker being allowed. And the no poker is at this initial reopening stage. All of the licensees do not intend to the poker. And group C for the blackjack style tables had a maximum of three players per table with plexiglass installed no poker no craps and no roulette. Ultimately, the ID recommendation language that we are offering, which appears in your shaded portion on page four. And is conservative measure is requiring plexiglass dividers, which separating the dealer from the player positions and between the player positions at the blackjack style tables. No more than three players at each table. And no craps roulette or poker until further notice and largely for the craps and roulette that was because of the difficulty of either maintaining six foot distancing or installing plexiglass. So again, initial stage of reopening. This is the language that's being suggested for you now. And just a point of clarification on the installation of the plexiglass is it fair, Bruce and Burke to say that even if there was a fix with plexiglass it really introduced a difficulty for particularly with respect to craps in terms of being able to monitor the integrity of the game. Yes, that would be difficult because both those games are pretty verbal games, and the plexiglass will kind of inhibit, you know, call bets and things like that as well. So just in terms of our ability to regulate even if there was a plexiglass fix it wasn't going to be great for us to regulate the game itself. And then of course D is I think there was a consensus with our licensees that at this time no poker, but stay tuned. Let's hope for the future. Let's get started in terms of we all saw last Thursday the picture of what this would look like for the blacks jack style tables. The plexiglass would go again six feet from the ground to separate the players. If it were installed at any place on the table of course it doesn't need to go six feet but rather be the extension of of the natural three feet and whatever inches that would would form from the table Bruce. The plexiglass on the tables does not go all the way to the floor it goes to the top of the table. So the people are not separated like a voting booth. That it is separated from the top of the table. It mounts on on the top of the table, at least from what I've seen is, is there anything different from when you understand Jackie, or Seth that you think I believe it mounts on the top of the table and then it will back out off of the table towards the patron area. A foot, maybe two feet and you kind of walk into it, like it's a small booth. So that part does extend that does extend from the floor up then. No, no, no, no, it doesn't. Oh, it just comes out. Yes. Yeah, that's an I apologize for any confusion that's the plexi I was referencing earlier coming from the table that we have procured for our tables. We actually do not have any first slots at this time, which is going to be a huge as a challenge for us with this recording. Thanks. Thanks, Seth. That's helpful to know so sounds like MGM Springfield doesn't have the issue that we discussed earlier with respect to slots but it's an issue that you wouldn't be able to achieve to be a little short on top. Is that the same problem that other licensees well it's just would be you Jackie on core for table game. Do you have do you have the same issue that you can't get quite three feet above the table or whatever. And that's the same issue yes, because they've already all been prescribed and built. That's right. It goes up to the equivalent of 511. And so just to be clear, when it's when we extend out it just extends the table length so that the individual's body would be stepping in their legs would not be protected. Correct. It's 18 to 24 inches out for you kind of. Oh, that's okay. But that's the way out into the table for us right. Pardon me. You mean out in over the table. It sticks out past the individual, but not down to your legs. So that's a tripping hazard at that point here. Right so that's significant though. You said 18 or 24 inches. It depends because these are somewhat custom made. So, you know, it's something that you actually step into from the ones that I've seen. Commissioner Zuniga already said that you don't transmit through your feet. So commissioners in a good what are you thinking. Yeah, I think I think the risk is on the, you know, on the transmission via the mouth and then know. I think that configuration works. Yeah. And that's pretty much used all across the country by everyone that uses the plexiglass device, same design. Commissioner Brian, do you think we take the same approach with the six foot and then address the variants down. Yeah, that would be my take. I like the way 10 is written. Taking the same approach we did with the others. I'm fine. Pardon me. I'm fine with that. Excellent. Thanks. Commissioner Cameron. I'm comfortable as well. Excellent. Commissioner Zuniga. Yeah, I guess I'm the only one saying, you know, if we know already it's, you know, 510 is achievable, but I'm okay with the way. And all the way through a B and C. Everybody yes. Okay, good. No changes. Okay. So, What are you going on to occupancy? Yeah. Okay, so you just discussed the options on page 10 at your prior meeting with the first column, looking at building code occupancy and suggesting that you set a percentage of building code occupancy. Group B, gaming positions that at every other slot machine and four players per table, group C set at every two slot machines or two slot machines disabled and three players per game. We've tried to add some actual numbers to those options which appear on page 11. Now, be mindful that if you base your occupancy level on gaming positions, we've attempted to give you some numbers here, but the licensees are going to need a chance to actually map out their floor and then get back to us with what they end up with for this initial reopening and the actual gaming positions and you know have Bruce's team verify those. So the form you have in front of you on page 11 the column on total occupancy tells you the building code occupancy for the gaming area of each of the three properties. And then gives you numbers for what 25% would be 30% 3540 and 50% for each of the properties. The next column gives you what our group B, you know, every every other slot machine removed. So this is sort of a ballpark number with what you did up with in what you decided previously on slot distancing. So the total position slot positions under group B at PPC was 660. So if you allowed 50% over that you'd end up with an occupancy of 990 20% over at 825 10% over at 726. So you can see those numbers for the three properties. Now, there is another document that did not make it into your packet that Bruce and team circulated last night. And I can try to share that with you. And these numbers. Can you see that. Yeah. Well, you know, I wonder if it's because I'm not the host of the meeting. I did test this out this morning and I was able to try. Try one more time because that shouldn't matter. So just try one more time. If you pull it up and share. But with that said, it's no easy feat. So do you want to email it to me? And while you're talking, I'll try and figure that out. That'd be great Karen. I will do that. Bruce, could you email it so I can keep talking. Thank you, Bruce. So the numbers that Karen will try to pull up are based on the gaming positions that are allowed. Each licensee is licensed. So at PPC, that number of gaming positions is 1,320. At MGM, it's 2,547. And it on core that number is 4,630. So you could think about using those numbers as your baseline. For setting occupancy levels. So that's a good question. Can everybody see that? Okay. Thank you, Karen. So the, the caution. On basing your occupancy on the modified gaming positions that you end up allowing for the phase three opening is that those numbers may. They may not be the same. They may not be the same numbers. And that's not something we can't deal with. You know, we can, we can certainly deal with that. But I just want to point that out to you. Basing occupancy on either building code, some percentage of building code occupancy or some percentage of building code. Of being a fixed number. Well, I, I for one. Think that we might be better off with a percentage of the. Of the building code. I think there's a lot of measures that are already taking place. And maybe I should back up. I think this is the one area that I think we should be most able to modify. But I would say that we have to modify and congregate and adhere to measures that we could. You know, that, that, that the staff, the IEB can, can, can. You know, we consider some of these total maximums and, and modify accordingly. But having said that, I think, um, there's. appropriate because the floor is expensive enough that people can be just walking around keeping six feet apart with their masks on, but they may not necessarily be engaging gaming at all times, which is why I believe the building code is more appropriate in my mind. We don't have much guidance for this type of hospitality industry yet. The existing percentages for retail and grocery stores is 40 percent, now set by the administration. Now I think the parallels are limited in terms of their utility, but I just put that out there to you for a term of reference. I'm sorry, there's grocery stores in what, Lorena? Retail. And retail, so malls and that sort of thing or just a retail establishment freestanding? Both. There's another measure for smaller retail based on like a number per thousand square feet, but those are for smaller shops. In this instance, I think echoing what Commissioner Zuniga is saying is that perhaps having a more conservative number at the beginning with an understanding that we would monitor how demand is managed and how the numbers are formulating in accordance with the public health metrics and possibly increase that accordingly over time, barring any other instructions from the federal or state government. In other words, if we started a more conservative number upon opening and we visited in two weeks, we could maybe increase. I don't know how others think about that. I was actually suggesting that it could go both ways, either way, right? We could decrease or increase as we see. I think one would argue it's always easier to increase. I'm looking at the Hobroad Island opened, where it was very limited with an invite only plus a guest. They're still in that phase. My understanding is I would feel more comfortable going with some sort of percentage over positions in the beginning with the hope and expectation is that that would be raised as we got more guidance and restrictions, et cetera. I think it's harder to shut the tap off if we start off too high. I also wonder why you can socially distance. It's not like a mall where you're window shopping, so if you're not gaming, what are you doing? I think keeping the numbers lower on the more conservative side at the beginning will allow our licensees the ability to put in place out of their training, make sure to get the kinks out. It's unlike the grand opening of the casinos where those kinks always show up, but you can address them. In this case, those kinks could put people at risk from a health point of view as opposed to your service point of view. The idea of thinking a little bit more conservatively, but with a model that's acceptable, certainly. My challenge is as I look at these numbers, I'm not really familiar with figuring out the number for employees, the percentage on top of. It's easier for me to imagine gaming positions in light of our discussions today. If every person were seated. I know if I missed it, I'm sorry. The chart on page 11 does include numbers for the personnel that would be anticipated to be in the gaming area at any given time, so the last column on the right. Yeah, if you could just walk, yeah, so. Page 11, PPC is 17, and you know you can see. John here, I'm sorry, yeah, okay. No, right. And may I ask where this number was obtained? We had a much higher count. Yeah, same question. Yeah, same question for us. Bruce, you're going to need to jump in there on that. I'm sorry. You're talking about which the employee number Jackie. Yes. It was an approximation from this senior through advising gaming agent of each of our properties. Can we go through that then to the extent that the licensees want to give us a little bit more insight on their expectation for people on the floor, particularly personnel? Sure. So I'm not sure if this number, a couple of issues, one is in terms of counting people who are coming into the gaming area, we also have people who would be going to restaurants and occupying those. And the staff that goes to those restaurants you would pass through the number calendar. You know, I don't know if this accounts for additional PAD, the cleaners that we're intending to have on the floor, or, yeah, this seems like it's just the gaming. It's gaming, security, and didn't we include cage for people as well, Berk? Yeah. I mean, games department, security, the slot personnel, and a cage, and we were just taking a rough estimate of an average shift. So these were the four departments, obviously the new EBS, the cleaning people would be a number that, but we did not include that one. We weren't sure. And service people, all the people who are providing all the services. So it would be really helpful for me to understand gaming positions, and I'm chiming in, but I want my fellow commissioners to also chime in, the game, if in light of today's decision, if you have, if what would be the, what would be for, let's say, I'm going to ask each of you, what would be the ideal percentage over the number of gaming positions? Let's assume right now all gaming positions using that last chart. What number, what percentage could, could meet your expect, conservative expectations at the beginning? What percentage? You know, we looked back at C and we considered C last week. And upon reflection, it seemed too small to me, but I had no, just got instinct. I'm having really trouble figuring out because I don't understand the personnel number well enough. And I do appreciate, Jackie, you're mentioning the affiliated services that people are coming through, and I'd like to hear from you on that. I know that's very different for each licensee. So we could just talk, if we talk full, all gaming positions based on the chart that Loretta just shared, plus employees, then plus some other percentage. Jackie, are you in a position to walk us through that right now for your analysis? Well, you know, we've really actually just focused on the gaming area and the amount of circulation that's available and how we can socially distance within that, within that number. So, you know, we've been more focused on, on the first proposal, which was based on occupancy. On occupancy. Okay. So, but you have a number in mind. You don't have to share that right now. So let's reverse engineer. Sure. If we did not, based on gaming position. Based on gaming positions, we almost think that we're going to have, at any given time, we could have almost, you know, 800, 900 employees in there. If you look at the restaurants and all the ancillary services, the increase in security, the gaming agents. Okay. And, and so, EPH total gaming positions group. And then just the restaurants alone. If you look at just the restaurants between Fratelli, Red Aids, and Duncan, we have about a seating capacity with a socially distance at about 500. Okay, helpful. And then, you know, there's obviously on DeckBurger, which adds another 215 seats and then the associated staff with those numbers. And Loretta, I'm going to have your number in front. What's the total gaming positions for EVH? Allowed under the licenses 4,630. Can I mention something? I think if the analysis is on gaming positions, I think that we should assume that only applies to patrons. And so then every additional staff is not part of that calculation. Conversely, if we're talking about overall occupancy, then we need to include the staff. You could do a layered approach where it is a percentage of our gaming positions for patrons. And getting a sense of the requisite personnel that would be necessary to staff that, make sure that it doesn't exceed a certain percentage of capacity so that you're not in a situation where we're going higher than we really want to. Yeah, that also, you don't want to incentivize staff reduction in any way by the number you're setting. Right. So if there's, to Jackie's point, if the assessment is what's the healthy socially distant economically effective way to reopen this based on the space on the floor and then we get a factor in, OK, and how do you staff that appropriately such that everyone's comfortable with everyone's fire code capacity and that sort of thing. Maybe this has to be multi-layered. Yeah, maybe. I mean, I think that staff, by the way, is going to be instrumental in helping enforce all the measures that we were just talking about. So I think there's an incentive for us to make sure that they also have appropriate amount of staff. Yeah, I think our number has to make sure that we can affirmatively say the number of employees is considered in occupancy level. The other consideration is obviously our floors are fairly large and there's a lot of room for circulation as opposed to queuing people outside. So we're trying to avoid queues on the outside. Jackie, did you, when you looked at this from the standpoint of the gaming floor and all the restaurants with the socially distance measures, did you come up with an approximate percentage? Of the floor. Of the, you know, what does that mean? So if you look at the occupancy load at 50%, let's say, using the socially distance load factor of 11 square feet, then you're at, it would come to approximately 9,800. So 9,800 versus, so 9,800 was 50% of the building code occupancy of real human beings. Where the gaming positions right now is 4,673, is that right? 30, 4630. 2630. OK, sorry. If we added then that number plus another 800 to 900, if we added another 1,500 to 2,000, that would get you about to 7,000, right? If we added another 2,000, that gets you to 6,600. And you're up to 9,000 based on occupancy level. Right. If we did gaming positions that are actually available versus the full, it's substantially reduced. Right. Of course, what I'm thinking about is occupancy level assumes more and more people who are not actively gaming. And those are going to be people who you are managing. You're going to have to figure out your social distancing. They're going to be clustering. And that's a bigger challenge. And I wonder if we want to ease back from occupancy level and think about the real people who would be actively gaming. That's why I'm gravitating toward the gaming positions, because that is where we started our discussion today. With, of course, some cushion around those people who are going to be waiting, who are going to be queuing. If we did that, now let's just go to, if others have comments, now chime in. But I was going to ask Seth and Lance, too, to think about this number. Seth, are you in a position? I guess it's just Seth. I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't have. Sure, I don't have in front of me the staff members, but similarly to Jackie, our numbers are much higher than 108, when you factor in the variety of different staff to be across the floor. Honestly, I think that occupancy numbers are a lot less critical to us at this stage than the gaming position. I mean, if we're going in the direction of what we heard earlier, it's going to so significantly restrict the number of gaming positions that we have in play that that's going to naturally drive the occupancy level. I mean, we're going to be, because we don't have Plexi, we haven't planned out Plexi, then the reduced number of slot machines that we'll be able to offer will be, you know, when we're able to reopen will be so much less than we anticipated that, you know, our occupancy numbers aren't going to be, I think, anywhere close to these percentages of total occupancy. We think that, so we're going to have to reevaluate what's feasible. Commissioner O'Brien mentioned, you know, opening in a way that's economically feasible, the direction we're going, we just have to, I think our team has to rework and see if there is an economically feasible way to reopen. So Seth, you're saying now that you had not contemplated in using Plexi class at all, the slot machines, that that's just not an option that- No, no, yeah, we don't have, that's not something we'd be, we've planned on procured or would have available for a near-term reopening, which effectively means that if there's no leeway on the six speeds, that our slot number goes so low that, you know, we have to kind of revisit the entire model that we were planning to open. So some of our prior analysis, I think, is not relevant at this stage in terms of staffing levels and what we would have open and what we wouldn't. And I'd like to echo what Seth has just said as well. I think, you know, we had not planned on Plexi class, either we were better or worse looking at sort of the industry standard and understand that that's not where the commissioners go. It would be a consideration as well. Yeah, same for us. You know, given the conversation we had, I don't know, an hour ago regarding height, sort of a new addition that I saw last night. So, yeah, just need to figure out if the number of gaming positions then goes down to 440, which I believe is option C. Certainly there are financial considerations that we need to work ourselves through. And then as a practical matter, as it relates specifically to occupancy, and I think Jackie brought this up a little bit, is 5783 is our floor. That doesn't include the food court, nor does that take into consideration anything to do with racing. So as we manage potentially capacity and folks entering our facility, you know, that adds another 800 in building capacity right there. So just to be clear with licensees, certainly the topic of Plexiglas came up last Thursday. The topic of six feet tall, I believe, I believe first I saw of it was last evening. And certainly, so you're saying now that even though Massachusetts is expecting it in terms of the guidelines where we are in Massachusetts that you're suggesting that six feet will not allow you to open up the slot machines and we're just raising this after passing number six earlier, whatever number it was, eight, nine. I'm sorry, are you referring to the 16 feet tall? I thought we had an issue around height and we addressed it. It sounded as if where we are wasn't going to work and it sounded as if six inches short might be a challenge. And while six inches, I think we made it very clear that we're going to make sure that if it does present an unworkable public health challenge, we'd have to revisit, but that we're hopeful that we would be able to have the executive director simply issue a variance in light of particularly other minimum standards for foot separation. I think I heard at the time, Mr. Stratton said that they had an issue with respect to one inch being short on Plexiglas. I think he later corrected it and said, oh, that had to do with tables, but you didn't say ever that you were going to be not able to open up with the introduction of Plexiglas. Yeah, I think honestly. Is that, can we say that that if I were, you know, we would call your CEOs that that is in fact the decision? No, I don't think we've made a decision yet. We have to evaluate it, but until we received this document last night, which really is effectively option C, we had never, our modeling all along had not contemplated those reduced levels of gaming positions. And so when we saw this last night. But it isn't reducing, it's actually increasing as I understand it, we're not requiring you to disable necessarily as many machines because it's a four foot minimum now. So, but it does require Plexiglas installation. Right, which we, which is the safest measure for all of your patrons. We haven't done that in other jurisdictions and haven't planned to do that yet. So it's going to have to be, can we get that? Can we get those in place? Is it, you know, one of the reasons we haven't put it in place is that our experts haven't recommended it as a best practice. And there's increased cleaning and issues that come along with it. So that's why we haven't, as the company adopted it. If that's going to be the only way we can operate here, which wasn't our plan, we're going to have to evaluate, when can we get those in? What's the cost? How do you, there's a lot of factors that we need to evaluate in connection with mandatory Plexiglas, which again, just wasn't on our, in our planning until this stage. So, first lots. When Jackie mentioned industry standards elsewhere, I assume that is disable every other machine with no Plexiglas. Is that right? That's correct. And masks. And masks. Yes. And do people, and drinking, are you willing to do no drinking? No. MGM, are you willing to do no drinking? It's important to, I'll guess. Yes. That's critical. But people are coming, people are coming for an experience. Right. I think the heart of the issue is that we're focusing on different requirements in a vacuum. And it's really multiple layers of requirements. So we need to take a, to go back. I apologize. We can go back and look at all this holistically. Just as our public health experts did when they put together our seven point plan. It's not just one thing. It's multiple things. It's multiple protections for our guests and taken together that what we're doing here, we're balancing risk. That's what we're doing. Anytime you open a business, you're balancing risk. Yes. We need to take the document that was provided to us last night and see where that puts us because there's a number of things in that document that are simply different. I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm simply saying different than other jurisdictions. Yes, I appreciate, excuse me. Just one minute. I just want to make sure that when you keep on mentioning it was provided last night, we did have six hours of discussion last Thursday. And certainly the introduction of Plexiglas as probably a measure that would mitigate the impact of drinking while gaming, given where we are in Massachusetts and the public health considerations here is certainly on the table. So I just want to make sure that everybody who's listening today, this is not a concept that we introduced last night late. The document was shared with you in advance of today's meeting, certainly last evening. And I believe you also had conversations with our staff. So I just want to clarify that this wasn't a surprise discussion. Maybe it's a surprise to you that we may have come to a consensus this way. Not suggesting at all that we had ample discussion. Yes. Five hours of discussion would have you. But when you get to the final product, you have to continue to do the analysis and take a look. And all that we're saying is, I think we're saying as an industry, is we need to consider all of the various things that we will need to do to open. Yeah, I actually, I mentioned, I had that point last Thursday that I think any one of those of these measures may be at least feasible in the abstract way. But when we layer them together, we, there needs to be that analysis as to what is overall the impact and the feasibility and the cost benefit. Sure. And one thing that I don't know that, and it's something that we're actually discussing in other jurisdictions now, it's just the Aaron casinos, which is so much different in a positive way than retail businesses and different things of that nature. The fresh air protocol, I can't speak for the other properties, but I suspect that we're not much different than everyone else. We have a minimum of a 75% air nail, the maximum of 100%. Obviously, we're filtering at mirror 14, we're doing 10 to 12 exchanges per hour. It's those sorts of things that make us actually much different than a lot of other indoor facilities. And it might be something that we as an industry, and I'm not suggesting this commission, we as an industry, probably should have focused on more as well in helping you understand the uniqueness of these facilities in the state of art, HVAC systems that we have in place. That is again, I'm sorry, that again, it's really an important liar. It's one of the first things that we thought about in our public health consultant thought about. So the practice in Massachusetts is currently for indoor restaurants, this is an indoor facility to achieve, if you can't achieve six feet difference and you want to drink or eat, then you do have to erect a plexiglass of six feet. Is that there, Loretta, am I in any way misreading that in terms of where we are right now with respect to guidance out of Massachusetts? That appears to be the restaurant guidance now in phase two in Massachusetts. I guess the point is, is this a different, is there enough of a difference between a casino and a restaurant? Are we considering every factor? That's right, and without additional guidance, we won't be able to guess that, I don't think. I think that it is fair to say right now, if when people are seated and hoping to have drinks or eat, then they need to be able to be six feet apart from each other, unless they're separated by non-porous material. And so, plexiglass, we had even seen a picture, I know, last week of a potential cure, mitigating, I think it was just a model, so it didn't go up six feet, that was noted. And so, now we are hearing that that is not a workable option. I think we have already, we can revisit this right now. Commissioners, do we want to still continue with what we've noted as our requirements at this time, or do we wait and not give any guidance to our licensees today and postpone any decision in light of what they're saying is non-workable? We had hoped to be able to give guidance that's consistent with what we anticipate the expectations of the state to be so that they could move ahead on a runway that we know is 10 to 14 days. Commissioner O'Brien. Well, I mean, I think in terms of the purpose of last week and today, going forward with what we know the criteria in Massachusetts are currently, and equating as best we can with other jurisdictions, I think we've been consistent with that. If what the licensees are saying is there is a cost-benefit analysis that has to be done in light of more certainty they've gotten from today. I don't think that from a public health standpoint, apps and anything from the governor's advisory board on phase three and or specific to casinos from where I'm sitting from a health perspective, it wouldn't change where I come from on how I've voiced my opinion on these requirements. But I can respect the fact that they want to go back and reassess, I don't know that it changes anything we're talking about. The only thing I think would benefit from more specificity for me is some of the occupancy numbers in terms of it sounds like getting more accurate sense the personnel that would be required under these circumstances, a better sense of what is the seating capacity of the restaurants, the potential for people queuing up, et cetera to get a better sense of if this is the workable plan, how do you do it in a responsible way that maximizes their opportunity? And maybe to me that's a number that I'm not so sure everyone who's on this call is prepared to make a choice on today. And Commissioner Bryan, thank you. We just got a little detail from that discussion based on the input that they wouldn't be able to even guess the number of employees given by the fact that they might not be able to even open. So that would reduce the number of employees substantially to zero. So... Which is a consideration, obviously. I would be interested in if the licensees think, I know that we were trying to give them that two weeks to prep properly. But if there's information we haven't considered, I would be interested in that, meaning more about the filtration system that their experts looked at, and apparently that may not be something that we factored in. And secondly, knowing about this conversation today, what would... I think they're fine with restaurants and meeting the six feet requirements it sounds like. I don't know that there was any issue around table games, but it is around slots that there is an issue here that we're trying to evaluate. So I'm fine with obtaining more information if that would be helpful. It would be with respect to, I think we have a consensus because I think we all agree the fact that they were closing up on the Plexiglas for the table games that of course only involves MGM Springfield and Encore does not address PPC. So I think, and this is the time, licensees to speak up are the table games, all table games, even including those for, not 50% of the table games, but all the table games for Blackjack would require Plexiglas. That would be the expectation for all players. Would that be an acceptable fix for all the licensees? Because we, as commission agreed, I wanna make sure that there's no consternation that hasn't been raised by the fellow licensees. That's fine with us. Thank you. Yeah, that was not our plan that we were working, we were working toward, but we, it's more achievable. And so long story short, we're okay with it on Blackjack tables. Right, your proposal was 50%, we're going to be, and of course, one of the issues just to clarify, the reason why we would impose it is not to be unfair to all the licensees, we know these are additional costs, we know that it impacts your business model, but we would not want to offer further protection to one employee who is the dealer, then to the one who would be not protected from players. Am I correct, fellow commissioners on that one? That's why, okay. All right, so. When we understood that, and we do, from a procurement standpoint, it might limit how many we could open initially, but that is not as significant of an issue for us. So, we understand, totally understand. Okay. So I think Commissioner Cameron was trying to also, as I'm trying to just point out where we have real relief with some work to do or think about at least, we have agreed on the drinks given everything that we understand that the state would expect, that they will not, they will only be served to those who are seated. Licensees, does that present an unworkable problem for you? It presents, I'll jump in. It presents, I would say, a very significant enforcement challenge and staffing challenge to enforce. Right, you've mentioned enforcement, but in terms of the business model enforcement, I understand. Yeah, because we don't serve drinks to people wandering around anyway. So it's only served at the, while they're gaming. So it wouldn't impact business, lies, anything. It would just be the. And to clarify, the bars are not open under the current paradigm. Once bars open, this will be a different issue for you, okay? But right now, there wouldn't be an opportunity for any patron to be served a drink in my correct licensees while they're standing around, milling around, because they're supposed to be wearing masks. Is that our understanding, commissioners? Yeah, they don't do that currently. Right. And then we talked about the soft drinks, the self-service soft drinks that will be there. That's all right. So I just want to be clear that we haven't, that everyone is okay with that in terms of licensees. As okay as you can be under our current circumstances. Alrighty. That's correct. Thank you, Jackie. Occupancy level turns on, I think we can do, I was hoping we would be able to resolve today, just using some great math with the understanding we were going to move ahead. Do we need to now, given today's discussion on social distancing, do we have our licensees are saying to us that there's a potential that that is a game changer for them to impose that requirement? We have, without knowing that, we all agreed that that made good sense in light of the current public health standards. Do we want to pause now and reinvestigate that or move ahead with that requirement? I'll take a strong vote. I think we should pause. I think it is really, we need to calibrate here and find what's doable. If any one of these in the aggregate tips, the balance in the other direction, we need to hear it. And I think there's been now two discussions, a lot of research as to what we value, but one of the things that we clearly value is whether this is feasible at all. So we need to hear from them more specifically later. And I will, we will ask Karen and team to find out exactly what the challenges are with respect to thoughts. Is it supply? Is it procurement? Is it costs? What is it that makes that an unworkable fix for the opening? Commissioner Stevens, you're mute. Sorry about that. That's okay, thank you. Yeah, and before this conversation started, I was reluctant to go with total occupancy, again, based on our concerns about aggregated crowds around the floor. Whether column B works or column C works, I think that's a question that obviously our licensees are telling us they need to do a little homework on and obviously getting an accurate count of personnel considering all these other standards that we're overlaying, we need a better count on staff that's gonna be on the floor. And what about the slots? Do you want more information or would you want our earlier sort of consensus to stand? I'm okay with our earlier consensus to stand, but again, like you're from our licensees after they've had a chance to put back a couple of these numbers to get more accurate information. Okay, and Commissioner Cameron, I think that you suggested getting more information, so. And I think the issues are interrelated. So I'm fine to pause, make in the additional information and really make sure we're considering every issue that's been raised. Right, and to the licensees, we're hopeful that you are appreciative of the challenges that are here in Massachusetts in terms of where we are with our public health metrics in that you keep an open mind to consider this mitigating option because the health of patrons and employees, we all agree as paramount, but that said, we wanna be fair, but we obviously need more information if this today presents a real challenge for you from your business model. So I think then we have a document that is really close, Loretta, if we can address the plexiglass issue because I think then the occupancy one will become much more, you know, an easier one to resolve. Commissioner Cameron, you're agreeing. Yes, I am. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien, you're okay? Yes. So sorry that we can't conclude with the guidelines that will propel the conversation forward for the next steps, which of course come further up in terms of the Baker administration, but we need to resolve this because this is such an industry-specific challenge that it won't be helpful to them if we don't resolve it at this level. Okay, we have some homework to do. Karen, do you need any further guidance from the commissioners? No, I think that's helpful. This does narrow the issue. I understand we're all working in real time and each meeting we've had, we've narrowed the issue, so this is helpful in order to really focus on what actual decisions need to make and making the right decisions. So I'm comfortable with taking a pause. Let's do it right. So I'm good with that. Okay, we'll need to look at our schedules. I think we wanna keep our cadence going quickly. We wanna be cognizant of the licensee's needs. So everybody, if we just wanna make sure that everyone is aligned with the, we have all the proper information, full information, all the challenges spelled out, get the employee numbers, and then we reconvene. We have a meeting tomorrow on a lot of great business. I don't, I'm not going to start to do the scheduling from this point of view. Karen, we'll leave that to you and then I'll make sure we get it marked up with a proper notice as soon as possible. Licensee, does that work for you? Chair, I just wanna say that we're, yes. Oh, I'm sorry, Chair, is that Seth or Pat? It's Pat. Hi, Pat. I just wanted to thank you again. Look, we're all in uncharted order here. We're all doing the best we can. Absolutely. We really, really do appreciate the consideration that the commission gave in the hours that they put this in, and it is, it's better to get it right, and I'm sure we'll work through this as well very, very quickly. And I will give, I will provide, I'm gonna circulate to my fellow licensees, but I will provide you some additional information on the HBAC systems as well. We just did the very same thing in order to restriction. I do think that it was understood early on when you presented your guidelines to us that we are really fortunate that all three facilities are really so built, so new that you really do have the state of the art HBAC. So I think we have appreciated that fully and taken that into consideration. But of course, I think there was a specific request for that, and so I think that would be helpful. But that said, I really think, we wanna look over employee numbers, we wanna look over the benefits and the challenges of Plexiglas. And I think to quote some, many of our friends right now, Pelletons and Plexiglas would not have been a bad thing to invest in at this point. Okay, I'll leave it at that. All right, so all of us, all the licensees again, thank you for patience with all of us as we try to make sure that we're understanding your challenges and also trying to align ourselves properly with exactly the expectations here in Massachusetts, so. With that said, any other comments from my fellow commissioners? Commissioner O'Brien? I just wanna thank everyone involved, particularly I know Loretta and Bruce and Burke, how much work you've put in on this, particularly over the last handful of days. Much appreciated, I think helpful to everyone involved. I think we're close and I'm hopeful we will get to resolution hopefully with guidance from the advisory board that maybe answer some of these questions for us too. Commissioner Cameron? Nothing additional, thanks to everybody. Okay, commissioner Stevens. Just thanks to our good staff and we'll get there. Commissioner Zuniga? Yeah, thanks to everybody, staff, licensees. We need to learn from you as Pat says. These are unusual and uncharted times and the best we can do is to try to get our collective minds to work in the right direction, so we'll do it again. Excellent, and again, thank you, licensees for your time last week, your time this week, it's essential. We will continue to keep all of our channels open for good communication. We have interim executive director Wells and her team, Bruce Burke, they're all accessible. Please make sure that any detail that you can imagine that might be pertinent to our next discussion is shared. And our goal is to not be an impediment to your reopening plans. We also will keep in mind the health and welfare of all the employees and the patrons and you folks. So thank you and we look forward to convening. We'll keep the schedule going. And with that, I need a motion. Move to adjourn. Thank you, commissioner. Second. Thank you, commissioner. Commissures Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Stevens? Aye. And commissioner Zuniga? Aye. Thank you, everybody. And to the entire team, all those who helped on this particular item and to the, everybody who's working behind the scenes, we're gonna see you all tomorrow on a lot of work. Thank you and for this meeting we adjourn. Thank you, everyone.